Recently came across two new additions to my collection of survey junk. They both have been stored in a less than optimum environment and are worse for wear.
Here is one of them, a Buff & Buff Engineer's Transit - S/N 30246 complete with case.
I've never been able to find Buff's serial numbers published so I have no idea as to the year of manufacture. It is after 1898, or it would be a Buff & Berger. A similar transit with a four digit s/n I have seen was reported to be mfg. in 1919. I'm thinking this is from the late thirties, early forties.
It belonged to a mining engineer named Bob Mitchell from Terra Haute, IN. The dust on it makes it look like it has talcum powder on it. After a few seconds of handling my skinners were oily brown...it is covered in bituminous coal dust.
Interestingly it is complete with stadia, standard cross hairs AND diagonal cross hairs. All meeting in the center of the field of view. I have heard that the diags were a factory thing and not usually duplicated when replaced. I have no idea of this report's validity. If anybody knows anything of Buff & Buff Transit serial numbers, I'd like to have ANY info.
The second transit is a Berger and Sons, probably from the '50s. It looks like it has never been out of the case. It sports a dark gray hammertone paint and the brass still has the factory luster. Sadly it was stored in 100% humidity and hot summer temps. The motions are almost all seized and the hammertone paint flakes at the touch. I couldn't even bring myself to take pics of it.
Something else to mess with. At least I don't have to buy it a new battery every year! :pinch:
Here's a scan of the various cross hair arrangements that B&B offered. Unfortunately they did not expound on the perceived advantages of each.
As to serial number list, you are correct that there is no publicly available list (at least that I know of). I did know where there was a ledger list of B&B production records, but I have lost track of the ledger & owner.
This particular transit has the No. 3 cross-hairs. I've heard of them, but never actually seen them until I opened my peepers and looked through the barrel.
In a testament to the Buff & Buff legacy: This transit was apparently well used in mining surveying. The amount of coal dust still on it is amazing (it's been in storage over fifty years) but the lenses and internal barrel are clean as can be. It is amazing.
In comparison, most old military or highway department equipment shows a good amount of dust within the barrel itself and can be seen when moving through the entire focal range. This specimen is clean as a whistle inside.
Buff & Berger serial numbers are documented, although not published. I don't know why they quit keeping track of things after the corporate change.
Both separate companies did keep track of things - it's just that they kept things to themselves. B&B's never made it public and the current owner of the ledger won't duplicate it. He had looked up a couple of instruments for me, but I've lost touch.
Berger records are a little more accessible. I have the complete production records (as do a couple of others) up to about 1950. These records consist of the actual order sheets so I can tell who it was made for, dates, and complete order specs.
PADEN,
During the fall of 1982, I was flying for TWA out of New York, Kennedy Airport. I lived in Rocky Mount, NC and commuted to New York on Piedmont Airlines. I would go up early in the morning and wander around the city and have a Pastrami Sub. I had some favorite haunts. One was Howard Sutton Co., Inc. Distributors of drafting and surveying instruments. They had several BUFF & BUFF instruments they had purchased surplus from the City Of New York Engineering Department. They had done a complete overhaul and cleaning up of the instruments. I wanted one of those instruments. I talked over the situation with my Father-in-Law. He got his Gurley 1 minute instrument out and showed me things to look for in an instrument. My next trip on TWA was about a week later, I went to Howard Sutton Co. an bought one of those Buff & Buff, they let me take it out on the sidewalk and look it over real close. I got the Instrument and a non adjustable tripod that was common for the instrument. The case had been refinished and it look rather good too. It has the sun shade, cover for the tripod head, two adjusting tools, a two lens magnifying glass for reading the angle. They boxed it up real good and shipped it to me in North Carolina, the date on the shipping slip is February 4, 1982. The tag on the door of the box has a certifying date of October 12, 1981. The serial number is 20168, Howard Sutton Co. had no idea of when it was made, they told me their best guess was the early part of the century. I played with it some but when I went out on a Job with my Father-in-Law it was always on his terms. He didn't like the Buff & Buff said it was too heavy, he had a Berger but I never saw him use that instrument, said it was too heavy. I'll have to agree with him about them being heavy.
The Buff & Buff print I got from a fellow that messed around buying and selling old things. He came to my office one day and had the print with him rolled up real tight. I looked at it and gave him ten or so dollars for the print. I had it framed and have it hanging in my office. It is about 17 inches wide and 25 inches tall, quite a nice print but after being framed for at least 25 years or more the creases from being rolled tight are still to be seen.
My Father-in-Law died spring of 1983, at 78 years old, he was surveying about two weeks before he died. I was left with an old surveying office, I talked with an Engineer-Surveyor that went to the same church as my father-in-law, he agreed to come over and be the Surveyor till I could study up and pass the exam. In the spring of 1985 I took the SIT cold to see what it was about and by some stroke of luck I passed the exam, I applied to take the final survey exam the next exam time, that was fall of 1985, I studied for that exam, would take my books along with me to New York and study in Paris, Lisbon, London, Cairo, Bombay, Frankfurt, Munich, Geneva and so on on New York to Europe trips. So I was ready for the final, I love to take a test when I now the answers. I was notified in early January of 1986 that I was surveyor L-2972. My Engineer Surveyor stayed with me for about six months more and moved to Virginia for a promotion at the company where he was employed. I turned 79 on 15 May THIS YEAR, so I outlasted my Father-in Law a big goal for me. I retired from TWA in June 1991 and been walking around in the woods since.
Do airline pilots not take pride in their landings anymore?
My last trip there was a lot of firm plants and bounces.
The one Captain with a Texas drawl did a beautiful greaser at LAX, the only one. I watch them looking out the terminal window, like a bunch of solo students, geez. Landing on one wheel (no wind), bounces, etc etc.
> Do airline pilots not take pride in their landings anymore?
Didn't we learn in San Francisco that the landings are mostly on automatic these days?
> Do airline pilots not take pride in their landings anymore?
>
> My last trip there was a lot of firm plants and bounces.
>
> The one Captain with a Texas drawl did a beautiful greaser at LAX, the only one. I watch them looking out the terminal window, like a bunch of solo students, geez. Landing on one wheel (no wind), bounces, etc etc.
Were you there when they tazed that guy?
I think that's only a small percentage of the fleet.
I think they hand land the smaller aircraft, like the 737s that I rode in.
The San Francisco crash was just criminal stupidity. That airline whisked those pilots out of the U.S. pronto. That didn't even rise to a basic bad student pilot performance.
737 landings
I flew into DIA a few years ago on a SW 737. There was an honest-to-God 35 knot quartering cross wind on the RW. The pilot scuttled (doesn't happen very often) the first try and we went around.
We planted hard the next try and blew some tires. He tried hard to keep a wing into the cross wind and I'm sure we were doing 30 or 40 knot faster than a book approach. You could hear (and feel) the rubber debris (I was right over the gear). It really wasn't a "landing"...we just kind of plopped down on the RW. Boom...we're there.
If I was the pilot I would have been more proud of that landing than a perfect text book approach. Even though it was rough and cost Southwest some tires, I thought it was wunnerful landing. The 2 mile (or longer) taxi up to the teepees was eerily quiet in the cabin. Everybody was listening (and feeling) the trashed gear.
Walking into the terminal that day felt good. I'm sure half of the passengers didn't realize what a ride we had just experienced.
737 landings
> ...The 2 mile (or longer) taxi ...
It always seems to me that flying into DFW involves landing somewhere in NE Texas and then taxiing to the airport.
737 landings
When I landed into a cross-wind I put the up wind wing down and side-slipped it on the runway with the fuselage lined up. Land on the up wind wheel, then the down wind wheel, then the nose gear.
The airlines don't do that because they could drag one of those engines down the runway so they crab it in and kick it around at the last second. That also allows for a larger cross-wind component, you can do that in a Cessna too, just takes a little more timing.
In those situations you do plant it more firmly so you have control on the ground, don't want to be blown off the runway because you are still light on the wheels.
I retired from TWA in June 1991, I hired on in June 1967 after thirteen years Active Air Force. I spent seven years with the Nebraska Air Guard unit to get my 20 good years for Air Force Retirement. I spent 13 years at Kansas City and 11 years at New York with TWA. The last plane I was on was the Lockheed L1011, it had autoland and did a real good job but it was seldom used. Most of the time it was used was on a company check ride, for some reason the line check airman would call for an autoland. The hunting for a smooth landing left a long time ago. Probably about 99 percent of landings were attitude landings. The DC-9 that TWA had was the last airplane that I flew that we could hunt for a slick landing. And like it or not the best landings on the DC-9 were made on one wheel. The DC-9 had Auto Spoilers, meaning that when you got two signals from the landing gear the spoilers would activate automatically to firmly put the plane on the ground. On one wheel landings you could fool the auto spoilers for a few seconds and make it feel a lot smoother. The signals were spin up on wheel rotation and strut compression. On a snow or ice covered runway you could fool the wheel spin up and strut compression a bit better. I have been on two airline flights since retirement but were to Geneva for a couple of days, that was in 1992. I love to fly airplanes but do not like to ride them. If I could get a seat behind the Captain and have a stick about 18 or so inches long that I could whack him side of the head if I saw something I didn't like, then maybe I would like to take an airline ride. If the trip is less than 2500 miles or so I had much rather drive. During my time with TWA I was on one flight that aborted a landing at La Guardia due to cross winds and landed at Kennedy with a more favorable runway. Six months after retirement I would think I was at another airline, procedures changed that much and that quick. Take a 30 day vacation and have to study some before flying again. The flight legs were usually Captain a leg the First Officer a leg and so on. When one took a 30 day vacation they usually would have the other fellow fly a couple of legs back to back so you could kinda refresh yourself. The easiest airplane to land that I flew was the RF-4C Phantom, it was an Air Force Recce bird but was designed for Navy Carrier duty. The struts were real long and was built to take Carrier landings. In the Air Force you would get a little nose drop when you entered ground effect, just keep the nose from dropping in ground effect and the main wheels would just kiss the runway. The Air Force wanted us to land it like a carrier pilot. They wanted good ground contact in case of a wet runway. I countered with saying they wanted you to land so hard it would shake the water off the runway. I would always get mention of my landing technique on check rides for not slamming it on the runway. I would remark that it was the first airplane I could get a good landing every time and you want me to slam it on the runway. I kept on making slick landings. I have a 1946 Piper Cub with a 90hp engine and I land it on one wheel and let the other two wheels touch the ground as I slow down. I have a 1964 Schweizer Sailplane and it has one wheel, so I make all landings on one wheel now days. And yes I hunt for good landings each time.
Nice find. I just had mine overhauled. It's SN is 31021. i was unable to find out its age either. my *guess* is 1940's, though i certainly don't know. the main changes i see on Buffs is the design on the compass face. mine has the Buff diamond in North rose, not at the South end. FWIW.
Anybody here have a Buff with an original sales slip tied to the SN?
Here is a photograph of my Buff & Buff circle.
The Patent date is partially hidden by the needle lifting arm. I looked at it with a magnifying lens, the year is 1916, the date can be read from the photograph as July 11. Of course the patent date has nothing to do with the date it was made. But we know it was after July 11, 1916.
The Buff diamond is in the south quadrant of the compass.
I have a Buff transit serial #3111. I was told after the split that Buff started with #3000.That would put mine at first or second year production. Don't know if it's true but it makes a good lie!!
Pretty darn close.