Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was it the A-20, B-25, or something else where they standardize in a handful of fasteners so that mechanics only needed two screwdrivers or two sizes of sockets or something? You take a performance hit for that, but faster serious maintenance means higher readiness rates, which means higher sortie rates.
I'm a diehard 1911 guy, I shot one particular gun probably to 100000 rounds myself, although I did rebarrel it a time or two. It was still pretty tight when I sold it due to financial needs. I've since rebuilt my 1911 collection to 13 various 1911 pistols, and I shoot them 3-5 times a week, because variety is a wonderful thing. I tried a Glock when they were "new", but it didn't suit my hands, so I went back to 1911s (and Browning HPs, and a couple of CZ clones). I still like 1911s the best, but the others are pretty good.They both shoot well.
The Glock will outlast the 1911 by a long way before the slide gets loose and needs to be looked at. I have one friend who shoots ina combat club and he has over 150,000 rounds through his Glock. It shoots perfectly fine even now.
But, I like them both. Add in a Sig, Beretta, Browning, and couple of others you have a good start on a collection.
Understand. I'm getting old, too.I'm a diehard 1911 guy, I shot one particular gun probably to 100000 rounds myself, although I did rebarrel it a time or two. It was still pretty tight when I sold it due to financial needs. I've since rebuilt my 1911 collection to 13 various 1911 pistols, and I shoot them 3-5 times a week, because variety is a wonderful thing. I tried a Glock when they were "new", but it didn't suit my hands, so I went back to 1911s (and Browning HPs, and a couple of CZ clones). I still like 1911s the best, but the others are pretty good.
Way back when, I was a pretty decent pistol shot, coming in 5th of my class at the USPSA Nationals in '89. Now, eyesight, knees, and arthritic hands have slowed me down considerably.
And we also run into differences in tooling. The Sten gun could be turned out a shop the size of a garage with lathe and a welder (or perhaps the Welder was across the lane) as long as somebody was providing the rifled barrels or barrel blanks (30+ inch rifled tubes that could be cut into barrels). There are several different models of Sten, some used a lot less stamped sheet metal than others, some used a lot of tubing stock.
The US M3 Grease gun was very cheap.
View attachment 733036
But it required some medium sized sheet metal presses. And bit more welding.
View attachment 733037
It could be made very cheaply but you needed more plant investment. Even the grips are stamped sheet metal.
The magazine was a copy of the example MP28 acquired in Ethiopia. The same as the Lanchester was based upon, and put into production pre Sten. That was carried over from the late MP18 which was originally used the Luger snail drum and that design was constrained by the shape of the Luger magazine well. So it all began long before WW1 when Luger designed his pistol.Not so much a big deal to produce a relatively cheap SMG but the the more sensitive part is a reliable magazine, one of the Sten's main drawback.
And the French copied it for the MAT 49...The magazine was a copy of the example MP28 acquired in Ethiopia. The same as the Lanchester was based upon, and put into production pre Sten. That was carried over from the late MP18 which was originally used the Luger snail drum and that design was constrained by the shape of the Luger magazine well. So it all began long before WW1 when Luger designed his pistol.
That's why you strap them under the wings of a TB-3.The I-16 also held about 56 imp gal of fuel. you had to get the enemy to come to you. You could not go to the enemy
No, I'm not forgetting. They may have been "basic," but they were not well-designed for mass production. Too many skilled steps, too much labor. The SBD was far more advanced, but the airframe was ridiculously quick to produce and assemble, compared to the Russian aircraft.You are forgetting the Russian AC. some of them were very basic....the PO2 and I-16. The I-16 had one ridiculous rate of roll.
Which brings pilots into the whole thing. You have to train them, and training takes a lot of resources: training aircraft, instructor pilots, fuel, mechanics, airfield maintenance and supply, etc. Of course, you can go with the method the Soviets often used, and that the RAF used in much of WWI (especially Bloody April and other high-attrition periods) and give minimal or no training to new pilots, send them off to the squadrons, hope that the squadrons can train them, and accept both training losses of front-line aircraft and ruinously high death rates for the baby pilots.it was discovered that the I-16s had the lowest loss rate per mission flown of any Soviet fighters they thought about re-instating into production.
It also inflicted the least amount of damage on the Germans per mission.
So what is the 'mission' of the cheap fighter?
Flood the skies with something while waiting for something better to show? Of course that presupposes that you haven't funneled resources from something better.So what is the 'mission' of the cheap fighter?
My point was that "cheap" and "bad" are not the same thing. The MG42 was cheaper than the MG38, but probably better. It was productionized. Many US aircraft were masterfully productionized; the Mosquito was not (which is no slur against its effectiveness, but the wooden structures required a lot of fairly skilled labor).So what is the 'mission' of the cheap fighter?
I used to work at SpaceX and they use lots of composite structures. These required a lot of skill: you had to cut the shapes out of the fabric precisely, then you had to lay down the layers carefully in the jig, and spreading the adhesive between the layers required just the right touch (too much and it would be too stiff and there'd be too much distance between layers, too little and it would delaminate).My point was that "cheap" and "bad" are not the same thing.
The Germans were masters with wood constructed aircraft and had ine of the world's leading laminate adhesives.Final irony, though Germany never seriously invested in all-wood aircraft like DH and the British did, Germany was even more shafted on the aluminum front for most of the war.