Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 1, the reality

[elbmc1969]

SBD and A-20.

The Douglas production method meant that SBDs were almost literally stamped out, with cutting and bending at the same time on the single press. Other US firms introduced similar methods, but Douglas was the first, and perhaps the most aggressive because they'd been doing it the longest.

The SBD was also rugged and, apparently, fairly easy to work on.

The A-20 was another Douglas aircraft. The fuselage was produced in right and left halves to make it easy to install all other the equipment, wiring, control rods, hydraulics, etc. Then the two halves of the fuselage were bolted together.

I suppose that it was theoretically possible to unbolt the fuselage in the field for repairs, but I doubt that it was practical.

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.

 

[z42]

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.

No idea about aircraft, but IIRC the VW Beetle was designed around two size fasteners. One bigger size for the wheel lug nuts, also used for connecting the steering wheel to the steering column, and then a smaller sized fastener for everything else.

 

[glennasher]

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.

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.

 

[GregP]

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.

Understand. I'm getting old, too.

Live long enough to embarrass your kids and have fun doing it.

 

[special ed]

My last daughter embarrassed me often over the years, and while I didn't react (much to her disappointment), I waited. Once, when her college friends were over, I made a comment which should have brought a reaction from her. When everyone had gone, I asked, "Did I embarrass you?" When she replied, "Yes", I said, "At last!"

 

[Frog]

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.

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.

 

[yulzari]

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.

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.

 

[Frog]

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.

And the French copied it for the MAT 49...

 

[bobbysocks]

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. As for SMGs, the sten is fun to shoot. It has a low cyclic rate like 420 rpm iirc. It doesn't have much recoil. The M3 looks cool but has some goofy attributes. The bolt has a hole for you to put your finger in and cock it. 45 ACP in a small lightweight SMG is like holding onto a jackhammer. Milled receiver Thompsons weren't that much of a joy to shoot, something small and light wouldn't be much fun to shoot if your life depends on it. On the range they are all a blast to shoot. I was a class 3 dealer for about 10 years and got to sample a bunch of different SMGs and select fire rifles. On full rock-n-roll I prefer 556 and 9mm.

 

[Shortround6]

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

 

[Greg Boeser]

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

That's why you strap them under the wings of a TB-3.

 

[elbmc1969]

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.

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.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know how true it is but the Russians were operating I-16s at the time of Stalingrad (?) and 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.
Then they took another look, It also inflicted the least amount of damage on the Germans per mission.

So what is the 'mission' of the cheap fighter?

 

[elbmc1969]

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?

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.

Hmmm ... I've gone off-topic. My point was that if the "Stent Fighter" has low survivability, you're not just losing a machine, you're losing the expensive asset of the pilot. (And when you start running out of men of the correct age with the needed eyesight, reflexes, spatial awareness, intelligence, and so forth, it takes 18 years to grow more ...

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

 

[elbmc1969]

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).

 

[elbmc1969]

My point was that "cheap" and "bad" are not the same thing.

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).

In the time that I was there, they introduced laser fabric patterns. A laser projected a the precise cut lines onto the fabric, making the cutting far easier. With more precise cuts, they introduced the same thing on the jigs, so that you matched the piece to the outline projected by the laser. This vastly reduced error.

Of course, you still didn't want to drop your iPhone while gluing down a huge sheet. (No, it didn't go into space, they cut it out and used standard patching practices.)

 

[BarnOwlLover]

The reason for the Mosquito is that DH still had a ton of workers and engineers skilled in working with wood. Plus, most of Britain's aluminum (or at least a good chunk of it) was imported (mostly from North America). Ironically, almost all the balsa wood used in the Mosquito (and later Vampire, Hornet, and Venom) had to be imported from South America. Second irony, Ronald Bishop (chief designer at DH since 1938) was trying to steer DH to all metal designs (such as the Flamingo) before World War II (wouldn't happen until post war with the Dove and Comet airliners, though production of the Mosquito, Hornet, Vampire and Venom extended post war, well post war for the Vampire and Venom).

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.

 

[ThomasP]

DH also had a very solid (via contract and establishment) logistic chain for the wood(s) needed for the construction of their wooden aircraft. DH had been building wooden aircraft or composite wood/metal aircraft since WWI and had gradually evolved from 'normal' wooden airplane construction methods of the time to the advanced monocoque construction of the DH.88 Comet, DH.91 Albatross, and DH.98 Mosquito. DH was planning (hoping at least (I read a long time ago that they had negotiations for 30 more in the offing) to build a fairly large number of their Albatross airliners, but the war ended that dream.

Incidentally, a majority of the spruce and birch used in the Mosquito was also imported from the US and Canada. Minnesota and Wisconsin in the US, Ontario (and British Columbia?) in Canada.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

The Germans were masters with wood constructed aircraft and had ine of the world's leading laminate adhesives.

The problem was, that their leading laminate adhesive manufacturer, Goldschmit AG in Wuppetal, was bombed in 1943 which eliminated Germany's source of Tego Film.

This was a major blow to Germany's aircraft production.