4 ms·
>Why would a government build an expensive, high tech piece of equipment, then not ensure it could X Maybe short design periods in some cases too. Either way i
by TomMckenny 6y ago
>Why would a government build an expensive, high tech piece of equipment, then not ensure it could X
Maybe short design periods in some cases too. Either way it was not too uncommon. There were bombers with escape hatches big enough for the crew, provided they didn't wear parachutes[1]. Fighter bomb releases that required ducking down to reach them[2] and fighter planes who's fuel feed stopped when pulling negative Gs [3]
[1] Lancaster bombers
[2] P-26 or F2A I think
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice
- noir_lord 6y agoNot to mention desperation moves like the british STEN sub-machine gun which was basically what you get if you say "I need 800,000 of these and they just have to meet these criteria, eject everything else". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-PmLxkOmaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-PmLxkOmaM
- philwelch 6y agoThe Sten was a beautiful accomplishment. Being cheap, simple, optimized for quick mass production, and just good enough to get the job done is a perfectly legitimate set of requirements. It’s like the IKEA LACK.
- noir_lord 6y agoI never said it wasn't, My comment was on the requirements leading to the most stripped down possible design that still functioned.
- mbrodersen 6y agoThose bombers were designed and built by private companies. Paid for by the government.