3 ms·

That's a great observation! Measuring with ruler / tape / string isn't the most reliable way to do it -- using a full length of something like a stick, is. This

That's a great observation! Measuring with ruler / tape / string isn't the most reliable way to do it -- using a full length of something like a stick, is. This is the basis of the simplest of jigs: cut a piece, then cut all the other pieces you want to be like that piece, by using that piece as a guide. The need for specific measurements seems to have arisen alongside industrialization of building processes - in the times before that, measurements were relative (eg, piece A is 3x piece B, etc). It's telling that a lot of the "traditional" measurements we have (looking at you, metric system) refer to body parts. We used to measure things in relation to the human body.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
legitster 2y ago
Another fascinating tidbit I learned from the curator at an air museum - the transition from wooden airplanes to metal airplanes was not a material constraint! In many ways, wood continued to be a superior building material for airplanes even by the advent of WWII. The transition from wood to metal was driven primarily as a manufacturing improvement. Wood changed and warped as you built the airplane, and it required a lot of expertise and knowledge of the properties of wood to properly tie together the structure. Metal weighted more and cost more - but you could step away from a production line and the piece would not have changed shape on you.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > In many ways, wood continued to be a superior building material for airplanes even by the advent of WWII. A mostly-wood WW2 airplane: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito
  - UncleSlacky 2y ago
    Also notably stealthy as a result of its wooden construction: From https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/11/28/flying-under-the-radar-the-top-secret-history-of-stealth-warplanes/ https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/11/28/flying-under-the-r... "British aircraft designers got out to an early lead with the De Havilland DH. 98 Mosquito. Introduced in 1941, the twin-engine, fighter/bomber’s airframe was constructed of radar absorbing plywood. While not specifically designed to be stealthy from the outset, the plane’s low signature as well as its top speed of nearly 600 km/h (375 mph) made it a tough target to track for Axis radar operators."
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      I didn't realise the Axis powers had radar. Apparently they did, though Axis technology greatly lagged the Allied powers': <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Luftwaffe_and_Kriegsmarine_Radar_Equipment_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Luftwaffe_and_Kriegsmar...> Axis powers lead in other areas, notably in drones (V-1), rocketry (V-2), tank design, air-to-surface missiles, and audio technology (recording, public-address, playback, broadcast),
      - KineticLensman 2y ago
        They certainly did! Fun fact: the first 1941 British combat drop of the newly formed Parachute Regiment was the Bruneval raid on the French coast whose purpose was to capture a German Wurtzberg radar. Many years ago I spent some time working at an Army base in Finland. They had a small museum on site which had some German radar kit. It looked surprisingly modern (e.g. satellite dish type aerials) and was virtually unique because elsewhere in Europe the same hardware had all been destroyed
saalweachter 2y ago
Growing up, I always heard "measure twice, cut once", but in almost every context I've actually had to measure and cut, "measure once, cut twice" [or more] is actually the way to go. Cut with a jig or a stop, stack your layers of fabric together and cut them at the same time -- any time you can avoid measuring the same length twice, the better your two pieces will match up.
dredmorbius 2y ago
The human body was generally available to those making measurements, and (by the standards of the time) roughly sufficient for most purposes. An inch (of bronze or steel), a yard (of cloth), or fathom (of depth, measured by a sounding line) would have been immediately accessible to a tinker, a tailor, or sailor. (Units of measures applicable to spies are left as an exercise to the reader.) Metric measurements are standard but not convenient, particularly in a world without rapid cheap communication or standardised industry. Virtually everything built was a one-off and fit-to-fashion on site.
- cjohnson318 2y ago
  > Units of measures applicable to spies are left as an exercise to the reader. A garrote, about a foot, a key, about two inches, and a razor's edge, less than a millimeter.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Excellent! Thank you, reader!
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > (Units of measures applicable to spies are left as an exercise to the reader.) Well, if they were spying while employed as a tinker, a tailor, or a sailor... Wouldn't it simply be whatever was readily available to someone in their cover identity?
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Well, that would leave the issue of conversion factors, from cover to spy units ;-)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

legitster 2y ago

Another fascinating tidbit I learned from the curator at an air museum - the transition from wooden airplanes to metal airplanes was not a material constraint! In many ways, wood continued to be a superior building material for airplanes even by the advent of WWII. The transition from wood to metal was driven primarily as a manufacturing improvement. Wood changed and warped as you built the airplane, and it required a lot of expertise and knowledge of the properties of wood to properly tie together the structure. Metal weighted more and cost more - but you could step away from a production line and the piece would not have changed shape on you.

throw0101c 2y ago
> In many ways, wood continued to be a superior building material for airplanes even by the advent of WWII. A mostly-wood WW2 airplane: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito
- UncleSlacky 2y ago
  Also notably stealthy as a result of its wooden construction: From https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/11/28/flying-under-the-radar-the-top-secret-history-of-stealth-warplanes/ https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/11/28/flying-under-the-r... "British aircraft designers got out to an early lead with the De Havilland DH. 98 Mosquito. Introduced in 1941, the twin-engine, fighter/bomber’s airframe was constructed of radar absorbing plywood. While not specifically designed to be stealthy from the outset, the plane’s low signature as well as its top speed of nearly 600 km/h (375 mph) made it a tough target to track for Axis radar operators."
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    I didn't realise the Axis powers had radar. Apparently they did, though Axis technology greatly lagged the Allied powers': <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Luftwaffe_and_Kriegsmarine_Radar_Equipment_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Luftwaffe_and_Kriegsmar...> Axis powers lead in other areas, notably in drones (V-1), rocketry (V-2), tank design, air-to-surface missiles, and audio technology (recording, public-address, playback, broadcast),
    - KineticLensman 2y ago
      They certainly did! Fun fact: the first 1941 British combat drop of the newly formed Parachute Regiment was the Bruneval raid on the French coast whose purpose was to capture a German Wurtzberg radar. Many years ago I spent some time working at an Army base in Finland. They had a small museum on site which had some German radar kit. It looked surprisingly modern (e.g. satellite dish type aerials) and was virtually unique because elsewhere in Europe the same hardware had all been destroyed

saalweachter 2y ago

Growing up, I always heard "measure twice, cut once", but in almost every context I've actually had to measure and cut, "measure once, cut twice" [or more] is actually the way to go. Cut with a jig or a stop, stack your layers of fabric together and cut them at the same time -- any time you can avoid measuring the same length twice, the better your two pieces will match up.

dredmorbius 2y ago

The human body was generally available to those making measurements, and (by the standards of the time) roughly sufficient for most purposes. An inch (of bronze or steel), a yard (of cloth), or fathom (of depth, measured by a sounding line) would have been immediately accessible to a tinker, a tailor, or sailor. (Units of measures applicable to spies are left as an exercise to the reader.) Metric measurements are standard but not convenient, particularly in a world without rapid cheap communication or standardised industry. Virtually everything built was a one-off and fit-to-fashion on site.

cjohnson318 2y ago
> Units of measures applicable to spies are left as an exercise to the reader. A garrote, about a foot, a key, about two inches, and a razor's edge, less than a millimeter.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Excellent! Thank you, reader!
Terr_ 2y ago
> (Units of measures applicable to spies are left as an exercise to the reader.) Well, if they were spying while employed as a tinker, a tailor, or a sailor... Wouldn't it simply be whatever was readily available to someone in their cover identity?
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Well, that would leave the issue of conversion factors, from cover to spy units ;-)