Undefined

[Crump]

 

On the other hand it could simply mean that the 1.42 ata rating was cleared prematurely by Daimler-Benz

 

 

Which has what to do with anything?

 

Aircraft are dynamic in their maintenance and constantly improved upon.  Those improvements reach varying degrees of success.

 

If you wish to know exactly what was approved for operational use within a specific time period.....then check the operating instructions!  There is no need to speculate, it is spelled out for the pilots and operators who operated the aircraft.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Rama
removed off-topic stuff

[MiloMorai]

Only if the operating instruction are up to date with the latest operating instructions. Certain people have used the Spitfire Pilot's manual without the updates and drawn wrong conclusions.

[Crump]

Only if the operating instruction are up to date with the latest operating instructions. Certain people have used the Spitfire Pilot's manual without the updates and drawn wrong conclusions.

Absolutely, drawing conclusions such as the entire RAF was using it based incomplete documents when the operating instructions clearly listed it as an exception and the rule.

[MiloMorai]

Absolutely, drawing conclusions such as the entire RAF was using it based incomplete documents when the operating instructions clearly listed it as an exception and the rule.

[Crump]

Manuals are prepared months in advance of the date of issue. At the time of preparation data is included that is thought will be current at the time of issue.

 

Just because an engine manual says something can be used it is not necessarily true. DB cleared 1.98ata for use but the RLM did not. The RLM has the final word.

 

The Operating Manual is the definitive word in the technical operation of the aircraft by convention.  That is why a serial number specific Operating Manual is required to be carried in the aircraft and updated as technical changes are published.

 

It is the instructions for the technical operation of the aircraft and carries the weight of law from the aviation authority.

 

I think you would benefit from understanding "Stand" and "Ausgabe" as well.

If Betreibsdatentafel reference cards were found in the cockpit of crashed Bf-109G2's authorizing 1.42ata, then 1.42ata was authorized for that aircraft.

 

It is just that simple.

[Sternjaeger]

^ That's in principle, but bear in mind that:

 

1) the operating limits DO NOT represent the aircraft limits

2) there were a lot of cases of field mods/repairs/customisations that disregarded the operative manuals.

[MiloMorai]

That is all well and good Crump but who is to say that the data posted was not from some manual fresh out of stores and did not have all the revisions.

[Crump]

 

2) there were a lot of cases of field mods/repairs/customisations that disregarded the operative manuals.

 

 

For ground equipment....sure

 

 

Aircraft...nope.  Aircraft maintenance is strictly controlled by the manufacturer and aviation authority.

 

That theory has never held up to scrutiny when the facts come to light.  Pappy Gunn "field mods" were approved by engineers with all the technical support of the Theater Commanders office before the aircraft ever got off the ground with himself being a very accomplished aircraft mechanic and engineer.  The Spitfire "beer keg field mod" was also approved by the engineers and the myth allowed to stand for propaganda/moral purposes.

 

Later the privileges of a certified aircraft mechanic as certification was defined but do not confuse exercising the privileges of an A&P with violating the operating instructions or amateur field modifications.

[MiloMorai]

You were saying Crump,

 

https://archive.org/stream/TheSagaOfPappyGunn#page/n59/mode/2up

[Sternjaeger]

Crump, this topic has been discussed before: there were manuals, but there were also a lot of repairs and modifications (not major stuff of course) that were done as and when. Updates on manuals didn't always arrive, nor did spares or tools, so there were instances where ground crews had to use their initiative and imagination to fix things. 

[Crump]

 

 

On the 5th of August, 1942, Major General George Kenney, the new Commander of the Fifth Air Force in the Pacific, was touring Australian bases under his command when he came across a middle-aged Army Air Force Captain dressed in mechanics overalls and supervising a "home-made," clearly unauthorized, installation of a pack of fifty caliber machine guns into the nose of a 3rd Attack Group A-20 Havoc light bomber at the repair depot at Charters Tower airfield near Townsville. Intrigued, the General approached and learned that the man’s name was Paul Irving Gunn, but due to his age, he was called "Pappy". The Captain briefed the General on his modification and its envisioned use in low-level fast strafing attacks against the Japanese. The General was impressed by the Captain’s frank desire to more effectively rain death and destruction on the enemy since Kenney was of a similar mindset. General Kenney also asked if it would also be possible to rig bomb racks in the A-20s for the use of small "Para-frag" bombs. Captain Gunn assured the General that this would be relatively easy. The General liked what he heard and instinctively recognized that Captain Gunn was both an innovator and a maverick. Without hesitation, the General had orders cut for the Captain to join his personal staff as a "Special Projects Officer." In the meantime, he told Captain Gunn to stay on at Charters Tower and to have sixteen converted A-20s ready within two weeks. Working day and night with the 81st Depot Repair Squadron’s engineers and mech-

 

 

 

However, by summer, the Group’s A-20 Havocs had arrived and "Pappy" was involved in helping Lt. Col. Davies make this airplane more suitable for low level attack. It was at this juncture, just after he had designed the strafe nose and auxillary fuel tanks for the Havoc that Captain Gunn met General Kenney.

 

 

Captain Gunn was far from being an amateur tinkering with airplanes, btw.  He was a qualified Aircraft Mechanic.

 

 

 

Paul enlisted in the Navy and became an aviation machinist’s mate, learning about airplanes from a technical aspect. In his spare time, he paid for his own flying lessons, and eventually bought a surplus Navy seaplane that he restored and flew for fun.

 

http://www.atomagazine.com/extras/Man_Behind_the_Gun.pdf

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Rama

[MiloMorai]

On the 5th of August, 1942, Major General George Kenney, the new Commander of the Fifth Air Force in the Pacific, was touring Australian bases under his command when he came across a middle-aged Army Air Force Captain dressed in mechanics overalls and supervising a "home-made," clearly unauthorized, installation of a pack of fifty caliber machine guns into the nose of a 3rd Attack Group A-20 Havoc light bomber at the repair depot at Charters Tower airfield near Townsville.

[NZTyphoon]

 I took another giant leap of faith and assumed that since the Bf 109G-2 had the Daimler Benz DB 605A, Baureihe 1 engine, and the Daimler Benz DB 605A, Baureihe 1 Motoren-Handbuch, Stand November 1942 indeed allows for the use of the Start- und Notleistung, it would follow that the Bf 109G-2 would be able to use of the Start- und Notleistung since November, too.

 

Furthermore, the British captured a number of DB manuals and an intact Bf 109G-2/trop, and have came to the same conclusion - see post no. 54.

 

The next known manuals that lists the ban again in place come from around March 1943.

 

Do you wish me to post a page from the Bf 109G manual as proof the plane had the Daimler Benz DB 605A, Baureihe 1 engine, just to make sure the chain of logic is complete and unbroken...?

 

 

It would be great if you'ld post all the evidence, including the British info; that way we all get to see the chain of evidence, rather than a little bit here and a little bit there, punctuated by leaps of faith and surmise.

 

 

If Betreibsdatentafel reference cards were found in the cockpit of crashed Bf-109G2's authorizing 1.42ata, then 1.42ata was authorized for that aircraft.

 

 

 

There's alway the possibility that although 1.42 ata was authorised it was done so prematurely, and a blown engine was a contributer to, or the reason for the crashes. It is obvious that Daimler Benz was compelled to reinstate the ban on 1.42 ata soon after it was lifted, so clearly the problems with lubrication etc that forced the original ban were not cleared up, such that using 1.42 ata would have created more problems in the field than it solved (eg: Mankau and Petrick GL conference 6/18/43 post #49)

Edited February 27, 2014 by NZTyphoon

[Crump]

 

There's alway the possibility that although 1.42 ata was authorised it was done so prematurely, and a blown engine was a contributer to, or the reason for the crashes.

 

 

I don't think anyone has said that could not be a possibility.  It very well might be what happened. 

 

It also seems just as likely that 1.42ata was phased in with new production aircraft receiving the modifications and existing updated on their normal maintenance schedule such as what was done for 100 Octane. 

 

That would explain the mix of aircraft cleared for 1.42ata operating alongside aircraft not yet cleared for the rating. 

 

All we know is that there were aircraft operating that were cleared to use it.  I don't think anybody is stating anything else as being definitive as to the background of that fact. 

 

 

 using 1.42 ata would have created more problems in the field than it solved

 

That is typical anytime you over boost a motor beyond its original design specifications.  Both Allied and Axis suffered from the limitations of physics and engineering.

 

There seems to be a rather naïve outlook on original documentation.  There is lag time for everything due to logistics.  Just because a memo says something is authorized does not mean the next day every aircraft is using it.  Somebody has to take that information, disseminate it to the folks on the ground, get the needed supplies to them, and give them time to implement it.  In the army, it was called the one third, two thirds rule.  One third of the time to plan and put out orders required two thirds of that time for the folks receiving the order to prepare to implement it.

 

 It takes time to manufacture, install, and field any modification or upgrade.  Convention was followed and aircraft were operated and maintained accordingly. 

On the 5th of August, 1942, Major General George Kenney, the new Commander of the Fifth Air Force in the Pacific, was touring Australian bases under his command when he came across a middle-aged Army Air Force Captain dressed in mechanics overalls and supervising a "home-made," clearly unauthorized, installation of a pack of fifty caliber machine guns into the nose of a 3rd Attack Group A-20 Havoc light bomber at the repair depot at Charters Tower airfield near Townsville.

 

 

He was in the middle of installing his modification.....it had not flown yet.  You can do whatever you want to an airplane on the ground.  You just can't fly it after doing anything to it on the ground.

[Rama]

You can do whatever you want to an airplane on the ground.  You just can't fly it after doing anything to it on the ground.

To be clear and precise, do you mean that in WWII air forces, no pilot ever flown a plane that was modified without official autorisation?

[Sternjaeger]

To be clear and precise, do you mean that in WWII air forces, no pilot ever flown a plane that was modified without official autorisation?

 

yeah, that's what he's been saying all along... words fail me...

[Crump]

 

To be clear and precise, do you mean that in WWII air forces, no pilot ever flown a plane that was modified without official autorisation?

 

The problem is not the "official authorization" it is the readers perception of what that is and requires.  In the absence of experience, it becomes this netherworld of unknown's that must take forever and require mystical preparation.

 

To the experienced, getting that "official authorization" is pretty easy and very quick.  Often a phone call or in the case of the World War II German Airforce, letting the factory representative assigned to the unit technical officer know what you want to do.  Representatives were assigned at the Geschwader level in the Luftwaffe.  IIRC, the USAAF kept theirs at Air Force level.  The RAF had the best system of all in defense.  They severely restricted what the unit level mechanics could repair leaving all major work to the CRO.  Essentially, aircraft that were down for anything beyond minor repairs were simply exchanged for a new or recently repaired serviceable aircraft.

[Sternjaeger]

That is in a perfect world. I for one can tell you for certain that Italian Co-Belligerant Air Force and before them the Regia Aeronautica, flew with repairs and modifications that were unknown to the factories. Some of these mods became popular and were adopted by makers, but in numerous cases ground crews worked hard to keep aircraft serviceable or airworthy. Several pilots and aircraft were also lost because of this. So no, your dogma doesn't apply I'm afraid.

 

You might argue that you won't find this in a manual, but you'll find it in many biographies, pilots' and mechanics' memoirs and it's also common sense.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Rama]

The problem is not the "official authorization" it is the readers perception of what that is and requires.

No, the problem isn't the reader perception. I know pretty well what aircraft maintenance means today, in peacetime.

 

So, I take your answer as a "yes".

And, at least for the French airforce in 1940, there are plenty of historical facts, reported by squadron mechanics and pilots, and well accepted by historians, that clearly prove you wrong.

Just for the MS406, many unauthorized field mods were made, from the armored plate behind the pilot seat, to the blocage ot the radiator in a "semi-out" position, etc...

Most field solutions to common problems were even different in different squadrons. As for example, for the pneumatic gun command freezing, some squadrons using gun glycol greasing, other modified the leading edges fairings (narrowing them), other placed additionnal electrical resistances, powered by position light derivation, etc....

 

So, now tell me: if you're clearly wrong for the French air force... what make you think you're right for the others?

[Sternjaeger]

So, now tell me: if you're clearly wrong for the French air force... what make you think you're right for the others?

 

...and for the Italian one as well.

[NZTyphoon]

Different installations require different instructions by convention.  This convention came about due to experience shows not all installations are equal.  Therefore all engine manufacturers print airframe specific operating limitations.  Example is the Lycoming O-360 found in the Mooney M-20 series has an rpm band restriction the most Lycoming O-360 installations do not require.

 

http://gnaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mooney-STC-2013.pdf

 

 

What happened with the 110G is a very good indication of the development state of the DB 605, and to discount this with some excuse about "convention" is a cop out - relevant in the 21st century, maybe, but what happens with the Mooney M-20 in 2013 has little to do with WW 2.

 

As it is the Bf 110G manual, effective March 1943, issued July shows that 1,42 ata was blocked in March 1943:

[Crump]

 

What happened with the 110G is a very good indication of the development state of the DB 605, and to discount this with some excuse about "convention" is a cop out - relevant in the 21st century, maybe, but what happens with the Mooney M-20 in 2013 has little to do with WW 2.

 

 

What I said is correct. 

 

Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) engine operating instructions

are generated prior to and independently of

the aircraft operating instructions established by the

airframe manufacturer. TeM's operating instructions are

developed using factory controlled parameters that are

not necessarily the same as those specifications required

to satisfy a specific aircraft I engine installation.

Because of this difference the aircraft operator should

use the airframe manufacturer's operating instructions

found in the Pilots Operating Handbook (POH) while

operating the aircraft unless otherwise specified by the

original airframe manufacturer.

 

 

http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/MaintenanceManuals/X30041/X30041.pdf

 

 

No, the problem isn't the reader perception. I know pretty well what aircraft maintenance means today, in peacetime.

 

The requirements are based on the low margin of safety the physics of flight allows.  Physics does not change during wartime and neither does aircraft maintenance requirements. 

 

What does change is procedures to meet those requirements.  For example, Focke Wulf engineers would not be present at every Geschwader in peacetime.

 

 

 

And, at least for the French airforce in 1940, there are plenty of historical facts, reported by squadron mechanics and pilots, and well accepted by historians, that clearly prove you wrong.

 

Produce some documents and facts!  We can go thru them.  With the desperation of the French Forces it might be the first real example!  

[Crump]

 

for one can tell you for certain that Italian Co-Belligerant Air Force and before them the Regia Aeronautica, flew with repairs and modifications that were unknown to the factories.

 

 

A repair does not need to be reported.  It is already authorized in the maintenance manuals.  Major repairs are reported but the process is not demanding.  Additionally, it is the privilege of an aircraft mechanic to fabricate parts.  That too is covered and not a "modification".  The maintenance of aircraft is strictly controlled and I will certainly bet you are confused about what is a "modification" and what is a repair.

 

Again, feel free to produce documents and facts so we can discuss it.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Crump

[MiloMorai]

He was in the middle of installing his modification.....it had not flown yet.  You can do whatever you want to an airplane on the ground.  You just can't fly it after doing anything to it on the ground.

 

Gunn had already flown a modified A-20 and did a raid on a Japanese airfield on the north coast of new Guinea. Gunn was in the middle of modifying more A-20s when the General showed up.

[Crump]

 

As an interesting aside a 109G practice manual from December 1942 stipulates a maximum rating of 1.25 ata for "circuits and bumps';

 

 

 

The USAAF only used 91 Octane gas CONUS and for training.  All of its fleet were de-rated in training as was the RAF. 

 

Milo says"

 

Gunn had already flown a modified A-20 and did a raid on a Japanese airfield on the north coast of new Guinea. Gunn was in the middle of modifying more A-20s when the General showed up.

 

 

 

However, by summer, the Group’s A-20 Havocs had arrived and "Pappy" was involved in helping Lt. Col. Davies make this airplane more suitable for low level attack. It was at this juncture, just after he had designed the strafe nose and auxillary fuel tanks for the Havoc that Captain Gunn met General Kenney.

 

Again, legend grows and takes on a life of it's own!  He cannot be flying it if Gunn just designed it and was in the middle of installing it when he met General Kenney. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Crump

[MiloMorai]

Not according to the histories I have read.  Again, legend grows and takes on a life of it's own!

 

https://archive.org/stream/TheSagaOfPappyGunn#page/n7/mode/2up

 

Look at the copyright

 

and who the author is

 

https://archive.org/stream/TheSagaOfPappyGunn#page/n5/mode/2up

 

Can't get any closer to the horse's mouth than that.

[Crump]

 

Please take the New Guniea or whatever discussion elsewhere.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Kenney, George, General Kenney Reports, 1949 Duell,

 

I am sure in in the years from 1949 to 1957, the legend grew in found memory.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Crump

[Rama]

The requirements are based on the low margin of safety the physics of flight allows. 

Please stop with this kind of sententious (and meaningless) comments. The safety marging is quite high in peacetime, and much lower in war time... and the appreciation of the risks the pilots are ready to take is also completelly different. Even in our modern time, the security requirements are different in training and in war operations. You should talk one day with a real air force pilot. You'll discover many things....

 

Physics does not change during wartime and neither does aircraft maintenance requirements. 

Physics and aircrat maintenance procedure are 2 complete different things. So that's a totally meaningless comparison.

 

What does change is procedures to meet those requirements.

The maintenance procedures of an air force during peace time and war time are supposed to be the same. The war context gives constraints that often modify or even nullify these procedures... then mechanics have to invent new "procedures" with the time they have, the material they have, etc... they have to "adapt"... That's what is called "système D" in France.

 

Produce some documents and facts! 

I detailed clear facts, do you think I invented them?.... do you call me a liar?

I could scan some documents and books, but frankly, I'm not keen wasting my time to do it....

 

With the desperation of the French Forces it might be the first real example!

Actually, what I described didn't happen in May 1940, but before, during the phoney war.... no desperation at these time, just standard "système D".

[Kurfurst]

système D..?

[MiloMorai]

I am sure in in the years from 1949 to 1957, the legend grew in found memory.

 

So Kenny is a liar.

 

And surely by 2008 it had grown exponentially.

Edited February 28, 2014 by MiloMorai

[Rama]

D is for "débrouillardise". You have a good description of "système D" in wiki, there

That's an expression you will often read in WWII french air mechanics diaries, either in 1940, or later within Normandie-Niemen for example (often used by Georges Masurel for example).

[Kurfurst]

Thanks. You never cease to learn something new! 

[Sternjaeger]

So Kenny is a liar.

 

We all are when we don't agree with Crump and his fantasies apparently. 

 

And Crump, to give you some examples on modifications done to Regia Aeronautica aircraft: radio and batteries removal; installation of extra ballast; change of instrument disposition; change of CoG; fabrication of sand filters; substitution of oil and coolants with non-standard ones; installation of extra armoured plates; removal of oxygen systems; removal of wheel spats; substitution of wings with other aircraft models.. 

 

I could go on, but I think it's not necessary: the extreme conditions of many theatres of operation and the discontinued logistics meant a great deal of "unauthorised" alteration was applied to aircraft throughout World War 2. If you don't understand this, it means that you fail to understand the scale and the extent of WW2.

 

All this should be quite enough for anybody that wasn't blinded by his own ego... 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Crump]

 

D is for "débrouillardise". You have a good description of "système D" in wiki, there

That's an expression you will often read in WWII french air mechanics diaries, either in 1940, or later within Normandie-Niemen for example (often used by Georges Masurel for example).

 

Why would you think that represents unauthorized repairs?

 

Almost every time you fill out a Form 337 for major repair, "débrouillardise" is required.  Major repairs often involve fabricated parts and rely upon the knowledge/experience of the mechanic.  They are also approved by the engineers and manufacturer.

[Crump]

 

 modifications done to Regia Aeronautica aircraft: radio and batteries removal; installation of extra ballast; change of instrument disposition; change of CoG; fabrication of sand filters; substitution of oil and coolants with non-standard ones; installation of extra armoured plates; removal of oxygen systems; removal of wheel spats; substitution of wings with other aircraft models.. 

 

 

 

You saying they modified aircraft does not mean it was an "unauthorized modification".   Only thing on their is "change of CoG"  and "substitution of wings" that I find unusual and unlikely as a permanent modification.  Most likely you are confusing ferry conditions with operating conditions.  On the CoG, you are probably confusing an empty weight CoG change with a limitation change. In that case, that is pretty routine as well.  As for the "substitution of wings", that has happenend before to get an aircraft from the field to a repair station.  It is authorized.

 

Everything else is pretty simple stuff and routinely done with aircraft.  None of it is "unauthorized", however.

[Sternjaeger]

I am not confusing anything, I think it's you who's confusing the '40s with 2014... 

The modifications I listed were agreed with crew chiefs, but nobody was notified other than the immediate crew, heck in many cases they didn't even have the necessary paperwork, the just had to send the planes up there and fight! 

 

I think you're just looking at things from a very restricted perspective. I am not saying that the scenarios you depicted didn't happen, but there were many other instances where regulations and procedures were completely disregarded in favour of having operative aircraft. 

 

The case of radios is typical: the early Allocchio-Bacchini radios used on Italian aircraft were very heavy and unreliable, so often pilots and ground crew agreed to remove them. The crews that flew the S.79s skimming the waves of the Mediterranean to fly their attack missions on Allied ships had to save as much weight as possible, so anything that wasn't necessary was removed. 

 

Wings of Macchi 200s were used on 202s and in some cases there is photographic evidence of them being used on 205s, receiving some substantial modification to accomodate wing guns (early 205s had 7.7 breda safats in their wings). The whole late 202s/early 205s was a messy, blurry production line which was confused even further on the field, where aircraft were put back together using parts often belonging to different series!

One of the most substantial modifications I heard of was the field substitution of DB601 crankshaft bearings with conventional bushings used on the licensed version produced by Alfa Romeo, done by at least two ground crews in North Africa after one of the bearings failed during an engine test: the loss of HP output was more than compensated by the reliability of bushings. 

 

There surely was no publication, circular or directive on this sort of drastic change, it often was the case of very experienced mechanics with solid background that made this sort of calls to preserve a line of airworthy aircraft.

 

I know it might sound romantic to you, but it was about survival for them.. we're talking about people that by the time the north african frontline crumbled, were forced to flee with no food or water reserve, and often had to resource to extreme means of survival, like drinking  the rusty water off their vehicles' radiator.. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[LukeFF]

He was in the middle of installing his modification.....it had not flown yet.  You can do whatever you want to an airplane on the ground.  You just can't fly it after doing anything to it on the ground.

 

 

That is a highly creative way of dancing around the point.

To be clear and precise, do you mean that in WWII air forces, no pilot ever flown a plane that was modified without official autorisation?

 

Exactly. I'd love to see the RLM manuals that authorized pilots to carry extra "passengers" in the fuselage of their aircraft. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by LukeFF

[NZTyphoon]

What I said is correct. 

 

 

http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/MaintenanceManuals/X30041/X30041.pdf

 

No doubt you are expert enough to tell us the differences between the Bf 109G and Bf 110G engine installations, can explain how these differences affected their operational requirements, and what instructions Daimler Benz incorporated into the DB 605 hand books to differentiate between the DB 605 in the 109G and the DB 605 in the 110G.

 

What is absolutely certain is that the continual changes in the maximum allowable boost pressure must have had pilots and ground crews tearing their hair out in frustration - one month, yes you can use 1.42 ata, next month, use of 1.42 ata is blocked, followed by a month later by okay- you can use 1.42 ata, only to discover that it could no longer be used a few weeks later. By contrast, RAF fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain knew that +12lbs boost and 100 Octane was always available.

 

 

Wings of Macchi 200s were used on 202s and in some cases there is photographic evidence of them being used on 205s, receiving some substantial modification to accomodate wing guns (early 205s had 7.7 breda safats in their wings). The whole late 202s/early 205s was a messy, blurry production line which was confused even further on the field, where aircraft were put back together using parts often belonging to different series!

 

Example a Macchi C.202 flown operationally - not just ferried to a repair depot - while fitted with a wing from a later series C.202 :

 

Edited February 28, 2014 by NZTyphoon

[Crump]

 

Example a Macchi C.202 flown operationally - not just ferried to a repair depot - while fitted with a wing from a later series C.202 :

 

It is not a later series it is just a later production batch.  Same wing.

 

I can show you the log books of several airplanes that have later production wings.  When I was finishing up my A&P, we replaced the wing on a B-33 Bonanza with a later production wing.  Same exact wing, just a higher serial number!

 

In fact just about every airplane in existence that has required a wing replacement has a "later production" replacement, LOL.

[Crump]

 

RLM manuals that authorized pilots to carry extra "passengers

 

 

It does not have to be in a manual to be authorized for a one time use.  It just has to be authorized.

 

You can bet the Technical Officer and engineering staff did a weight and balance calcs and gave the word "go" for such extreme cases.  It sure wasn't either a normal military operation nor often repeated. 

 

Do you know the consequences of flying an aircraft out of limits or have any idea of the technical qualities that define those limits?