La-5 vs FW 190A-3 roll rate comparison

[Crump]

Edited out remark about Gamer Physics..

 

Let's be clear...

 

 

These weight and balance sheets are only for the variants listed on the sheet.  They do not cover ANY other variant.

 

 

The FW-190A2/A3 FIGHTER: 

 

 

 

FW-190A5 FIGHTER:

 

 

 

 

FW-190A8 FIGHTER:

 

 

 

None of these are the ladeplan for the FW-190A8/R6......R7......FW-190F8....or any other FW-190 variant.

 

 

They are the ladeplan for the FW-190A2/A3, FW-190A5, and FW-190A8 FIGHTER variants and nothing else.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Crump

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

 

The rules in aviation are written in blood. 

 

No aviation mechanic is going to modify an aircraft without factory input and engineering data to do so....

 

That is just a fact and anything else is pure gamer fantasy.

 

Maybe modern day civilian aviation. Back in the 1940s things were way more lax with safety. Tell that to RAAF pilots and crew chiefs who overboosted their P-40E engines to 66+" that they were breaking rules? In true Aussie fasion they would tell you more then to piss off.

 

Or Pokryshin and the other P-39 aces who removed the wing guns on the aircraft? Or Kovalenko who had his Hurricane re-armed with twin Shvak and UB.

Edited February 9, 2016 by RoflSeal

[MiloMorai]

The thing is RolfSeal, those ladeplans were available to those that would make the changes at the unit level. But, then some think there was only idiots at the unit level.

[LukeFF]

 

 

No aviation mechanic is going to modify an aircraft without factory input and engineering data to do so....

 

Plenty of WW1 mechanics beg to differ. 

[Crump]

Maybe modern day civilian aviation. Back in the 1940s things were way more lax with safety.

 

You are just wrong.

 

The aviation conventions started in 1919.  The safety regulations in the 1940's are almost exactly the same as today's.  

 

In fact, they are the foundation of the ones in place today.

 

 

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=YOeyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1251&lpg=PA1251&dq=Aircraft+mechanic+regulations+1940&source=bl&ots=0r_3AOFSYj&sig=9PxgWZN_mKUfdQzYHc3PYrP7OZ8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijz9L00enKAhXCpR4KHRIZBu0Q6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=Aircraft%20mechanic%20regulations%201940&f=false

 

 

 

 

Or Pokryshin and the other P-39 aces who removed the wing guns on the aircraft? Or Kovalenko who had his Hurricane re-armed with twin Shvak and UB.

 

You get factory approval.

 

Same way any mechanic gets something done that is not covered by maintenance manual, service bulletins, or AD's.  You do the paperwork, consult the engineers, get factory approval, and after you have all the available data you have the aviation authority sign off on the modification. 

[LukeFF]

 

 

Also...Different oil coolers, armour, internal structure, engine peripherals, and bombing equipment (grossebombeneletrik)......  

 

Guess what all those changes mean in terms of weight and balance??

 

 

Nope, same armor as a standard 190 A-8. 

 

As in terms of what all those changes mean? Not a lot. And yes, I've seen the data sheets, so please spare me.

[Crump]

Plenty of WW1 mechanics beg to differ. 

 

World War I...

 

The first aviation convention was not until 1919.  It was universally adopted for a reason.  They had been dealing with World War I mechanics who begged to differ......

[LukeFF]

 

 

You get factory approval.

 

Do you really think some Soviet Regiment commander cabled London or Washington to get approval to modify their Lend-Lease planes? Fun Fact: many of the planes shipped to the USSR had no manuals, so "authorized load plans" were but a bucket of piss to them.

[Crump]

 

 

Do you really think some Soviet Regiment commander cabled London or Washington to get approval to modify their Lend-Lease planes?

 

Yes, I most certainly do think they did just that.  You are thinking of the British Spitfires.  The US equipment came with some pretty good support packages. 

 

 

 

A high-level Soviet aviation commission led by Maj.Gen. and Director of LII M.M.Gromov (and including the famous test-pilots G. F. Bajdukov, A.B .Yumashev etc.) was dispatched to USA in late August 1941.

 

The Soviets came over and test flew all the lend lease designs.  Russia is not as far you would think from the United States.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

 

Also, You do know that Russia had one of the most developed public telephone systems in the World?  The Tsar established in 1881 the public telephone service and by the time the Soviets nationalized it, it was one of the largest and most developed in the world.

[Crump]

 

 

Do you really think some Soviet Regiment commander cabled London or Washington to get approval to modify their Lend-Lease planes?

 

No, I do not think some Regimental commander had anything to do with anything except servicing the airplanes under his charge as directed.  We are not talking about horse drawn carts.  These are airplanes and not just any airplane.  They represent the pinnacle of fighter aircraft development for their day.  

 

Implementing the modification was the privy of the engineers and mechanics in close cooperation.   You seem to think this is hard or something that is impossible to do.  You know how many times I have talked to design teams?  Almost every time a complicated piece of routine maintenance is performed.  

 

What do you think the following document is about????

 

 

 

How do you think Focke Wulf Engineers are addressing this issue and how are they getting their information??  Carrier pigeon? Telepathy?  Are they asking strangers on the street?  

I Gruppe JG2 Richthofen on 9.12.44

[Crump]

 

 

Nope, same armor as a standard 190 A-8. 

 

Oil cooler and armoured ring where not the same......

 

You know the whole law of the lever thing!

 

Moment = Weight x Arm 

 

 

s in terms of what all those changes mean? Not a lot. And yes, I've seen the data sheets, so please spare me.

 

And that is why the Ladeplan is labeled FW-190A8 and FW-190F8....

 

Oh yeah...it is not labeled that at all.  Must be because the FW-190F8 is a different airplane that requires a different weight and balance sheet. 

[JtD]

You get factory approval.

Or you grow a brain.

[taildraggernut]

Do you really think some Soviet Regiment commander cabled London or Washington to get approval to modify their Lend-Lease planes? Fun Fact: many of the planes shipped to the USSR had no manuals, so "authorized load plans" were but a bucket of piss to them.

 

 

Yes, I most certainly do think they did just that.  You are thinking of the British Spitfires.  The US equipment came with some pretty good support packages. 

 

 

The Soviets came over and test flew all the lend lease designs.  Russia is not as far you would think from the United States.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

 

Also, You do know that Russia had one of the most developed public telephone systems in the World?  The Tsar established in 1881 the public telephone service and by the time the Soviets nationalized it, it was one of the largest and most developed in the world.

Do you really think some Soviet Regiment commander cabled London or Washington to get approval to modify their Lend-Lease planes? Fun Fact: many of the planes shipped to the USSR had no manuals, so "authorized load plans" were but a bucket of piss to them.

 

 

No, I do not think some Regimental commander had anything to do with anything except servicing the airplanes under his charge as directed.  We are not talking about horse drawn carts.  These are airplanes and not just any airplane.  They represent the pinnacle of fighter aircraft development for their day.  

 

Implementing the modification was the privy of the engineers and mechanics in close cooperation.   You seem to think this is hard or something that is impossible to do.  You know how many times I have talked to design teams?  Almost every time a complicated piece of routine maintenance is performed.  

 

What do you think the following document is about????

 

 

 

How do you think Focke Wulf Engineers are addressing this issue and how are they getting their information??  Carrier pigeon? Telepathy?  Are they asking strangers on the street?  

 

I Gruppe JG2 Richthofen on 9.12.44

 

?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

 

 

 

You get factory approval.

 

Same way any mechanic gets something done that is not covered by maintenance manual, service bulletins, or AD's.  You do the paperwork, consult the engineers, get factory approval, and after you have all the available data you have the aviation authority sign off on the modification. 

Haha no. In fact in my example the British military attaché actually complained when he got wind of this squadron changing the wing armaments of the Hurricane. The British were very annoyed whenever their Lend-Lease equipment were modified, still didn't stop the Russians later modifying the Matilda tank to fit the 76.2mm F-34 cannon, where the British submitted a complaint again.

Same with RAAF, Allison disaproved of their engines being overboosted to such a degree.

 

They were still ignored though.

Edited February 9, 2016 by RoflSeal

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It would help to translate documents properly. It says the machines were send back to manufacturs and suppliers for testing of emergency power settings due to lack of fuel and hostile acticvity in the area.

[MiloMorai]

A Fw190A-8, or A-9, of JG301

 

 

No outer wing cannon.

 

This confirms what Erich said that his cousin, who flew for JG301, had the outer wing cannons removed.

Edited February 9, 2016 by MiloMorai

[Crump]

It does not prove a thing.   Early GM-1 kits required the outboard cannon to be removed.

 

Look!  They flew without spinners and a canopy too!!

 

 

 

This confirms what Erich said that his cousin, who flew for JG301, had the outer wing cannons removed.

 

Which very well may have happened.  

 

But it happened under unknown circumstances....And the cannon were not removed simply because the pilot felt like it.

 

What is know and is certain is that the normal FW-190A8 fighter could not be flown with the outboard cannon removed. 

 

 

You have a very narrow and frankly silly view of this fact.

[taildraggernut]

Silly people, aircraft simply cannot fly with unauthorized modifications.

 

[MiloMorai]

You have a very narrow and frankly silly view of this fact.

 

 

:lol:   says the kettle.

 

 

Early GM-1 kits required the outboard cannon to be removed.

 

 

So now A-8s flew with GM-1?

[Crump]

Or you grow a brain.

 

 

Really?  Just because a bunch of gamers want to argue with somebody who works in aviation about that fact all aircraft maintenance is highly regulated.  Doing your own thing on an aircraft is extremely dangerous.  

 

Doing your own thing on a 2000 hp state of the art Fighter subjected to edge of technologically achievable envelope is pretty stupid.  

 

I already posted the Federal Aviation Regulations from 1940.  It is very clear.  Mechanics are restricted to the same airworthiness information used today to determine what they can and cannot do to an aircraft.  If it is not in that airworthiness certificate data sheet, you cannot do it without approval.

 

Approval means engineer input and aviation authority sign off.

 

You seem to think that is akin to pulling off a miracle.  It is surprisingly easy to get.  All organization have methods in place to address it too.

 

That document I posted shows the interaction of the squadron mechanics with the engineers at Focke Wulf.  In fact, Focke Wulf kept representatives at each Geschwader Technical Office to address such issues.

 

That kind of interaction is common in World War II.  

 

Lindbergh's foray in the Pacific provides a good example.  Everything done conformed to known standards and convention of aviation.

 

 

 

By March he had already regularly contacted the United Aircraft Corporation, producer of the F4U Corsair, and had agreed to act as its liaison in the field. 

 

 

 

 

The group’s chief concern surfaced quickly, that such procedures would foul sparkplugs and scorch cylinders. Lindbergh methodically gave the answer. The Lightning's technical manual provided all the figures necessary to prove his point; they had been there all along.

 

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/wwii/

Silly people, aircraft simply cannot fly with unauthorized modifications.

 

 

 

Really??  Battle damage is not unauthorized modifcation...it is damage.  Only a gamer.....

[taildraggernut]

 

Really??  Battle damage is not unauthorized modifcation...it is damage.  Only a gamer.....

 

so battle damage is an 'authorized' modification?   the point you are inexplicably missing is that aircraft 'can' fly with modification authorized or not.

 

A gamer what? I am also a real world professional aviator.....I just don't constantly go on about it or embellish it with a plethora of other qualification claims, I can't wait for the bit where you claim to be a tough guy so I better not get on your bad side.......only an internet troll

[Crump]

so battle damage is an 'authorized' modification?   the point you are inexplicably missing is that aircraft 'can' fly with modification authorized or not.

 

A gamer what? I am also a real world professional aviator.....I just don't constantly go on about it or embellish it with a plethora of other qualification claims, I can't wait for the bit where you claim to be a tough guy so I better not get on your bad side.......only an internet troll

 

You really think this worthy of discussion?

 

Battle damage is now the same as removing the outboard weapons of a Focke Wulf???

 

Not to mention the lame personal attacks and NO....I do not think you are a "professional aviator".  I do not think you have anything to do with airplanes outside of your desktop. 

 

How can a "professional aviator" escape the fact aircraft maintenance is so highly regulated?  You know those rules are a part of every basic pilot certification in the world. 

 

You would also know that even in a Government owned aircraft obeys the spirit of aviation convention.

 

You can look at the modern regulation, the regulations from 1940, and the World War II military regulations and see that all of them conform to convention and follow the exact same spirit.   If the logic does not follow that convention, it is probably not correct and there is more to the story/details.

 

 

 

§43.3 – Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.

 

 

(a) Except as provided in this section and §43.17, no person may maintain, rebuild, alter, or perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which this part applies. Those items, the performance of which is a major alteration, a major repair, or preventive maintenance, are listed in appendix A.

(b) The holder of a mechanic certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 65 of this chapter.

© The holder of a repairman certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in part 65 of this chapter.

(d) A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation. However, this paragraph does not authorize the performance of any inspection required by Part 91 or Part 125 of this chapter or any inspection performed after a major repair or alteration.

(e) The holder of a repair station certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 145 of this chapter.

(f) The holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under Part 121 or 135, may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as provided in Part 121 or 135.

(g) Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.

(h) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section, the Administrator may approve a certificate holder under Part 135 of this chapter, operating rotorcraft in a remote area, to allow a pilot to perform specific preventive maintenance items provided—

(1) The items of preventive maintenance are a result of a known or suspected mechanical difficulty or malfunction that occurred en route to or in a remote area;

(2) The pilot has satisfactorily completed an approved training program and is authorized in writing by the certificate holder for each item of preventive maintenance that the pilot is authorized to perform;

(3) There is no certificated mechanic available to perform preventive maintenance;

(4) The certificate holder has procedures to evaluate the accomplishment of a preventive maintenance item that requires a decision concerning the airworthiness of the rotorcraft; and

(5) The items of preventive maintenance authorized by this section are those listed in paragraph © of appendix A of this part.

(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section, in accordance with an approval issued to the holder of a certificate issued under part 135 of this chapter, a pilot of an aircraft type-certificated for 9 or fewer passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, may perform the removal and reinstallation of approved aircraft cabin seats, approved cabin-mounted stretchers, and when no tools are required, approved cabin-mounted medical oxygen bottles, provided—

(1) The pilot has satisfactorily completed an approved training program and is authorized in writing by the certificate holder to perform each task; and

(2) The certificate holder has written procedures available to the pilot to evaluate the accomplishment of the task.

(j) A manufacturer may—

(1) Rebuild or alter any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance manufactured by him under a type or production certificate;

(2) Rebuild or alter any appliance or part of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances manufactured by him under a Technical Standard Order Authorization, an FAA-Parts Manufacturer Approval, or Product and Process Specification issued by the Administrator; and

(3) Perform any inspection required by part 91 or part 125 of this chapter on aircraft it manufactured under a type certificate, or currently manufactures under a production certificate.

(k) Updates of databases in installed avionics meeting the conditions of this paragraph are not considered maintenance and may be performed by pilots provided:

(1) The database upload is:

(i) Initiated from the flight deck;

(ii) Performed without disassembling the avionics unit; and

(iii) Performed without the use of tools and/or special equipment.

(2) The pilot must comply with the certificate holder's procedures or the manufacturer's instructions.

(3) The holder of operating certificates must make available written procedures consistent with manufacturer's instructions to the pilot that describe how to:

(i) Perform the database update; and

(ii) Determine the status of the data upload.

 

j) A manufacturer may—

(1) Rebuild or alter any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance manufactured by him under a type or production certificate;

(2) Rebuild or alter any appliance or part of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances manufactured by him under a Technical Standard Order Authorization, an FAA-Parts Manufacturer Approval, or Product and Process Specification issued by the Administrator; and

 

https://www.gleim.com/aviation/faraim/?leafNum=43.3#avTab%3DleafNum%3D43.3

 

 

Read that again.....

 

 

Only the manufacturer....

 

Now they do not have to go back to the factory.  The manufacturer may issue instructions to the certificated mechanic.....

[taildraggernut]

You really think this worthy of discussion?

I don't think you are worthy of the discussion

 

Battle damage is now the same as removing the outboard weapons of a Focke Wulf???

 

No, removing outer cannons is like removing the outer cannons, battle damage is just proof that aircraft can and have flown with significant 'modification', you seem to claim the aircraft were incapable of flight with outer cannons removed.

 

Not to mention the lame personal attacks and NO....I do not think you are a "professional aviator".  I do not think you have anything to do with airplanes outside of your desktop.

 

The lame 'gamer' attack started with you, what you believe will ultimately have no impact on the reality of my life, I am not as desperate for internet recognition.

 

How can a "professional aviator" escape the fact aircraft maintenance is so highly regulated?  You know those rules are a part of every basic pilot certification in the world.

 

How can anyone not mentally impaired escape the fact there is no relevance to modern regulations and a mid 20th century global conflict.

 

You would also know that even in a Government owned aircraft obeys the spirit of aviation convention.

 

Sure, but is that relevant to the point above? imagine you were in the military during conflict and found a neat trick that gave you an edge through modification of a piece of equipment (including aircraft) nobody would be waiting for official approval.

 

You can look at the modern regulation, the regulations from 1940, and the World War II military regulations and see that all of them conform to convention and follow the exact same spirit.   If the logic does not follow that convention, it is probably not correct and there is more to the story/details.

 

 Modern regulation is still not relevant, many wartime field modifications were done with no authorization.

 

Read that again.....

 

 

Only the manufacturer....

 

Now they do not have to go back to the factory.  The manufacturer may issue instructions to the certificated mechanic.....

 

I will pass thanks.

[JtD]

Looks like we're back arguing that cars can't go faster than 60 on a highway without approval of the authorities.

 

I'd rather see some data on Fw190 and La-5 roll.

[Crump]

Looks like we're back arguing that cars can't go faster than 60 on a highway without approval of the authorities.

 

I'd rather see some data on Fw190 and La-5 roll.

 

 

That is a silly analogy.  Cars do not disintegrate on the road because of the shape of the windows but airplanes do.  

 

Man was rolling around on wheels thousands of years before powered heavier than air flight.

 

It is a simple FACT that aviation maintenance is strictly controlled.  It is that way for a reason and every aircraft mechanic understands that.  

 

Just as it is a fact if the load plan does not allow a configuration then it will not be used...end of story.  

[Crump]

Modern regulation is still not relevant, many wartime field modifications were done with no authorization.  

 

 

Please learn more about aircraft and how they are maintained.  Until then continuation of the discussion is pointless.  

 

 

The modification of USAAF Aircraft.pdf

[taildraggernut]

I have nothing to learn from your contribution, it is not your place to decide when conversations end though I agree it is pointless for you to continue.

 

BTW do you have a readable version of that document? it is so badly faded that much of the content is illegible garbage.

[JtD]

That is a silly analogy.

No, it's not. It's the same thing - regulation limits vs. physical ones. The biggest difference is that the stupidity of the claim so obvious that even you got it.

[Crump]

It's the same thing - regulation limits vs. physical ones.

 

 

What you do not seem to grasp because you are not involved in it except thru a game is the engineering margins required for flight make aviation unique.  The regulations limits are often the physical ones by necessity in aviation as dictated by the physics of flight.

 

The aviation standard is only 1.5....

 

That is a very very small margin on paper that could easily represent zero margin in the air....

 

 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

FW-190A-8, remove 2 of the guns. that means 4 guns left. 6/4 = 1.5

 

Removing 2 guns of the A-8 is therefore just within the standard so its possible.

[Brano]

I'd rather see some data on Fw190 and La-5 roll.

Exactly.That would take us over 4 pages of jadajada.Unfortunately OP failed to bring this with him when he opened this thread thus sentencing it to become what it is now.

[Crump]

Exactly.That would take us over 4 pages of jadajada.Unfortunately OP failed to bring this with him when he opened this thread thus sentencing it to become what it is now.

 

I agree.  Certain people love to flamebait.  It is called a strawman and some people like Milo have used it rather effectively.  It is when you take something that is factual and twist it so it is no longer factual.  

 

The original premise of the conversation with Milo/JtD is found on the Luftwaffe Experten Message Boards and the claim was any Focke Wulf Pilot could simply fly without the outboard weapons as a matter of personal choice.

 

That is just not true.  The ladeplan show that.

 

I also never said FW-190A could not be operated without wing weapons.  There are variants and exceptions.

 

I said the ladeplan for the normal fighter FW-190A5 and FW-190A8 do not allow it as an authorized load out.  

 

Run the math and do the weight/balance calculations shows that within the range of empty weight CG locations, an adverse load condition can develop.

 

So while it is possible to find rare exceptions, none of these exception represent removal of the outboard weapons as personal preference to the pilot nor do they change the fact the weight and balance sheet shows it is not authorized.

 

Problem with the roll data is there is nothing else measured on the design.  The good news is the measure data does tell us everything we need to know about the FW-190's rate of roll.  

 

Maximum rate was in the vicinity of ~189 degrees per second.  That is measured, hard data.

[Holtzauge]

Wow! So you mean that Milo has been on a fishing expedition? Gee, I never realized that Crumpp. Are you sure?

[LukeFF]

Yes, I most certainly do think they did just that.  You are thinking of the British Spitfires.  The US equipment came with some pretty good support packages. 

 

The Soviets came over and test flew all the lend lease designs.  Russia is not as far you would think from the United States.

 

No, I am not thinking of British Spitfires. On that note, since you are obviously familiar with lend-lease.airforce.ru, I present to you from http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/

 

The mastering of the American aircraft was complicated by the absence of technical manuals and instructions in the Russian language. The pilots and mechanics had to translate these materials with a dictionary in the evenings, after work at the airfield.

 

and

 

The second regiment in the Far North to receive the Kittyhawk was the 19th Guards IAP. After receiving guards designation on 4 April 1942, it was taken some 100 km to the rear area to Afrikanda airfield, where it gave up its LaGG-3s and began to transition to the Airacobra I and Kittyhawk I (P-40E) on 25 April. The assembly and study of the new aircraft were conducted simultaneously using documentation that was only in the English language. 

That sounds like a pretty lousy support package to me. BTW, the same case was true with the A-20s shipped to the USSR - no documentation in Russian.

Edited February 9, 2016 by LukeFF

[MiloMorai]

 

 

The original premise of the conversation with Milo/JtD is found on the Luftwaffe Experten Message Boards and the claim was any Focke Wulf Pilot could simply fly without the outboard weapons as a matter of personal choice.

 

I see you still have your problem Crump.

[JtD]

Exactly.That would take us over 4 pages of jadajada.Unfortunately OP failed to bring this with him when he opened this thread thus sentencing it to become what it is now.

Well, he's provided in game data as measured by him as well as a real world reference. This being an internet discussion board, not a scientific publication, it is pretty much what you can ask for.

[Asgar]

i agree

[Caudron431]

Do you really think some Soviet Regiment commander cabled London or Washington to get approval to modify their Lend-Lease planes? Fun Fact: many of the planes shipped to the USSR had no manuals, so "authorized load plans" were but a bucket of piss to them.

Actually soviets had contacts with companies that provided war material to the USSR. The Bell company for instance kept a rather tight link with the requests feedback, and complains about the P-39.

 

To the point that they even sent gifts to their ace pilots (ie engraved watches, Pokrishkyn's one is in the Central Museum of the Russian Army in Moscow).

 

"The battlefield performance of combat equipment that was delivered to the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease was of interest not only to our own technical specialists but also to the American firms that produced the equipment. [...]

 

"It was common knowledge that the governments of the anti-Hitler coalition had diplomatic missions in Moscow. But by one means or another, Bell Aircraft Corporation recieved reports and complaints on the P-39 regarding various modifications, performance problems with components of the aircraft, the portion of the fuselage that were subject to defomation whn overstressed, and so on..."

 

Dmitriy LOZA, Attack of the Airacobras, UPK, 2002

[Crump]

 

 

LukeFF

 

 

They had all the material a US mechanic and pilot received.  It just need to be translated and they did that.  It was not translated because getting the material to front line was more important.  Having the manuals in English is inconvenient but it is not hard to figure it out and subsequently do things correctly.  The Russians are intelligent people with skilled engineers and mechanics.  Physics works over there just like on this side of world and the information is provided.

 

I am sorry but I fail to see the "lack of support" in this but rather a lack of time and sense of urgency.

 

 

Actually soviets had contacts with companies that provided war material to the USSR. The Bell company for instance kept a rather tight link with the requests feedback, and complains about the P-39.

 

To the point that they even sent gifts to their ace pilots (ie engraved watches, Pokrishkyn's one is in the Central Museum of the Russian Army in Moscow).

 

"The battlefield performance of combat equipment that was delivered to the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease was of interest not only to our own technical specialists but also to the American firms that produced the equipment. [...]

 

"It was common knowledge that the governments of the anti-Hitler coalition had diplomatic missions in Moscow. But by one means or another, Bell Aircraft Corporation recieved reports and complaints on the P-39 regarding various modifications, performance problems with components of the aircraft, the portion of the fuselage that were subject to defomation whn overstressed, and so on..."

 

Dmitriy LOZA, Attack of the Airacobras, UPK, 2002

 

Exactly.  American companies and the US Government worked hard to support our Russian allies. 

 

Bell aircraft was involved in the modifications and as you point interested in the results.  It is all normal procedures and follows standard aviation convention.

[LukeFF]

They had all the material a US mechanic and pilot received. It just need to be translated and they did that. It was not translated because getting the material to front line was more important. Having the manuals in English is inconvenient but it is not hard to figure it out and subsequently do things correctly. The Russians are intelligent people with skilled engineers and mechanics. Physics works over there just like on this side of world and the information is provided.

 

I am sorry but I fail to see the "lack of support" in this but rather a lack of time and sense of urgency.

Oh my word, this is hopeless. Tell you what, let's have all of your manuals replaced with ones in a language you don't speak, and see how quickly you'd become frustrated.