Sokol1 Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) Well, what probable result better if they had received translated manuals done in USA but certainly for non technical personal - but language translator, language teachers. A analogy is this game interface in English, done in Russian probable by professional translator, but without aviation/game knowledge, some names in GUI sounds strange. Edited February 10, 2016 by Sokol1
Crump Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 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. The only point of the document is proof of the close working relationship of the JG2 mechanics and the factory engineering team.
Crump Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 Well, what probable result better if they had received translated manuals done in USA but certainly for non technical personal - but language translator, language teachers. A analogy is this game interface in English, done in Russian probable by professional translator, but without aviation/game knowledge, some names in GUI sounds strange. Exactly. It certainly was not perfect. Nevertheless an attempt to adhere to aviation convention was made by both parties. The fact remains that even the Russian Mechanics and the US factory engineering teams did communicate. The Russians did not do anything without the approval and assistance of the aircraft type certificate holders. That is aviation convention that Russia agreed to along with the rest of the aviation world in 1919.
Brano Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) 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. Name of the thread: La-5 vs Fw 190-A-3 roll rate comparison.I'm still missing La-5 side of the comparison (either I missed NII VVS test report or WT and Modded Sturm videos of lavotchkin rolling here and there are now etalons for OK/NOK declaration).Without it,its not a comparison,but yet another pointless thread.And I still miss the point how all of this should help developer engineer to improve/change anything. Edited February 11, 2016 by Brano
JtD Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 I too miss a real life La-5 reference, but I don't think this invalidates the topics name or makes it pointless, given that a comparison is there. If you were to provide the missing La-5 data, of course, it would help a lot and make the topic helpful to the developer either by showing the community what they did right, or showing the devs what they can improve.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Exactly. It certainly was not perfect. Nevertheless an attempt to adhere to aviation convention was made by both parties. The fact remains that even the Russian Mechanics and the US factory engineering teams did communicate. The Russians did not do anything without the approval and assistance of the aircraft type certificate holders. That is aviation convention that Russia agreed to along with the rest of the aviation world in 1919. I'd love to see the transcripts for the conversations between FW and the USAAF to try and get this thing patched up to fly again. Edited February 14, 2016 by taildraggernut
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Yeah, Crump is denying the possibility of non-official modifications happening at all. Which is nonsense, mechanics and pilots are humans and humans tend to make and break rules. Adolf Galland did not seek Messerschmitt's approvals before telling his mechanics to make the "Galland Special" Bf-109F-2. Just because the speed limit is 70mph, does not mean people never go faster then that on the motorway Edited February 14, 2016 by RoflSeal
MiloMorai Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 There is also Galland's non standard cigar lighter he had installed in his 109s.
unreasonable Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I'd love to see the transcripts for the conversations between FW and the USAAF to try and get this thing patched up to fly again. I love the "please do not shoot me down" paint scheme. (I wonder if that would work in MP...) I doubt that was in the RAL colour collection either.
Holtzauge Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 There is also Galland's non standard cigar lighter he had installed in his 109s. Well unfortuantely the first prototype crashed because they had not updated the necessary paperwork: Galland was only able to take off successfully after they added a new Verwenungszweck IV: “Jagdeinsatz mit 2 MG 17, 2 Kartoffelknödeln und Zigarettenanzunder” to the Ladeplan. 3
JtD Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I love the "please do not shoot me down" paint scheme. (I wonder if that would work in MP...) Two thirds will - "please shoot me down". The "do not" part won't work.
unreasonable Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 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...... I assume you are referring to the Paris Convention of 1919: but can you be, since this was not universally adopted? The Soviet Union did not sign. For that matter, the USA did not ratify. This convention was mostly relating to issues of sovereignty and has nothing to do with altering aircraft. Just in case anyone wants to read it: 1919_Paris_conevention.pdf
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation Signed at Paris, October 13, 1919 (Paris Convention) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY, Article 11. Every aircraft engaged in international navigation shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Annex B, be provided with a certificate of airworthiness issued or rendered valid by the State whose nationality it possesses. Article 12. The commanding officer, pilots, engineers and other members of the operating crew of every aircraft shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Annex E, be provided with certificates of competency and licenses issued or rendered valid by the State whose nationality the aircraft possesses. Article 13. Certificates of airworthiness and of competency and licenses issued or rendered valid by the State whose nationality the aircraft possesses, in accordance with the regulations established by Annex B and Annex E and hereafter by the International Commission for Air Navigation, shall be recognised as valid by the other States. Each State has the right to refuse to recognise for the purpose of flights within the limits of and above its own territory certificates of competency and licenses granted to one of its nationals by another contracting State. http://library.arcticportal.org/1580/1/1919_Paris_conevention.pdf For that matter, the USA did not ratify. No it was adopted as part of our membership in the League of Nations. Separate Ratification was not required. A State which took part in the war of 1914 to 1919 but which is not a signatory of the present Convention, may adhere only if it is a member of the League of Nations or, until January 1, 1923, if its adhesion is approved by the Allied and Associated Powers signatories of the Treaty of Peace concluded with the said State. The Soviet Union did not sign. No but they joined the League of Nations in 1934. After January 1, 1923, this adhesion may be admitted if it is agreed to by at least three-fourths of the signatory and adhering States voting under the conditions provided by Article 34 of the present Convention. That meant they did not have to sign. Membership in the League of Nations meant they agreed and adhered to the Paris Convention of 1919. It was part of the price of admission.
unreasonable Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I can copy from Wiki too: " Between 1920 and 1939, a total of 63 countries became member states of the League of Nations. The Covenant forming the League of Nations was included in the Treaty of Versailles and came into force on 10 January 1920. The League of Nations was dissolved on 18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations. The League’s greatest extent was from 28 September 1934 (when Ecuador joined) to 23 February 1935 (when Paraguay withdrew) with 58 members. At this time, only Costa Rica (22 January 1925), Brazil (14 June 1926), the Empire of Japan (27 March 1933) andGermany (19 September 1933) had withdrawn and only Egypt was left to join (on the 26 May 1937). The members (listed from earliest joining and alphabetically if they joined on the same day) at this time were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, the British Empire, Canada, Chile, the Republic of China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Irish Free State, Italy, Liberia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay,Persia/Iran, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Union of South Africa, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Luxembourg, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Ireland, Ethiopia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Turkey, Iraq, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Afghanistan and Ecuador. Of the 42 founding members, 23 (or 24, counting Free France) remained members until the League of Nations was dissolved in 1946. A further 21 countries joined between 1920 and 1937, but 7 left, withdrew or were expelled before 1946. [My note - Including Germany]. Countries are listed under the year in which they joined. The word "withdrew" indicates that a country left of its own choice. The word "left" indicates a country that ceased to exist because of annexation by Germany, Italy or the USSR. The USSR was the only country to be expelled by the League. [My note - For invading Finland]. Despite formulating the concept and signing the Covenant, the United States never joined the League of Nations." Because only the Senate has the right to ratify treaties in the USA, and it refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles that brought the League of Nations into being. Really if you want to use historical documents it is better to have some idea of their context. The idea that a political agreement - to which their nations were not currently bound - is evidence that mechanics could not possibly have made unauthorized modifications in wartime is just absurd, even by your standards.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 CHAPTER VII: STATE AIRCRAFT. Article 30. The following shall be deemed to be State aircraft: (a) Military aircraft. (b) Aircraft exclusively employed in State service, such as Posts, Customs, Police. Every other aircraft shall be deemed to be private aircraft. All State aircraft other than military, customs and police aircraft shall be treated as private aircraft and as such shall be subject to all the provisions of the present Convention. Military aircraft are not subject to this convention.
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Military aircraft are not subject to this convention. Slightly out of context... For the navigation portion...no they are not. Of course, Military aircraft are not free to navigate over other countries airspace. All State aircraft other than military, customs and police aircraft shall be treated as private aircraft and as such shall be subject to all the provisions of the present Convention. Military aircraft do follow the airworthiness.... Even today's F22 raptors have an airworthiness certificate and all the paperwork required for foreign travel. They are treated just like a ship and cannot be boarded without permission. Every aircraft engaged in international navigation shall be provided with: (a) A certificate of registration in accordance with Annex A; (b) A certificate of airworthiness in accordance with Annex B; © Certificates and licenses of the commanding officer, pilots and crew in accordance with Annex E; (d) If it carries passengers, a list of their names; (e) if it carries freight, bills of lading and manifest; (f) Log books in accordance with Annex C; (g) If equipped with wireless, the special licenses prescribed by Article 14. Article 20. The log books shall be kept for two years after the last entry. Article 21. Upon the departure or landing of an aircraft, the authorities of the country shall have, in all cases, the right to visit the aircraft and to verify all the documents with which it must be provided. This provision has been extended to every flagged carrier since the Paris Convention. As a US Flagged Carrier, the airplane is US soil. I had a flight attendant leave her bag onboard the aircraft while she went to clear customs. The host country tried to make a big deal about her bag during a routine security inspection we had agreed too. It was this extension and convention clause extended to flagged carriers during the Warsaw Convention that prevented them from removing her bag and inspecting it once I had noted it and acknowledged it was not a security threat. They can inspect the documents at any time however. That is why I carry a radio operators permit. I do not need it for domestic flights but overseas it is required and inspectable by the host country on demand. Again, certificate holder is the one who approves design changes. Nobody else even in the sale of an aircraft. That is how it works. can copy from Wiki too: LOL, it is not wiki.... It is the exact same PDF you posted....read it.
unreasonable Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 LOL, it is not wiki.... It is the exact same PDF you posted....read it. Yes you are quite right about that, I was in a rush and got that wrong - see, it is not so bad to admit when you make a mistake, you should try it sometime, heaven knows you have enough opportunities. Every other substantive point, however, is unanswered by your reply. Germany and the Soviet Union were bound by the League of Nations not to invade their neighbours, but I had not noticed that it stopped them.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Slightly out of context... For the navigation portion...no they are not. Of course, Military aircraft are not free to navigate over other countries airspace. No, I'm afraid it is entirely in context, You cannot fly a civil aircraft in to another countries airspace without permission either, they all have to file flight plans but obviously military aircraft cannot transit without some extra considerations, particularly in times of conflict. The fact remains that the convention does not apply to Military aircraft and the document repeatedly describes this. Military aircraft do follow the airworthiness.... Even today's F22 raptors have an airworthiness certificate and all the paperwork required for foreign travel. They are treated just like a ship and cannot be boarded without permission. In peacetime they have little excuse not to. Article 32. No military aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another contracting State nor land thereon without special authorisation. In case of such authorisation the military aircraft shall enjoy, in principle, in the absence of special stipulation, the privileges which are customarily accorded to foreign ships of war. You don't quite understand the section about treating them as ships, Civil ships can be boarded at the discretion of the authority intending to board them (customs, coastguard, police) and so can civil aircraft, Military ships cannot be boarded. http://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-1/ The U.S. Coast Guard Boarding Policy:Title 14 section 89 of the United States Code authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to board vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, anytime, any place upon the high seas and upon any waterway over which the United States has jurisdiction, to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests. The U.S. Coast Guard does not require a warrant to conduct search, seizures, arrests over any United States Waterway or high seas. The U.S. Coast Guard also have full legal law enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any mission. Yes this applies to foreign flagged vessels in some cases. http://www.uscg.mil/INTERNATIONAL/affairs/Publications/MMSCode/english/Chap3.htm INTERNATIONAL LAW When moving maritime law enforcement from the domestic to the international realm, the complexities multiply dramatically. There are three basic international principles which govern a state’s ability to assert jurisdiction over a vessel or over areas of water. First, under international law, the flag state, the nation in which a vessel is registered, has the obligation to regulate and ensure the safe and lawful operation of a vessel flying its flag. The second principle is that all nations have an equal and untrammeled right to navigate on the high seas (termed the freedom of the high seas). To ensure this principle of the freedom of the high seas, international law generally prohibits, with certain carefully delineated exceptions, any nation from asserting jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas. Thus, unless one of the few exceptions is applicable, a vessel on the high seas is said to be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state. Finally, the third principle is that a vessel in the territorial waters of a state other than its flag state is ordinarily subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of the coastal state and the flag state; the nature and extent of the coastal state’s jurisdiction vary with the particular circumstances. Warships and other government vessels entitled to sovereign immunity are not subject to this concurrent jurisdiction. This provision has been extended to every flagged carrier since the Paris Convention. As a US Flagged Carrier, the airplane is US soil. I had a flight attendant leave her bag onboard the aircraft while she went to clear customs. The host country tried to make a big deal about her bag during a routine security inspection we had agreed too. It was this extension and convention clause extended to flagged carriers during the Warsaw Convention that prevented them from removing her bag and inspecting it once I had noted it and acknowledged it was not a security threat. They can inspect the documents at any time however. That is why I carry a radio operators permit. I do not need it for domestic flights but overseas it is required and inspectable by the host country on demand. Again, certificate holder is the one who approves design changes. Nobody else even in the sale of an aircraft. That is how it works. I have never heard anyone make such a meal of a 'ramp check'. Your access to knowledge is extensive, your application of that knowledge is shameful. The term 'flag carrier' is little more than token acknowledgement to some historic agreements, all aircraft carrying a national registration have equal privilege. Here is an interesting document. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469443/printablemap-01.pdf 1 General 1.1 Introduction There may be occasions when, due to a lack of either time or resources and the need to meet an overriding operational requirement, it is necessary to undertake repairs (which may include repairs to structural, mechanical, electrical, avionic and weapon systems) to an aircraft that are outside the limits for normal peacetime operations detailed in the Aircraft Document Set (ADS). Such a repair, which generates a level of operational capability, potentially at the expense of a reduced level of airworthiness or longer-term aircraft structural and systems integrity, is termed an Expedient Repair (ER). 4 Authorization of an ER regime 4.1 Airworthiness considerations The TAA retains responsibility for design airworthiness and the ADS; moreover, the TAA will not amend the Air System Safety Case to reflect the application of any ER. Duty Holders are responsible for operating their aircraft fleet within the Release to Service documentation/criteria and for maintaining their aircraft fleet in accordance with the ADS authorized by the TAA. However, during operations, resources and lines of communication may become degraded, so generating a need to increase local responsibility for engineering decisions. Front Line Commands (FLCs) must assess operational situations and decide whether local engineering commanders are likely to need to undertake ER to support the operational commander’s requirements. Local engineering commanders are responsible for the ER decisions that they make. These decisions must be commensurate with the authority granted them by the FLC and must reflect both the operational situation and their ER assessments. In addition, the local engineering commander must ensure that the local operational commander is fully aware of any potential reduction in airworthiness, and the associated risk, that an individual ER imposes on an aircraft. 5 Implementation of ER 5.1 Local Engineering Commander (LEC) There will be circumstances where an aircraft returns from a sortie in which it has suffered damage not normally encountered or expected, which has degraded its operational effectiveness. As a consequence, if an ER regime has been authorized by the FLC, the relevant LEC may decide that the damaged aircraft could be returned to flight by means of an ER. Therefore, the LEC must: 1 Confirm that an FLC-authorized ER regime is in place. 2 Task his ERA to assess the damage and formulate an ER in accordance with paragraph 5.2. 3 Balance the airworthiness/safety risk of implementing an ER with the competing operational necessity. 4 Carry out a risk analysis of the ramifications of implementing the proposed ER. 5 Consult the: 5.1 Local operational commander, where practicable, and confirm that the operational imperative justifies any potential reduction in airworthiness and the longer-term effect to structural and system integrity. 5.2 TAA where practicable. 5.3 Consult with/request assistance from any local Repair Support Unit (RSU) teams from 1710 NAS that may be deployed specifically for assistance in the ER role. 6 Authorize the ER. 7 Report full details of the ER to the FLC, the Continuing Airworthiness Management Organization (CAMO), and TAA when implemented, as ER schemes require approval/recovery by the relevant authority at the earliest opportunity; see paragraph 8. There it is in black and white, Military operators have exemption outside the limits of peacetime operations to do what they like if there is an overriding operational requirement. in short, the outer wing cannons of a 190 could probably be removed on the basis of overriding operational requirement, the cannons may be unserviceable and therefore 'dead weight' in the absence of spares. Feel free to provide the transcrips of conversations between wartime aircraft manufacturers and the enemy countries trying to repair captured aircraft in order to evaluate and find ways to destroy their products though, that would make a very interesting read indeed.
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 s you are quite right about that, I was in a rush and got that wrong That is all that needs to be said. The rest is just false logic. Airplanes are not country borders or economic theory.... They are bound by the engineering physics and posses very small engineering margins just to fly. The rest of the baloney about Galland is also false logic. Again, gamers seem to think it is an impossibility to get talk to the certificate holder and get a design change. Maybe they believe the certificate holder gets locked up or sealed in concrete never to communicate with the outside world again? Silly...very very silly.... The process was very similar in the 1940's as today. Here is an example of mechanic fabricating and modifying a nose strut. The part was no longer available and the factory was not going to tool up and produce just one. The result was a one time approval for a specific airframe to be modified. A phone call and two faxes... Ohhh yes....they had fax capability way before the 1940's. I have a file cabinet full of Focke Wulf GmbH faxes. http://abc-i.com/InfoPages/fun_facts.htm
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Good find... Read it a few times!! The TAA retains responsibility for design airworthiness and the ADS; moreover, the TAA will not amend the Air System Safety Case to reflect the application of any ER. Duty Holders are responsible for operating their aircraft fleet within the Release to Service documentation/criteria and for maintaining their aircraft fleet in accordance with the ADS authorized by the TAA. The certificate hold always retains the authority to make engineering changes..... Commanders are expected to consider this and make arrangements for operational support. Front Line Commands (FLCs) must assess operational situations and decide whether local engineering commanders are likely to need to undertake ER to support the operational commander’s requirements. IF they do not then there is an EMERGENCY method they can use.... HOWEVER, IF they choose this route then they assume all responsibility AND their decisions must conform within their regulatory authority and the certificate holders design airworthiness limitations/publications. Local engineering commanders are responsible for the ER decisions that they make. These decisions must be commensurate with the authority granted them by the FLC and must reflect both the operational situation and their ER assessments. In addition, the local engineering commander must ensure that the local operational commander is fully aware of any potential reduction in airworthiness, and the associated risk, that an individual ER imposes on an aircraft. In other words, doing this is far outside the normal operating procedures and a heavy responsibility for the local engineering staff. It was not something that was done on a whim or a "let's try this" basis or as a measure to circumvent the certificate holders limitations on the aircraft. Edited February 14, 2016 by Crump
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 There it is in black and white, Military operators have exemption outside the limits of peacetime operations to do what they like if there is an overriding operational requirement. Ahhh...but you seem to think this is a "get out of jail free card" but it is not. You also seem to think that if an aircraft gets destroyed or a pilot hurt because of these modifications, there will be no consequences. Duty Holders are responsible for operating their aircraft fleet within the Release to Service documentation/criteria and for maintaining their aircraft fleet in accordance with the ADS authorized by the TAA. The regulation is very specific. The TAA retains responsibility for design airworthiness and the ADS
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 n short, the outer wing cannons of a 190 could probably be removed on the basis of overriding operational requirement, the cannons may be unserviceable and therefore 'dead weight' in the absence of spares. Strawman argument too...nice attempt though... The conversation was whether or not the FW-190 A5 thru FW-190A8 PILOT could remove the guns at a personal whim... The answer is a clear NO, it was not an authorized load out for the pilot to change at will.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 There is nothing whimsical about making alterations to gain life or death advantages.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Ahhh...but you seem to think this is a "get out of jail free card" but it is not. You also seem to think that if an aircraft gets destroyed or a pilot hurt because of these modifications, there will be no consequences. Not really, you seem to have conjured up that impression all by your self. All I did was show clear evidence that operational urgency for military operators overrides peacetime convention.
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 There is nothing whimsical about making alterations to gain life or death advantages. Ha ha ha ha ha..... Which is why the certificate holders take their responsibility so seriously and the TAA NEVER gives up its responsibility for design airworthiness. Use that emergency authority and you will have to explain it. Why didn't you plan for operational requirements? What did you do to the aircraft and was it in keeping with your authority? Did it follow the published airworthiness requirements and known information put out by the TAA/ design certificate holder? Those questions will be addressed. If metal was bent or blood spilt as a result of the alteration, then the justice system will come into play. Oh yeah, damage a military aircraft due to pilot error and it can result in jail time. A mechanic who does unauthorized work outside the scope of his authority that results in metal being bent or blood being shed is responsible and will be held accountable. The answer to whether it was "optional" for the operator to remove the outboard cannon on the FW-190A5 thru FW-190A8 is "NO, it was not optional." Save all the strawman squirming and other baloney. All I did was show clear evidence that operational urgency for military operators overrides peacetime convention. But it does not..... The TAA retains responsibility for design airworthiness and the ADS You are certainly not trained in this stuff. There is no need for a 10 page conversation. You are confusing the fact the TAA authority gives a military commander emergency authority to keep his aircraft operational with giving him the authority to make design changes or alter the design airworthiness already in place.
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 14, 2016 1CGS Posted February 14, 2016 I love seeing Crump twist himself into a pretzel with these arguments of his.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) 1 General 1.1 Introduction There may be occasions when, due to a lack of either time or resources and the need to meet an overriding operational requirement, it is necessary to undertake repairs (which may include repairs to structural, mechanical, electrical, avionic and weapon systems) to an aircraft that are outside the limits for normal peacetime operations detailed in the Aircraft Document Set (ADS). Such a repair, which generates a level of operational capability, potentially at the expense of a reduced level of airworthiness or longer-term aircraft structural and systems integrity, is termed an Expedient Repair (ER). Pay attention Edited February 14, 2016 by taildraggernut
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 You pay attention: Duty Holders are responsible for operating their aircraft fleet within the Release to Service documentation/criteria and for maintaining their aircraft fleet in accordance with the ADS authorized by the TAA.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 You are certainly not trained in this stuff. There is no need for a 10 page conversation. I never though training was needed for reading comprehension, I'm guessing you have received special training which answers quite a lot.
unreasonable Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 That is all that needs to be said. The rest is just false logic. Airplanes are not country borders or economic theory.... They are bound by the engineering physics and posses very small engineering margins just to fly. The rest of the baloney about Galland is also false logic. Again, gamers seem to think it is an impossibility to get talk to the certificate holder and get a design change. Maybe they believe the certificate holder gets locked up or sealed in concrete never to communicate with the outside world again? Silly...very very silly.... The process was very similar in the 1940's as today. Here is an example of mechanic fabricating and modifying a nose strut. The part was no longer available and the factory was not going to tool up and produce just one. The result was a one time approval for a specific airframe to be modified. A phone call and two faxes... Ohhh yes....they had fax capability way before the 1940's. I have a file cabinet full of Focke Wulf GmbH faxes. http://abc-i.com/InfoPages/fun_facts.htm Honestly, Crump, the only silly, very silly, here is you. You claimed that the existence of the Paris Conventions and the League of Nations somehow validated your idea that mechanics in WW2 Germany would be bound by the same conventions as you are in the 21st century USA. Obviously you did not even know that the US was never a member of the League of Nations. From your post: "No it was adopted as part of our membership in the League of Nations. Separate Ratification was not required." You have got your facts wrong - why not just admit it instead of saying "Oh look, a squirrel", you will feel much better afterwards. Now you are offering a US civilian fax dated 1998 as evidence as to what might have happened in war time Germany? Really! If you had a contemporary document from the makers or the LW stating that the particular modification under discussion was forbidden, you would have a stronger case. Arguing from inference from civilian practice is completely unconvincing.
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) You pay attention: No seriously read my post again, then go and look up the meaning of words like exception, clause, caveat etc. Edited February 14, 2016 by taildraggernut
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 The TAA retains responsibility for design airworthiness and the ADS Local engineering commanders are responsible for the ER decisions that they make. Read that again.... Local engineering commanders are responsible for the ER decisions that they make. Which is why the certificate holders take their responsibility so seriously and the TAA NEVER gives up its responsibility for design airworthiness. Use that emergency authority and you will have to explain it. Why didn't you plan for operational requirements? What did you do to the aircraft and was it in keeping with your authority? Did it follow the published airworthiness requirements and known information put out by the TAA/ design certificate holder? Those questions will be addressed. If metal was bent or blood spilt as a result of the alteration, then the justice system will come into play. Oh yeah, damage a military aircraft due to pilot error and it can result in jail time. A mechanic who does unauthorized work outside the scope of his authority that results in metal being bent or blood being shed is responsible and will be held accountable. The answer to whether it was "optional" for the operator to remove the outboard cannon on the FW-190A5 thru FW-190A8 is "NO, it was not optional." Save all the strawman squirming and other baloney. e meaning of words like exception, clause, caveat etc. Again...If you understand these words why are you making an argument that this was routine??
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Again...If you understand these words why are you making an argument that this was routine?? Who said routine? another of your wild fabrications.....do you have approval to fabricate such nonsensical stuff?
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 There is no option to remove the outboard cannon: There is no option to remove the outboard cannon: An OPTION to REMOVE the outboard cannon!!!! The answer to whether it was "optional" for the operator to remove the outboard cannon on the FW-190A5 thru FW-190A8 is "NO, it was not optional." Save all the strawman squirming and other baloney.
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) This Focke-Wulf should not be flying, dam JG 26, breaking the rules. Edited February 14, 2016 by RoflSeal 1
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 There is no option to remove the outboard cannon: It doesn't have to be an option on paper, the 190 air frame is already proven to be operable (with advantages) without outboard armament in other variants, at front line level that will have been an appealing choice. Save all the strawman squirming and other baloney. are you not embarrassed by this weird repetition?
taildraggernut Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I can't be the only person to have thought of this during the course of this discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw 2
Crump Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 This Focke-Wulf should not be flying, dam JG 26, breaking the rules. No...that is not an ETC 501 but is one of JG26 approved non-standard racks. I do not know the engineering particulars for that specific aircraft and neither do you. What is a fact is the normal fighter was not allowed to remove the outboard weapons.
JtD Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 The MG-FF on the A-5 are Rüstsätze and as such optional. In fact, the installation of a Rüstsatz is optional, not the removal. Hence the note on the Verwendungszweckliste, hence the many statements regarding their optionality in various places in various Luftwaffe and Focke Wulf documents regarding the A-5 (and of course earlier models). In the Kennblatt of Fw190 A-1 to A-5, Verwendungszweck one of the eight listed is fighter without MG-FF.
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 14, 2016 1CGS Posted February 14, 2016 No...that is not an ETC 501 but is one of JG26 approved non-standard racks. I do not know the engineering particulars for that specific aircraft and neither do you. Say what? You say in the affirmative that's a nonstandard rack, and you then turn around and say you don't know the engineering particulars of said aircraft? My, this is entertaining.
Recommended Posts