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

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Still can't see how the Ladeplan can be interpretated as a list of the "only permitted loadouts"  for an aircraft. It does nothing else but give information on weight and balance of the aircraft and is mainly usefull for ground crews. Nothing in their says every other loadout option is forbidden.

 

You'll equally not find a manual recommending flying the Ju-87 with removed wheel covers or a Heinkel with improvised snow skids but they obviously did. There's absolutely nothing contradicting the possebility of ground crews to adopt modifications on the aircraft sysems to optimise performence, durability or maintanance.

 

Not that I'm particularily interested in the discussion but if one misinterpreted sheet of one undetermined aircraft manual is all in terms of valid arguments it should not have started as off topic in here in the first place.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Crump]

You'll equally not find a manual recommending flying the Ju-87 with removed wheel covers or a Heinkel with improvised snow skids but they obviously did.

 

Those situations are covered by the design team and very common.  Perfectly normal modifications and far from proof that an extreme situation was the common norm.

 

I am sorry but that is just not how it works with aircraft maintenance.  

 

 

 

in Rodeickes book "Focke Wulf 190 Jagdflugzeug" is an interesting quote of Ernst Schroeder, a pilot of 4./JG300. In 06/1944 his unit was converted into a "Sturmgruppe" and received Fw190A-8/R2 with outer wing 30mm MK108.

 

".. the ammunition of the 30mm MK108 in the wings was protected with armour plates. for me this plane was too sluggish in the ailerons. because of my successes against P-51"Mustang" i was allowed to fly a standard Fw190A-8 (with 2 MG131 + 4 MK151/20), if available. i would have preferred to remove the outer MG151 as well, but this was not allowed for me."

 

 

 

 

 

It recalled a long passge from Lorant's JG300 history - here's an extract that nicely illustrates some of these arguments. Lt. Herbert Schülter, TO I./ JG Herrmann, on the setting up of the first wilde Sau Gruppe (my translation)

 

" .. even more surprising it was agreed that JG Herrmann would be exempt from the normal restrictions regarding technical modification of operational aircraft. I was encouraged to try out any devices that might be useful to pilots flying Bf109s at night and to have them installed where I wished..I was encouraged to do things that would be strictly prohibited in other fighter Geschwader ...[to] transform the a/c how I saw fit and secure authorisation for any modifications at a later date, once their effectiveness had been proven ...to anyone aware of the rigid fashion in which all aeronautical equipment was monitored and managed this showed how much was expected of us......" 

 

 

Still can't see how the Ladeplan can be interpretated as a list of the "only permitted loadouts"  for an aircraft.

 

Most military aircraft have and use standard loads.  Any allowable deviation from those loads is noted on the weight and balance sheet.

 

Once more, running some weight and balance calculations show the adverse load condition created by the removal of the outboard cannon.

 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Crump

[taildraggernut]

 

Once more, running some weight and balance calculations show the adverse load condition created by the removal of the outboard cannon.

 

 

And what about putting some fuel in? you could strap an elephant to the front of the aircraft but it's going nowhere without fuel so the CG is irrelevant.

 

also where does the weight of -109.79 and moment of -90.3 come from, there is no arm listed too, one could be forgiven for thinking there has been some artistic license used in this load plan.

Edited February 14, 2016 by taildraggernut

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

 

 

Most military aircraft have and use standard loads.  Any allowable deviation from those loads is noted on the weight and balance sheet.

 

Once more, running some weight and balance calculations show the adverse load condition created by the removal of the outboard cannon.

 

 

Geee, well its a good thing the FW-190 needs fuel in its tanks to fly.

[Crump]

Still can't see how the Ladeplan can be interpretated as a list of the "only permitted loadouts"  for an aircraft.

 

Here is a good example of approved deviations from the standard configuration:

 

The outboard MGFF can be removed from the FW-190A5 IF the aircraft mounts the GM-1 system.

 

 

 

Bemerkung. Der ausbau der waffen ist zulässig.  Anstelle von MGFF kann GM1 anlage eingebaut werden

 

Remark:  Removal of the weapons is permitted.  Instead of MGFF cannon, GM-1 can be installed.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Crump

[Crump]

Geee, well its a good thing the FW-190 needs fuel in its tanks to fly.

 

 

Yeah because airplanes NEVER run out of fuel.....

 

You have never flown an airplane have you?  It has to glide safely and be able to land in case the pilot is a dummy and runs it out fuel or maybe gets battle damage and loses fuel.

 

In this case, the FW-190A8 with outboard cannon removed CG is out of limits and the pilot would be unable to lift the nose at landing speeds to safely land.

[MiloMorai]

So how many Fw190A-5s had GM-1 installed?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The sheet only says what loadouts have been layout, tested and confirmed by the manufacturer to go along with the design to gurantees safety and full functionality. Everything else is not automaticly forbidden or leads to fatal catastrophes, it's just not confirmed and has a risk of exeeding the designs limits IF applied wrong.

 

Guess those guys didn't ask Douglas for permission to strap that thing on their aircaft more than a decade later, either. And that's arguably more of a change than removing wing mounted cannons.

 

Quint essence: The only thing I can see here is a misinterpretation of factual data (which is not wrong or unrelevant to the discussion itself).

 

Edit: Just a side note, the "Bemerkung" "Removal of weapons is allowed" does not only count for the MGFF.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Yeah because airplanes NEVER run out of fuel.....

 

You have never flown an airplane have you?  It has to glide safely and be able to land in case the pilot is a dummy and runs it out fuel or maybe gets battle damage and loses fuel.

 

In this case, the FW-190A8 with outboard cannon removed CG is out of limits and the pilot would be unable to lift the nose at landing speeds to safely land.

Airplanes never fight without fuel....

[MiloMorai]

Can we see the mutlipage ladeplan for the Fw190A-8 instead of some home made graphic.

[Crump]

Tell that to the Luftwaffe pilots over England in 1940......

 

Honestly....you have to be smarter than that.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Tell that to the Luftwaffe pilots over England in 1940......

 

Honestly....you have to be smarter than that.

What, so Galland was fighting Spitfires on 0 fuel in his fuel tanks.

 

I mean, I know the Germans had Wunderwaffe, but gee, I don't think they had that.

Edited February 14, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Crump]

The sheet only says what loadouts have been layout, tested and confirmed by the manufacturer to go along with the design to gurantees safety and full functionality. Everything else is not automaticly forbidden or leads to fatal catastrophes, it's just not confirmed and has a risk of exeeding the designs limits IF applied wrong.

 

Guess those guys didn't ask Douglas for permission to strap that thing on their aircaft more than a decade later, either. And that's arguably more of a change than removing wing mounted cannons.

 

Quint essence: The only thing I can see here is a misinterpretation of factual data (which is not wrong or unrelevant to the discussion itself).

 

Edit: Just a side note, the "Bemerkung" "Removal of weapons is allowed" does not only count for the MGFF.

 

 

No it was not authorized.  

 

 

One of our plane captains rescued it and the ordnance crew made a rack, tailfins and nose fuse for it. The squadron flight deck checkers maintained a position to block the view of the Captain and Air Boss while the aircraft was taxiing onto the catapult. Just as it was being shot off we got a 1MC message from the bridge: "What the hell was on 572's right wing?"

 

 

It was done without any official knowledge.

 

 

It was dropped in a dive with LCDR Bacon flying tight wing position to film the drop. When it came off, it turned hole to the wind and almost struck his airplane.

 

They were lucky.  How do you think this story would read if it had struck the airplane and crashed it?

 

 

As it was Nobody got hurt and with the state of the Vietnam war, nobody got punished either.

 

Once again, this is not typical or the rule.

[LukeFF]

In this case, the FW-190A8 with outboard cannon removed CG is out of limits and the pilot would be unable to lift the nose at landing speeds to safely land.

(Citation needed)

[Crump]

What, so Galland was fighting Spitfires on 0 fuel in his fuel tanks.

 

I mean, I know the Germans had Wunderwaffe, but gee, I don't think they had that.

 

One more time......

 

The airplane is required to be able to fly without fuel and have enough elevator to lift the nose upon landing.

 

You understand that the forward CG sets that elevator limit.  If the CG is forward of that limit, then the elevator cannot lift the nose of the airplane at landing speeds.

[LukeFF]

Geee, well its a good thing the FW-190 needs fuel in its tanks to fly.

...and pilot must weigh exactly 70 kg.

[Crump]

(Citation needed)

 

 

[LukeFF]

Sorry, but a poor scan of a document doesn't really resolve anything.

[Crump]

I get the feeling nothing would resolve it for you....

[Crump]

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding

 

http://www.airsafe.com/events/noengine.htm

[LukeFF]

I get the feeling nothing would resolve it for you....

 

That sheet tells me precisely zero about how or why a late-model 190 cannot land safely with its outer cannons removed. You may as well have posted a blank sheet of paper, because that would have been just as relevant. 

[unreasonable]

To get Crump's weight/balance spreadsheet back in his stated limits for CG you only need an 11 kilo weight with an arm of 3.2 (units?) (same arm as the oxygen equipment, and assuming that the numbers for the removed cannon are correct).

 

 

I doubt that adding a small weight to the plane was beyond the capabilities of unit mechanics, if indeed such was necessary. 

Edited February 15, 2016 by unreasonable

[JtD]

For the record - the CoG figures given on the loading plans are positions, not limits. If they were limits, they'd be labelled limits. Plus they wouldn't be different on aerodynamically identical subversions.

[MiloMorai]

For the record - the CoG figures given on the loading plans are positions, not limits. If they were limits, they'd be labelled limits. Plus they wouldn't be different on aerodynamically identical subversions.

 

The most likely reason crump  has never posted what the limits are.

[GP*]

No it was not authorized.  

 

 

 

It was done without any official knowledge.

 

 

They were lucky.  How do you think this story would read if it had struck the airplane and crashed it?

 

 

As it was Nobody got hurt and with the state of the Vietnam war, nobody got punished either.

 

Once again, this is not typical or the rule.

 

I've been avoiding sticking my nose in this fight for a while...but boy has it been an entertaining read. 

 

With that being said, you've undermined your own argument yet again here. If the state of the Vietnam War allowed for non-standard practices, what do you think happened during WWII?

 

I get your argument that rules are rules, regulations are regulations, etc. And yes, in the world of aviation, changes to airframe, powerplant, SCL, etc aren't taken lightly. But you've failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that practices driven by the necessities of war weren't performed. As another user stated, this really has become a battle of semantics more than anything else.

 

I've also never read posts by anyone who is such a stickler for the rules that they believe that they were never broken / never bent. Perhaps the FAA is hiring?

[unreasonable]

 

I've also never read posts by anyone who is such a stickler for the rules that they believe that they were never broken / never bent. Perhaps the FAA is hiring?

 

Please God no. I will never fly again.

[Crump]

I've been avoiding sticking my nose in this fight for a while...but boy has it been an entertaining read. 

 

With that being said, you've undermined your own argument yet again here. If the state of the Vietnam War allowed for non-standard practices, what do you think happened during WWII?

 

I get your argument that rules are rules, regulations are regulations, etc. And yes, in the world of aviation, changes to airframe, powerplant, SCL, etc aren't taken lightly. But you've failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that practices driven by the necessities of war weren't performed. As another user stated, this really has become a battle of semantics more than anything else.

 

I've also never read posts by anyone who is such a stickler for the rules that they believe that they were never broken / never bent. Perhaps the FAA is hiring?

 

 

First of all, you do not know me at all.

 

I am not a "stickler" for the rules.  I just happen to have some experience and education in aircraft as well as war.  What is your qualification outside of playing video games?

 

Why don't you take the documents I have posted and go to your local airport and ASK any A&P mechanic or PILOT to take a look at the information and see if you can remove the outboard weapons.....

 

Your posts are way too personal.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Bearcat

[Crump]

That sheet tells me precisely zero about how or why a late-model 190 cannot land safely with its outer cannons removed. You may as well have posted a blank sheet of paper, because that would have been just as relevant. 

 

 

I already told you but everyone of you are so bent on denying what I have said you cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

None of you have ever signed a logbook and returned an aircraft to service or have any experience with it.  

 

If there is any possibility of an adverse loading condition, then that load out will not be approved.  It is just that simple.

 

You refuse to acknowledge that fact.

 

 

Why? Because you have no idea of the process required to work around that. 

 

You think "not approved" = cannot be done...

 

I have never said that.

 

I said it is not something that is approved at the operator level and that is a fact.   The PILOT cannot walk up to a mechanic and say, "Remove my outboard cannon, I want to fly without them."  It is not something within his authority.

 

 

To get Crump's weight/balance spreadsheet back in his stated limits for CG you only need an 11 kilo weight with an arm of 3.2 (units?) (same arm as the oxygen equipment, and assuming that the numbers for the removed cannon are correct).

 

 

I doubt that adding a small weight to the plane was beyond the capabilities of unit mechanics, if indeed such was necessary. 

 

 

See this is what I am talking about.

 

There is a heck of a lot more to permanent ballasting than just figuring out the offset weight for a single CG location.   An aircraft CG moves and the ballast weight must not cause an adverse load condition in any CG location.

 

Once more, the lines of responsibility for aircraft airworthiness are clearly defined by aviation convention.  The manufacturer or design certificate holder is responsible for airworthiness.  Not only is all of this law, it is common sense.  Even the Government buys aircraft ONE serial number at a time.  Lives are at stake whenever you fly and you want that serial number to be safe especially in the military or commercial arena where airframes are interchangeable and you do not always fly the same airframe.  Why wouldn't anyone want the most experienced people in that aircraft design to take a look at any deviations from the limitations that could be potentially deadly.

 

 

There is a saying among professional pilots, "The rules of aviation are written in blood."  As a aviation mechanic, it is not what you know that is dangerous.....death hides in what you do not know.

 

Because of the seriousness and potential for disaster, the law requires the design team to have oversight and they are the final authority on the aircraft. It is common sense.  Unlike your game, there is no reset button.  You only get one shot and many a pilot has died on a maintenance test flight.

 

If you want the company to continue to support that serial number, you have to have their approval to any design changes that can affect the airworthiness.  

 

 

 

Unable to maintain airspeed, stalled and went into a spin following propeller failure due to faulty maintenance procedures. All 3 aboard killed.

 

 

 

 

Crashed after aileron wing flutter caused Wittman to lose control of the aircraft. The flutter was caused by the separation of fabric on the wing as a result of improper installation. Wittman and his wife both killed.

 

 

 

 

Crashed while attempting to make an emergency landing at Salinas Airport after loosing engine power.  Loss of power was due to a missing valve keep (maintenance error). 1 killed.

 

 

 

 

The aircraft impacted trees and crashed into woods while attempting to land.  The accident was caused by improper assembly of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator unit by maintenance personnel.  All 3 aboard killed.

 

http://planecrashinfo.com/famous1990s.htm

 

 

There are thousands of examples of aircraft going down because of faulty maintenance for things that are simply routine approved maintenance.  Routine approved maintenance is risky.

 

As gamers you fail to see the big picture and the science.  During World War II modifications did happen, the design certificate holders from every nation worked closely with the operational units to enact the modifications they required in a safe and timely manner.  That system is designed to mitigate the enormous risk undertaken by the pilot when changing a design to the unknown.

 

Characterizing something that is not approved for operator level maintenance as anything else than not approved for operator level maintenance is simply not correct and misleading.  

 

Believing that something that is not approved at the operator level maintenance means that the modification procedures did not occur with involvement of the design certificate holder is ignorance of how aviation maintenance works by convention.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Faulty maintanance means death to any aircraft, no matter if it's modified unacordingly to the manufactors recommendations or in perfectly fine condition. Even bad maintained cars can kill people and surely do so regularily. That does not add to the point that modifications were infact done, while surely not approved by the manufacturer or according to certain conventions, and it did certainly work to some extent. Incase of the russians their aircrafts had to be modified at the frontlines because Stalin forbid manufacturers to adopt changes to the design in favour of higher production rates, much to the dislike of the pilots at the front seeking for any bit of performence that could help them fighting the Luftwaffe on better terms.

 

WW2 aircraft mechanics were not n amateurish bunch but well educated people completely capeable of maintaining and operating their respective aircrafts. Infact by late war german mechanics were often more expirienced than combat pilots.

Being a modern aviator and mechanic does not at all grant the ultimate wisdom of happenings in WW2 when human life was more of a ressource.

 

That's probably my last contibution to the topic. I'm sry for the OP this went off rails so far.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Crump]

 

 

WW2 aircraft mechanics were not n amateurish bunch but well educated people completely capeable of maintaining and operating their respective aircrafts.

 

No they were not amatuerish which is why they would not do something without the correct procedures, lines of responsibility, and oversight.  They simply would not want to kill their comrades.

 

 

 

 

Being a modern aviator and mechanic does not at all grant the ultimate wisdom of happenings in WW2 when human life was more of a ressource.

 

No but it gives one a much better base than playing Call of Duty....

 

It also helps to have worked on World War II aircraft and been very surprised at how much they followed the exact same conventions as today.  Very little has changed since 1940.... 

[Matt]

There is no option to remove the outboard cannon:

 

 

 

Would you please care to explain why it says "Beim Ausbau von MG-FF..." etc. at the bottom, if removing the MG-FF was not authorized and not an option? Seems a bit redundant don't you think?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Matt

[Crump]

Would you please care to explain why it says "Beim Ausbau von MG-FF..." etc. at the bottom, if removing the MG-FF was not authorized and not an option? Seems a bit redundant don't you think?

 

 

Not at all.

 

The ladeplan is the document used by the pilot to calculate the weight and balance for individual aircraft.

 

 

 

It is not the POH that is used to calculate weight and balance. The POH only has general information.

 

POH General information sheet for loading:

 

 

 

 

You can see at the top of the actual ladeplan document, the WerkNummer for the aircraft the document is issued with is included.

 

 

 

 

This is from a Focke-Wulf, GmbH file copy and represents the blank form unissued to a specific aircraft.   It is the legal document used to determine operational weight and balance.  If you take some flying lessons, this is one of the legal aspects your instructor will teach you about.  You must configure the aircraft and do all operational calculations from the serial numbered weight and balance not the POH.

 

The loadouts listed are the only configurations a Geschwader can operate an Fw190A-5 fighter variant.  This is the sheet the pilots and mechanics use for operational purposes.

[Crump]

Here is the FW-190A8 ladeplan

 

 

It is 6 pages and highly detailed.  It is where I got the information to calculate the weight and balance.

 

It includes all the information about weight, arm, and moment about the CG for every piece of equipment onboard the aircraft.

 

 

It also includes a very detailed instructions on authorized loads including every weapon authorized for general service use:

 

[Crump]

On the FW-190A variants it is authorized to remove the outboard weapons it is clearly stated and listed in the authorized load outs.

 

 

[GP*]

First of all, you do not know me at all.

 

I am not a "stickler" for the rules. I just happen to have some experience and education in aircraft as well as war. What is your qualification outside of playing video games?

 

Why don't you take the documents I have posted and go to your local airport and ASK any A&P mechanic or PILOT to take a look at the information and see if you can remove the outboard weapons.....

I never said cannons were being removed. What I'm saying is, no matter how much paperwork you post, you'll never be able to prove that it was never done.

 

[Edited] What's my experience? I'm an active duty USAF fighter pilot. So please, continue to lecture me about aircraft and your "experiences and education in aircraft as well as war."

Edited February 16, 2016 by Bearcat

[Crump]

I never said cannons were being removed. What I'm saying is, no matter how much paperwork you post, you'll never be able to prove that it was never done.

 

 

 

 

I am not proving it was never done.  Why would I do that?

 

Characterizing something that is not approved for operator level maintenance as anything else than not approved for operator level maintenance is simply not correct and misleading.  

 

Believing that something that is not approved at the operator level maintenance means that the modification procedures did not occur with involvement of the design certificate holder is ignorance of how aviation maintenance works by convention.

 

 

 

Thanks for the condescension, by the way. What's my experience? I'm an active duty USAF fighter pilot. So please, continue to lecture me about aircraft and your "experiences and education in aircraft as well as war."

 

 

[Edited]

 

[Edited]

 

This is all getting too personal. Ratchet it back.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Bearcat

[Crump]

Speaking of USAF maintenance.....

 

 

 

 

Another reason some get really aggravated, it sometimes seems no matter what, your work gets questioned. You could have done everything 100% by the book your whole career, but guess what? You missed a step in the job guide, now you are a sh---bag and getting screwed by your management. Nothing went wrong, no one got hurt, but, thats how it goes.

 

 

 

 

This is speaking as a SSgt of 8 years, Instruments (Specialist).

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/usaf/comments/3680ef/does_being_in_aircraft_maintenance_really_suck/

 

 

1.3. Maintenance Discipline. It is the responsibility of all maintenance personnel to comply with all written guidance to ensure required repairs, inspections, and documentation are completed in a safe, timely, and effective manner. Supervisors are responsible for enforcing and establishing a climate that promotes maintenance discipline.

 

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/afi21-102/afi21-102.pdf

 

 

I guess you do not see that side of the USAF?  You know....everyone of the Fighter Pilot's I know, drink beer with, and call my co-workers and friends understands the rigid maintainence structure of aircraft.  They follow it in their Military flying and in the Airlines...

 

How do you not know about it?

 

Had to edit out the colorful language of that USAF SSG Maintenance Tech....

Edited February 16, 2016 by Crump

[LukeFF]

Oh my...

 

 

Another reason some get really aggravated, it sometimes seems no matter what, your work gets questioned. You could have done everything 100% by the book your whole career, but guess what? You missed a step in the job guide, now you are a sh---bag and getting screwed by your management. Nothing went wrong, no one got hurt, but, thats how it goes.

 

That's just goes to show how there's other people out there like you who only believe in the letter of the law.  

[Crump]

 

 

Oh my...

 

Oh my.....What??

 

Every working pilot has had to do maintenance write ups.  It is a part of the job no matter how silly we might think they are at the time.  I had to do one for a seat adjustment knob on my last four day.  The plastic knob that goes over the end of the seat angle adjustment lever cracked and fell off.  

 

Funny thing it is any defect in a pilot seat is not even deferrable.  Maintenance had to ground the aircraft and replace the knob.

[Crump]

That's just goes to show how there's other people out there like you who only believe in the letter of the law.  

 

 

Rather myopic statement considering you do not know me at all.

 

This is what it all comes down too, LukeFF.  Not that you seem to really care about facts. 

 

 

Characterizing something that is not approved for operator level maintenance as anything else than not approved for operator level maintenance is simply not correct and misleading.    

 

Believing that something that is not approved at the operator level maintenance means that the modification procedures did not occur with involvement of the design certificate holder is ignorance of how aviation maintenance works by convention.

 

7.1.2. TO Changes and Authorized Deviations. Technical data used in depot maintenance must be complete, accurate, effective, and efficient. It is the responsibility of maintenance personnel at all levels to ensure deficiencies are reported in a timely manner and improvements are made when needed. When work cannot be performed using the TO as written, an authorized deviation must be processed and approved.

 

Craziness....

 

Imagine that...The USAF follows aviation convention!!!

 

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/afi21-102/afi21-102.pdf