MiloMorai Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 There was no USAF til 1947. WW2 had been over for ~2 years. One so much a stickler modified his military vehicle with extra armour. He will say it was not an airplane but that vehicle could have broken down due to the extra weight in the middle of nowhere endangering the lives of those in the vehicle and those that came to retrieve them and the vehicle. 1
unreasonable Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) 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.... Wow, I did not realize you were so old. Seriously though, if you worked on WW2 aircraft recently in the USA, as I assume, then of course you would be subject to current conventions and regulations. You are assuming that current US conventions were binding on WW2 Germany. Your evidence? A treaty to which neither the USA or Germany were a party at the time - not that you knew that. But even assuming that Germany followed much the same procedures, you have not proved that the removal of outer cannons was actually forbidden or contrary to regulations at the time - as far as we know such modification might indeed have be made with full coordination between mechanics and manufacturers. Unless you have a contemporary document either forbidding the specific practice or mentioning it's implementation you are simply assuming the answer. People have provided photographic evidence that the cannons were indeed sometimes removed: your insistence that they must be some peculiar variant is merely another example of trying to shoehorn everything into your preconceived conclusion. As to the load out calculations: if you want to post a spreadsheet showing that the CG is off as evidence of how bad the removal of the outer cannons would be, do not be surprised if at least one person checks it's sensitivities. If it was not useful and relevant why did you post it? The fact is that the change in balance required to get back to your stated limits is fairly trivial and your "secret knowledge" ploy is unconvincing. Finally the constant disparaging references to "gamers". You must be aware by now that many of the people posting on this forum are pilots, engineers, mathematicians, historians or retired businessmen who just happen to play around with sims in their spare time, but who do not feel the need to trumpet their qualifications all the time. With such a pool of contributors it would be foolish for anyone to assume superiority of expertise and intellect. Your inability to ever admit error does not make you look strong and knowledgeable - it makes you look weak and immature. And if you really think that "gamers" are so hopelessly ignorant why do you spend so much of your time arguing with them? Why do you keep humiliating yourself like this? Edited February 16, 2016 by unreasonable 4
GP* Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 I am not proving it was never done. You're not proving much of anything, honestly. Active duty USAF Fighter Pilot....Of course. I have to ask then why you do not understand the rigid maintenance structure? You know the one in place by aviation convention? The one the USAF follows, supports, and enforces????? "Of course." What exactly are you trying to imply? And what makes you seem to think I don't understand the "rigid maintenance structure?" We are so far removed from the original discussion that it's hardly worth addressing, but you seem to love to consistently tie regulations that exist today to ones that both existed and were followed to the letter during WWII, so I'll bite. I understand plenty about aircraft maintenance. I've spent years stepping to jets that they've worked their asses off to maintain. I've deployed with them plenty of times. I've even shared a drink with them -- but oh no! -- that's against another Air Force reg. You know, the whole bit about fraternization. Looks like what's written on paper isn't absolute after all. Speaking of USAF maintenance..... https://www.reddit.com/r/usaf/comments/3680ef/does_being_in_aircraft_maintenance_really_suck/ 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? This is where things really get humorous...in a pathetic kind of way. I'll address what you're stating here in a second, but I'd just like to point out that I truly am "laughing out loud" as I imagine you furiously googling and trying to find anything that will support what you're saying. AF E-pubs on one side...reddit on the other. Truly impressive. 1) How does a SSgt saying that he's held accountable for his job have anything to do with wing cannons on the 190? Obviously it doesn't, and obviously you're just trying to undermine my credibility by insinuating that I'm not familiar with maintenance. Whatever makes you feel superior. 2) Are you really surprised that any AFI leads off with a discussion on discipline? Practically every single one does. I can really tell that you have no clue as to anything having to do with the military, though, based on the reg you linked me to. Depot maintenance? Really? Did you even read the rest of the pub before posting your one-liner here on the board? Depot maintenance is far removed from the day-to-day flightline maintenance that you accuse me of knowing nothing about. Again, there's nothing about my previous two posts that gives you any grounds to imply that I know nothing about the "rigid maintenance structure of aircraft." For what it's worth, you can't even spell maintenance correctly... 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've had to endure a beer with you? I'm so sorry. Do you regale them with tales of rules and regulations? I'd rather watch paint dry. Finally the constant disparaging references to "gamers". You must be aware by now that many of the people posting on this forum are pilots, engineers, mathematicians, historians or retired businessmen who just happen to play around with sims in their spare time, but who do not feel the need to trumpet their qualifications all the time. With such a pool of contributors it would be foolish for anyone to assume superiority of expertise and intellect. Your inability to ever admit error does not make you look strong and knowledgeable - it makes you look weak and immature. And if you really think that "gamers" are so hopelessly ignorant why do you spend so much of your time arguing with them? Why do you keep humiliating yourself like this? This is the only place he feels superior. That's why. 4
Crump Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 "Of course." What exactly are you trying to imply? That every fighter pilot I work alongside of knows the stringent manner in which aircraft are maintained by convention. Most of us professional pilot really like it that way. It keeps idiots who think they know better than everyone else or who think "the books and rules are not for me" from killing us. How does a SSgt saying that he's held accountable for his job have anything to do with wing cannons on the 190? The Paris Convention of 1919 directed the licensing of mechanics. That is why you sign the maintenance log with your name, signature, license number, what work was performed (yes, you reference the publication) and a clear statement returning the aircraft to service. Mechanics are legally responsible for the work they do on aircraft. I can really tell that you have no clue as to anything having to do with the military, though, based on the reg you linked me to. Depot maintenance? Really? Did you even read the rest of the pub before posting your one-liner here on the board? Wow, how can you not know that maintenance discipline is not just for Depot Level but extends to all aspects of aviation maintenance? Mister Fighter Pilot..... Oh and it took about 2 seconds to find a copy of just the blurb I was looking for to quote. Why? Because I knew exactly what I was looking for because all aircraft maintenance is 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. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4_7/publication/afi21-102/afi21-102.pdf This is the only place he feels superior. That's why. For what it's worth, you can't even spell maintenance correctly... Very petty...and expected.
Crump Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 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. Again, I am not trying to prove it was never done. This was told to you two pages ago. I am relating the FACT that it was not operator approved 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." 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.
MiloMorai Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Erich quote:yes and will speak from my cousins JG301. the outboard 2cm was removed in the Fw190A-8 and many Fw190A-9's and the cannon opening in the wing was covered over. I have in the past posted photos of JG301 Fw190A-9's with this very arrangement on the site, hopefully they have not been deleted. Again this was to the pilots discretion and was done by the "black men" in the field, this was not standard equipment shipment from the factory.
Crump Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Erich quote: Ok...Third hand information without any details... And contradictory to convention and the documentation. It is like UFO's at Roswell... Let's look at documentation and facts! Notice it is not third hand information..... It is the ACTUAL instructions for loading the aircraft and all the ordinance/configurations that are permissible!!! Craziness, Huh? 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." I have in the past posted photos of JG301 Fw190A-9's with this very arrangement on the site, hopefully they have not been deleted. Again this was to the pilots discretion and was done by the "black men" in the field, this was not standard equipment shipment from the factory. More importantly... There is nothing posted in this thread about FW-190A9's.
MiloMorai Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) For sure despite a photo of a JG301 Fw190A-8 or A-9 posted earlier. Edited February 16, 2016 by MiloMorai
Crump Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 For sure despite a photo of a JG301 Fw190A-8 or A-9 posted earlier. Really? So that is your definitive proof that over-rides the hard documentation. The fact you do not know what kind of aircraft and therefore it MUST prove the written documents wrong as well as going against all aviation convention. Forgive me if I am not sold on your amateurish history investigation.
MiloMorai Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Really? So that is your definitive proof that over-rides the hard documentation. The fact you do not know what kind of aircraft and therefore it MUST prove the written documents wrong as well as going against all aviation convention. Forgive me if I am not sold on your amateurish history investigation. Since you are such the expert, you can tell us if it is an A-8 or an A-9 since JG301 used both versions. But then you have stated emphatically that A-8s were actually A-9s. Visual proof trumps.
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 16, 2016 1CGS Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) 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. Swell! Now, how is that relevant to an aircraft flying in a combat environment? Wait, I can imagine it now: August 1940, at an RAF airfield: RAF Wing Commander: To your planes, men! German bombers inbound! RAF Pilot Officer: Oi, commander, me plastic knob has fallen off me seat! I'm gonna have to sit this one out. Plane's grounded due to regs and all, y'know! I'll be in the lounge composing my write-up, if you need me. Yeah, umm...no. Edited February 16, 2016 by LukeFF
Monostripezebra Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 oh hi, discussion still ongoing? How about a new one.. Rollrate comparison of Il2 and FW190? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Ys7N1iT5c SCNR ;=)
Crump Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 But then you have stated emphatically that A-8s were actually A-9s. Holy out of context and word twisting. Do you try to pass this stuff off as the truth? well! Now, how is that relevant to an aircraft flying in a combat environment? Wait, I can imagine it now: I agree completely. I thought it was silly too. But it is the absolute truth on how tightly aircraft maintenance is controlled. It has been that way since aviation convention was established. In this case, the seat is not on the MEL and therefore cannot be deferred. You probably do not know what an MEL is.... Minimum Equipment List....it is a document that defines the equipment that can be inoperative for a flight. It outlines the operator and maintenance procedures required to defer or "put off" fixing a piece of equipment for a short defined period of time. If the equipment is not listed on the MEL then it is essential to the safety of flight and cannot be deferred. In this case, I am sure nobody thought of the little plastic knob and the MEL will be amended to reflect the fact you can fly the plane without the plastic knob. I am sure they had MEL's and deferment procedures or something that resembled what we have today.
Crump Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 August 1940, at an RAF airfield: RAF Wing Commander: To your planes, men! German bombers inbound! RAF Pilot Officer: Oi, commander, me plastic knob has fallen off me seat! I'm gonna have to sit this one out. Plane's grounded due to regs and all, y'know! I'll be in the lounge composing my write-up, if you need me. Ohh and by the way... It was the RAF's logistical system was top notch. They had a system called the CRO or Civilian Repair Organization. Basically the units performed only simple maintenance that would result in not missing any operational flying times. If the aircraft needed more attention than that, it was pushed off the field to the CRO who collected it, repaired it, and sent the aircraft to the PSU or Provincial Supply Units. Every evening the status would be collected and by morning any aircraft the squadrons were short of would be delivered before the days first sortie. It allowed the RAF to maintain almost as 85% unit strength. I thought that was interesting.
CaK_Rumcajs Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Thank You Crump for all your valuable input. I'm also grateful for the army of uniformed individuals who has pushed you to post all the information you have posted so far. I as an enthusiast who is not an airman take your posts as a great source of knowledge. To all the [Edited] : As far as I know Crump has taken an important part in a FW 190 restoration and actually managed to get it airworthy. You have next to zero experience comparing to him. But I encourage you to continue arguing. It propels Crump to post more real information that some can appreciate. Keep it civil. Edited February 16, 2016 by Bearcat
MK_RED13 Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 oh hi, discussion still ongoing? How about a new one.. Rollrate comparison of Il2 and FW190? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Ys7N1iT5c SCNR ;=) It is FIGHTER variant of IL2 ... trust me!
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 oh hi, discussion still ongoing? How about a new one.. Rollrate comparison of Il2 and FW190? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Ys7N1iT5c SCNR ;=) reminds me of War Thunder arcade mode. Gosh i loved that plane back then. Best fighter in it's battlerank
Bearcat Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 This thread has gone on for almost 7 months with 7 pages. Based on the tone of the "discussion" it is done.
Recommended Posts