Jump to content

Water Methanol Injection Explained In Detail


II./JG27_Rich
 Share

Recommended Posts

DD_bongodriver

Go read the thread all the evidence is posted in black and white.  Not my words, the USAAF's and the NTSB's.....

 

 

The NTSB has absolutely no evidence of the causes of WWII crashes, the USAAF material you have provided has been nothing more than manufacturers published operating limitations which they are obliged to use words such as 'must' and 'mandatory', you did however provide good evidence of unofficial modification by military operators.....despite the fact you are arguing against that very concept.

 

No, the cause is the immediate result in accident reporting.  The factors bring about that cause, in otherwords, they form a chain of events that anywhere along that chain, the accident cycle could have been prevented.

 

 

Ok, explain to me how a structural failure due to fatigue is reported? then explain to me how that fatigue could not possibly be something that has been progressive over a period of time probably covering many separate flight cycles on the airframe....chronic if you like, then explain to me how engine damage from chronic mishandling can not be a factor in the same situation.......I mean what is the cause of an engine failure that has been subject to abuse in previous flights but failed during a flight where proper procedure was used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the report (source?), perhaps you fail to understand that AEC didn't want their engines to fail, and this not to preserve the aircraft and pilots' lives, but to ensure their reliability reputation with the USAAF and to avoid any risk of contract cancellation? Those companies were at war with each other, not with the enemy.. Packard, P&W and Allison did their best to stop the other..

 

What sort of aircraft mechanic are you?

Edited by Sternjaeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many thousands of hours of operations were flown during WWII ? and we are relying on a few "gung ho" anecdotes from a couple of sources, I would suggest that the reason for the good condition of the Merlin engine mentioned at overhaul time was because it had been operated within its limits "by the book"

 

If you talk to a lot of military pilots about operating outside of recommended limits you will get a quite different perspective. If Crump regularly flew his P-51 over Germany like people do in flight sims he would be a POW or dead from engine failure :)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question !

 

At LEAST you admit that some did it and did indeed not have the dire problems you mention in doing it. (so that would make you WRONG)

 

 

And BTW.... my father dealt with the FAA and NTSB far more than you and he does not trust either completely, not at all. (he worked for American Airlines for 45 1/2 years, and has extensive expirence in engine maintnance and aircraft safety !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amused by the notion of a ww2 pilot whose primary concern would be breaking civilian aviation law whilst someone was shooting at him. Hilarious!

AMEN!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the report (source?), perhaps you fail to understand that AEC didn't want their engines to fail, and this not to preserve the aircraft and pilots' lives, but to ensure their reliability reputation with the USAAF and to avoid any risk of contract cancellation? Those companies were at war with each other, not with the enemy.. Packard, P&W and Allison did their best to stop the other..

 

What sort of aircraft mechanic are you?

 

Very much related to what you just posted, do read;

 

"The Airforce and the Great Engine War"

 

by Robert W Drewes

 

ISBN - 10 141022174

ISBN - 13 978-1410221742

 

Great story how GE got into the fighter engine business due to P & W's business practices and attitudes. BIG companies before and to this very day view their competition as a threat more than working with/taking care of their customers at times. Not all the time by any means, but as this book shows it can get really bad when they do. The story of how an AF General had a dual engine failure after takeoff in an F 15 is great. (P&W engines)

 

I don't think crump worked on engines, and don't think he is old enough to have extensive dealings with the FAA, or NTSB on a personal level since they first came into being.

Edited by thx1138
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh well this has degenerated into the usual slanging match by the usual parties...whatever battles you guys won or lost on other old forums it is a shame you always carry on here.

 

so i'm out of this one

 

Wow, you can't even answer a simple question !

 

At LEAST you admit that some did it and did indeed not have the dire problems you mention in doing it. (so that would make you WRONG)

 

 

And BTW.... my father dealt with the FAA and NTSB far more than you and he does not trust either completely, not at all. (he worked for American Airlines for 45 1/2 years, and has extensive expirence in engine maintnance and aircraft safety !)

 

as for that i dont even know what you are arguing about, my post was not directed at you and even if you thought it was i dont understand your reply? also you have no idea of my experience, so why bring that up. perhaps your quoting me was a mistake..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh well this has degenerated into the usual slanging match by the usual parties...whatever battles you guys won or lost on other old forums it is a shame you always carry on here.

 

so i'm out of this one

 

 

as for that i dont even know what you are arguing about, my post was not directed at you and even if you thought it was i dont understand your reply? also you have no idea of my experience, so why bring that up. perhaps your quoting me was a mistake..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I was, or thought I was tlaking to crump, sorry if I offended you. It seems that I DID make a big mistake

 

I apologize, what I wrote was meant for the other party.

Edited by thx1138
Link to comment
Share on other sites

apology accepted, but I stand by my previous point, that no more useful info will be gained from this thread, it has degenerated into the usual petty point scoring

 

I'm out of here

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your implication here?

 

That we did not have a problem operating aircraft engines outside the limitations until we discovered they might not be reliable if we did?

 

So before that discovery, we could use what ever we wanted without consequences.

 

Or is it that WWII engines were so much more reliable than todays engines as to be immune from abuse damage?

 

Can you clarify your point, please.

 

You posted modern stats, so was asking for stats from WW2.

 

 

 

Of course the penalty for altering state property in Nazi Germany was pretty harsh and it was not looked up favorably.

 

So the Gruppen with Bf1-09s using 1.98ata that were not authorized to do so, is just a faery tale by Kurfy?

 

 

 

We know what the operating limitations say but it seems now the discussion is about discrediting those mandatory instructions as something that was routinely ignored.

 

Your problem again Crumpp. :rolleyes:  People are just showing that were exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once they started flying their plane on difficult photoreconnaissance missions, they made some modifications. Even among the men of a combat air station, the Eager Beavers became known as gun nuts. They replaced all of the light 30 caliber machine guns in the plane with heavier 50 caliber weapons. Then the 50 caliber machine guns were replaced with double 50 caliber guns. Zeamer had another pair of machine guns mounted to the front of the plane so he could remotely fire them like a fighter pilot. And the crew kept extra machine guns stored in the plane, just in case one of their other guns jammed or malfunctioned.

 

As odd as all this sounds, the South Pacific theatre in the early days of World War II was a chaotic area scattered over thousands of miles with very little equipment. Having a plane with an apparently nutty crew who volunteered for every awful mission not surprisingly made the commanding officers look the other way.

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/the-most-honored-photograph

 

But, I'm sure the author just failed to mention that Boeing had sent out a team of technicians to supervise the modifications. Laws are laws, after all!

Edited by LukeFF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured as much, you think like a modern aviation mechanic. Not a bad thing! But it doesn't apply to WW2..          

 

 

 

Baloney, not much has changed at all, Sternjager.

 

I work as a pilot/mechanic as the places I fly do not have FBO's to fix the planes.

 

 

But, I'm sure the author just failed to mention that Boeing had sent out a team of technicians to supervise the modifications. Laws are laws, after all!

 

 

Ahhhh, replacing the .30 caliber MG's in the B-17C/D model was an authorized modification including a dual .50 caliber ventral installation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're either in denial or you're just trolling if you think the actual ground ops of WW2 are the same of modern general aviation.. 

 

To sum it up, we know some pilots pushed WEP farther than they should have. The actual number is probably far higher as most don't write their wartime expirences down. But the solid fact is that it did happen. How BOS handles CEM will be interesting, we know it will not be DCS type which is a good thing IMHO.

 

 

crump can't answer a straight simple question no matter what. I should have known after watching the Fw 190 outer wing gun thread. Even when presented with proven evidence he just dances around and never admits the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh, replacing the .30 caliber MG's in the B-17C/D model was an authorized modification including a dual .50 caliber ventral installation.

 

Here we go again with a statement and nothing to back up the statement.

 

People are still waiting for you to back up your statement here with data,

 

Rama: please avoid cross discussions between forums. If something was asked somewhere, it should be answered where it was asked.

You can give links, but please don't continue here discussion started on other forums, it's not understandable by readers.

Edited by Rama
broken link removed and coment added.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're in denial if you think the actual ground ops of WW2 are the same of modern general aviation.. 

 

 

Based on what facts Sternjager? 

 

The fact the convention was signed in 1919?  That is the one that established that air worthiness standards would be set and agreed upon by all signatories.  Operating limitations is part of the airworthiness parameters of the aircraft.  An aircraft is only considered to be airworthy if operated IAW the published limitations. 

 

The foundation of today's system was long in place by the beginning of World War II.   

 

The NACA was in full operation, instrumental in such things as the Morrow Board establishing airworthiness standards for ALL aircraft and the Manufacturers Aircraft Association agreements.

Edited by Crump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The actual number is probably far higher as most don't write their wartime expirences down.

 

 

Based on what?  Your gut feeling?

 

The aviation accident database maintained by the NTSB paints a completely different picture.  One that is based on factual findings and not game player feelings.

 

 

we know it will not be DCS type

 

 

I agree that there should be an option to allow players to enjoy the game as they deem fit.  One should be able to turn off the realism settings if they wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh for god's sake... 

 

read my lips: nobody is questioning the existence of these rules, we're saying that in many instances they were not respected, because:

 

1) they OFTEN needed more out of their machines

2) they knew there was a certain threshold, as the directives given were based on the need of keeping the machines efficient, and if they had to choose between the chance of blowing up the engine or the certainty of being blown up by the enemy, what do you think the would have gone for? 

 

Have you ever read the story of that crew in China who had a DC-3 with a shot out wing and replaced it with a DC-2 one? I mean, do you SERIOUSLY think that all that is written in a manual is divine word and that there's no tolerance whatsoever in the parameters given? I'm surprised that as an aviation mechanic and ga pilot you're so square..

Edited by Sternjaeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...