MiloMorai Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 However did the Americans manage to fly this Fw190 without any wing armament?
Crump Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 However did the Americans manage to fly this Fw190 without any wing armament? Really? So now you think I am claiming that captured equipment in wartime is subjected to the legal requirements of the originating hostile state. Common sense. What the United States flew has nothing to do with the requirements of German aircraft produced by a German company and operated by the German Government......
CUJO_1970 Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 Oh look they even painted the damned thing! Even the tips of the propellers. How did they manage to fly it that way?
Crump Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 The aircraft control surfaces will be removed, not just to facilitate stripping and painting, but — more importantly — to be balanced after painting. Have you noticed those weights mounted in front of the hinge line? Improperly balanced, the control surfaces will flutter — a very unpleasant experience which nearly rips the yoke right out of your hands, and unless you get back on the ground very soon, rips the control surfaces right off the airplane. An A&P, not just a painter, must perform this work. http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueam01/paint.html One huge differentiating factor in the broad spectrum of paint jobs involves the removal of flight control surfaces. Higher-end shops spend many more man-hours in prep and finish work, including the removal, balancing and reinstallation of flight control surfaces. Removing them allows the painter to verify if the control surfaces are balanced. Because flight controls don’t come off for annual inspection, there’s no way of knowing if the balance has changed over time due to the introduction of foreign objects (e.g., bird nests, wasp nests, etc.). Unbalanced control surfaces can lead to flutter: It’s important that the company painting your aircraft has the equipment and expertise to rebalance the control surfaces after stripping and repainting. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/upgrade-your-plane-part-i/#.V36yV_krKUk Remember airplane components have to be weighed and balanced after the painting process. This is to prevent unstable handling and aircraft fluttering due to inaccurate balancing. http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/104941.aspx Since the USAF never tested that aircraft to the extremes of the envelope it is unknown as to how well the surfaces were balanced or how good of a job they did. They were certainly capable of it. As I understand, that particular aircraft was a squadron mascot flown for pleasure. They could have put a quick paint job on it to prevent friendly fire incidents and flown it. It was a FW-190G3 from SKG 10 in Tunisia. And yes, painting aircraft is even regulated but that is a general aviation authority privy and not generally the engineering team. The aviation authority simply sets the standards any paint job must comply with such as maintaining control surface balance, etc... That aircraft was stripped of radios, IFF, bombing, and gunnery equipment. The USAAF easily could have done a weight and balance, flying it in such a condition. That doesn't mean Luftwaffe squadrons were authorized to do the same thing.
JG13_opcode Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) Crump, are you arguing that, say, the Geschwader-level officer (or perhaps whatever the LW equivalent of A4 Maint is) did not have authority to order removal of the outer guns from a 190A-5 lacking the GM-1 system? Edited July 7, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode
Crump Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Crump, are you arguing that, say, the Geschwader-level officer (or perhaps whatever the LW equivalent of A4 Maint is) did not have authority to order removal of the outer guns from a 190A-5 lacking the GM-1 system? They had to remove them for cleaning and servicing. They could not remove them and fly the aircraft without Focke Wulf GmbH involvement however. That does not mean Kurt Tank had to personally approve it but just like today the factory maintained oversight and approved each deviation from the standard. Over the factory derived range of empty CG limits, an adverse loading condition could be created. Notice the CG limits are .5m to .73m on the FW-190A5 fighter variant: The Factory produced several variants without wing weapons but the FW-190A5 and higher series has an extended forward fuselage. That extra arm and weight could create an adverse loading condition if the wing weapons were removed. Each has it own specific ladeplan and you can see is not the same as a FW-190A5 fighter variant. You will find for example, the FW-190F/G variants without the wing weapons have a smaller CG range. The Forward CG limit is moved back to eliminate the possibility of an adverse loading condition without the wing weapons. You can easily confirm this by running the math on the type and removing the outboard weapons. Here is the FW-190G3 ladeplan (blatt 1). Notice its CG range is .53m to .73m aft of datum. I was really just kind of joking. I know you where but I do not think the average IL2 players knows that you cannot just slap paint on a plane and fly it. At least it is not a good idea to do that and get near the edges of envelope as flutter is often fatal.
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Here we go, it's this discussion again... It's a hopeless case, but anyway: "In place of the MGFF a GM-1 device can be fittet" is not the same as "MGFF can only be removed by exchange with GM-1". If it really was the document had mentioned it specificly. But anyway, have it your way. 3
L3Pl4K Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) Maybe this can help: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Leistung_Fr_M_01_L_43.pdf page 2 Gewicht: Jäger ohne FF Waffen http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/FockeWulf/Fw%20190/Fw190_A5-A6_Pilot-manual.pdf page 11 *) you can save 135 kg if you remove mg/ff dlpzig.jpg Yellow square Bermerkung: Der Ausbau der Waffen ist zulässig. It is permitted to remove the Weapons. Edited July 8, 2016 by L3Pl4K 1
JtD Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Guys, you're of course right. Pictures, reports, manuals - all this has been shown and explained to Crump many, many times over many years, and as you can see, he's still trying to convince the world of the opposite. But if you don't want to add this topic to the long list topics that have been killed over this subject, I suggest to move back to FM discussion. My apologies for responding to Sascha, I should have known it would lead to this.
JG13_opcode Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 just like today the factory maintained oversight and approved each deviation from the standard.Actually I'm afraid that isn't how it works today, which is why I asked. Modern militaries employ aerospace engineers who work in concert with but independently from the manufacturers. The air force makes its own airworthiness decisions, particularly with regard to engineering deviations. However JTD is right: this is way off topic.
MiloMorai Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It was a FW-190G3 from SKG 10 in Tunisia. Sorry JtD but must make a correction. According to Andrew Arthy and Morten Jessen in their book Fw190 in North Africa there was no G-3s in Africa only A-3,4,5s
JG13_opcode Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Sorry JtD but must make a correction. According to Andrew Arthy and Morten Jessen in their book Fw190 in North Africa there was no G-3s in Africa only A-3,4,5s ww2.dk is usually quite accurate. Here is the SKG 10 listing: http://ww2.dk/air/attack/skg10.htm
Crump Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Actually I'm afraid that isn't how it works today, which is why I asked. Modern militaries employ aerospace engineers who work in concert with but independently from the manufacturers. The air force makes its own airworthiness decisions, particularly with regard to engineering deviations. However JTD is right: this is way off topic. That is not correct. You can look it up in any signatory of aviation convention regarding airworthiness regulations and who holds the certificate issued under the aviation authority. Sorry JtD but must make a correction. According to Andrew Arthy and Morten Jessen in their book Fw190 in North Africa there was no G-3s in Africa only A-3,4,5s FW-190A5/U8....
JG13_opcode Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) That is not correct. You can look it up in any signatory of aviation convention regarding airworthiness regulations and who holds the certificate issued under the aviation authority. FW-190A5/U8.... I work in military aviation. I assure you that many air forces are the type certificate holders and do not need to consult with e.g. Lockheed if they want to make a deviation (though they may choose to, since the mfr has a wealth of technical experience to draw on). The US FAA is not the airworthiness authority for US military aircraft such as, say, the C-130 if the aircraft is operated under a military registration. Edited July 8, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode
Crump Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm I work in military aviation. I assure you that many air forces are the type certificate holders and do not need to consult with e.g. Lockheed if they want to make a deviation (though they may choose to, since the mfr has a wealth of technical experience to draw on). The US FAA is not the airworthiness authority for US military aircraft such as, say, the C-130 if the aircraft is operated under a military registration. I work in Aviation and have 26 years in the Military. I fly for a living and hold an A/P certificate. YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT ALL MILITARY AVIATION SECTIONS HAVE ENGINEERS. You are not correct in that they have the authority to alter the airworthiness of the design without the manufacturers approval. The designer is the holder of the airworthiness certificate and the one responsible by convention. Engineers in the service can certainly compile the data and do the legwork but it is the certificate holder who is responsible to the aviation authority. Now, field approvals can be done thru the aviation authority provided there is sufficient engineering data and all the engineers from all agencies involved agree. Field approvals are applicable to a single serial number aircraft only. Edited July 8, 2016 by Crump
Crump Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) AC 20-169 - Guidance for Certification of Military and Special Mission Modifications and Equipment for Commercial Derivative Aircraft (CDA) http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/391918 The aviation authority works VERY closely with all military and government operated aircraft. 13GIAP_opcode Yes, the military is responsible for maintaining its own aircraft airworthiness. However, you do not seem to know what that means exactly to have an "airworthy aircraft". It is not just something you can fly and wings do not fall off. In order for any aircraft to be considered airworthy, it must conform to the Type Certificate. The type certificate is the privy of the manufacturer. Edited July 8, 2016 by Crump
JG13_opcode Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 We seem to be talking past each other and I suspect there is no rectifying that. Perhaps in your country it works differently. Oh well; agree to disagree.
Crump Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Did your country sign the aviation conventions? If not then you might be right but if so then it works the exact same.
MiloMorai Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 FW-190A5/U8.... Is that a 5 I see in the designation? So nice of you to admit you were wrong. Focke-Wulf 190 G-3 Block 160 001 - 160 950 Btw, there should be a '-' between the letter and the number.
Crump Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Is that a 5 I see in the designation? So nice of you to admit you were wrong. Focke-Wulf 190 G-3 Block 160 001 - 160 950 Btw, there should be a '-' between the letter and the number. The FW-190G series did not exist until the middle of 1943 when all FW-190A4/U8, FW-190A5/U8, and FW-190A5/U13 were redesignated G series....... So when SKG10 was in Tunisia, the G-series had not been named as the G series yet but later on would be so named.... You like to do some serious hair splitting. BTW...the FW-190A5/U8 ladeplan rather unsurprisingly list's the CG as the same as the other G-series. The Forward Limit of the CG is .53M as it was moved rearward to prevent adverse loading when the outboard weapons were removed. Of course you cannot focus on that part can you? 1
MiloMorai Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 You like to do some serious hair splitting. from the master of hair splitting.... classic. Focke-Wulf 190 G-2 Re-designated FW 190 A-5/U8s (10.43), Notice the '2' in the designation not a '3' as you originally stated. Just man up when you are wrong.
1Sascha Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Holy chit! Seems that I've created a monster .... sorry about that .. :D <g,d,r> S.
ZachariasX Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Holy chit! Seems that I've created a monster .... sorry about that .. :D <g,d,r> S. Und sie laufen! Naß und nässer wirds im Saal und auf den Stufen. Welch entsetzliches Gewässer! Herr und Meister! hör mich rufen! - Ach, da kommt der Meister! Herr, die Not ist groß! Die ich rief, die Geister werd ich nun nicht los. 1
CUJO_1970 Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 It seems that very few people that actually have the sim and fly the FW-190 online against VVS fighters are involved with this thread. You people will never understand how this sim works until you do so. Go get this game's FW-190 and fight online against other humans flying Yak-1, LaGG-3 and La-5. Until then you will never understand anything about how this game works. Not that watching Milo follow Crump across multiple forums for several years now isn't just the most fascinating thing ever, but you get the point.
JG13_opcode Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 It seems that very few people that actually have the sim and fly the FW-190 online against VVS fighters are involved with this thread. You people will never understand how this sim works until you do so. Go get this game's FW-190 and fight online against other humans flying Yak-1, LaGG-3 and La-5. Until then you will never understand anything about how this game works. Not that watching Milo follow Crump across multiple forums for several years now isn't just the most fascinating thing ever, but you get the point. Eh, I've flown it online. To me it's not significantly different than the 190 from 1946, and I flew it the same way. Don't turn with the VVS birds unless you have a significant energy advantage and can force them into the vertical. Frankly I don't think the 190 should be the better of the two Axis rides in this scenario. Every contemporary source I've seen from VVS pilots tends to view the 190 as "good, but nothing special" whereas they seemed to be in a mixture of awe and fear of the 109. Almost the reverse of the Western Front. That jives with what I find online flying VVS. The 109 tends to be the tougher opponent when flown properly. Too many Axis pilots are furballing below 3000m, however.
MiloMorai Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Not that watching Milo follow Crump across multiple forums for several years now isn't just the most fascinating thing ever, but you get the point. You have that reversed.
CUJO_1970 Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 The FW-190 in this sim does not have the roll-rate, corner velocity or agility that the FW-190 had in the original IL-2. I flew it for years, both in a squad (7/JG77) and lone wolf...my squad also worked with beta-testing pre-release versions. You could use high speed roll and agility to gain a tactical advantage in the old sim, something that you can do only in this sim with extreme altitude and speed advantage. (You have no tactical roll-rate advantage at any speed now) Post-stall behavior was also nothing like this sim portrays it. They do share the same incorrectly modeled forward view, however - not taking refraction into account. How that happened again after the storm that occurred in the original sim will remain a mystery to me.
novicebutdeadly Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 From my point of view (normally as a 109 "pilot"), after taking time to try to fly the butcher.- When using all 4 wing canons you should either be BNZ or ground attack.- If you fly with the outer guns removed, as long as you can get 100% from the engine (before it throttles you back) and you keep disciplined and just keep it in the vertical, provided that you have started with an E advantage as long as you are gentle with the controls you can handle any aircraft.Just remember when to hold em, when to fold em, when to walk away and when to RUN!!!!!!As a slight off topic, since I can't get any MP time due to no numbers/ ping I mainly play QMB, and as a 109 G2 "pilot", the only aircraft that I seem to struggle with is the Mig (I still win but it takes longer).
CUJO_1970 Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 Milo - do you own the sim? It just seems a little strange to have such an interest in these aircraft for years but not to fly them in the sim. As I was saying, you people that don't fly the sim won't ever understand the comparative FM of the FW-190 with the other aircraft in the sim, especially if you don't fly online against humans - humans being much better and deadlier than any AI. As a slight off topic, since I can't get any MP time due to no numbers/ ping I mainly play QMB, and as a 109 G2 "pilot", the only aircraft that I seem to struggle with is the Mig (I still win but it takes longer). You will be in for a bad shock at first if you ever start flying online against good human pilots. It's a whole new ballgame.
1Sascha Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 Und sie laufen! Naß und nässer wirds im Saal und auf den Stufen. Welch entsetzliches Gewässer! Herr und Meister! hör mich rufen! - Ach, da kommt der Meister! Herr, die Not ist groß! Die ich rief, die Geister werd ich nun nicht los. Ohh... been a while since someone quoted that to me.. :D My older brother had to memorize it for class when he was in 8th or 9th grade and I ended up knowing it by heart myself because I always had to listen to him reciting it when he was doing his homework... lol!
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 Sadly, google translate did not clarify much for me
DD_Arthur Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 Sadly, google translate did not clarify much for me Perhaps this will help 1
1Sascha Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) Perhaps this will help Well... credit where credit is due ... :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer%27s_Apprentice Translated version of the poem here: http://german.about.com/library/blgzauberl.htm S. Edited July 10, 2016 by 1Sascha 1
RAY-EU Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 By Atomic bomb ...bases ... planed the Victory . Jets planes were posponed for that bombs and V1 & V2
ZachariasX Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 By Atomic bomb ...bases ... planed the Victory . Jets planes were posponed for that bombs and V1 & V2 What dou you mean by all that? I just quoted the gold standard for Sashas's saying "I didn't mean that to happen!". It was not OT to Shasha's OT.
KoN_ Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 Come on guys BOS is on sale , buy the game then come here and put your thoughts into place on the 190 .
Dutchvdm Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 To be honest, i'm not a great fighter pilot and tend to fly ground attack most of the time. In that role i think the Fw is a peach. It's performance on the deck is great, even if it's acceleration isn't brilliant. I can't really comment on the fighter part, but i do admit that when trying to fight with it, i'm failing more often than not. But as an JABO aircraft it's very nice, and good fun. Grt M
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 It seems they have altered the engine a bit as well. I am getting less time in WEP and when the Kommandogerat reduces the engine now it makes the ATA and RPM guages bounce around the 2300 mark. It used to be a smooth reduction to 2400. It does recover if you manually reduce to 2300. Been observing this for about three days now. I didn't fly much for a couple of weeks and this was quite noticable upon my return.
Recommended Posts