CisTer-dB- Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) I am sorry to say but Crump is right, you just can't modified things at will without the proper approval. The question is how compliant the parties where in 1940 in the middle of a war? We see companies or government agency bending the rules, sometime their own rules, even in today world. I would be very surprise that it wasn't the case during a war, when you're own survival is at stake. That would explain how can you get so much conflicting reports, filings or procedures. Edited July 12, 2016 by ATAG_dB
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 It's mentioned in the manual as an option so there's no need to discuss this "modification" to be legal. Also the main discussion was about the technical feasebility of such a "modification", which surely was given, be it approaved or not.
JG13_opcode Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 I am sorry to say but Crump is right, you just can't modified things at will without the proper approval. The question is how compliant the parties where in 1940 in the middle of a war? We see companies or government agency bending the rules, sometime their own rules, even in today world. I would be very surprise that it wasn't the case during a war, when you're own survival is at stake. That would explain how can you get so much conflicting reports, filings or procedures. I never argued it can be done without approval. Further, the idea that all rules go out the window in war time is false. It is why disciplined militaries are successful, because they follow the rules for proper functioning of their equipment.
Crump Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 It's mentioned in the manual as an option so there's no need to discuss this "modification" to be legal. Also the main discussion was about the technical feasebility of such a "modification", which surely was given, be it approaved or not. And it is implicitly listed as an option in the Ladeplan's for the FW-190A4 and below. There is NO DOUBT those variants could have the outboard wing weapons removed at the pilots and operator level. The wing weapons were optional in the FW-190A4 and below. These aircraft had the shorter fuselage/engine compartment and did not represent an adverse loading condition. There is equally no doubt the FW-190A6 and above no longer offered this as an option and the wing weapons could not be removed by the operator. The exception is the FW-190A5 could have wing weapons removed ONLY if GM-1 was installed on the aircraft. Outside of that loading condition, removing the wing weapons was not an option without Type Certificate holder approval.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) So, For example, a current P-51 would have a type certificate - some are Experimental. Are you suggesting that end users contact the manufacturer each time they add or remove components or modify their airframes? They do need to clear them with the FAA but not the manufacturer. While I agree load and balance are critical, that is why we have published charts. There are considerable differences between the Normal and Public Use categories. Military AC fall into the latter group. Edited July 13, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf
Crump Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 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 Yellow square Bermerkung: Der Ausbau der Waffen ist zulässig. It is permitted to remove the Weapons. That is the information manual and is a true statement. Unfortunately it is only part of the story. The serial numbered loadsheet further clarifies that the only condition you can remove the outboard cannon is in place of GM-1. So, For example, a current P-51 would have a type certificate - some are Experimental. Are you suggesting that end users contact the manufacturer each time they add or remove components or modify their airframes? They do need to clear them with the FAA but not the manufacturer. While I agree load and balance are critical, that is why we have published charts. There are considerable differences between the Normal and Public Use categories. Military AC fall into the latter group. https://books.google.com/books?id=KZo5AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=P-51+Mustang+airworthiness&source=bl&ots=nzEE7SxWrp&sig=3BDy5ozKqDMZ4grBLN7r-ZDCc3Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjviNGB_fLNAhVEXh4KHSd_CVAQ6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=P-51%20Mustang%20airworthiness&f=false https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/limited/ Military aircraft by law are rendered un-airworthy when they are struck off charge except in limited and special circumstances for research/development. They can be purchased and made airworthy again only with the issuance of a special Type Certificate. All refer back to the Type Certificate issued by the manufacturer. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/7a09d53fb0d5325586257885004d9e1b/$FILE/8130.2G_CHG1_Incorporated.pdf All aircraft must conform to the Type Certificate regardless of who operates them. Here is an example of a limited type certificate: http://www.calpacificairmotive.com/LTC-11__rev_5.pdf
3./JG15_Kampf Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Someone noticed any other changes beyond what HerrMurf quoted on the engine and WEP? the devs change the fw 190 behavior while announcement about it? Edited July 14, 2016 by JAGER_Kampf
1CGS LukeFF Posted July 14, 2016 1CGS Posted July 14, 2016 Someone noticed any other changes beyond what HerrSurf quoted on the engine and WEP? the devs change the fw 190 behavior while announcement about it? No and No
Crump Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Guess this A-5 had GM-1 installed, Maybe... What is a fact is that it was NOT an option for the pilot or Geschwader to remove the outboard wing weapons without Focke Wulf, GmbH approval or involvement. Why don't you post some more details about that specific aircraft? So far EVERY one you have posted a picture of as "proof" has turned out to have perfectly good explanation that conforms with aviation convention and the ladeplan restrictions. In fact, not a single picture has been of a FW-190A5 fighter variant and I will bet this one is not either. I never argued it can be done without approval. Further, the idea that all rules go out the window in war time is false. It is why disciplined militaries are successful, because they follow the rules for proper functioning of their equipment. Very well said....
JtD Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Again, even though 5tuka already stated it - the Ladeplan states the guns can be removed. It also says a GM-1 system can be installed when the guns have been removed. Permissible as per all of Fw documentation for A-1 to A-5: - wing guns without GM-1 - GM-1 without wing guns - no wing guns, no GM-1 not allowed as per documentation (and physically impossible) - wing guns and GM-1
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Someone noticed any other changes beyond what HerrSurf quoted on the engine and WEP? the devs change the fw 190 behavior while announcement about it? HerrSurf? I Boogieboard on occasion but never surf! Luke, it's minor but it has been changed. 50 rpm and jumpy needle animation.
Willy__ Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Someone noticed any other changes beyond what HerrMurf quoted on the engine and WEP? the devs change the fw 190 behavior while announcement about it? It stills a pig machine, the butchered bird the devs wanted. No changes here.
MiloMorai Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Maybe... Maybe? Your the one that stated GM-1 had to be fitted if the outer cannons were removed. Another GM-1 ?? equipped Fw190A-5.
Crump Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Again, even though 5tuka already stated it - the Ladeplan states the guns can be removed. It also says a GM-1 system can be installed when the guns have been removed. Permissible as per all of Fw documentation for A-1 to A-5: It is quite clear in the language. Why don't you take a copy down to your local airfield and ask a mechanic what he thinks of it being "optional"? +) INSTEAD OF MGFF, GM-1 CAN BE INSTALLED. That is an either or situation. Nothing about simply removing the MGFF in a normal fighter variant. GM-1 installation is a completely seperate system that has nothing to do with the outboard MGFF outside of the additional weight in the back of the GM-1 system moving the forward CG back. On the ladeplan for all the FW-190A4 and below in which the MGFF IS AUTHORIZED to be removed, GM-1 system simply adds to the weight of the aircraft. Notice the early shorter fuselage Forward CG limit is .55m and not as far forward as the FW-190A5 fighter variants at .5M.
ZachariasX Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 +) INSTEAD OF MGFF, GM-1 CAN BE INSTALLED. That is an either or situation. Nothing about simply removing the MGFF in a normal fighter variant. Although it makes sense you saying that looking after the documents, syntactically that sentence it is not that specific as you say. Because if you can add an GM-1 instead of outward MG FF, it doesn't say that you MUST. If they meant it that way however, they would have been probably more specific about having the liberty of outboard loadout... The problem here seems to be that the CG is offset beyond tolerable limits. This putting one pound of lead (or whatever amount) in the tail can fix that. If the CG is right, Focke Wulf should have no reason signing you off on that so you can fight America in an FAA approved manner. Planes are fixed that way, especially after repairs that offset the CG. And authorities are fine with that. But the discussion here is really a bit of nitpicking. Back then, they flew those crates as they needed. They even put passengers in Me-109. Luggage in empty wing compartments in Spitfires, all stuff that is absolutely not mentioned in the manual. But they had screwdrivers and ingenious ground crew. Now when that was done, these were indeed special moments like ferry flights or evacuations. So there were surely exceptions to the rule. And I'm sure there were Fw-190 airborne at times in all states not conforming to the manuals. Thus I would not be surprised to see photographs of weird loadouts, like kegs mounted to a Spitfire to ferry beer. VERBOTEN! but a sensible thing to do. But that does not mean, that such configurations were operational configurations.
1CGS LukeFF Posted July 15, 2016 1CGS Posted July 15, 2016 Guys, it's pointless trying to argue with Crump. You'll get more constructive feedback arguing with a potted plant.
CisTer-dB- Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Although it makes sense you saying that looking after the documents, syntactically that sentence it is not that specific as you say. Because if you can add an GM-1 instead of outward MG FF, it doesn't say that you MUST. If they meant it that way however, they would have been probably more specific about having the liberty of outboard loadout... The problem here seems to be that the CG is offset beyond tolerable limits. This putting one pound of lead (or whatever amount) in the tail can fix that. If the CG is right, Focke Wulf should have no reason signing you off on that so you can fight America in an FAA approved manner. Planes are fixed that way, especially after repairs that offset the CG. And authorities are fine with that. But the discussion here is really a bit of nitpicking. Back then, they flew those crates as they needed. They even put passengers in Me-109. Luggage in empty wing compartments in Spitfires, all stuff that is absolutely not mentioned in the manual. But they had screwdrivers and ingenious ground crew. Now when that was done, these were indeed special moments like ferry flights or evacuations. So there were surely exceptions to the rule. And I'm sure there were Fw-190 airborne at times in all states not conforming to the manuals. Thus I would not be surprised to see photographs of weird loadouts, like kegs mounted to a Spitfire to ferry beer. VERBOTEN! but a sensible thing to do. But that does not mean, that such configurations were operational configurations. If my memory is right all that is because whether or not the cannon should be a unlock features since it was with cannon as standard on the FW190 I don't think it should. Again Crump none of your picture are visible on your posting
Brano Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 They are visible for me. Must be problem on your side 1
ZachariasX Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 If my memory is right all that is because whether or not the cannon should be a unlock features since it was with cannon as standard on the FW190 I don't think it should. Again Crump none of your picture are visible on your posting I fear the unlock, not the potted plant... IF we had unofficial loadouts, (why not? then again, why?) at least one should have effect of an affected CG or drag etc modelled. You could have a mission ferrying beer or people, albeit with an aircraft that "doesn't have a good FM anymore". Would add possibilities to creating missions. Then again, such should hardly be first priority. Btw, I can see the pics he's posting. No Idea what's wrong there...
CisTer-dB- Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 They are visible for me. Must be problem on your side That's weird, it doesn't here not on Chrome, Explorer nor Firefox.
ZachariasX Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 That's weird, it doesn't here not on Chrome, Explorer nor Firefox. http://tinypic.com/ This page work for you? I think he puts the docs there.
CisTer-dB- Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 http://tinypic.com/ This page work for you? I think he puts the docs there. That's why it's blocked over here. It's the price to pay when you like in the sand pit
MiloMorai Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Fw190A-9 of 4./JG301 Blue7 WNr202565 (crashed after combat 26.11.44 at Bückeburg 26.11.44, pilot Fw. Emil Schubert killed) Notice the patch where the outer wing cannon should be. According to our resident aviation expert this a/c this a/c should have GM-1 fitted except for the fact that GM-1 was never fitted on operational Fw190As.
Crump Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 While it might seem that the Information manual and the serial numbered load sheet conflict. The reality is they do not and both say the exact same thing. All one has to do is look at the authorized configurations listed by Rustsatze type. Look at the Type I thru IV Fighter variants listed. These are the approved Operational Configurations. In the FW-190A4 and below, it is clearly listed that the Type I Fighter is the variant with the MGFF's removed. This is how all the Rustsatze are listed for the FW-190A4 and below fighter variants where the removal of the outboard MGFF's was authorized. FW-190A4 and below. In this case, it is the FW-190A3 Information manual. It clealy lists the Type I Rustsatze as having the outboard weapons removed. Rustsatze could be modified and changed between Type I thru Type IV by the Geschwader. Rustsatze are maintenance kits the squadrons have on hand and can change the aircraft configuration at will. They are not to be confused with Rustzustand and Umrustsatze which are factory applied kits. FW-190A5 however, offers no such Rustsatze kit that allows the removal of the outboard MGFF's. Fw190A-9 of 4./JG301 Blue7 WNr202565 (crashed after combat 26.11.44 at Bückeburg 26.11.44, pilot Fw. Emil Schubert killed) That is an FW-190A9/R11 Milo. It is a different animal altogether from a normal FW-190A9 fighter variant. It has a lot of "junk in the trunk" in the form of a single axis autopilot, servos, and repeater compass/gyro slaved to the autopilot and radio guidance system for all weather interceptions. That is an Rustzustand kit and factory applied. http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html
JtD Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 The problem here seems to be that the CG is offset beyond tolerable limits.It's not, don't worry. In addition to removing the outboard guns, Fw also cleared the removal of all rearward armour. There was plenty of reserve towards the forward limit.
JG13_opcode Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) Although it makes sense you saying that looking after the documents, syntactically that sentence it is not that specific as you say. Because if you can add an GM-1 instead of outward MG FF, it doesn't say that you MUST. If they meant it that way however, they would have been probably more specific about having the liberty of outboard loadout... Military writing is often ambiguous like this. The people who write it are not linguists. I wouldn't make the case based on what the English syntax implies after it's been translated from the original German. Edited July 15, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode
Crump Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 I am sorry but anyone can speculate. Guesswork and speculation aside, what the ladeplan shows is crystal clear. There is no Rustsatze that allows for the outboard wing weapon removal in the FW-190A5 and above. It is that simple. It's not, don't worry. In addition to removing the outboard guns, Fw also cleared the removal of all rearward armour. There was plenty of reserve towards the forward limit. ohhh!! And which Rustsatze would that be???? None...it did not happen for the FW-190A5 and above normal fighter variant nor was it something "optional" at the Geschwader.
Crump Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Although it makes sense you saying that looking after the documents, syntactically that sentence it is not that specific as you say. Because if you can add an GM-1 instead of outward MG FF, it doesn't say that you MUST. If they meant it that way however, they would have been probably more specific about having the liberty of outboard loadout... Exactly. If they meant you can just remove the outboard weapons at will in the FW-190A5, they would have simply stated it and listed the Rustsatze as Type I like the earlier variants which it was allowed to remove the outboard wing weapons. There is no Rustsatze for an FW-190A5 or above normal fighter without wing weapons. You can run the math and confirm the adverse load condition that can be created at certain empty weight CG locations. Because of those adverse load conditions that can be created, it makes perfect sense and complies with aviation convention as to why Focke Wulf, GmbH would want to maintain control of their design. If they allowed an adverse load condition to be created, the accidents would be blamed on them!
Dakpilot Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) Which FW190 do we have... I would suggest people who have no interest in BoS/BoM/Bo? please go back to your other forums and argue there The amount of people who do not own or fly BoS who clutter up things with no intention of any real input amazes me.. whether an FW190-5 or A6 can do whatever is irrelevant, please all of you **** *** this is not for FM, maybe for historical discussions right or wrong how many times does this [Edited] have to come up...... Cheers Dakpilot Edited July 17, 2016 by Bearcat
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 ********* ******** Cheers HerrMurf *couldn't resist or agree more
Crump Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Which FW190 do we have... An FW-190A3 Type I that stalls at the speed an FW-190A3 Type II should stall at last time I checked the data. 1
RAY-EU Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) FW190 A... Was better german fighter in all aspects with the four 20 mm canons than the Bf 109 F & G . 'Argue by most germany Aces like Adolf Galland in history WW2 ' . And in In Il2 BOS is the Oposite compared Bf 109 F & G except the the speed .!? Edited July 16, 2016 by RAY-EU
Dr_Molem Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 An FW-190A3 Type I that stalls at the speed an FW-190A3 Type II should stall at last time I checked the data. Because an FW-190A-3 type II should have an 1G stall speed of 185 kph..? It is not... a bit TOO much ?
Crump Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 It is not... a bit TOO much ? Best case scenario it is ~3% pessimistic. That is assuming absolutely no Position Error Correction is applied to the measured Indicated Airspeeds for the FW-190A3 stall speed in clean configuration. No PEC correction is of course, an impossibility. Factoring in typical PEC increases the error considerably. If PEC are not considered in your game, then you will be looking at a 20% or higher error in the relative performance depending on the match up. 1
Crump Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 It would really help you guys in researching the limitations of these airplanes if you guys knew the priority of information, processes, and requirements. As others have pointed out, the Air Forces of the 1940's did in fact follow these laws and regulations. There is no reason to PM me with things that are already discussed in the thread if you are going to get mad when the answer has not changed. The Luftwaffe did follow the rules and regulations of the RLM. The RLM did follow aviation convention. All this can summed up in one simple question......What is FW-190A5 Rustatze for the variant without outboard wing weapons? The answer is there is not one.
Crump Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 And in In Il2 BOS is the Oposite compared Bf 109 F & G except the the speed .!? The historical performance is a result of the excess power characteristics that speed advantage represents.
MiloMorai Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 What is FW-190A5 Rustatze for the variant without outboard wing weapons? The answer is there is not one. Rustatze 6 where the outer cannons were removed. Later the cannons didn't have to be removed.
Crump Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Rustatze 6 where the outer cannons were removed. Later the cannons didn't have to be removed. No, that would Rustzustand 6 and is factory applied. Focke Wulf Instructions Nr. 123 (Technical Order that explains the Wgr 21 system and its application on the FW-190A5/A6) are the previous instructions for this Umrustsatze / Rustzustand and the manual is clear the fact those instructions are superseded by the the published instruction from January 1944. That is NOT a Rustsatze kit. The Rustsatze are clearly listed on the Ladeplan while the Rustzustand are found in the Ersatzteilliste introduction. The information manual's very first sentence of the explains that different planes of the FW-190 series are to be found with this Rustzustand kit installed. The chapter is also very clear that these are a redesignated as FW-190A5/R6. The Rustsatze listed on the ladeplan do not require a new designation. A Type 1 FW-190A5 normal fighter variant is NOT an FW-190A5/R1. The R1, like the R6 is a Rustzustand kit and requires a new designation on the data plate. This is something a Geschwader is issued or applies a kit under factory authority as the aircraft is redesignated.
Recommended Posts