Crump Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 Let's get back on the topic... PM me Manu if you have any questions or do not think what I posted above makes sense to you. I will point in the the direction to read the conventions and learn for yourself.
MiloMorai Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) It is the manual and the bauenmaster sheet of what is interchangeable between FW-190 variants but does not fit the timeline for Kuban. GM-1 one was approved for use after March 1944. In fact, it was tested on an FW-190A5... Lots of stuff was in manuals but not in the a/c. For example, GM1 is in the Fw190A-8 (notice the correct nomenclature) manual but never used. The Fw190A-5 GT+IH was a test mule as the Fw190A-5s was almost non-existent in front line service from mid 1944 on. edit fixed error Edited October 29, 2016 by MiloMorai
Crump Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 MW50 is in the Fw190A-8 (notice the correct nomenclature) manual but never used. Is not in the FW-190A8 manual anywhere...
JtD Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 About cooling gills on A-5. Wondering how big speed gain is achieved by closing those little gills? They look pretty insignificant to me.They are not, drag created by airflow through the engine/cooling installation is one of the biggest drag sources on WW2 fighters. In case of the Fw190 as a figher, closing these gills would increase speed by about 20km/h, exact figures depending on altitude and other conditions.
Crump Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 Lots of stuff was in manuals but not in the a/c. For example, GM1 is in the Fw190A-8 (notice the correct nomenclature) manual but never used. OK but GM-1 was used in the FW-190A8. Priller himself was part of the operational testing! Now you are making blanket statements that you cannot prove. If it was approved in the manual, it was available for use. End of Story. That is a legal document for operating the aircraft. For the FW-190A5, the fighters have no boost system outside of 1.42ata@2700U/min. The bomber and ground attack variants have C3-Einspritzung that can only be used under 1000m.
Crump Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 Why wouldn't you want to use GM-1 in an FW-190A8? Erhöhte Notleistung was a straight manifold pressure increase based on design changes to the piston and cylinder sleeves. Outside of the line tapping into the KG manifold pressure regulator to fool it into delivering the extra manifold pressure there was not much to it. That just saved having to redesign the KG and the detent plate for the power lever. Any GM-1 equipped FW-190A8 would have both emergency power systems available to it. It could use 1.58ata/1.65ata and GM-1.
Crump Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 An 85Liter GM-1 tank is much lighter than a 115liter fuel tank when filled up.
MiloMorai Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 The MK103 was operationally tested on the Fw190 and listed as a /R option. For the FW-190A5, the fighters have no boost system outside of 1.42ata@2700U/min. Now you say the Fw190A-5 (note the correct nomenclature) has no boost system. GM-1 one was approved for use after March 1944. An 85Liter GM-1 tank is much lighter than a 115liter fuel tank when filled up. Where was the GM1 tank placed in the a/c?
Brano Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 Every car has several components which functionality is regulated by law. As example safety devices like airbag and it's deployment. Every part/process of airbag system must by trackable back so in case of accident investigation can start. So it's not only aviation,Crump,automotive has also it's rules dictated by law.
Crump Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 Every car has several components which functionality is regulated by law. As example safety devices like airbag and it's deployment. Every part/process of airbag system must by trackable back so in case of accident investigation can start. So it's not only aviation,Crump,automotive has also it's rules dictated by law. Of course and I am sure that is case. However, automobiles are not regulated in the scope and detail of aircraft. Now you say the Fw190A-5 (note the correct nomenclature) has no boost system. An FW-190A5 is the air superiority fighter variant only.... It gets a new designation if it is a ground attack or bomber variant. Maybe you can write a few of them with the correct nomenclature for us? 1
Crump Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) The MK103 was operationally tested on the Fw190 and listed as a /R option. It is not found in any operating instructions. Just because it received a designation has nothing to do with operational use. Here is the list of applicable publications for the FW190A series as of March 1943. The Germans are lazy (or super efficient depending on your point of view) and just publish a list of current pubs to reference as to what belongs to what. <jk> Hey...here is one for the Spitfire Mk I!! The RAF makes you log each update in the POH because it is British and as the only people to venture out in the mid-day sun they must adhere to the "mad dogs and englishmen principle". <jk> At least the English attempt to keep things "tidy".<jk> Their former colonist in the United States during the 1940's just left a big blank spot to fill in the revisions until the next manual printing, LOL. While it is the same principle, the FAA has since issued further guidance on keeping track of updates, LMAO!!<jk> The principle is all the same and adheres to aviation convention. The Operating Instructions will be updated, those updates kept track off and the operating limitations contained in them carried the weight of law. Edited October 29, 2016 by Crump
Crump Posted October 30, 2016 Posted October 30, 2016 So triggered right now. Many moons ago Ensign Rekt was the poor bastard keeping track of the paper revisions of manuals and file copies of 'effective' General Messages. Now all constantly up to date and instantly available on the computer. So much for the 'Good Old Days'! Yep, it is kind of big deal in aviation to keep it all up to date. The FAA frequently inspects us and will violate both the pilots and the company if the QRH, CFM, or FOM are not updated or the updates available in the cockpit. I have wasted way too many hours of my life as has every professional pilot (military and civilian) pulling out old pages and inserting the new..... 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now