Undefined

[Crump]

 

That is a highly creative way of dancing around the point.

 

 

Nothing creative about it.  Only someone authorized by the aviation authority can return an aircraft to service.  That means an engineer, the manufacturer, or anyone else delegated the authority such as a mechanic under specified conditions.  It does not matter who works on it or what they do.  That is how aircraft owners can save a ton of money.

 

For example, you can take out your own engine at overhaul time.  I know lots of owners who do that. 

 

You can perform any repair you want in fact on your own airplane.  You just cannot fly the airplane again until a certified A&P inspects the work and signs the logbook.  The hard part is finding an A&P who is willing to do that.  How do you think someone becomes an A&P under the experience regulations?  They work under the supervision of an A&P.  They just cannot sign off on anything until they get their own certification.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Crump

[Sternjaeger]

It is not a later series it is just a later production batch.  Same wing.

 

I can show you the log books of several airplanes that have later production wings.  When I was finishing up my A&P, we replaced the wing on a B-33 Bonanza with a later production wing.  Same exact wing, just a higher serial number!

 

In fact just about every airplane in existence that has required a wing replacement has a "later production" replacement, LOL.

 

It is NOT the same wing. The wings of Macchi 200s were of same length, the 202 and 205 ones were asymmetrical to compensate for torque. Within the same Macchi models (202 for instance) there were at least 7 different production series and 5 different versions of wings, each bearing bigger or smaller modifications (and not just structural, but also of armament). As if that was not enough, 202s were produced by three different makers, so there were minimal yet noticeable small differences (and no, it's not just about the paint scheme.. ).

 

You're doing it again, you're comparing your modern GA with WW2 warbirds. Let me repeat this to you for the umpteenth time: GA modern aircraft and WW2 warbirds are NOT the same thing. The operational theatres, logistics, certifications, tools are NOT the same. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[LukeFF]

It does not have to be in a manual to be authorized for a one time use.  It just has to be authorized.

 

You can bet the Technical Officer and engineering staff did a weight and balance calcs and gave the word "go" for such extreme cases.  It sure wasn't either a normal military operation nor often repeated. 

 

Do you know the consequences of flying an aircraft out of limits or have any idea of the technical qualities that define those limits?

 

So, you're trying to tell me the (documented, mind you) times that a pilot landed to pick up a downed airman, that he radioed back to base, asked for the TO to do some load calculations, and only then he attempted to take off with said extra passenger? 

[MiloMorai]

Yes Luke be sure that would have to be done.

 

The Germans took the time to calculate the new CG position when they stuffed 2 people into the rear fuselage of a Fw190A in the their rush to get out of the Kurland Pocket. Nothing like 100kg way behind the max rear CG limit.

[wastel]

I'm out of this kindergarten here.

 

Finally the game will be biased like the old IL2 was.

 

"our documents (we never sah) are better than your document" TM Oleg M.

[NZTyphoon]

It is not a later series it is just a later production batch.  Same wing.

 

Oh? And you know this with absolute certainty because you know the particulars of the Macchi 202 in question before it had the replacement wing, and you know the particulars, such as the weight and construction features, of that replacement wing?

 

I don't have to know the specific differences, I just have to know that Operating limitations are airframe specific not engine specific. In other words, what goes for the Bf-110 has absolutely nothing to do with what goes for the Bf-109.

 

Wow! Crump actually admitted he doesn't know some aviation related things!       But then he tries to tell us that the airframe dictates the engine's operating limits, not the engine, not the supercharger, or the fuel. Wonder how many engine manufacturers understand that it doesn't really matter how their engines perform independently of the airframes, because once the engine is installed in an aircraft, they might as well scrap all of the testing and calculations made outside of that airframe.

Edited February 28, 2014 by NZTyphoon

[Rama]

Why would you think that represents unauthorized repairs?

I don't "think", I know, and I gave you exemples.

And the "debrouillardise" don't apply only to repairs, but also to modifications, like adding resistances (connected to the position lights) to heat the pneumatic gun command circuit to avoid it freezing.

 

BTW, thinking of this and of another topic about gun delay. The length of the pneumatic circuit induced a firing delay of 2 to 3 tenth of second after pulling the trigger (for the MS406 and D520). It's probably specific to these planes, but it's an exemple the delay may exist in some cases.

[Rama]

 It sure wasn't either a normal military operation nor often repeated. 

In Normandie-Niemenn, it was a "normal military operation" each time the GC changed home airbase. They took their primary mechanics as passenger, climbing in by a visit trap and finding a place in a narrow space inside the fuselage (in order to be quickly ready for operations, since the rest of the maintenance staff would only reach the new base by road, many days after).

It even provocated the death of a pilot, when his engine caught fire while near the base, he refused to jump and to abandon his mechanician (without parachute and unable to open the visit trap from inside), and tried a crash landing instead.

 

Do you know the consequences of flying an aircraft out of limits or have any idea of the technical qualities that define those limits?

Yes we know... and exactly what you seem's unable to understand, is that in war time, more risk is acceptable, and so the limits are not the same (and it also apply today, I could give you many exemples).

When I was finishing up my A&P, we replaced the wing on a B-33 Bonanza with a later production wing.

I fail to see how what you did on a Bonanza is any proof of what was done on Macchi during WWII....

Finally the game will be biased like the old IL2 was.

Dev are not involved in this discussion. I don't see the link between it and your conclusion.... Can you elaborate how do you reach this conclusion?

 

Or is it just a way to try a "free" bashing of the game?

[Kurfurst]

But then he tries to tell us that the airframe dictates the engine's operating limits, not the engine, not the supercharger, or the fuel. Wonder how many engine manufacturers understand that it doesn't really matter how their engines perform independently of the airframes, because once the engine is installed in an aircraft, they might as well scrap all of the testing and calculations made outside of that airframe.

 

And Crump is entirely right that the airframe also dictates the engine's operating limits. Engine manufacturers guarantee these operating limits provided that certain requirements are met - sufficient oil and fuel pressure, supercharger intake performance, oil, coolant and even spark plug operating temperatures. Oil viscosity for example is largely effected by external temperature, and therefore lubrication may be insufficent under polar winter or tropical conditions but suitable under European summer conditions. Bad design of the airframe air intake may cause too little or too much ram, feeding of exhaust gases into the air intake and thus knocking, reducement of rated altitude or power.

 

The use of +16 lbs boost had to be limited to 3 minutes of the Mark V Spitfire, for example, due to inadequate cooling provided by the coolant system by the Mark V airframe, or for example on the 109G, extra inlets for cooling the spark plugs had to be provided on the engine cowling to maintain their operational temperature.

Finally the game will be biased like the old IL2 was.

 

"our documents (we never sah) are better than your document" TM Oleg M.

 

That's a bit unfair, Oleg was usually sceptical of fan suggestions (no wonder given how things went at the UbiZoo), but if sufficient documentation could be provided, he was quite convincable.

 

After all that's how we got the 1.98ata 109K-4, to everyone's bu the Red's delight.

[Kurfurst]

What is absolutely certain is that the continual changes in the maximum allowable boost pressure must have had pilots and ground crews tearing their hair out in frustration - one month, yes you can use 1.42 ata, next month, use of 1.42 ata is blocked, followed by a month later by okay- you can use 1.42 ata, only to discover that it could no longer be used a few weeks later.

 

I am not sure what you are getting at, Jeff. The DB 605A entered service with 1.3 ata, there was never a service cleared 1.42ata rating beforehand. Apparently it went up briefly to 1.42ata in late 1942, but it took about a year to get an ultimate clearances.

 

A bit confusing indeed, but probably not as confusing as having different manuals ratings and parts for Merlin 45, 46, 47, 61, 61, 63, 66 67, 70 all the same time.

 

By contrast, RAF fighter pilots during the Battle of Britain knew that +12lbs boost and 100 Octane was always available.

 

Well at least during those two weeks they were stationed at the 100 octane supplied Stations concerned, before relocated to some 87 octane concerned station.

 

Though I would definitely agree in that there were way more consistency in the RAF in many ways in contrast of the Luftwaffe - a RAF pilot in 1940, if he survived the year (for which he had about close to zero chance statistically) could make a pretty sure bet that he would be still flying four years later an aircraft aircraft with pretty much the same performance as the Spitfire I of 1940, on the same fuel from the same base over the same fields of Kent. Some maybe even raised a family with some nice WAAF.

Edited February 28, 2014 by VO101Kurfurst

[Rama]

Ok, I moved all the off-topic of the Bf109 G2 G4 there.

The new discussion may not be fully understandable, since on topic and off topic were quite intricate in the previous thread... but at least it cleans the other one.

And if Crump want to give us the extraordinary proofs of his extraordinary claim that no "not in maintenance procedures" field mods were ever made and no planes using these mods ever flown during WWII, or for the other extraordinary claim that safety margins are the same in peacetime and wartime... He can do it in this thread. But he's asked to avoid to add off-topic noise in other threads with these claims.

[Crump]

 

I don't "think", I know, and I gave you exemples.

And the "debrouillardise" don't apply only to repairs, but also to modifications, like adding resistances (connected to the position lights) to heat the pneumatic gun command circuit to avoid it freezing.

 

 

You have not given a single example of anything that has proved to be "unauthorized". 

[Sternjaeger]

You have not given a single example of anything that has proved to be "unauthorized". 

 

there's no hope with you man, you'll never admit you're wrong, you can't help it.

[MiloMorai]

You have not given a single example of anything that has proved to be "unauthorized". 

 

Maybe not in other AFs but you have stated many times that any modification in the Luftwaffe had to be cleared by a higher authority like the manufacturer and/or the RLM.

[Rama]

You have not given a single example of anything that has proved to be "unauthorized". 

Yes I did.

When I told you that different modification were done by different squadrons mechanics to solve the same problem, you should use simple logic and conclude that there was no report about these modifications before they were tested in flight in the squadron, no maintenance procedure and not even advices by the firm ingeneers. And there wasn't any, there were enough mechanic diaries to prove it.

Of course you can twist your previous argumentation and argue that it was authorized by the squadron leader, yes it was probably.... but this isn't what you claimed.

 

Again, what you absolutely not understand is war context. When a pilot can't use his guns because the pneumatic circuit is freezing, he does'nt need a fix after a few weeks when the problem has been reported, studied, some solution found and the maintenance and operation manuals updated.... he need a fix in the next day... or at least a fix attempt.

And that's exactly what the mechanics were doing, trying to fix stuff the quiskest possible way.... and there are thousands of field modifications you even never heard about, because they just proved unsuccessfull.

 

And about another exemple. Do you think  passenger carying was aproved by Yakovlev ingeneers? and that a procedure was written for that... you really think that?

Please stop arguing just for the sake of it....it's really anoying.

 

BTW, you make the extraordinary claim that every modification had to be authorized, not me.

So the burden on the proof, including on the exemple I gave you... is on you.

If you can't proove that the exemples that I gave you were authorized modifications, then you have nothing.

[NZTyphoon]

Though I would definitely agree in that there were way more consistency in the RAF in many ways in contrast of the Luftwaffe - a RAF pilot in 1940, if he survived the year (for which he had about close to zero chance statistically) could make a pretty sure bet that he would be still flying four years later an aircraft aircraft with pretty much the same performance as the Spitfire I of 1940, on the same fuel from the same base over the same fields of Kent. Some maybe even raised a family with some nice WAAF.

Apart from the crude characterisation  - and total lack of respect for the RAF and its pilots, many of whom gave their all - I have no doubt that you can provide a detailed breakdown of the facts, figures and primary source documents that have led you to this conclusion?

[Rama]

Ok, better to stop this one there.