 | 
07-21-2007, 01:55 PM
|
#136 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,455
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter368  Chris you are an expert on this, I don't know you real well but is it safe to say the following: |  I would not say that. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hunter Chris were you ever able to and did modify a chopper to get better perforce out of it? | No the Army does not allow us to do so. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hunter Did you ever modify a chopper to carry a different weapon then it was meant to carry? | Yes.... Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hunter Did you ever modify a chopper to carry instraments that were not standard with the chopper? | No the Army does not allow this. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Hunter While I am sure Chris is a very good tech, I doubt that he is one of a kind or best on the planet (no slight meant Chris  ). | None taken. There are plenty of mechanics out there with way more experience than myself.
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | 
|  | |
07-21-2007, 02:47 PM
|
#137 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 3,097
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter368 People often get too hung up over plane stats that were produced under optimum conditions.....which never really happened under real battle conditions. | Amen brother! Wars are not won by sexy performance charts.
__________________
If the Army and the Navy ever look on heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 09:47 AM
|
#138 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by mkloby Amen brother! Wars are not won by sexy performance charts. | Agreed
__________________ 
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 09:49 AM
|
#139 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet I would not say that.
No the Army does not allow us to do so.
Yes....
No the Army does not allow this.
None taken. There are plenty of mechanics out there with way more experience than myself. | But you understand the point I was trying to make? If it were not for all the US Army rules stopping you.......you "could" or "were capable" of doing all of the above.
Correct?
__________________
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 11:57 AM
|
#140 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,455
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter368 But you understand the point I was trying to make? If it were not for all the US Army rules stopping you.......you "could" or "were capable" of doing all of the above.
Correct? | Yeap
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 12:07 PM
|
#141 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country: | So yet there is another reason why some people should not get "too" hung up on designer stats on planes. The ground crews very often modified their pilot's planes, in one way or another that affected it's flight characteristics.
__________________
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 12:36 PM
|
#142 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 2,131
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter368 So yet there is another reason why some people should not get "too" hung up on designer stats on planes. The ground crews very often modified their pilot's planes, in one way or another that affected it's flight characteristics. | Hunter - I'm not at all sure of that - at least in the context of USAAF. Cass Hough and Pappy Gunn are two legends - who actually went through channels to a degree to make the Mods in a Service Group or in concert with say RAF for field modifications...
The 'heavy' nose for B-25's, the cheek guns for the B-25/26 in the pacific, the forward firing .50 cal guns in nose of B-17E and F' before the G incorporated the chin turret are examples of that. The exotic grafting of the B-24 Nose (with turret) on a B-17 is another example..plus Malcom Hood inst'l were performed (80+hour) at Service Group level
I have never seen or heard of examples of external (structural) changes made at the 'Line Chief' level.. On the other hand field installations of K-14 gunsights to retrofit to 51's to replace N-3/7's as well changes made to feed belts to reduce stoppages in both .50 cal (51D/K) and 20mm occurred at that level, found to be good and ECO's were propagated across Combat Groups while the changes/recommendations were passed back to Wright Pat and the MFR.
You might have some examples that contradict this during WWII?
Regards,
Bill | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 12:40 PM
|
#143 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,568
| Quote: |
Facts, Soren - toujours facts - where are your facts on any 109 out turning a 51 at high speed? and 'magnitudes better up to 300mph'?
| Does power-loading & lift-loading ring a bell Bill ??? Quote: |
I can do that math - the plural says at least 100 times better, singular says only 10 times faster.. ??
| LoL, can you ?? Show me please!
Looking forward to this ! Quote: |
would you say that your powers of exageration are unsurpassed?
| No but I'd say yours certainly are ! Quote: |
Show us the turn circle or time graphs at low medium and high altitude for low medium and high speeds in any flight test document you care to cite - US or Brit or German and you would have some credibility on this subject..
| LoL, ofcourse you want us to believe the graph done by the RAE & AFDU ! You want to ignore the fact that the British test-pilots got scared shitless everytime the slats deployed and aborted the maneuver entirely. And if you don't believe me then go read the docs, there's plenty of mentioning of this. AFDU "the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"
Oblivious to the British pilots the slats opened WAY before the critical AoA was reached = the a/c wasn't even approaching a stall !
The confusion regarding the function of the slats could've been avoided had the RAF contacted Handley Page. Quote: |
And last, but not least - It (the 109, the aces plane) was so 'unbeatable that it only lost some 10-20,000 fights? What is your definition of 'beatable'??
| LoL, what a load of pro-allied bias again !
No wonder Mike Williams presents your posts on his site
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland
Last edited by Soren : 07-23-2007 at 12:53 PM.
| |
| | |
07-23-2007, 01:00 PM
|
#144 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog Hunter - I'm not at all sure of that - at least in the context of USAAF. Cass Hough and Pappy Gunn are two legends - who actually went through channels to a degree to make the Mods in a Service Group or in concert with say RAF for field modifications...
The 'heavy' nose for B-25's, the cheek guns for the B-25/26 in the pacific, the forward firing .50 cal guns in nose of B-17E and F' before the G incorporated the chin turret are examples of that. The exotic grafting of the B-24 Nose (with turret) on a B-17 is another example..plus Malcom Hood inst'l were performed (80+hour) at Service Group level
I have never seen or heard of examples of external (structural) changes made at the 'Line Chief' level.. On the other hand field installations of K-14 gunsights to retrofit to 51's to replace N-3/7's as well changes made to feed belts to reduce stoppages in both .50 cal (51D/K) and 20mm occurred at that level, found to be good and ECO's were propagated across Combat Groups while the changes/recommendations were passed back to Wright Pat and the MFR.
You might have some examples that contradict this during WWII?
Regards,
Bill | You used two examples I had thought of regarding US machines, but I have more knowledge of German planes and their history.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying every Tom Dick and Harry mod his plane.....I am just saying it was not rare to seen it done.
Guns added, removed (more then one P-47 pilot did that), guns upgraded, guns down graded, armor added, armor removed, different paint schemes (which affect speed greatly), waxing (added speed), cigar holders added (not that changed flight char. but it was funny), radios removed, ammo loads changed, etc etc. Many were done and done through unofficial levels. Every example I listed I have read about and I am sure I have missed some.
I am sure others (and you) could add more. How many planes out of say 100 were modified......I am not sure. But there was some that is forsure.
__________________
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 04:45 PM
|
#145 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 2,131
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter368 You used two examples I had thought of regarding US machines, but I have more knowledge of German planes and their history.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying every Tom Dick and Harry mod his plane.....I am just saying it was not rare to seen it done.
Guns added, removed (more then one P-47 pilot did that), guns upgraded, guns down graded, armor added, armor removed, different paint schemes (which affect speed greatly), waxing (added speed), cigar holders added (not that changed flight char. but it was funny), radios removed, ammo loads changed, etc etc. Many were done and done through unofficial levels. Every example I listed I have read about and I am sure I have missed some.
I am sure others (and you) could add more. How many planes out of say 100 were modified......I am not sure. But there was some that is forsure. | i'm sure you are correct about all the examples you cited and more.. I'm also aware of co-axial cable and mast change, etc - but the structural stuff I'm pretty sure of also | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 05:10 PM
|
#146 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 2,131
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren Does power-loading & lift-loading ring a bell Bill ???
Oh, absolutely Soren, Does aerodynamics, combined with stick forces ring a bell with you? Mustang Tacical Trials
BRIEF COMPARISON WITH Me.109G
Maximum Speed
45. The Mustang III is faster at all heights. Its best heights, by comparison, are below 16,000ft (30mph faster approx) and above 25,000ft (30mph increasing to 50mph at 30,000ft).
Maximum climb
46. This is rather similar. The Mustang is very slightly better above 25,000ft but worse below 20,000ft.
Zoom Climb
47. Unfortunately the Me. 109G appears to have a very good high-speed climb, making the aircraft very similar in a zoom climb.
Dive
48. On the other hand in defense the Mustang can still increase the range in a prolonged dive.
Turning Circle
49. The Mustang III is greatly superior.
Rate of Roll
50. Not much to choose. In defense (in a tight spot) a rapid change of direction will throw the Me.109G’s sight off. This is because the 109G’s maximum roll is embarrassing (slots keep opening)
Conclusions
51. In attack, the Mustang can always catch the Me.109G, except in any sort of climb (unless there is a high overtaking speed). In defense, a steep turn should be the first maneuver, followed if necessary, by a dive (below 20,000ft). A high-speed climb will unfortunately not increase the range. If above 25,000ft. keep above by climbing or all out level.
, can you ?? Show me please! BRIEF COMPARISON WITH FW. 190 (BMW.801D)
Maximum speed
39. The FW.190 is nearly 50mph slower at all heights, increasing to 70mph above 28,000ft. It is anticipated that the new FW.190 (DB.603) might be slightly faster below 27,000ft but slower above that height.
Climb
40. There appears to be little to choose in the maximum rate of climb. It is anticipated that the Mustang III will have a better maximum climb than the new FW.190 (DB.603). The Mustang is considerably faster at all heights in a zoom climb.
Dive
41. The Mustang can always out-dive the FW.190.
Turning circle
42. Again there is not much to choose. The Mustang is slightly better. When evading an enemy aircraft with a steep turn, a pilot will always out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds. It is therefore still a worthwhile maneuver with the Mustang III when attacked.
Rate of Roll
43. Not even a Mustang III approaches the FW.190.
Looking forward to this !
LoL, ofcourse you want us to believe the graph done by the RAE & AFDU ! You want to ignore the fact that the British test-pilots got scared shitless everytime the slats deployed and aborted the maneuver entirely. And if you don't believe me then go read the docs, there's plenty of mentioning of this. Facts Soren?, Facts and data are a problem for you.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg All you have to do of course is find a referencable expert source to negate this and representative trial data to refute this... which for 60 days you have avoided - because it dowsn't exist!
No wonder Mike Williams presents your posts on his site | I expect Mr Williams has some respect for my scholarship, and will soon be posting one Erich and I and two other gentlemen from 357FG and 384BG will be posting about 24 April, 1944.
BTW - you have not been able to find sources or published documents to refute this example of 24 April - nor will you Soren.. You just cannot bear the thought of those mongrels from America outfighting your ancestors over your own territory - particularly if you held the advantage.. simply unthinkable!
Until you actually post sources and facts Soren you are an uniformed waste of time - | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 07:43 PM
|
#147 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country: | Drgondog and Soren,
Guys keep it polite, debate sure but no name calling needed or insulting someone's homeland.
__________________
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 07:45 PM
|
#148 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog i'm sure you are correct about all the examples you cited and more.. I'm also aware of co-axial cable and mast change, etc - but the structural stuff I'm pretty sure of also | I think we both agree, lots of changes but very few if any "structural" changes done.
But one does not need to make structural changes to change a plane's performance.
__________________
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
07-23-2007, 08:12 PM
|
#149 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,969
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter368 Drgondog and Soren,
Guys keep it polite, debate sure but no name calling needed or insulting someone's homeland. | Agree; folks, keep it civil or I'm going to lock this thread...
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | 
| | |
07-24-2007, 09:09 AM
|
#150 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,455
Country: | That is the second time a Mod has told you to tone it down (I was the first one) or the thread will be locked.
What is so difficult about being civil?
This can be debated without insults to anyone or there ancenstors or nationality!
3 strikes and this thread is out. If it spills over to another thread then infractions will happen.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 AM. | |
