So I can quote you in agreement that it is not really a case of "a G-6 is this and a G-14 is that" in particular where those two designations are involved, yes?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not all G-14's came with MW-50. And like what was previously mentioned, some G-14 were rebulit G-6's. Whereas all G-10 were brand new airframes. Radios were FuG 16 ZY (id'ed with the so-called morane mast under the left wing) FuG 25's (for friendly a/c, flak batteries etc.). These were found in Late G-6Y's/G-14's/G-10's/K-4's/K-14's. No doubt as you said field conversions took place of radios/MW-50 such. Ost front aircraft tended to delete the FuG 16 ZY radios though.
Deep in the woods. Nothing but trees, bush, grass, and a water filled crater. no AA units to target this area ( not saying your wrong or anything )
View attachment 182033
Looking at the hole I think his speed was about mach 1Deep in the woods. Nothing but trees, bush, grass, and a water filled crater. no AA units to target this area ( not saying your wrong or anything )
View attachment 182033
If the aircraft was found "relativley intact," what was done with the wreckage? Even mangled wrecks are highly sought after either by museums or collectors. Going back to the discussion about determining on what brought down this aircraft, I can tell you first hand that unless certain aspects of the wreck were kept in tack, you're not going to find much if mud and corrosion set in (I have worked accident investigations and actually picked up wrecked aircraft). I would love to see a photo of what was found 25 years ago.Ever think thats a bog? Anyways, seems no answer will do. Perhaps one straight from the horses mouth will suffice. You can contact him here. http://www.flugzeugabstuerze-saarland.de. I promise you more then just 'mangled alloy' was found. You can also ask him what calibre ammo was found in Herr Bartels body after he was found 25+ years after the war ended. Plane relativley intact, also in a bog ( Yes I know Werner Girbig originally found the site).
=GregP;833134 tthe Me 109 was WELL KNOWN as a 180 - 300 mph fighter. The 441 mph speed was a straight line intercept or fleeing from death speed. The Me 109 could barely roll or turn at 400+ mph and the leg was VERY tired due to no rudder trim. They were slow to medium speed dogfighters, no bull, and were not much of a factor if going faster than 330 mph because they were fleeing or arriving before configuring to fight. If in their envelope, the Me 109 was formidable. If outside the envelope, it was either accelerating, running, or trying desperaley to slow down to fight. To be fair, most other fighters were also not good at fighting at 400+ mph. They were basically ALL 200- 350 mph fighters with the ability to sprint when required for sruvival or attack.
Let me clarify as an example were the birds flown in Guadalcanal or Malta up to snuff at all times if they were I must learn to disregard what I have read over the years, I would hope the aircraft were in tip top shape but sometimes the needs of the service overuled that at times . If maintainence standards were as high as pre or post war standards for go or no go I would be very surprisedGentlemen, I have to pipe in here...
I cant speak for other air forces but the level of maintenance during WW2 was set by the manufacturer. "Technical Orders" or TOs developed by input from the manufacturer were followed to the letter of the law and there was very little room for deviation. Squadron COs did have the authority to deviate or wave certain maintenance actions in support of the mission, but there would be hell to pay if one of their decisions cost lives or equipment loss. As far as a "modern" inspection, that would depend who wrote the maintenance program and what aviation authority approved it. I can tell you (as well as many of the guys out there involved in the warbird community) that the bases for WW2 combat aircraft maintenance, then and now, starts with the original maintenance manuals.
That would be in a situation where the support of the mission would dictate what would be operated and even in such extreme cases there would be limits to what conditions would be acceptable to complete the mission in lieu of what would get someone immediately killed if the aircraft was operated, and many times there would still be a maintenance office or a factory tech rep there to either make a call or to give some potentially life saving advice.Let me clarify as an example were the birds flown in Guadalcanal or Malta up to snuff at all times if they were I must learn to disregard what I have read over the years, I would hope the aircraft were in tip top shape but sometimes the needs of the service overuled that at times . If maintainence standards were as high as pre or post war standards for go or no go I would be very surprised
Have you've seen any new 767's lately, I think you'd be shocked.I'll even state that most of these birds were not in rough shape but most probably would not pass a modern inspection. They were dented scratshed and chipped and probably not as polished as they might be . Most IMHO would not achieve the book maximun speed in a month of sundays
I agree that they would make a pilot fly anything that would be hazourdous to himself but how many took off in less then perfect aircraft in order not to miss the show .That would be in a situation where the support of the mission would dictate what would be operated and even in such extreme cases there would be limits to what conditions would be acceptable to complete the mission in lieu of what would get someone immediately killed if the aircraft was operated, and many times there would still be a maintenance office or a factory tech rep there to either make a call or to give some potentially life saving advice.
You're talking 2 different levels of maintenance and quality.Have you've seen any new 767's lately, I think you'd be shocked.