Long legs
Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:25 am
Although I am no FW 190 expert at all, the spate of Flug Werk first flight pictures seem to show long, spidery undercarriage legs. While this is possibly due to the lack of fairings, it still looks unusual to me.
Does any WIX 190 expert want to shed light on my ignorance?
Gregory
Does any WIX 190 expert want to shed light on my ignorance?
Gregory
Last edited by Gregory on Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:03 am
Hi Gregory
I was thinking exactly the same thing!!!!
I have just finished a 190 model and it sits much lower - I thought I had stuffed it up - perhaps it has to do with very light weight on the first flight.
Also was it just me or did the aircraft look a bit unstable in flight - it worried me a bit.
Has the aircraft flown again much ?
Kindest regards
John P
I was thinking exactly the same thing!!!!
I have just finished a 190 model and it sits much lower - I thought I had stuffed it up - perhaps it has to do with very light weight on the first flight.
Also was it just me or did the aircraft look a bit unstable in flight - it worried me a bit.
Has the aircraft flown again much ?
Kindest regards
John P
Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:28 am
Gregory
I thought the same, and put it down to lack of gear doors....the aircraft is also around 450kg lighter than the original, so this may affect how high it looks sitting on the ground...still ....
Dave
I thought the same, and put it down to lack of gear doors....the aircraft is also around 450kg lighter than the original, so this may affect how high it looks sitting on the ground...still ....
Dave
Legs
Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:46 am
Dave
I agree that a lighter aircraft means less load on the undercarriage, but only on the ground. But the film of the flight (or at least of the aircraft with a few metres of air under the wings) and the pictures in Flypast and Fanatique clearly show long legs in the air as well.
Could it be a question of propeller ground clearance? Perhaps the ASh 82 turns a larger propeller, making longer legs a more viable option than a Corsair-style gull-wing.
Gregory
I agree that a lighter aircraft means less load on the undercarriage, but only on the ground. But the film of the flight (or at least of the aircraft with a few metres of air under the wings) and the pictures in Flypast and Fanatique clearly show long legs in the air as well.
Could it be a question of propeller ground clearance? Perhaps the ASh 82 turns a larger propeller, making longer legs a more viable option than a Corsair-style gull-wing.
Gregory
Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:15 am
Gregory
Propeller size could be the reason..I am no engineer but I do know they had problems with the cooling of the engine [ as they did with the early A models ]...so perhaps something to do with the cooling fan behind the prop meant it was necessary to use a larger prop..... a wild guess and probably totally wrong
Dave
Propeller size could be the reason..I am no engineer but I do know they had problems with the cooling of the engine [ as they did with the early A models ]...so perhaps something to do with the cooling fan behind the prop meant it was necessary to use a larger prop..... a wild guess and probably totally wrong
Dave
Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:08 am
Hi Gregory
I have just tried to measure photos of representative service aircraft from WW11 and this aircraft and we must have been seeing things because the most I can get is a variation of 2 centemeters !!!
I think we will have to get someone to measure it in "the flesh"
What did you think about the stability on the flight first time?
Regards
John
I have just tried to measure photos of representative service aircraft from WW11 and this aircraft and we must have been seeing things because the most I can get is a variation of 2 centemeters !!!
I think we will have to get someone to measure it in "the flesh"
What did you think about the stability on the flight first time?
Regards
John
Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:26 am
The Fw 190 has amazingly long legs compared to a Bf 109 and the rest of European fighters.
And as much as I can see, the prop is just like an original, but built by MT Propellers.
Also, bear in mind that the guy flying it had to check himself out in the Fw 190 while doing the aircraft's first flight. I can assure you that my flight would have been less than ultra stable!! Every first flight in an aircraft you never flew before is bound to see you do things you won't do after a 100 hours behind the stick.
And as much as I can see, the prop is just like an original, but built by MT Propellers.
Also, bear in mind that the guy flying it had to check himself out in the Fw 190 while doing the aircraft's first flight. I can assure you that my flight would have been less than ultra stable!! Every first flight in an aircraft you never flew before is bound to see you do things you won't do after a 100 hours behind the stick.
Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:56 am
This also raises the question, which I will pose to the experts here...
Are Buchon gear legs bigger/shorter than the production 109 gear? I remember looking at the Bill Anderson project from the 1990s and his intention of re-engining it with a DB601 and voila, it would be a 109. I kept thinking the gear needed to be worked on too... is this true? What are other significant changes/hurdles must be made to truly transform a Buchon to 109?
Ryan Keough
Are Buchon gear legs bigger/shorter than the production 109 gear? I remember looking at the Bill Anderson project from the 1990s and his intention of re-engining it with a DB601 and voila, it would be a 109. I kept thinking the gear needed to be worked on too... is this true? What are other significant changes/hurdles must be made to truly transform a Buchon to 109?
Ryan Keough
Buchon gear
Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:07 am
I am not qualified to discuss some of the subtler differences, but I gather that the Buchon undercarriage legs are set at a slightly different angle. If my recollection is correct, this would serve to provide a somewhat wider wheelbase (?), easing somewhat the type's notorious ground handling.
Gregory
Gregory
Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:10 am
Hi Gregory
According to Janes diagrams etc I have here you are quite correct 4.5 degrees different on the Buchon
Regards
John P
According to Janes diagrams etc I have here you are quite correct 4.5 degrees different on the Buchon
Regards
John P
Buchon gear
Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:25 am
That means my memory is not as far gone as I feared. Thanks, Setter!
From what I understand, the problem faced by restorers/converters is that the 4.5 deg comes from a different fitting/attachment on the airframe. In other words, getting the proper angle requires major airframe surgery and is not usually considered cost effective. After all, once the thing flies all we will notice is the inaccurate colour scheme ....
Gregory
From what I understand, the problem faced by restorers/converters is that the 4.5 deg comes from a different fitting/attachment on the airframe. In other words, getting the proper angle requires major airframe surgery and is not usually considered cost effective. After all, once the thing flies all we will notice is the inaccurate colour scheme ....
Gregory
Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:41 pm
Original 190 gear is also slightly angled inwards as well..which doesn't look the case on the new examples [ having not seen a direct frontal shot]..so this would make the legs look longer as well.
Dave
Dave
Re: Legs
Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:10 pm
That would require a fair amount of redesign work. Longer gear would need to be farther out on the wing which would have an affect on the structural integrity of the wing. I also wouldn't think that cutting down the prop diameter a few inches if required would be a problem. Remember Bob Yancey's Yak-11 Reno racer with the R-2800 or Mr. Awesome, the Yak with the R-3350?Gregory wrote:Could it be a question of propeller ground clearance? Perhaps the ASh 82 turns a larger propeller, making longer legs a more viable option than a Corsair-style gull-wing.
Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:22 am
Guys, the gears are normal on the Flug Werk bird.
It's just that it's lightly loaded, the shocks are probably inflated to the max so it gives the aircraft a higher stance.
See, the wheels are canted inwards, but they never were extremely canted.
It's just that it's lightly loaded, the shocks are probably inflated to the max so it gives the aircraft a higher stance.
See, the wheels are canted inwards, but they never were extremely canted.
Long legs - think about it.
Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:57 am
The Flugwerke FW190 engineering programme is a business. The more they deviate from the original basic design the lesser the appeal to collectors.
I think it it is highly unlikely that they would have changed the fundamental extended length of the legs. To do so would have implications on the wheel bay structure as well as possibly moving the pintles outboard, both such features fraught with complex engineering issues.
PeterA
I think it it is highly unlikely that they would have changed the fundamental extended length of the legs. To do so would have implications on the wheel bay structure as well as possibly moving the pintles outboard, both such features fraught with complex engineering issues.
PeterA