Warbird Information Exchange

Yesterday Don Hansen´s FW 190 had the maidenflight in Baton Rouge. Have a look here:

http://www.paiaero.com/

I like the way she looks, a very nice paint scheme.

Michael

How appropriate... an Fw 190 and a Sturmovik both flying on the same weekend... The paint scheme on Don's 190 is a pretty accurate rendition of Hans Dortenmann's bird, and I agree it looks very good, but I do wish he had gone with the markings of WNr 173056 which was used as the basis of the rebuild. Dortenmann was quite a character though, and I can't blame him for choosing to replicate his bird!

Lynn

WOW!!!

How sweet!! Good lookin' too-dem Cajuns done did dat one correkt fo' sho' fo' sho'

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Is this a totally new build or where original components used?

Either way, she is purrrty!

It's a Flug Werk design, so looks like a Focke Wulf, but is essentially different in most details; there's no real point in trying to jam original Focke Wulf parts into what is a modern design of mostly the same outside shape - it won't buy you provenance to the real thing, and original parts often don't fit the Flug Werk's different design.

It's a great route to getting a flying machine that looks like a Butcher Bird - but it isn't one.

All that aside, great news, and credit to the team that have got it in the air!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Further detail to my general remarks in the previous post (which are perhaps even more pertinent, as you prefer)...

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... p?t=112483

Redvanner:

Adlertag:

As the 'discuss' is requested, the FAA are not in the business of authenticating history, but certifying flying machines. While that's important paperwork it's not provenance as a Focke Wulf.

DaveM2

For those that wish to argue that lookalike is near enough to not bother with the distinction, bear in mind this machine has different systems, a different engine type, different cooling, none of the engine armour, and no guns. Most of the sophisticated systems that made the Focke Wulf the cutting edge aircraft it was are not replicated - understandably - by Flug Werk. The Focke Wulf was a fighter aircraft designed for combat. This is a sophisticated sportsplane. Were this 1944/5, the real luftwaffe would've rejected it.

Still, very nice, and good to see flying.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

cool! great to see that silhouette, sorely under-represented.

jdk, is there difference in size and shape of the flugwerke birds compared to focke-wulf produced? Is it completely structurally different and redesigned, or just where the absence of some systems and the integration of the alternate engine/modern avionics?

I don't claim to be an expert on either type, but those that do know them in detail have reported that the Flug Werk machines have a different structure - in some cases trialled Focke Wulf parts don't fit, and Flug Werk parts tried in a genuine Focke Wulf didn't fit there either.

As anyone can do by comparing pictures, certainly most of the major panel lines and outline is the same; but a quick look at the nose shows the profile of the armoured front cowl is different and the upper deck behind thee engine where the Focke Wulf had two machine guns has (on most Flug Werk machines) a radiator with inlet and outlet.

The Focke Wulf's geared engine cooling fan is not reproduced on the Flug Werk machines.

The Focke Wulf's innovative throttle and mixture control, technically one of the most interesting advances of the design, though not a visual difference from outside, has not been reproduced by Flug Werk. And so on.

It seems however that just about every Flug Werk machine has been adapted or changed to some degree now, as well!

They're nice lookalikes, they aren't Fockes.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I had heard that mentioned before as well by someone, seems like i remember it might have been someone associated with the white one foundation?(don't quote me on that though!) I had been curious to what extent and what parts didn't fit, and to what degree of historical accuracy the sheetmetal/structural elements of the airframes were. Thank you for enlightening me a bit!

I don't think it's a question of which parts are different, but much more fundamental than that. A comparison would be between a kit car version of a Ford GT 40 or Shelby Cobra and the real thing. They are different designs that look the same at a glance - but aren't compatible and don't have the same performance (and thus heritage and value).

Just my understanding, and in no way a reflection on anyone's workmanship, just horses for courses.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Thanks for the answer, JDK!

As for having all of the original systems, I think that would make it pretty prohibitive to operate on a regular basis with the required maintenance parts required being in short supply. Paul Allens birds is a fine example of the breed in its original form and I think these birds don't have to be that exact.

Nice to see it fly and hopefully out in the show circuit soon! Congrats all around!

Well, I believe in the end there are some very important reasons behind what you (can) get.

First of all is money. I don´t think many persons or groups are willing to spend that amount of money / and /or time to get an original one (like FHC or some time White 1 Foundation) airworthy a n d flying / flown on a regular base, with very expensive maintenance and sparepart costs as well.

Second is what you want. If you want an a/c looking like an original, with a comparable performance to be flown regularly at what I believe is only maybe 25 to 50 % the cost of an original (just guessing)...... there won´t be another way then a Flugwerk one. And that is perfectly O.K. with me. If they haven´t had the idea and will to produce the kit, how many Fw (W) 190ies woulf fly today? 1 original, and ?

Third is, what is regarded as Fw 190, what as FW 190? I would say, in the end it depends on. It depends on what you use to what extent. If you use for example an original fuselage (remade, restored or new made to Focke-Wulf specification, but Flugwerk wing? I don´t know. But a different engine alone wouldn´t spoil a Focke-Wulf 190 to be something different, but that is IMHO. Although it were not 100 % correct. But here opinions differ. Some would argue about the paint not being original either.

Be it as it may be, I am happy another fine bird is finally airworthy, congratulations to all involved.

Michael

Some like them real, some like them fake/replica.

It really only matters to the guys who get to play with them.

The rest of us think they are real and that's all that matters, to me. Because both are to pretty to look at and I will never get a chance to play with either of them.

Are we talking breasts, or airplanes?

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.