Warbird Information Exchange

Hi Chunks, thanks for the welcome words, I appreciate it.

I won't give up, but never expected so many response to be off topic, but hey..

Interesting. In post three, I said:

Sorry I couldn't provide a source, but I wouldn't post unless I was reasonably certain of my data. It's interesting that you've now got;

It's good to have a reliable source for the data; it's also good to learn which 'experts' or others are reliable sources.

Regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

From the firewall forward, they don't.

But they still did a magnificent job and made the correct engine choice for the original stated goal of an easy to maintain and affordable warbird. To me the cowling is different and does not capture the lines of a Fw190. For that, I'll give them a grade of B+, not a "freakin AWESOME"

_________________
"They done it, they done it, damned if they ain't flew." December 17, 1903

This post did change direction from correct paint schemes to quality of product.
I commented about the Yaks because they have all successfully flown.

The idea of building a replica Fw-190 with a suitable and very similar engine affordable to the public is a great. These fighters ceased to exist almost immediately after WWII deserve their place in the air now. The aircraft from FW that have been assembled look great. I want to see them in the air, replica or not.
So why is it that of 13 F-8s and 3 D-9s, only 2 F-8s have flown after a very unreasonable amount of modification and experimentation have been done? Why is that the owners of most of the projects have major issues with the gear and fuel tanks? Why do most original parts not fit onto the new aircraft? If the original WWII fighter was so excellent and these replicas are exact, then why arnt all these kits in the air after so many years? Yes I have inside scoop but you cant defend the quality of a supposed flyable airplanes based on pictures on airliners.net.
These FW-190s were built with intent to fly. At least one of them should have been completely test flown and proven by the factory with a test pilot and sold with POH's and factory performance data before being released to the public. Do you think Vans RV series operates this way even with inexperienced builders and pilots?
There are some very serious issues to be resolved by every individual owner of these FW-190s. I hope they can be resolved and the airplanes flown safely.

_________________
Live to fly, Fly to live.....

Thanks for the response Chuck. That is exactly what I wanted to hear. Basically what you are saying is that Flug Werk put out an inferior product. I've heard anecdotal evidence of this from other people, but never from somebody closely associated with a Flug Werk 190.

Is there anyone here with intimate knowledge of the Flug Werk 190's that can categorically state that this is NOT the case?

Is there anyone with any positive perceptions of Flug Werk?

Whether Flug Werk put out a bad product or not, I have to give them credit where credit is due. At least they actually took risk and put millions into a largely unproven "homebuilt" to resurrect an extinct Luftwaffe fighter. For that, I am grateful!!

I hope Flug Werk gets all of the teething problems sorted out, and we can all enjoy seeing a Butcher Bird flying at an airshow near you!

Experience shows that it is the 'lucky' owners, not Flug Werk, that are working through the problems to make the kits into airworthy aircraft.

Thanks Chuck.

My earlier remarks regarding comments about a commercial organisation weren't just in passing.

There is a difference between ask questions related to performance or non-performance data and saying organisations product isn't good.

Some people regard chat on a forum as transient as bar-room scuttlebut; however legal action can and is taken over such things.

regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I kind of figured that was the case, JDK. I know you are between a rock and a hard place in making comments about Flug Werk, especially in light of your extremely high visibility job and your position in the media. No worries, and I know you didn't want to say it, but somebody else did the dirty work for you.

Thanks to Chuck and JDK for finally opening up about something I had long suspected, but never had confirmation on. Finally, we get the truth!

I'm not.

Let's not get WIX shut down because some people don't know when to can it.

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Well said.

Gents,
While TDY to Mildenhall/Lakenheath back in April of this year I had the priviledge of examining and taking photos of the Flug Werk 190 in question at Duxford, and the "real" 190 at RAF museum Hendon. I was able to examine both airplanes on the same day, at close range after politely asking the docents at both locations to be escorted past the rope.
Now, the 190 at Hendon is of course an ultra rare 2 seater, and I understand that modification was made in the field and so was understandably rough looking.
The Flug Werk aircraft is an excellent piece of workmanship when viewed at close range. The panels fit, there was obviously great care taken to produce good workmanship. The workmanship, fit and finish on the Hendon original airframe is appalling. Panels don't match, riviting is sloppy and substandard, welds on gear legs, etc. are close to unacceptable by modern standards. I would personally think twice about flying the original 190 and wouldn't dream of pulling G's in the thing.
The Flug Werk 190 looked ready to go, and my understanding was that there were just minor adjustments and paperwork issues to be completed before it flew again. The airplane did have the cooling fan mounted on the Ash-82 engine, BTW.
JDK and Mr. Gardner, I think you do yourselves a disservice by slamming the "new" 190's. Claus Colling and his crew have worked a small miracle by producing these planes.
As far as the paint job, who cares? At least it isn't a pink P-40 with eyelashes. Why don't you go pick THAT fight???

_________________
All I did was press this red button here...

Amen!

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

As all too often, you've assumed I've attacked the Flug Werke machines, people or workmanship. Nowhere have I done so, just been careful to classify them as look-a-likes (I make no statement of that being inferior) and laid out a couple of the facts to do with the history of these projects. Others have drawn conclusions about the matter, which I don't necessarily agree with.

The lack of attention to detail being exhibited here relates both to the issues with flying the new-build Flug Werkes (fact - not opinion - and I've offered the most moderate explanation as to why this might be - other have other reasons put forward) and what has been said in the thread. Read what I've said properly, thanks. If you can't avoid inaccurately labelling others opinions, or libelling a commercial organisation, then kindly leave me out of your inaccurate generalisations.

(As to the ex-St Athan Fw-190, I'm well aware of the history of the aircraft including discussions with the man who got it running and one of the foremost authorities on airworthy Luftwaffe restorations - with a certain 109G to his credit - some of your assumptions on the nature of the machine are wrong because you are missing the history out. It's been discussed here, I've laid out some data for consideration - not just opinion - and it's there to be found if you want. I'm not keen to continue to offer real research to be attacked by the superficial 'reader'.)

A poster asked about the colour scheme of one of these aircraft. In the third post in the thread I answered the question, and added that it was a pity it wasn't flying - a fault, in part due to the restrictive practices of the UK's CAA - another couple of missed points, clearly. For clarity, it's a pity it is not flying (that is, I'd like to know it was flying, which is what it was built for) and some responsibility lies with the CAA, not the builder or owner...)

As so often on the internet, the good data is there, but too hard for those not paying attention to note, while a load of irrelevant rubbish is dragged past. My opinion on colour schemes has been well covered here, I don't intended to go over it again based on another set of inaccurate assumptions.

Not only not 'well said' but poorly read, considered or thought about.

If anyone has a worthwhile comment or question I'm happy to respond, otherwise I'm off to more worthwhile discussions.

Yours,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

For the record I think James' comments have been quite reasonable if you take the time to read what he's actually saying.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

I still think it was well said. Having recently been criticized for repairing an instrument panel (what the hell else was I supposed to do with it?), using modern bearing with plya seals, and for using paint to replicate a ruined anodized finish (none of these criticisms came from JDK, I might add) some of us get a little tired of hearing from "the experts". I thought (and still think) Dave Lindauer made a great comment.