New Fw(W) 190 takes to the sky for the first time

[DaveM2]

[/quote] Are we talking breasts, or airplanes?[/quote]


I prefer both to be real, rather than fake

[Sgt13Echo]

Are we talking breasts, or airplanes?


I prefer both to be real, rather than fake

Whatever gave you that idea

[JDK]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Flug Werk aircraft - they're a great concept, and relatively successful, so there's a market, and many of us get to see them fly, too. I've enjoyed seeing the example in New Zealand and the Frasca one in California.

I don't have any special insight to the aircraft this thread started about - I'm pleased for the owners that it's flying.

As Redvanner's pointed out, it provides an alternative, more 'economical' route to a Focke Wulf; and that's a great.

But that goes both ways. A genuine original Focke Wulf has two kinds of value - the historical value as a real artefact that can be examined to see how it worked (or in the case of the Paul Alan machine, works) an interesting thing itself as the design and technology was more unusual than most realise. There's the historical value a modern build doesn't have. That's less tangible, but important to many - not all. Either of those, and the exclusivity factor, then drives a cash value which today so many people can't get around. A genuine Focke Wulf is always going to have a greater cash value than any equivalent replica. So it's 'worth' more to some.

To extend the point, the scale Mk.26 Spitfire kitplanes are popular for those that want to fly a Spitfire on a non Spitfire budget, and that's great; but they aren't of any historical value of the real Spitfires and their value lies in not carrying the premium of the real thing. Horses for courses.

It only becomes an issue when a new build or a replica is represented as being an original. We can debate the sense or otherwise of that, but there are good reasons that most western countries have laws regarding false advertising of products - that's simply because you can sell it for more.

Regards,

[Sgt13Echo]

interesting take on what an original or replica really means. While at Oshkosh I had the pleasure of talking to the owner of a P-51. I asked him how much of his Mustang is original and he jokingly responded "The Plate". Interesting take, maybe his plane had all new ribs, skin, engine, and instruments. But it's still original because he has the OEM plate riveted to the airframe, right?

[51fixer]

interesting take on what an original or replica really means. While at Oshkosh I had the pleasure of talking to the owner of a P-51. I asked him how much of his Mustang is original and he jokingly responded "The Plate". Interesting take, maybe his plane had all new ribs, skin, engine, and instruments. But it's still original because he has the OEM plate riveted to the airframe, right?

An issue is who dictates what is original, what does it mean in terms of a flying aircraft?
To the FAA and hopefully to owners and operators, it is airworthiness that is important.
I have to sign off and use the word "Certify" that an annual inspection has been performed in accordance with certain Federal Air Regulations when "I" have inspected it and attest to that by signing my name in a logbook which is a legal document required by law. Then it can be legally flown whether this is just another annual or if it is after 80% of the structure has been replaced with new because of corrosion or damage.
Any owner or operator can rebuild, make new parts or use other parts deemed acceptable by the FARS as long as the finished product is as strong or stronger than the original.
That is the legal end to having a flying aircraft here in the United States.
If I have a flying A/C or purchase a damaged or unairworthy A/C that has legal paperwork and a Serial Number, Fagen's Twilight Tear did not even have a data plate, then I am allowed to replace damaged parts with airworthy parts so the A/C is considered to be safe to operate and as strong as an original A/C.
This is in terms of a P-51, T-6 or maybe a B-25 that is a Standard Category or Limited Category registered A/C in the US.
So if I own it and it needs work to be safe and I replace 50, 60, or 80% of its structure there isn't any difference in paperwork or operation of the A/C after it has been repaired. No one says that you no longer have an original A/C and you have to park it in a hangar.
So, at least here in the US, this is a subjective matter and more of an academic point of pride or higher calling than something that affects how an A/C operates.

[JDK]

You can buy a 'Rolex' very cheaply; get the right one, it'll work as a watch perfectly well. You could graft bits from a defunct real Rolex into it, or add a couple of bezels etc. Doesn't make it a Rolex.

Airworthiness for a flying aircraft (of any kind) is, as Rich says, paramount. But, again, the aircraft has to be registered as what it is - or started as - not what it might like to be when it grows up. Part of the problem Flug Werk had in the UK is that they were regarded by the CAA as a new design and the UK doesn't have an equivalent to 'Experimental' or 'Limited' categories. Representing it as a Focke Wulf wouldn't have helped.

The certification for flight process by most civil aviation authorities has nothing to do with originality, as long as there's an identity and the parts and work go thought the right processes, as Rich has said. The FAA is smart to avoid getting involved in the question of originality as such, like most other equivalent organisations.

Interestingly though, precedent does count in the paperwork. There are notable exceptions where the (very non-)academic paperwork means there's a selection of one model high-top P-51s flying and 'none' of the other; and why CAC Mustangs are 'rare' in the US. In those cases the paperwork (though the people) is actively involved in distorting the provenance of the airframes.

Sure, we regularly get people talking about the "grandfather's axe" and how if it "walks like a duck" etcetera. Fact actually is the market value depends on originality to some degree, and try selling (or even marketing) someone a Flug Werk FW 190 as a Focke Wulf and see what happens.

Likewise any heritage organisation that's really interested in history (such as national museums) is going to be real careful over choosing between the wannabe and 'the real thing'. And that's a global phenomenon, not restricted to any country. The only differences around the world are to do with local trading laws over mis-representing collectables. The collectors - whether of Monets, Ming or Messerschmitts are all after as much originality as they can afford, and check hard to make sure it's as original as claimed.

Does anyone here really think Paul Allan's Flying Heritage would be just as happy with a Flug Werk 190, and a Stormbirds 262? All that money and effort spent to get the Flying Heritage airframes 'just so' that gets applauded here is because it adds value and retains originality of the design. Both historical and a notional cash value. If the originality was irrelevant, no one would be interested in going to see them.

If the difference wasn't important, I'd be selling you these rather nice Faberge eggs my jeweller friend's knocked up in his shop.

Regards,

[Sgt13Echo]

James,

I was trying to inject some humor into this rather obscur and overtly critical post. My intention is to show that 99% of the people who attend air shows don't really care if it's real or not. Similar to all the Fokker DrI triplanes out there. Are any of them original? Or what class does the FAA put them in. Most people want to see something that matches their dreams or limited knowledge of the type. If someone sees a full scale replica flying or thinks it's the real thing or even a COMBAT veteran what's the point of nudging them and saying "Actually, it's a replica..... blah blah blah" unless it's to stroke ones ego. Just leave it at "It's a full scale replica".

Thank God, or whoever you want to thank that there are Flug Werke and Stormbirds out there creating these AIRcraft. I hope they make JU-87 Stukas and Betty Bombers full scale so that people including myself can see their silhouette in the air next to a 100% original combat veteran.

P.S. I have no affiliation with Flug Werke or Stormbirds.


Keep'em Flying

Last edited by Sgt13Echo on Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

...Of someone sees a full scale replica flying and thnks it's the real thing or even a combat veteran what's the point of nudging them and saying "Actually, it's a replica..... blah blah blah" unless it's to stroke ones ego.

If someone doesn't want to know - the airshow crowd, who cares, that's fine. I'd hope that here in WIX we'd have a more sophisticated interest in the reality of the warplanes, and history.

My 'ego' isn't 'stroked' by discussing the differences or choosing to have learned the differences from those who do really know. What ever I (or anyone else in this thread) might choose to believe, when it comes to cash or historical valuation, there's a world of difference between sportsplanes like the Flug Werk machines and a the sole, real, flying Focke Wulf Fw 190. Just try muddling them - whether you be a rich collector or 'just' an enthusiast discussing the Focke Wulf and calling it some Flug Werk machine to the owner.

If when someone asks the provenance of one of these aircraft those who provide some accurate background get knocked back (and note most of the solid info was provided by others - not me) that, I'm afraid is the 'dumbing down' everyone likes to point the finger about at others.

This is the Warbird Information Exchange, not the 'fuzzy rose tinted joke glasses emporium'.

I too have repeatedly said it's great it's flying, and all congratulations to the crew.

My apologies for being boringly serious about it. I'll move on.

Regards,

[Sgt13Echo]

If someone doesn't want to know - the airshow crowd, who cares, that's fine. I'd hope that here in WIX we'd have a more sophisticated interest in the reality of the warplanes, and history.

Thank You James!

Now to finally reply to the original post "New Fw(W) 190 takes to the sky for the first time"

Thank you for sharing the link, it looks beautiful!

[big fatty]

ok now that everyone has ironed they'er panties out, does anyone know how the testing is going?

BTW very nice Fw 190

[CDF]

FWIW kudos to all concerned with their reconstruction.

[redvanner]

New in flight picture. Simply looks great!

Michael

[Sgt13Echo]

Thanks redvanner/michael I could stare at that picture for days..

[svengi]

Looks fearsome! Can't wait to see and hear a whole formation of them. How roomy is the cockpit? Looks like plenty of head clearance for the pilot in the photo

[Mike]

Looks like plenty of head clearance for the pilot in the photo

Yes, some of the Flug Werk owners fit this type of modern blown canopy to give additional headroom. Some (such as Christophe Jaquard's example in France) prefer to stick with the original Fw190 type.