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

[redvanner]

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.

@Mike: AFAIK this "high" canopy isn´t new as if introduced by Flugwerk, but is the late style Fw 190 canopy, used from A-9 series onwards (have a look at D- series, like D-13 at FHC). If you look at pics of early marks, the rear canopy has a straight top line. The late ones bulge outward on top. So it seems original Fw 190 style, but late marks. AFAIK Jaquard`s one should depict an early mark, A-3 or A-5 IIRC.

Michael

[svengi]

Thanks for the info, mike! It looks a lot like the blown canopy that was on the FW-190d-9 series, are these new blown canopies based on d-9 canopies or unrelated?

[svengi]

oops, took too long posting. Thanks for clarifying, redvanner

[lmritger]

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.

@Mike: AFAIK this "high" canopy isn´t new as if introduced by Flugwerk, but is the late style Fw 190 canopy, used from A-9 series onwards (have a look at D- series, like D-13 at FHC). If you look at pics of early marks, the rear canopy has a straight top line. The late ones bulge outward on top. So it seems original Fw 190 style, but late marks. AFAIK Jaquard`s one should depict an early mark, A-3 or A-5 IIRC.

Michael

The 'blown' canopy was introduced with the ground-attack F models (the F-8, I believe) and quickly became popular on other models. It gives quite a bit more clearance for the pilot's headgear than the "proper" flat canopy, which I think is a fair trade-off. I prefer the look of the flat ones on radial 190s, but what good does it do if the helmet and DCs get wedged in there?

Lynn

[Rob Mears]

The Smithsonian's FW-190-F-8/R1...complete with blown canopy.

[Xray]

Nice bird.
Of course there is no actual history attached to it, I don't see why some guys are going through such pains about such an obvious point.
It is what it is, not 1940's German made, but a modern reproduction, and a very good one at that.

Glad he had the balls to put the Swaz on the tail, I imagine he might take some flak from the PC crowd over that.

[Baldeagle]

From the EAA web site:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-10-13_wulf.asp


-

[Rob Mears]

It is what it is, not 1940's German made, but a modern reproduction, and a very good one at that.

I wouldn't disagree, but I would like to know exactly what they began with, even if all of the original material was unusable or otherwise consumed as part of the build process. If some substantial fragment of an original warbird served as the initial basis for the effort then I would argue that there is no dishonor in viewing this aircraft as a touchstone for commemorating that tiny tidbit of history rather than an opportunity to challenge and/or completely reject it.

There are plenty of data plate P-51's, Spitfires, I-16's, F3F's, etc out there that are essentially new-buit aircraft with zero original material, yet I've not witnessed near the fervor or rush to judgement to exclude them as replicas or fakes each time they make a public appearance. If the name 'FlugWerk' had not been associated with this plane, I'd venture to guess that it would not garner near the amount of baggage.

[JimH]

"I wouldn't disagree, but I would like to know exactly what they began with"


a dream, and they bloody well fullfilled it, more than most people in this world

[kalamazookid]

"I wouldn't disagree, but I would like to know exactly what they began with"


a dream, and they bloody well fullfilled it, more than most people in this world

I'm with Jim.

Good looking aircraft, hope to see it someday. Congratulations to all involved!

[Xray]

It is what it is, not 1940's German made, but a modern reproduction, and a very good one at that.

I wouldn't disagree, but I would like to know exactly what they began with, even if all of the original material was unusable or otherwise consumed as part of the build process. If some substantial fragment of an original warbird served as the initial basis for the effort then I would argue that there is no dishonor in viewing this aircraft as a touchstone for commemorating that tiny tidbit of history rather than an opportunity to challenge and/or completely reject it.

There are plenty of data plate P-51's, Spitfires, I-16's, F3F's, etc out there that are essentially new-buit aircraft with zero original material, yet I've not witnessed near the fervor or rush to judgement to exclude them as replicas or fakes each time they make a public appearance. If the name 'FlugWerk' had not been associated with this plane, I'd venture to guess that it would not garner near the amount of baggage.

Fair points, to be sure.
I guess it largely boils down to "each their own". I'm quite a history nut, and have walked many a major battlefield, here in the USA, the pacific, and Europe. I get an indescribable feeling walking on, and viewing with my own eyes, such hallowed, bloody, historical ground as Corregidor, Omaha beach, Passchendaele or Gettysburg. Would I get the same feeling at a mockup of Omaha built at Myrtle beach ? Of course not, and the same applies here. But I might commend the organizers of such an effort with an interesting reproduction, for giving the chance to many who would otherwise have not experienced the real thing some idea of the dynamics of the actual battle.
I guess the same can be said about the many civil war battle recreations and re-enactors. Nothing at all authentic about any of it, but interesting nonetheless, and capable of stirring deep thoughts about the real thing.

Far as the data plate warbirds, I'm going to guess that its a given at least a certain % of the aircraft is original. Surely, it is an exaggeration to claim that they are 100% non original, except the data plate. Too, they were worked on away from anyones gaze without much publicity, and the owners are not likely eager to advertise that their aircraft are substantially made of non period parts. They are not going to potentially be a kit for sale, and only those that actually worked on them know the true scale of originality.

[DoraNineFan]

It is what it is, not 1940's German made, but a modern reproduction, and a very good one at that.

I wouldn't disagree, but I would like to know exactly what they began with, even if all of the original material was unusable or otherwise consumed as part of the build process. If some substantial fragment of an original warbird served as the initial basis for the effort then I would argue that there is no dishonor in viewing this aircraft as a touchstone for commemorating that tiny tidbit of history rather than an opportunity to challenge and/or completely reject it.

There are plenty of data plate P-51's, Spitfires, I-16's, F3F's, etc out there that are essentially new-buit aircraft with zero original material, yet I've not witnessed near the fervor or rush to judgement to exclude them as replicas or fakes each time they make a public appearance. If the name 'FlugWerk' had not been associated with this plane, I'd venture to guess that it would not garner near the amount of baggage.

The first production run of 12 did start with original wartime tail wheel units that had been discovered in storage, which gave them some wartime provenance.

But did they start with any surviving engineering drawings or start fresh? I believe that surviving Fw190 drawings are incomplete.

[redvanner]

Sorry double post, Mods please delete!
redvanner

Last edited by redvanner on Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

[redvanner]

........

But did they start with any surviving engineering drawings or start fresh? I believe that surviving Fw190 drawings are incomplete.

@DoraNineFan: AFAIK they did start with "nearly" complete original Fw 190 drawings, whatever "nearly" means in this context I have no idea. IIRC they had 90 % + x% of the drawings, but I am not sure about it.
However they decided to redraw some parts, especially those that were very hard to produce at reasonable cost for a small series of initially 12 a/c (they used several milled items instead of cast ones). For example landing gear components, and several internal components like electric motors and similar items. Additionally almost everything in front of the bulkhead had to be redesigned, as the chosen ASh engine couldn´t just be bolted on, several items under the cowling and the cowling itself had to be redesigned as well. They also redesigned several time consuming original kinds of production methods and used different, faster (cheaper) alternatives.

So in historical and engineering terms the Flugwerk is not a 100% 1:1 copy of a wartime Fw 190. In appearance, capability and performance it is quite near, so it is hard to tell the difference from several yards away, minus the engine sounds and the (upper) cowling. I saw Yeagen´s FW 190 last year on her only airshow in Germany, and WOW! it was a convincing and gripping performance, and a convincing and gripping aircraft. I never thought it is a Flugwerk, but always thought: A Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Maybe seeing it fly side by side with FHC´s A-5 might change my attitude, but I believe it won´t. A simple question regarding the different engine: If the Germans would by chance have stumbled over let´s say about a thousand ASh engines (the one that is used in the Flugwerk) in Russia, would they have used them? They certainly would (Ok, ok, not possible, but if...). If in Fw 190ies? Who knows? As they did use a "Bomber-engine". The well known Junkers Jumo 213. A different a/c? No. A different Mark? Yes. I like to look at the Flugwerk the same way. Historic? No. A different Mark? Yes. A different a/c? Depends on, how strict you are, what is regarded as evolution, or improvement, and where you´d say: completely different plane. Just my thoughts. Sorry to go that far off topic.

Michael

[shrike]

Redvanner makes some interesting points.

Given the diversified subcontracting, and extensive reworking of airframes on the 190 lines, there were very few 'pure' airframes built in the first place. IIRC only the A- models were factory built, all of the rest were reworked into F-'s or D-'s after the fact - even if that meant rolling a freshly completed 'new' A- into the modification shop to turn it into an F. Some smaller contractors continued manufacturing the earliest parts right up til the end of the war.

The Germans made extensive use of captured ans Auslander equipment. Hundreds of Gnome Rhone aircraft engines, and if you diverted into tanks or other ground equipment, we could be here all day. Lend-lease White scout cars were highly sought after. So use of a captured stock of engines is not out of line.

Thinking of the FlugWerke 190's as simply a spiritual continuation of original production methods and practice might unbunch some panties. Converting a Buchon to a DB doesn't make it an object of contempt. The Yak-3M's with Allisons aren't a source of derision.