Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Mon May 12, 2025 11:35 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Long legs
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 3:20 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Roma caput mundi
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


Last edited by Gregory on Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 11:05 pm
Posts: 946
Location: Brisbane Australia
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

_________________
Air Vice Marshall
Sunshine State Air Farce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:28 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 2491
Location: New Zealand
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Legs
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 3:20 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Roma caput mundi
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:15 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 2491
Location: New Zealand
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 :roll:

Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 11:05 pm
Posts: 946
Location: Brisbane Australia
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

_________________
Air Vice Marshall
Sunshine State Air Farce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:26 am 
Offline
Maker of Spiffy models
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:50 pm
Posts: 1883
Location: Montréal
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.

8)

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:56 am 
Offline
WRG Associate Editor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:40 pm
Posts: 1238
Location: Stow, MA
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Buchon gear
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 3:20 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Roma caput mundi
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 11:05 pm
Posts: 946
Location: Brisbane Australia
Hi Gregory

According to Janes diagrams etc I have here you are quite correct 4.5 degrees different on the Buchon

Regards
John P

_________________
Air Vice Marshall
Sunshine State Air Farce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Buchon gear
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 3:20 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Roma caput mundi
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:41 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 2491
Location: New Zealand
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legs
PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:10 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11319
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.
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:22 am 
Offline
Maker of Spiffy models
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:50 pm
Posts: 1883
Location: Montréal
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.

Image

See, the wheels are canted inwards, but they never were extremely canted.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:57 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 1073
Location: UK
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], tankbarrell and 298 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group