PDA

View Full Version : Real Fw190 almost ready to fly



yuuppers
01-01-2010, 06:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...b7a4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftDwkyZb7a4&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NgzrDeV2Sc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaLY2If12y4

Though it is an original airframe, WNr 173056, it uses a Russian Ash82T engine.

Kettenhunde
01-01-2010, 07:22 AM
Though it is an original airframe,


This is not correct.

This aircraft is a Flugwerk kit with an original data plate.

This is a loophole the FAA is working to close as it allows anyone to buy a data plate, mate to a non-original kit plane, and register it as an original Warbird.

Engadin
01-01-2010, 07:27 AM
Such a beautiful beast! Even with the three 'spoons' at the propeller. Well, perhaps I've gone too far with the comparison but I bet at least youŽll agree with me on using the term 'rowing paddles' for the three of them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
01-01-2010, 07:42 AM
Even with the three 'spoons' at the propeller.

That propeller or blade design never flew on any Focke Wulf aircraft, it is for the Ash-82 series.

We restored two of the 5 service propellers used on the FW-190A series including the wide chord wooden composite propeller.

http://www.white1foundation.or...rts/prop_assemb4.jpg (http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/prop_assemb4.jpg)

Our BMW801 is getting the final touches on it and we have already started on the first spare BMW801 restoration.


youŽll agree with me on using the term 'rowing paddles' for the three of them.

I love that effect on films. Unfortunately, you can't see it in the cockpit when flying an airplane. The propeller moves too fast for our eye to register it but if you concentrate, you can see the edges of the disk.

Metatron_123
01-01-2010, 08:55 AM
I'm also looking forward to those flugwerk Fw-190Ds. It's nice to see resources utilized for the sake of aviation history.

Engadin
01-01-2010, 01:27 PM
Thanks Kettenhunde, your comments are really interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Buzzsaw-
01-01-2010, 03:15 PM
Salute

Kettenhunde/Crumpp is quite correct.

This plane is a replica, very few if any original parts.

The Ash-82 which powers the Flugwerk replica is the Soviet made engine which was originally used in the La-5/7 series, no relation to the engines used in the original FW-190. The Ash had less power than the later 801's, was a little lighter. Flugwerk is using the Ash because it was manufactured postwar, later models were used in civilian aircraft, even helicopters, and there are quite a number available. Over 70,000 were made.

Both the BMW-801 and Ash-82 were 14 cylinder double row radials, with roughly comparable sizes and weights, so the replicas can be built with generally similar dimensions to the original 190's.

I think it is a great thing that Flugwerk is building these aircraft, but everyone should understand they are not original aircraft which have been rebuilt to exact Focke-Wulf specifications. There are many differences.

M_Gunz
01-01-2010, 06:10 PM
+1 how good it is to see any of those designs/shapes revived. I even applaud the scale kit models that
only have the shape and sometimes paintjobs but max IAS of 200kph or less.

M_Gunz
01-01-2010, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">youŽll agree with me on using the term 'rowing paddles' for the three of them.

I love that effect on films. Unfortunately, you can't see it in the cockpit when flying an airplane. The propeller moves too fast for our eye to register it but if you concentrate, you can see the edges of the disk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just since you probably know or could find out quickly, what ratios had the reduction-gears of 190's? This is to
get a better idea of how fast the prop actually turned when we already know the engine rpms used.

Gaston444
01-01-2010, 07:10 PM
There are indeed many differences, one of the more notable ones for me is that the exterior cowling has a tubular shape all around, when in fact the real thing should have a tapered cowling profile for the top half.

Eduard mistakenly copied this tubular cowl feature on their 1/48th model: It looks terrible, as does the scale 32cm wide windshield (should be 25!). Hasegawa got theirs right...

One of these new Fluegwerk FW-190A8Ns is said by its owners to sustain turns mid-way between a P-51D Mustang and the 107-powered Yak-3... SOME things are looking right...

Gaston

AndyJWest
01-01-2010, 07:50 PM
One of these new Fluegwerk FW-190A8Ns is said by its owners to sustain turns mid-way between a P-51D Mustang and the 107-powered Yak-3... SOME things are looking right

Now there is an uncontroversial aside, if ever I saw one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
01-01-2010, 09:08 PM
They put guns, ammo and armor in those things? I mean, besides the lighter engine and different prop?

AndyJWest
01-01-2010, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
They put guns, ammo and armor in those things? I mean, besides the lighter engine and different prop?
Shhh... don't spoil it for Gaston.

M_Gunz
01-01-2010, 11:07 PM
Of course the P-51 is not exactly a turn fighter. P-40 was much better at that and it wasn't great at flat 360's
compared to many. If it had been then the AVG would have used very different tactics. How many Yaks had 107VK
engines and how did those with the extra mass compare to those without?
I've been asked to believe that some planes didn't turn as well because they were nose heavy. Really? If you
couldn't trim them, if they couldn't be balanced then how did they manage to take off, fly and land? Hold the
stick back the whole time? Sorry but that's what trim does.
I've heard of courses like Math for Poets. Reading into anecdotes to determine flight is Aviation for Dreamers.
While the technical world has to prove by doing, measuring and producing it seems ridiculous to see them claimed
wrong by anyone who doesn't have to do anything but match words to whims. I've seen worse, be sure it by idiots
who badly needed to prove that "schools and books are wrong" to make themselves feel big in the face of what they
were not rather than being content with what they were which was fine enough. But some people are just so complete
when they stop learning that anyone who knows something they don't is just too much for them to take, so they fight
rather than "being learned". People who drive cars and watch TV have told me "science is wrong" and "back it up"
with fists and feet because the way to truth is whoever can win the fight. At least that was the Army I was in.

JtD
01-02-2010, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

what ratios had the reduction-gears of 190's?

1:1.85

na85
01-02-2010, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Of course the P-51 is not exactly a turn fighter. P-40 was much better at that and it wasn't great at flat 360's
compared to many. If it had been then the AVG would have used very different tactics. How many Yaks had 107VK
engines and how did those with the extra mass compare to those without?
I've been asked to believe that some planes didn't turn as well because they were nose heavy. Really? If you
couldn't trim them, if they couldn't be balanced then how did they manage to take off, fly and land? Hold the
stick back the whole time? Sorry but that's what trim does.
I've heard of courses like Math for Poets. Reading into anecdotes to determine flight is Aviation for Dreamers.
While the technical world has to prove by doing, measuring and producing it seems ridiculous to see them claimed
wrong by anyone who doesn't have to do anything but match words to whims. I've seen worse, be sure it by idiots
who badly needed to prove that "schools and books are wrong" to make themselves feel big in the face of what they
were not rather than being content with what they were which was fine enough. But some people are just so complete
when they stop learning that anyone who knows something they don't is just too much for them to take, so they fight
rather than "being learned". People who drive cars and watch TV have told me "science is wrong" and "back it up"
with fists and feet because the way to truth is whoever can win the fight. At least that was the Army I was in.

Awesome post.

Outlaw---
01-02-2010, 02:33 AM
The second video is not the same aircraft as the first and third video.

Not that it makes a difference, but, there are actually 3 pieces (or were last time I talked to the owner) from the original airframe on the restoration (1st and 3rd videos), not just the data plate.

--Outlaw.

Gaston444
01-02-2010, 03:23 PM
Quote, M_Gunz: "While the technical world has to prove by doing, measuring and producing it seems ridiculous to see them claimed wrong by anyone who doesn't have to do anything but match words to whims. I've seen worse, be sure it by idiots who badly needed to prove that "schools and books are wrong" to make themselves feel big in the face of what they
were not rather than being content with what they were which was fine enough."


-Rather than strenuously defend the "technical world", whatever that elusive entity happens to be, would it not be easier to simply listen to what the people who fought actually said? Or look at what a SABRE looks like as opposed to a FLORET for that matter?:


http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war...iences-fw-190-a.html (http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html)

The problem with the "technical world" is that most of the methodology and formulas you treat as sancro-sanctum came about at a time when the "technical world" couldn't have cared less about the prop-driven junk we care about...

WWII technical methodology on foreign captured aircraft is questionable at best, and blatant contradictions between test pilots on foreign types and combat pilots on their own familiar mounts should at the very least give the most consistent accounts the edge: And that's on the side of the combat pilots, as one of the rare US comparison tests made AT the front-line, WITH combat pilots, gives a very consistent account to the Russian view, or the Rechlin's own tests:


http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk


"The FW-190 out-turns the Me-109G at any speed" "sabre vs floret" "FW-190 will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed". It all paints a PICTURE you know... You see what I mean by a PICTURE? And from wildly disparate sources at that, while maths formulas are universal, not reality-tested, and thus just ONE source no matter who or how many adds them up...

Gaston

P.S. As for US or UK test pilots telling us the P-47 can't compete in turns with a Merlin P-51, I think that's just a clue how awesomely flawed their methodology or prejudice was, but the case is less colourfully clear than with the pathetically obvious German mainstay fighters example...

G.

Choctaw111
01-02-2010, 05:47 PM
I really love the Eagle noseart.
I just may paint that on my Jeep.

Kettenhunde
01-02-2010, 09:29 PM
Not that it makes a difference, but, there are actually 3 pieces (or were last time I talked to the owner) from the original airframe on the restoration (1st and 3rd videos), not just the data plate.

It is a Flugwerk Kit and the FAA has closed the loophole.

They wanted certain original parts form us to mount on it. They won't fit.

There is almost nothing from a real FW-190 that will fit on a Flugwerk kit.

JtD
01-03-2010, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
...
[the usual stuff]
...

Let me remind you:

Still to be provided by Gaston444 with name of the source (3rd enquiry):
Clean power off stall speed for 109G:
Clean power off stall speed for 190A:

M_Gunz
01-03-2010, 02:19 AM
The lift and drag formulas I know were around well before 1940.

When you're out cherry-picking quotes then everything YOU want is 100% true and everything else is ignored.
And there is no global warming either. Oh wait, now it's not due to anything mankind has done. And cigarettes
are not bad for you if you listen to tobacco company science right up to when they finally lost -- the quotes
are out there to 'prove' they're not.

Seriously the anecdote/recall game is nowhere since the are anecdotes and out-of-context clips to disprove
whatever anecdotes and out-of-context clips that anyone can drag up.

Science is wrong, they said so on TV! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif