FW190 flying in the UK ?

AndyG

.
And does the Belgrade museum still have its 190?

brgds

Alan

Yes

Dave

AndyG

Might that have been Dieter Schmitt, by any chance?
Fascinating thread.
And does the Belgrade museum still have its 190?

brgds

Alan

I dont have experience of the Flugwerk aircraft, but I do have a good deal of experience of the original.

The original undercarriage system is a masterpiece of German design. I seriously doubt that it would be lifed at 60 hours.

I would suggest that the reason for redesigning it for the replica aircraft is due to the poor availability of original parts, and to make it easier to manufacture – the original is VERY complicated.

Bruce

Hi Bruce, you may be correct. IIRC the comments were related to the seals and pistons in the legs, perhaps late war when materials were in short supply the quality was dropped. I think that the original retraction system is a geared electric motor which had a declutching mechanism (please correct as you know a lot more than I) to allow it to freefall in a failure? At that time they had to design a new emergency extension system for I guess modern requirements. I still believe that the the system is as close a replica as is feasible. The tail wheel retracts with a similar bowden cable system tied into the mains and has a very clever and simple latch mechanism. All told I think they did their best to replicate the undercarriage. I was amazed how electric the entire design is and was.

Speaking to an old FW pilot there, he told me that they even had an automatic salt water activated primative ELT in their parachute packs. He escaped from the red army with three ground crew aboard his FW190. After stripping out all non essential items and radios. Two in the fuselage and one with ‘in’ the cockpit, flying several cold hours back to Germany from the former Soviet block. Quite a character.

G-WULF The WAR replica is alive still and in the process of being put back to flying condition with new colour scheme

wulf190a

As described to me at FW, the original undercarriage of Mr Tank’s design was lifed at something like 60hrs IIRC, the original cylinders and seals were quite crude.

I understand that the FlugWerk main gear has been redesigned with a focus on safety and reliability in its modern new role. The related electrical systems, motors and emergency extension system may also have had the once over with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight.

It’s a faithful replica not a fatal replica. Pretty sensible don’t you concur?

Pity that the UK CAA wouldn’t allow any nasties of other contemporary but more common ‘thin but robust provenance’ designs to be fixed too.

I dont have experience of the Flugwerk aircraft, but I do have a good deal of experience of the original.

The original undercarriage system is a masterpiece of German design. I seriously doubt that it would be lifed at 60 hours.

I would suggest that the reason for redesigning it for the replica aircraft is due to the poor availability of original parts, and to make it easier to manufacture – the original is VERY complicated.

Bruce

Such a waste of a good airframe the way it’s displayed, should be on its legs in a good scheme, not hung from a roof like a model

1.Just wondering wheres this FW190 today?
2.Was it a flyer on the UK airshow scene?
3. Was a FW190 ever a flying display in the UK in the last 30 years?

11group,

That happens to be my photograph – one of a group that I sent to the Duxford Update site some months ago. I took it in 1986 when the FW190 was at Duxford for restoration while the Imperial War Museum at Lambeth was being revamped. The IWM’s He162, BE2 and Swordfish were also at Duxford at the same time, together with various cockpit sections – the Swordfish is still there.

As David Burke says, the FW190 is back in Lambeth now. I remember reading somewhere that it had been found as part of a Mistel composite – presumably on top of a Ju88 or something similar. The attached photograph shows it at the IWM in 1981 – you can see that it was supported on blocks, so I suppose the undercarriage had been weakened at some point.

Andy – I managed to examine an undercarriage up lock assembly from a genuine FW190 and a newly built Flug Werke assembly and they are not interchangeable. There are many other differences between the two which cannot simply be put down to not having full drawings .

As described to me at FW, the original undercarriage of Mr Tank’s design was lifed at something like 60hrs IIRC, the original cylinders and seals were quite crude.

I understand that the FlugWerk main gear has been redesigned with a focus on safety and reliability in its modern new role. The related electrical systems, motors and emergency extension system may also have had the once over with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight.

It’s a faithful replica not a fatal replica. Pretty sensible don’t you concur?

Pity that the UK CAA wouldn’t allow any nasties of other contemporary but more common ‘thin but robust provenance’ designs to be fixed too.

Andy – I managed to examine an undercarriage up lock assembly from a genuine FW190 and a newly built Flug Werke assembly and they are not interchangeable. There are many other differences between the two which cannot simply be put down to not having full drawings .

Or it could be the fact that there’s not many left these days, and that even if there were, what powerplant would they use given that BMW engines aren’t exactly plentiful either?

Nothing to do with sides at all! People still rebuild ‘109s and Zeros – two planes which were synonymous with death and destruction, and much better-known than the Butcher Bird!

:confused: i thought we all loved classic aircraft here.

i hardly think it’s the aircraft’s fault for being associated with one side or another

It may be to do with the regime they’re associated with

beautiful, its strange that the Fw 190 isnt more popular, or is it due to the rarity of original airframes?

The engine was run occasionally.

Sure was!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y5LBUVS1T8

Cheers

Paul

Andy – the Spitfire ‘recreations’ we see by and large conform to the build standard and drawings originally produced by Supermarine /Vickers Supermarine. The German Flug Werke recreations do not conform to the original FW drawings in a number of ways. Therefore they are not the genuine article or faithful replicas.

Not suggesting they are the absolute genuine article, however as close as you are likely to get within the realms of practicality and also the limitations placed upon them by the German regs. ie one example, there is a casting in the spar web section which has a hole for a machine gun to reside which I understand the German authorities wouldn’t allow to be replicated as it would then be ‘possible’ to fit guns, which they aren’t allowed. If you want guns on a FlugWerk you can however fit a stubby barrel in these locations.

Still, much as I like them a modern ‘thin but robust’ provenance Spitfire is a brand new airframe. Had full manufacturing drawings been available to FW, then they may have been judged in the same light.

Under the circumstances I think faithful is a reasonable description. An Australian kit plane Spitfire home built, however nice a machine is not even close to faithful. (Shall we start an anorak thread on what ‘faithful’ means?;) )

I think we’ll all enjoy them when we finally see them in the air.

Andy – the Spitfire ‘recreations’ we see by and large conform to the build standard and drawings originally produced by Supermarine /Vickers Supermarine. The German Flug Werke recreations do not conform to the original FW drawings in a number of ways. Therefore they are not the genuine article or faithful replicas.

And/or brakes i believe

In graduate school at Arizona State University, I did a project on the Champlin Collection (why not do something you like and get access to to all the neat planes?)

In interview, Champlin (who was a very nice and accessable man) was adament that it had never flown (he didn’t have flight insurance on the aircraft) but was restored to flight condition.
The engine was run occasionally.

The only thing that held it back, back then was lack of servicable prop governor I think

G-WULF by any chance? Used to be owned, I think, by Mike Searle, who helped out with the rebuild of a certain G-FIRE, I seem to recall.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/WAR-Focke-Wulf-190/0518685/M/

Thats the one, I remember seeing her at Biggin a bit when i was a kid.

There was a rumour around that shortly after its initial restoration (mid 70’s) that Doug Champlin’s FW 190 D13 had made a test hop in about 1976. BTW Kurt Tank was an adviser to the restoration.

Septic.

In graduate school at Arizona State University, I did a project on the Champlin Collection (why not do something you like and get access to to all the neat planes?)

In interview, Champlin (who was a very nice and accessable man) was adament that it had never flown (he didn’t have flight insurance on the aircraft) but was restored to flight condition.
The engine was run occasionally.