Another beautiful FW190 Replica…

OK guys,

Since I’m the one who initiated this thread, I think it is my duty to put a final word to it as, obviously, it is going nowhere now and does not add any value to the forum.

So my apologies to have misplaced this thread into the ‘Historic Aviation’ forum instead of the ‘General Aviation’ one.

Merry Christmas to all and let’s keep the facsimile aircraft being built :diablo:

Cheers,

Jacques

The Focke Wulf has a different name actually, it’s FW 190 A8/N, FW is meant as Flug Werk and N as “New” if I remember correctly, and anyway since it’s constructed following the original drawings and have many original parts I’d dare to call it a Focke Wulf.
Check these pics

As per the “Storch” u r right, that’s a “Slepchev Storch”. The “fake spit” is a wooden replica built with new drawings, it would be better and in a way even respectful to find another name for it, like “wooden spit” or something.. I wouldnt call it a Spit as I wouldnt call a Zero the T-6s customized for Tora Tora Tora

Cheers

Alex

P.S.
Finished the Xmas Eve dinner and I’m here again! Am I getting addicted to this forum or my relatives are more boring than usual? :rolleyes: 😉

In that case, then, the Flug-Werke Focke-Wulf is a replica, even if it is built to orignal drawings. Mark’s Spit is built to original drawings, but even he isn’t calling it a Mk20-something… :rolleyes:

The Focke Wulf has a different name actually, it’s FW 190 A8/N, FW is meant as Flug Werk and N as “New” if I remember correctly, and anyway since it’s constructed following the original drawings and have many original parts I’d dare to call it a Focke Wulf.
Check these pics

As per the “Storch” u r right, that’s a “Slepchev Storch”. The “fake spit” is a wooden replica built with new drawings, it would be better and in a way even respectful to find another name for it, like “wooden spit” or something.. I wouldnt call it a Spit as I wouldnt call a Zero the T-6s customized for Tora Tora Tora

Cheers

Alex

P.S.
Finished the Xmas Eve dinner and I’m here again! Am I getting addicted to this forum or my relatives are more boring than usual? :rolleyes: 😉

Well in that case you can’t call that Focke-Wulf a Focke-Wulf – or your mate’s “Storch” a Storch… :rolleyes:

that’s his point of view, I dont agree with him but I respect it.. What is for sure is that he can’t call it a Spitfire, even if it looks like it..
As per yr wooden replica, my Hamilton Standard prop can’t wait to chop some fresh wood 😀 😉

Cheers!

Alex

Six and a half, Mike, do what you will, but I was just making a point as to the “why build a replica” vein of the discussion.

Anyway, once I’ve built mine (and that WILL happen!), I’m coming to find you… :p

This from a friend…

…

Daren,

To start, I wonder where your correspondent promoting the comparison
of a replica vs a “real one” actually “comes from”/reasoning? What is
the basis for the challenge/question?

Perhaps you can post your threads of this discussion??

Anyway – I personally consider most aircraft to have appeal – some
have more appeal than others for their various design puproses. Eg
the DC-3 – we have a number still operational in South Africa,
including DC-4’s, DC-6’s etc – when they rumble overhead, I apways
have to go outside and watch tehm/listen as they go by. BTW – they
are still one of the cheaper cost per mile per kg for airfreight!

There are a long list of “nice to build” designs available to the
EAA/PFA type – just take a look at the annual shopping list of kits
and plans available in the December issue of Kitplanes magazine – let
alone a replica.

Enough on generalities – the Battle of Britain movie in 1969 at age
10 was hugely appealing and left it’s mark.

Perhaps we all find a combination of factors that are all wrapped up
in the Spitfire, that no single other design has?

Other posts have referred to history, a symbol of defiance, victory
over threat, education for future generations, etc. I agree with all
of it and more. Each of you will have your own list of reasons.

So, it boils down to – for me – the Spitfire symbolises all that is
pure in terms of design, efficiency, grace, lines, perfection in it’s
time, enduring, history, purpose ……

To be able to build and fly – my own – Spitfire will be the pinnacle
of achievement for my creativity – expressed in form and flight.

Finally, (just to make a strange statement – but think about it for a
moment first)I find I actually have no reason to have to justify
building my own Spitfire to anyone else but myself! 🙂

(Oh and to try for the next 10 years to explain to my wife where the
money is coming from)

that is for sure, I was talking in general, there surely are many superb restorations, but I dont think they outlast any flyer simply because they sit there.. Sometimes it sounds to me a little bit “fetish”, having a plane in pristine conditions and not giving it a chance to fly. If u ask any pilot about a plane in working order sitting in a museum u would always here the same answer “I wish I could fly it!”. It’s not just the machine, it’s the men, pilots, groundcrew, history.. It’s a whole world behind that plane taxiing for takeoff, and the only acceptable way to sing it is growling in a low flypast.

cheers

Alex

NASM are the FW190 guys right? They spent a lot of money for it and now they’re too afraid of pranging it.. It’s pretty understandable considering the relatively unexplored flight envelope, but I hope they’ll sell it soon to a “braver” owner, that FW190D MUST fly.
Another thing I can’t stand is the Reno racers thing: can u imagine how many engines and airframes are scrapped every year, without considering the terrible accidents happened in the past. It must be a thrill to see or fly a “mustang” zooming at 50 feet at 800Km/h, but u’d better not have a family waiting for u!!

cheers

Alex

National Air & Space Museum , Washington DC. I doubt the craftsmen who spend thousands of hours restoring an aircraft to original condition would agree that their aircraft are worse condition than an airworthy one. Same goes with the Champlin Dora at the Seattle Museum of Flight. They are kept in a controlled atmospheric environment and will outlast any ‘flyer’

Dave

Another thing I can’t stand is the Reno racers thing

Agree on this totally. I hate seeing *******ised warbirds being flown that way. They should be properly painted and flown respectfully.

exactly, u resumed the thing way better than me 🙂
english is a really pragmatic and short-sentenced language, but my italian way of speaking prevails sometimes 😉

Alex

So if you have a Seafury and do this to it.
www.airliners.net/open.file/696808/M/
What is it then.

Still a Sea Fury.

The aircraft stopped being original when it landed at its first base and the local engineers got their hands on it. Tyres, wheels, screws, nuts and bolts were replaced. A few weeks later it had a minor accident and they had to replace some metal. During a major overhaul it may have gotten a new outboard wing from stores and some additional replacement parts. At sometime during its life the instrument layout was changed because newer instruments became available. After its service life it may have undergone modifications to the airframe and instruments at Hawkers because it was sold on to a new air force. After its service life there it may have had a civil career as a skywriter/target tug, for both of which it needed modifying. At the end it is still a Sea Fury. Only modified from the way it first left the factory. The fact that the aircraft is now a Mk.XVII type C mod 2346a/37bis after SB 63-9876B and AD78-14397 doesn’t change what it started out as. It will never become a Mustang 😉

I too would like to see the cockpit in its original state, but in the end that’s up to the owner. The warbird world is slowly moving towards restoring aircraft to full military and/or original specs, but safety issues, practical issues or simply money and availability of parts/time/skilled hands may still prevail.

Glenn, it might look awful, but u r still dealing with a real warbird. A seafury is a beast,powerful, loud, fast.. if u can make yr life easier by adding a more reliable cockpit layout go for it, I personally find it horrible, but once again it’s a matter of taste and safety.
NASM are the FW190 guys right? They spent a lot of money for it and now they’re too afraid of pranging it.. It’s pretty understandable considering the relatively unexplored flight envelope, but I hope they’ll sell it soon to a “braver” owner, that FW190D MUST fly.
Another thing I can’t stand is the Reno racers thing: can u imagine how many engines and airframes are scrapped every year, without considering the terrible accidents happened in the past. It must be a thrill to see or fly a “mustang” zooming at 50 feet at 800Km/h, but u’d better not have a family waiting for u!!

cheers

Alex

So if you have a Seafury and do this to it.
www.airliners.net/open.file/696808/M/
What is it then.

It’s still the original airframe but no longer identical every way. Not by a long shot.
The airframe doesn’t then become a replica.

Urgh! They could have at least kept the proper stick in it! :rolleyes:

Archer, no matter how much rare a machine is, if it’s possible to make it fly well it has to! That’s the best way to preserve it, to keep it in working conditions. If u have a visit in any museum u’ll notice that there always are some planes that are in poor status, and that’s just because they’re not kept in working order. A wise and meticulous restoration program, toghether with continuous inspections and the presence of a skillfull pilot,who’s not gonna push it to the limit, are the winning keys for a successful airworthy restoration. If an original WW1 plane can fly 90 years after its original construction (think about Shuttleworth) I can’t see why all the others cant. Planes belong to the sky, not to museums.

Alex

Tell that to the NASM 🙂

So if you have a Seafury and do this to it.
www.airliners.net/open.file/696808/M/
What is it then.

It’s still the original airframe but no longer identical every way. Not by a long shot.
The airframe doesn’t then become a replica.

Archer, no matter how much rare a machine is, if it’s possible to make it fly well it has to! That’s the best way to preserve it, to keep it in working conditions. If u have a visit in any museum u’ll notice that there always are some planes that are in poor status, and that’s just because they’re not kept in working order. A wise and meticulous restoration program, toghether with continuous inspections and the presence of a skillfull pilot,who’s not gonna push it to the limit, are the winning keys for a successful airworthy restoration. If an original WW1 plane can fly 90 years after its original construction (think about Shuttleworth) I can’t see why all the others cant. Planes belong to the sky, not to museums.

Alex

about the GPS issue.. lots of things in restored warbirds are not genuine, usually it’s all about wirings, but lots of ppl decide to abandon vacuum gauges to rely on electrical ones. There’s an imperative rule for this: safety first. If u feel like having a white cockpit panel and electrical gauges gives u a safer flying experience then go for it. Sometimes ppl dont understand the thin line between the looks and the need for safety, so that’s why someone might not like the idea of a GPS inside a cockpit. I think the best compromise is the portable GPS, that u can stick to yr leg while inflight..
It’s a matter of taste too: I personally like the idea of sitting in the pit and feeling the same appeal boys like me felt 50 years before, so we’re trying to “keep it real”, but of course some concession is inevitable, like a a VOR/ILS gauge and radios (that can be well hidden during static display of course).
About the Hurri replica..I think it looks pretty cartoonish, and it doesnt have the appeal of a genuine warbird with a story, so to me it’s just a waste of time & money, but remember it’s just my personal opinion..

Alex

One of my relatives saw the fuselage being on the ponton from a distance, looking like ditched, thought it was plane crash, raced over while calling emergency services and got a speeding ticket while on her way 😀 😀 😀
Cop’s response, “sure ma’m, the best excuse we heard lately, but we’re giving you the ticket anyway” 😀 😀 😀

Nice one! 😀 😀

I was early enough not to have to speed towards the ‘crash site’ 😉
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=36010

So if you stick a GPS in a spit, it then becomes a replica or a fascimile ?

Just a quick reply: no it doesn’t. We all accept that to keep aircraft in the air some concessions need to be made to modern requirements. A GPS stuck in a cockpit doesn’t alter the basics of the airframe or systems. It doesn’t make the Spit in itself any less original than it was without the GPS. If we want to go down this discussion route we’ll get into the big ‘originality’ quagmire.

Snapper gives a great example of one of the big advantages of a reproduced aircraft: you have the benefits of a trustworthy structure with modern materials and systems. Also you will not write off a historic item when you crash it. On the other hand: should this change the way you fly it? I’d say no, the only change would be that the flight envelope can be more fully explored because of the modern structure. Still you should always aim to end the flight with all wheels safely on the ground. This remains the same for an original Fw190 or other valuable warbird. Any airplane should always be flown within the aircraft’s and the pilot’s and the environment’s limits.

Another aspect is uniqueness. Say Flugwerk only built one FW190, would you still take the same ‘risks’ because it is ‘just a reproduction’? Indeed it isn’t an original airplane, but it is the only representation of a flying Focke-Wulf available and this gives it a ‘uniqueness’ factor that (in my view) gives it an intrinsic value that almost equals that of an original warbird. Allright, Flugwerk will be building more than one, but many of these will disperse to different areas of the globe, so after a few years the above situation may well apply for say Europe. In the case of the Me262s being built, they may not sell all the aircraft, leaving only 2 or 3 complete and airworthy. You would then end up with the same situation again.

By the way: Nice Hurricane scale replica Daz, but had I had Galdri’s choice and even knowing this would have been available, I would’ve chosen the Gemini too! 😀

The Boeing 747 first flew in 1969, and the majority of Boeing discussions is still held in the commercial forum! 😉 The solution might be to stick it in a museum Daz 😀 😀 😀

Actually, the Aviodrome museum in Lelystad, the Netherlands, has just received it’s Boeing 747 Louis Bleriot after a epic transport through the streets and waterways.
Even fully stripped, the thing was considered too heavy on a too short runway.
It was transported as fusealge only, tail removed, and wings on tailers.

One of my relatives saw the fuselage being on the ponton from a distance, looking like ditched, thought it was plane crash, raced over while calling emergency services and got a speeding ticket while on her way 😀 😀 😀
http://www.almeernieuws.net/images/20041215_boeing/index.htm
Cop’s response, “sure ma’m, the best excuse we heard lately, but we’re giving you the ticket anyway” 😀 😀 😀