Rudy Frasca’s Flug Werk 190 has been carrying out taxi tests and ground runs at Chino. Powerplant is an R2800. Going on how tight things were under the cowling on the former DX based example, it really must be a real squeeze under the cowlings of this one! First flight is said to be looming 🙂 Here’s some pictures courtesy of JK at Duxford.
By: DoraNineFan - 16th May 2010 at 00:04
Do you mean this one?
Does not look bad, does it?
Better than a Merlin powered 109 if you´d ask me…:diablo:Michael
P.S.: Maybe someone could consider refitting one with a DB 605 and german markings as well. THAT would be an eye-(and ear as well) catcher. Right idea for BoB….
Pic taken from this site:
I’ve been wondering if someone will ever make such a conversion for fun or interest. I guess it would be a paperwork nightmare if attempted (or not allowed to fly at all) with today’s regulatory authority. But it would be nifty.
By: QldSpitty - 15th May 2010 at 22:43
Anyone got a spare Me110 firewall,engine bearer assembly and Damilar laying around?
By: redvanner - 15th May 2010 at 20:42
It was tried once……
It had a DB605 fitted, right enough, but it WAS tried! :diablo:
Do you mean this one?
Does not look bad, does it?
Better than a Merlin powered 109 if you´d ask me…:diablo:
Michael
P.S.: Maybe someone could consider refitting one with a DB 605 and german markings as well. THAT would be an eye-(and ear as well) catcher. Right idea for BoB….
Pic taken from this site:
By: DazDaMan - 15th May 2010 at 07:46
Imagine a Spitfire with hinged cowlings, over center catches etc!!! (just kidding!)
It was tried once……
It had a DB605 fitted, right enough, but it WAS tried! :diablo:
By: AndyG - 14th May 2010 at 23:24
From memory an uplock assembly.
I recall being told that the struts were re-designed internally, modern seals, bushings etc for longevity and the retraction motors, gearbox, clutch, emergency extension system etc were quite modern derivatives and different for obvious reasons of availablity and the old freefall emergency system was not easily replicated or desirable in operation in modern times, although faithful in principle, as was the bowden cable links to the tail wheel retract mechanism. Perhaps the uplock falls into the same category of a modern improvement? I take my hat off to them for taking a sensible route of improvement.
From other comments, I don’t recall anything to suggest that the primary structures of the wings, spars, fuselage etc. were anything other than a faithful replication as far as was practicable with the obvious compromises required for powerplant, sub systems and armaments and with the dimensional information to hand.
As and aside, I wonder how many modern ‘nice to haves’ that given a different CAA legislative and certification environment, many other common warbird operators would like to incorporate into their airframes or systems?
Imagine a Spitfire with hinged cowlings, over center catches etc!!! (just kidding!)
By: David Burke - 14th May 2010 at 22:55
From memory an uplock assembly.
By: AndyG - 14th May 2010 at 22:18
Perculiar that Andy because I looked at a Flug Werke part with a FW190 owner years ago and it didn’t really look like his genuine example reverse engineered or not!
I do also know of several examples where they materially differ, some of these were ilustrated in detail on a walk around at the factory. One example was a major casting which forms part of the inner spar, the web hole for the armament was not allowed to be replicated, so that they couldn’t ever be fitted with real firing guns….. A hang over from the war incredibly.
As far as I am aware, the primary structures are as faithful as practicable within the constraints they had, powerplant and original mechanical component availability etc. There may be subtle differences indeed in detail given the lack of all the original drawings to work from, however some of the remarks comparing them to ‘kitplanes’ is just not fair. They are definately not like comparing an Australian Spitfire M26 to a real MkV as some other posters alude. Send an email to Claus Colling and ask him questions about his products. Much better to report the facts to the forum.
They should be given due credit considering the complexity of the project and the success we are starting to be rewarded with ourselves at airshows.
Which parts of the structure or mechanical components did you compare back then David? Was it the undercarriage retraction components by any chance?
By: David Burke - 14th May 2010 at 21:46
Perculiar that Andy because I looked at a Flug Werke part with a FW190 owner years ago and it didn’t really look like his genuine example reverse engineered or not!
By: AndyG - 14th May 2010 at 21:21
I was under teh impression they were built using original plans and the only difference was the use of modern metals and different engines but then I’m usually wrong. If what I was lead to believe is true then I feel that the CAA are being over cautious (as usual) as the new ones are not being subjected to stresses anything like the original ones were.
Original drawings ~65% and reverse-engineered drawings, where old ones were not longer available ~35%.
Some time ago, Arthur Bentley recounted to me one evening over some fiendishly strong weissbier, how he had been searching through boxes of old paper drawings at the Smithsonian, looking for a key drawing detailing the layout and coordinates and spacings of the fuselage frames. One of the batches of drawings he searched through was wrapped up in a large piece of dirty old paper.
He couldn’t find what he was looking for, but when he started to wrap them up again, he noticed that the large crumpled piece of paper which had wrapped up the bundle was a drawing! Incredibly, this was the key drawing with all the geometry information he needed to allow the project to progress.
Referring to these aeroplanes as ‘kitplanes’ is disingenuous at best.
By: mike currill - 14th May 2010 at 19:18
Oh well that’s my misconception sorted then now all I have to do is remember where I read it and then I can get in touch with them and inform them of their error.
By: Mark V - 14th May 2010 at 10:34
I was under teh impression they were built using original plans and the only difference was the use of modern metals and different engines but then I’m usually wrong.
No Mike – very few (if any) of the parts are inter-changeable – structurally they are quite different.
Some owners such as Fighter Factory/Meier Motors have introduced original instruments and cockpit parts to add to the appearance but fundamentally they are different aircraft.
By: DazDaMan - 14th May 2010 at 06:32
Awesome news! 🙂
By: ZRX61 - 14th May 2010 at 01:32
It flew today.
By: mike currill - 14th May 2010 at 00:04
I was under teh impression they were built using original plans and the only difference was the use of modern metals and different engines but then I’m usually wrong. If what I was lead to believe is true then I feel that the CAA are being over cautious (as usual) as the new ones are not being subjected to stresses anything like the original ones were.
By: AndyG - 13th May 2010 at 23:30
But lets remember, these new build 190’s may look like 190’s on the outside, but inside they are quite different.
Do you know what exactly the differences are?
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th May 2010 at 19:13
But lets remember, these new build 190’s may look like 190’s on the outside, but inside they are quite different.
They are what the are………kit planes based on an original
Its ok saying you can fly any warbird on the N reg, but i’ve come across some N reg rebuilds that would make anyone’s blood turn cold.
By: mike currill - 13th May 2010 at 19:05
I agree ,safety must come first.
Could i ask why the same aircraft could fly under another registration though,surely if it is safe it is safe or vice versa.
Yes I agree safety is paramount but the CAA and EASA seem to make regulations using safety as their excuse which are not conducive to improving safety and in some cases are even detrimental. When they stop making regulations which are injurious to the safe operation of machines and the afety of their crew I’ll offer them a bit more support. At the moment it appears to be making regulations for the sake of it just because it can and has nothing better to do with it’s time. Let’s see some sensible consideration given to problems before making knee jerk reaction type regulations. We akll know that if you make something foolproof only a fool will use it.
By: David Burke - 13th May 2010 at 10:10
The RAF based a ‘loss rate’ as such on examination of preceding types. Hence the Tucano’s fleet size was allowed for on examination of the loss rate of the Jet
Provost .Luckily for both pilots and now some operators in the U.S it’s accident rate has been very low hence why the RAF has surplus aircraft to sell.
Regards ‘safe’ or indeed an ‘unsafe’ design – in times of war we might well have instances where modifications or a type itself has entered service which might with hindsight have not been allowed if matters were not pressing.
In the case of warbirds however we are talking of flying for enjoyment and not necessity which means that there isn’t an overiding requirement to fly no matter what. In the case of the Flug Werke 190 were talking about an aircraft that deviates in a number of ways from the original design . Interestingly the CAA has allowed both a genuine Me109 ,license built Me109’s and licence built He111’s to fly on the U.k register so this points to me clearly of an ability to accept aircraft on the U.K register which comform to the manufacturers drawings and have been factory built.
By: pagen01 - 13th May 2010 at 09:42
That’s a big yardstick, the aircraft arn’t unsafe as such, or they wouldn’t have entered operational service, and people wouldn’t want to fly them.
The EE Lightning will always be the classic example, it wasn’t an unsafe aeroplane, but even in service with all the manpower and huge resources available to the RAF it still had to be handled with care and spent a vast amount of time in maintainance. This is something that cannot be underestimated and no civilian, profit making organisation, can hope to get close to.
It is alos often overlooked in these disscussions that service aircraft were ordered and built with a loss rate in mind, which was deemed acceptable by the services – something which is clearly unacceptable in the civilian world, both in the interests of safety to crew and people on the ground.
The likes of the FW190 were ordered as complex war machines to serve a very specific job, handling is geared towards fast combat, ease of servicing and docile handling (I believe both fairly good with the 190 as it happens) comes second and that is something that has to be considered when operating these types now.
IMO the CAA takes the right stance on this at the moment.
By: David Burke - 13th May 2010 at 09:41
It’s not saying it’s safe or not ! It’s entirely down to the countries interpretation of whether they feel it’s safe – different people see different problems or indeed solutions.
Sign In
May 10, 2010 at 8:41 pm