FW-190 at Manching

RE: FW-190 at Manching

There may be plenty of P-51Ds flying but I think there is probably a market for P-51A,B/Cs and even maybe the odd A-36, just look at the interest generated by Tom Freikin’s at Flying Legends this year and the long awaited sight of Princess Elizabeth.
We all have a wish list ( P-61 Black Widow!!) but the few have the money unfortunatly…(must remember to do the lotto). I just hope people like Stephen Grey don’t sell up and go into stamp collecting.

By the way I got a good close look at the Grumman F3F last year, and I don’t care if it is a ‘fake’ I thought it was the Dogs wotsits!!!!;)

RE: FW-190 at Manching

Great to see the Butcher Bird humming again!!! Nice Pic.

Regards, Glenn.

RE: Lancaster

Re: As for the 262’s,I’m not sure where the CAA would stand,being as there are only 6 being built.Common sense says that they would be allowed to fly in the UK,but the CAA may know better.

I guess the CAA are in a no win situation here.
If they don’t allow them to fly then everybody is moaning that they are too strict, if one comes down and people are killed then they are not strict enougth!

Personally I would like to see these aircraft fly however they will remain in my mind `fakes`, but enjoyed none the less!

RE: FW-190 at Manching

Ok…and American slant. I can’t wait to see Rudy Frasca’s Flugwerk 190 gracing our skies…or for that matter…whomever purchases a Flugwerk 190, I can’t wait to see it in the air either, whether I get to see it in person or not. I think it is fantastic that they are building new 190’s and new P-51’s. They sell…it is a matter of supply and demand. I’ve had the good fortune of knowing several warbird owners. Alot of them buy what fits thier personal needs…both in function and investment. The owners that I know love to fly and love to have fun flying in their machines. They also don’t want to wait 5-6-7 years for a special “one-off” machine to be built…just look at the track record of the Grummans and 262’s and how many times they have changed hands or have had backers drop out. The fact that one can purchase a new P-51 is amazing…and it will add to the immediate “fun factor” for the person that writes the check…he has earned that right. He can also paint it any color he wants. I attend at least 10 shows a year around the east coast. For the most part it is the same Mustang…doing the same show…but it never gets boring. I used to think that about watching Bob Hoover in his Shrike. Now that Bob is no longer flying shows I miss him terribly.

I honestly wish that there were more Spits and Hurricanes flying in the U.S., and everytime I see the CWH Lanc I am very greatful, not only for the history that it represents…but just enjoying the flying existence of this machine. I can tell you without a doubt that any airshow that I have attended the rare British types generate the most interest and scuttlebut among an airshow crowd. British and American crowds are not that different…we just see the war from a different point of view and our aviation bias is slanted towards our respective countries and machines. Lets face it…the growing number of Mustangs in Europe has alot to do with fun factor, bookings, personal ambition. I truely believe that if an airplane looks fun to fly…it will be built eventually. The Polycarpovs are a perfect example of this. It looks tricky to fly…it has been portrayed as tricky to fly and it doesn’t sell well. The Mustang is not hard to fly, it is available and it is easy to build…the same goes for the Flugwerk 190’s. The war in Europe was one by the Allied nations…no one country can claim a decisive action the stopped the war.
Jim

RE: Lancaster

Hi folks,
I think the main reason why we don’t see/won’t be seeing any of these reproduction Warbirds in the UK is becasue of CAA legislation.It is certainly the case with Flug Werke 190’s that they would be treated as an entirely new type of aircraft by the CAA.Every component would have to be quantified as though it were a brand new design.The CAA have a system whereby only a small number of reproductions can be built before they are treated as a new aircraft.I think this number is 6,so the 8 FW190’s being built exceed this ‘watershed’ and so would have to be treated as a new design,rather than as a modern version of the original.I also wouldn’t be surprised if the CAA would have doubts about the Chinese engines being used in these machines.
As for the 262’s,I’m not sure where the CAA would stand,being as there are only 6 being built.Common sense says that they would be allowed to fly in the UK,but the CAA may know better.
I should point out that I’m actually in favour of the CAA’s standpoint on this.To my mind,these Flug Werke machines are a new design.Various changes have been made to the aircraft and it’s systems,not to mention the powerplant.I think it’s unwise of the authorities in other countries to treat them as though they were a proven design.
Just to add to the point about B29’s/B17’s in RAF colours,I would say that a Coastal Command scheme would be wrong for the B17G that’s in the RAFM.The only accurate RAF scheme I can think of would be one of the special spoofing Fortress III’s with aerials and radomes aplenty. This would be a good idea in my opinion,but I can’t see it happening somehow.
As for the Boeing Washington idea,I wouldn’t like to see ‘Hawg Wild’ at Duxford resprayed as a Washington.She is currently painted as the Korean War veteran she actually is,which in my opinion is best.

RE: Lancaster

Roger

Good question. I don’t know where the money is with purchase and ownership of classical aircraft, but it appears to be firmly with the United States. That is a great pity, because, as somebody pointed out, the Americans tend to be interested only in their own aircraft. If you look at the articles dealing with the big US air shows, the only non-US planes which appear are a few Sea Furies, the (very) occasional Spitfire and a few foriegn jets. Air shows must get pretty boring over there at times, although there is a large range of different US aircraft to display, so perhaps it’s not so boring after all.

In Australia, the number of warbirds is increasing, and I am happy to say that our own aircraft are pretty well represented, even though there were only about half a dozen different Australian-built or designed aircraft. The Wirraway and Boomerang are pretty well represented, there are a few Sabres, one or two Wackett trainers, ditto Winjeel trainers, and of course, a few bloody Mustangs because we built them here under license. But at least they are restorations of the originals, which is ok. Personally, I’d love to see replicas of aircraft which only flew as prototypes, and there is a Martin Baker MB-5 being built in the UK which will be pretty exciting.

Obviously, some people out here in Australia have the money to indulge this very expensive hobby, and they do diversify with the range of aircraft owned and flown. If only the world’s well-off who love old aircraft, could fall in love with a few different designs, I am sure there would be a much more interesting range of aircraft being constructed.

Regards

Wombat

RE: Lancaster

Wombat, I agree with you on this subject. An other question now emerged. They are recreating the FW-190 and (2 examples) of the FW-190D. The ME-262 is brought back, but where are all these aircraft go! Apart from one 190 that will remain in Germany and another one that is going to Brazil, they are all going to the USA. The same for the 262’s. One to Germany, the others, most probably USA. How comes that no English collector/organisations is interested in these projects? Why is the “Duxford incrowd” not interested? Is it because they are new? I doubt it as most of their rebuilded aircraft can also hardly been discribed as original . Aren’t they because it isn’t a(yet another)Spifire? Many questions I don’t understand. Isn’t there no one in the UK or France interested in these machines? It can’t be the price either as everytime I visit Duxford, another Spit or newly arrived P51 can be found. The FW-190 is new, much safer made than te original, no spare part problem and a unique type in the airshow scene, but it looks as if Europe’s leading warbird “family” isn’t interested. Why, why, why!

RE: Lancaster

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 05-10-02 AT 09:27 PM (GMT)]The interesting thing about this discussion so far seems to be the agreement between all of us aviation enthusiasts that there is no need for more P-51’s than already exist, (unless they are genuine restorations – I think that it a different matter altogether).

None of us hate P-51’s (or many other “common” warbirds – we’d just like to see some variety). Somebody asked about the Arado project and hasn’t received an answer yet. I don’t have the answer, but wish I did. An Ar-196, or the FW-189 being restored at present which has its own website, would be absolutely fascinating aircraft to see in the air again. How about an airworthy Ar-234? Top stuff!

The other point, about painting “common” aircraft in uncommon but genuine colour schemes, is a good point. A B-17 in Coastal Command colours is a great idea – how many large Coastal Command aircraft can be seen today? Likewise repainting a B-29 to represent a Washington. Every B-29 I’ve ever seen in photos was natural metal (boring), but the Washington was camouflaged to some extent – much more interesting.

I would like to see more Fw-190’s take to the air, as per the project which started off this thread. Unfortunatly, the proposed production run is limited, as is the Me-262’s. Another member made the point that seeing repro Whirlwinds or Hornets is just daydreaming, and I suspect he may be right. It is unfortunate that the cost of manufacturing new “old” aircraft is enormous and the market has to be there to make the project worthwhile. But if the market exists for the limited production runs of the 190 and the 262, who’s to say that a similar limited market, which would still be commercially viable, doesn’t exist for other aircraft? I for one hope these sorts of projects continue, but not into the construction of more bloody Mustangs!

Regards

Wombat

RE: Lancaster

It is RAF museum isn’t it? So repaint that Boeing into something that has a RAF history ( and a bl##dy beautifull colour livery). Therere enough USAAF B-17ns in the world!

RE: Lancaster

Actually, that’s a good point about the Hendon B-17, now that you mention it! And they don’t raise the tail of that into the air on a budgie perch, do they?!

RE: Lancaster

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 05-10-02 AT 03:24 PM (GMT)]That should be nice! I wonder why the B17 in the RAF Museum isn’t in Coastal Command livery. I also have no objection to see the Duxford B29 being repainted in Washington colours. Missed opertunities? I’ll guess both aircraft were donated by the Americans and painting it in USA(A)F colours was part of the deal.

RE: Lancaster

I meant on the WHOLE; we didn’t have hundreds of the buggers in the RAF going off on bombing raids, that’s what I mean! And just how many B-17’s do you see in Coastal Command colours these days, hmm?!

RE: Lancaster

> My point is though that we in the UK didn’t operate B-17’s<

er….Coastal Command?

RE: Lancaster

You are absolutely right David, and it’s that self-interest that is fueling the building of ever-more 51’s, at the expense of anything a little more interesting. My point is though that we in the UK didn’t operate B-17’s, but are interested in them-the Americans didn’t operate the Lanc, so don’t bother to learn about it, and just assume that what they did in WW2 was the be-all and end-all of it.

RE: Lancaster

The reason that the American’s arn’t much interested in the Lancaster is because they didn’t operate them. In the same way if it was a choice between Sally B and PA474 getting lottery funding to stay in the air in the U.K – which do you think would win?
It’s great building replica’s of aircraft that don’t exist but in reality the is often a reason why they don’t exist!
You didn’t keep a Gladiator in Malta during WWII if you had the choice of a Spitfire V and similarily thats why we have lots of Spitfires flying and few Gladiators.
The idea of building flying Whirlwind’s and Hornet’s for example
are just ‘pipedreams’. Nobody is going to invest monbey into something if they don’t think they are going to get at least a return if not a profit.
As for paying for it with airshow money you can forget that!!!!

RE: Money Talks

Absolutely, it’s all down to money. But, if the money is there to buy a P-51 willy-nilly, why the hell don’t these people just by a ‘real’ one? (If there’s any such thing left, after all these years of racing versions and rebuilds etc etc) It’s no sense to argue that these new-build 51’s will help with the future supply of spares etc either-why not just build spares?
Unfortunately, I’m very much of the opinion that the Americans really do think that they won the war single-handedly, so every person there wants their own personal P-51 etc. I think it’s a waste of time and effort, as do most of the other posts here, but there you go, we’re only warbird enthusiasts, so what do we know? After all, apparently the P-51 was the best fighter of WW2, and the B-17 was the best bomber!!! And then people wonder why it annoys me when I hear of the CWH Lanc roaring over a North American airshow to general lack of interest when no one knows what it is!!!

Money Talks

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 05-10-02 AT 09:10 AM (GMT)]P51 = American interest and sales.

British types = British and American interest, but few sales.

If the world’s richest country were the UK, it might be a different story.

Sorry, but production of warbirds is not driven just by nostaligia, but with a view to an investment.

RE: Are we getting a little complacent????

I was looking at it from a commercial view point than that of an enthusiast.

I would love to see a Whirlwind or Defiant at an airshow, but to the average airshow goer it would be a Mosquito and a Spitfire with a turret. I happen to find the Mustang a very pleasing aircraft, and Hurricane’s flying in private hands are rarer than you think, although Hawker Restorations are working hard to change this.

Whilst on the subject of Flugwerk what happened to the idea of replica Arado’s that were being thought of at one point?

RE: Are we getting a little complacent????

A Whirlwind would be great, but I’d also like to see a Bf-109E and a Dauntless TBD.

Cheers,
Jim

RE: Are we getting a little complacent????

Yak

As I posted my previous memo, I thought about the marketability of replica Mustangs and you have a point – they sell.

However, as you can see from the other members responses to this thread, not everybody wants more Mustangs. They are the most common warbird in existence and frankly, when I see an article dealing with another Mustang, I read the rest of the magazine first. Mustangs, Spitfires and Hurricanes have been done to death.

When one thinks of the vast array of single engined aircraft which flew and fought in WW 2, many of which no longer exist at all, there is a huge opportunity for something new. The 262 and 190 projects won’t appeal to those people who want to watch old, brightly coloured aircraft racing around pylons, but for the real aircraft lover, rare and especially airworthy old aircraft are the real gems at an airshow. Spits and Hurris flying past wound beaut and look great, but a Whirlwind or Defiant would have every bit as much crowd appeal to the masses, but would be far more satisfying to the purist.

If you were going to produce replicas of an aircraft which is still in plentiful supply, such as Mustangs, perhaps you should concentrate on building the rarer versions such as the lightweight Mustang (P-51H?) But please, no more P-51D’s!

Regards

Wombat