FW-190 warbird delivered to Australia

Yes, it’s really sad how nothing whatsoever is being purchased, restored or preserved in the UK nowadays.

Not the point I was making at all, but never mind. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this aircraft for reasons that are completely lost on me. Some other forumites dragged this discussion into Spitfire corner (figuratively) as well… still sure the Daniel is the one with the insecurities?

As I said before, “pics or it didn’t happen” is standard Internet parlance, yet you readily jump down the original posters’ throat because of your general ignorance.

Yes, it’s really sad how nothing whatsoever is being purchased, restored or preserved in the UK nowadays.

What he said…:applause:

Yes, it’s really sad how nothing whatsoever is being purchased, restored or preserved in the UK nowadays.

On Internet forums, “pics or it didn’t happen” is a fairly standard comment made in response to anybody making a claim. It seems this facet of internet culture hasn’t reached keypublishing yet, but then again it seems nobody ever uses the ‘Reply with Quote’ function even though it is written in to the forum’s architecture, so I can see we are a little behind the times here.

Interesting to note that a number of recent threads have detailed either the purchase or restoration of historic airframes throughout the Commonwealth while we seem to be just a little bit more adept at scrapping aircraft here in Blighty. Perhaps a few forum posters should check their own shoulders for chips!

Indeed so – I wonder what the terms of the gift are. Perhaps after a respectful period, it can be sold on, and its operation continued. Or not. Time will tell.

Is the value in the history in terms of original parts count, or in terms of the way you tell the story? A recent auction leaves that question wide open.

Even more pertinently, it should raise an interesting curatorial dilemma for a National Collection that has continually stressed the absolute originality of its Mk I Spitfire, only to find itself gifted another one, with somewhat less original content. Or will it simply be a case of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’?

The majority of those that have somewhat ‘complex’ pasts are, at least built to the original specification, with the correct specification engines and systems, with lots of other original goodies thrown in.

At the end of the day, the people that need to be satisfied, are those that own them. Is the value in the history in terms of original parts count, or in terms of the way you tell the story? A recent auction leaves that question wide open.

Sssh, you’ll give the game away. 😉

Remind me what wars Flug Werks have fought in. Seeing that they are structurally modified so that armament cannot be fitted (by German law) they would find it hard to be a ‘warbird’ (definition: ex-military aircraft now in civilian ownership)

The definition is made meaningless by the countless replica Spitfires and P-51s which claim to be ‘warbirds’. For sure, none of those can be classed as ex-military, since they have been constructed by purely civilian entities in the first place!

Thank you D9F.

Baj, I have worked in the industry for many years. I have many Spitfires under my belt, and have reasonable experience of other types as well. I don’t make my remarks lightly.

My point, quite simply, is that an aircraft not built to the original design cannot be considered as a replica of the original. I don’t dislike the Flugwerk aircraft, but they aren’t right. Every one is different, and has different solutions to a number of flaws in the design. Things like, in one case, an oil cooler buried in the gun bay. In another, a complete Tu2 power egg. It was a good idea, but it failed at the last hurdle.

It is of course, my opinion. There’s a lot of that on the Internet. In fact, naked ladies aside, opinion makes up 75 percent of what you will find!

I did write a piece on the restoration of the real thing for Classic Wings a few years ago.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce your gentleman

I love a Phoarbird ! I find all this talk about whether something is a replica or not all Luftwaffle !

How about a Phoarbird?

Remind me what wars Flug Werks have fought in. Seeing that they are structurally modified so that armament cannot be fitted (by German law) they would find it hard to be a ‘warbird’ (definition: ex-military aircraft now in civilian ownership)

When I saw the 190 fly at Legends a few years ago I thought it was a great aircraft.
It may not be a `true` 190 but it is pretty darn close!
Doesn’t it have a right to be a `warbird` in it’s own right?

Thank you D9F.

Baj, I have worked in the industry for many years. I have many Spitfires under my belt, and have reasonable experience of other types as well. I don’t make my remarks lightly.

My point, quite simply, is that an aircraft not built to the original design cannot be considered as a replica of the original. I don’t dislike the Flugwerk aircraft, but they aren’t right. Every one is different, and has different solutions to a number of flaws in the design. Things like, in one case, an oil cooler buried in the gun bay. In another, a complete Tu2 power egg. It was a good idea, but it failed at the last hurdle.

It is of course, my opinion. There’s a lot of that on the Internet. In fact, naked ladies aside, opinion makes up 75 percent of what you will find!

I did write a piece on the restoration of the real thing for Classic Wings a few years ago.

Bruce

Thanks Dora.

Aah common Bruce the definition of Churlish is “rude” or perhaps you meant as “impolite” or perhaps you meant it as “uncivil”. I just don’t get it Bruce. As a fellow hands on restorer I would encourage you that its not rude at all.

Myself and all the others are genuinely interested in in your “heavy involvement” in the “real” one. Please tell us all about it.

Baj,

I should let Bruce speak for himself. However if you are unaware, he worked at JME Engineering (now closed), which is the firm that restored Paul Allen’s Fw190, along with much of the work on his Me262. And also be aware of the non-disclosure agreements that Allen’s museum is known to have with their contractors.

Which would make it similar to many of the Spitfires and Mustangs out there…and whose news is welcomed here.

The percentage of mostly original flying warbirds out there is fairly small. Remember, we’re discussing 75 year old aircraft that were designed to have a service life of a few months.
We’re lucky any are still flying.

Perhaps it’s time for the backbenchers (i.e. people who don’t restore, own or fly warbirds) to be less snobby.

J Boyle: Your last sentence is a breath of fresh air, thank-you.

It would be churlish of me to go quite that far, as I clearly haven’t tried it all!

The referenced article sums it up reasonably well.

Bruce

Aah common Bruce the definition of Churlish is “rude” or perhaps you meant as “impolite” or perhaps you meant it as “uncivil”. I just don’t get it Bruce. As a fellow hands on restorer I would encourage you that its not rude at all.

Myself and all the others are genuinely interested in in your “heavy involvement” in the “real” one. Please tell us all about it.

Agreed, the reality is that every historic aircraft flying by the definitions espoused on this thread could easily flick between being a replica, to a reproduction, to a restoration, depending on levels and authenticity of equipment used.

Does the use of a “none aircraft grade aluminium bracket” to hold a modern radio unit count.

Further, should a restoration only be called a restoration if authentic original 2024 aluminium sheeting from the exact year of original aircrafts manufacture is used and what about the rivets ? We could go on and on.

The academia of some experts on this forum is breath taking but the average humble Mr & Mrs Average who pay the air show or museum entry fees don’t really care.