Tom Blairs Duxford Based FW190

sorry to bring back this hot potato…..

Any update on Tom Blairs long nosed D variant in florida?

The new build YAK was built by the original manufacturer.

D’oh…….

Thanks.

Can’t understand why so many people seem to be having so many problems with it.

Sorry for having a problem…….

Didn’t the French one end up returning to France with the gear locked down? I seem to recall it also missed its displays at La Ferte Alais due to mechanical/electrical issues.

Fair comment but show me any other new build aircraft that hasn’t had a few teething troubles. Nothing major that a little fetling wouldn’t cure.

Didn’t the French one end up returning to France with the gear locked down? I seem to recall it also missed its displays at La Ferte Alais due to mechanical/electrical issues.

Correct – there were gear problems at La Ferte and the aircraft, from what I remember of what was reported, was only fully serviceable a few days before she flew to the UK for Legends.

Didn’t the French one end up returning to France with the gear locked down? I seem to recall it also missed its displays at La Ferte Alais due to mechanical/electrical issues.

It all becomes clear. I still say the CAA have their collective heads in the sand though. We had one flying oveer here at Legends and the record they’ve had to date in Germany/France seems to indicate there is nothing wrong with them so let the thing be flown.

The new build YAK was built by the original manufacturer.

If Focke Wulf had made these new-builds on the original tooling using original drawings then, and tested/evaluated the new engines, systems, and improvements to the design, then it would be the same case…. but it isnt.

Quite. Seems pretty clear to me.

Can’t understand why so many people seem to be having so many problems with it.

I can’t see the difference between a new build Yak and the FlugWerk 190.

Maybe I’m just being obtuse……

The new build YAK was built by the original manufacturer.

If Focke Wulf had made these new-builds on the original tooling using original drawings then, and tested/evaluated the new engines, systems, and improvements to the design, then it would be the same case…. but it isnt.

I can’t see the difference between a new build Yak and the FlugWerk 190.

Maybe I’m just being obtuse……

AAN for G-CDBJ

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/29054/29054000000.pdf

Point taken, I was ulluding to the fact that no one seems to have any info regarding what type of application that needs to be made. As a permitted aircraft manufacturers support should not be required. Maybe with the Yaks the CAA havetaken the view that original manufacturers support gives them the ‘level of confidence required’ if that is the case it is clearly discriminatory but we are back to assumptions and not facts. I would be very interested to know what process the CAA are expecting an owner to follow. It shouldn’t be too difficult to find out how the Yaks are processed? Anyone have any info?

I have read the interview and it clearly states there is a president in the YAK 3 and 9 these aircraft are new biuld and have been re-engined with allisons fitted with hamilton standard props? G-CDBJ is an example. It operates on a permit not a C of A. I am not aware of anyone on the forum having first hand knowledge (please enlighten me if you do!) of what either has of hasn’t been done with view to getting the aircraft on the UK register.

This may appear to have set a president, but for a good reason: The first new-build YAK 3M’s are made by Yakovlev in Russia in 1992, using the original tooling and drawings, and incorporate modern avionics and an Allison engine. If the original manufacturer has supported this modification, then maybe it is easier for subsequent new-builds of that type to get certified, because the OEM (Original equipment manufacturer) has already validated the conversion.

Ah but if they are not on the British register the CAA can take the SEP approach (Someone Elses Problem)

Its a new aircraft type in effect and as such would require complete type authorisation as its too heavy to be placed in the homebuilt PFA catergory. Such an excercise would be very difficult, time consuming and costly to justify for one example. If the aircraft was a restored original with a BMW engine it would qualify for Permit operation being an ex-military aircraft but in the case of the Flugwerk replicas, not so.

Mark V has made the point clearly regarding this Flugwerk replica – readers of this thread take note! The CAA may be seen as the ogre stopping airshow attendees photographing something exotic in the UK skies, but they are acting in everyones safety. Its a new type, that just happens to resemble a German Warbird. There may be a large amount of commonality in the design and construction between old and new, but the rules are clear – if you improve, redesign, or make a make a new type you need to do the (paper)work and this costs time and money.

These are great looking replicas, but in hindsight to sell one in the UK Flugwerk should have either created these as re-builds from existing wreckage, or only aimed them at the US market under their experimental category. Even if they had been classed as re-builds/restorations of originals, putting a different engine onto this would still have required new certification in the UK.

I have read the interview and it clearly states there is a president in the YAK 3 and 9 these aircraft are new biuld and have been re-engined with allisons fitted with hamilton standard props? G-CDBJ is an example. It operates on a permit not a C of A. I am not aware of anyone on the forum having first hand knowledge (please enlighten me if you do!) of what either has of hasn’t been done with view to getting the aircraft on the UK register. So it seems a little presumptuous to blame the CAA?
what does confuse me is that if an aircraft is required to reach a certain standard for flight within the UK why was the french based 190 allowed to fly at Duxford? The same applies to N-reg experimental category aeroplanes. clearly if the CAA have given permission for those aircraft to fly in UK airspace (as indicated in the interview) they bear some responsibility and one would assume liability so that cannot be the issue? That creates a real contradiction for me.

Is there any official word from ARCO what the plan is for the FW190 as to whether they are still pursuing this or not?

Its a new aircraft type in effect and as such would require complete type authorisation as its too heavy to be placed in the homebuilt PFA catergory. Such an excercise would be very difficult, time consuming and costly to justify for one example. If the aircraft was a restored original with a BMW engine it would qualify for Permit operation being an ex-military aircraft but in the case of the Flugwerk replicas, not so.

Mark V has made the point clearly regarding this Flugwerk replica – readers of this thread take note! The CAA may be seen as the ogre stopping airshow attendees photographing something exotic in the UK skies, but they are acting in everyones safety. Its a new type, that just happens to resemble a German Warbird. There may be a large amount of commonality in the design and construction between old and new, but the rules are clear – if you improve, redesign, or make a make a new type you need to do the (paper)work and this costs time and money.

These are great looking replicas, but in hindsight to sell one in the UK Flugwerk should have either created these as re-builds from existing wreckage, or only aimed them at the US market under their experimental category. Even if they had been classed as re-builds/restorations of originals, putting a different engine onto this would still have required new certification in the UK.

Probably the CAA have made it so difficult to meet their conditions in the hope that it means they will never have to do anything about it.

If you read the interview he clearly states that there is an agreed way fwd with the A/C but there has been no application made. So its appears not the case that the CAA wont let it fly more the operator does not want it to at this time.

Or conversely, the CAA have told them the way forward & have made it so difficult to be impossible for them to even begin the application….. which the man from the CAA doesn’t actually confirm or deny..:cool:

When it comes to that FW190, all I hear is

One part: We are waiting for them to go on with it…

Other part: We are waiting for them to go on with it…

😀

No wheelbarrows at the DGAC, dear boy – just a huge dollop of common sense 🙂