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: 😉

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

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

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

Well, maybe there’s another point that might have been missed: if the Beau opened fire it’s even probable it might have suffered from damage caused by explosions over the target. Considering the very low altitude this is a probable explanation.
The sabotage of inverted shells usually caused the weapon jamming, nothing more nothing less. Those Beaufighter pilots and navigators were really brave and all my admiration and respect goes to the crews who lost their lives while doing their duty, no matter what flag they fought for. It was above all a war of brave men, never forget it.

cheers

Alex

I see, just remember that warbirds are not just FW190, Spit or ‘Stangs..
I’d love to have one of them, and so would most of us here, but it’s not always possible for several reasons(yeah, life sucks sometimes..). As I stated before when u restore a warbird is not just for yr personal pleasure, a warbird it’s not only formally yours, but it’s a historical witness that is property of everybody. That’s my opinion about warbirds, and nobody will change my mind about the greater value and satisfaction of taking back to the air a relic than building a senseless replica that will never fullfill my ambitions.
I’m afraid we’re boring everybody here, as I’m sure we’ll never change our minds about this issue.. I wish u a lot of fun with yr project, all in all that’s what flying is all about 🙂

cheers

Alex

uhm… before aquiring a project u r supposed to inspect it, and it’s imperative that the seller must answer about any question concerning it, not just because of the amount of money, but because it’s a matter of responsibility. When aquiring a started project a deep inspection is necessary, unless it’s a really trusted person, and u need ppl who know how to do it, it’s not something like u go there, have a glance and say “looks ok, i take it”. As per the tools, I’m sure he spent the same amount, if not more, wood working can be a pain in the u know what..
I think it’s just something like “I want something that looks like a spit”, but u would achieve much success and personal satisfaction in giving back life to an airframe that is in a scrapyard and has a story to tell than building something that most ppl will look at smiling and saying “how cute!”. If u want a flying scaled replica at all cost then go for it, but once again I think u could focus on a more brilliant project..
One year ago I found for a friend of mine a L4 Grasshopper that served with the 15th AF here in Italy, the machine was complete and all he needed to do was go there and taking it. I tracked down the war service of the machine and the project was more and more appealing everyday. My friend eventually gave up for economical matters, and I lost the contacs with the owner… a sad story, but this happens :rolleyes:

Simple – money. It’s far cheaper to build your full-scale replica like this one than it is to acquire even just a rebuild project.

Bob DeFord’s Allison-powered Spit IX cost him less than $250,000 all told…

But, each to their own when it comes to money. Much as I’d love a Spitfire XVIII or 24, I’m pretty certain that’ll never happen, so I’ll take the scale replica instead – with or without retractable gear….

this is not true at all, finding a good airframe to restore can be way cheaper, it’s just a matter of knowing the right ppl and catching the right time 😉
Spitfire fuselages are not an easy find in USA maybe, but there are dozens restoration projects on hold at the moment and one for sale can be found. It might be a longer and more complicated way to get yr Spit, but it would be a completely different business.
How about finding a really trusted fellow and sharing the cost of the thing with him? Many ppl found this the best way to go.
Even under a “plane of my dream” point of view I think u’ll never get the thrill of the “real deal” with a replica, and u’ll try to be satisfied with what u have. I know a pilot who has a Fiesler Storch 3/4 replica, he can land his ship in 70 metres, but that’s pretty much it, the rest of the thing is a poor construction materials, unconfortable access, slow speed.. in the same hangar there’s another pilot with a small italian training airplane of ww2, the FL-3, and apart for being an historical plane, it’s a beaut to see and to fly! It might not be a spitfire, ok, but at least another portion of historical aviation is preserved and roaring in the sky.

cheers

Alex