Fantastic FW 190 video
 

Listen to the pilot's brief after the flight.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hads_XMrKhw

it flew in my birthday, :grin:

Unluckily this one has the Ash-82 engine in it. Still fantastic looking aircraft.
I am really looking forward to the White 1 restauration project, will be the second FW with the original 801.

I really don't have a problem with those Ash engines. They have tons of power and are the same configuration as an 801

You don't obviously,but operators do.. Let's put it in this way, when looking for a dependable radial engine, Ash engines (or their Chinese copies) are the last ones I would hope to find between me and the prop..

That can only result from the production then, as the ash82 and the bmw801 are the results of the same patents bought from the americans in the med thirties.
As the allison v1710 and the Klimov wk107 are the results of a 1935 sold bmw patent, btw.

Tue, however the D13 is powerd by the JUMO engine, not the BMW. The D13 not flying is mostly an insurance problem, but as you said, is probably capable to do so. What a pity.

The main thing about the D-13 is that it's original down to the rivets. It's a unique machine and the most complete (in wartime/stock conditions), so flying it is a HUGE risk. I would let it do some fast taxi every now and then though, just to stretch its legs..

They're Russian aren't they? I thought # 7 piston used to seize on 801s once and a while too. I wouldn't like that too much.

Just my very personal opinion, but those birds were made to fly, not to roll around on the ground. Rare or not, in a museum a replica does just as fine.

Wasn't that D-13 missing the Kommandogeraet?
So the engine is only running on emergency-default-settings and not save to fly.

I have the same approach, you know that, but there's a bit of a slipper slope here..
In order to guarantee safe operation of the machine, you need to guarantee for structural integrity and robustness. The fact that the plane's structure and assembly are the same of 60 years ago doesn't guarantee for this integrity, and as you know you need to be able to check for stuff like defoliation and micro cracks on structural parts (spar, ribs, mono-coque, engine mounts etc..). The plane as it is could fly ONLY because of the American experimental category, but this doesn't mean that the insurance would take it for good: they send out their experts, assess the situation and report to their company, who would then shell out a price. If memory serves the first estimate was in the region of several million dollars (!!!), simply because there were no guarantees of a thorough investigation of the airframe (which can be done only by disassembly/dismantling). The owner didn't wanna hear about losing the fame of his plane being the most genuine, original one in the world in "airworthy" conditions, so they came to a standstill.
As a pilot, no matter what guarantees I'm given, I wouldn't be happy to fly something that is 60 years old and hasn't been stripped down and checked, especially on such a high performance machine with poor literacy on the subject in terms of in flight behaviour.

The bottom line is: would you strip down a unique machine of its original parts in order to make it airworthy (with all the risks it would come with, and losing original components), or would you preserve it in its original, stock conditions just because of its sheer value?

I'm not sure about this, and even if it was, the owner is surely not someone short of cash, who could buy one or even have it made for scratch if need be.

In regards to your question.....yes, I definitely would. I mean you are right, safety comes first here, everything else would be plain stupid, both in regards to the pilot and the aircraft itself.
But let's just say active aircraft require maintance and that also includes the replacement of parts on a regular basis. Now sure, you can fetishize those original parts, but imho, that just results in a machine that is comparable to a stuffed pet animal. A rather sad and undignified sight.

But that is purely on a principle basis, those guys at the FHC did a great job getting the D13 in the state she is now in the first place. Better then nothing at all.

I'm sorry man, but Americans are good at painting aircrafts well, and a fresh paintjob doesn't mean that what's under it is not bogus.

There isn't much work done on the D13, and when they did the unveiling with engine startup it took them FOREVER to crank it up. Considering how rare that engine is, and how the components are hard to get hold of/remake, I wouldn't trust that engine to be flown as it is. Let's not forget that the D13 was a very late plane, and the scarcity of quality material could have jeopardised the quality of the plane itself.

I have seen 4 T-6s imported from the States so far, and they ALL had the same corrosion problems: machines that are sturdy by their very design, which look mint (because of a fresh paintjob), but when you get in the fuselage to get a glimpse of how things are inside... mamma mia...

The T-6 itself had a safety issue some years ago with the L joints that attach the wings to the wingroot: in all the planes that I've seen so far imported from the US there was this issue.

Because of the broad net of the experimental category, many things are underestimated unfortunately.

I love the plane, but the conditions for a safe flying would mean compromising its originality. If you said "let's make a replica faithful to the original and using the original as a model" then I'd totally agree, but risking to fly this machine at the current status is unthinkable.

hm? I thought we already clared up that for the D13 to fly it requires the replacement of parts, safety comes first?
That said, FHC did a fine job in getting other aircraft into the air, so I'd say there is no lack of capability there.

yep, so are you ready to modify and alter an original, pristine machine to make it fly? I think it would be a bad, bad idea. If you wanna tinker around with a spit or a mustang, fine, but unique stuff needs to be preserved for what it is, not put at potential risk of being lost forever.

There's a thousand things that could go wrong on that machine, and even a bent undercarriage or a damaged wingtip would be a real bummer.

As I said before:

As long as it just sits around to be stared at, it really does not matter what is under the hood as people won't see it anyways. For a museum a replica does just as fine. Flying comes with a risk, but it is the only way to actually get a real impression of a machine that was made for solely for this, flying. But that is just my opinion.

Totally agree. Keeping vintage AC in the sky as long as possible is great but 60+ year old parts will eventually fail. Only way to keep them flying is to continually replace the with non genuine parts. At some stage they will no longer be genuine.
I would personally give my left nut to be able to see as many original vintage combat AC in museums. I'd give my right nut to fly replicas.:grin:

lol you'd be the first flying castrato :mrgreen:

joking aside, I understand the passion and will to see old planes flying, but there's a line to be drawn.
I think that the future could be what Flugwerk does, remaking planes from original plans and where possible using original components, giving both the looks and feel of the original machine, but with today's standards of safety.

I'm sorry, but that is a very narrow minded idea of preservation, and a dangerous one.

A plane is preserved in a museum not only to be "stared at", but also as research material and tangible evidence of specific technologies. A plane in pristine original conditions is an infinite resource of information, and, being the real thing, is accurate. Putting such information to risk by flying it regularly, changing components and risking to crash it anyway, is an irresponsible attitude.

You want to fly a P-51 mustang or a Spitire? Fine, there's hundreds of them, both flying and in museums. You want to recover a long lost Pacific wreck and take it back to the sky? Great effort, carry on! You'll recover a wreck with history and take it back to its best standards.

But altering a unique, genuine ww2 airframe in such remarkable conditions for the sake of flying it, I'm sorry, but it is madness.

+1
There are very accurate replicas being produced now days. So good most of us would never know the difference. The ME-262 replica for example. It uses modern jet engines, covered in authentic looking covers. The only way to know an original from a fake is , an original will probably end up as a smoking hole in the ground,(if it makes it to the ground).

Now that is what I am talking about "fetishizing". An aircraft, even one as old as this one, is not some magic artifact from the past like for example the antique computer found in a greek ship wreck in the mediterrianian. The blueprints are all available, there are still a few engines left over and some airframes still exist. There is nothing in there not put to paper and preserved for future generations in it's original timeframe and long after. It's simple mechanics, no "historical" secrets attached. In fact, given the money available, it would be no problem rebuilding this and other aircraft. Also, replacing parts simply is routine for "every" active aircraft out there. That simply is part of an aircrafts service life, old or new. Added to that, there is nothing stopping you from taking these old parts and storing them for future reference or putting them into the aircraft again should it ever lose airworthyness again for wahtever reason.

It comes down to this, there is a huge, huge difference in perception and impression between a plane sitting around and one flying around. I dare say future generations will get a better appreciation for these machines seeing them in action instead in a corner of a room. It's the difference between being alive and dead. How much attention does an airframe get sitting around in a museum compared to one in the air, recored and spread on youtube around the world? What is the diffeence you think in interest generated and thus ultimately, funding and preservation potential?

Now if you prepfer to just let it sit and rot around like what is done with the Do335 or the Ho229 in the US, feel free to do so, but we will have to agree to disagree here. What defines madness here obviously is a matter of perspective.

The replica 262 is quite different to the original, first of all it was build on the specifics of the two seater version of the 262 and then modded for a single seater cockpit with a different structural internal layout compared to the original, it also uses different wing sweeps to deal with center of gravity issues provided by it's modern jet engines. It's far better then nothing but still a bastard.

You probably have never been around or tinkered with a genuine wartime machine. We are not talking about some empty shell that has been repainted and they chucked in original components. This is the plane as it was in wartime, it's a time capsule, and should be preserved as such.

Besides construction techniques of the time were unique and many construction details and adaptations (like field modifications etc) are not present on blueprints, so you would lose on historical information, which might no be interesting to you, but surely is to others.

One of my first restoration jobs was on a Spad VII, which was in remarkably good shape for its age and for some time we thought about having the engine running again. As we removed the canvas we found so many details that weren't reported anywhere on drawings but which were testimony of the incredible craftsmanship behind these machines, details that were of use to make a flying replica that has been made to original specs but with modern materials and components. The original Spad VII of an ace is an extremely rare machine, and thinking of flying it is insane to say the least.

I completely agree, that's why we have airshows. To a child, seeing a T-6 or a Do335 it makes little or no difference. Seeing exotic and rare birds taking back to the air is more the pleasure of aviation philanthropists than the average people. Heck, I took my girlfriend to countless airshows, and she can barely tell the difference between a Mustang and a Spit! She loves it and think it's all very cool, but to her it's not about what plane is flying, but the spirit of this kind of aviation that matters.

The Do335 and Ho229 are not rotting away. The gate guardians or external exhibits all around the world are (this is the A-20G at Monino in Moscow, kept outside and damaged by heavy snowfalls)
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../9/1022907.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../9/1022909.jpg

thinking of taking a Pfeil or a Ho229 to the air is crazy to say the least. They should be cleaned, given a preservation work, reassembled and exposed to the public. But flying them again is simply impossible and irresponsible.

erm... so if it's a replica in a museum it's fine, whilst if it's a flying replica it needs to be accurate? :confused:

You know Hasegawa's Macchi 202? Well the kit was based on the Italian Macchi 202 that is in Vigna di Valle, Italy, the Japanese engineers went there and measured the machine in every corner, then made their kit. What they didn't know is that originally one wing of the Macchi was actually shorter than the other, this to compensate on torque, but the machine in the museum, an empty shell that was recovered from a shooting range (!!!) had only one wing left, so the restorers used the other wing as a template to build the other, ignoring the peculiarity of the different wing length.

As a result, many representations of the Macchi planes are done without this feature. That's why having an accurate and genuine plane from wartime is of vital importance for the sake of historical information and data.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Even static aircraft get repaints and maintance. You also have to constantly work on them to keep them in the condition they are for unless you put them into an airtight room and elimiate any sources of corrosion. Ultimately they decay the same way an active aircraft does, just at a much slower pace and with less work attached, but that's it.

What about ...

...was so hard to understand?
And are you actually trying to say that when you restore an aircraft, you are not doing a vast documention of the parts involved and the restoriation process in general? So that each generation will have to assemble and disassamble the aircraft anew when they want to know what's in it? Or that the viewer in a museum will apreciate these details when looking at the aircraft?

Congrats to that work and nice to see you having worked on that. However, I never heared of that original Spad, which should be telling you something. And I can just imagine the original mechaincs, when working on that one, thinking to themselves "oh yeah, great, lets make this a marvel so that future generations can appreciate our work". I am sure they did not have in mind to get the plane into the air to fight the germans, did not see it as a mere tool for a purpose and they were really looking forward to see it on static display one day.

You are making a girl friend the reference here? So she was more exited to go to museums and see those aircraft on static display? Or what do you want to prove with that example? An interest in aviation is a prequisite, but awakening this interest is the key in the first place. Saying that flying aircraft are the joy of only aviation philanthropists while static aircraft get the attention is.....bold, to say the least. That's like saying a Ferrari will only get attention when it is taken from the road and put into a museum. I doubt, however, that ole Enzo build his cars for display.


uhm....you may want to do a little google search and then come back.
just as an example:

http://www.muscularmadness.com/wp-co...O229-front.jpg

That said, the Go229 has no future as a flyable simply because even if fully restored, it would never fullfill safety standarts and thus is bound to stick to the ground anyways.

All in all, listening to you makes the impression of you having a typical collectors mindset, rather preferring to see a closed box with a toy on the shelf instead of playing with it. This is a philosophical debate that won't find a solution as it is putting practical minded folks against those putting an artificial worth to an object that was created with an entirely different purpose in mind.

I needs to be accurate, period. Why you differ here between a museum peice and an active replica is beyond me.

So how is it that you know about that wing and the japanese did not? Did another Macchi appear somehwere making this obvious? Or sloppy research by the japanese maybe? I know what you are aiming for, but in all honesty, if you restore such an aircraft and do not do your homework in regards to documentation or visiting original blueprints, then that is based on other factors, not the utter need to preserve an aircraft in all it's details just for the sake of it.

well that depends on what sort of treatments they're given. Most of the primers given to aluminium in the 30s were of such good quality that they wouldn't come off easily, not even today unless using really aggressive paint strippers. The heating of metal under the sun further "soldered" the primers to the aluminium, so much that sometimes when the paintwork came off you could see the primers under.
Preservative restoration has reached incredible standards nowadays, and an alloy treated against defoliation and corrosion will last forever. Heck, we have wood frames that are 100 years plus old and still keep their original size!

Ha! Man, again, no offence, but it's evident that you've never been around a restoration workshop. I have witnessed with my eyes horror stuff done to these poor machines: the wing of the aforementioned Spad received a "restoration" in 1968, you know how we found out? Because we found a paper wrap from a newspaper of the time in the wing. Not to mention replacement spars made of solid, thick plywood..

The work done by more or less competent people can alter the originality forever, and if not recovered and corrected, it can cause a lot of damage on the long run.

with all due respect, the fact that you never heard of it doesn't mean that it's not an important piece of aviation history.

here's how it was when the restoration was started (wings and prop were in place):
http://web.tiscali.it/gavsitalia/progetti/img/spad1.jpg

The plane was rumoured to be the original mount of Italian Ace Fulco Ruffo di Calabria, but because of the aforementioned "restoration" it received a spurious "Baracca style" paint job.

During the restoration we found the original serial numbers on the airframe and other components, which were registered as Fulco's aircraft, so we could finally determine the true identity of the machine, which was subsequently restored and given its actual looks of the time.

http://image57.webshots.com/557/6/49...0adWTYJ_ph.jpg

so restorations can indeed be a vital part of aviation history.

I think we need to make a defining differentiation here:
One thing is being an aviation enthusiast, another is being an aviation history enthusiast.

One can be either or both, but whichever the case, different rules apply. For aviation enthusiasts, keeping a historical plane "alive", flying it at airshows etc.. is a good thing if:

1) it's a safe plane to operate (Go229? No thank you..)
2) there are an adequate number of spare parts available
3) it's not an "endangered species".

The world of warbird operators changed dramatically in the last 20 years: there are way less Wild Bills out there, tumbling about in the sky while hollering "check this out guys!" on the radio. This is good, because when this sort of people are airborne we lose precious machines (see what happened to the P-38 in Duxford or the Bf109 G-2 "Red 7", whose pilot almost killed himself several times..).
Nowadays there are different standards and above all more serious training, still, we do have the random accidents (see what happened at Legends this year), mostly again not because of faulty machines, but because of pilot's error.

Shall we keep these planes in the sky? Hell yeah! Shall we allow for rare or unique machines to fly, especially "time capsule" ones? Mmmh not so sure it's a good idea, mainly cos they need extensive rework and alteration of the original layout (CoG reworking just to name one), rewiring, substitution/inspection of moving parts (bearings, actuators, landing gears etc..). But above all, under a piloting point of view, these beasties can be a leap in the dark, hiding performance and behaviour quirks that can show up at the most unexpected or critical situations (whilst coming down for landing for instance). Bending a prop on a Hurricane is a costly job to fix, which can bear catastrophic damage to the engine as well, having the same thing happening on a wooden VDM prop could probably cause enough of an imbalance to tear the engine off its mount.. not nice.. (see what happened to the Spit in New Zealand lately..).

Bottom line? Keep em airborne if they already are, or rebuild them to be airborne, but don't confuse them with original wartime salvaged machines.

So? There's nothing wrong with that Go229. It's dirty, it has some plywood damage (one would expect so after so many years!), but it's solid and it's sitting on its undercarriage, which means the spar is sound.

Again, I think we need to differentiate between warbirds circuit and aviation history, just because they have wings they're not the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand this, but what I'm saying is that I'd rather have a replica flying than a unique original plane, there's simply no need to risk a genuine plane if you can have a flying replica that is spot on. It's safer and wiser.

I didn't know at the time, a friend of mine, who's passionate about the Macchi, found out by sheer chance in a manual and technical drawings!
Sometimes the documentations is missing or lost (or worse, in the hands of a collector), that' why we need to keep and preserve unique originals as much as we can.

The Go-229 is in excellent condition. What you see in that photo is not rust, it is glue, grease, and a preservative coating.

The aircraft sits in a climate controlled hanger at the Garber Facility.

The problem with flying replicas is that you have to get a lot more things right then with static ones. Static replicas merely require to capture the look of the craft. A flying replica has to catch not only the looks, but also the sound and flight performance. I can't think of a single WW2 repilica to date that really manages to capture all of those.

But that is the point! If you have that original, you also have all the stuff coming with it. How often do you have to recheck that particular aircraft to get it right?

If a certain aircraft has a very specific history behind it, like the aircraft bringing Roosevelt to Yalta, or the the Stuka that sunk the Marat, then I am all on your side. But when it is just a generic warbird, then it does more justice to the plane, the pilots that flew it, the mechanics and producers to keep it in the air, imho, even, or especially, if it is rare.

you have sources for that? because all close up pics I have seen show corrosion and rotten wood. I am more then eager to be proven wrong here for the sake of this craft.

Professionalism in preservation of aircraft is another topic completly. So you basicly argue that we should preserve those aircraft in museums because the people working on these airplanes are amateurs? I dare say that is rather more of an argument for making them airworthy in the first place, simply because then ppl are "forced" to get the job right unless risking lives and the aircraft itself.

The one point does not negate the other. I completly agree, it is a very important piece of aviation history. But that despite it's importance the news never spread around is rather disheartening and typical of museum pieces.

...or they can be a disaster, as this particular aircraft's history shows. Undoubtly preservation of aircraft has to be done by pros, that is a given anyways. Good work, btw!


Accidents happen. Also see the King Cobra that crashed. One rare bird lost there as well added to your examples. Howerver, it is easy for us to condemn those accidents as we are in the lucky position to have seen those birds fly and know how they look and sound like. Future generations won't have that privilege. More, If you put those birds in museums, you take that chance away from the start. The question at hand is rather if to only see or actually "expirience" them. The latter will give a much more profound impression and that is what it is all about. The mechanical aspect you put so much focus on is just one of many aspects of these aircraft but imho, not the most important one.

first sentece I can agree on undisputed, hehe

Time capsule..not so much. The thing with time capusles is, they rest unnoticed for a long time until they are opened, and with that their purpose ends. You do not reopen them all the time to recheck whats in there on a constant basis. Money is the all deciding factor here, there I agree, and I am more then willing to accept that money is the limiting factor in this debate when it comes to restaurations. When I argue pro flightworthyness, then it is on the basis of enough money being available.

That argument implies none of the, by now, restored 109s or 190ies should take to the skies, including the recently restored FHC 190.
You also should take one thing in mind...a couple of those planes never had any propper sound or video recording done. So in the case of the 190D, nobody born after 1945 has ever seen one in the air, nor taken high quality recordings of one to be preserved for the future. You basicly have a hulk sitting there without anybody having any idea how this craft expressed itself.
It is a matter of priority, first you have to know what you are actually dealing with, as a second prioritiy it would be nice to know the specifics.

What?
An aircraft is an aircraft. It was build as aircraft, used as aircraft and quite obviously, still is an aircraft even after a century, no matter what logic you apply. Over time you may add other attributes to it, but that never changes it's original purpose.

Letting it sit around may be interesting to the geeks, but without the greater connection, even the geeks will fade away and the only ones left will be the hardcore geeks. I am not talking about converting any single plane into a flyable version, but each aircraft should at least have "one" example up to flying conditions, at least as long we have the technical and material capability to do so.

well that's true to a certain extent, and a lot of the stuff that is out there is not always that accurate, not because they don't want to, but because there's no practical need for it. For example, many P-47s who still fly don't have the supercharger installed, simply cos they don't need it. That affects the performance and sound.

There are a lot of replicas that capture the original look and feel though: most of the planes you see out there are replicas, in the sense that panels, ribs and sometimes even spars are changed for the sake of airworthiness. I have seen Mustangs that are claimed to be WW2 vets which have only 10% of its original structure, still they're regarded as precious machines.. it's a very slippery slope in the warbirds circuit man.

You also get award winning restoration of course: there's a P-40 in the US which has been reconstructed to its original factory stock specs, down to stencils, components and (deactivated) armament! It's really down to the owner's choice (and pockets).



You'd be amazed. I have personally taken 1600 pictures inside a S.79 Sparviero, one would think they're more than enough. They aren't. There's always a detail that escapes you, something you didn't think of and if the plane isn't there no more how are you supposed to know it? It's crazy, but believe me, I'm talking out of experience.

nah, people are not interested in that unless it actually made some very remarkable stuff (Bell X1, Lockeed Vega, Bleriot etc..).
It's not down only to what they've done, but to how rare they are.
That D-13 is the sole survivor in the world, if that goes there isn't no more, end of games, and the future generations are left with pictures.

God knows what technologies we will ahve in 50 years time, we might even be able to make intricate 3d mappings with scanners etc.. but risking to lose such material now that we have is utter madness.

Let me give you a relative example: would you get rid of all the paper in the national archives once it's scanned and stored on an hard drive, or would you keep it anyway until it deteriorates?

lol no man, don't bend the concept :) it's important to preserve genuine planes in museums using adequate personnel because they're an invaluable resource of information, simple as that. They can be used as blueprints for flying replicas (which can be made to factory standards if need be), which can incorporate all the features that you like and being safer.

Museums are an invaluable resource of information. Some months ago I was helping a friend at Daidalos to retreive info on the Re2000, I got in contact with a friend in the Flygvapen museum who by sheer chance found info regarding a thought to be lost gunsight. He found it in the storage depot, took pictures and even managed to lit up the reticle for me! This feature can now be implemented in a sim, or used as documentation, because an original (for which there are no manuals) has been preserved. Museums need to be the custodian of this scarce or rare stuff, and a plane like the FW190 D-13 is the classic example of this: there's no documentation that can substitute the value of the original.

it was quite a bit of news in the WW1 circle, which is an entity per se in the world of aviation. Do you know of the fantastic work done by Peter Jackson's firm? If you don't, have a look at this, it's simply stunning!

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/

yep, and that's why we need to be very careful and preserve originals. For a restoration project that goes well I can mention at least 20 that went monumentally wrong unfortunately :(

yes, everybody has different approaches. I know crew chiefs that never went for a flight in the machines they serviced, but man, they can tell you which of the cylinder is misfiring by just hearing it run at idle!
The flying bit is only the ultimate result of a whole work of love and passion, done by skilled engineers, mechanics, riggers and technicians. To be a valid and complete warbird pilot you need to be a bit of an engineer yourself, understand your machine, not just jump in and take off.
Turns out that 90% of the time pilots are the weakest link, and as one of the crew chief I used to hang out used to say "we can't all be pilots, there are just not enough pr***s on the planet!". So some of us are techies, some of us pilots, some are spectators, and others are a combination of all or some of these aspects. But whatever the nature of our passion, we need to understand that sometimes it's better to let go for the sake of preservation. Just like you, a part of me would love to see that FW roll and zoom in the sky, but I know that it would be an unnecessary risk, both for the machine and the pilot. Alas, we can't have it all in life!

hehehe it's not that I don't agree with you man, I used to be the same and have the same attitude as yours, but being in the circuit helped me understanding a lot of stuff about this crazy world of aviation.

yes, but there's no money that can turn a pile of smoking, burning aluminium into what it was before, so if you destroy it, it's gone for good.
I'd rather use spare fuselages that are around to do a restoration and take those back to the sky, than risking a complete genuine warbird.

It's all down to the conditions in which they were when they were restored.
The 109s and 190s we have flying nowadays were all in pretty tattered, rotting conditions. Even the FW190A5 from Russia wasn't in much good shape. It still remains that the FW190D-13 was in the same conditions in which it was stored at the end of the war, and it's unique.

If given the possibility, would you fly the Bell X-1 or the Spirit of St. Louis?

As per sounds, they managed to reconstruct the sounds of dinosaurs, I don't think they'd find it hard to reproduce sounds of a plane! ;)

ah, please pay attention here. My first restoration job on a T-6 was for the Italian Air Force. We checked two T-6 used as gate guardians and decided to go for the one that was in better conditions. When looking into the documentation to make it airworthy again, I was surprised to say the least: although still having its military serial number, the T-6 wasn't considered an aircraft anymore, but an "inventory item", since it lost its airworthiness certification after it was radiated. Now me and you know that's an aeroplane, but bureaucracy couldn't care less about it, so it had to be certified again in every necessary component.

Well within limits of practicality I would say. Flugwerk is making a FW190D replica, which will fly and surely will make a lot of us happy :)

What I would love to see flying again would be something like a Short Stirling, or a BV138, but that will have to stay a dream :-/

Well, I think the debate has run it's course, just a couple points. I still disagree because I think you debate from a very narrow POV that puts preservation above all else and I think that should be put into perspective.

Planes like the Bell X and the Spirit of St. Louis are one of their kind and intended to be from the very start. They were built for a one special purpose, cross the Atlantic, break the sound Barrier. I do not think that compares to aircraft geared for serieal production.

Also, there are a few airplanes out there that were so ground breaking that their achievements are to be preserved at all costs, like the Wright Flyer (first powered aircraft), the Fokker E.I (first real fighter aircraft), Junkers F13 (First all metal aircraft), the FW200 (first trans-atlantic passanger aircraft) the Me262 (first jet), the SR71 (speed!) or the F117 (first real stealth aircraft), as they defined the future of flying in general. Keeping some of those also is of the highest importance.

Then there are airplanes that also defined the future, but are unfit for safe flying even if they were restored to flying condition, like the Go229 or the Salamander, due to the inherent design problems. Those also are no options.

Then there are aircraft that were in serial production, but individual aircraft nevertheless made history, sometimes because being piloted by famous people, sometimes because they became a symbol, sometimes because records were broken or their presence in important operations or events, the list goes on.

All these aircraft were important for humanity as a whole as they, in one way or another, had a direct and sometimes profound impact on history.

Lastly, there are some airplanes that were in serial production and the only reason why they are so valuable is that there aren't a lot of them left. That is their only achievement. The D13 or the Spad, for example, are in this category. These planes fought in a war amongst hundrets or thousands others. The D13 may be a bit more special because so few were built, but the sole reason for that was the end of the war and a lack of ressources. I more then understand the will to preserve their technical aspects, but imho, and stated several times before, that worth only counts to a very very small circle of people that have a way above average interest in their construction. And those very few people would be the only ones being sad if that plane was lost, most people would not even hear the news. If we talk about historic value, move away from the trees to actually see the forrest, their real potential is to carry on the impression and expirience of those "wars", which they can't by just sitting around.

P.S. That Flugwerk D9 is to be powered by an Allision engine. Nice to see it in the air but as usual, not coming close to the real deal.

If there is anything we need to preserve than it is the wales for example or plant and animal life in general. Not if it dies out naturally but if the messed up humans are responsible for it.

Who the hell cares about a bit of metal? You could easily rebuild it today, with modern machines faster than ever.

That said there is something you need to keep in mind. Metal can only take so much stress and there will be structural integrity issues. While every metal is elastic it will fail at some point and just tear. Thus you can't really keep those planes alive in their original state anyways. They weren't meant to last. Nothing in engineering is.

lol mine is a very narrow point of view? Since when preservation of original, unique pieces of history is being considered narrow viewed?
I do understand why you want that plane to be up in the sky again, but believe me, it's not feasible and it will never happen.

I suppose you've seen this video before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y5LBUVS1T8

but if you haven't check out how hard it is to crank that machine up.

also, have a read at this for further insight in the story and how much work has been put into it (both right and wrong!)
http://www.indianamilitary.org/Freem...90D13/0118.htm

I'm sorry, but you're telling me that the personal mount of Franz Götz, a Luftwaffe ace with 63 victories and a commander, which he flew until the end of the war and that in addition to that is of an extremely rare breed, doesn't qualify to you as important piece of history? :confused:

Would you then fly the BMW engined Ju88 at Hendon or the Me410 at Cosford too? :confused:

how do you assume that it's not close to the real deal? is it in terms of handling? Sound? manoeuvrability? Or is it just that fetishism you were blaming me of? The funniest thing is that I could take you to a flight line with Allison and Merlin powered P-40s and trust me, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference by just hearing them.
The Jumo engine sounds pretty much like a DB605, with the typical "turbo whine" and a low grumble tone, one wouldn't probably be able to tell the difference between a Ju88 and a Fw190D engine running.
You don't seem to have an understanding of the conception of safety, to you the importance of flying a rare machine just because you want it overcomes anything else. That's not the right mentality my friend :-(

Once again, you find a FW190 frame, or a Stuka, or a Sturmovik one that is incomplete and can come back to the sky? Cool! But flying such a genuine wartime machine is criminal.

Oh Stern, oh stern. Up until this post I took your opinion seriously. Now it degenerated to polemics and your absolute will to force your understanding of the issues onto others. Pity, was really a nice debate.

it's a shame man, I was trying to make a point and that's the same one I've been talking about all the way through. I respect you and would care to read your answer to my post if you have the time (or will).

I'm really stuck half way on this....

Stern I get what you are saying man.....it's like killing the last Dodo just to see what it tastes like.........but then there is a stuffed Dodo in a museum.....but does the stuffed museum Dodo really convey what a Dodo was? they used to live and breathe, eat and sleep and do all kinds of wonderfull Dodo stuff, which is Bewolfs point, the museum piece is dead and lifeless and really just a mock up of the real thing, a flying example would be a magical thing to see (the aircraft not the Dodo) but it's the last one.....what to do?

On the other hand:
A replica would look, feel, and fly the same - only without the risk of breaking apart in midair.
If you want to avoid this risk you'll have to strip it and put it back together - you'll basically end up with a replica. Bad decision.
The best choice therefore would be no to touch the body at all and let it rest in a museum.
Then again, on static display it doesn't need a working engine either - a flying replica would. It would, imho, even turn a kitplane like the Flugwerk into an original.
Why not put a clone in there, in make the engine available for other projects(with better/safer) airframes?

But afaik, there are no other projects which could make use that beast....

Well, your comparison doesn't quite work because it's a living thing which is gonna die at some point anyway, but if it didn't, just clone it, like you can clone a genuine plane and make a fully working replica.

As you know yourself, flying warbirds of today are mostly "replicas" anyway, most of the original components are refurbished/changed/removed for the sake of safety. Why doing that to an original when you can have a replica of it and not be too worried if it gets damaged or lost?

it was more an analogy than a comparison Stern.......I'm sure most people got it.

Fair point. Mind you though, a Jumo or DB engine are very complex and made of rare components, in addition to that they have an extremely low TBO (last time I talked to a German guy working on a DB605, he mentioned something as shocking as a 50 hours TBO!), so maintenance wise you would need a plethora of spares, either originals or custom made, with prices skyrocketing and infinite ballaches for certification.

The stuff the guys at thevintageaviator.nz do is inspiring to say the least, but they work on extremely simpler engines.

yeah man, I know, and I suppose my idea of cloning it still stands, doesn't it? :)

even if it's a clone the Dodo is a real Dodo....just not the same Dodo.

lol a clone is a clone, biologically indistinguishable ;)

Let's put it in another perspective: would you personally risk to fly such rare and precious machines with the original stock conditions? And please, give me a professional answer, not an "aviator" one (cos otherwise you'd see me trying to fly the Spruce Goose again!).

therefore 'real' but with an unconventional method of being made to be.

is a 'machine' so precious, there are a good selection of real examples of other machines languishing in museums, I don't think any association with an 'ace' is particularily important....starts to get a little like reverence of a weird religious relic, but really I am still half and half on this.

Excellent condition?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ap2...eature=related

I don't it was stored that well...

Edit: But this plane is not relevant for this topic as it never was stored in a museum.

why is Amelia Earhart's Loocked Vega more precious than another then? The 'ace' thing is an added value to the fact that the specific plane in question is the most complete, genuine and rare postwar plane known to humanity, other than being the personal ride of a Luftwaffe Ace. If that is not enough I dunno what else you would need to deem it as precious.

IF we still had these, would you fly Udet's Fokker VII? Or Don Gentile's Shangri-La?

Please read the link to the restoration history that I posted above, I'm glad the plane is in the right hands really, cos I think you guys fail to comprehend the value of this machine.

Yeah, we've been there and I think it just goes in circles now anyways. Saying a Merlin and a DB605 sounds the same...dunno what to make of that. Makes me wonder if you ever visited an airshow. And the heck, hearing a Jumo in flight would be a first in two generations, and you say an Allision does as fine? And if it does not matter to you, then why this focus on correct restaurations? I simply lost you between this and your crime accusations.
Then again this topic seriously is not important enough to put so much energy into it. I think we have a very different understanding what defines value, or how it is expressed.

In fact I think those are the only ones you could and should put back in the air(there's a flying il2 btw) - for the sole reason if you display them in this condition it's a sorry show. They never looked like the POS wreck in the corner of the museum.

You can strip, replace the missing parts with modern materials, and there you go - you'll have a nice and safe to fly(!) Warbird.

The A5 recovered from the woods it a typical example of this category.


edit:
What bewulf is talking about must be the emotional part.
Obviously he gets goose skin when looking up into the sky and remembers the fact that this very aircraft was roaring over the battle fields in Russia some 70 years ago.
This not something you can really argue about.

to be honest Amelia Earhart would be much more precious to me, the machine is just an artefact, an object made of various materials that are a bit old now, sooner or later museums will need to make space for eurofighters? and the world moves on.

yes I'd fly the crap out of them and have a boner while I do it....but thats another story :)

I would, if possible, strip the block from all internals(you can use those original parts for resto of other engines with the purpose of static display or demo runs) and rebuild to modern specs - remanufacture the parts from modern materials.
Titanium sleeves, ceramic bearings, hey - whatever it takes. That beast would still sound the same I guess and nothing else matters.
(You probably would end up with a few extra hp too, that means you could fly it with even less throttle -> increased TBO)

Thx Swiss for the link.

Although the vid end with the typical and regretful "if that and if this then if..." I am amazed how many resources and employee dedication NG has put in there.

Thx to all those that were committed in this :)

Yeah, me. You have walk past the Go-229 to get to the archive reading room at the old Garber Facility.

You can walk up and examine it as close you want too.

wait a second, I haven't said that lol and believe me, I've been to a fair amount of airshows in my life, on both sides of the fence ;)

in terms of making the thing flying there's not much difference, apart for the fact that the Allison is probably more dependable and cheaper to run, but of course, a Jumo would sound very differently, as I mentioned before the whine of the turbine would be quite distinctive, as it is for the DB605. I tell you this: if they wanted to they could install a turbine fan and use it just like the sirens on stukas, and remake a sound very near to the Jumo. What you don't get though is that very few warbird operators are so anal about this kinda stuff. An example: there's an ever growing number of Mustangs that "whistle" now, the cause being the airflow hitting the gun ports and literally working like a whistle. This typical sound became somehow fashionable (probably because of Saving Private Ryan), but it wasn't something you would hear all the time, because gun ports were normally taped to avoid icing, it actually became a distinctive sound for crew chiefs, cos when they heard a Mustang whistling it meant that the pilot had seen some action and shot his guns.

Read the thread, Cheesehawk. You are absolutely right that money here is the deciding factor and that restauration only makes sense if readily available. That is something I conceded a long time ago already.

What are you suggesting with this post? Just to get that right, we should install sound machines in these replicas to make them sound closer to the original?

I think it's more of a case that they feel confident to fly it, but insurances say "hahaha! You funny fu***r!". They're going themselves along the lines of "this is too much of a precious machine because it's original and complete to think about flying it". They know it's original, but it's not perfect, the main issue standing with reliability of the engine (and probably the fact that they still don't have a kommandgerat for it).
You could, but then you would have to drastically modify an original machine for the sake of airworthiness. They specifically kept original components like circuit breakers and avionics installed, to preserve its original value, and considering how much electrics are in that thing, I wouldn't be too comfortable to fly something that old where pretty much everything is controlled electrically..

Unfortunately that's sci-fi at the moment :(

Remaking such components on a single stock with such materials is stuff that not even a Formula 1 team can afford.. as that is not enough, the components are so over-engineered that if you damaged the crankshaft, it would take a lot of time, money and efforts to remake one, simply cos we don't have those tools anymore.

Merlin engines can benefit of a plethora of spare parts, both from old stocks and brand new, because there's a market for them, but who would be able to measure, machine and certificate a piston for a Jumo on a budget?

Again, (a lot of) money can do the trick, but good luck in finding an investor that would spend so much on a piece that the average people considers Nazi memorabilia..

it could be an idea, why not? They use compressed air machine guns to remake the sounds of guns, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with the engines, a bit like putting a playing card on your bicycle spokes to make it sound cooler :mrgreen:

Playing cards on your bicycle spokes, man now that is cool. When I was a kid, I shot down many bad guys with my bike set up like that.:grin:

that is the same buzzing sound of a rotary engine at a distance ;)

I seeee........ Well, should I ever see you in something sounding cool, I know what to expect :D

http://mariothemultipla.files.wordpr...0/dscn3610.jpg
DAKADAKADAKADAKADAKA!!!

LMAO, loved the scene in dark blue world

guys, I was flicking through the last Flypast issue, and apart for the magnificent IL-2 Sturmovik back in the air (with an Allison engine, I know Bewolf, I know..), they mentioned they're starting restoration work on the Horten! :)

They do? any more details about that one? Awesome news in whatever way you look at it!

edit: nevermind, found it:

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2011/06/24/p...ship%E2%80%9D/

BAM!

yep, it sounds like they'll do things properly. You see, sometimes it's better to wait, cos today we have better technologies than 20 years ago :)

VERY looking forward to see this one completed! Wings look stunning too, let's hope they match and the frame is strong and sound enough to hold them!

pff, one could also argue that if you do not wait too long, it is not nessecary to develop those better technqiues in the first place ;)

And it yet has to be seen if it is just preservation work and a display in its current state or a full restauration.

yeah, that's gonna be an interesting one: the paintwork seems to be substantially complete, so I'm wondering what they're gonna do with it..

it is flyable and the engine has been started but not since they moved it to FHC. as of last christmas the fuel system wasn't connected but the guy told me they were considering it because apparently they get 1000 visitors just to hear the engine start.

[youtube]4Y5LBUVS1T8[/youtube]

same plane in arizona before it was moved to the FHC. iirc that is the last time the engine was started but as you can see, it does run.

a running engine (with difficulties) doesn't make a plane airworthy...
I would warmly suggest you guys get info on what it takes to keep a warbird airworthy before making comments like this.

Yes, they're gonna keep on running it, until they're gonna seize it (because they don't have spares for it), and then?

the plane is absolutely airworthy. read the history of the plane. it surrendered in perfect condition. it has never crashed. it has never been 'rebuilt'. there is/was no need to rebuild it because it is a perfect example.

they will never fly it though, it is just to rare.

I don't need to read the story,cos I know it inside out,and once again,a plane is not "airworthy" because it's in original conditions.. I have some sound experience on the matter..

the people who work at this museum told me the plane is airworthy. considering they fly a 109E3 that was buried in sand and a 190A5 that was covered in mud i'll take their word for it.

but im sure you know better.

Sternjäger everything I have ever heard about this aircraft points to it being airworthy but like ppl have told you the only reason that they don't fly it is due to how rare it is... That's fair enough in my opinion.

ill take the museum staff at their word. i mean what do they know about flying old warbirds ...

[youtube]xfvQnlYB3IE[/youtube]

I surely know more than you.

An aeroplane is considered airworthy when it gets a certificate of airworthiness by the aviation authority,in this specific case the FAA. The opinion of members of staff is not a certificate of airworthiness; the fact that the plane is complete and sporting all original components doesn't mean it's fit to fly.

The modifications necessary to get a certification would be too drastic and would alter the original layout/components etc.. That's why it's not worth making it fly again,and thank God I say,cos that Jumo is as reliable as a chocolate teapot.

Really well I can't see anywhere that says its not in a fly able condition in fact they say it's close.

What they did say is they won't because of how rare it is, as madrebel has already explained.

close = not 100% = not flyable

If you play lotto and you miss each of the correct numbers by one, your dang close yet you won't get anything.
Let me know in case you need a drawing...

plus, cost probably raise exponentially the closer you get to those 100%.

mmmh I heard several people here who dealt with Allen & co. and I think it's not all about philantropy.. :rolleyes:

Yeah of course because people don't put rare valuable items in buiings where they can be seen but not used.... Oh hang on there is what are they called ah yes that was it, museums!!!

The aircraft is in close to flying condition but it is clearly too rare to fly.

If they can dig wrecks out the ground get they up in the air again I'm sure they have enough money to get an aicraft that was flying around prior to them getting hold of it.

Very interesting converseration!

I have to say that I fall mostly on Sternjager II's side of this. After reading all of the points, my hypothetical situation to suggest to everyone regarding whether original planes should be flying forever is this:

Let's say a team of crack restoration people got the Wright brothers' Flyer I in absolutely pristine condition using (incredibly!) all original parts!

There is no WAY that thing should be flown again! I don't think anyone would say that it should. That thing is just way too valuable as a historical piece.

If these WWII aircraft are as valuable as we believe they are in a historical sense, preservation of the plane should be higher priority than the vanity of watching an original plane fly. Sure, it's nice to see those planes in the air, but there's a point at which original bits just won't work and a replica, made as close as possible to original plans, is the only way you get a "safe" plane in the air. The debate shouldn't be do we keep them flying. The debate should be at what point do we ground them. I think ONE LEFT is a pretty good point to ground them!

I'll be sad when the last original airframe from WWII is no longer flying, but just like with the Wright brothers' planes, I'll get over it.

I think you have missed the point, certainly I do not want a rare example flying the argument at present is that the aircraft is in pristine condition and if they ever wanted to get it flying then they easily could do so.

If that's the issue, whether or not skilled restoration personel could get a vintage aircraft flying again, then of course they could. Agreed. I thought the debate was about whether they should get the plane in the air. My mistake :)

Just look at what can be done with that Spit Mk.I that's in the air again. It's an amazing sight to see, but I hope they know when to keep it on the ground before it's too late. I'm sure most of these planes are in good hands.

nope, it's a bureaucratic empasse that we're arguing here more than whether the machine is in fact airworthy or not.

The machine is unique, so it would probably go in "experimental" category, but even then it needs to comply with certain safety standards that would alter the originality. So as things are now, you could take off with it, but you would be taking a huge risk (not to mention that if you land it again, you'd be grounded for long, long time..).

Right... soooo currently there is not a rather rare 190 with an original BWM 801 engine flying around!!!!!

FAIL

http://www.cebudanderson.com/yellow10.htm

Read... sterny

Krupi, you lost me completely :confused:

man, how many times I have to repeat this? If it's not airworthy for the FAA then it's not airworthy. What's written on cebudanderson website is not divine word, it implies that the restoration work has been done to airworthiness standards, but respecting the authenticity of the plane, which, as such, is not suitable for flight according to the FAA (and the insane insurance costs).

as for website resources, according to this, the plane is restored to "near to airworthy" conditions, whatever that means..
http://www.indianamilitary.org/Freem...90D13/0118.htm

Dude, this is the industry I work in.... "You would have me teach my Grandame to suck Eggs"

From the link you posted...

"Although the aircraft has been restored to near airworthy condition there are no plans to fly it due to its rarity and monetary value."

By the way aircraft can be given airworthy status... just seems like you didn't know this...

so you're in the aircraft restoration business and you don't understand the difference? :confused: