Fantastic FW 190 video

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

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.

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.

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.

[Crumpp]

uhm....you may want to do a little google search and then come back.

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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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.

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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

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.

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.

here's how it was when the restoration was started (wings and prop were in place):


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.



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

...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!

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.

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.

Shall we keep these planes in the sky? Hell yeah!

first sentece I can agree on undisputed, hehe

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..).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by codex

i can not wait for cod to have the fw's.

+ infinity

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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.

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.

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/

...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!

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

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.

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!

first sentece I can agree on undisputed, hehe

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 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 :-/

[Bewolf]

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.

[Madfish]

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.