Fantastic FW 190 video

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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.

[drewpee]

+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).

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by drewpee

+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).

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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?

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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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

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.

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.

[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 Sternjaeger II

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.

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

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.

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.

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)




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.