Fantastic FW 190 video

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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:

In regards to your question.....yes, I definitely would....
...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.

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.

[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 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.

[swiss]

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.

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....

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by swiss

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....

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.