Chariots of Fire FW190 landing incident

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 1,011

http://i.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/67607269/ww2-fighters-brake-fails-during-landing-at-omaka-aerodrome

Damn Shame but glad there were no injuries.

They don't have a fantastic record with these aircraft...

Hopefully back in the air before too long, but certainly going to cost a few quid.

Original post

Member for

20 years

Posts: 3,902

Oh dear, another one broken.

They really have the worst luck, but at least it is only bent metal, so a good outcome really.

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 18,353

Damn shame. Forgot the prop was wooden, though!

Member for

20 years

Posts: 3,902

Wooden props are less damaging to the engine, according to received wisdom.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,208

From the link above:
"Focke Wulfs have a tail dragger instead of a wheel at the back of the plane which made it difficult to control in strong winds"

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 7,025

So was it brake failure or the strange wind conditions where one windsock was pointing one way and another the other way that caused it?.I hope it is soon up and flying again .

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 3,778

I take it a 'ground loop' due to one brake on and one off, the port leg has come through the front of the wing so at some point it must of gone backwards?

The pilot safe which is fantastic and the metal can be put back together.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 743

Starboard brake failure

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 3,778

Thanks for the update Dave, I guess the trouble is you have no idea of the fail until you apply brake on the landing roll.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,605

B()gger :(

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 776

One prop blade flew virtually straight up, it was odd watching it stop, then fall.
Here it is just minutes earlier
https://flic.kr/p/qYEWVG

At least the owner's Spitfire ZK-XIV had its return to flight yesterday, and made it to the show at dusk!

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,566

Ouch...

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 629

Let's be clear, by the way, that this is not a "Focke-Wulf FW-190" but a replica. I'm sorry he hurt his airplane, but I'm sorrier that the line between real and imaginary is increasingly being blurred in this age of data-plate specials, homebuilt replicas and other make-believe wannabes. There are Ferraris and ferraris, and there are Focke-Wulfs and focke-wulfs.

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 120

Let's be clear, by the way, that this is not a "Focke-Wulf FW-190" but a replica. I'm sorry he hurt his airplane, but I'm sorrier that the line between real and imaginary is increasingly being blurred in this age of data-plate specials, homebuilt replicas and other make-believe wannabes. There are Ferraris and ferraris, and there are Focke-Wulfs and focke-wulfs.

Without losing sight of the fact that a lovely aeroplane got bent, I have to agree with this quote. I got ripped to shreds once for voicing the opinion that the new build Me 262s aren't "real" Me 262s. A good example is the Fairey Flycatcher in the FAA museum, built to original blueprints using a number of original parts, crucially, the correct engine and actually built for John Fairey. No one claims this to be anything other than a replica.
For me its about the raison d'etre for the machine. An Fw 190 was a fighter built to defend the Nazi reich, build one as a rich man's toy and airshow performer and you have not built a fighter.
This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it, but I would be fully aware that it's just a big model.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 743

I would call it a 'complex replica' and the closest you are going to get outside Paul Allen's example. As long as people are not trying to claim other wise (I know a few have tried) it is all good and sparks an interest in the younger generations to delve a bit deeper.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 9,780

Snibble -The Flycatcher is a fine replica -however it always relied on a P&W R-985 engine for motive power ! Nowhere near as nice as an Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar in terms of originality !

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 120

Unfortunately people do, lots of them. Not the owners or builder but enthusiasts. "That is a Fw 190, you are a pedant and spoiler for denying it" sort of thing. The folk who say it's genuine, there has just been a break in production.

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 1,318

I would call it a 'complex replica' and the closest you are going to get outside Paul Allen's example. As long as people are not trying to claim other wise (I know a few have tried) it is all good and sparks an interest in the younger generations to delve a bit deeper.

Thank you!

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 120

Snibble -The Flycatcher is a fine replica -however it always relied on a P&W R-985 engine for motive power ! Nowhere near as nice as an Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar in terms of originality !

Happy to be corrected on that, I was under the impression it was fitted with a correct Bristol Jupiter. The example still holds good in that John Fairey's name alone makes it more authentic than any of the reborn Luftwaffe.

Member for

12 years 4 months

Posts: 277

The Flug-Werk 190's aren't real , you're right.
But the example that came to Flying legends a few years back was very impressive , especially as for years we happily put up with Pilatus P2's and Nord 1002's pretending to be me-109's.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,605

Honestly what is the difference with all the new Spitfires,Mustangs and others that have been built from scratch..