Read the forum code of contact
By: 3rd April 2015 at 07:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Oh dear, another one broken.
They really have the worst luck, but at least it is only bent metal, so a good outcome really.
By: 3rd April 2015 at 08:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Damn shame. Forgot the prop was wooden, though!
By: 3rd April 2015 at 08:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Wooden props are less damaging to the engine, according to received wisdom.
By: 3rd April 2015 at 09:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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"
By: 3rd April 2015 at 10:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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 .
By: 3rd April 2015 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 3rd April 2015 at 10:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Starboard brake failure
By: 3rd April 2015 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 3rd April 2015 at 10:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-B()gger :(
By: 3rd April 2015 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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!
By: 3rd April 2015 at 14:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ouch...
By: 4th April 2015 at 03:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 4th April 2015 at 09:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 4th April 2015 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 4th April 2015 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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 !
By: 4th April 2015 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 4th April 2015 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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!
By: 4th April 2015 at 10:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 4th April 2015 at 10:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-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.
By: 4th April 2015 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Honestly what is the difference with all the new Spitfires,Mustangs and others that have been built from scratch..
Posts: 1,011
By: markstringer - 3rd April 2015 at 07:49
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.