Favorite War Era Aircraft. - Page 3




 
--
 
February 9th, 2012  
BritinBritain
 
 
Isn't someone building a modern version of the FW 190 with a turbo prop engine?
I'm sure I read it somewhere.
February 9th, 2012  
KevinTheCynic
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Isn't someone building a modern version of the FW 190 with a turbo prop engine?
I'm sure I read it somewhere.
Don't know about a turbo-prop engine but there was a project in the late 1990s to build a limited number of FW190 A-8 models for a handful of museums and collectors. Built from the original plans, some actually included genuine WW2 FW190 tail wheels from a stash that was uncovered in Europe.

Although having to be fitted with modern aircraft safety devices, the planes were given permission to be built as FW190 A-8/N models (N for Nachbau: "replica") with their Werk numbers continuing from were the wartime numbers finished. Although listed as "replicas" the aircraft are apparently for all intents and purposes, considered to be a continuation of the FW190 production from the war.

FW190 A-8/N



P.S. Just did some quick searching and found what you may be referring to. Another project was started to build an FW190 D-9 but because original engines obviously could not be sourced, they chose to use the Allison V-1710 engine as originally fitted to a Bell P-39 Airacobra. Apparently this FW190 had its engine tests in 2007.
February 9th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheCynic
I definitely like the long-nose FW190s, have you seen the high altitude interceptor variant designed by Kurt Tank (designated the Ta152)? Apparently the Nazi leadership were so impressed they allowed it to be called the Focke Wulf Tank after the designer.
(The wings are a bit too long to look good in my opinion.)

The long nose 190s were meant to be an interim measure until the TA-152 was awailable.
It was delayed due to technical problems and having the factories bombed by the RAF and USAAF.
The 190Ds were initialy A models re-engined on the production line or when they were returned for major repair work.
The fuselage needed stretching and the fin was extended.
Colour photos of 190Ds show them to be a patch work of different coloured panels and unpainted panels as they were being put together by spares and cannibalised parts.
They were a very potent high altitude fighter, only surpassed by the
TA-152, which were far and few between.
--
February 9th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheCynic
Don't know about a turbo-prop engine but there was a project in the late 1990s to build a limited number of FW190 A-8 models for a handful of museums and collectors. Built from the original plans, some actually included genuine WW2 FW190 tail wheels from a stash that was uncovered in Europe.

Although having to be fitted with modern aircraft safety devices, the planes were given permission to be built as FW190 A-8/N models (N for Nachbau: "replica") with their Werk numbers continuing from were the wartime numbers finished. Although listed as "replicas" the aircraft are apparently for all intents and purposes, considered to be a continuation of the FW190 production from the war.

FW190 A-8/N



P.S. Just did some quick searching and found what you may be referring to. Another project was started to build an FW190 D-9 but because original engines obviously could not be sourced, they chose to use the Allison V-1710 engine as originally fitted to a Bell P-39 Airacobra. Apparently this FW190 had its engine tests in 2007.
They've also built replica Me 262s, single and twin seater variants.
February 9th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
It is not my favorite and it was a prototype, I watched on the National Geographic (some people have too much spare time) I think it had the same problem as the ME-262 (the engine) I am talking about the Horton 2-29.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ter-plane.html
February 10th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
If my memory is correct, the problem with the ME 262 was it's engines. They had a nasty habit of catching fire on start up, they also had a service life of 25 hours before a major overhaul when compared to 100 hours for the Whittle engine.

The 262 engines were far too ahead of their time, the materials were not available.

I have often wondered which aircraft would have come out on top in a dog fight, the 262 or the Meteor assuming pilots of similar capabilities.

What is annoying, if the Air Ministry had listened to Frank Whittle the RAF might have fought the Battle of Britain with Meteors alongside Spitfires and Hurricanes. A so called "expert" at the Ministry told Whittle that his engine would never work.
Adolf Galland having flown both aircraft claimed that the Me-262 was the better fighter but that the Me-262 with Meteor engines would have been better.
February 10th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Adolf Galland having flown both aircraft claimed that the Me-262 was the better fighter but that the Me-262 with Meteor engines would have been better.
Allied jets at that time were basically, piston engine aerodynamics, fitted with jet engines.
The Me 262 featured a swept wing, very advanced for its time.
Also german aeronautical engineers were among the the best.
Their work was copied for a long time.
The F-86 Sabre and Mig-15 were heavily based on German technology captured at the end of the war.
February 10th, 2012  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trooper1854
Allied jets at that time were basically, piston engine aerodynamics, fitted with jet engines.
The Me 262 featured a swept wing, very advanced for its time.
Also german aeronautical engineers were among the the best.
Their work was copied for a long time.
The F-86 Sabre and Mig-15 were heavily based on German technology captured at the end of the war.
And the Mig 15 was powered by a copy of the Rolls Royce Nene, thanks to the stupid bloody Labour Party giving the Soviets a quite a few of them.
February 10th, 2012  
Trooper1854
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
And the Mig 15 was powered by a copy of the Rolls Royce Nene, thanks to the stupid bloody Labour Party giving the Soviets a quite a few of them.
The Russians were very good a copying things.
The Tupolev Tu-4 is a copy of the Boeing B-29.
A number of B-29s landed in Russian occupied land and they were impounded.
The russians copied them right down to the "Boeing" logo on the rudder pedals!
If you look at subsequent Tupolev designs, you can see how they used the design of the B-29's tail gun position in their bombers.
February 10th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trooper1854
The Russians were very good a copying things.
The Tupolev Tu-4 is a copy of the Boeing B-29.
A number of B-29s landed in Russian occupied land and they were impounded.
The russians copied them right down to the "Boeing" logo on the rudder pedals!
If you look at subsequent Tupolev designs, you can see how they used the design of the B-29's tail gun position in their bombers.
Very True, unfortunatly for the Russians, by the time the Tu 4 left any signifigant developmental stage, the Americans where arleady working on and testing prototypes of bombers for the jet age.

As for jets of the second WW, gotta go with the Meteor, better engines, and a dashing sillouette.
 


Similar Topics
Web videos: World War 2 & Korean War Fighter Tactics, D-Day & more
Indian Sukhoi to star in US war games
Favorite War Movies?
Allies and neutrals in WW2