# Newly restoration Fw190 D-9



## pikas (Jun 29, 2013)

Newly restoration Fw190 D-9

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKafbj_RqgY_


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2013)

Is that the one in Florida with an Allison V-1710 in it?


----------



## Milosh (Jun 29, 2013)

From Sandy Air Corp

Dear Friends of SANDY AIR!

We proudly present our recently completed FW 190 D9 WNr. 400616, formerly flown by Uffz. Koch of the famous JG 54 “Greenhearts”

This is one out of only two surviving FW 190 D9 worldwide with authentic serial number and battle history. The aircraft even features the original Jumo 213 A previously used on this Serial number!

The aircraft may be visited at the location of the extraordinary warbird collection “Hangar 10” on the island of Usedom/Germany. (Home - Hangar10 - Air Fighter Academy GmbH)
The aircraft is up for sale now!

All the best,
Wolfgang Falch
SANDY AIR CORP.

Note: much of the a/c is Flugwerk.

This link says WNr 400616 flew with I./JG2 and was 99% damaged.
www.lostaircraft.com • Datenbank


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 29, 2013)

THanks for letting us know pikas!

I think I need to smoke a cigarette now.....


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 29, 2013)

Awesome!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 29, 2013)

Saweet! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2013)

Very nice.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 29, 2013)

Very cool!


----------



## Milosh (Jun 30, 2013)

So much for the Sandy Air statement.

Claus Colling:
"The airframe structure is that of the former Flug Werk FW 190 A8/N which ditched in the Mediterranean harbor of Toulon/France."


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 30, 2013)

Ahh, I hope they do at least one flight with it, in oder to capture the plane with HD cameras. =D


----------



## SANDY AIR CORP (Jul 3, 2013)

The Claus Colling statement is wrong. The replica A8 he referes to is still in existance but in storage by its owner. Our D9 has nothing to do with the Flugwerk replicas. There is only a section of the cockpit that was made by Flugwerk and used for the restoration! If in doubt ask Maier Motors or the Hangar 10 team!

To the others: thank you for liking our most recent restoration!
SANDY AIR CORP.


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2013)

Great work Sandy Air Corp! Nice to see a real Fw 190, especially a D-9, come back to life.


----------



## riacrato (Jul 4, 2013)

What condition is it in? Will it be runnning or even flying?


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 4, 2013)

Nice to see a D-9 replica (it does say somewhere that roughly 99% of it had to recreated/replaced so...) - I wonder what power it has?, as I got it confused with the Jumo'd D-13 which I initially assumed it was... D'oh is me (see below)

The D-13 as far as I know is the only one in the World with a working Jumo 213 engine in it, and as such will never be flown exactly because of that. 

Any other Jumo inverted V-12's that are around elsewhere, are either bits of salvaged wrecked motors, have be cut open for 'museum displays' or are missing keep internal parts as no one regularly creates or supplies parts for them specifically.

Any parts needing to be repaired or replaced are 'custom engineered' for the Jumo, and since there's only one working 211/213 series engine, that makes its parts at least 500% more expensive than a corresponding similar part for the comparatively still in low key availability production with some parts supply for Merlins/Packhards.


----------



## SANDY AIR CORP (Jul 4, 2013)

For those who know our aircraft a few explanations:
There is always a decission to make about how much of an aircraft should be original which is being restored either to flying or to static. As much as I love flying warbirds myself (I have logged several hundered hours in taildraggers and warbirds), I think that preservation of aircraft/wrecks that cannot turned into flying machines is also important.
With this FW 190 D9 it was like that: we had the original Jumo 213A engine from that WerkNummer, as well as some airframe parts. We looked for as much original D9 components as possible and started the rebuilding process.
I estimate that some 25% of the aircraft come from that WerkNummer and another 15% from different D9s. The rest is new.
It is similar with our other projects, i.e. the three Bf 109s we have finished so far. With respect to those who think that this is a waste of original parts I have to say that I usually keep the airworthy parts and provide shops with them who restore flying aircraft. Most of the time I use only damaged or corroded parts for my static restorations.
My question now to you: is it better to have an aileron hanging from a wall, or an instrument on a book shelf, or to have them integrated in an airframe of a known WerkNummer? My answer will allways be: I prefer the static aircraft rather than a collection of bits and pieces. Besides, has anyone ever wondered why there are so many "projects" out there and only so few that get finished? My shop is one of the very few that are capable of completing a project.
All the best,
Wolfgang Falch
SANDY AIR CORP.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2013)

When did the Fw190 get a forward leaning antenna mount on the vertical fin?


----------



## riacrato (Jul 5, 2013)

SANDY AIR CORP said:


> For those who know our aircraft a few explanations:
> There is always a decission to make about how much of an aircraft should be original which is being restored either to flying or to static. As much as I love flying warbirds myself (I have logged several hundered hours in taildraggers and warbirds), I think that preservation of aircraft/wrecks that cannot turned into flying machines is also important.
> With this FW 190 D9 it was like that: we had the original Jumo 213A engine from that WerkNummer, as well as some airframe parts. We looked for as much original D9 components as possible and started the rebuilding process.
> I estimate that some 25% of the aircraft come from that WerkNummer and another 15% from different D9s. The rest is new.
> ...


Rebuild as many complete aircraft as possible I say. I don't care if they are assembled from x different airframes so long as you can use as many original parts as possible. Me personally I also rather have an aircraft build with 50 per cent new parts than a 50 per cent complete wreck sitting somewhere in a hangar (e.g. Ta 152).


----------



## pikas (Jul 10, 2013)

US$1,200,000
Platinum Fighter Sales - Warbird Aircraft Sales


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 10, 2013)

Milosh said:


> When did the Fw190 get a forward leaning antenna mount on the vertical fin?



Its probably a modern comm's (VHF or UHF) aerial, and possibly they thought it'd work or look better there, than say sticking up upon the rear of the canopy - it'd instantly stick out more to them and cause lots of people to moan about it.

..I failed to look at the located-some-where-else pic, it is the standard fins (not to be confused with Finns..) radio wire mast without its radio wire.


----------



## SANDY AIR CORP (Jul 10, 2013)

Milosh said:


> When did the Fw190 get a forward leaning antenna mount on the vertical fin?


 
Milosh, have you ever heard of wide angle lenses? Yes? OK, here is the answer: I have put three red vertical lines over the tail - where is the forward leaning antenna now? The wide angle lense distorts images and makes them look different.

If my reply does not sound too polite here is the reason why: when you read all of these posts on forums regarding our 190 D9 then you get the impression that there are a few experts who have nothing else to do but to pour mud over whatever we do. Leading in that respect is Michael Fuller who hides behind the alias Harrison987. Strange enough our replies and post are not beeing published in forums like 12oclockhigh. When Fuller called my a liar because I said that the airframe is not Flugwerk except for a small portion of it, he repeated 3 times that the airframe is 100% Flugwerk. When the post with the wrong Colling statment got removed, he did not respond with an apology, no - he said: it is obvious - now what is obvious? That Fuller called us liars though he just did not see what was Flugwerk and what was not, or that he just simply does not understand much about warbirds - these are some of these so-called experts we have to deal with - enoying! And the worst: Fuller violates copyrights in another post and despite the fact that my name including the copyright can be found on the pictures he uses without permission, the webmaster does not bother and leaves them where they are including the damaging remarks regarding our projects ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2013)

Lets not start a mud slinging event on our forum.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 10, 2013)

Sandyair, great job on the Dora. I wish I could see it. Sometimes it is good to see an original wreck, but sometimes it's also good to recreate the whole thing like it was in it's better times. 

Now I have to convince the wife thalt we really should go on holidays in Deutschland


----------



## SANDY AIR CORP (Jul 12, 2013)

Milosh,
the Luftwaffe evaluations of the percentage of damage never mean that only a certain percentage of the aircraft was beeing discovered or had survived the crash. I.e. if an aircraft was recorded as a 100% loss that did not mean that there was nothing left of the aircraft - it means, that nothing could be used as spare parts for flying aircraft. I.e. a 99% loss states that there was 1% of the airframe/engine that could be removed from the wreck and used again. And they used whatever they could. We recovered the wreckage of a Ju-52 several years ago. The airframe was also declared a 99% loss despite an airframe and engines that looked very much intact in pictures taken in 1941. The reason for the high percentage of damage was that the aircraft was stuck at a site from where it was almost impossible to remove anything. What the Luftwaffe did remove was: the three instrument boards, the guns, and believe it or not: the tailwheel (we have pictures of the aircraft from before and from after the visit by a Luftwaffe team and in the second set you can see the tailwheel fork but no tailwheel). Another example: when an aircraft was landed on a lake and sunk, it was also recorded as 100% loss, though today we would pull it up and would restore it to flying conditions again ...
Many get this wrong. They always wonder how an identity of an aircraft can be used when it was written off back in WWII and how parts could remain of a loss recorded as 100%.
Our D9 has still the entire engine, gear box, prop shaft, auxiliary drive and many other smaller parts of the engine and the airframe from the WerkNummer 400 616 - but they were beyond restoration to flying due to a bullet hit in the crankcase of the engine (which explains why it was declared 99%) and surface corrossion from the exposure to the elements. Some parts of the engine, the gear box and the prop shaft could possibly be restored to flying but would it be worth it? We considered it better to keep together what was from that WerkNummer and add as much original D9 parts as we could find ...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Falch
SANDY AIR CORP.


----------



## GregP (Jul 12, 2013)

I prefer them to be airworthy and that they occasopnally fly, but that is a personal preference. Like you said, I'd allow the airworthy parts to go to potential flyable projects, but would want to see them in an advanced stage before letting go of the pieces.. However, in the end, if YOU buy the parts, you are free to do with them what you want. The hard part is finding the parts! I marvel that you could find any Fw 190D-9 parts anywhere that were in good shape. Good job! 

We're trying to make progress on our Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon and parts were the main issue at first. We spent almost a year just finding the landing gear uplocks! Now the main issue is money for the project.

Good luck with your Fw 190D-9! 

Out of nothing but curiosity, what would prevent it from being made flyable?

I am working on a rare Bell YP-59A right now (one of about 5 guys on it) and we hope to have it flyable before the next Planes of Fame airshow in May 2014. 

We like to fly our planes if possible, but have done some static projects. One was the Yokosuka D4Y Judy we recently finished. It is static but can be started and taxied. The last thing we did was to fit it with brakes to make that possible. Getting it moving is optional, but getting stopped once it IS moving is mandatory. The longerons were gone. We COULD make it flyable if we had some longerons extruded ... but the cost would be high. It is also possible that a new main spar would be required for it to fly.

Most of our planes are WWII, but we have a smattering of newer and older stuff. The oldest plane we currently fly is a Boeing P-26 Peashooter and the newest plane we currently fly would be a North American F-86F or our MiG-15 bis (don't know which one is newer). If we ever get it finished, the newest flyable plane will be either an OV-1 Mohawk or our Pilatus P-2 when it eventually gets to the museum (it is flayable now, but is staying in Texas for awhile). The OV-1 needs new wings due to corrosion, but it will start and had been taxied, though not recently.

If we built a new set of wings, Ed Maloney would let his beloved F4B-3 fly again, but he doesn't trust the original wings at this point. If we had an engine, we might fly our Boeing FB-5, too. It is supposed to have a Packard 2A-1500 V-12 of 520 hp. They don't grow on trees. 

We'd also lkike to acquire an Argus AS-10 for our Fieseler Storch that is otherwise complete. They are also somewhat rare in good shape. The issue isn't finding one, the issue is usually the price. We don't need a bargain nasement price, but also don't want to fund someone's retirement for a piece of an aircraft. 

I'm sure you understand since you're in the business.


----------



## SANDY AIR CORP (Jul 28, 2013)

Greg,
Would you mind contacting me via my website Sandy Air Corp - SANDY AIR CORP. ? I agree with what you say but would like to answer via email!
I also prefer flying warbirds over static restorations since flying is what they were made for. But there is always another side to it: just look at my former P-47 "Dottie Mae" that I recovered and sold in 2005. An outstanding warbird with an outstanding history. First I thought it would be best to have it restored to airworthyness. But when I look at it again, then I doubt that this was the right decission - and that is why: if the aircraft would have been preserved and put on display in the state we had found it, it would have remained 100% original WWII - the last loss of the US Airforce in the ETO in WWII! Now it is going to fly one day and due to the (I am sure excellent) restoration there are only 65 - 75% original and if it suffers an accident (something that always can happen) even less. If this would have been just another rare P-47 I still would have said, it is better to make it fly again. But this aircraft with that history could have be kept as a priceless time capsule as well ...
All the best,
Wolfgang


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2013)

Hi Sandy Air,

I'd email you from there but the email button wants to use Outlook and I don't use Outlook. How about if you PM me your email address?

Good luck with you restorations, Wolfgang!

I have no reservations flying them when a warbird is restored to flying status, except then the operators should either keep up with maintenance and operate it with qualified pilots or turn it into a static thing. I have friends who own Spitfires, Mustangs, and Sea Furies, and they all maintain them well and stay current enough too not be dangerous. The guys at the PLanes of Fame are also current and their ploanes are well looked after and fly enough to stay healthy ... though we ALL wish they flew more.


----------



## Biggiginthesky (Jun 16, 2014)

Why is someone literally pushing a Mustang around? I like the Dora better no matter what


----------

