Lets not start a mud slinging event on our forum.
Newly restoration Fw190 D-9
- Thread starter pikas
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
Now I have to convince the wife thalt we really should go on holidays in Deutschland
SANDY AIR CORP
Recruit
- 5
- Jul 3, 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.
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.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
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.
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
Recruit
- 5
- Jul 3, 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
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
Major
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.
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
Recruit
- 2
- Jun 16, 2014
Why is someone literally pushing a Mustang around? I like the Dora better no matter what 
