Focke Wulf 190 80% Scale

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

AVI

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Messages
524
Location
Banff, AB
Wow.. My thoughts EXACTLY...
Funnier yet, my countermeasure while waiting was to consider the RV-4! Actually, can you get RV in Plans only? I'm half thinking of building one to the same build standards, but skinned like a FW.. (Terry's plane with a MP-14 is my dream plane)..
Have a complete unused set of RV3 plans for sale if you are interested

Sorry - forgot message previously posted - trying to delete it
 
Last edited:

Martin

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
22
Location
Queensland, Australia
Mr. Spinneti,

You could do worse than build and RV-4 that looked like a FW-190. Actually, an RV-8 even better.

The fact is, Terry Kronk based his FW-190 on the RV series, not just the construction method, but all the controls and control surfaces are based on the RV. The wing profile is a Riblett, but when I flew it, the easiest way to describe its handling and feel is to say, it felt like a big RV...( I have an RV-6, so I feel that it is a valid comparison)

Martin
 

Spinnetti

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
95
Location
Dallas TX, USA
Mr. Spinneti,

You could do worse than build and RV-4 that looked like a FW-190. Actually, an RV-8 even better.

The fact is, Terry Kronk based his FW-190 on the RV series, not just the construction method, but all the controls and control surfaces are based on the RV. The wing profile is a Riblett, but when I flew it, the easiest way to describe its handling and feel is to say, it felt like a big RV...( I have an RV-6, so I feel that it is a valid comparison)

Martin
Ah, Great, thanks for the information! Using photoshop, I calculated the RV8 is about perfect in proportion at 71% in a quick mockup. My current thinking was to reconstruct both the RV-8 and the FW190 in Solidworks and see what a mashup would look like (I have various copies of blueprints of the real FW). Only problem is I need plans for the RV, and understand there are none for the RV8, but nice to know its possible anyway! That helps me get up the courage to get moving, but would be nice to have plans to work from for the RV. I even thought I might get a RV8 slow build and as I build the RV, design and build the FW as I go along... Hmmm. Are there F1 Rocket plans? that might be even better to model from.
 

Spinnetti

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
95
Location
Dallas TX, USA
Have a complete unused set of RV3 plans for sale if you are interested

Sorry - forgot message previously posted - trying to delete it
No worries mate ;) Sorry, I actually missed your first post somehow. I don't come here that often since the traffic is really low... PM me if you would about the RV plans cost (not sure how applicable they would be?).

Thanks.
 

flywulf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
109
Location
Los Angeles California USA

Attachments

Radicaldude1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
388
Location
Front Range, Colorado
I'm drawing up the FW in Solidworks and designing the structure in conjunction with the Do-335. I'm doing it based on the factory drawings. This is a rough shape; I'm still trying to work out the tail-fuselage merge area.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

flywulf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
109
Location
Los Angeles California USA
That s Magnificent! :roll: The FW190 is the project that I want to build. I want the D9 version. Any thoughts of doing that one as well? Design and engineering is not my specialty though. I'm better suited at making the actual parts. :gig: Maybe we can work together on this?

I'm assuming you want to build in metal though.


Any thoughts?

Ed
 
Last edited:

Radicaldude1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
388
Location
Front Range, Colorado
That s Magnificent! :roll: The FW190 is the project that I want to build. I want the D9 version. Any thoughts of doing that one as well? Design and engineering is not my specialty though. I'm better suited at making the actual parts. :gig: Maybe we can work together on this?

I'm assuming you want to build in metal though.


Any thoughts?

Ed
Well, I'm actually looking into doing a composite version at 85%. The reason being I want to simplify the structure with a sandwich skin and a robust but simple structure beneath that. That and the aircraft has so many compound curves that I would just rather not deal with it sheet metal-wise. The only parts different on the D9 are the cowling, exhaust vent area, and tail extension piece. Everything else is the same.

There is also no fuselage structure forward of the rearward-most part of the exhaust vent area. What that means is that the main spar pretty much connects to the forward of the fuselage structure and the rest is balanced by the engine. For an 85% replica, that means that the first 8 or so feet of your fuselage is all cowling and the fuselage structure itself is only 16 of the 24ft total length. So I'm planning on designing a common structure for the forward 10 or so feet of the structure and differing tail parts depending which way you want to go. So the forward fuselages for the A-F,G will have mostly common parts with a D9 version. The parts will be interchangeable during construction, but you can't convert a short nose to a long nose after without seriously dismantling most of the structure.

A TA-152 version would have a longer nose still and a different wing. All else structurally is basically the same, with the probable exception of the gun cover, which is not structurally loaded.

Powerwise, with an 85% replica, you can really choose from a wide selection of engines, with higher HP like a converted Chevy small block or an M-14 with ~400HP for the short-nose and a Big Block 540 or 572 with a circular radiator, and about 600HP, in front for the long-nose. For either version, there will have to be a significant steel truss structure in the nose to support the engine pretty far from the firewall; around 2.5 feet for the short-nose, and around 4 feet for the long nose. This sounds long and heavy, so to speak, but the weight of the engine and steel mounting will help with balance because the engine is really really close to the CG on the short nose version and some of the space can be taken by radiators (for the A-F,G) and other engine equipment. If you really wanted to, you could probably cram a Chevy big block into the short-nose version.

Weight-wise, I'm shooting for ~1600-1800lb empty for the short-nose and and additional ~200lb for the long nose. With 400-600HP engines, you'll get close to real warbird power loadings of around 4-5lbs per HP, even when you throw in about 60 gallons of gas (~300lb) and a 180lb average-man. All models of the 190 had about 4.5 when moderately loaded and 3.75 when empty.

I'm working on the tail right now. It has a NACA 0009 airfoil. I'm having a little trouble with intersection where the fin merges into the fuselage.

PS: Fun fact, the FW-190 has almost the same airfoils as the Do-335. The Dornier's wing is slightly thicker with and has a lower aspect ratio, but this is going to help tremendously as I design (or rather redesign) both of their wings.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Spinnetti

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
95
Location
Dallas TX, USA
Are you working on this as an exercise, just for yourself or plan to offer plans or kit? I want to do a 190A, but would rather leverage skills greater than my own than start from scratch..... PS, would love to get a copy of your model!
 
Last edited:

Radicaldude1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
388
Location
Front Range, Colorado
So you're a composites builder eh? I'm just the opposite.

SHEET METAL! All the way, LOL!

Again the renderings look great, I hope to see more and especially when you start the build.

Ed
Funny thing was I initially wanted to build in metal, but after looking at all the compound curves and the sheer number of parts, I went to composites. Also part of the reason is that the university research I'm doing is composed partly of composite structures. That, and simulating the finished structure in FEA is whole lot simpler with composites, mostly because of the parts thing.

I can probably engineer a perfect replica in metal from the drawings I have, but it'll literally take years to do and it will be hard to confirm or redesign the wings, tail, and other aerodynamic features when I'm done.

Are you working on this as an exercise, just for yourself or plan to offer plans or kit? I want to do a 190A, but would rather leverage skills greater than my own than start from scratch..... PS, would love to get a copy of your model!
I hesitate right now to say I'm going to offer anything, more or less because I technically haven't designed anything that has taken flight yet (though I'll find out soon, one of my designs is scheduled to fly as a university rc plane). With that said, if I was, it'll probably be a kit, given the rather close tolerances required with the structures I'm using (honeycomb sandwich, etc). While I won't be releasing dimensioned drawings outright, I'll still be pretty open on my progress here.
 

orion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
5,800
Location
Western Washington
Yes, SW is becoming the standard for many mechanical processes however it is important to not only look at the pictures but also analyze how long it took to create them and the experience level/training the operator needed to get the parts to that level. Often times it is the latter that is the real story, not the pretty parts.
 

Radicaldude1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
388
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Still working on the tail; the compound curve where the fin meets the fuselage is pissing me off!

I'm actually working off of the same drawings as that gentleman in that blog, though I elected not to do part by part because of reasons I stated above and the fact that the blueprint collection is missing a lot of parts (such as in that problem area with the fin and fuselage).

I probably have about 15-20 hours invested in this project, from the time I started the new file to what I now have onscreen, which I would like to think is about halfway. The FW-190 is ironically much more complex geometrically than the Do-335, which took me about the same time to pretty much finish it. Now, this is just the shape that I will do aerodynamic simulations on, but I think is the hardest part in the design. There is still a lot of work, but its mostly busywork.

It does take awhile to "get" Solidworks, though. I've had about 5 years experience with the software, and almost as much professionally, so I'd like to think I know what I'm doing. If someone was similarly experienced in other software like Catia or ProE, they could probably output a product that is the same or superior, especially with CATIA and its superior surfacing tools. I think Solidworks is pretty good with the recent versions (2008+) but for awhile it was pretty buggy and sometimes unwieldy to use. I started with the 2005 version, and its interesting to see the improvements over the last half decade. With a huge model like the one I have here (I have about 250 features so far), stability is still really an issue. There are sometimes those particular commands that will crash the program every time. I've heard that the abilities of CATIA and ProE are far superior in handling large parts and assemblies, but I have only limited experience in both. Solidwork's strengths are really in its (relatively) low price and its more intuitive approach. Both of these make it attractive in both light industry and academia, the latter which helps spread its use.
 

Attachments

Radicaldude1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
388
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Put wings and tail on the thing. These are not the final wings; this is with a preliminary airfoil (the Do-335's in fact) just to see the location of panels and stuff. The final configuration is still to be determined with so simulation.

You'll also notice that the renders are going to get worse and worse, as I am losing the ability to render (Solidworks says "Model is too big to render", meaning "your computer sucks").
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Radicaldude1234

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
388
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Not much new drawn. I want to work on the wing/fuselage merge area, but to do that I need the wing. So I'm doing simulations on XFLR5, which is a really good program for being free, on the NACA 23000 series of airfoils, which were used on the FW-190. I would like to use the same airfoils, but thats still pending on the performance data I get. I'm shooting for an empty weight of about 1600 lbs for the shortnose and probably 1800 lbs for the long nose, so I'll have to see if the wing loading is too light.

Regarding incidence angle, I'll probably have it set to the cruise speed at about 75% power, ~300 hp with the engine I'm planning on using with 450hp at full power. I don't have the full calculations yet but looking at the Lancair IV, which has a 350hp engine is slightly larger and much heavier, can cruise at 330mph. Then again the Lancair doesn't have an enormous cowl like the A-D/G short nose Butcher Birds or an annular radiator on the Long Nose...

The only part I'm worried about is the cockpit area, because if the fuselage is just a straight scale down, it might be too narrow. At 85% and without modification, the width of the canopy at its widest is about 22 inches. In contrast, the Do-335 has almost 30 inches of shoulder width even when scaled down to 72%. I know about how wide general aviation cockpits are, but how wide should I allow for fighter cockpits? Now, I'm a pretty small guy at 5'4 and 140lb, so I can probably function down to about 22" of shoulder space (I have 18" wide shoulders). Despite this, I might want other people to build this airplane one day, so I'm trying to make the cockpit as versatile as possible. I'm thinking adjustable height seats, maybe adjustable rudders. What do you guys think?
 

Attachments

flywulf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
109
Location
Los Angeles California USA
Take a look at Mr Kronks bird. It looks to me like he widened the fuselage a bit to make it a bit more roomy inside.

Mr. Kupfers looks pretty snug in his cockpit at 75%.

I actually measured with a tape the cockpit width of a few planes at my airport. I found that older designs had allowed 21" per person while newer planes have 22" per person. I feel that 23 would be way to go as I am larger than average at 6' 5.5" 220 lbs. I think Mr Kronk has the right idea. The plane still looks very much like the original and it will be able to accommodate a larger pilot comfortably.

I envy Mr.Kronk whenever I see this picture of him on the take off roll. Looks like sooooooo much fun to be had. Talk about the ultimate toy!

Also a Jurca 75% 190 in flight, looks snug but roomy enough.

The Jurca Spitfire at 75% has enough room for one.

Ed
 

Attachments

Last edited:
2
Top