Fullscale Fw-190, where to start

Discussion in 'Warbirds / Warbird Replicas' started by Hangar 6, Jul 30, 2016.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 30, 2016 #21

    Winginit

    Winginit

    Winginit

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    x
  2. Jul 30, 2016 #22

    AVI

    AVI

    AVI

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Banff, AB

    Attached Files:

  3. Jul 30, 2016 #23

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,541
    Likes Received:
    3,384
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    No matter how you look at it, the 190 is a **** sexy beast.
     
    AVI likes this.
  4. Jul 30, 2016 #24

    Jimstix

    Jimstix

    Jimstix

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    LAS CRUCES NM
    A full-scale FW-190 is a very ambitious project. Luckily there are plenty of suitable P&W engines to replace the BMW, unless you must have a D model. If you plan on the D variant engine choices become expensive and more difficult to maintain the proper cowling outer mold line (OML).
    Speaking of the OML, given the computer tech available today, there is no excuse to deviate from the original FW-190 shape. Even small OML deviations can wreck the illusion that you are flying an original.
    I suggest that you do not try to replicate the original structure, but design and build an airplane that looks just like the real-deal. Some of the choices are: steel tube fuselage with composite skin, all-metal wing, wooden wing, or composite wing. Or, just do the whole thing out of composites. Engineering requirements for each are different, as are the budgets.
    Jim
     
  5. Jul 31, 2016 #25

    Hangar 6

    Hangar 6

    Hangar 6

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Tennessee
    This is one issue I've been thinking about, and I hope to find a way to make it work. However even if I make it work, it would be very tight, making it possibly a death trap in the event of a crash landing.

    I am working on this, I have a few books and study a lot about them online to. In college I should be learning about aerodynamics. I've had 3 classes in highschool learning 2D and 3D CAD, I still have some to learn, but I should be able to draw what needs to be drawn. Looks like I've got lots of learnin to do. :)

    Thanks for the links AVI

    I would like to make it as exact as possible on the outside, and in the cockpit. Under the skin I'm alright with changing things up to make the design safer, stronger, simpler, etc. as Toobuilder mentioned earlier.

    I may have that issue of sport aviation, I'll keep a look out for that article.

    As nice as that would be, I don't have the money for that. But I think building it will give me the advantage of knowing the airplane inside and out, which may come in handy when performing maitenance or troubleshooting in the future. Plus the feeling of satisfaction from having built my own fuselage would be nice to.

    I do not want to the D model for the exact reasons you've already stated, I've always really liked the way the A-8 looks with that big beefy nose. It just looks like a real hot rod. Right now I plan on using the ASh-82, as that seems to be a good match to the original BMW, and others have used it with success. However I might not mind using something like an 1830. The R-2800 in Rudy Frasca's Flugwerk just doesn't look quite right.

    Thanks to everyone whos responded so far, I really appreciate it!
     
  6. Jul 31, 2016 #26

    Swampyankee

    Swampyankee

    Swampyankee

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    360
    Location:
    Earth USA East Coast
    Probably much easier to build a Storch -- Morane-Saulnier built them into the 1960s.
     
  7. Jul 31, 2016 #27

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
    double post!
     
  8. Jul 31, 2016 #28

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
    SAFER? STRONGER? SIMPLER? :gig:

    good luck!! very very dificult to macth Kurt Tank design in those areas!

    For money saving with that kind of project, unless you choose a Jurca or similar already flying desing,

    MeierMotors GmbH / Claus Colling is maybe the only (very expensive!) way to get some thing realy flying at a "controlable "price...
     
  9. Jul 31, 2016 #29

    AVI

    AVI

    AVI

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Banff, AB
    My belief as well.
    However, the airframe could be made slightly simpler and much lighter by eliminating "real" armor and armament. Modern radio/nav equipment will also help keep the weight down.
    If I were your (apparent) age, which incidentally, I'm not, the ideal would be to go for composites. It would be a relatively easier route in that the panel for panel, rib for rib, spar for spar duplication in metal could be eliminated, saving years of research and build time. Metal work is time consuming. Each and every panel requires the construction of formers and/or bucks before the metal can be shaped. You are in essence building the aircraft twice, once in wood, and then in metal, so unless you intend to build an exacting replica, why not composites? Don't forget, there's a lot of work involved in having to translate the text found in the original drawings, and to develop your own drawings from the old originals.

    This has to be done before you even start on the formers. I'm sure you'll have lots of fun with odd-sized copies of the old drawings that were originally full size, and thus came off the drawing board without notated dimensions. :) I'm speaking from experience: I created CAD drawings of an Me109 rudder from reduced size copies of original Messerschmitt drawings a number of years ago. If my memory is correct, there were around 150 drawings for the rudder components alone, and it wasn't a whole lot of fun working from the few drawings that were originally drawn full size with no dimensions on them.

    Who knows how far composite construction will advance in the near future? It's not unreasonable for your research and design to ultimately require ten or more years. You've got the time in which to study composite design, and worse come to worst, professional advice/design with composites is always an alternative. For a composite design, the Bentley drawings would be more than sufficient for preliminary design work. However, much research into the actual FW design will still be required, as will the need to obtain as many original 190 drawings as possible. It's in the details that much research time is spent, details such as the canopy retraction system, for example, not to mention the design of the landing gear and retraction system. You've got your work cut out for you.

    Yes, I'd go the composite route. Composites would be ideal ... but you've got a lot of work ahead of you in the research alone for now. Good luck, and as somebody else requested, keep us posted.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2016
  10. Jul 31, 2016 #30

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
  11. Jul 31, 2016 #31

    AVI

    AVI

    AVI

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Banff, AB
  12. Jul 31, 2016 #32

    Hangar 6

    Hangar 6

    Hangar 6

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Tennessee
    If I were to go composite, would that require a lot of redesign to the internal structure? Also how do composite materials compare to metal in longevity? I'd also like to hear some feedback for the delcampe drawings, they're about 30$ cheaper than those on ebay.
     
  13. Jul 31, 2016 #33

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
    sorry, i'just find that on the web, no moreinformation :ermm:
     
  14. Jul 31, 2016 #34

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)
    sorry, i'just find that on the web, no moreinformation :ermm:
     
  15. Jul 31, 2016 #35

    AVI

    AVI

    AVI

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Banff, AB
    If you were to go composite, you would indeed be designing an entirely new airplane which would be a 190 in outline and appearance only. A composite aircraft would have less internal structure .... don't think composite as duplicating the metal panels as you would more than likely do if working in wood, for example. In a more simplified analogy, think plastic scale model. Google Lancair - their build manuals were and might still be available online free. Now, be forewarned, there is also a learning curve here. Search the composite posts on HBA. Lots of good stuff here.
    The delcampe guy may no longer be in business, but his stuff did look good .....
     
  16. Aug 1, 2016 #36

    don january

    don january

    don january

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2015
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Location:
    Midwest
    I think I'd reach out to someone like Bill Clapp if you want to go composite with the 190. Personally I think you would almost be building the plane twice with the mold's ECT. But heck even with wood bulkhead's it can be done.
     
  17. Aug 1, 2016 #37

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    TXFlyGuy

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,544
    Likes Received:
    451
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Go see Marcel Jurca. Work with him to upscale to 100%. He did it for a Spitfire a few years ago.
     
  18. Aug 1, 2016 #38

    AVI

    AVI

    AVI

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Banff, AB
    Marcel Jurca, I believe, sadly passed away a few years ago.
     
  19. Aug 1, 2016 #39

    Hangar 6

    Hangar 6

    Hangar 6

    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Tennessee
    I know composite could make things a lot simpler, but I'm going the metal route. I have a friend who will be getting real involved in this project with me, and we both would like to build with metal. We just feel thats the way to go for this project.
     
  20. Aug 1, 2016 #40

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Battler Britton

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    Montpellier,LFNG (Candillargues)

    Yes, sadly :depressed I was at the burrial, as I was quite close to him for the last ten years...

    AND, He did ...draw the FW 190 in 100% scale, now flying (well) in Germany

    MJ-80 #01 - D-FWUB
     
    cheapracer and don january like this.

Share This Page



arrow_white