fockewings

Hi Guys I took the liberty to make a small vid of how good the Props really are when balanced. The first time it took right off the axle... Enjoy Hope it works...https://www.facebook...55808596354535/ and one more showing the whole thing with cooling fan.. It is temporarly a bit off due to wrong position on the axle but it works . Have a look at the exhaust-flicker. Thanks to Clyde from DynamicscaleModeling but I seem not be able to find his site anymore... https://www.facebook...55813373774535/

Hi Guys I took the liberty to make a small vid of how good the Props really are when balanced. The first time it took right off the axle... Enjoy Hope it works...https://www.facebook.com/danny.schulz.731/videos/10155808596354535/ and one more showing the whole thing with cooling fan.. It is temporarly a bit off due to wrong position on the axle but it works . Have a look at the exhaust-flicker. Thanks to Clyde from DynamicscaleModeling but I seem not be able to find his site anymore... https://www.facebook.com/danny.schulz.731/videos/10155813373774535/

Here are some shots of the mechanism... Maybe Darren Howie could post some of those pics showing FW190s with shorter leg quantities mentioned ?! I would love to see those since the books I work with do not show lots of them. Aah and here is one good one from the newest Flugzeug-Classic... Take a look at the load and the lowest two mounting points still showing. Considering what has been stated be Darren Howie, I would say, considering the amount of pictures and the conditions the FW 190 was serving under, it is up to everybodys preference what landing gear he uses but I would personally choose the kits gears or change towards more sturdier material or at least strengthen them. I have bought two of Eduards gears and I will change them towards my taste and likes. Note: This seems to be an early factory-testwing A4/U3 or F-1 with test trial ETC50 and outboard-guns still mounted. Followed later by then standardized A5/U17 or F-3 with ETC50.

Obviously this was put a bit unclear when describing Hasegawas landing gear cover which is missing length in the top whereas Eduard shows, after my judgement , a much shorter leg. Cheers again I had some email from Henri again and he has taken some shots of the FW190 found under an blown-up hangar. This aicraft was found in Cottbus (forme eastern germany/DDR) and was buried there for a long time. Now it seems that there has been done "some" work to bring some parts back to life This part is pictured as it would be under pressure - the last two mounting holes are not showing, indicator is sitting at 27/ up to 4500kg

Thanks for your input. I indeed have written compression but if you look at the picture showing the F-8 in the museum i wrote hydraulic/spring pressure for I was writing general in terms of storage in museums over a long term. Loss of pressure etc. But again nothing wrong with putting it straight. Thanks. One thing to mention is that I intentionally went on showing aircraft loaded and unloaded at taxiing or before scramble. That was to proof that even with full load it is way to low for Eduards version. I also stated that the only weight to justify this would be an torpedo. I never intented to state that there is only one option but for the normal loaded F-8 according to my books and pictures it appears too low. You are most welcome to post those pics but again I did by purpose not choose abandoned or damaged aircraft to negate that fact. You see I had the same thought in mind and tried to concentrate only on aircraft in daily service. Cheers

Yes indeed. I wish I could have had the info before I purchased stuff for conversions. It isnt so that only one AM-Supplier or Model-Company makes splendid models. They all have their minor or big faults. THink only of the Gustav from Eduard. DIscussion has been going on since the first model came up. Or the FW 190 from the same supplier. Think of the He-219 from Revell or Zoukei. Even Tamiya has their wrondoings. Here is just one example of the seats for this FW190. I have now at least 4 versions. 1. to the left is Hasegawas 2.Revells bare seat - nice seat cushion seperately included 3.a nice but not 100% perfect by Eagle Parts it extents too much to the rear 4.Eduards newly casted seat from their F-8 cockpit set - for me according to pictures and evaluation the best of the lot in terms of details and dimensions As far as it concerns the cockpit-tub I have to read a bit more before I make some statements here. There are hundreds of small changes and even after war productions could have varied such as FW190/NC900 or Siebel 204-D/Aero C-3A. I only can post this pic for now since it shows the big effort I made to copy an A-4 cockpit.... Note that all changes are made to the Hasegawa-kit: the engraving I did free-handed with that tool

Thank you and you are welcome. Yes, I forgot to mention the G-Factor legs. They are intented to be used with the the Hasegawa but I am sure they would fit for the Revell as well, some tweaking applied.

I hope this was not too confusing with hopping around between pictures and model parts and everybody can judge for himself what parts/model he is using. Thinking of some Kit-bashing, I am looking forward to try that out. Taking the best of each kit and combining them. I will, of course, change the Eduard gear-parts so, so that those fit my expectations. In my eyes an effort that could have been prevented. Again: This is only due to my interest in technical details and transformations during history and not to be considered as NP.

Another pic of some funny details Revell has done obviously due to lack of quality control: Panel-lines only partly scribed whereas the other side shows them properly. this is the place on the original: Source: Aero Detail 6 FW190 A/F

Another thing that I found is the lower wing half of the revell bird compared to Hasegawa. See for yourself: there is a step-down from left towards right in all panel lines covering the tank/fuselage-center. Just look at the shadows one more funny detail but not really disturbing. I found those on the Revell He-219 as well. But there is one more detail revell has covered properly while missing some otheres at the same time The small edge Hasegawa moulded doesnt need to be there... Please correct me if I am wrong. Also I noticed on the Revell (light grey) the jacking point (small circular engraving to the left underneath the gear opening) is missing -the last pic in this post shows it also on the original picture cutout source: Aero Detail 6 Fw190A/F ISBN4-499-22603-1

My point: Eduard has made those fantastic detailed legs and covers way to short to picture a normal F-8 with load, based on the presumption that the Museum F-8 is authentic in terms of compression. All the other pictures, I have seen, do not show that much compression. The only one valid weight would be, in my eyes, a 7m long torpedo... Note: 1.G-Factor landing gears 2.Hasegawa 3. Revell 4. Eduard at last a shot from the museum showing the Museum F-8 in the States. My guess is that Eduard took that picture and just copied it... Again: Long term compression, lack of hydraulic/spring-pressure and so on... Note: to me it seems that the indicator on the Gear-cover was positioned to high considering the upper &last pressure readings since the 7th line (partly coverd by the bomb sits already on the tapered part of the cover whereas this one does not:

So none of these aircraft-pics, even heavily armed, showes that much compression source of picture cutout: Fw190 Volume three 1944-1945 Smith/Creek ISBN 978-1-906537-31-9 there is another one from the same book with the Eduard Cover next to it. Note how much the indicator is placed towards the top of the cover with almost full compression whereas the picture with the heavy load shows more room above another shot taken for comparison between the extended Revell and Eduard. The length difference is immense

this one shows the same aircraft and this one I think is the cracker : Showing an A-5 with lots of "load" mounted the indicator is not showing as much compression as one would think source: internet/wikipedia here is the last one even with an Bv 246: source of picture cutout the fantastic book: Fw190 Volume three 1944-1945 Smith/Creek ISBN 978-1-906537-31-9

OK, found some time again to dig a bit more into the REV-HASE topic. I focused now on the landing-gear since I wanted to share some of my points. Reason for this is the newly made Brassin Landing Gear by EDUARD. I will try not to rant but state the obvious. I will try to make some explanations so anybody can choose what he likes. OK, here are some pics from all the landing gear covers: 1. to the left is my modified Hasegawa one with Aber etched parts the length is taken from a picture showing an A-4 on a runway without ETC! 2.the original HASE being too short in the upper part missing quite a bit to go into the wing 3.the Revell intented to be used in upper/closed position during flight - there is a minor difference in length towards the next one - visible on the mounting holes towards the triangular gauge/indicator on the right side of the landinggear-cover - this one appears to be a bit oversized when compared to pictures - I also noted that the mounting holes have the same distance towards the forward and aft edge of the cover. 4.Gearcover for extended gear with aircraft sitting on ground 5. Eduards newly cast gear cover Be aware that aircraft-examples from museums might have lost a part of the tension/pressure since being stored in museums standing or hanging, having received maybe the third coating of paint, and removal of all fluids which can affect the reliability. Only valid would be the newly airworthy A-5 as an comparison http://img10.deviantart.net/8944/i/2011/219/c/3/focke_wulf_fw_190a_5_taxi_by_shelbs2-d45syrl.jpg other fantastic pics are these showing an A5 without ETC: http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-A5-JG54-(W4+-)-ImmolaFinland-1944-3+.jpg the lowest two mounting points for the gear cover towards the leg are still visible as on the gear covers from Revell or my modified example shown. Keep in mind there is no ETC or any other bombs attached on my example of an A-4! Now to the Hasegawa cover: this shows only one lower mounting point visible. That means this would be more valid for an aircraft which is armed up with either ETC and full droptank or maybe a 250 bomb. Reasonable for me but needs to be extended in the top as stated before. Here a wikipedia picture of an heavily loaded G-1 Also this one showing a late version like an F-8 with outward guns even visible both of the lower mounting points

Never seen some of the pics and the markings were for sure attached before they went for public display in the states. They are no standard markings. But thanks again for these pics.

I have been brooding over this and I came up with a thought: To me it seems that there was made an effort to eliminate weight during production and/or to prevent problems with turbulences. If one looks on some cooling-fans mounted in todays cars they are even unsymetrically spaced to prevent interferences and turbulences being as flat as possible at the same time. As one compares pictures of the different cooling-fans it seems that the slim blades have an higher angle of attack and an more bulbous airfoil profile than the broad bladed. Supporting this thought - the same/higher amount of air being moved as on one with lower angle of attack... based on the presumption that the depth of the cooling-fan-disk would be identical which seems logical. there are as well some differences in the parts layout indeed. Again, I stand to be corrrected in this matter but it would somehow explain that we have two 12-bladed ones which could be mounted in different versions at different times. When needed there was eventually an replacement with a better version (slim 12-bladed)!? Dont get me wrong, as a modeller I am happy with the result - this is mostly due my interest in technical solutions and the "evolution" of the affected parts.

Excellent pics. Where did you get them from? I cant remeber seeing them in any of my books? I also wondered if those wide bladed fans where some parts done only by AGO or some other license contractor.... When I look at the gun cover with the edge towards the eengine cowling this one seems to be an A-5 prototype since the cover appears to have received an extension... correct me if Iam wrong

Thank you, yes this is what I meant. There has to be some reference. After talking to Henri he confirmed as well that there were at least 4 different types.

to show some difference on Revells wing to the Hasegawas (note that this one has been heavily modified by a riveting tool after original drawings to represent each rivet) I personally like the Hasegawa Wing-root-Gun-cover much better. What a word the Revell one has a funny forward shape (not shown here since camera dead) this is the Revell one which is slightly understated with the recess in the panel line....

another fine pic from the first book mentioned: so I measured the Cooling fans and the original measurement should be between 813-815 mm that makes an inch or 25,4mm in 1/32 now I took my favorite tool and voila: HDs 14-bladed Hasegawas Revells new F-8 Cooling Fan: and Henri Dähne`s first cast for the A-8 To some it might not mean soo much but taking in the obvious lack of material on Hasegawas one the whole front looks a bit... I dont know... not so massive as it should whereas the Tamiya and so appear bullylike... So it seems that the Revell is interchangable withe oil-cooler cover-ring and the cooling fan itsellf with the Hasegawa. For my part I will probably, depending on the plane I want to display, either use HDs together with a new cover-ring or the wide-bladed Revell together with Hasegawas cover-ring if not Henri is making a complete new wide 12-bladed cooling-fan... The Hasegawa-parts like spinner, fan and gear-covers go into the bin or will be used to help me scratchbuild some new accessories

...so I ask everybody now, since those fans were obviously not limited tho earlier variants but also mounted on later ones like A-6, was that a different supplier? These late aircraft had, already since the A-3, the D-2 version mounted. I know of: the "slim" one 12- bladed now which obviously Hasegawa in 1/32 and Henris prop sets the wide ones 12- bladed obviously Revell had in mind the 14-bladed since late A-8/A-9/F-9 ome sources even speak of an early 10-bladed one I have never seen. Tamiya in 1/48 as Dragon had also the wide blades So somewhere this Cooling-Fans has to come from and I find it interesting that even the freshly restored and flyable A-5 has the slim-bladed one... Does anyone have some more valid info on that? The version Revell has and also the slim one Henri/Hasegawa represented seems to be correct... Now I am going to take some quick measurements of the Fan...

then I found some pics of the "Black 3" (A-3) salvaged and restored in norway and the States with the same Cooling-Fan which is OK... source: http://www.toredgarolsen.net/Focke%20Wulf%20FW.htm But then I stumbled over some pics in wikipedia and my own books which made me frown a bit: source: airpowerworld.info and this one: so obviously there were differences... First I thought: "wait a minute this is an early BMW801 C-2 for A-1, A-2 and A-3" which would make sense since I found those pics in my books from Jozef And al a priatelia & friends Focke-Wulf FW190A/F/G/S showing the same fan in serial production also a bit of a section here from the same fantastic book: so I searched a bit more and found this one in the outstanding book from J.Richard Smith and Eddie J.Creek FW190 Volume one 1938-1943 this is a picture section of an A-5 which crashed similar photos I found in the same book showing the same wide fan blades on A-6 and so on

this would be the wikipedia picture of an BMW 801 source: wikipedia

as I said before masterful

next moves eventually tomorrow when I got the vernier ready together with some tool for trimming. Then we try to bash a few parts... It looks like I have to stand corrected with what I said earlier: I said: "...Ds prototype but not finished Fan - the blades need to be wider as on the following 14-blade for the F-9" From the moment I got the first casts from Henri, I wondered about the width of the 12-bladed fan. SInce my pictures and reference showed not only those slim blades but also Fans (12 bladed too) which seemed wider. I was a bit surprised first and thought some had made a mistake. then I looked at some othe rplanes and there was same cooling fan...also on wikipedia (source) see next pic