Revell, Hasegawa Henri D. Fw 190F-8 spinner, fan and prop blades

[Thunda]

Very interesting- glad I read this before buying the Eduard landing gear. Like Out2gtcha says, doesnt matter how well something is produced, if its incorrect, its incorrect- and not by a small amount either, by the looks of things. Surely the stance of the plane would be noticably changed with these considerably shorter landing gear legs?

The panel line faults are quite suprising too.

 

[Out2gtcha]

 

Very interesting- glad I read this before buying the Eduard landing gear. Like Out2gtcha says, doesnt matter how well something is produced, if its incorrect, its incorrect- and not by a small amount either, by the looks of things. Surely the stance of the plane would be noticably changed with these considerably shorter landing gear legs?

The panel line faults are quite suprising too.

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. I think even if the gear doors were the only thing short it would be much easier to fix, and might even be worth the money still......................BUT as having the gear doors too short and not the gear would be impossible or likely not fit in any way from a prototype, but as it looks like the gear themselves are too short as well, that to me spells doom for that Brassin kit.

 

Short is short, and that is something that would be near to, if not all the way impossible to fix with metal gear, and have it come out any where near factory strength or look.   

[Darren Howie]

Interesting discussion and to add a few points re the gear legs and there positions.

Firstly there is no metal spring in FW-190 gear legs. Some aircraft use springs in oleo's but it's generally not for control of compression more to control retraction.

The 190 used oil and air.

So let's think about that.

Any change in air pressure and the 190 was supposed to be inspected daily for minimum pneumatic gear leg pressure of 80 ATUleads to a change in strut position.

Any change in hydraulic leg quantity the same.

Any change in outside air temp effects pressure and viscosity so same result.

Now assuming a 190 rolled off the production line with perfect gear legs and seals in the gear legs just how long do you think that they would stay that way operating off unprepared airstrips in horrific conditions getting minimal maintenance?

So let's now assume our perfect 190 sits empty on the ramp unfueled and unloaded.

Now an empty 190 weighs in around 3200Kg plus or minus a few percent airframe variation.

It has a max take off weight of 4900kg so it can carry an additional 1600kg of load that can be divided among fuel..pilot...ammunition..fuel tanks. Etc.

So in short it's weight can increase by a bout 50%.

In short the number of variables that can lead to different strut positions and lengths is simply huge and NO ONE POSITION is correct for EVERY scenario.

Different leg lengths on REAL aircraft are very common.

A modern airliner can have a one to two foot difference in main strut lengths operating off sealed runways given lots of maintenance so what variations would you get on the battlefield.

I can immediately link Numerous photos showing low riding 190 gear struts and likewise unloaded ones.

For a tired weathered 190 I will definitely use the Eduard legs and for a newer aircraft possibly the G factor ones if I can track them down.

If I wanted to do an unfueled unloaded aircraft I will use the Revell legs but one thing is certain and that is no one leg covers the huge spectrum of age, maintenance condition, load and other variables at play in determining the gear leg length of any single FW-190.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Darren Howie

[LSP_Mike]

Good points.

[Artful69]

... Interesting discussion and to add a few points re the gear legs and there positions.

Firstly there is no metal spring in FW-190 gear legs. Some aircraft use springs in oleo's but it's generally not for control of compression more to control retraction.

The 190 used oil and air.

So let's think about that.

Any change in air pressure and the 190 was supposed to be inspected daily for minimum pneumatic gear leg pressure of 80 ATUleads to a change in strut position.

Any change in hydraulic leg quantity the same.

Any change in outside air temp effects pressure and viscosity so same result ...

 

... In short the number of variables that can lead to different strut positions and lengths is simply huge and NO ONE POSITION is correct for EVERY scenario ...

 

... I can immediately link Numerous photos showing low riding 190 gear struts and likewise unloaded ones.

For a tired weathered 190 I will definitely use the Eduard legs and for a newer aircraft possibly the G factor ones if I can track them down.

If I wanted to do an unfueled unloaded aircraft I will use the Revell legs but one thing is certain and that is no one leg covers the huge spectrum of age, maintenance condition, load and other variables at play in determining the gear leg length of any single FW-190 ...

 

Steve (Wumm) mentioned a similar conclusion (About varying gear leg lengths) over on the LSM site ...

His research yielded slightly different information as evidence leading to the conclusion ... 

 

http://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/3740-132-fw-190-undercarriage-and-wheels/page-2?do=findComment&comment=49892

 

... but the conclusions are the same nonetheless: there's nothing wrong with the Eduard undercarriage set.

 

Interesting, eh?!?! ... Steve will be doing an F-8 to F-8 comparison (Hase to Revell) over on the other page once the kits are to hand - should the interest take you?!

 

Personally, as far as the undercarriage goes, I don't mind either way - as long as my wheels stay put on the axles and my gear stays put on the aircraft model!!

 

Rog

Edited June 18, 2015 by Artful69

[Darren Howie]

That sounds cool Rog the F-8 is probably in a similar vein to the 190 and I have a few of those to do!

All interesting stuff!

[Out2gtcha]

Cool..............that all does make sence, now that I went back and looked at the metal gear legs themselves.............the "shortness" is not in the upper stationary part of the MLG, but IS in fact the same exact length in that area as the other two, but you are right...........the shortness is taken up in the oleo itself. 

 

 

Good catch guys!

 

 

For me however, I have personally seen a lot more unloaded oleos than loaded ones, so I think Ill likely be sticking with the G-Factor ones, but it is always great to know that there is another option for us out there with a different looks that is accurate.

[fockewings]

Interesting discussion and to add a few points re the gear legs and there positions.

Firstly there is no metal spring in FW-190 gear legs. Some aircraft use springs in oleo's but it's generally not for control of compression more to control retraction.

The 190 used oil and air.

So let's think about that.

Any change in air pressure and the 190 was supposed to be inspected daily for minimum pneumatic gear leg pressure of 80 ATUleads to a change in strut position.

Any change in hydraulic leg quantity the same.

Any change in outside air temp effects pressure and viscosity so same result.

Now assuming a 190 rolled off the production line with perfect gear legs and seals in the gear legs just how long do you think that they would stay that way operating off unprepared airstrips in horrific conditions getting minimal maintenance?

So let's now assume our perfect 190 sits empty on the ramp unfueled and unloaded.

Now an empty 190 weighs in around 3200Kg plus or minus a few percent airframe variation.

It has a max take off weight of 4900kg so it can carry an additional 1600kg of load that can be divided among fuel..pilot...ammunition..fuel tanks. Etc.

So in short it's weight can increase by a bout 50%.

In short the number of variables that can lead to different strut positions and lengths is simply huge and NO ONE POSITION is correct for EVERY scenario.

Different leg lengths on REAL aircraft are very common.

A modern airliner can have a one to two foot difference in main strut lengths operating off sealed runways given lots of maintenance so what variations would you get on the battlefield.

I can immediately link Numerous photos showing low riding 190 gear struts and likewise unloaded ones.

For a tired weathered 190 I will definitely use the Eduard legs and for a newer aircraft possibly the G factor ones if I can track them down.

If I wanted to do an unfueled unloaded aircraft I will use the Revell legs but one thing is certain and that is no one leg covers the huge spectrum of age, maintenance condition, load and other variables at play in determining the gear leg length of any single FW-190.

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

Edited June 18, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

Cool..............that all does make sence, now that I went back and looked at the metal gear legs themselves.............the "shortness" is not in the upper stationary part of the MLG, but IS in fact the same exact length in that area as the other two, but you are right...........the shortness is taken up in the oleo itself.

 

 

Good catch guys!

 

 

For me however, I have personally seen a lot more unloaded oleos than loaded ones, so I think Ill likely be sticking with the G-Factor ones, but it is always great to know that there is another option for us out there with a different looks that is accurate.

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

 

Edited June 20, 2015 by fockewings

[fockewings]

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.

 

Edited June 21, 2015 by fockewings

[MDriskill]

Here is a view of the wing gun bulges from above.

 

I see from later in the thread that this fascinating photo is a captured G-3, it is a very interesting shot indeed. Possibly the best look at the canopy hinge I've ever seen!

 

I have seen the odd "extension strip" to the gun cover on quite a few early A-5's. It must have been a way to utilize parts already manufactured for earlier short-nose machines. If I may heretically mention "non-large" scales here, the detail is common enough that Hasegawa included this panel line on their 1/72 A-5 and A-6 kits.

 

Another interesting detail is the mis-match of the engine to the airframe. Note the cowl latches in the cowl side panels (MG-17 engined 190's typically had them in the cowl top panel), and that the gun troughs are more widely spaced than the bumps in the front of the gun cover. The aircraft's captors must have swapped some bits to make it flyable.

[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/

[D.B. Andrus]

:thumbsup:

 

:popcorn: