Classics Hangar Fw190D-Ta152H Released

[thunder100]

Hi Huub

I doubt that later planes would look so different to that

http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Fw-190A/F...ce-1944-05.jpg

Roland

[huub vink]

After reading this I changed the aircraft number into 2011016 and as I was busy with it I enlarged the numbers again, just because it looks cool

I also tried to bring more texture in the bare aluminium parts

http://www.indianamilitary.org/Freem...eal6d-list.jpg

and

http://www.indianamilitary.org/Freem...190D9/0119.htm

Cheers,
Huub

[thunder100]

Sachsenberg, who flew red 1 had "Verkaaft's mei Gwand 'I foahr im Himmel" (sell my clothes I'm going to heaven in Bavarian dialect) painted on his aircraft.

Thats a Heurigen (vineyard) song in Vienna-->Ferdinand Sauter arround 1820 Music Johann Strauss

Roland

[alx]

New skins for Classics Hangar FW 190D-9 published at www.italianwings.it




Fw190D-9, White 11 - Ofw. Heinz Marquardt - 13./JG 51, Eggersdorf Airfield - April 1945




Fw190D-9, W.Nr. 210003 - Red 1 - Oblt. Hans Dortenman - 12./JG 54, Oldenberg Airfield - October 1944

[Stickshaker]

Hello Mathias,

I asked the question earlier and perhaps I am the only one who does not know the answer. Even at speeds of more than 400 km/h, when I put the nose in an attitude that I think would point the guns at a target straight ahead (judging by the position of the gunsight relative to the horizon at the altitude at which I am flying), I always find myself losing altitude (judging by the VSI). This would mean that you cannot shoot at a target and maintain level flight. I know that the Dora and Ta were meant to operate at high speeds, but I cannot remember that I had this issue with any other WWII fighter. Is this realistic?

[huub vink]

As I think it is more or less finished I made this repaint available for download in the library.

The final version....

[YoYo]

Good work! CRG!

[jankees]

work in progress:
during the war:

[jankees]

and after the war:

[Mathias]

Huub, Alessandro, very cool!
Jan, looking forward to flying this. Not easy to hunt down interesting Ta152 schemes since they all served with the same unit.

Stickshaker: chance is that the gunsight isn't very well calibrated. This was really not of much concern to me having the reticule lined up.
However, since there are a few other little things to patch I'll have another look at this one, too.
Thanks for sharing your observations!

[stovall]

Great aircraft and fantastic paint schemes. The new schemes by alx are very nice also.

[jankees]

talk about coincidence, I just painted TA-152 150168, which you see above, and this afternoon I find a journal at the railway station with an article on Willy Reschke, who piloted green 9.
He called the TA152 his life insurance during the latter days of the war it seems, and describes how, although it was designed for high altitude combat, it would just as easily perform at treetop level. Some bird... But JG301 only had 13 TA's so the number of repaints is limited, as Mathias says...
It seems one 152 survived and is currently still in the US awaiting restoration, a H0 version:


and what it looked like just after the war:


does anyone know what it looked like while with JG301?

[jankees]

just uploaded green 9 in its two colours on OZx

[Stickshaker]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Hello Mathias,

There may be another reason. In ‘Wings of the Luftwaffe’, Eric Brown praised the forward view of the Fw-190A (he considered it better than that of the Spitfire) due to the nose-down attitude of the FW-190A in flight. He considered the forward view even better than that of the Mustang, although I do not know whether that also was due to the nose-down attitude. When a captured Fw-190A was tested at Farnborough, it was found that the all-round search view was ‘the best that has yet been seen from any aircraft flown by this unit.’ The sighting view was ‘approximately half a ring of deflection better than that from the Spitfire’.
I do not know whether the Dora and Ta-152 also had, in reality, a nose-down attitude in flight, but is it possible that the CH planes’ attitude is a bit too nose high? This is speculation on my side, but can you enlighten us?
<!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->

[Barfly]

I think the view over the cowling in flight has more to do with the relative downslope and shortness of the nose on the A models than the flight attitude in general - just from an observation of various pictures, and looking at the conventional wing/body angle to the relative wind when flying...

The Bearcat, which copied the general concept of the close cowled FW, is a more obvious example of this, with it's relatively high cockpit and similarly downward sloping nose. The "Langnase" would seem to have a very similar forward view angle as a Mustang or Spit, with perhaps a slightly better view down and forward due to the inverted position of the engine.

I use "Shift-Enter" to raise seated view for most sim aircraft and that definitely gives you a better feel for the relative view available here once you're high enough to see the top of the cowling. I don't use track IR, but that may better demonstrate view angles.

[huub vink]

The German 300 liter (ribbed) drop tanks were stenciled, but does anyone here know whether this type of German drop tank had similar stenciling?

Thanks,
Huub

[huub vink]

According to Kangero Focke-Wulf FW190 volume IV this is aircraft no 150010, which looked like this before the British and Americans started to repaint it.

I'm afraid the picture will not help much as the registration code isn't visible, but it was the only one I could find.

Cheers,
Huub

It seems one 152 survived and is currently still in the US awaiting restoration, a H0 version:

and what it looked like just after the war:


does anyone know what it looked like while with JG301?

[Stickshaker]

I think the view over the cowling in flight has more to do with the relative downslope and shortness of the nose on the A models than the flight attitude in general - just from an observation of various pictures, and looking at the conventional wing/body angle to the relative wind when flying...

The Bearcat, which copied the general concept of the close cowled FW, is a more obvious example of this, with it's relatively high cockpit and similarly downward sloping nose. The "Langnase" would seem to have a very similar forward view angle as a Mustang or Spit, with perhaps a slightly better view down and forward due to the inverted position of the engine.

I use "Shift-Enter" to raise seated view for most sim aircraft and that definitely gives you a better feel for the relative view available here once you're high enough to see the top of the cowling. I don't use track IR, but that may better demonstrate view angles.

Hello Barfly,

For normal flight, I also raise the eyepoint until I can see the tip or any other part of the nose, but I don't think that is a solution here. When you want to look through the gunsight you still have to lower the eyepoint.
Of course, a steep slope of the nose does help.

[big-mike]

Couldn`t longer resist and i all i can say is---this an outstanding and impressive package!
Thank you for your hard work,Mathias.
Mike

[huub vink]

Jan Kees a better version from the picture you posted before. It seems there is still much to see from the original paint. I think the front is quite standard and the 4 (green?) was genuine. I think the after part from the fuselage was already repainted when it was captured. On the other image you see a sort of scribbling pattern just before the tail. Perhaps repainted after damage? ON the other picture there is no sign from the red and yellow home defense band. I assume this was already painted in a basic colour (RKM02?)



Stickshaker when you look closely to the picture above and image the pilot's head in front of the head rest, you will understand there was no way the pilot could see the point of the nose. The bulky panel covering the guns is simply blocking the view. And things might be a bit different than with other planes as I think this must be the longest nose around.
Since you post I have attacked many mountain tops, but when I aim my aircraft in "gunsight view" and keep the aircraft in a horizontal flight and I will hit the mountain where I aimed at.

So either I don't understand your problem or I don't have it.

Cheers,
Huub

[CWOJackson]

talk about coincidence, I just painted TA-152 150168, which you see above, and this afternoon I find a journal at the railway station with an article on Willy Reschke, who piloted green 9.
He called the TA152 his life insurance during the latter days of the war it seems, and describes how, although it was designed for high altitude combat, it would just as easily perform at treetop level. Some bird... But JG301 only had 13 TA's so the number of repaints is limited, as Mathias says...
It seems one 152 survived and is currently still in the US awaiting restoration, a H0 version:


and what it looked like just after the war:


does anyone know what it looked like while with JG301?

You might want to contact the NASM.

In 1998 Museum restoration staff were treating deteriorated sections of the wooden aft fuselage, fin, rudder, and right elevator when they discovered several interesting items that offered tantalizing glimpses into the airplane's shadowy past

Extensive wood rot was found in where the horizontal stabilizer joins the vertical fin. The restoration staff speculated that during testing at Wright Field, pilots and engineers became concerned that the wooden tail may have been weakened by defective glues or sabotage. They strengthened the entire area with steel plate. However, this work may have compromised flight safety because it required moving the horizontal stabilizer forward several inches, exacerbating a tail-heavy condition already known to the Germans. The restoration specialist removed the steel plate and rebuilt the tail to the original German configuration.

After comparing photographs with the aircraft, the staff determined the British painted over some of the original German markings. The U. S. Army Air Force then stripped and repainted part of the airplane but NASM technicians carefully sanded through the layers of Allied paint to reveal previous markings and much of the original German paint. They found the old Foreign Equipment number, RAF markings, the Reich Defense tail bands of JG 301 (fighter wing 301), and the original Nazi swastika.

The staff also found 20mm MG 151 gun mounts and fittings in the upper cowling. However, these were not normally found in H-0 models, suggesting this airframe may have been destined to become a C-1 variant.

[huub vink]

It might explain why the aft part of the fuselage was repainted.

[DaveQ]

Jan Kees a better version from the picture you posted before. It seems there is still much to see from the original paint. I think the front is quite standard and the 4 (green?) was genuine. I think the after part from the fuselage was already repainted when it was captured. On the other image you see a sort of scribbling pattern just before the tail. Perhaps repainted after damage? ON the other picture there is no sign from the red and yellow home defense band. I assume this was already painted in a basic colour (RKM02?)



Stickshaker when you look closely to the picture above and image the pilot's head in front of the head rest, you will understand there was no way the pilot could see the point of the nose. The bulky panel covering the guns is simply blocking the view. And things might be a bit different than with other planes as I think this must be the longest nose around.
Since you post I have attacked many mountain tops, but when I aim my aircraft in "gunsight view" and keep the aircraft in a horizontal flight and I will hit the mountain where I aimed at.

So either I don't understand your problem or I don't have it.

Cheers,
Huub

It's interesting that the Luftwaffe markings on the fuselage and tail appear to have been crudely reapplied over RAF markings for some reason. Is that right??

DaveQ

[huub vink]

As explained in the bold text in CWOJackson's post the German markings were first painted over by the British with RAF markings and after arrival in the USA the RAF marking were painted over with (not quite accurate) German markings again by the USAAF.

Cheers,
Huub

[Stickshaker]

Hello Huub,<o></o>
Yes, I realize that in the 152 (and D-9) you cannot see the tip of the nose, that is why I added in my post ‘or any other part’. I’ll do some more flying, both in the Dora and the Ta-152. At what speed were you flying when you were ‘attacking’ the mountain? The higher the speed, the better the view.