Author Topic: Crumpp (Read 1075 times)

Furball · « **on:** October 31, 2004, 04:01:41 PM »

here ya go

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=584219&distinct_entry=true

Crumpp · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2004, 05:45:28 PM »

Yep that is it!

One of them has MW-50 or at least the warning triangle says it does. Some great pictures of it in "Aero Detail 6- Focke Wulf FW-190A/F".

Quote

The "FW-190A-5/U1" and "FW-190A-8/U1" were tandem-seat trainers, with only a small number produced, the first flying in January 1944. They were later redesignated "FW-190S-5" and "FW-190S-8" respectively. They featured twin canopies that opened to the side, and some of the S-8s had pyramidal side windows on the rear cockpit to give the back-seat instructor some forward view. One of the trainers has survived and is at the RAF museum at Hendon, England.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html

Thank You Furball!

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2004, 05:49:26 PM »

Hello there.
Isn't one of these at Hendon?

A place to visit anyway Crumpp

Regards

Angus

Crumpp · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2004, 05:59:24 PM »

MMMM,

Have to link up with you and Furball for some pints if I get over there!

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2004, 06:04:00 PM »

The two of you.
If you want to cross the pond, my place is in the middle, - bear that in mind

MiloMorai · « **Reply #5 on:** November 01, 2004, 06:32:23 PM »

Crumpp, why do you say it is a MW decal?

To consider in your reply:

- the rear cockpit is where the MW tank goes, where is it placed instead?

- the crew member in the back cockpit weighs about the same as a full MW tank

- the yellow triangle was used also to indicate the fuel loading point

- why would a training a/c have MW?

from another site,

"War Prizes lists AM29 as a Fw190F-8/U1 coded "Black 38" of an unknown unit. The HRZ code tells us that it was converted to a two-seat variant by R.Sochor Fabrik at Blanz-Blansko in Poland during late 1944. This aircraft can be found today on display at the RAF Museum at Hendon"

When it was fairly young

Crumpp · « **Reply #6 on:** November 01, 2004, 07:53:25 PM »

Milo,

I was wondering why it has an MW-50 sticker myself. At the house I have numerous color pictures that show very clear close ups of the MW50 sticker. It is located on the right side and not the left as would the C3 auxillery tank warning sticker.

The 115liter tank was not much bigger than a propane barbecue tank. It was bigger but not as much as you would think.

Additionally, according to some of the documentation, the much smaller 85 liter tank was used for GM-1, MW, and EW boost systems.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #7 on:** November 01, 2004, 09:36:40 PM »

Your eyes are better than mine, for I can see no MW50 on the yellow triangle.

According to Bentley, the 10cm high yellow triangles have a number and a volume on them that indicates fuel and are placed as in the photo.

The rear main tank filler point was not in the same place as on the single seaters.

The 115l tank was ~3' high and ~2' in dia.

Where did the radio equipement go? For that is were the 2cd pilot is placed.

Now if someone would like to visit the museum and take a close-up photo......

MiloMorai · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2004, 12:38:18 AM »

In connection with the reorganization of diving bomber units into fighter-bomber units and the need to retrain Ju 87 pilots on Fw 190 fighters the Luftwaffe ordered a two-place training version of the Fw 190 fighter.

In the spring of 1944, one A-8 airframe was modified to this standard and received the additional designation U1. The second cockpit was placed just after the first in the place used for the MW 50 installation. This device was not installed in training planes. The back part of cockpit canopy was also modified. It had a three part, sides opening canopy (similarly to the Bf 109 G-12) ended with a duralumin superstructure in the upper rear fuselage. Three planes were modified and designed as a masters for serial fighter planes modification. To this should be added the damaged planes removed from frontline units and modified by field repair stores. For this reason, it is difficult to find a precise number of A-5 and A-8 planes modified to the two place version. It was a relatively small number and planes were designated Fw 190 S-5 and S-8 (S = Schulflugzeug - training plane) respectively.

Crumpp · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2004, 04:45:36 AM »

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2004, 05:04:09 AM »

Anyone can put a false decal, and this one is truly false, on the a/c. This type of error has been seen on many a/c to give them more 'glitz'.

You really have to be more careful Crumpp or you will start all kinds of new 190 myths,

And to top it off Crumpp, the decal is in error.

Crumpp · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2004, 05:58:03 AM »

Quote

Anyone can put a false decal, and this one is truly false, on the a/c. This type of error has been seen on many a/c to give them more 'glitz'.

As much as you would like to think so, I don't think you’re the only one who has come to this conclusion.

Museum curators have caused quite a few historical errors. That is why I asked Furball about this particular aircraft in the first place.

I really appreciate your posting some good but well-known information.

However it does nothing to confirm or deny the facts of either this A/C setup or MW-50 use in the S8. The only way to do that is visit the Museum and get from the archives the history of this Aircraft, its restoration, and display history. Until then we are only making assumptions.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2004, 06:36:08 AM »

If Bentley, who measured the a/c for his drawings and numerous other sources say MW was not fitted, I will believe them.

Going snotty again on us, eh Crumpp. Oh well.

Crumpp · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2004, 07:41:57 AM »

Quote

If Bentley, who measured the a/c for his drawings and numerous other sources say MW was not fitted, I will believe them.

Bentley is not an original source. Again thanks!

However, the pilots I have interviewed are very specific when it comes to MW-50. They had it and used it.

As the curator of the Smithsonian's archives says, "Between documentation and actual participant, believe those who were there over the paper."

No I am not "getting snotty" Milo. Butch Up some.

Are you getting sensative?

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2004, 06:08:44 AM »

Getting sensative? Not at all.

Bentley, who made those superb 190 drawings, is not a primary source? What ever you say Crumpp.

I suggest you take his drawings and try to fit the MW tank into the 190S.