Author Topic: See anything funny in this Focke? (Read 1525 times)

BlauK · « **on:** July 11, 2006, 05:54:42 AM »

I just wonder if it is intentional or simply some mess-up in restoration?

Pei · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2006, 06:08:22 AM »

I guess it would make sense if the MGs were removed in order to reduce the drag form the gunports.

TimRas · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2006, 06:31:33 AM »

AFAIK many Fw's, especially "sturmbock" and jabo versions had their cowl guns removed to save weight. It makes sense to cover the muzzle holes.

Reynolds · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2006, 12:44:31 AM »

1. What does AFAIK mean?

2. That thing looks like its "nose" is blistering! Like it way badly sunburned!

3. I think it was intentional, since he might not even fly it, and if he doesnt fly, hes DEFINATELY not going to need those guns... but you never know! WWI is fought with bolt action guns. WWII with machine guns. WWIII with nukes, WWIV with sticks and stones, maybe a few Focke Wolffs, and Messeschmitts?

Furball · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2006, 02:08:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds
1. What does AFAIK mean?

2. That thing looks like its "nose" is blistering! Like it way badly sunburned!

3. I think it was intentional, since he might not even fly it, and if he doesnt fly, hes DEFINATELY not going to need those guns... but you never know! WWI is fought with bolt action guns. WWII with machine guns. WWIII with nukes, WWIV with sticks and stones, maybe a few Focke Wolffs, and Messeschmitts?

what the hell are you talking about? LOL

1. as far as i know.

Furball · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2006, 02:11:55 AM »

to be honest i thought the same thing when i saw that plane up close. it is an original 190A-8 on display at the Imperial War Museum in London.

I also thought they had streamlined the gun ports because they didnt used the peashooters on that aircraft.

http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1997/07/stuff_eng_detail_fw190a.htm

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2006, 10:50:58 AM »

Quote

3. I think it was intentional, since he might not even fly it, and if he doesnt fly, hes DEFINATELY not going to need those guns... but you never know! WWI is fought with bolt action guns. WWII with machine guns. WWIII with nukes, WWIV with sticks and stones, maybe a few Focke Wolffs, and Messeschmitts?

WW1 planes had machine guns for the vast majority of the war.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2006, 12:45:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reynolds

3. WWI is fought with bolt action guns.

You may want to RE-read whatever books on WWI.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2006, 02:55:53 PM »

I think the answer has something to do with the intended role for that particular 190

Fw 190A-8/R6 733682 IV./KG200 IWM, London.

This aircraft was the top component in a Mistel S-3B (Ju 88H-1)

edited to add an image of a Mistel. Note, no wings guns on that 190 either.

68Hawk · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2006, 05:22:22 PM »

Quote

The presented aircraft, however, demonstrates what could be call more-or-less "pure" fighter configuration.

from the lind Furball put up

I don't believe them. I think what Guppy said is far more feasable, but where did you look up the tail number Guppy? I'm not really questioning you conclusion so much as wanting the resource for myself. It's obviously not a 'pure' fighter config if there's no guns at all.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2006, 05:32:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
from the lind Furball put up

I don't believe them. I think what Guppy said is far more feasable, but where did you look up the tail number Guppy? I'm not really questioning you conclusion so much as wanting the resource for myself. It's obviously not a 'pure' fighter config if there's no guns at all.

Here ya go. A good resource on surviving Axis aircraft.

http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/

The IWM bird is among the FW190 listings and this guy knows his stuff.

Stang · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2006, 09:59:02 PM »

??

What the... is it a recon 190 that piggy-backed on a ju-88 to get give it a much longer range?

Wierd.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2006, 10:03:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
??

What the... is it a recon 190 that piggy-backed on a ju-88 to get give it a much longer range?

Wierd.

Lower aircraft filled with explosives. 190 gets it to target and lets it go and flies back home.

Krusty · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2006, 10:19:49 PM »

The stupid thing is that normal mistels were supposed to be able to defend themselves. This one wouldn't be able to!

Reynolds · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2006, 03:35:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
You may want to RE-read whatever books on WWI.

What i meant was, most infantry were using bolt-action rifles as opposed to assault rifles, submachine guns and so on. It was bot action and MGs. And that wasnt the point of it anyway