190 Vs 51 - Aircraft of World War II

Geedee · 05-11-2009, 05:16 PM

Last weekend, Rocketeer and I went to the annual Aerojumble at Popham. amazingly, this year, even tho' it was the first of the May Bank Holidays...it didnt rain ! Looked like it might have but essentially this year it remained dry. Just dark, menacing and very windy (but thats enough about me !.

I havent been to this airfield since the same event two years previous and was rather surprised to see what looked to be Mustang down on the deck running in for a flyby. Actually, it wasnt a 'Stang but a Jurca M-77 Gnatsum, registered F-PANG. The current owner has plans to get it registered here in the UK. It did sound nice with its inline Potez 4D34C of 260 h.p. Supercharged as well I believe !.

Then I spied something a bit unusual as well, parked around the corner. and I 'm cussing myself left, right and centre, cos I forgot to gets its No then I could have got the details for you. I think its a WAR replica, but will promise to get more info later.

Thats two replica warbirds on the same airfield !. I'm quite impressed.

So, to the title of this thread... 190 Vs 51...which one do you think looks the most like its full size counterpart ?

tomo pauk · 05-11-2009, 05:20 PM

I'd say too that those are replicas, esp. if one judge by the engine cowlings.
But, boy, wouldn't it be great to own one...

HoHun · 05-11-2009, 05:46 PM

Hi Geedee,

>Thats two replica warbirds on the same airfield !. I'm quite impressed.

Nice find! :-) I particularly like the "illusionistic" paint scheme of the Mustang which does a great job in hiding the larger chin of the replica.

By the way, Roland Beamont in 1980 test-flew a 1:2 scale Focke-Wulf Fw 190 replica registered as G-WULF. Judging from his description in "Fighter Test Pilot", it flew rather well!

I have seen a small-scale Fw 190 replica once or twice at airshows, but it always managed to avoid getting "shot" by my camera - I swear its small size makes for very difficult detection! (I got some ground shots though which aren't digitized yet.)

Here is an ultralight Me 109 look-a-bit-alike - not a real contender for the "most realistic recreation" award, but I admit that I at least fell for it since I was very far away at the moment, frantically trying to mount the long telephoto to my camera, and angrily cursing the airshow organizers for deviating from the published programme and re-scheduling the Me 109 to perform hours earlier! Made quite a fool of myself there ... :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

TheMustangRider · 05-11-2009, 10:27 PM

Great photographs.

Geedee · 05-12-2009, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

I'd say too that those are replicas, esp. if one judge by the engine cowlings.
But, boy, wouldn't it be great to own one...

Yes they are replicas. The Mustang (Jurca) is a plans built 3/4 scale plane and I believe the WAR 190 is a plans built 1/2 scale one....tall pilots need not apply !

As you say, be good to have one parked up at your local field.

And Henning, thats a great looking 109.

Gnomey · 05-12-2009, 06:57 AM

Nice shots, both are certainly good replicas and would fool a lot of people at first glance.

Thorlifter · 05-12-2009, 09:19 AM

Those are both nice looking planes. Thanks for sharing the pics.

davparlr · 05-12-2009, 11:08 AM

Both are great looking replicas. The wood finish on the Fw-190 prop messes up the illusion.

comiso90 · 05-12-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davparlr

Both are great looking replicas. The wood finish on the Fw-190 prop messes up the illusion.

yeah that bugged me too. I'd like to see them in a war movie instead of CG.

thanks for the photos.
..

Airbone Bunny · 05-13-2009, 02:59 AM

Both are nice replicas, but I will go with the FW 190 all the way

By the way, I notices that in some pictures the tail svastica is covered with paint. is that for legal reasons? (like it is not allowed to display the svastica) or is the work of vandals.

Funny, but in other pictures the svastica looks clean.

Geedee · 05-13-2009, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbone Bunny

Both are nice replicas, but I will go with the FW 190 all the way

By the way, I notices that in some pictures the tail svastica is covered with paint. is that for legal reasons? (like it is not allowed to display the svastica) or is the work of vandals.

Funny, but in other pictures the svastica looks clean.

In some of the shots, the markings on the tail where covered with a 'sheet' of some sort and held on with red masking tape. This is while the A/C is parked up and not being used. When it comes out to play, the covering is removed.

As you also say, it may be so the PC brigade dont get too upset.

renrich · 05-13-2009, 07:18 PM

A few years ago, in Boulder, CO, I heard an engine sound like a RR Merlin, turned around and saw what looked like a Spitfire landing at the local airport. I was not close enough to get a good look or go to the field but I have always wondered if I saw what I think I saw.

Elvis · 05-15-2009, 04:35 PM

I'd say the 51 looks closer to the real deal.

Elvis

05-11-2009, 05:20 PM	#2
tomo pauk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 588	I'd say too that those are replicas, esp. if one judge by the engine cowlings. But, boy, wouldn't it be great to own one... __________________

05-12-2009, 06:57 AM	#6
Gnomey "World Traveller" Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK Posts: 15,224	Nice shots, both are certainly good replicas and would fool a lot of people at first glance. __________________ "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts" Sir Winston Churchill "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today" Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum My Photo Collections on Flickr

05-12-2009, 09:19 AM	#7
Thorlifter Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 4,346	Those are both nice looking planes. Thanks for sharing the pics. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-11-2009, 10:27 PM	#4
TheMustangRider Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: United States Posts: 82	Great photographs.

05-12-2009, 11:08 AM	#8
davparlr Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,486	Both are great looking replicas. The wood finish on the Fw-190 prop messes up the illusion.

05-13-2009, 02:59 AM	#10
Airbone Bunny Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 24	Both are nice replicas, but I will go with the FW 190 all the way By the way, I notices that in some pictures the tail svastica is covered with paint. is that for legal reasons? (like it is not allowed to display the svastica) or is the work of vandals. Funny, but in other pictures the svastica looks clean.

05-13-2009, 07:18 PM	#12
renrich Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado Posts: 3,271	A few years ago, in Boulder, CO, I heard an engine sound like a RR Merlin, turned around and saw what looked like a Spitfire landing at the local airport. I was not close enough to get a good look or go to the field but I have always wondered if I saw what I think I saw.

05-15-2009, 04:35 PM	#13
Elvis Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Little Norway, U.S.A. Posts: 811	I'd say the 51 looks closer to the real deal. Elvis