The ultimate Fw190 photo evidence thread

[JG4_Nemesis]

The ultimate Fw190 photo evidence thread


The purpose of this thread is to gather the best photos / videos that show the view through the real Fw190s windscreen and the effect the glass has in relation to the external model, especially when you see what improvement this means for the view from pilots position.

The reason for this thread is the goal and necessity to model the BoS 190 as close to reality as possible, and the current BoS beta release version, regarding the front center windscreen, is still far from this goal. The Windscreen framing was changed, yes, but from the OUTSIDE (narrower), but NOT from the INSIDE (wider and lower). The front center Windscreen has NO EFFECT on the outer framing, but of course, it has a dramatic effect on the inner framing.

The 25° degree sloped and 50mm thick windscreen allows the pilot to sit deeper in the fuselage and be less exposed to enemy fire, yet still have good forward view and deflection shooting capability, with best possible armor protection from the extremely sloped, massive windscreen.



I want this thread to be as constructive and helpful for the developers and all people interested, and to stay emotionally neutral, and free and clear of useless comments.
If you don't have anything useful to contribute, please don't post in this thread!

I want to begin my presentation with the best video I've ever seen from pilots perspective:

Pay attention to the place where the "bar" appears in BoS, and to the thickness of the side struts framing the center windscreen. Also pay attention to what really limits the pilots Field of view (FOV) forward and down - it is the aircrafts nose, not any sort of glass frame!

However, you have to keep in mind that the gopro camera is mounted at the forehead of the pilot, not exactly at his eye level. Still, there are images in this video that show exactly revi position (2:38) and proof of where the camera is really mounted (4:44). I will use those still images of this video later in the pictures section.
 
 
Update:  My Focke Wulf Fw190 Windscreen Video is finally finished and ready.
 
You can watch it here:

 
In a nutshell: The Fw190 Windscreen armor glass does improve the visibility tremendously by a combination of two things: optically making the frames much thinner and at the same time having a "periscope" effect, where the line of sight gets elevated about 37mm. Thus it is a difference like "night and day" if refraction is considered or neglected. Up to this day, unfortunately it is still neglected.
 
Now lets head to the comparison pictures of real world vs. current BoS Beta version.
It gets clear and obvious where the problem is when we start with an external picture. First real, second BoS Beta:






real and sim, same angle, same view. Now lets get a closer look at whats important for pilots view:


Watch thickness of side strutts, lowest point were we see the "light" (sky, and not the bar).
Now check BoS, and you see where the problem is:





The red area is the Frame of the center windscreen, which is not visible in real life, you can see "through it" cause of strong refraction.
Thats why we have to set the revi so ridiculously high, and why the head (trackIR center position) has to be extremely high, cause we have to see above that bar. And it is the reason why we virtual BoS Beta pilots feel like we're looking through a small "tunnel" when we glimpse through the windscreen, large areas of our FOV are blocked which should be clear sky. Edited July 17, 2015 by I/JG27_Nemesis

[JG4_Nemesis]

Next up we take a closer look to the details of what is going on with that fabulous 50mm windscreen:



When you look at the picture above, you will notice that the top of the dashboard seems to be approximately at the same level of the top cowling cover in front.


Next, I want you to notice the sign on the pilots headrest, where there is a ideal reference: The sign says Achtung!. check the line outside and inside the windscreen, it is straight, but is seen as it is:




Next we want to learn about the pilots FOV limit, seen from the external:


red = FOV limit from the external
blue = Reference line, given by the bolts of the top cowling cover plate. From the external, this blue reference line is below the optical FOV limit (red line).






(Compare this picture with the front view with blue and red lines.)
Yet, from the internal view, it is significantly above the lower optical limit (red line). This is the fact that "kills" the bar! It simply is not visible in real life.

Second thing I want you to notice is that the level of the internal top dashboard when viewed from the INSIDE, is nearly the same of the outside top cowling cover plate.
(it physically is NOT, but it looks so to the pilot!!!) That's the core of the problem that gave terrible arguments not only in BoS, but in various sims, and I hope everyone can understand the big "bar-issue" by now.

Edited August 12, 2014 by I/JG27_Nemesis

[SCG_Neun]

Excellent. Thanks for sharing.

[JG4_Nemesis]

Next in the agenda I want to show a few great photos that confirm the stated above, unmistakably:

 

 

This is an external image, notice the lower FOV limit, that shows you that the pilot can actually see "through" the cowling top cover.

Also notice thet two MG bulges are at the same level.

 

 

 

When we walk more to the rear we get to an angle that equals to the pilots sight line.

As visible in the picture, you can see the top of the cowling lower than the position than it really is, made clear by the two MG bulges appearing at different levels - the one through the windscreen significantly lower. Pilot can actually see "through" his aircrafts cowling, revealing objects and landscape that would otherwise be hidden behind his aircrafts nose (or the "bar") :D

(Photo provided by TX-Gunslinger:)

 

Next is a picture of the cockpit area from both angles:

 

 

What these two pictures make clear is: the Windscreen refraction dramatically improves the visibility forward down for the pilot, making tracking an enemy aircraft and vertical deflection shooting much more effective.

 

Then we take a look at the BoS Version of this:

The bars (front low and side, but also the TOP FRAME) appear massively there, the MG bulge on the right is still at the same level as on the left, the view is very poor.

It is a pitty here that we can't remove the pilot out of the plane, so we get a better view how obstructive the side frame is in the right hand screenshot.

Nevertheless, the double-angle side by side comparison shows how massive the missing glass deteriorates the BoS Fw190 view.

 

In between, I want to insert some technical drawings, to document what we've learned so far:

 

 

To get a metrical information on how much the vertical elevation delta of the glass refraction is - when looking perfectly horizontal and straight, it is around 31mm, given a refraction index of 1.6. Check here:

(looking more downwards from the horizontal will increase this vertical delta, looking more upwards will decrease it)

 

 

 

 

Next up, we want to focus on the perspective from pilots eye, considering FOV limits for tracking an enemy aircraft, vertical ReVi mounting position and deflection shooting possibilities.

Thats where I want to return back to the video from the start, recorded in a Warbird flight, focusing on the "ReVi-relevant" seconds, where POV is NOT too high, but at the real eye level and even below that. We see the real FOV of a historic Focke-Wulf 190 pilot:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tla00h1lcxq5pyr/AABHpPYnkDkeH-TDn3A5E3i8a

(go to the dropbox link, there you can click through the video frames one by one)

 

The sides of the glass framing are very thin compared to BoS, and get even thinner the more they come to the lower end.

The nose of the aircraft limits FOV forward down, not a bar.

The Revi itself limits the view when shooting, and it is mounted in the lowest position possible, with the round glass at the level of the dashboard.

Never does a bar obstruct the Revi, no matter at which level the camera is.

 

The best possible solution for BoS would implement everything of that *pray*

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to emphasize now that I really appreciate that the devs are listening to the community and that they try to make BoS as realistic as possible. The mission of all of us is to provide support for the dev team as good as we can. Lets focus on what was present at Beta Release of Fw190 (which we call BoS190Betav0.1) and what was changed to the current state (which we call BoS190Betav0.2), and what still differs those from the real thing.

 

 

To make it short: the FOV limits that frame the center windscreen (red) were NOT changed any millimeter. What was changed is the outer FOV limits of the side windows (yellow), they offer a bit better view now. (I think they are 30mm thick, but not as important as the center windscreen.)

 

When you look at all the screenshots of the cockpit video, the match for the realistic vision must be at the white line drawn on the BoS_Beta_v0.2 picture. That way, the revi can finally be mounted at the level it should, and the TrackIR center view can be adjusted to match it while improving overall visibility.

 

In a nutshell: The Fw190 Windscreen armor glass does improve the visibility tremendously by a combination of two things: optically making the frames much thinner and at the same time having a "periscope" effect, where the line of sight gets elevated about 37mm. Thus it is a difference like "night and day" if refraction is considered or neglected. Up to this day, unfortunately it is still neglected.

 

 

Please dear developers, please consider the facts shown above, and enlarge the center FOV (red frame) of the BoS Fw190 and make it as close to the real thing as possible!

 

 

P.S.: At the End I like to insert a quote of "Wulf": The real problem and the thing that I believe we need to remain focused on right now is the incorrect cockpit.  The thickness of the framing and the position of the pilot's head in relation to that framing greatly compromises the performance of the aircraft.    You simply can't fight what you cannot see and until this is fixed, you are always going to be heavily disadvantaged in any fight.

 

 

Update: I've visited an armored glass manufacturer today, and I've now got a test sample of armored glass in my very own hands. My intention is to film it and make a short youtube video out of it. I'm not a video making expert, but I hope the result will be worth the effort. Stay tuned.

 

 

Update 2:  My Focke Wulf Fw190 Windscreen Video is finally finished and ready.

 

You can watch it here:

 

 

 

Update 3: I've established contact to noone less than the legendary id Software developer Legend John Carmack (creator of Doom, Quake, ect...) and asked him how to model such a refraction effect without raytracing. It's a honor for me to speak to him! Here's what I've learned:

 

Nemesis: "Hi John! Is it possible to calculate refraction of light through armored glass in real time? check:Fw190 Windscreen /youtube"

John Carmack: "Pretty easy to get quite close, but you would need ray tracing to get it exactly right with glass that isn't completely planar."

 

fortunately, the Fw190 Windscreen is completely planar, and shaped like a simple cuboid box!

 

Nemesis: "John, how to model refraction of a rectangular cuboid armor glass without raytracing? I need help on that one...any how-to?"

John Carmack: "The refraction can be baked into a projection matrix. Draw outside the window with this, clear depth, draw inside normally."

John Carmack: "Actually calculating the projection matrix will be a math chore."

 

Now thats good news for us flight simmers who have been waiting for more than a decade for such a great effect in real time WITHOUT large strain on the CPU/GPU. Devs? It's your turn!! Show us of what you're made of, and create the best there is on the planet for us pilots! Heck, I would even pay extra money just to have that windscreen fixed :D

 

Update 4: I've exchanged the original un-cut video at the beginning of the first post to a cut version showing only the valuable in-Cockpit footage, this time with a slow-motion sequence at 1:05 showing us of what to expect in ReVi View in a real Fw190 Fighter. (this slow-motion sequence was merely 1 second long in the un-cut version, not allowing time to judge the historically correct visibility when aiming through the ReVi)

Edited September 23, 2015 by I/JG27_Nemesis

[von_Greiff]

Pretty scientific worked out! Exellent job, Nemesis!!! Thanks for that!

[ICDP]

The devs have already shown they listen when the evidence is there to show they got it wrong.  I would imagine more changes are due for the Fw190 cokpit view.

[Gambit21]

I think the thread is fine, and actually informative.

 

I know that for my part, a point has been driven home here.

I have no idea if enough evidence has been presented to the devs already or if there's a picture here that makes something 'click' where it didn't before.

We have no way of knowing that - however I don't see the harm in an innocuous information gathering effort so long as another debate doesn't result - which we don't need.

[pilotpierre]

Bloody well done Nemisis. I sincerely hope the devs take cognisance of this, maybe a PM to them?

[Eldur]

I notice one major thing by looking at all these exceptionally great compares: ALL the struts of the front part of the canopy are almost twice as thick in BoS as they are on the photos, and that's exactly the same for the interior model. The devs already made the two struts that run towards the cowling thinner in the cockpit, but they didn't change the external appearance, but even the framing where the rear part of the canopy shuts against is obviously too bulky, especially the upper part of it. This always felt kinda strange (not even disturbing, but somehow unfamiliar, like there's something wrong without knowing exactly what) while flying the BoS Focke, but I never really made out what it was until now.

[Requiem]

Nice collection of photos there, well done. One thought after viewing it all together...If the lower bar is thinned out would that cause the humps on the cowling being visible? Is that a lesser of two evils or would there be just as much talk about those being visible when they shouldn't be?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Nicely put data, Nemesis! 

[6S.Manu]

Am I the only one noticing that the BoS 190's upper canopy strut is at least 1/3 thicker than the real one?

Some other inches who take away visibility.

 

Edited August 13, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Panzerlang]

I'm not sure why we're assuming all 190s had the same thickness of glass or if those in museums still have it fitted.

[StG2_Manfred]

I'm not sure why we're assuming all 190s had the same thickness of glass or if those in museums still have it fitted.

 

Maybe because it's the more probable case, that the plane still has it's original glass, or if it is a restored one, that it was done correctly. 

 

Or just because you can see the refraction at this plane and therefore come to the conclusion that the plane must have a thick glass windshield.

[hiro]

yeah I like this thread . . . it puts forth a statement, and backs it up with reasoning and pictures, an explanation for the argument. I'm with pooling all the relevant and factual based FW pit threads into one giant one, sans the useless arguments like refraction doesn't exist in WW2 glass or something.

 

Bravo OP. 

 

 

I think maybe the devs should scope out a real FW 190 and sit in it, take photos, and should do this for every plane to get closer to the real cockpit

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Im only saying this because i think it may be a fair point not to start debate about it but I think it would be really good to know if there is actually armored glass in the real pictures and vids. After that I think it still comes back to the refraction issue (or lack of) as I believe that the DEVs have got the model geometrically accurate

[JG4_Nemesis]

Hey guys,

thank you for your nice words! 

I have actually talked about this thread with both one of the developers and the community manager, and I know that the 3D Modeller who does the Fw190 Cockpit has seen this thread

However, I also heard from the devs that it will stay as it is for the moment, and it is, speaking for today, not yet known if and when it will be fixed.

So the situation to sum it up right now is they know the problem, and they know exactly how it should look correctly, it now is just up to the time and effort the devs can and will put into this.

To make it 100% accurate, EVERYTHING that is behind the center windscreen (starting with the bar, but also MG bulges, the nose and anything else) had to appear about 31mm lower. One solution would be using a geometrically different 3DModel for the in-cockpit view through the windscreen, or to use a shader that elevates the line of sight and project it to the area where the windscreen is. I'm not a 3D Graphics engine expert - but in todays world, I'm sure it can be done properly.

 

I know that they have announced a release date of September 2014, and they surely have a lot of tasks to complete before the release.
I think the team of 1C and 777 Studios are doing a great job with the BoS project. These guys are both talented programmers and passionate about aviation, and I hope they will deliver us a sim with the highest possible quality and accuracy, and keep the project evolving also after the release in the years to come. They just have to listen to the community (that is the base of their success) and give the community what it wants - thats what we love them for.

[Rama]

Removed off-topic posts.

Please stay on topic, no dispute is necessary.

[Gort]

To the human eye, the cockpit geometry should not look like the view from the extreme wide angle lens of a GoPro camera.

 

Any image taken from the cockpit should be evaluated by investigating the lens focal length and camera sensor size (crop factor) in order to reference it to the normal human view.

 

Most smartphone cameras are wide angle, as are the aforementioned GoPro's. Distortion abounds.

[Wulf]

Just for the record, I think the first static shot of a 190 above (the one immediately after the vid of the A-5) is one of the Flug Werk 190's.  These are replicas and can be identified by the air scoop in the cowl above the engine where the MG 17 gun troughs are located.  I very much doubt that these aircraft would not have been built with a 50mm armoured glass plate in front of the pilots face.  That being the case, they probably shouldn't be used for comparative purposes.

[Dakpilot]

Just for reference and to show how large and small the frame can look from certain angles

 

right hand armoured glass frame bar showing that it really is quite a bit of heavy engineering in reality

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sternjaeger]

are we 100% sure they used the original armoured glass setup for the Seattle A5? 

[Gambit21]

I'm might ask just to satisfy my own curiosity - due to drop by there soon. 

[MACADEMIC]

Hey guys,

 

thank you for your nice words! 

 

I have actually talked about this thread with both one of the developers and the community manager, and I know that the 3D Modeller who does the Fw190 Cockpit has seen this thread

 

However, I also heard from the devs that it will stay as it is for the moment, and it is, speaking for today, not yet known if and when it will be fixed.

 

So the situation to sum it up right now is they know the problem, and they know exactly how it should look correctly, it now is just up to the time and effort the devs can and will put into this.

To make it 100% accurate, EVERYTHING that is behind the center windscreen (starting with the bar, but also MG bulges, the nose and anything else) had to appear about 31mm lower. One solution would be using a geometrically different 3DModel for the in-cockpit view through the windscreen, or to use a shader that elevates the line of sight and project it to the area where the windscreen is. I'm not a 3D Graphics engine expert - but in todays world, I'm sure it can be done properly.

 

I know that they have announced a release date of September 2014, and they surely have a lot of tasks to complete before the release.

I think the team of 1C and 777 Studios are doing a great job with the BoS project. These guys are both talented programmers and passionate about aviation, and I hope they will deliver us a sim with the highest possible quality and accuracy, and keep the project evolving also after the release in the years to come. They just have to listen to the community (that is the base of their success) and give the community what it wants - thats what we love them for.

 

Hi Nemesis,

 

Thanks for thread, very interesting. Best solution would of course be a refraction shader, but as we heard we'll probably not see that for a while due to performance issues. About your other solution with lowering everything by 31mm, the exact amount of the refraction effect, I think that would allow quite a bit more visibility than the real FW190 had (essentially you'd see along the green line in your graphic, not the blue one...)

 

Instead, I suggest the direct sightline to the cowling should meet the blue line at the cowling end. There will still be a small angular difference (even in the picture it's already very small, in reality the cowling is much longer), but it will be negligible. For all practical purposes, visibility will match the one from a real FW190 cockpit. Changes to cockpit 3D model would be smaller too, probably easier to implement. Revi would need to sit a bit higher on the dashboard (by the difference of yellow and blue line at the is location precisely), but pilot/eye position would be the correct one. Probably a good compromise.

 

MAC

 

P.S.: Hope you don't mind I've used your picture for illustration.

 

[JG4_Nemesis]

Just for reference and to show how large and small the frame can look from certain angles

 

right hand armoured glass frame bar showing that it really is quite a bit of heavy engineering in reality

 

Unbenannt1.png

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

This is a picture of a wreck with no glass left. It shows the real thickness - no plane flew without a windscreen, but it is nice to see how it looks as an empty frame.

[SR-F_Winger]

An extremely interesting picture i took at the ozeaneum in stralsund germany today. This is a sort of plexiglass so most likely behaves slightly diffrent when it comes to refracting lightrays but still shows very well whats going on.

Edited August 13, 2014 by VSG1_Winger

[LukeFF]

Maybe because it's the more probable case, that the plane still has it's original glass, or if it is a restored one, that it was done correctly. 

 

Or just because you can see the refraction at this plane and therefore come to the conclusion that the plane must have a thick glass windshield.

 

"Maybe because..."

 

"...more probable case..."

 

"conclusion...must have..."

 

Sorry, but that's way too shaky of a conclusion to make. Museum restorations are great, no doubt, but one has to take great caution with these sorts of planes, as museums don't always get things right. After all, in one such case, the NASM's D-9 had the wrong set of wings fitted for who knows how many years, until the problem was finally noticed and corrected.

[FuriousMeow]

60mm is ~2.3". The 190 has 60mm bullet resistant "glass."

 

The internal left frame holding the glass is visible, that is not 2.3".

 

 

Let's get some real measurements, I'm sure you can find an email address to one of the 190 owners that has real 60mm armored glass in the cockpit and get the dimensions with photographic evidence.

 

 

As far as refraction:

 

 

 

I wonder, why nobody noticed that the slanted thick glass shifts not only the bar down but the whole picture including engine cowl and all world outside? So, I want to say that the visible field including the bar obstacle will be the same with or without refraction.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2132499&postcount=348

 

This thread is not the ultimate 190 evidence thread, this is the ultimate taking photos online without any measurements of them and passing them off as absolute thread because some want so hard to believe but have zero evidence. This is actually a Big Foot thread.

Edited August 14, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Dakpilot]

60mm is ~2.3". The 190 has 60mm bullet resistant "glass."

 

The internal left frame holding the glass is visible, that is not 2.3".

 

 

Let's get some real measurements, I'm sure you can find an email address to one of the 190 owners that has real 60mm armored glass in the cockpit and get the dimensions with photographic evidence.

 

 

As far as refraction:

 

 

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2132499&postcount=348

 

This thread is not the ultimate 190 evidence thread, this is the ultimate taking photos online without any measurements of them and passing them off as absolute thread because some want so hard to believe but have zero evidence. This is actually a Big Foot thread.

 

That is THE whole point!! the left frame looks thinner because of the glass refraction. the right frame IS 2.3 inches or so .

 

Look at the pic (click to enlarge) I posted above in post no.22 there is no glass and the frame is correct size

 

 

click to enlarge

 

Left frame looks smaller as well

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited August 14, 2014 by Dakpilot

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

And there is a mistake made by the ED-Dev and you FuriousMeow, the amount of downshift is caused by the angle the Object ist relative to the Lot of the Windshield. As lower the angle, as higher the downshift whereas 90° would be no refraction at all. Thats why the bar is not viewable in any picture. Its funny that you still argue that a model is right, when we put a lot of photo material without any bar to see.

 

Oh I furthermore I try to visit the A-8 in Hannover Germany, I called the Museum today and It is okay to make pictures from the side into the cockpit. If anyone lives there in Hannover, maybe he could do it because Im a little bit far away and have a lot other stuff to do but I will do it. Just to prove you are wrong FuriousMeow.

[AbortedMan]

And you know what the funny thing about this is?

If we see refraction, we know that there must be glass. Refraction is not related to a specific amount of glass or only to bulletproof glass. Refraction happens in every translucent object. It doesn't matter If they build there a smaller windshield than in the real one. It would still refract the light given to the physic laws.

 

LukeFF, what you now do with this post is a little bit like the christian church trying to fake evidences in their fight against science.

You cannot discuss refraction away, that is impossible. Its a given law in nature, our world is made of it. And it doesn't matter how the 190 in the museum is restorated, simply because we know what we need to know about the windshield and can calculate the amount of refraction, which is done in the forum.

We even could take pictures form the P-40 or a Mustang to provide how refraction works, and what it does.

Just FYI, refraction is relative and not all transparent materials refract light. There's an index system that measures refraction relative to other materials and some feature no refraction at all.

[Blo0dLu5t]

what i first noticed, when watching the video was how silent the FW is. You almost dont hear the engine from inside at all. Now i dont know if that plane has been modified or not, but still.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

what i first noticed, when watching the video was how silent the FW is. You almost dont hear the engine from inside at all. Now i dont know if that plane has been modified or not, but still.

They tweaked the vidoe volume, belive me aircrafts are loud as hell. I flew in an ultra light Breezer some time ago and without headset the other pilot and me weren't able to talk due to the imense engine noise (that was only 120 hp and even fitted with silencers).

 

If the video had real volume your whole neighbourhood could enjoy the sound of this BMW 801

 

On topic: Good work on summing this issue up, Nemesis and others! Like the constructive proposals presented in here. Regarding changing the outside 3d model only, unfortunately this solution doesn't solve the high mounted revi / messed FoV issue and the hidden lower dash board.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 WW2 sims, or should we say games, have been done since 1990's and even today in 2014 the devs can't get it right I can see refraction at work when I work in the cockpit of the F/A-18C "Hornet". The canopy and windshield is not thin material, but pretty thick. But because of the refraction it does look thin when looking out of the cockpit. Sorry, can not post photos from work, forbidden. But definitely the refraction is there. And it has been proven times and times again over the years, but NOT A SINGLE DEV has done it right from the start, every time has been modded or similar. How hard can it be?

Edited August 14, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Just FYI, refraction is relative and not all transparent materials refract light. There's an index system that measures refraction relative to other materials and some feature no refraction at all.

Okay, lets see which possible things they could use as a 60mm thick windshield:

Glas

PMMA (which is acrylic glas or Plexiglas)

And of course fused quartz.

 

All of them have refraction, now I would like to know which materials feature no refraction from air-material-air.

 

I know zero materials which have a refraction index of 1 except of Air (which is slightly above, Aerogel, Plasma and Caesium).

All of them wouldn't be used as a windshield nor windshield replica.

[Pupo]

I've posted these before. they are from the Deutsches Museum in Munich, and the technique museum in Berlin. Both are supposed to be Doras, so i'm not sure if they are useful or not.

 

sorry about the crap quality, but there was an extra armored glass between me and the cockpit.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2014 by E69_Pupo

[TX-Gunslinger]

Our virtual squadron (TX) is blessed with 4 real world pilots and an aeronautics engineer.  One of our pilots works regularly at the Flying Heritage Museum.  Apparently,  it's been noticed that lately there's an uptick of folks who are requesting cockpit shots and detailed information concerning two aircraft, both Focke Wulf's.  190 D13 (Dortmann's - no cowl bumps - no MG 131- 3 X MG 151), and 190 A5. 

 

There's an email to curators concerning forward cockpit glass construction, although I really don't think this is an issue, due to the retention of original (thick) glass mounting and the fact that these two are flyable/have been flown in their current configuration.  There is no intention of actually flying the D13, due to it's rarity, but the A5 routinely flies.

 

What does flyable condition have to do with anything?  If you went to the trouble to restore a 190, bolt by bolt, panel by panel etc... - why on earth would you install glass in the original mounts, so that when it was flown you had cockpit bar obstructions?   You would take a priceless aircraft that had millions of dollars invested and obstruct the view?

 

With that said, I believe the best practice would be to cover all claims and concerns.  I'll post the glass information when we get it.  This is a very interesting time, not only due to the promise of exciting new simulations - but the fact that there are two high resolution FW 190 cockpits that have been released within approximately 1 month of each other.  Both have pilot head position and bar issues, one much more tolerable than the other.

 

Here's the latest pics from the museum, from both aircraft.   It seems to me that they speak for themselves.  You be the judge.

 

Thanks Thrud!

 

[FuriousMeow]

That is THE whole point!! the left frame looks thinner because of the glass refraction. the right frame IS 2.3 inches or so .

 

Look at the pic (click to enlarge) I posted above in post no.22 there is no glass and the frame is correct size

 

P40.jpg

 

click to enlarge

 

Left frame looks smaller as well

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Geez, I swear. There are TWO parts of the 190's frame. One is retaining the glass, the other is the entire frame assembly. There is a smaller glass retention frame on the left side that is smaller than the larer thicker left frame (the frame that is the same size as the right frame). So of course the external frame on the right is thicker than the internal frame on the left, because the left frame is thicker than the frame holding the glass in.

 

Don't bother getting a ruler out, none of those lines are supposed to be scientific photoshop evidence of anything other than there are two separate frames in play here - one is the front windscreen retainer and the other is the acual cockpit frame.

 

 

As for the P40 shot, oddly enough if you have one object closer to you than the other - the object further away will become smaller relative to the object closer to you.

Edited August 14, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[I/JG27_Zimmi]

Greetings,

 

Thanks for writing.  The FHC’s Focke-Wulf Fw 190 does have its thick 50mm windscreen glass in place.

 

...

 

...

Military Aviation Curator

Flying Heritage Collection

Edited August 14, 2014 by I/JG27_Zimmi

[JG4_Nemesis]

Excellent Photos Gunslinger - just perfect, thank you!