Focke Wolf Fw 190 Drawings

2019.8.14初出

Hasegawa D-9 modeling article

Airfix A-8 modeling article

Tamiya D-9 modeling article


Introduction

 I've always been curious about the true shape of Fw190. Especially, the width of the nose (MG cover) is thick or thin depending on the kit. So I have always wanted to verify what was correct. At that time, I got factory drawings of Focke Wolf (only partially) of Fw190 and Ta152, and other drawings with dimensions that seems to be based on the factory drawings. So, I tried to clarify Fw190's fuselage shape based on these drawings.


Fuselage contour diagram

 These drawings include the fuselage contour (Focke-Wulf original), which are written to be Ta152 and Fw190, both of which have grids of 100 mm pitch, so the shape can be grasped with fairly high accuracy. So, I traced them and made the cross-sectional view drawings. BUT, there was a problem. I had thought that the basic shape of the fuselage was the same for Fw190A, Fw190D, and Ta152, but the two drawings did not match. The biggest difference was in the upper part of the fire wall, just below the MG cover, and the line of 190 (red) bulges out.



This is the trace of the contour diagram. Red lines are Fw190. Blue ones are Ta152. Note that the cross-sectional positions of the two do not always match in the above image. Why do not they match?
This is the Ta152 contour diagram.


From the development process of Ta152, the basic fuselage shape of Ta152 and Fw190 should be the same. If so, only one is correct. Here, paying attention to the line at the top of the fire wall, the drawing written as Fw190 does not lead to the cross-sectional shape of the gun cover (← you can see it immediately by actually drawing it). Furthermore, as I could know the dimensions of the windscreen rear end frame from another factory drawing, the fuselage width of Fw190 was wider than the windscreeb frame. Therefore, I judged the contour diagram of Ta152 was correct. It is unknown why the drawing called Fw190 is different. Is it a prototype?? The height of the lower surface of the fuselage between Ta152 and Fw190 is different, because the wing mounting position is different. Although it was suspicious, I adopted the Fw190 drawing as for the height of that.

The next question was where each line in the contour drawing represents in the fuselage station diagram. If this was not clarified, drawings would not be made. The contour drawings itself cannot be read because the characters are too small. Therefore, the coordinate values ??of each cross section of the fuselage described in the tabel on this drawing were used. By plotting these coordinate values ??on my working drawing, the cross section indicated by each line becomes clear. In addition, Ta152 and Fw190 seem to have different frames in the axial position even if they have the same frame number, so I should take care.


Fuselage cross section countour drawing

 The result is the image below. In the original Ta152 contour diagram, only the cross sections of the frames 1 to 14 can be known, and the cross-sectional shapes of the engine cowl, MG cover, slide hood, etc. was estimated.






Verification with photos

 Next, each cross section of the above contour was arranged at the position of each frame in the side view, and the outlines were connected, then the basic shape of the fuselage was completed. When I added the engine cowl, canopy, vertical fin, etc. to this, I got the fuselage side view. The first image below is the side shape of A-5 made in this way. It was honestly made from the factory drawings and the numerical data.




The question was whether this would match photos of actual aircraft. Therefore, I overlay it with a photo in good condition. The result was, fortunately, perfect. The spinner did not fit a bit, but this kind of part is interchangeable.




But it was still early to rejoice. Because this photo was an existing flyable aircraft. It was necessary to check whether it was restored faithfully to the original. There are many restored aircraft which have a poorly reproducted cowl or MG cover. So, I overlay it again with a photo from WW2.

In the case of Fw190, there is no full-length photo in a far distance and orthogonal angle. The image below maybe the best condition. Unfortunately, the tail can not be seen. Still, it exactly matched together from the nose to the canopy. The line on the underside of the wing is perfectly known because there is a gap, probably the ETC rack was not installed properly.





Total length of A-5

 The total length of A-5 and A-8 is said to be 8,950 mm in many existing documents and websites. I don't know the source of this, but if you analyze factory drawings carefully, you won't get this value. It was described in the factory drawing that the length between the rudder hinge and the point where the extension of the straight line at the rear end of the rudder intersects the fuselage reference line is 585.5 mm. When drawn in this way, the rear end of the rudder (excluding the tab) is 6,452 mm from the fire wall, and 2,535 mm from the fire wall to the tip of the spinner is added, the total length becomes 8,987 mm, which is 37 mm longer.

Only God knows which is correct, but the readers of my site already know that the total length written in a manual is often different from the fact (for example, Ki84, Ki43, Wildcat etc.). I feel 8,987 mm is more suitable when I compare with photos of actual aircraft. Many of the existing drawings (and some kits) are fitted to 8,950mm, but the tail is somehow cramped. Needless to say, my drawings adopts 8,987 mm.


Side view and top view

 Then, I would show the side and top view drawings with dimentions. Because of the main purpose of these drawings are to show the outer shape, some details maybe omitted. The side view is not so different from the existing drawings published so far. The top view is also close to the existing one. If you look at it in detail, the widths of the windscreen and canopy are narrower than the existing drawings. Also, there are some existing drawings with different positions of the horizontal stabilizer.




  • As for various numerical values ??in the drawings, only those which are descrbed in the factory drawings (and existing drawings created based on the factory drawings) or are reasonably calculated from them are described. There are some numerical values ??that differ from some existing drawings, such as the total length, but these are based on the factory drawings. In my drawings, all the numerical values ??of the length are discribed as the distance from the fire wall reference plane (= frame 1), and all the height ??are discribed as the distance from the fuselage reference line.

  • The engine thrust line after A-5 is located 10 mm below the fuselage reference line. When the nose is extend by 150mm along the slope of the top of the cowl, it will go down just 10 mm.

  • The main wing in the side view is shown as a cross section in which the wing is cut off with a rib 1 (about 671 mm outside from the center of the fuselage along the horizontal plane). The coordinates of airfoil are described in the table for each rib position as the height of the wing surface from the wing reference line at the position of the leading edge, trailing edge, main spar and the rear spar. The height of the wing reference line at the rib 1 is calculated based on this value, and it is 385 mm from the fuselage reference line. In addition, the incidence is approximately 2.0° (calculated by ATAN, it is not just 2°). The incidence at the wing tip (rib 14) is 0°.

  • The chord at the inner end of the wing is 2,300 mm (virtual). However, it is not the center of the fuselage, but it is located at the point where a perpendicular line is drawn from the point 100 mm outside the fuselage reference line to the wing reference line. (← well, it is so confusing!) This dimension is not specified, but it is calculated to be about 150 mm from the center of the fuselage. The positions of leading edge and trailing edge in this cross section can also be calculated, and are 715 mm and 1,585 mm from the fire wall. By connecting these points to the chord 1,200 mm (virtual) at the wing tip, the top view shape of the wing is determined. The wing reference line is 60 mm behind the fire wall.

  • The wing airfoil is NACA23000 series. The wing thickness ratios are calculated from the above-mentioned coordinates, they are about 15.0% at rib 1 and 9.0% at rib 14. The dihedral angle is 6° 12'10" (approx. 6.2°) at the wing reference line.

  • The connecting pin (pivot) of the horizontal stabilizer is 300 mm above the fuselage reference line (described in the ladder factory drawing), and 5,350 mm from the fire wall. The horizontal stabilizer incidence is 2°.

  • The reference lines of the front and rear spars of the main wing are based on the numerical values ??on the factory drawing. They were calculated in detail, but the numerical values are omitted on my drawings. On the other hand, the panel lines of the wings and the details of the fuselage are referred from the existing drawings, so the accuracy is not guaranteed. (← Because a drawing with no panel line and no details looks poor.)

  • Airfoils are also shown. Each shape was based on the NACA23000 series airfoil, and was modified according to the above coordinate values. Then, the airfoil at rib 14 did not look like NACA23009 but did NACA23015 vertically compressed to 9% wing thickness ratio. I wondered if this was correct. However, my drawing adopted the coordinate data.


Cross section

 Next is the cross-sectional view. Each figure is just disassembled from the above contour drawings and displayed with the dimensions at the key points. Anyway, when you print it out, cut it out and apply it to the kit, you can see the difference between the kits and drawing.




  • The engine cowl is drawn with the maximum width of 1,300 mm (pink line in the above figure). The engine diameter of BMW 801 is 1,290mm, and there is a concern that the clearance is really 5mm. If you know the truth about this, I'm looking for information.

  • The cross section at the rear end of the engine cowl (red line) is assumed to be a line that smoothly connects the maximum cross section of the cowl to the fire wall (= frame 1, green line). I also assumed the line of the dent afterward the exhaust.

  • The frame 14 is tilted by 7° with respect to the orthogonal line to the fuselage ref. line. The red line in the drawings represents the cross-sectional shape of this diagonal plane (= panel line in the actual aircraft) as viewed in the direction of the fuselage reference line.

  • The coordinates of the front edge of the windscreen, the rear end of the windscreen, and the rear end of the slide canopy shown in the drawings are described in the Focke-Wulf factory drawing. The heights of the front edge of the windscreen, the upper end of the windscreen, and the rear end of the slide hood are described as 786 mm, 1,050 mm, and 620 mm from the fuselage reference line.



I found a mistake in one sheet of factory drawings as for the windscreen. That is the correct answer is 577mm, but 557mm is mistakenly written, Well, it's a common mistake for all human beings. At first I was deceived by this, then my drawings and photos did not match.


A-4 side and top view

 Considering the evolution process of this aircraft, I should consider the nose before A-4. So, I made the drawings of A-4. I think it's easy to understand when you download A-5 and A-4 drawings and see them in a slide show.




  • The position (distance from frame 1) of frame 10 is unknown. Does anyone know?

  • You can see the difference in shape between NACA23009 and NACA23015 by looking at the drawings for FM2 Wildcat in my site. The original NACA23009 has a flatter bottom surface.


Consideration of nose line of Fw190

 In the plastic model, the big point on the outline shape of Fw190 is the narrowing line from the cowl to the canopy. It's completely different depending on the kit, and we are wondering which is the correct answer. As for the factory drawing which I have, there are only the fuselage after the fire wall, and there is nothing that shows the cross-sectional shape of the engine cowl, accessory cowl (side panel with three flaps), and MG cover. The diameter of the engine and the height of the thrust line are known, but the shape between the engine and the firewall can only be imagined.

So, how do I imagine it? Please see the lower left image. Suppose the fuselage is sliced ??horizontally at the top of the firewall (point B) (red horizon line). Since the diameter of the engine part is known, the width of point A is automatically determined. The width after point B is also known from the factory drawing (as a result, it becomes almost a straight line afterward B). The result is the lower right image. Even if each line is straightened, it does not connect well. The fuselage is thin with respect to the nose. Well, how do I connect between them?






The first theory was to extend forward the line of afterward the fire wall to the rear end of the cowl as shown in the lower left image, and to connect it to point A. In other words, it was a line that assumes that there was no bending at the fire wall. However, with this theory, the constriction from the rear end of the engine to the rear end of the cowl was remarkable. The bend at point A was also remarkable. So, It was unlikely that this first theory was correct.

Therefore, the second theory was to connect points A and B with a straight line as shown in the lower right. I thought this would be reasonable. Of course, in reality, there were no clear creases at points A and B, but there might be partial curve at A and B. And then, my drawings was based on this second theory. The top view line of the MG cover was determined with this theory. And based on this, each cross-sectional shape from the rear end of the cowl to the fire wall was determined.






The point is this S-shaped curve. Old kits do not express this S curve and have a thick nose ridge outline. Of course, if the widths of cowl and canopy are correct, there will inevitably be an S-curve. That is, these widths are not correct for old kits. I mean, the canopy is too wide. I will discussed later in the kit review. Incidentally, someone may say that positions (widths) of points A and B are different. For those who say, try to make a drawing with reference to the factory drawing by yourself.



I think the old kits have this kind of image. The width of the fire wall is completely different.



Enthusiastic consideration of the transition from A-4 to A-5

 The discussion in the previous section was based on A-4. The next proposition was how the nose line changed when the nose was extended by 150 mm in A-5. It did not look like it was extended with a parallel plug, like the rear fuselage of the D-9 Dora. However, if it was extended from the fuselage with a smooth surface as it was, the MG cover tip would widen and would not match the rear end of the cowl. Unless measuring the dimensions of the actual A-4 and A-5 aircraft, I would not know the exact answer. Then, I came up with the following two theories.

The first theory was that the panel of the MG cover was bent. The tip of the MG cover extended smoothly, but using the flexibility of the cowl panel itself, bend and narrow it slightly to fit the engine cowl cross section, and forcibly fixed with fasteners. The width of the canopyof this aircraft was narrowed when it was opened, so I thought this was also possible. However, if it was simply narrowed the width, the height might not match, so was it was processed with the fastener margin or trimmed around the bottom of the MG cover.

At this time, the accessory cowl was twisted as a whole (the front upper end was moved inward) to match the engine cowl with the rear end. In this case, the extension portion of the accessory cowl might be bent like a parallel plug at the lower end and might be smooth without bend at the upper end. Alternatively, the mounting angle of the entire panel was changed inward to match the tip width (in this case, the hinge line at the lower end also changed).

The second theory ws that the cross-sectional shape of the rear end of the engine cowl was changed. Actually, I had not known, but when I look at the photo of the rear end cross section of the engine cowl of A-3, it bent like a dent on the way. On the other hand, it seemed that there was no such dent in A-5 or later model (I'm not so sure), so the theory ws that the dent part was widened to the outside to accommodate the expansion of the tip of the MG cover. Regarding the accessory cowl, the way of thinking was basically the same as the first theory.


This photo is A-3 captured by the RAF (referred from FAOTW p102). There is a dent at the arrow. Is it A-3? This is the same line, but it can be said that the exhaust portion is bulging instead of being dented.


Then I made these two theories into drawings. Both were the same as the side view. Which was the correct answer? I thought there was an intermediate that combines both. In the case of the second theory, when I made the cross-sectional view, the taper at the rear end of the cowl almost disappears. So, I thought the first theory was probable.




This is the first theory. Red is A-5 and black is A-4. The width of the tip of the MG cover is the same for both A-4 and A-5. The accessory cowl is drawn based on the theory of changing the overall mounting angle. This is the theory of the A-5 top view that has been posted so far on this article.

The second theory. Black A-4 is the same as the left figure. The width of the common part of the MG cover is the same, and the tip is wider than A-5. Although it does not appear in the figure, the surface at the rear end of the engine cowl is different.


Above article, I argued two theories about the A-5 nose line. To help determine which was correct or both were different, I draw top view shapes when the fuselage was cut with a horizontal plane passing through the upper end of the fire wall. In the photo of A-5, the rear end of the cowl seemed to be tapered depending on the angle, and the first theory seemed to me closer to the impression of photos.




This is the first theory. I think this line is reasonable.

This is the second theory. There is not much taper of the engine cowl.



Kit review of Fw190A

 Then, I review the kit of the air-cooled Focke-Wolf. I focus on the nose ridge line in this review. I only own Hasegawa old A-4, Doragon (old Trimaster) A-8, Hasegawa new A-5 of 1/48, and Eduard A-5 (shape is the same as 1/48 Eduard old A-5), Airfix new A-8 of 1/72. I don't own the new Eduard A-4, but I ask my friend to measure the main dimensions. As I always say, I don't deny the opinions such as "I don't care about that" or "My favorite Fw190 kit is absolutely this one!". Each person has their own way of thinking about the model.

Trimaster 1/48 A-8

 The area around the MG cover is 1.5mm wide. The cowl is 1mm wide and 2mm short. The rear fuselage is 1mm shorter. The canopy is a little less than 1mm wide. The nose ridge (MG cover) is thick and the engine cowl is thick and short. A typical line of "old kits" of above article. However, many people think that this is the best because of the old brand image (it depends on each person, and I do not deny it). After the disappearance of Trimaster, it is sold by Dragon.

Hasegawa old 1/48 A-4

 It is 2mm wide near the MG cover. The engine cowl is 1.5mm wide and 2mm short. The rear fuselage is 1.5mm shorter. The canopy is 1mm wide. The impression of the fuselage is very similar to the Trimaster. This is also a so-called old kits.

Eduard old 1/48 A-5

 The cowl length and overall length are accurate. However, the area around the MG cover is 1.5mm wide and the canopy is 1.5mm wide. The engine cowl looks like a drum can (with no taper), and the MG cover is wide as well. Somehow, the impression is sexually unattractive and unpolished. The current 1/72 kit is a scale down of this old 1/48 (the above dimensions are converted to 1/72 kit). The current D-9 is based on this old kit. In other words, the nose is thick and uncorrect.

Hasegawa new 1/48 A-5

 The area around the MG cover is 0.5mm wide. The width of the cowl is 0.5mm narrow. The cowl length is accurate. The rear fuselage length is also accurate. The canopy is a little less than 1mm wide. The line of the nose and the length of the cowl can be highly evaluated as being different from the conventional kit. Unfortunately, the reproducibility of the cross-sectional shape of the fuselage is not good.

Eduard new 1/48 A-4

 The area around the gun cover is 0.5mm narrow. The length of the cowl and rear fuselage is unknown (information requested). Canopy width is almost accurate. There is a feeling that the fineness of the nose ridge is emphasized a little, but at the moment it is the best of 1/48. The cross-sectional shape of the fuselage is also better than that of Hasegawa new kit. There are also A-3, A-5, A-8, etc. The old series has a 4-digit model number. The new series has 5 digits (example: 82142), so be careful when purchasing.

Airfix new 1/72 A-8

 The dimensions and shape of the nose are extremely accurate. In addition, the cross-sectional shape and length of the fuselage are perfect. 1/72 best kit for outline. Fitting of parts and molding are standard of Airfix's red box series. In other words, it's not good. It would be perfect if these were good. All the 1/72 kits other than Airfix new have a thick nose when I saw the finished works, so every kit is NG.

Regarding the dimensions, there may be some mistakes in my measurement, so please let me know if you notice anything. For the time being, I describe the main dimensions at 1/48 of the actual aircraft. MG cover tip width : 18.5 mm (A-4 and A-5 are the same in the above first theory. 19.3 mm in A-5 in the second theory), fire wall top width (lower end of MG cover crank) : 16.5 mm, engine cowl maximum width (excluding bulges on both sides) : 27.1 mm, engine cowl length : 26.3 mm, windscreen lower end width : 13.1 mm, windscreen front edge width (up to the edge of the frame) : 5.3 mm. For other dimensions, please calculate from the actual size in my drawings.


■ D-9 drawings

 Also I made the side and top view drawings of D-9. Regarding the changes from A-5, the shape, dimensions, etc. are almost entirely according to the drawing of Mr. Koichiro Abe in Reference-3. Dimensions are rounded to the nearest 1 mm.




  • The length of the fuselage plug is 500 mm. However, since it is tilted by 7°, the horizontal extension is 496.3 mm. In addition, the extension behind the vertical stabilizer is 140 mm (horizontal value. Actually, it is extended diagonally upward. In the vertical direction ... Please calculate by yourself). In total, the rear end of the rudder recedes 636.3mm from the A model. The distance between frames 14 and 16 is 504 mm because the dimensions of each frame position are indicated by the intersection with the fuselage reference line. ← It's complicated.

  • According to Mr. Abe's drawing, the horizontal stabilizer recedes 526.3 mm from the A model. If the mounting position of the vertical stabilizer and the horizontal stabilizer is the same as the A model, the retract length should be 496.3 mm, and there is a difference of 30 mm, but the reason is unknown. Is the mounting position different between A and D? Is it Mr. Abe's misunderstanding? My drawing adopts Mr. Abe's drawing.

  • The top view shape of the nose cowl has the same interpretation as Mr. Abe's drawing. The maximum width of the fuselage may be near the MG of the gun cover, not the fire wall. This is wide in range of possible interpretations (if I were a designer, I would design it to be as narrow as possible so that the firewall would be the widest). Even so, the side of the engine cowl seen in the top view is almost parallel to the left and right.

  • Mr. Abe's D-9 drawing of "Modeler's Eye" shows the dimensions of the fuselage, etc. with the main wing reference line as the origin. The origin of my drawings is the fire wall. The difference is 60 mm. Be careful when comparing values.


This is the end of the Fw190 drawing series. There are no plans for the bottom view and front view, because it is sufficient to see the existing drawings. There is no plan to draw the Ta152 drawing because there is no material.




References

 Not only Fw190A but also D-9 and Ta152 are included. There are many other Japanese books, but they are omitted. Also, there are drawings of D-9 by Mr. Koichiro Abe in the old Scale Aviation Magazine, but since it overlaps with Reference-3 considerably, this should be enough. For foreign books, I briefly checked my possessions and listed them which contain photos of this aircraft. Among them, ref.-4 is a must-have for Fw190 enthusiast. In addition, ref.-12 has many photographs that cannot be seen anywhere else, such as during production. Detail enthusiast and outline shape enthusiast should own it. The Jagdwaffe series also has a lot of good pictures, and the pictures and illustrations are linked, so it's fun to see.


1 New edition The Famous Airplane Of The World No.78 Focke-Wolf Fw190 Bunrin-do
2 Old edition The Famous Airplane Of The World Focke-Wolf FW190 1973 No.6 Bunrin-do
3 Modeler's Eye 4 Focke-Wolf Fw190D "Dora" Dainippon-kaiga
4 Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug Fw190A Fw190"Dora" Ta152H Rogge GmbH
5 Focke Wolf Fw 190 In Action aircraft no.19 Squadron/Signal Publications
6 Fw 190 In Action aircraft no.170 Squadron/Signal Publications
7 Walk Around Fw 190D Walk Around Number 10 Squadron/Signal Publications
8 Walk Around Focke-Wulf Fw-190 A/F Walk Around Number 22 Squadron/Signal Publications
9 Monogram Close Up FW 190 F Monogram
10 Monogram Close Up FW 190 D Monogram
11 Monogram Close Up 24 Ta 152 Monogram
12 Production Line To Frontline 5 Fw 190 Osprey
13 Aircraft of the Ace 6 Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front Osprey
14 Aircraft of the Ace 9 Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front Osprey
15 Aircraft of the Ace 20 German Night Fighter Aces of World War 2 Osprey
16 Aircraft of the Ace 92 Fw 190 Defence of the Reich Aces Osprey
17 Aircraft of the Ace 101 Luftwaffe Viermot Aces 1942-45 Osprey
18 Aircraft of the Ace 116 Aces of Jagdgeschwader 3 'Udet' Osprey
19 Aircraft of the Ace 134 Jagdgeschwader 1 'Oesau' Aces 1939-45 Osprey
20 Aviation elite 1 Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' Osprey
21 Aviation elite 6 Jagdgeschwader 54 'Grunherz' Osprey
22 Aviation elite 20 Luftwaffe Sturmgruppen Osprey
23 Aviation elite 27 Jagdverband 44 Squadron of Experten Osprey
24 Osprey Duel 1 P-51 Mustang vs Fw 190 Europe 1943-45 Osprey
25 Osprey Duel 24 Fw 190 Sturmbocke vs B-17 Flying Fortress Europe 1944-45 Osprey
26 Osprey Duel 39 La-5/7 vs Fw 190 Osprey
27 Monografie 01 Focke-Wolf FW 190 vol.1 Kagero
28 Monografie 04 Focke-Wolf FW 190 vol.2 Kagero
29 Monografie 05 Focke-Wolf FW 190 vol.3 Kagero
30 Monografie 06 Focke-Wolf FW 190 vol.4 Kagero
31 Miniatury Lotnicze 4 JG 2 Richthofen 1942-1943 Kagero
32 Miniatury Lotnicze 6 JG 5 Eismeer 1942-1945 Kagero
33 Miniatury Lotnicze 14 JG 1 Oesau 1944-1945 Kagero
34 Miniatury Lotnicze 19 JG 301 Wilde Sau Kagero
35 Miniatury Lotnicze 25 JG 26 Schlageter Vol.2 Kagero
36 Miniatury Lotnicze 27 JG 1 Oesau 1939-1943 Kagero
37 Miniatury Lotnicze 30 JG 11 Kagero
38 Miniatury Lotnicze 35 JG 52 vol.2 Kagero
39 Bitwy Lotnicze 07 Luftwaffe nad Tunezja (1) Kagero
40 Bitwy Lotnicze 10 Luftwaffe nad Tunezja (2) Kagero
41 Jagdwaffe vol3sec4 The War In Russia January-October 1942 Classic Publications
42 Jagdwaffe vol4sec1 Holding The West 1941-43 Classic Publications
43 Jagdwaffe vol4sec2 The Mediterranean 1942-1943 Classic Publications
44 Jagdwaffe vol4sec3 The War In Russia November1942-December1943 Classic Publications
45 Jagdwaffe vol4sec4 The Mediterranean 1943-1945 Classic Publications
46 Jagdwaffe vol5sec1 Defending The Reich 1943-44 Classic Publications
47 Jagdwaffe vol5sec2 War In The East 1944-1945 Classic Publications
48 Jagdwaffe vol5sec3 Defending The Reich 1944-1945 Classic Publications
49 Jagdwaffe vol5sec4 Jet Fighters And Rocket Interceptors 1944-1945 Classic Publications
50 Nachtjaeger Vol 2 Luftwaffe Night Fighter Units 1943-1945 Classic Publications
51 Schlachtflieger Luftwaffe Ground-Attack Units 1937-1945 Classic Publications
52 Monografie Lotnicze 17 Focke-Wulf Fw-190 A/F/G cz.1 AJ-Press
53 Monografie Lotnicze 18 Focke-Wulf Fw-190 A/F/G cz.2 AJ-Press
54 Monografie Lotnicze 21 Focke-Wulf Fw-190 D,Ta 152 AJ-Press
55 Flugzeug Profile 9 Focke Wulf Fw 190 Flugzeug Publikations
56 Flugzeug Profile 45 Focke Wulf Fw 190 Varianten Flugzeug Publikations
57 Luftwaffe At War 0 Focke Wolf 190 The Birth of the Butcher Bird 1939-1943 Greenhill
58 Luftwaffe At War 18 Luftwaffe Over Finland Greenhill
59 Luftwaffe At War 19 Luftwaffe Aces of the Western Front Greenhill
60 Focke Wulf Ta 152 The story of the Luftwaffe's Late-War, High-Altitude Fighter Schiffer
61 Aircraft of the Luftwaffe Fighter Aces I A Chronicle in Photographs Schiffer
62 Aircraft of the Luftwaffe Fighter Aces II A Chronicle in Photographs Schiffer
63 Luftwaffe im Focus Edition No 1-12,16 Luftfahrtverlag-Start
64 Luftwaffe im Focus Edition Spezial 1-2 Luftfahrtverlag-Start
65 Broken Eagles 1 FW190D Fighter Pictorials
66 History, Camouflage, and Markings of JV 44 and JG 6 Focke-Wulf 190 D-9s No.72-1 Exparten Decals
67 History, Camouflage, and Markings of JV 44 and JG 6 Focke-Wulf 190 Ds No.3 Exparten Decals
68 EagleFiles #1 Doras-of-the-Galland-Circus Eagle Edition
69 EagleFiles #2 Yellow 10 The story of the ultra-rare Fw 190 D-13 Eagle Edition







Hasegawa D-9

Airfix A-8

Tamiya D-9

Wings Of Pegasus HOME