Fw190

[Kutscha]

Sandy Air has replied on another board:

The Claus Colling statement is wrong. The replica A8 he referes to is still in existance but in storage by its owner. Our D9 has nothing to do with the Flugwerk replicas. There is only a section of the cockpit that was made by Flugwerk and used for the restoration! If in doubt ask Maier Motors or the Hangar 10 team!

To the others: thank you for liking our most recent restoration!
SANDY AIR CORP.

[harrison987]

Do not trust anything that comes out of Sandy Air.

They are known in the restoration community as "all marking, and all garbage".

- such as the Me109G they sold at a ridiculous price (and to the new owner's surprise) was assembled with pop rivets in a matter of months.

Sandy Air knows nothing about the aircraft they "restore" - they even once tried passing off a reproduction tubular constructed Me109E windscreen as an original G type...same with wing panels that are clearly Me109 G10, and was selling them as G2 (which they are not, as the design is completely different).

The tail on this D9 is CLEARLY Flugwerk...based on the angle that the antenna mast is mounted (this error was only done in Flugwerk birds).

I had some friends look at this Fw190 who have built both originals and Flugwerk models...they ALL stated that the only thing that may NOT be Flugwerk are the wings - fuselage, cockpit, and tail are 100% Flugwerk.

Sandy Air also did not do the restoration - I am told they bought it as you see in the photos - Flugwerk airframe with Jumo211 attached, no history.

[DaveM2]

There are some photos of the early stages of the build here in the Sandy work shop.


http://www.sandyair.com/index.php?pa...-d-9-weisse-16

[harrison987]

The flugwerk parts are obvious...

Still trying to determine how an aircraft was re-built from 99% loss...and then claimed as having battle history?

[pikas]

Sandy Air has replied on another board:

For those who know our aircraft a few explanations:
There is always a decission to make about how much of an aircraft should be original which is being restored either to flying or to static. As much as I love flying warbirds myself (I have logged several hundered hours in taildraggers and warbirds), I think that preservation of aircraft/wrecks that cannot turned into flying machines is also important.
With this FW 190 D9 it was like that: we had the original Jumo 213A engine from that WerkNummer, as well as some airframe parts. We looked for as much original D9 components as possible and started the rebuilding process.
I estimate that some 25% of the aircraft come from that WerkNummer and another 15% from different D9s. The rest is new.
It is similar with our other projects, i.e. the three Bf 109s we have finished so far. With respect to those who think that this is a waste of original parts I have to say that I usually keep the airworthy parts and provide shops with them who restore flying aircraft. Most of the time I use only damaged or corroded parts for my static restorations.
My question now to you: is it better to have an aileron hanging from a wall, or an instrument on a book shelf, or to have them integrated in an airframe of a known WerkNummer? My answer will allways be: I prefer the static aircraft rather than a collection of bits and pieces. Besides, has anyone ever wondered why there are so many "projects" out there and only so few that get finished? My shop is one of the very few that are capable of completing a project.
All the best,
Wolfgang Falch
SANDY AIR CORP.

[Steven190]

I have dealt with them, they are not the best to do business with. They are over priced and the materials they have are not represented well. They have junk that they sell as good items.

[harrison987]

Manyof the restorations they do not do themselves. They contract other people to do...and then take the credit. Which is why he has a very limited knowledge.

The wings on the G6 they did were not built Sandy Air, nor by restoration company...but by a team of collectors. He traded a data plate and 1000,00 euro to get the wings "built"...in this case there were parts from a flap and aileron that were used...there rest 90% was "recreated" cosmetically. I know this because I know who built the wings. Sandy Air then sued the collectors because the quality was not good enough, and lost in court - ummmmmmmm...you paid 1000,00 euro to have them built...what do you expect?

He never gave them credit, sold the G6 on Hermann Historica, representing it as a "restored" aircraft...when in reality...all he had was a small section of the original aircraft (rear data plate), fabricated a toy aircraft around it using pop rivets that a 12-year old could make, added some G-10 parts, and various scraps from different types (G2 to G-10), and called it a restoration. It was a $25,000 restoration at most...and marketed it as a $180,000.00 restoration. He got that price, as it was all marketing, and not factual. When the owner finally received it, he was furious on how bad it was. I was asked to look at it, to determine if the restoration was actually salvageable ...they wanted to mount an engine, and make a decent static display aircraft out of it. In order to correct ALL the issues (just going off the photos), it would probably cost more than the owner paid for it.

In this case, I would rather see the original components on a wall where they can be admired, as opposed to thrown onto a basic inaccurate airframe, termed a "restoration", then charging up-wards of $150000-$200000 for a toy with some original parts attached.

I do not see 25% original parts on this D9...

Most likely he "could" have some original D9 parts...but unlikely any are from the same aircraft.

[Nick Beale]

Could you all please be careful how you express your criticisms of this company? The internet is a public place and the world is full of hungry lawyers.

[John Beaman]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Could you all please be careful how you express your criticisms of this company? The internet is a public place and the world is full of hungry lawyers.

Amen, Nick! Plus this forum is not exactly the place to discuss this sort of detail commentary about the rightness or wrongness of the "restoration".

While I will leave it for the moment, plase consider taking your discussion to another site. Surely, there are internet sites that cater to restoration topics?

[markjsheppard]

* Hi

I can't really believe the amount of criticism here. This is a static rebuild/restoration whatever you want to call it. There are probably flying examples with the same % of original material as this static. Does any really look that bad? Looks like a static Fw190D-9 to me.

On the ID, 400616 is recorded in Axel Urbanke's book 'Green Hearts First in Combat with the Dora 9'. 13th Feb 1945 400616 Fw190D-9 'White 16' of 9./JG54 shot down by P-47's of 22FS near Hübingen/Montabauer - 100% Uffz Günther Koch was killed in the crash. My one query would be whether 400616 should have a black/white tail band of JG54 for the period in question but this is a minor point.

The remains of the airframe were recovered in the 1980/90's (Axel and a group of friends excavated a number of JG54/JG26 Fw190's and it is possible this was one). If not it was another German recovery team.

In 2008 Sandy Air purchased the wreckages including the engine, two extra Jumo 213s and more D9 parts from a German collector who had had these parts since the early 1990s.

I have heard the following. Fw190 A8 replica is still in storage with the Meier Motor brothers and was not used for this rebuild. There is a small section of the cockpit that was made by Flugwerk but neither the wing, nor the tail, nor the fuselage.

Whatever the case, I think it looks like a great Fw190D-9. There are not many examples out there and I don't think there is any in Europe so I can't see why this would not be a suitable example for a museum.

Harrison, you seem to 'know' a lot about the ins and outs of Sandy Air Corp? Perhaps you have heard this first or second hand but have you actually spoken to Wolfgang at Sandy Air Corp concerning the projects he as actually worked on?

Nearly every restoration has numerous sub contractors. They are paid for their services but are not always names. Suppose it depends of how big a proportion they undertake. Think it is less of an issue with static restorations.

Can't think of any static restoration, rebuild or modern interpretation of any WWII aircraft costing just $25,000. Material and labour costs would be way higher than that.

There are also a number of aircraft flying that were 100% loses. The ID and originality often depends on how much original material was recovered, not necessarily reused.

I would not be as vocal in making statements concerning a company as what you are stating could be classed as 'damaging' and could be worthy of legal action.

I knew Wolfgang from the P47 'Dottie Mae' recovery in 2005. I have no connection to the company but think the criticism is unwarrented.

regards

Mark