Talk:Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu

Untitled

Is the British example really the only surviving Fw 189? A twin-boom Luftwaffe reconnaissance plane appears in the Russian war movie Come and See, although it is seen only from a distance and may be a look-alike. Grant65 | Talk 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Prague 337 pcs

While editing this article, I encountered the phrase "the Prague 337 pcs", and was uncertain what it meant and therefore how to handle it. I came up with 3 possibilities:

• It is the name of an Aero product, but the Aero WP article does not list an A.337.
• It is the name of a part of Prague.
• The previous author was saying that only 337 pieces of the Fw 189 were made in the Aero factory.

I ended up making 337 pcs a wikilink. WeeWillieWiki (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Survivor

On the survivor note, the "Fana de l'Aviation" has had a news in the Nr 459 (Feb 2008) about the restoration of the Flying Heritage Collection (on page 7). It is reported that the plane, a FW 189A-1 matriculated G-BZKY and for which the matriculation N189FW on the US register has been reserved, is the WerkNr 2100 retrieved by Jim Pearce in northern Russia back in 1994. The military code of the plane was V7+1H then. It is reported that the plane was lost in a crash near Loukhi, Mai 4 1943, during a reconnaissance mission. The plane has been transfered to BMZ Air Service (Prague) and then to FlugWerk (Germany).Tourist.tam (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there info on where the plane is now? Sansmalrst (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rear gunner's position

The rear gunner's position pictured looks to me to be that of the BV 141 rather than an FW 189. In the asymmetric 141 the starboard (crew) boom was close to the engine boom, and the gunners position therefore had the shield seen to limit the gunner's arc in the direction of the single tail. He had an otherwise completely free field of fire. it doesnt make sense to me for the FW 189 gummer to be completely unable to fire to his right (portside of the aircraft). Stack Odds (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Stack Odds

Good catch - the cockpit window pattern doesn't match the Fw 189 either, but it does match the 141. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As been implemented in the computer game "War Thunder" this glazed half-cone could be swiveled around along its axis by means of pulling it around with a handle, so "cone facing up, gun down" could (awkwardly) be changed to "cone down, fire upwards". Doing this in a dogfight may have required some "axis power". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.52.66 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s a FW 189 alright: If you take a close look, you will find that the landing gear seen partially in the picture does not match a B&V 141. Also, if you care to check the German article on the FW 189, you will find a similar picture from a more distant angle where you can see more clearly that it is indeed an Uhu. Koo Kee (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

citations

Altered to take the red off.Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

this one has some real tone issues. words like superb and phenomenal make it sound unfortunately fannish. i understand that the fw 189 was quite successful, but still. also needs references and an infobox. furthermore, the survivor's section is altogether too much information about the pilot. also, i thought at least one other wreck has been recovered. M Van Houten 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of <br> html "break" tag.

Why did you revert my "break" html tag? It improved the appearance of the article by consolidating the width of the infobox. Wikipedia articles have an overabundance of appearance problems. For instance having an overly wide infobox that breaks-up section headings and prevents all but the shortist words to be placed after the infobox. Rtmorphine (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) rtmorphine Robert Ternes

Your change didn't make any difference to the width of the infobox, which is set by the photo. It merely introduced a large vertical space in the middle of a statement.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings:

I have discovered something that I should have verified before I started making changes. I apologize for neglecting to do before. When I originally viewed the WIKI page on the Focke-Wulf Fw 189, I did so from my Kindle reader (mistake #1); I also performed the changes to the WIKI Fw 189 page based on how it appears via Kindle’s apparently out-of-date WWW Browser (mistake #2).

What I had intended to correct was the hideous way that the Fw 189 WIKI article appears on my Kindle. Now that I have viewed the Fw 189 WIKI article on one computer, running Windows & Internet Explorer, and another computer, an iPad running Safari, both of which show the Fw 189 WIKI article properly formatted, I see the error of my ways! I assumed that all WWW & Wikipedia users saw the Fw 189 WIKI article in the same hideous way it appears on Kindle - with a 75%/25% split between a blank area on the left side of the page and the thumbnail images on the right side of the page, then, after the images, the text is correctly formatted. If I had known that 99.9% (or more) of the world sees the page correctly formatted, I would not have entered the <br> HTML tags. By entering the "break" tags, the Fw 189 WIKI article appears correctly formatted on Kindle. Again, I apologize.

All The Best, Robert Ternes Rtmorphine (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC) rtmorphine