Easy to build and easy to fly
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:20 pm
What WW2 combat aircraft would be the easiest to reproduce and fly as far as engineering, end cost to buyers and ease of use including flying and maintenance qualities?
My vote would be for the Val dive bomber. Fixed gear, simple to build (?), easy to fly, 3 place, room for gear, good visibility, etc.
What would another good choice be? Stuka? Probably a lot harder to build than a Val but I have no idea really.
My vote would be for the Val dive bomber. Fixed gear, simple to build (?), easy to fly, 3 place, room for gear, good visibility, etc.
What would another good choice be? Stuka? Probably a lot harder to build than a Val but I have no idea really.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:31 pm
Simple to build and cheap to maintain? Grasshopper, hands-down. Tube and fabric structure, four-banger engine.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:35 pm
Seconded... L-4 would be easiest. Plus there are several companies that make new cub parts... 3gph at 70mph...
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:38 pm
skydaddy61 wrote:Simple to build and cheap to maintain? Grasshopper, hands-down. Tube and fabric structure, four-banger engine.
True but if your idea of a warbird is something more substantial....
The Val is probably simple to operate but I don't know about building. It had an elliptical wing and knowing a little bit about Japanese building techniques I would bet it is more labor intensive than it seems.
My thought would be the T-6. North American seems to have had a real understanding of mass producing aircraft. If you wanted something more substantial than that I would pick the F6F Hellcat. Easy to fly, still plenty of R 2800 engines
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:55 pm
You could go 3/4 scale and a Rotec radial. Much cheaper to acquire and operate than the P&W product. 
W.A.R. has a basic airframe design that can be dressed up as a variety of warbirds.
Titan makes a very good-looking P-51 kit. Stick a V-8 in the nose and no-one's the wiser until they walk up to it. Plus, it qualifies as a light-sport if you placard the top speed.
There are 3/4 Storch and Spitfire kits on the market.
If you want a T-6 you can probably buy one cheapr than you could build it yourself.
Elliptical wings are aerodynamically efficient, but they are a hassle to build. That's why the build-from-plans experimentals such as the Volksplane and the FlyBaby have straight wings.
Speaking of... http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/balderdash.html
W.A.R. has a basic airframe design that can be dressed up as a variety of warbirds.
Titan makes a very good-looking P-51 kit. Stick a V-8 in the nose and no-one's the wiser until they walk up to it. Plus, it qualifies as a light-sport if you placard the top speed.
There are 3/4 Storch and Spitfire kits on the market.
If you want a T-6 you can probably buy one cheapr than you could build it yourself.
Elliptical wings are aerodynamically efficient, but they are a hassle to build. That's why the build-from-plans experimentals such as the Volksplane and the FlyBaby have straight wings.
Speaking of... http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/balderdash.html
Last edited by skydaddy61 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:56 pm
Not combat but, id love to see somebody do 20 to 30 Willow Biplanes. Overall simple structure. Easy to supplement power-plant for an american radial. 2 seats.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:58 pm
I'd take a Bell 47 or French Allouette and make a Sikorsky R-4 fuselage around the basic frame work and have myself a "WWII" helicopter!
Jerry
Jerry
Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:05 pm
How about a P-64? Use the T-6 for the basis. I know the
P-64 is a lot more then the T-6 but its a start.
P-64 is a lot more then the T-6 but its a start.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
I've said it before but I still think the Fiat G.50 would be a good choice. Put a good old American radial on the front of the relatively simple airframe and I think it would have performance and handling similar to a Zero.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:32 pm
Nathan wrote:How about a P-64? Use the T-6 for the basis. I know the P-64 is a lot more then the T-6 but its a start.
Simpler: Put a 30-cal in the cowling of a T-6, paint a kangaroo on the side, and call it a Wirraway.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:32 pm
Nathan wrote:How about a P-64? Use the T-6 for the basis. I know the
P-64 is a lot more then the T-6 but its a start.
It took us 3 years to restore a T-6, and 6 years to build a P-64. The P-64 was not easier to fly than the T-6, and if you were not careful you could turn yourself into a ball of metal in it really quick.
Re: Easy to build and easy to fly
Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:58 pm
Isn't the Val only 2 place?
PinecastleAAF wrote:What WW2 combat aircraft would be the easiest to reproduce and fly as far as engineering, end cost to buyers and ease of use including flying and maintenance qualities?
My vote would be for the Val dive bomber. Fixed gear, simple to build (?), easy to fly, 3 place, room for gear, good visibility, etc.
What would another good choice be? Stuka? Probably a lot harder to build than a Val but I have no idea really.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:05 pm
How does one go about getting the manufacturer technical drawings microfilm to make a replica warbird without having to sign that liability waver from NASM? Would be nice for the community to know alternative options for it.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:57 pm
How does one go about getting the manufacturer technical drawings microfilm to make a replica warbird without having to sign that liability waver from NASM? Would be nice for the community to know alternative options for it.
My suggestion would be-get the drawings and use them for reference only.
Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:15 pm
Isn't the Val only 2 place?
Whoops i think you are right about the number of crew. I must have been thinking of the Kate.
I had not thought of the L4 but I was thinking of something bigger and heavier and sexier when I said combat (not a trainer) but not too big and heavy.