Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Mon Apr 20, 2026 10:28 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:20 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm
Posts: 1028
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 208
Simple to build and cheap to maintain? Grasshopper, hands-down. Tube and fabric structure, four-banger engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:35 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:21 pm
Posts: 1329
Location: Dallas TX
Seconded... L-4 would be easiest. Plus there are several companies that make new cub parts... 3gph at 70mph...

_________________
Taylor Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:38 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:52 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Hudson, MA
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

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 208
You could go 3/4 scale and a Rotec radial. Much cheaper to acquire and operate than the P&W product. :D 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. :wink:

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.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:56 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:54 am
Posts: 5237
Location: Stratford, CT.
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.

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis

Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:51 pm
Posts: 4674
Location: Cheshire, CT
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

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:05 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:26 pm
Posts: 4974
Location: PA
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.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:52 am
Posts: 775
Location: Arizona
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.

_________________
Chad Veich
CWVeich Models
www.cwvmodels.com
Scale Model Design & Construction


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 208
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. :wink: :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:32 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3299
Location: Phoenix, Az
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.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 540
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Wichita, KS
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.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:57 pm 
Offline
BANNED/ACCOUNT SUSPENDED
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:58 am
Posts: 1054
Location: In Your Screen
Quote:
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.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:15 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm
Posts: 1028
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 218 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group