Flyboy, when I say more complex I just mean more engineering-per-inch, if you will, it seems like the armorer for example, would have to work harder, just due to the fact that some variants had 3 different types of guns, with one firing through the engine. I imagined it was like an Audi compared...
Let's see, one corner of the USSR star, that's a... STAR-t. Got that out of the way, now, it doesn't look pre-war, which is odd for a 3-engine. Though I'm probably wrong lol.
Hey, you guys seem like you might know, what kind of ground crew were required for German fighters, (primarily BF 109 and FW 190)? They seem like they'd need higher maintenance, not saying that they weren't durable, just that they were complex.
I agree with pattle, the Warhawk was definitely more useful, but generally not a better 'fighter'.
*Looks at signature and profile picture* EDIT: I realize I may be slightly biased.
Why would you scrap the Warthogs? Those things are worth the cost for psychological warfare alone, and I doubt the Lightning II will cut it, the worse armament and low-speed-stability will mean that you'll need more planes doing more attack runs on the same target for the same effect. Plus A-10s...
P-47 IMO, that plane just looked tough, and it lived up to that look. Also, are you doing full size? If so what kind of engine do you plan on using? (original??)
A few degrees at lowish speed, but it does NOT look like a drift or powerslide in a car, you could also go into a flat spin and loudly become one with the ground ;). And at higher speeds the tail can fall apart (or off) So its not advised if you are at 350+ MPH, and likely not even possible...