GregP
Major
The museum flies a P-47G Thunderbolt, an F4U-1a Corsair, the last airworthy SBD Dauntless, A TBM Avenger, several AT-6 Texans, a B-25 Mitchell, the last Seversky AT-12 Guardsman(2-seat P-35), a Boeing P-26 Peashooter, an A-1 Skyraider, an A6M5 Model 52 Zero, and a Flugwerk Fw 190 replica (R-2800 radial). We see F7F Tigercats regularly along with Sea Furies. All fly very well. The Fw 190 had oil temp issues until they added some extra underwing oil coolers. It isn't exactly stock, but it works. All have systems differing from one another. The Zero has some really neat systems and linkages. The rudder trim comes to mind as do the cowl flaps. The wartime Fw 190 had a single-lever throttle that we didn't particularly like unless flying combat. Then it was very good. Otherwise (95% of the time) it was not really finely adjustable in our tests.
German planes that I have worked on (Bf 109, Bf 108, Jungmeister) are well made, but nothing out of the ordinary. I have not worked on the Flugwerk airplane and likely won't.
I heard rumors that the Zero was poorly made. When I got to work on it, the opposite was true, It was pretty well made and had neat systems. Since it has low installed power, the skin was light and no excess weight was added. Other than that, it was conventionally well made. The F8F Bearcat has a QEC (quick engine change) module consisting of the mount, engine, oil tank, etc. Remove and replace, go fly.
So far, I can't see anything that one nation did a lot better, worse, or differently than the others with the exception of the lightweight Zero due to modest engine. The same designer's next project (J2M Raiden) is made like a U.S. fighter since he had 1,850 HP to work with. We have the last one (static display). The British tend to use more hardware than anyone else, but it goes together to make a good airplane. For my money, there isn't a whole lot of difference among them with the exception that the U.S.A. tends to build a bit beefier with slightly thicker metal. It shows up particularly on Naval aircraft.
We also have a Yak-3 (non-radial, some a MiG-15 bis, and used to operate an old AN-2.
They are about equal with the Soviet hardware being just a bit crude by comparison, but effectively made. All fly well.
Aerial leaders, pilots, and pilot training made the difference. To be more correct, we also had good mechanics and a top-notch logistics system, coupled with effective pilot replacement training. All contributed, and logistics hardly ever gets the credit it deserves. When you have regular spare parts and good mechanics, it certainly helps the war effort on the front lines. Parts don't make, transport, and stock themselves. We also had a very good supply of tools that many other nations lacked on the front lines.
A lot of places we left quickly after the war still drive WWII jeeps!
German planes that I have worked on (Bf 109, Bf 108, Jungmeister) are well made, but nothing out of the ordinary. I have not worked on the Flugwerk airplane and likely won't.
I heard rumors that the Zero was poorly made. When I got to work on it, the opposite was true, It was pretty well made and had neat systems. Since it has low installed power, the skin was light and no excess weight was added. Other than that, it was conventionally well made. The F8F Bearcat has a QEC (quick engine change) module consisting of the mount, engine, oil tank, etc. Remove and replace, go fly.
So far, I can't see anything that one nation did a lot better, worse, or differently than the others with the exception of the lightweight Zero due to modest engine. The same designer's next project (J2M Raiden) is made like a U.S. fighter since he had 1,850 HP to work with. We have the last one (static display). The British tend to use more hardware than anyone else, but it goes together to make a good airplane. For my money, there isn't a whole lot of difference among them with the exception that the U.S.A. tends to build a bit beefier with slightly thicker metal. It shows up particularly on Naval aircraft.
We also have a Yak-3 (non-radial, some a MiG-15 bis, and used to operate an old AN-2.
They are about equal with the Soviet hardware being just a bit crude by comparison, but effectively made. All fly well.
Aerial leaders, pilots, and pilot training made the difference. To be more correct, we also had good mechanics and a top-notch logistics system, coupled with effective pilot replacement training. All contributed, and logistics hardly ever gets the credit it deserves. When you have regular spare parts and good mechanics, it certainly helps the war effort on the front lines. Parts don't make, transport, and stock themselves. We also had a very good supply of tools that many other nations lacked on the front lines.
A lot of places we left quickly after the war still drive WWII jeeps!
