"tscottme" wrote
I was under the impression that the FAA had determined that each of the WWII
fighters required a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to be flown by a civilian
pilot. Because of this LOA requirement, which is a practical equivalent to
a type rating, even a military pilot of that particular aircraft model could
not log PIC time as a civilian, unless he had the LOA.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not sure all the WWII fighters require it (I seem to recall that
some of the earlier ones don't) but that's beside the point.

The LOA is indeed a practical equivalent to a type rating, in the
sense that no pilot can act as PIC in an aircraft that requires one
unless he has it. However, the LOA is not a type rating. If it were
a type rating, it would be called a type rating. There are actually
some differences, including the fact that while a type rating always
requires a checkride, the LOA can be issued without one. For example,
a military pilot who showed that he flew that particular model in the
service would almost certainly be issued an LOA on that basis.

Therefore, one can log PIC time without an LOA, in the same way that
one can log PIC time in a taildragger without having a tailwheel
endorsement. One simply can't act as PIC.

Truly I wish the FAA would fix this and make acting as PIC and logging
PIC the same.

Michael