Warbird Information Exchange

I don't have a parts book to know which components are actually interchangable but after looking at Gerry's A model and talking to him about it, I don't think there is much that can be transfered from it to even a B/C model. It's really different! Certainly the airframe structure is close to 100% different with the only possible exception being the tail group. I'm certain that there would be more interchangeable between the B/C to the D than the A to the B/C....who's on first anyway? Anybody who does have a parts book, look for parts starting with an 73 and that would denote the part was originally designed for the A. Later numbers like 102, 105 were B/C and D models as I recall. Wish I knew how to post JPEGs to this site. I have a frontal of Gerry's A model taken in June that I could share with you guys.

John

After looking at the -2 for the "C" model this weekend I am finding a quite a few parts that carried into later models from the original model NA 73. Most are small bell cranks, push/pull rods and brackets.

John, you can email the shot to me at dan.johnson@gmail.com and I'll get it posted for you. I'm very interested to see the progress, the last time I saw it was at Oshkosh in 2000.

_________________
Dan Johnson

I have to admit I always thought the ultimate Mustang to own would be the B or C model because of its rarity, speed and wartime history. When I saw the Tp-51C at Oshkosh the first thing that popped in my mind was; Hey if they're building them from scratch why not have a brand new P-51H or TF-51H ? Weren't they the ultimate in performance and rarity?
THe debate of "real mustangs versus repros is quite simple. If you are a collector you want the genuine article with authentic parts and systems. If you are a buyer and you love to fly, love the sound of the Merlin at power, want to experience the thrill of the Mustang , and the very exclusive group of people that fly them at airshows or Reno, then buy the "newest" Mustang you can find! I for one would love to own a factory new P-51 A or B dual control, new build engine and prop with the accompanying reliablity and fly the heck out of it! Who cares if the components are made in Russia , the Czech Republic, or Poland? It would still look, sound , smell , feel and fly like the real deal.

I have to admit I always thought the ultimate Mustang to own would be the B or C model because of its rarity, speed and wartime history. When I saw the Tp-51C at Oshkosh the first thing that popped in my mind was; Hey if they're building them from scratch why not have a brand new P-51H or TF-51H ? Weren't they the ultimate in performance and rarity?
THe debate of "real mustangs versus repros is quite simple. If you are a collector you want the genuine article with authentic parts and systems. If you are a buyer and you love to fly, love the sound of the Merlin at power, want to experience the thrill of the Mustang , and the very exclusive group of people that fly them at airshows or Reno, then buy the "newest" Mustang you can find! I for one would love to own a factory new P-51 A or B dual control, new build engine and prop with the accompanying reliablity and fly the heck out of it! Who cares if the components are made in Russia , the Czech Republic, or Poland? It would still look, sound , smell , feel and fly like the real deal.

Marine Air has a point.
An aircraft needn't be original for the pilot to enjoy flying it (and the rest of watch fondly).
On the other hand, I cannot bring myself to agree with John Beyl's argument that a replica must be 100% replica, with no original/NOS parts. In my view, the 100% replication standard only serves those who wish to enhance the value of a new-build machine by claiming it to be original because it has a few NOS brackets. Even the Flug Werk 190s have original tailwheels, if you see what I mean.
To see the paradox of that line of reasoning, try turning it around - no aircraft can be called original if it is not comprised of 100% original parts. I think precious few warbirds could meet that standard - not even Spitfire MH434, continuously flown since 1944, never crashed but (wisely) resparred a few years ago.
I think a reasonable standard should balance continuity (i.e., how many of the primary structures have been together from factory to rebuild, tracing an unbroken line) and quantity (i.e., how much of the primary structure are original - including NOS - versus new build, taking into account both parts count and airframe weight. I consider a 100 pound spar to be more important than 100,000 rivets ...).
The problem with this concept is really with aircraft built up at a later date from original spares or best overhauled components of other aircraft - like the Cavalier Mustangs, certainly of 1944-45 vintage but devoid of their identities.
Enough thinking for today - I am already sweating enough.

Gregor