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 Thu Jul 03, 2025 5:43 am

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  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:45 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 2051
Location: Creemore Ontario Canada
I'd like to see one flown with the skis you can see under the EAA machine.
That would be epic! :supz:

Andy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:36 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:14 pm
Posts: 1678
Location: Oslo, NORWAY
Tim Savage wrote:
This was directed at the few who were making the claim that some warbird owners were not being honest about their aircraft. I am struggling to think of any warbird owner who runs around claiming their aircraft is something it isn't....and I know an awful lot of them. Frankly, most of them don't care anyway. It seems to be the internet jockies who are more wrapped up in the definitions. Soon there won't likely be any truly original fighters flying anyway...as I alluded to in the thread above. To keep them flying it is going to be necessary to replace most of the structure as time passes. To me it is just a pointless argument.

An owner would probably not make the claim to other owners, but I seem to remember a couple of warbirds that have been claimed by their owners to be something which they're not. As for owners generally not caring about that history, no, I don't think the majority gives a s**t most days of the week. But when setting the price for said aircraft the day it is up for sale, they surely care. Adding $$$$$ to the price tag usually brings out the pride of an individual aircraft history, even if not a single part of it is from said aircraft. Or when a TV crew wants to feature that fine warrior then it is a nice touch to have a "genuine" combat veteran.

No, you might be absolutely right about the fact that there won't be too many warbirds with 100% true originality soon. However, if Mark Allen owns a P-51 with 35% original parts while you go to work building one with a brand new fuselage, and new wings, scoop, tail and the whole nine yards, he will have an aircraft with continuous history. You don't. No matter what fancy paperwork you might get hold of. And that is where the difference lies, IF history matters. But that might just be pointless!

T J
(Just an internet jockey on the lower echelon of the food chain) geek

_________________
Make my day, punk!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:12 pm
Posts: 106
Location: Lexington, KY
Well this kinda got off the rails. :) With the condition many of these airframes were in and the scarcity of real veteran airframes I don't mind a restoration. At least PoF doesn't pass Wee Willy II off as "the restored Red Baron racer." :)

Battle history is part of the reason Cavanaugh's The Brat III is my all-time favorite Mustang.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:24 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
YOu guys have educated me on the differences in the fuselage of the A and the later D's. Was the fuselage enlarged and beefed up to support a larger radiator, or the fuselage tank, or a weight increase? Which fuselage design would be better for all out speed? Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:59 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm
Posts: 2346
Location: Minnesota
RacingMustang wrote:
Battle history is part of the reason Cavanaugh's The Brat III is my all-time favorite Mustang.


It would be really cool to see Cavanaugh's combat-vet P-51D "The Brat III" flying or displayed together with Paul Ehlen's combat-vet P-51D "Sierra Sue II", as both originally flew in the same Fighter Group - the 370th. "The Brat III" was part of the 401st FS while "Sierra Sue II" was part of the 402nd FS, and would have been based at the same forward advanced landing fields in Belgium and Germany. Both aircraft went to the Swedish AF after WWII, but parted ways after that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:12 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm
Posts: 2346
Location: Minnesota
marine air wrote:
YOu guys have educated me on the differences in the fuselage of the A and the later D's. Was the fuselage enlarged and beefed up to support a larger radiator, or the fuselage tank, or a weight increase? Which fuselage design would be better for all out speed? Thanks


On the Allison-engined Mustangs, the lower longerons kinked upward a number of inches, from the location of the lower engine mount attach-points, allowing the wing to be mounted higher along the Z-axis, keeping as narrow of a side profile as possible. On these aircraft, the upper surface of the wing serves as the floor in the cockpit (just like in a P-40).

When the Merlin was introduced (P-51B/C's), the lower longerons were redesigned so that they carried mainly straight back from the lower engine mount attach-points, and then kinked upward aft of the wing/just before the radiator. This was so that the wing could be mounted lower, allowing for a clean line/airflow from the prop back over the bottom of the cowlings and wing through to the radiator intake. If the wing hadn't been mounted lower, the engine and carb intake trunk would have hung down below the bottom line of the wing (as seen in the early Merlin-engined prototype/test examples ahead of the production P-51B). The same lower longerons designed for the P-51B/C were used in the P-51D. Because the wing is mounted so much lower in the P-51B/C/D, a raised floor had to be added in the cockpit.

Here is a stock P-51A/A-36 fuselage (Yanks P-51A), where you can see the early lower longerons of the Allison-engine variants:

Image

By comparison, here is a stock P-51B/C fuselage (CAF P-51C), where you can see the later lower longerons of the Merlin-engine variants:

Image


This is the P-51B/C fuselage that was built in the very early stage of the P-51A project (discernible as a P-51B/C fuselage based on the line of the lower longerons):

Image

Image

And this is the P-51A fuselage built after deciding to go for a true P-51A (note the difference in the line of the lower longerons):

Image

The lower longerons of the P-51D are identical to those of the P-51B/C:

Image


Last edited by JohnTerrell on Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:02 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 2051
Location: Creemore Ontario Canada
As soon as I saw "Marine air" pose these questions, I thought, "I'm really looking forward to John Terrells reply to this."

I was not disappointed :D

Thanks John

I always appreciate you.

Andy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:12 pm
Posts: 106
Location: Lexington, KY
DH82EH wrote:
As soon as I saw "Marine air" pose these questions, I thought, "I'm really looking forward to John Terrells reply to this."

I was not disappointed :D

Thanks John

I always appreciate you.

Andy


I'll second that. Thanks John.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 11:47 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Minnesota, USA
marine air wrote:
Which fuselage design would be better for all out speed? Thanks



I'll suggest the P-51A/A-36A fuselage, which--by virtue of the aforementioned design features--had a narrower cross section.


My evidence would be Woody Edmondson's A-36A Allison-powered racer, which would consistently pull away from the Merlin-powered P-51B/C/D competition (albeit at low altitude).


Image


(Tin hat on; trench gun locked & loaded)

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:55 pm
Posts: 491
Thanks from me also, John T!! :D Does this mean "Polar Bear" can have a merlin & 4 Blade prop. installed, & be painted as P-51B "Shangri La" ? :wink:
I Know, I Know, Just some wishful Day Dreaming on my part !! :lol: :wink: pop2

_________________
WWI & WWII Warbird Fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 163
Location: Pearland, TX
TBM Tony wrote:
Does this mean "Polar Bear" can have a merlin & 4 Blade prop. installed, & be painted as P-51B "Shangri La" ?

Actually, yes it does mean that. Before Pacific Fighters got its hands on Polar Bear, it would've made a more accurate B model than it did an A.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:37 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:31 pm
Posts: 1352
Location: Galveston County
DH82EH wrote:
As soon as I saw "Marine air" pose these questions, I thought, "I'm really looking forward to John Terrells reply to this."

I was not disappointed :D

Thanks John

I always appreciate you.

Andy

^^^ The guy has a way with words, very often expresses my own sentiments better than I could myself. This instance is no exception. 8)

_________________
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas

PIC, Ford 6600 pulling Rhino batwing up and down the runway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 548
Yes I would like to say thanks to John T, I had no idea about those details, fantastic to learn. Thanks again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:20 pm 
Offline
KiwiZac
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:33 am
Posts: 1469
Location: Blenheim, NZ
I'm with them. Thanks a bunch John T, I learned a lot from that post - now I know how different the various models really are.

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:42 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Many years ago I had a conversation with a guy named Ferris Thomas from Knoxville, Tenn. He said the "A" was the fastest of the Mustangs. He had been a ferry command pilot that flew & delivered aircraft throughout the war ending up delivering C-54's from the factory to the CBI. I don't know if he meant at low altitude, or if maybe the "A"s were delivered without all their combat armament or something to make them faster. He flew them all and loved the A.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 36 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