Whittington Thread Locked & Gone

[Neal Nurmi]

I personally really like the -H. My perceptions are probably a bit different because I saw an -H flying along with several -D models at my first warbird shows. I don't think I've ever particularly compared it in my mind to the -D. To me it has always felt like a different airplane -- a late war design rather than a 1940 design. A high speed maneuverable interceptor look rather than an all purpose load carrier. To me it looks graceful and refined -- especially from the front or rear. From the side the apparent depth of the fuse in the middle is a bit jarring, but different rather than bad. I've always liked the tall tail -- even retrofitted on to P-51Ds.

I've also seen them in the air quite a bit -- I think they probably look better flying than on the ground.

Look at Doug's photo again and try not to have a P-51D image in your mind...

[Roger Cain]

Apologizing for slipping away from the Whittington top, since the H model came into the picture, another view of Coutches H with an original cockpit, not looking so odd?



Okay, back to the Whittington topic, and Zane, thanks for the additional link.

[Ontario-Warbird]

I think the H looks cool, really like to see it in a camo paint scheme.

Did any Commonwealth nations use the H model?

Cheers Dave C

[k5083]

The windshield contributes for sure, but it is just one factor. The nose, the tail, the gear doors... all the proportions look just plain wrong if all you've ever seen are D models. The D is a beautifully classic design. The H looks like someone was trying to build their own D Model from scratch.

Actually, we are just used to the D. To me the D has always looked like a hodgepodge of mismatched elements, not especially attractive except in the sense that all fighters of that era are attractive. It has angular flying surfaces, inherited from the austere but better-proportioned P-51A, that clash with the nicely lofted but baroque curves of the nose, bubble, and pregnant belly. Not even in the top five best-looking US fighter designs of the period. Aerodynamically not very efficient either, which is why it was finally cleaned up in the G/H models.

August

[Django]

I agree we are all used to the D. I didn't even know about the H or the Cavaliers until I joined up here a few years ago and really started digging into the details of this stuff.

We'll just have to disagree on the aesthetics August. But you are right... they changed all those things for a reason.

[mlenoch]

Bill: No, I have not. Do you need one moved?
VL

[Bill Greenwood]

Vlado, If I had one, I'd make sure it moved. But right now it is great ski weather.

[kenlyco]

[quote="Django"]I agree we are all used to the D. I didn't even know about the H or the Cavaliers until I joined up here a few years ago and really started digging into the details of this stuff.

All are Awsome....

[famvburg]

Far from it. Still a whole different airframe.

Isn't the H half of a P-82?

Steve

[Hal B]

Isn't the H half of a P-82?

Steve

The fuselage on the P-82 is more closely related to the NA-105 type (XP51-F, G & J) than the "H".

I'll admit the "H" isn't quite as pretty as the earlier "D", but it's still a cool airplane. The ultimate version of the design.