Warbird Information Exchange

There you go. I think part of the URL got cut off when you copied it.

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

There seems to be an effort here to relate the XP-51 at the EAA Museum to the prototype NA-73X (and these two have been confused for each other numerous times). They are however quite a bit different. The XP-51 at the EAA Museum was built within the British order for Mustang I's (i.e., the very first production batch of Mustangs), and thus not a prototype. It was one of two of the early Mustang I's that were kept by the USAAF for evaluation and re-designated as XP-51's (the EAA Museum's XP-51 was the 4th Mustang to roll off production, following the prototype NA-73X, and built identical to the first Mustangs sent to the British).

The EAA's XP-51 would have looked much like this when originally completed at North American (but with armament). The aircraft in this photo happens to be the very first production Mustang (the very first one produced following the NA-73X) as indicated by the British serial number 'AG345' (the EAA's XP-51 had, originally, the British serial number of 'AG348'). Due to further developments following the NA-73X, this aircraft, the very first one following the NA-73X, didn't fly until 6 months after the NA-73X.



By comparison, this is the NA-73X (the original/only prototype), which has been long gone:



And here is a great (NASA) photo of the EAA Museum's aircraft when with the NACA at Langley Field (just shy of '42). Note the later extended carb intake.

I personally have a hard time finding the difference between those Mustangs, P-40s and Spitfires that are built around a few original parts and a data plate from the flying Mustangs, P-40s and Spitfires that have had nearly every piece of structure and skin replaced. Which is most of the flyers..and those that haven't been soon will be... Be glad there are people willing to invest in both...regardless of what they call them...

My mistake.

_________________
May all your bent wings be F2G Corsairs!

Thanks for the history, John. You're quite the Mustang expert.

One of my favorite of NA-73X...

To add to what Tim said, I'm curious, what practical difference it would make in the lives of anyone if the warbird community made a concerted effort clearly specify what percentage of each airframe was from the factory or not? Why is this a "cause?"

I'm all for honesty, and I'm even a fan of originality. In practice though it frankly makes little or no difference in anyone's life.

I've got to post an 'unpopular' response. Probably will regret it but what else is new.


Nothing personal Tim, just a general response, but I hear and read all the time how I should be glad or grateful that certain owners do what they do with warbirds ... Why? I ask should I need to feel grateful. I can assure you there's NO owners out there that give a rats *ss how I feel and are certainly not doing anything to a warbird for my benefit. Do I appreciate that there's people who invest in things that I have an interest in? Of course!!! and I wish them all the best, but I choose to feel grateful and appreciative on my own accord and not because I feel someone thinks I should. Just wanted to state this for once. Probably catch some h*ll for it.


I tend to agree with this statement to an extent. No one's demanding a warbird owner to honest and open to anyone about anything. It's really no one's business but his/hers, but to be blatantly dishonest is simply not cool, especially at an airshow he/her has chosen to attend, no matter if it's his dime or the show's dime. Can an owner be dishonest? Of course!!!, it's his world he lives in, but in my world I don't care who you are or what you own, if your going to be dishonest about anything, your credibility is zero. I've stood right next to owners/operators/pilots and overheard them state information about their airplane that I knew for a fact was clearly untrue. But I certainly wasn't going to call them out on anything. Not my thing (other than here lol)

To state again: I appreciate and am grateful because I'm willing, not because I should.

Just so I can feel I had the right to put my foot in my mouth here on WIX again lol, I financially donate and financially support a few warbird causes, as well as spend far too much time posting old photos on this nutty forum. Every now and then I guess a little rant is warranted.

_________________
“With bottomless pockets...anything is possible”

To be fair, I think the quote was "be glad." You can take it as an edict or you can just take it as "how about look at things as half full?" I'm extremely "glad" that there are brave entrepreneurs and organizations who are willing to go through such expense to build brand new parts for 75 year old aircraft to fly. I'm even more "glad" that there are individuals who have enough disposable income and interest that these entrepreneurs can actually have a viable business doing so. I just have never understood the desire to try to devalue these amazing achievements by expecting them to have to have some sort of a public disclaimer like that of a pharmaceutical commercial. It makes no difference in anyones life if we refer to something as Yegan's "de Havilland Mosquito" or Yegan's "newly manufactured twin engine aircraft that resembles a de Havilland Mosquito, and also incorporates X amount of original parts from an original de Havilland Mosquito."

You have a Ford truck, you get in a crash, for whatever reason it has sentimental value so you pay to have the entire front end and engine rebuilt. It may have factory parts, it might have new manufactured parts of greater quality than OEM. In the end, when some random person on the street says "hey nice Ford truck," is it your responsibility to say "I appreciate the comment, but it's important for me to educate you to the fact that although this looks like a Ford truck, it's actually reproduction of a Ford truck assembled from a conglomeration of some original Ford truck parts as well as some aftermarket parts?"

"Glad" "grateful" "appreciative" "honored" take your pick, as it has nothing to do with being fair as much as it is making a point using Tim's quote as the base and not the direction. Your points are well taken and nothing really to debate. All makes sense to me as well. My point of your analogy being you have a Ford truck that's just another generic Fold truck off the dealer lot with a generic paint job. You decide to re-paint it to look like a fire truck when it clearly isn't, yet you go around claiming it is. And your not a fireman nor is your truck used as one and never was used as one.

In general once again without pointing fingers at anyone. Don't claim your airplane is a combat veteran when it clearly isn't, has no parts from a combat vet, never served in a combat zone, never even left the states, has not one part that's original and not even an original dataplate. That's it really. Got nothing to do with anything else or whether I'm "glad" or not.

And to be fair. I know and have met a good amount of airplane owners, pilots, restorers, A&P guys etc. over the years and 9 out of 9.5 of them are stand up folks ... but ... every now and then, and luckily for me rarely, there's that one dude who's full of it and BS'ing through his teeth.

_________________
“With bottomless pockets...anything is possible”

That's all I heard

Can I interest you in a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron convertible previously owned by John Voight?

Not only did you read it all, you heard it all ...

Got any Corsair parts. I'm restoring a combat vet.

_________________
“With bottomless pockets...anything is possible”

Nothing personal taken...and for clarity...I don't expect you to be glad that people invest their money. 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.

what color are the wheelwells painted

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

I wouldn't expect you would either Tim.


And the same internet jockies who seem to be the one's bantering the nonsense that people "should be glad" there's people investing in warbirds.
Enthusiasts should (or can choose to) be glad on their own accord, but not because someone tells them they should. Big difference.

I'll tone this statement down: "I've stood right next to owners/operators/pilots and overheard them state information about their airplane that I knew for a fact was clearly untrue."
It only happened once while I was in listening distance and it was an airplane owned and operated by a well know organization (that I happen to financially support one of their airplanes) and not a specific owner. The guy was full of it.

_________________
“With bottomless pockets...anything is possible”

Gentlemen, move down a stool and return to the topic. I'm buyin'!!









Now then...WHEN a Beck P-51A rolls out of a hangar again, in what colors would you like her to appear?

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