Need Info: Beck P-51A "Precious Metal" N8082U

[DH82EH]

I'd like to see one flown with the skis you can see under the EAA machine.
That would be epic!

Andy

[T J Johansen]

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)

[RacingMustang]

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.

[marine air]

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

[JohnTerrell]

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.

[JohnTerrell]

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:



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:




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):





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):



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

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

[DH82EH]

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

Thanks John

I always appreciate you.

Andy

[RacingMustang]

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

Thanks John

I always appreciate you.

Andy

I'll second that. Thanks John.

[Dan K]

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).





(Tin hat on; trench gun locked & loaded)

[Triplane102]

Thanks from me also, John T!! Does this mean "Polar Bear" can have a merlin & 4 Blade prop. installed, & be painted as P-51B "Shangri La" ?
I Know, I Know, Just some wishful Day Dreaming on my part !!

[Ryan Harris]

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.

[Pogo]

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

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.

[Sopwith]

Yes I would like to say thanks to John T, I had no idea about those details, fantastic to learn. Thanks again.

[Zac Yates]

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.

[marine air]

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.