Warbird Information Exchange

Is there a photo of this Mustang in its current paint livery.

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51regis ... 64415.html

See if this helps.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/su ... 4415.shtml

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

Thanks Dan.

Note the picture of it at Reno with the 5 bladed prop!

Are British markings on a P-51H prototypical?

Not at all, I think they only tested the one but the H never served with the RAF or any other foriegn service that I'm aware of.

What was the reason for the change in main landing gear struts on the H model compared to the D model, was is it based on a weight reduction decision?

That was always the explanation I heard.

_________________
Share your story: Rutgers Oral History Archive http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/

It's marked up as KN987, which was sent to Boscombe Down in the UK for evaluation by the RAF.

5 bladed prop on XP-51G was a failure according to Bob chilton who made the first test flight. Replaced by Aeroprducts unit which gave it stellar performance.
Smaller wheels and spindally legs was part of drastic weight reduction. According to Edgar Schmued, the weight loss program came at US, not British request. His very interesting part in this is found in "Mustang Designer" by Ray Wagner .

_________________
Charles Neely

here is an interesting pic, "borrowed" from "The P-51 Mustang", by Len Morgan (1963); looks to be an official NA photo.



I believe that the smaller wheels were both for weight reduction and to eliminate the need for the crank in the leading edge near the fuselage.

cheers

greg v

Thanks for the photo and further clarification of the weight savings on the H model.

H model sure does look funny on that on the gear though. So does anyone know how many were made?
Scott......

It is my understandng that only 555 H's were completed.
There is much speculation as to why H did not see Korean war service, or even if it could, given its percieved "light weight". However, it should be noted that the Pilot's manual seems to indicate that its role in the immediate post WWII era was emphasised towards the ground attack role. Given its outstanding load carrying capabilities, I think it probably would have done as good or better than D's did. The reason may have had more to do with the limited number available AND the fact that RR wanted way too much money (lisencing fees) for Packard to continue manufacuring the -9 engines once Lend Lease was over.

Further, I think the reason for deletion of the wing "crank" (NAA docs call this area "the Expanded Leading Edge" - Mustang I thru P-51K)was the fact that smaller wheel allowed its dismisal, along with the fact that the airfoil was changed. So, it may be a chicken or the egg situation. Another myth surounds the perception that the h's wing was significantly thinner than earlier a/c. Dimensionally it is near identical in physical thickness. Only when one adds the slightly deeper chord does it change the aerodynamic thicness ratio, but even then were only talking 1" greater chord.

_________________
Charles Neely

The reason why they didn't send the "H" to Korea was, as I have read somewhere, that there weren't enough spare parts to keep longer operations going on. For the "D" this was a different situation, because the Air Force was buying back civilian Mustangs and canabalizing them for spare parts. After all, there were enough "D"s around.