# P-51D "Creamer's Dream"



## al49 (Nov 15, 2015)

Hi everybody,
I just ordered Tamiya 1:32 kit for P-51D and I would like to replicate the above subject that belonged to 332nd AAFFG based in Ramitelli, Italy in 1945 and I will appreciate if someone could help me understanding a few points.







- Was the above belonging to the "early" or the "Late" production (Block 20 onwards)? If I understood well, there were a number of differences in seat, instrument panel, gun sight etc.

- Which pattern on tyres?

- Which propeller?

Additionally, if anybody can share pictures on that subject, will be very much welcome.

Many thanks in advance
Alberto


----------



## drgondog (Nov 15, 2015)

al49 said:


> Hi everybody,
> I just ordered Tamiya 1:32 kit for P-51D and I would like to replicate the above subject that belonged to 332nd AAFFG based in Ramitelli, Italy in 1945 and I will appreciate if someone could help me understanding a few points.
> 
> View attachment 305759
> ...



Unless you have a serial number of the ship, that photograph doesn't tell you about the model based on the above view.


----------



## al49 (Nov 15, 2015)

Very good answer, many thanks.
Alberto


----------



## al49 (Nov 15, 2015)

Found on the net a picture where the propeller of a sister plane can be seen




Seems to me to be an Hamilton Standard with cuffed blades, is it correct?
Many thanks
Alberto


----------



## GregP (Nov 15, 2015)

It is a Hamilton-Standard if you believe the decal on the prop, meaning this is a P-51D made in Inglewood, CA (not a K made in Dallas, TX). I have never seen the dash number for Creamer's Dream, but have heard it was an "early P-51D" more than once. Can't be all THAT early because it has the dorsal fin. The really early ones didn't. But "early" probably does mean a V-1650-3 engine. That's about all I can tell.


----------



## al49 (Nov 16, 2015)

That's very good, many thanks.
Alberto


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2015)

Here is a comment when googling on Creamer's Dream
More info...

Submitted by Anonymous Tipster on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 1:38pm.


"Lt. Charles White (301st FS, 332nd FG, Tuskegee Airmen) was one of the first 332nd fighter group pilots to fly a P-51D. After joining the group as a replacement pilot, he had received a war-weary P-51C. White's complaints about its unreliability led his commanding officer to allocate this early P-51D directly to Lt. White. So inspired by the allocation White painted a nude on both sides of the new fighter's fuselage, with a rear view to port and front view to starboard."

If true it is more likely than not that it is a -5-NA.

If so, the following can be true:
1. From 44-13253 through 44-13902 all P-51D-5-NA were delivered to AAF withouth to Dorsal Fin Filet and ALL subsequent P-51D's were delivered with the DFF installed at the factory (~ July 1944 and beyond).
2. All P-51Ds and B/C's in combat ops had the DFF kits (104-25001 for B/C and 109-25001 for the D/K) installed in the field.
3. All P-51Ds through the -25 (both NA and NT) had the Hamilton Standard (cuffed) prop, ALL P-51K's delivered from Dallas had the Aero Products prop (un cuffed) but many K props were replaced with HamStandard props due to vibration issues.

I expanded the pic to see if I could read the data block but could not make out the serial number. It did not seem like a pic of a 'new' P-51D as the data block was pretty worn.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2015)

Greg - the factory blocks to receive the 1650-7 engine to replace -3 were:

P-51B-10-NA 43-7113 (#801 of NA-104) and all subsequent P-51B and D-NA's
P-51C-5-NT 42-103379 (#401 of NA-103) and all subsequent P-51C and P-51D/K NT's

In the field they were often swapped during engine overhaul and changes.

The above is also the Effectivity for the first NAA Factory installed 85 gallon fuselage tanks at Inglewood and Dallas.

The effectivity for the factory installed DFF was:

P-51D-5-NA 44-13902 accepted 6/12/44
P-51C-10-NT 44-11753 accepted 7/9/44

Something confusing in the Creamer narrative I posted above could put a totally new question on the table. He apparently was complaining about a War Weary P-51C. The first WW (officially declared WW) that I can find for either the 4th FG or 355th FG was November, 1944 - both with 700+ hours. Both of those groups were flying the respective WW P-51B/C's for more than 4 months earlier than the 332nd was even operational at the end of June. Even if Creamer inherited a P-51C from another group (entirely possible) then being 'one of the first' to receive a new D means July 1944 and the C could not be WW at that time. That would make it for sure a P-51D-5-NA as there were no D-10s in ETO/MTO before August.


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2015)

I KNEW you'd have more info on it. I was going to hazard that it was probably a -15 or earlier, but I didn't really have enough to go on. You are much more versed in P-51 lore than I am. 

When I turn a wrench on one, I usually don't know the dash number unless I happen to notice the data plate. If you are in a wing or center fuselage, you don't usually notice. Mostly when I get to wrench on one, it is some emergency or a friend who needs a specific hand with a particular task.

I've ridden in "Lady Alice" and can say it's a very beautiful P-51D, but cannot tell you the dash number. Now that I'm interested, I'll find out the dash number next weekend. I'm usually more interested in talking to Ken, the owner.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 17, 2015)

Lady Alice is a P-51D-30-NT 45-11633 one of the very last Mustangs ever built by NAA.


----------



## grampi (Nov 17, 2015)

Speaking of building Mustang kits, I love building them myself, and 1:32 is my preferred scale (they are much easier to detail than the smaller scales). I also love admiring them when I'm done because the Mustang is such a beautiful airplane. I'm currently building a re-issue of the old Monogram Phantom Mustang re-released by Revell. While not as accurate or detailed as the Tamiya kits, this kit is nice because of all of the working features....motorized retractable landing gear and prop, and dropping bombs make this kit very unique. I would also like to build the 1:32 Tamiya Mustang if I can find the kit with "metalized" outer surfaces. I don't know if this particular kit is still produced or not, but I seem to be having a hard time finding one. They are rather expensive (over $200), but they are well worth it if you like lots of detail...and in my opinion, the Tamiya kits are the best out there...


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2015)

And it is kept immaculately by Wags. There isn't a bug on it that doesn't get removed right after flight.

And Ken always has time to talk with someone ... unless he's going flying, that is.


----------



## Tourist (Dec 1, 2015)

al49 said:


> - Was the above belonging to the "early" or the "Late" production (Block 20 onwards)? If I understood well, there were a number of differences in seat, instrument panel, gun sight etc.
> 
> - Which pattern on tyres?
> 
> ...



Hi Alberto, Creamer's Dream was a P-51D-15-NA, so it's a "middle" production plane.
The propeller should be the standard cuffed HS prop.
I believe it had the diamond tread pattern but it is extremely hard to tell from the pictures I have, so I cannot be 100% sure.
The wire antenna can be seen which means the range receiver (parts D7 D10) was not removed from the plane.
With the D-15 there is a high likelihood that the seat was the Shick-Johnson (D32, D38, D39, A3) but again without a picture one cannot be sure.
The drop tanks are the 110 gal. type (only included in Tamiya's "Pacific Theater" boxing).
For the instrument panel use parts D-31 D49.
The gunsight is the N-9 (L2 L3).
There is no APS-13 on this plane so use part D-2 instead of D-1.
Do not use parts B-1 and D-53 behind the headrest.
Other than that follow the instructions for version "B", it will give you the closest thing to a D-15 you can have out of the box.
For more info you may find helpful here's what I wrote when the Tamiya kit came out:
http://ww2aircraft.net/forum/model-kit-reviews/tamiyas-1-32-51d-box-review-29854.html


----------



## drgondog (Dec 2, 2015)

You say P-51D-15, what was the serial number?


----------



## al49 (Dec 2, 2015)

Many thanks tourist for the very detailed information.
Do you have a drawing of the 110 gal. drop tank? May be I can try to make them if they aren't available as aftermarket items.
Alberto


----------



## Tourist (Dec 2, 2015)

drgondog said:


> You say P-51D-15, what was the serial number?



I don't know the serial number and it doesn't matter.
There are clues on the few "Creamer's Dream" pictures that identify it as a P-51D-15-NA.
This is not surprising as most of the 332nd FG P-51D's were D-15's.

Alberto, I believe Lone Star Models sells resin 1/32 110gal. tanks.


----------



## al49 (Dec 3, 2015)

Alberto said:


> Thanks again.
> I sent an enquiry to Lone Star Models to get a guess on freight cost, wait for their answer.
> 
> Reading the very good report you did on the kit on Jan. 2011 I noticed the comment about the "curved DFF" that very like will apply to my subject, any picture of this one?
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 3, 2015)

tourist said:


> I don't know the serial number and it doesn't matter.
> There are clues on the few "Creamer's Dream" pictures that identify it as a P-51D-15-NA.
> This is not surprising as most of the 332nd FG P-51D's were D-15's.
> 
> Alberto, I believe Lone Star Models sells resin 1/32 110gal. tanks.



*Not in the picture above, nor is there any reference I can find to support your statements above. *
There is only one external feature that is discernible to the practiced eye that differentiates a P-51D-15 from a P-51D-10 and I already mentioned it. Having said that - all succeeding blocks also had that feature.

So what did You note on 'other' photos absent serial number that lead you to conclude P-51D-15? And BTW the 332nd were supplied with P-51B/C as well as P-51D-5-NA, -10-NA, -15-NA, -20-NA as well as Dallas NT's. Had they Just received (mostly) -15's they would not have arrived in numbers in MTO and 332nd until approximately late November, 1944.

What is your source for that claim?


----------



## Tourist (Dec 3, 2015)

al49 said:


> Thanks again.
> Reading the very good report you did on the kit on Jan. 2011 I noticed the comment about the "curved DFF" that very like will apply to my subject, any picture of this one?
> many thanks
> Alberto



Alberto, go to page two of my 2011 kit review, I've added more photos of the curved DFF.
It does indeed apply to "Creamer's Dream".


----------



## Tourist (Dec 3, 2015)

drgondog said:


> *Not in the picture above, nor is there any reference I can find to support your statements above. *
> So what did You note on 'other' photos absent serial number that lead you to conclude P-51D-15



All the other photos of Creamer's Dream I have are taken at the same angle as the one posted in this thread but fortunately the crew moves around and some important features become visible.
The gun camera opening is indeed square placing the plane at D-15 and subsequent.
The fuel and pressure lines for the drop tanks have the early configuration, meaning it is not a D-25 or a D-30.
We are now left with D-15 and D-20 as possibilities.
The early canopy release handle makes it a D-15 but since the canopy could have been switched I looked at the oil tank filler door visible on one of the pictures, it is the early style confirming the D-15 block.
The absence of the hydraulic tank door in front of the windscreen or the fuel strainer door on the rear lower cowl are the last proof needed.
Creamer's Dream was a P-51D-15-NA.

The closest Dallas build Mustang to a P-51D-15 would be a P-51K-10 and I am not aware of any of them being in the 332nd FG in 1945.

I know there were other P-51D production blocks in the 332nd FG but at the time the photos were taken (March 1945) pictures show the majority of their P-51D's were D-15's.
It's not very scientific bu it provides a context.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2015)

IMO - you outlined all the external changes from D-10 that I was aware of except the fuel drain access door on rear cowling. For grins I'll hunt the drawing number to see the effectivities but it certainly would not have been limited to only Inglewood 51's.

Just looked - take a look at the Effectivity Block Notes - upper LH corner, zone 8, 109-25001 (S51 ref for image 000000130 in Folder "S")

*USED ON P-51D-10-NT SUBS
USED ON P-51D-15-NA SUBS
ALSO ON LAST 600 OF BLOCK P-51D-10-NA
" " " 200 OF BLOCK P-51D-5-NT*

Taking it to the Next Assembly Dwg 106-31001 (Ref R159 Effectivity Notes 2. 3 - Zone 1) for 25001-3 Fin

*NAA 109 44-14253 Sub, NA 111 44-11153 Sub.----> same blocks as above - just specifying serial number instead of Contract ship #*

That would place the 'Straight' DFF into production starting on #201 through #800 of P-51D-10= 44-14253 
and would start the Dallas production with the P-51D-5-NT #1 starting at 44-11152. 

The 200 D-5-NT preceded the K series, then 1500 K's were built plus 160 F-6K's (44-11353-44-12852) and then the rest of the Dallas line finished up the P-51D-20NT through 45-11742 plus one P-51M 45-11743.

Personally, I believe the Drawing Effectivities which means that the straight DFF seen on any P-51D/K during WWII started with P-51D-10-NA 44-14253 and P-51D-5-NT 44-11153. Stated another way Only the P-51D-5-NA through the 200th P-51D-10-NA had the curved DFF.

Having said this I have seen mid range P-51D-10-NA's that do not appear to have perfectly straight DFF making me pause and speculate that some got out of the barn after the Effectivity Block break. 

Back to Creamer's ship. It Could very well be a -15-NA, but there is nothing definitive to state with certainty that it was a -15 absent the serial number as the P-51K-5 and Subsequent also had square aperture w/plastic cover..

I am also curious regarding when the 332nd first received D's. I have a hard time believing that they did not get early -10's or damaged/repaired -5's, but there was discrimination and not out of the question that somebody at 15th AF level Logistics delayed P-51Ds.. 

I'll take a look at Baugher's site as well as Aviationarcheology.com


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2015)

Searching Accidents and MACRs the losses started on Dec 15, 1944 with a D-15 and then the distribution was

D-5 - 2
D-15- 8
D-20- 2
K-1 - 2

Not sure how to grab the Mustang allocations for 332nd but doesn't seem to be much activity on P-51D/K until December 1944.


----------



## Tourist (Dec 4, 2015)

drgondog said:


> Personally, I believe the Drawing Effectivities which means that the straight DFF seen on any P-51D/K during WWII started with P-51D-10-NA 44-14253 and P-51D-5-NT 44-11153. Stated another way Only the P-51D-5-NA through the 200th P-51D-10-NA had the curved DFF.



Drgondog, you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Your methodology is flawed.
Belief has nothing to do with it, all the photos of P-51D-10's and D-15's clearly show the swayback DFF, that's a fact.
If what you see in the drawings does not match the photographic evidence it just means that you're missing a piece of information, not that the photographs are wrong. 




drgondog said:


> Back to Creamer's ship. It Could very well be a -15-NA, but there is nothing definitive to state with certainty that it was a -15 absent the serial number as the P-51K-5 and Subsequent also had square aperture w/plastic cover..
> 
> I am also curious regarding when the 332nd first received D's. I have a hard time believing that they did not get early -10's or damaged/repaired -5's...



Creamer's Dream was a P-51D-15 and I never said that the 332nd FG received only P-51D-15's.

I cannot continue this back and forth, it takes too much time.
Everything I said can easily be verified by anyone willing to look at period pictures.

Regards,
Christian.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2015)

tourist said:


> Drgondog, you cannot see the forest for the trees.
> Your methodology is flawed.
> 
> *Prove that anecdotal evidence trumps NAA design drawings - ESPECIALLY since you were the first to bring them up?*
> ...



I am now officially amused Christian. You were the first one to reference NAA 104 and 109 DFF Drawings

I went to the trouble of actually reviewing the DFF drawings, the Effectivities and quoted the data, the drawing numbers and the Smithsonian Index scheme for YOU to verify what I posted. You didn't like that. I hurt your feelers, I guess.

"I am fatigued in your response. Is that J'suis Fatigue?"

I pointed out to you that NAA drawings SPECIFICALLY Place the new straight line 109-25001-3 DFF having an effectivity starting in the early phase of the P-51D-10-NA and P-51K-1-NT - NOT the P-51D-15NA that you were trying to BS everybody to substantiate your "Opinion'. So what do you say to NAA?

NOW, having said this I Can give you a POTENTIAL explanation for reasons to continue the 109-25001-1 DFF on later models than P-51D-10-NA 44-14253. IF NAA had an inventory of -1's, they easily could have written a Change E.O. to PERMIT NAA Manufacturing/Production group with the authority to use them up - the cut over to the straight DFF when the curved ones were all gone. The AAF and NAA Engineering would have bought off on it. I have zero proof that this occurred. I have 100% proof regarding the ENGINEERING Effectivity. You have zero proof for your own theories - so far. It's OK to be wrong - I was wrong about the B/C and early D curve as you pointed out.

But, Since you threw out the P-51 Drawings card to support your arguments -

The ball is NOW in your court to a.) Provide proof that NAA did NOT use 25001-3 per the Effectivity blocks I cited, b.) and, that the serial number of Creamer's Dream is NOT a P-5D-10/P-51K-10 through end of P-51D series.


----------



## Tourist (Dec 4, 2015)

drgondog said:


> I am now officially amused Christian. You were the first one to reference NAA 104 and 109 DFF Drawings
> 
> I went to the trouble of actually reviewing the DFF drawings, the Effectivities and quoted the data, the drawing numbers and the Smithsonian Index scheme for YOU to verify what I posted. You didn't like that. I hurt your feelers, I guess.
> 
> ...



Now you are being offensive and you reason like a child.
The DFF proof is in all the P-51D-15 period pictures, they are NOT anecdotal.
You do realize that all one needs to do is look at P-51D-15 photos (as well as P-51K-1 through K-10's included) to see that they all have a swayback DFF, don't you?
Denying the consistent photographic evidence makes you wrong, period.
I am not throwing out the P-51 Drawings "card", I'm saying that when your findings are contradicted by the facts it means that you're missing a piece of the puzzle or that your interpretation of the data is lacking.
If it is the first time you notice a discrepancy between NAA documents and photo evidence you're in for a surprise.
That's where true research comes in.
It took you three years to realize that I was right about the existence of the swayback DFF (a rather well know fact amongst people who research Mustangs), maybe by 2018 you'll get this too.

I have already explained why Creamer's Dream was a D-15, you even pretended to understand what I was talking about.
The other possibility I mentioned would be a K-10 but there is zero evidence for the 332nd FG flying K-10's in early 1945 and the canopy would be wrong.
Once you factor in the fact that early 1945 332nd pictures show MOSTLY D-15's, you have the necessary context to draw conclusions.

I'm not sure what your poor attempt at French was all about but yes, tu me fatigues.
Done here.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2015)

tourist said:


> Now you are being offensive and you reason like a child.
> The DFF proof is in all the P-51D-15 period pictures, they are NOT anecdotal.
> 
> *See below*
> ...



*OK. I don't have the pic you are alluding to so can't comment regarding what you see or think you see to draw your conclusions.

Curved DFF, Slightly bowed DFF, Straight DFF all exist in Blocks 5, Mods to Block 5, Block 10 and Block 15 for NA series as well as equivalent Dallas Blocks.

Square Gun Camera Aperatures exist in not only -15 NA but also -1K-NT. I would not be surprised to see same on late model D-10's but I have not. Image posted below of OSB 44-11194 P-51D-5-NT. *


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2015)

I also have a DFF that I can agree is a swayback and appears to have a closer approximation for the 109-25001-1 shown on the drawing.

The effectivity for the 'non' swayback 109-25001-3 are as shown below. Note the comment of 
"Also the last 600 of P-51D-10NA"
" " " " 200 of P-51D-5NT"

This should mean to 'Christian' what it means to me- 
The new dash number P-51D Dorsal Fin Fillet applies to every P-51D from D-10NA 44-14253 through every Inglewood Block of P-51D's following 44-14252 and all the Dallas built P-51D (and K's) after serial number 44-11752. 

That includes all the P-51D-15-NA's which follow the -10


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 7, 2015)

Dragondog,
Is that last shot a D or H model tail? 413253?
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Dragondog,
> Is that last shot a D or H model tail? 413253?
> Cheers,
> Biff



Biff - that is P-51D-5-NA, #1 in the Block. NAA retained it for most of WWII, modified as noted with the first, or one of the first DFF's as well as the rudder cap to explore yaw stability improvements. It was restored and returned to AAF and was lost with 35th FBW in Korea - 1952

One of the real mysteries to me is that the Brits modified one of the early merlin Mods, AL 963, with both a DFF as well as a mod to increase the chord of the vert stab to increase area in Jan/February 1943. Improvements were cited in a major meeting between NAA, Rolls and RAF in February, 1943 but I have found no trace of any P-51B so modified prior to the detail DFF drawings completed in late March, 1944.

The photo above seems pegged to the XP-51F flight tests (including the XP-51G and XP-51J variations) leading to the installation on the P-51H. 

NACA took delivery of 44-13257 in December, 1944 - which was similarly modified but I have not found any flight test data on it. It was designated NACA 102


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 7, 2015)

It is a curious thing that the fillet and vertical tail extension were both tested but not both adopted until the H. I have seen the mod on D's as well as the Cavalier 2 seaters. Does it make a noticeable difference in flight characteristics (vert tail ext)? Seems like an easy mod both in the field as well as on the line.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2015)

The DFF was adopted as a Mod for all existing B's in the ETO, all D's preceding the 44-13903 and did make a difference along with metal elevators and Reverse Boost Rudder tab in both Yaw and dive stability at high speed.

The H had the DFF in production and the rudder cap at ~ #50, but the major difference for yaw stability was extending the fuselage 13" and lowering the fuselage tank capacity to 50 gallons. My father said that the takeoff at full power were much more 'benign' with respect to rudder control

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tourist (Dec 7, 2015)

drgondog said:


> *OK. I don't have the pic you are alluding to so can't comment regarding what you see or think you see to draw your conclusions.
> 
> Curved DFF, Slightly bowed DFF, Straight DFF all exist in Blocks 5, Mods to Block 5, Block 10 and Block 15 for NA series as well as equivalent Dallas Blocks.
> 
> Square Gun Camera Aperatures exist in not only -15 NA but also -1K-NT. I would not be surprised to see same on late model D-10's but I have not. Image posted below of OSB 44-11194 P-51D-5-NT. *



Oh boy, here we go again.
We've been talking about two issues here.
1- the block number of Creamer's Dream.
2- when the change from swayback to straight DFF actually occured.
_
1-Let's start with Creamer's Dream.
By confirming that the Fuel Strainer door was already on K-10's you've just proven that Creamer's Dream was indeed a P-51D-15-NA, that was the only other possibility left, thank you.
You now claim that the gun camera opening was already square on the D-5 NT block by showing a supposed D-5NT picture.
It is false and your photo does NOT show a P-51D-5NT, nice try.
If you insist it is a D-5NT, prove it.

Here is a real P-51D-5NT see the nice round gun camera window?




PROOF; serial number:






Now, let's prove "Creamer's Dream's" identity once and for all:

-Square gun camera port and no fuel strainer door:




-Early canopy handle, N-9 gunsight, no APS-13 (circumstantial).




-Early fuel and pressure lines for the drop tanks.




-Early oil tank tank access door.





It is a P-51D-15-NA, period.
And just in case you claim it could be a K-5, here another nice round gun camera port on a K-5:






_
2-Now the DFF.
I call it swayback because that's how Charles Neely who was the first to notice and discuss the different dorsal fin fillets years ago called it.
Charlie is in many ways the father of modern P-51research so the term stuck.
If you want to call it curved, 109-25001, -1 or whatever else, that's fine by me it's all the same thing.
All your pictures show the swayback DFF, confirming it was still there on D-10's D-15's and only became straight with the D-20-NA, regardless of what you think the drawings say.
If you cannot tell the difference between a curved and a straight DFF in your own photos, print them and put a ruler on the DFF, you'll see immediately that none of them is straight, I invite anyone reading this to do the same thing if they have any doubt.

Here are photos directly contradicting your claim about the straight DFF being on as early as P-51D-10's in Inglewood and P-51D-5NT's in Dallas (or K-1's, or K-5's your claims keep changing).
We have a P-51D-10, a P-51D-15, a P-51K-1, a P-51K-5 and a P-51K-10, swayback DFF on all:






















I think that some Pacific based K-5's might have been retrofitted with a straight DFF but that's the closest as I've seen to any of your claims regarding Dallas build P-51's being true.



_
It's not a contest but for the record, I also have the NAA drawings and a fairly large collection of NAA Weekly Service News (including the ones you mentioned with the summaries of changes).
On top of that I have the so called "Dallas" NAA drawings set that includes drawings for the D-25, D-30 and P-51M.
Then there are dozens of T.O's Reports, over 60 Mustang related manuals, thousands of photographs (quite a few from private collections), books, magazines etc...
More importantly, for years I have exchanged information and compared notes with extremely knowledgeable Mustang enthusiasts in places such as the P-51SIG or privately.
Does this mean I have everything about the P-51?
Of course not, far from it, that's why I always compare the data to period pictures when possible.
Sometimes it's the only way to find out there's a missing piece in the puzzle.
You ignore photo evidence concentrating solely on the data, I try to corroborate everything.

There is no point in continuing this exchange, we're turning in circles and I don't want to waste any more time.
We both said what we had to say.
The pictures you provided actually prove my point, thank you.
By now, Alberto and the other forum members have enough elements to form their own opinion about "Creamer's Dream" and the DFF's.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2015)

Yo, tourist - the P-51D-5-NT of McComas is serial number 44-11280? is a HIGHER number D-5-NT that I showed you above by nearly 90 ships.

The photo below of OSB 44-11194 Super Sal II is an earlier production serial number than McComas' ship above. The serial number is visible in the data block

The P-51D-10-NA 44-14095 is LOWER -10-NA than 44-14253, confirmed by the Effectivity Block of 109-25001-3 as the STARTING number for the new DFF... which I posted for you to help you clear up any misunderstandings. 

If you are in the mood to go hunting, quit picking your toes as aiming points? Walking efficiently will be more difficult.

I know Neely and respect him and if you can subjugate yourself to torture you may find some discussions between us in which we Both learned. I know Gruenhagen and have been engaged for some time over a range of subjects including the 85 gallon tank history, mods in US Depots and mods in BAD2 Warton and 8th/9th AF operational history. I have learned from him as he has learned from me as our sources and backgrounds are quite different. 

Your vision of curved/swayback and straight are confusing to say the least but your repeated insistence to ignore NAA documents in order to make sense out of your viewing perspectives are just plain silly.

At any rate - pick better rebuttal examples.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2015)

Here is the original DFF for the P-51D completed 25 March 1944. The Fin appears 'curved' but there is no radius specified for tooling or manufacturing and QA. The -1 effectivity was for NA 109 #1 (n=by future retrofit) through NA 109 #1000 = 44-14252.

There is no 'straight' DFF represented, but there is a 109-25001-3 DFF with effectivity NA109 #1001 44-14253 and above. 

The discussion about differences between 'swayback', 'curved' and 'straight' is a fantasy of optics but not the Engineering.

From a manufacturing POV, 'breaking or forming with press or stamping machine' a symmetrical shape like the fin is not easy to maintain tolerances. To actually define a radius - or straight line to the top surface- would be risky from a QA/QC standpoint when a.) either would suit aerodynamically or structurally, and b.) would suit from ant installation/manufacturing process POV.


----------



## Tourist (Dec 7, 2015)

drgondog said:


> Yo, tourist - the P-51D-5-NT of McComas is serial number 44-11280? is a HIGHER number D-5-NT that I showed you above by nearly 90 ships.
> 
> The photo below of OSB 44-11194 Super Sal II is an earlier production serial number than McComas' ship above. The serial number is visible in the data block
> 
> ...



Look, a late P-51D-10 with a swayback DFF!




Did I mention that both DFF's were manufactured differently with different parts? 

You are one sore looser and a sorry character. 
You keep deflecting left and right to cloud the rather simple issues.
I have established Creamer's Dream ID beyond any doubt and I have shown both DFF's and the appropriate blocks for them.
The photos prove it, the rest is just you dancing around the facts.
Goodbye.


----------



## GregP (Dec 8, 2015)

According to Planes of Fame pilots who have flown both the standard tail and the extended fin, they can't tell the difference between the two unless they look at it before flying it. I have specifically asked as I was curious. They DID allow that it might make a slight difference at low speed, just at stall. So it might be the better tail for carrier ops. if you were so inclined ( nobody really has done so with any regularity), but in the normal flight regime, you can't tell any difference in flight.

One of our pilots frequently flies a 2-seat TF-51 with a low tail and reports no difference between the high tail and the low tail in his opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 8, 2015)

Tourist, why don't you quit being such a douchebag and back it down a notch


----------



## GregP (Dec 8, 2015)

It appears to me as if the "curve" comes from forming the rear part upwards. Maybe they simply did another straight hit from a press brake on the later one after making the part. I have done a few parts where I didn't like the slight curve and simply made one more press, and it would also be self-centering since there IS an existing "trough" for the press to fit into. I don't really know, but a second press operation is somewhat common in restoration after making the original part. All you do is let the upward-curved back end stick out of the press brake (hanging in the air) and it isn't affected by the second press operation.

Don't know for sure, but it's one explanation, and we DO make the occasional P-51 dorsal fin at the shop.

Another plausible explanation is to go from forming the fins with hardened Aluminum (as in 2024-T3) to O-Aluminum and then doing the heat treating. The soft Aluminum might not make much of a bend due to the upward curve at the back. Depends on the mold or the technique used. A VERY plausible explanation is that some employee simply found a better way to do it and it got "standardized." That happens all the time in restoration, so it can happen in production as well.

I have even discovered a technique or two on my own from just trying something different after a few repetitive failures made me try another technique. It isn't uncommon.

And ... one point ... just because it works with Aluminum doesn't mean the same method works with steel. Steel is generally more ductile than hardened Aluminum ( not that nay DFFs were steel ...).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## al49 (Dec 8, 2015)

Hi,
I'm happy that I started such interesting technical discussion.
From my modelling view point I can be satisfied as well because:
- Kit's wings shows a suquare camera port
- I'm trying to obtain 110 gallons tanks from Lone Star Models
But I have a question, could someone point on picture the position of that "Fuel Strainer Door"?
Many thanks
Alberto


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> It appears to me as if the "curve" comes from forming the rear part upwards. Maybe they simply did another straight hit from a press brake on the later one after making the part. I have done a few parts where I didn't like the slight curve and simply made one more press, and it would also be self-centering since there IS an existing "trough" for the press to fit into. I don't really know, but a second press operation is somewhat common in restoration after making the original part. All you do is let the upward-curved back end stick out of the press brake (hanging in the air) and it isn't affected by the second press operation.
> 
> Don't know for sure, but it's one explanation, and we DO make the occasional P-51 dorsal fin at the shop.
> 
> ...



Having said that I am always curious why the actual drawing for the 109 And 104-25001 DFF were slightly bent on the drawing without a reference to a Radius, or a Note to explain that the part was to be manufactured as a straight edge, but a slight bend was 'acceptable'.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2015)

Finally - here is the Top P-51D Fuselage Installation drawing in which the 109-25001 rolls up to. It shows the P-51D-5 as the original view of the 'no DFF' production run. Around the base of the vert fin is drawn a View A, referenced below, to insert the 109-25001 DFF Assembly by name and Effectivity note [3]. Look closely at the Fin and note that it seems straight for about 1/2 of its leading edge, in contrast to the line shown on the 109-25001-1 part.

Effectivity Note [3.] found in Zone 1 of 106-31001 for the fuselage assembly of fins, doors, fillets, etc, reads as follows:

[3.] USED ON SHIPS NA109 (1001 SUBS)AAF 44-14253 SUBS AND NAA 111 (401 SUBS) AAF 44-11153 SUBS

There are no other DFF Assembly drawings for the P-51D, only for the P-51H. There is no other next Assembly for the 25001-1 Fin Assy other than the 106-31001 Installation Fuselage cover.

You may correctly assume that all swayback, slightly curved, nearly straight and straight 109-25001-3 Fins are what NAA intended to put on the P-51D series after 44-14252.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 8, 2015)

never mind I missed the last post entirely. I figured the DFF mod used for the B/C and the D would be a different mod isn't the fuse a little taller in the B/C than the D because on the early ac it sloped from the rear of the canopy top back to the tail section and D had the ridgeback removed. seems to me the DF for the B/C should be shorter, not as high, different angle.


----------



## GregP (Dec 8, 2015)

For those of you who haven't seen a copy, I'll try to attach a pdf of the Statistical Digest of WWII. It is something like 18Mb, so I'm not sure if it will load. If not, I tried ...

I hasten to point out ... these are USAAF data and do not include the Navy and Marine Corps.

For that, you need another pdf, also attached.

You will note the USAAF and US Navy specifically do not save the same information. The USAAF and Navy have never exactly cooperated with one another.

It isn't all that difficult to find the USAAF aerial victory data, but the individual Navy and marine Corps aerial victory data are not easy to find. You would think the data would be simple and easy to get, wouldn't you?


----------



## Milosh (Dec 8, 2015)

On line, 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a542518.pdf
http://www.history.navy.mil/content...s/naval-aviation/aviation-monographs/nasc.pdf


----------



## Milosh (Dec 8, 2015)

double post


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> never mind I missed the last post entirely. I figured the DFF mod used for the B/C and the D would be a different mod isn't the fuse a little taller in the B/C than the D because on the early ac it sloped from the rear of the canopy top back to the tail section and D had the ridgeback removed. seems to me the DF for the B/C should be shorter, not as high, different angle.



Just the opposite case re: length of DFF. The B/C mod and C-10 production DFF attach to the fuselage at FS 237.5, while the D attaches at 248 - almost 11 inches shorter than the B/C DFF


----------



## al49 (Jan 9, 2016)

As I posted in the modelling session, I reached the point where I must decide if wings of my model need to be puttied or not, what do you think?




Many thanks in advance for any suggestion.
Alberto

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 9, 2016)

Yes they should be. No rivets or panel lines should be visible except the access panels fro the gun bays.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 10, 2016)

The top and bottom surface of the wing from leading edge to about the 35-40% chord point was sprayed and puttied with filler, sanded and painted. The NMF aircraft were sprayed silver on the wings.


----------



## al49 (Jan 10, 2016)

Many thanks.
Besides the two refilling point, that I think will not be covered with putty, on the left wing towards the tip, there is an oval access panel, in your opinion will that be covered as well?
Many thanks
Alberto


----------



## Wurger (Jan 10, 2016)




----------



## fubar57 (Jan 10, 2016)

GregP said:


> For those of you who haven't seen a copy, I'll try to attach a pdf of the Statistical Digest of WWII. It is something like 18Mb, so I'm not sure if it will load. If not, I tried ...
> 
> I hasten to point out ... these are USAAF data and do not include the Navy and Marine Corps.
> 
> ...



Thanks Greg, they worked okay for me.


Geo


----------



## drgondog (Jan 10, 2016)

All removable panels (ammo/gun bay), gun camera access panel, etc - anything that is removed and replaced will show on wing detail.


----------



## al49 (Jan 11, 2016)

Many thanks for your advice.
In the mean time I did an experiment on the spare tail piece: I brushed some Mr Surfacer 500 and, once dry, I sanded with wet paper 500 grit followed by 6000 grit, the output seems good.









Tomorrow I will try to spray on some paint and see the result.
Alberto


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2016)

Remember, only the leading 40% of the wing was filled and sealed and painted over (except for fabric rudder which was also painted (silver for NMF, OD otherwise)


----------



## al49 (Jan 12, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Remember, only the leading 40% of the wing was filled and sealed and painted over (except for fabric rudder which was also painted (silver for NMF, OD otherwise)



Many thanks.
I found this information on a book






and this one on the web:






Both of them seems to show a lot more than 40% but I'm inclined to follow your indication, so where should I stop my putting?
Many thanks
Alberto


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2016)

At the 40% chord line. They were flush rivets all the way in that area, and even though the 'laminar flow airfoil never achieved the hopeful 40%, that area from about the forward spar all the way aft from there was immersed in separated boundary layer. For that region under a separated BL, there is no benefit of reducing either profile or friction drag by filling, sealing and spraying.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 12, 2016)

Roughly the area forward of the black lines?







Geo


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2016)

Yes


----------



## al49 (Jan 12, 2016)

Great, that means an easier job for me! In facts I just did a test, airbrushing some black paint on my test piece, see above, and I found that only some panel line were filled: that mens to me that at least two layers of putty are required.
Alberto


----------



## drgondog (Jan 12, 2016)

I would think that a couple coats of paint sprayed and lightly sanded would do a fine job of filling the panel lines?


----------



## al49 (Jan 13, 2016)

Hi,
many thanks for all your suggestions.
One more question if you don't mind.
Elevators: should they be metal or canvas covered?
I already done the metal ones but I can easily replace them.
Many thanks again
Alberto


----------



## drgondog (Jan 14, 2016)

First - it depends on -number of the Mustang for production change from fabric to metal elevators. The P-51D-20-NA at 44-63560 and P-51D-25-NA at 44-72627 had them installed on the line. The last D-20-NA w/o metal elevator was 44-72626, which was the last D-20 before the first D-25 (44-72627). I would be careful showing fabric for the D-20's, however because they were almost certainly modified at an Air Depot before deployment to combat operations.

That said, all fabric covered elevators were retro fitted in the field.

That said, the period represented and the dates could show fabric through November/December for all P-51D-5, D-10 and D-20's (lower tail number than 44-63560 or 44-72627)

If you see the early P-51D-5 w/o DFF you can be certain it was a fabric version.. or any period picture from May 1944 through December 1944 you can safely portray fabric.


----------

