# Putty on joints to make skin flush



## Maxrobot1 (Oct 6, 2013)

On a modeler's forum, it was asserted that because putty was used to smooth out the sensitive laminar flow airfoil skin on P-51 wings, when the AAF went to bare metal, the P-51's wings were painted silver to hide the puttied seams. 
I have looked very closely at period color films and stills and can only see what looks like bare metal. I know the fabric covered control surfaces were aluminum doped but has anyone any info on painted wings?
As a sidelight, was putty used much on American planes? Putty can be plainly seen over seams and rivets in photos of very late war Me-262s that have not been camo painted.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 6, 2013)

North American P-51's were made more areodynamic by using putty in the wings and then painted with "aluminium" paint, it is true. Look closely, it is possible that some were sanded back to bare metal without disturbing the putty in the seams. Pilots and crew chiefs did many things that were not "officially" aproved. Many times a wax was used to goose a couple of extra knots out of an aircraft.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 6, 2013)

Sidney Cotton did the same with the early photo recon variants of the Spitfire in 1940. He also similarly modified a Bristol Blenheim by clipping its wing tips and smoothing out gaps and removing extra weight to get a faster recon aircraft. Didn't make much of a difference; the Blehneim was still too slow.


----------



## N4521U (Oct 7, 2013)

Not entirely sure about sanding, but panel seams were filled and wings were painted silver, or gray.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 7, 2013)

Tracking down photos to show P-51 wings with the joins filled, sanded and painted isn't easy; like every other component the wings were subject to the stresses and wear and tear of keeping the P-51 flying, plus many were camouflaged, but it was standard practice on the P-51s.

New P-51H: upper wings absolutely uniform with no sign of panel lines or the shades and patterns of different skin gauges:







P-51D being assembled; starboard wing, outboard of .50s shows the filled and sanded skin joints (lighter grey) with final coat of paint yet to be applied:






P-51D in service 361st FG; although small variations in the shading of the wing upper surfaces can be seen, because of wear to the paint surface, the wings were still completely smooth because the panel lines (apart from the gun-bays) were still filled:


----------



## stona (Oct 7, 2013)

It wasn't just the P-51 and it wasn't just at the point of manufacture. Similar levels of smoothness were expected to be maintained, at least on British high speed aircraft. This instructional video is aimed at the service personnel re-painting and maintaining aircraft and does not reflect the original manufacturing procedures, though of course some steps would be common to both.

Streamline colour | Australian War Memorial

Click on "download video" and the film will open up in another window. Originally posted on Britmodeller, credit to the person whose name I don't remember 
For the terminally impatient the film of the actual demonstration of "how to re-paint your Spitfire IX" starts with stripping the old paint at about 6 1/2 minutes in.

Most wings on P-51s flying today are not filled and not painted, but then nobody is trying to shoot them down.

Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattle (Oct 7, 2013)

Are you saying the whole wing was painted or just the putty filled joints? how wide was the putty laid across the joints?
I have read that B17 pilots noticed an increase in performance in bare metal aircraft or a decrease in performance in painted aircraft whichever the case may have been. I can't remember how much weight battle paint added to the B17 but it was a lot more than I would have ever have guessed, I was quite surprised by it. Maybe the paint was lead based?


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 7, 2013)

About any paint in that era had lead in it, but only in the about 1% of content area.

The average car has about 80 sq. ft. of area to paint, and might take about a gal. of paint to cover with single stage paint, about 9-10 lbs. a gal.

The B-17, had a 1400 sq. ft. wing, so we're talking 2800 sq. ft. of area to paint for just the wing, it could easily be 7-8000 sq. ft. of surface to paint on a B-17. 

So we're beginning to talk about maybe 1000 lbs. or more just in paint on a B-17, plus the dull finish they painted them in had a rough texture that could disturb airflow.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2013)

I think you have way over estimated the amount of paint needed. I remember reading the the paint on a Martin Mars flying boat was about 550lbs. Going to bare metal (on the exterior) allowed more cargo to be carried.


----------



## stona (Oct 7, 2013)

It wasn't the weight of paint (I've seen estimates for the B-17 from 65lbs to 550lbs) but the drag it caused. A matt finish is by definition not smooth, though the British eventually achieved a so called "smooth matt" finish.
When unpainted Tempest Vs were flown against their normally camouflaged and finished contemporaries in 1944 they went about 3-5 mph faster, a minimal gain, statistically barely significant between different aircraft of the same type and not considered worth pursuing. I would assume that the camouflage paints had been correctly applied something like in the film I linked to above.

Just as the P-51 wings were filled and smoothed and painted with an aluminium paint so were British post war aircraft when not camouflaged. The British called this finish "High Speed Silver". 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Balljoint (Oct 7, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> The average car has about 80 sq. ft. of area to paint, and might take about a gal. of paint to cover with single stage paint, about 9-10 lbs. a gal.
> 
> The B-17, had a 1400 sq. ft. wing, so we're talking 2800 sq. ft. of area to paint for just the wing, it could easily be 7-8000 sq. ft. of surface to paint on a B-17.
> 
> ...




Is the 9-10 lbs. a gal with solvent?


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 7, 2013)

I probably over estimated that because I was thinking of painting to car standards.

Even when I first got into painting, and shops were still sometimes painting with straight enamel paint, they'd never put just one coat on a car, it'd usually be 2 , sometimes 3.

But I can remember helping one of the Army mechanics in the motor pool paint a deuce and a half. He did it in 1 coat of OD paint
. 
I guess I also overestimated the weight of paint too, it's close to the weight of water, some will float, some will sink.

And water is 8.4 lb per gallon ?

I wonder what kind of putty they used ? Air dried lacquer putty ?


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 7, 2013)

i would imagine an acrylic like spot putty.... you made me think of the old days...straight enamel. my first car was painted with synthol enamel...and actually my father painted his stinson voyager with it.


----------



## stona (Oct 7, 2013)

In the RAF film they use two fillers. The first is described as a "solid oil putty or stopper" and the second is a liquid filler. The first is allowed four hours to dry before rubbing down being careful "not to rub through the primer paint". The liquid filler is said to take a further eight hours to dry but was only applied to the leading edge of the wing, back about 20% of the depth of the wing. That was then sprayed with a dark guide coat before another rub down, once the guide coat has gone you should be left with a perfectly smooth wing.
The US process would have been similar. It is a very long and labour intensive process and one which many today seem to under estimate. It's why my models don't look like patchwork quilts 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Oct 7, 2013)

I remember reading somewhere years ago that German paint was much smoother than Allied paint. Any truth to this?


----------



## Aozora (Oct 7, 2013)

Actually, according to the _Manual of Instructions for the Maintenance of the P-51A_ (NA-5629), the forward 40% of the wings were filled and smoothed, not the entire wing (having said that there weren't many panel lines to fill and smooth on the rest of the wing):






on camouflaged P-51s the entire wing was primed with zinc chromate, then finished with an Olive Drab/RAF Camouflage topcoat while on NM P-51s the wing was first primed, filled and given a topcoat consisting of three ounces of Aluminium Paste AN-TT-A-461 mixed into one gallon of Clear Lacquer AN-TT-L-51






Mustang IV painting instructions:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattle (Oct 7, 2013)

Thinking back I have seen factory pictures of World War Two aircraft in bare metal with yellowy outlines on panels and wondered what it was, so another old mystery solved. Thinking back again about the paint I can remember lead based paints being banned from things like cots and kids toys, it was a bit of a scandal at the time (1970's). I presume paint weighs a good amount more wet than dry?
Going back to the Mustang, if it is the case that the wings were painted silver rather than left as bare metal then this would make all the museum exhibits and models that I have seen unauthentic which is quite a scandal in its own right.


----------



## Wurger (Oct 8, 2013)

My three cents... found via the Internet..

"The first 40% of the wing chord was sprayed with one coat of zinc chromate primer followed by enough coats of Acme Gray Surfacer No. 53N5 to cover all irregularities. Skin butt joints were then filled with Acme Red Vellunite glazing putty N 58485. The entire area was then sanded and sprayed with one coat of camouflage enamel. When camouflage was deleted, the forward portion of the wing (sometimes the entire wing) was sprayed aluminium. The lower photograph shows how the interior of the wing was or was not finished.

“The wing leading edge of the Mustang will be smoothed and surfaced as outlined in the P-51B and P51C Series Repair Manual Repoert no NA-5741, with the exception of that the camouflage coats will be deleted and aluminiumized lacquer will be applied over the surfaces. The deletion of the camouflage will eliminate approximately 42 pounds of finish from the B-25 Series Airplanes and 16 pounds of finish from the P-51 Series Airplanes. It is anticipated that the removal of the camouflage will also result in materially increased speed.”


----------



## stona (Oct 8, 2013)

Great emphasis was put on this by the British and Americans. The Spitfire wing was treated in a similar way back to 20% rather than 40% of the chord of the wing.










As for the last point, this is how a Spitfire was supposed to be cleaned.






I'm sure the US crews were just as fastidious......more reasons that my models don't look like patchwork quilts 

Credit to Edgar Brooks who originally posted those documents.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattle (Oct 8, 2013)

After reading this I have a picture in my mind of the wing looking as though it were moulded in one piece, like fibreglass. Repairs must have been tricky what with not being able to see where the rivets were in order to drill them out, and then having to go through the repainting process once the damaged area had been replaced. I expect the area around the damage had to be stripped of paint just to find the rivets.


----------



## stona (Oct 8, 2013)

pattle said:


> After reading this I have a picture in my mind of the wing looking as though it were moulded in one piece, like fibreglass. Repairs must have been tricky what with not being able to see where the rivets were in order to drill them out, and then having to go through the repainting process once the damaged area had been replaced. I expect the area around the damage had to be stripped of paint just to find the rivets.



In the RAF this sort of finishing only applied to aircraft deemed high speed. It was not applied to heavy bombers, flying boats, trainers and so on.
In the film I posted an example is made of how to repair a scuff at the wing root, even that is not as straight forward as one might imagine!
Crews were expected to look after the finish of the aircraft in their charge.







Yet another reason why my models don't look like patchwork quilts  

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 8, 2013)

Boeing's web site (Painting versus Polishing of Airplane Exterior Surfaces) has some information on the weights of paint for modern aircraft. Interestingly, Boeing claims that the operating costs of unpainted (polished metal) aircraft are higher than painted aircraft.

I've read that the paint on a completely painted 747 weighs about 1100 lb. If I remember, a 747 has about 5500 square feet of wing area and probably a total wetted area around 25,000 square feet, so modern paint weighs something like 0.04 lb/ft^2.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 8, 2013)

A 747 would be painted with a polyurethane enamel, like Duponts Imron. 
A modern paint developed for the aviation industry in the late 60's-early 70's, now also used heavily in the trucking industry too.
It has much less film thickness required for coverage than the old enamels or lacquers that would have been used on WW2 aircraft.

I've painted Imron myself, on trucks and aircraft parts. It's one of those paints that will send you to a hospital quick if you don't use the proper breathing protection.


----------



## Maxrobot1 (Oct 8, 2013)

So it seems that the assembly lines at North American had to allow for the steps of hand finishing the wing assemblies. Also any model of a P-51 that features visible rivets on the upper or lower wings would be incorrect! Any panel lines except for the gun bays would be hidden.
A trend has developed in the model building community where the modeler darkly shades the panel lines as a form of weathering. I guess this would not apply to P-51s!


----------



## stona (Oct 8, 2013)

Maxrobot1 said:


> A trend has developed in the model building community where the modeler darkly shades the panel lines as a form of weathering. I guess this would not apply to P-51s!



Or other high speed aircraft!

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 9, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> I've painted Imron myself, on trucks and aircraft parts. It's one of those paints that will send you to a hospital quick if you don't use the proper breathing protection.



My bike was repainted with Imron (I also had some bits added, a new head tube bearing, some braze-ons, and the rear dropouts modified so I could get a new derailleur). It's stood up very well. On the hospitalization bit: the man who has done some body work on my cars refuses to use Imron, mostly because he views it as too risky.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2013)

> I expect the area around the damage had to be stripped of paint just to find the rivets.



You grind the paint off with a fine abrasive wheel as you roughly know where the rivest are going to be, having looked at the wing station numbers in the manual to find the panel joints. Once the layers of paint are removed, you drill out the rivet heads.

Yep; modern aircraft paints and the solvents associated are toxic; I know guys who have worked as aircraft painters with repiratory problems and as a result of exposure to carcinogens, particularly MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone, used variously as a solvent cleaner and useful stripper of material from metal surfaces) have high amounts of cancer cells in their bodies. When I did my apprenticeship I used to volunteer to do paint strips - which, not only is bad for your insides, will burn your skin off as well, although most companies use far milder, but no less effective paint stripper than the old Ardrox stuff we used to use, but if you got any on your skin, you'd have a scar for a couple of weeks or so. Full body suits, respirators and face covers are essential. If any paint stripper fell on your face mask, you had to go replace it, otherwise it'd fuzz the plastic and you couldn't see. I was doing the underside of a P-3 once and my mask was knocked off and I got a glob of stripper on my face. Burns a bit. We used to wash ourselves down with MEK before taking a shower with all our kit on to get the solvents off.


----------



## Airframes (Oct 10, 2013)

I used to use MEK in the printing industry. It's used for cleaning printing plates, as well as other applications (it's also used as a liquid cement for plastics).
Put some on a wad of cotton wool, let it evaporate slightly, and it makes a contact explosive! Great fun when thrown against a wall or hard surface!
(Don't try this at home kids!!).
Dangerous stuff to handle, and not good for health.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 10, 2013)

> Dangerous stuff to handle, and not good for health.



Yep, sure is; it's a known carcinogen. There are aviation maintenance firms that outright refuse to use it anymore because of the dangers to health it poses, but many still do. As a solvent it takes some beating. When I first arrived back in New Zealand I bought a 100 year old villa and I came across a wood putty for restoring wooden window frames that contained MEK in it in a store, but when I ran out and went back for more, it had been removed from use and the store no longer stocked it. Probably because of the hazard it poses.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 10, 2013)

When at Sperry (mid 70s) we used MEK to clean the bearings used in gyros. Put the bearing in a dish filled with MEK and spin the outer race with our bare finger while holding the inner race with the fingers of other hand.

Wish I knew about that Airframes.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 11, 2013)

My granddad had a used car lot in the 1970s; MEK was used in a paste that was used to cut and polish the cars, and it looks like its still being used
 Chauffeur's Choice car care products
imagine all that product being stacked in a badly ventilated garage...

and MEK is still available...

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 11, 2013)

Off the track of paints and toxic solvents, I remember reading that the Soviets would put thick layers of wax on their planes to give them a good, but short-lived, smooth surface finish. 

When I worked at Lycoming, we (more specifically, the test technicians) would use bowling alley wax to polish and smooth the bellmouths we used for engine testing.


----------



## pattle (Oct 11, 2013)

Aozora said:


> My granddad had a used car lot in the 1970s; MEK was used in a paste that was used to cut and polish the cars, and it looks like its still being used
> Chauffeur's Choice car care products
> imagine all that product being stacked in a badly ventilated garage...
> 
> ...


----------



## stona (Oct 12, 2013)

MEK is not a listed carcinogen. It is a mutagen which is not the same.
It is toxic and can be absorbed through the skin. There will be various material safety data sheets (MSDS) available with a quick google. These will, or should, highlight possible detrimental effects on health and the environment in a fairly bleak way. They rightly tend to err on the side of caution and should set low exposure limits and give advice on personal protection equipment (PPE) to be worn.
Years ago we used it in an open lab (not a fume cupboard or similar) wearing eye protection and gloves, no respirator. Given the limited exposure I would get making a model I would happily fill my cement bottle with MEK.
If it was as dangerous as some of you are _supposing_ it would not be available in over the counter type products.
Cheers
Steve (ex -chemist, and organic at that!)


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 15, 2013)

with your acrylic enamal paint when used as with a catalyst additive and the poly-urethanes...TEK base, etc. it isnt so much that they are carcinogens...which they very well may be. but the problem was back in the old days with acrylic lacquer, synthol enamel and the early acrylic enamels ( non-catalysed) painters rarely wore masks. some would wrap a bandana bandit style...others would maybe wear a cheapo dust mask, but most i knew didnt wear anything. i grew up mixing and selling automotive paint in the family business. once, what sherwin williams called catyl-ad was introduced as a hardner, a good grade canister style paint mask was an absolute must....with the P/Us and later stuff full coverage suits and closed circuit air systems were recommended. once the overspray got on your lungs it was there FOREVER. a large majority of the shops just painted in a garage and practically no one had ventilated booths. so once they started spraying the fogof paint was so thick you could cut it. several painters who refused to change their ways were taken down by the stuff after only a paint job or two. i mean permanently disabled with a horrible case of COPD...they were as bad or worse than the minors who had black lung. that stuff is wicked.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 16, 2013)

I dont know much about paints but I do remember an old body shop guy telling me that when 2 pack paints came in spray painters went down like flies with liver (might have been kidney) problems. Apparently there were warnings on the tins but who reads a warning label, it was only when there were deaths that spray painters started using air hoods and extractors.


----------



## stona (Oct 16, 2013)

Liver sounds right, but I was a chemist, not a doctor 
Either way it's a sad story.
Steve


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 6, 2016)

[/QUOTE]


stona said:


> MEK is not a listed carcinogen. It is a mutagen which is not the same.
> It is toxic and can be absorbed through the skin. There will be various material safety data sheets (MSDS) available with a quick google. These will, or should, highlight possible detrimental effects on health and the environment in a fairly bleak way. They rightly tend to err on the side of caution and should set low exposure limits and give advice on personal protection equipment (PPE) to be worn.
> Years ago we used it in an open lab (not a fume cupboard or similar) wearing eye protection and gloves, no respirator. Given the limited exposure I would get making a model I would happily fill my cement bottle with MEK.
> If it was as dangerous as some of you are _supposing_ it would not be available in over the counter type products.
> ...



Hi Steve
You are right that MEK alone is not a carcinogen however when mixed with acetone (like in some spray gun washes and other cleaners) it becomes a catalyst for the acetone and the combination is extemely carcinogenic. Australia had a Royal Commission on this about 20 years ago - you can find the report at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/deseal_reseal/report/final report.pdf


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 6, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> About any paint in that era had lead in it, but only in the about 1% of content area.



Aircraft of the era used nitrocellulose lacquer as topcoat except on fabric which used butrate lacquer


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 6, 2016)

[QUOTE="Aozora, post: 1063232, member: 51628"



[/QUOTE]
Hi Aozora (or is that Gidday)
It would appear from the above page that you have, or have access to, a copy of the P-51 manual 01-60JE-2
I have just obtained a copy that has been used as a childs scribble pad (fortunately with pencil so I can physically and digitally erase most of the damage with a little luck and a lot of work) but it is missing two sheets, pages 1/2 and 173/174.
If your manual is the same edition (and your copy and mine are probably the same because page 407 is identical tho mine is not watermarked) could you please copy these four pages and post them to the forum or PM them to me.
The attachment shows the manual I have. It is an earlier edition than the manual Avialogs have and those pages are much different in the Avialogs manual (which covers specific D and K models).
According to page A of my manual none of the missing pages were revised in Feb 45 so an original copy of the Dec 44 manual would have the same pages as I need.
Regards
Mi Tasol
.


----------



## GregP (Feb 12, 2016)

I've seen the process of reprofiling a wing on 3 or 4 Reno racers. They apply putty, and sand until smooth; then sand until it matches the profile template laid over the wing surface. The intent is to change the basic airfoil shape, not cover rivets. It works.

I can imagine that in wartime, they sprayed and then sanded until they just started to see the tops of the rivets, stopped, wiped with tack cloth, and painted. You'd never see the rivets after painting. If using flush rivets, it would take complete care of the occasional raised rivet head that is proud by maybe 0.001" due to poor countersinking.

Not sure if everyone is aware, but the Mooney Acclaim is the fastest piston single of the nominal 4-place variety. It is flush riveted for only about the front 1/3 of the wing and has universal rivets on the rest s you move to the trailing edge. That tells me something about the drag and where it is highest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2016)

Way back in post #6 I posted a link to an instructional film which shows how the British/Commonwealth air forces re-finished a high speed aircraft



GregP said:


> I can imagine that in wartime, they sprayed and then sanded until they just started to see the tops of the rivets, stopped, wiped with tack cloth, and painted.



They went a little further than that, as they did in the original production. But it was a developing situation. In early 1940 a circular was sent to all the Resident Technical Officers (RTOs) at the various aircraft plants to inform them of the introduction of the new Type S smooth paints. It makes the point that,

_"...the final roughness on many aircraft types is often as high as five thousandths of an inch, and sometimes up to ten thousandths."_

By 1942 this was not enough and it was agreed that for the Spitfire both the undercoat and the final coat of paints should be rubbed down, 

_" in view of the general conditions under which the paint spraying processes are carried out at Supermarines." _

For the wing it was realised that the area as far back as 20% of the chord was most important and it was agreed that,

_"great care should therefore at the same time be taken to fill up the plating joints, indentations at rivet heads etc., in this region and in particular the butt joint which traverses the whole of the leading edge spanwise."_

The introduction of these measures was estimated to require 50 man hours per air frame (one quarter skilled) and the impact on production would be _'negligible'. _
Supermarine was to pass on the details to _"Castle Bromwich, Westlands etc"_ but the MAP would issue direct instructions to the firms,

_"...to ensure that this improvement in aircraft finish will in a reasonably short time be generally applied to Spitfires."_

50 hours extra work per aircraft may have seemed negligible in the big scheme of Spitfire production but it is still a not inconsiderable investment for an estimated (by Supermarine) 5 mph improvement in top speed.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 15, 2016)

GregP said:


> Not sure if everyone is aware, but the Mooney Acclaim is the fastest piston single of the nominal 4-place variety. It is flush riveted for only about the front 1/3 of the wing and has universal rivets on the rest s you move to the trailing edge. That tells me something about the drag and where it is highest.



Another example of what GregP says about the first half of the wing being the critical area. Competition aerobatic aircraft depend on clean aerodynamics to ensure that their performance is as high as possible. The Russian Sukhoi piston aerobatic aircraft have a wing trailing edge some 10 to 12 mm thick.


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 15, 2016)

MiTasol said:


> [QUOTE="Aozora, post: 1063232, member: 51628"
> Hi Aozora (or is that Gidday)
> It would appear from the above page that you have, or have access to, a copy of the P-51 manual 01-60JE-2
> I have just obtained a copy that has been used as a childs scribble pad (fortunately with pencil so I can physically and digitally erase most of the damage with a little luck and a lot of work) but it is missing two sheets, pages 1/2 and 173/174.
> ...


Make that I now have two versions of P-51 E&M manual 01-60JE-2.
The second is also damaged and missing pages. It is dated Dec 44 revised 20 March 1945. This may be the same as the Avialogs manual but the title page on Avialogs has been butchered to remove the date. My second manual is missing just the front two pages, (Title and Page A) but page B identifies it as 20 March.
If your manual is this edition could you please scan and post those to the forum or PM them to me I can scan and post the rest of the manual after cleaning.
Regards
Mi


----------



## Crimea_River (Feb 16, 2016)

The entire manual can be found in post 12 here


----------



## Mike Williams (Feb 16, 2016)

I'll never forget how impressed I was with the finish on the Spitfire VII at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum.


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 16, 2016)

Thanks Crimea River for that link but unfortunately that is the same manual that Avialogs has which makes it either the March 45 or a later revision (I have not worked out which yet as the title page is butchered and pages A & B are missing). The pages being out of order does not help sort this out so I guess I will have to get them in order so that I can determine which one it is and post the cleaned up copy.

Unfortunately that means I am still looking for the following missing pages

01-60JE-2 P-51 E&M (1944-12-20 Rev 45-03-20) 20 March 1945 Title page and page A

01-60JE-2 P-51 E&M (1944-12-20 Rev 1945-02-05), pages 1/2 and 173/174. Pages from the manual dated 20 Dec 1944 are identical but the Avialogs pages are different because the K models were added in the March 45 or later revision.
Interestingly my copy of this is a reprint as it has no pink pages


Regards
Mi
P.S. I loved Calgary in the late 60's but I guess it is totally different now.

.


----------



## Crimea_River (Feb 16, 2016)

I guess I did not look closely and now realize that the copy I have is also screwed up. Sorry I couldn't help.

And yes, Calgary would be very different now from when you remember it. Over 1MM people now.


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 17, 2016)

Crimea_River said:


> I guess I did not look closely and now realize that the copy I have is also screwed up. Sorry I couldn't help.



No sweat. I would rather a wrong lead than no lead at all so thanks for the effort regardless. More than one wrong lead in the past has had great value.


----------



## Aozora (Mar 4, 2016)

MiTasol said:


> Hi Aozora (or is that Gidday)
> It would appear from the above page that you have, or have access to, a copy of the P-51 manual 01-60JE-2
> I have just obtained a copy that has been used as a childs scribble pad (fortunately with pencil so I can physically and digitally erase most of the damage with a little luck and a lot of work) but it is missing two sheets, pages 1/2 and 173/174.
> If your manual is the same edition (and your copy and mine are probably the same because page 407 is identical tho mine is not watermarked) could you please copy these four pages and post them to the forum or PM them to me.
> ...


Gidday Mi Tasol
My copy of 01-60JE-2 is from Avialogs as well, except that I have managed to unscramble the pages; 
AFAIK, these pages 173 & 174 should be the ones you're looking for?












Pages 1 & 2: hopefully, these are what you're needing:












For interest, I also have an NAA E & M Manual, NAA-5865, dated March 1944 - this is for the P-51D-5s:


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 4, 2016)

Mike Williams said:


> I'll never forget how impressed I was with the finish on the Spitfire VII at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum.


Love the Keith Ferris painting as well! I was amazed as a kid that someone could do something like that and it "look normal" when finished!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 4, 2016)

Aozora said:


> Gidday Mi Tasol
> My copy of 01-60JE-2 is from Avialogs as well, except that I have managed to unscramble the pages;
> AFAIK, these pages 173 & 174 should be the ones you're looking for?
> Pages 1 & 2: hopefully, these are what you're needing:
> For interest, I also have an NAA E & M Manual, NAA-5865, dated March 1944 - this is for the P-51D-5s:



Thanks Aozora

Pages 1 and 2 do look like those I need - very many thanks

Page 173/173 are pink pages (revised) and I need the original white pages - someday hopefully they will be found.

I think it safe to say that I am not the only person who would love to see a copy of the NAA E & M Manual, (NAA-5865, dated March 1944) posted to the site.

Many thanks

Mi


----------

