Are you a P-51 freak?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thanks for the thanks, Peter Gunn, but I'm FAR from the only guy in here with regular access to / work on warbirds. JoeB is one of our moderators and he's been "in the business" most of his working life and crews on race teams at Reno. Drgondog has flown P-51s himself, and his father was a P-51 Ace in the 8th Air Force, 355th Fighter Group in the ETO. He wrote two books on the 355th and I just got them ... I HAVE to recommend them if you are interested in the 355th fighter group or the 8th Air Force in general. WELL DONE Bill Marshall.

Our main moderator, DerAdlerIstGelandet has been in the business a long time. Biff was an F-15 Eagle driver in a very recent life and is probably more up to date on modern combat jets than anyone else in here, in addition to having been a USAF tour guide for a former Miss America (great pics, Biff!). And the list goes on ...

We have members in Europe that have been around the block a time or two on the subject of warbirds, too. We have one member in Japan closely involved with rebuilding a Mitsubishi A6M3 Zero. We have guys from Finnland, Italy, Poland, Russia, South America (several countries). This really is a meeting place for WWII (and other timeframes) aviation enthusiasts.

So, welcome aboard and come on out, I'll show you around the Planes of Fame anytime. Of course, that goes for anyone in here. Welcome one and all.

I could use a good slap, ask anyone in here ...
 
Last edited:
I personally am a Bf 109 "freak". Not the best at anything, but very good and competitive at many things and right up until the end. The fact that it was a 1935 design from a 1934 requirement that was able to stay competitive until the end says a lot about its design.

To me it is also the most beautiful WW2 fighter. Beauty however is in the eye of the beholder, and to me I prefer a "sinister" deadly killer look over a "sexy" sleek design of other fighters.

I also love the sound of the DB 605 engine...
 
Interestingly, Peter Gunn, your signature pic is the same figure we have on the side of our F-86F. It adorns many of the fighters in Tom Friedkin's collection, too.

Love the Fw 190, Tomo. When I think of a fighter, I tend to think radial, and the ones that float to the top of my favorite list include the A6M5 Zero, F8F Bearcat, La-5/7, and Fw 190, in no particular order. The Hawker Sea Fury creeps in now and then, too, along with my absolute favorite attack aircraft of all times, the Douglas AD Skyraider, surely a beautiful beast if ever there was one.

I had several save my bacon several times in a long past war zone. It's the ONLY warbird I know of that can orbit overhead for 2 - 3 hours and drop something or shoot something on EVERY pass. The bad guys stayed VERY low and quiet when there were Skyraiders overhead with ordnance remaining and angry pilots flying.

Bring rags to wipe up the oil. If you fly a Skyraider, the engine will deposit 5 gallons along each side and 7 gallons on the belly, so a few rags are in order after flight for cleanup. Of course, that's after sitting for months or longer, so you sort of expect to see oil out of a radial that runs only occasionally.

We have the good fortune to have an Fw 190F at the museum that flies occasionally. It is a Flugwerk replica with a P&W R-2800 in it. Now that it has a proper propeller on it, it also performs MUCH better. Our resident Butcher Bird is owned by Rudy Frasca and is usually flown by John Maloney. He is a wizard with radial engines. It's hard to tell when the starter is overtaken by the engine start when he is in the cockpit except for the exhaust note (a dead giveaway). It's that smooth a transition ... most of the time.

Nothing like an airborne Harley-Davidson (radial) to stir the heart a bit, at least until the V-12s crank up.
 
Last edited:
The Skoda-Kauba V.5 looked like a winner, but never got beyond the mockup stage because jets were the coming thing.

Thanks for the heads up, Graugeist. This is the only image of the SK V5 I have ever found, and it was in the "prototypes" thread in this forum.
 

Attachments

  • SK_V5.jpg
    136.1 KB · Views: 66
If you like Skoda's version, look up Finland's PM-1 (Pyörremyrsky) prototype sometime.
 
Greg, the nose art you mentioned is a variation on that used in WW2 by Don Gentille, on his 4th FG Mustang. It was designed by the Disney Studios, reputedly by Walt Disney himself.
 
Hi Airframes. It is just that, with all the art available, it is surprising how many times that one crops up on flyable aircraft that come through the museum.

I like the Pyorremyrsky myself, but the total world population was and is only 1, making it all the more amazing that it survived the war and is still intact. It is basically a wood version of Bf 109 with the landing gear issue solved, and some slightly different lines. I've been having a discussion with a Finnish friend about it in another forum. To me, it is a magnificent "might have been."
 
Since this is a P-51 thread, what was, if any, the differences in the thickness of the wing at the root and the tip?
 
Relative thickness at root was, up until P-51K, 16.5% at root and 11.5 % at tip.
Per Gruenhagen's book, pg. 176.
 
The only difference between a K-1-NT and P-51D-5-NT was an Aeroproducts prop/pitch controls.

ALL P-51 until the experimental XP-51F (and morphed into G and J) and P-51H were 16.5% T/C at root and 11.5% at tip Chord. NACA/NAA 45-100 airfoil.

The P-51H had a 66-(1.8) 15.5 root chord and a 66 -(1.8 12% Tip Chord
 
So if the B/C and the D/K had the same percentage thickness then the D/K wing root thickness dimension would larger than the B/Cs.

Also mid wing the wing dimensional thickness would be slightly greater allowing the mgs to be mounted vertical instead of slanted like on the B/C. (??)
 
Milosh - the C/L 'airfoil' of the P-51, A-36, P-51A/B/C was modified from 40% chord aft to accommodate the extension of the leading edge of the D/K from WS 61 to CL to make the new Main wheel door design work - but changed nothing for the airfoil sections rest of the wing. The Wing always had enough height to accommodate not only upright 50 caliber Brownings but also the 2x20mm Hispano and ammo for each wing. I have no idea why NAA engineers laid them on an angle unless the addition of 2x30 caliber plus one 50 for the Mark I caused them to try that first.
 
That was my understanding about the guns Bill but one sees people saying the wing were thicker.

If I understand correctly, the root section dimension was the same on all the Mustangs?
 

On the "Boxing Eagle", that is my favorite version of the 4th's insignia, just looks the cleanest and fits well with the olive drab Mustangs. A little family connection there as well.

Totally agree on the engine sound, love the noise a big radial will make, especially on startup, but for me the V-12 is it brother!

On looks, the P-51 does it for me from any angle, there is no ugly to that airplane. But I always thought the Corsair had a pretty deadly look to it as well as the FW-190 and there was always something about the Thunderbolt that would make me want to be on my "A" game if I had to face it down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
5
Views
492
Snautzer01
W
Here's a test for you all...
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GrauGeist
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
G
What are reliable YouTube sources?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
ian_
I
B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
15K
Reluctant Poster
R
Menu
Log in
Register