Most Beautiful Aircraft of WW2?

[Dash119]

AND, the canopy is a fuzz taller, it has a different profile, subtle, but different. The Ks were built in Dallas TX, not Inglewood, and were usually the "export" model, shipped off to all the Allies using them, like South Africa, Australia, New Zealand?, Great Britain, etc.
That canopy stands out whenever I look at them, it just jumps up and assaults my eyes. That canopy is preferred for the Cavalier and TF-51s, though, as it has more headroom, but it sure is hard on my eyes.

I know that some of that some of the early production from Dallas utilized the Aeroproducts propeller as opposed to the Hamilton Standard, thus the P-51K designation. Later this was changed to block numbers so airplanes manufactured in Inglewood and Dallas were all P-51D's. Other than the propeller and/or location of manufacture I thought the P-51D and the P-51K were identical. I know the P-51H and the P-82's had different canopies than the P-51D, but I have never heard that the P-51K's were different. As for the TF-51 that was a different unit altogether. Can you elaborate on the different canopy on the K model?

 

[glennasher]

I know that some of that some of the early production from Dallas utilized the Aeroproducts propeller as opposed to the Hamilton Standard, thus the P-51K designation. Later this was changed to block numbers so airplanes manufactured in Inglewood and Dallas were all P-51D's. Other than the propeller and/or location of manufacture I thought the P-51D and the P-51K were identical. I know the P-51H and the P-82's had different canopies than the P-51D, but I have never heard that the P-51K's were different. As for the TF-51 that was a different unit altogether. Can you elaborate on the different canopy on the K model?

Just look at good photos of the D's and K's side by side, it will jump out at you. I've read where it added 1 to 1.5 inches of headroom for the pilot, it's slightly more bulbous than the D's canopy. If you really look closely, you'll see it.

 

[N33]

GregP: it's really interesting and humbling to see all of the detailed work and time it takes to restore an aircraft like the YP-59A in your photos. I would be thrilled to help with the work on such a restoration, if only I had skills that might be useful. Thanks for showing us those photos.

 

[GregP]

Hi N33,

Thanks for the kind words. I didn't know much about restoration when I started 16 years ago, and I now wish I had started volunteering 40 years sooner at a museum where they fly their airplanes. My intent was to acquire the skills necessary to build an airplane for myself. When I got there, I managed to get laid off 2 weeks before I was going to order a kit for a Van's RV-7, and still haven't yet ordered the kit. But I wish I had had the metal skills when I was playing with muscle cars back in the day. If so, my 1967 Plymouth GTX Hemi 4-speed would have looked a bit different. My 2019 Ford Mustang GT doesn't need any sheet metal work to look good, being "new."

Still, I'm not one of the "aluminum geniuses" that work at Fighter Rebuilders." Those guys really are wizards. The only thing that makes me wonder a bit is the fact that I'm basically a retired electrical engineer, and nobody has asked me to wire anything up for them in an airplane. If I had managed to build my kitplane, the wiring would have been first-class. All's well that ends well, I suppose.

I have a LOT of pics, but the museum has asked me not to post most of them that show the inside of any of their aircraft. The pic of the windscreen meets that criteria ... sort of ... it's a part outside of the airplane and it is not in finished state. Wish I could post other restoration pics, but I also pretty much have to follow their wishes since I am working on what is basically a private airplane when I'm doing any restoration. I suppose I don't HAVE to, but that would be breaking my word. There are only a very few pics of parts outside the airplane that would likely be OK to show.

One of the aircraft I work on restoring (or WAS) is an old North American O-47. Here is a pic of the starboard wing root stub leading edge I was working on in the not too distant past.

The ribs are original, but the skin and the stringers across the skin are all new. You can see some patches on the closer rib and I have circled some holes that someone has oversized when they did some work on it earlier. I had to cut off the edge around them and fabricate a patch and drill new holes of the correct size. If you put a rivet through a hole it doesn't fit in, you lost a LOT of strength since the rivet will then easily shear in turbulence. A rivet is strong only because it is rigid in the structure. If it starts to move, the structure is WAY heavier and will shear it right off. If it is captured and doesn't move, it is a very strong, hardened piece of metal. This piece is now complete and installed.

The next pic shows the starboard wing stub of the O-47 where the piece above fits. We put new skin on the upper wing stub, too. My partner John Petersen and I also made the vertical stiffeners that are on the wing rib showing behind the landing gear cutout. Those were fun to make on a hydraulic vertical press in Fighter Rebuilders. We riveted and bolted around the landing gear cutout, too, and had to fabricate and install the leading edge junction showing at the front of the wing. You can see a new leading edge skin on the fin. Lots of work to do here ...

Technically, I suppose I should not post this, but this will be all. My estimate is that this airplane is some 10 years away from flying again. That assumes someone is actually working on it, and I haven't in a couple of years after I lost my riveting partner. The O-47 is to the point where a LOT of rivets have to be done with someone setting the rivet and someone inside the structure bucking the rivet. After I lost my partner, everyone else to date was new to riveting and nobody "stuck" on the project ... and I had to drill out most of the rivets we set due to "new guy on a rivet gun mistakes." I determined not to work on the airplane again until I had someone who could rivet correctly the first time and would stay on the project. He or she hasn't made an appearance as yet.

Here's an O-47 in flight.

This is a very desirable warbird for any flying museum. Most fighters are single-seat. Many have a jump seat installed and can take two people. The O-47 is unique in that you can seat three in the cockpit and maybe 2 - 3 below in the observer seats ... note the windows under the wing. Also, it only has an R-1820 in it, but can cruise up near 200 mph, so you can take 3 - 5 helpers along with the pilot for the ride to the airshow, cruise with the fighters, and there are ... people to HELP you out during the airshow! That's rare!

O-47s did yeoman work in WWII flying U-boat patrol along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean coast. Many of the U-boats found off our coast in WWII were found by O-47s. The USAAF found that pigeons were better at finding things at sea from an airplane than people were. They'd train pigeons by dropping a corn kernel every time the pigeon pecked a button when it saw something in the water. There's more to it than that, but you get the idea. Then, they'd put 6 - 8 pigeons in the window on each side and 1 - 2 guys taking care of them. Pigeons have great eyes and didn't miss much! Who'd have thought?

Now, guys like FlyboyJ and other people who work on aircraft and get paid for it might have some pics they can share ... maybe not. Maybe we should start a thread on pics of working on warbirds?

 

[Dash119]

Just look at good photos of the D's and K's side by side, it will jump out at you. I've read where it added 1 to 1.5 inches of headroom for the pilot, it's slightly more bulbous than the D's canopy. If you really look closely, you'll see it.

This is a parts catalog for the P-51D/P-51K/Mustang IV downloaded from another thread on this forum. On Page 5 of the PDF(Introduction Page of the original catalog), it states;

"The P-5lD model and the P-5IK model differ only in the Propeller Installation, P-5ID airplanes being equipped with the Hamilton Standard Propeller and P-5lK airplanes being equipped with the Aeroproducts Propeller."

On Page 41 of the PDF (Section 2, Page 35 of the original catalog) it shows 2 part numbers for the canopy, but one supersedes the other, and both apply to all models covered by the catalog. Neither is specific to either the P-51D or the P-51K.

So unless there were manufacturing differences from suppliers, which seems unlikely given that this is an important aerodynamic shape, there appears to be no difference in the canopies from model to model. Are the pictures you are comparing of wartime models? Because it is possible that private owners swapped their stock canopies for the P-51H canopies which I believe were interchangeable, and were more bulbous as you describe.

Regards,

Kim

 

[BiffF15]

This is a parts catalog for the P-51D/P-51K/Mustang IV downloaded from another thread on this forum. On Page 5 of the PDF(Introduction Page of the original catalog), it states;

"The P-5lD model and the P-5IK model differ only in the Propeller Installation, P-5ID airplanes being equipped with the Hamilton Standard Propeller and P-5lK airplanes being equipped with the Aeroproducts Propeller."

On Page 41 of the PDF (Section 2, Page 35 of the original catalog) it shows 2 part numbers for the canopy, but one supersedes the other, and both apply to all models covered by the catalog. Neither is specific to either the P-51D or the P-51K.

So unless there were manufacturing differences from suppliers, which seems unlikely given that this is an important aerodynamic shape, there appears to be no difference in the canopies from model to model. Are the pictures you are comparing of wartime models? Because it is possible that private owners swapped their stock canopies for the P-51H canopies which I believe were interchangeable, and were more bulbous as you describe.

Regards,

Kim

Gents,

IIRC Drgondog covered canopies previously. There were several different versions, one had noticeably more headroom than others. They were irrespective of location of manufacture.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[glennasher]

This is a parts catalog for the P-51D/P-51K/Mustang IV downloaded from another thread on this forum. On Page 5 of the PDF(Introduction Page of the original catalog), it states;

"The P-5lD model and the P-5IK model differ only in the Propeller Installation, P-5ID airplanes being equipped with the Hamilton Standard Propeller and P-5lK airplanes being equipped with the Aeroproducts Propeller."

On Page 41 of the PDF (Section 2, Page 35 of the original catalog) it shows 2 part numbers for the canopy, but one supersedes the other, and both apply to all models covered by the catalog. Neither is specific to either the P-51D or the P-51K.

So unless there were manufacturing differences from suppliers, which seems unlikely given that this is an important aerodynamic shape, there appears to be no difference in the canopies from model to model. Are the pictures you are comparing of wartime models? Because it is possible that private owners swapped their stock canopies for the P-51H canopies which I believe were interchangeable, and were more bulbous as you describe.

Regards,

Kim

Yes, the photos I looked at were wartime photos. Look again at a D model's canopy, then look CLOSELY at a K Model's canopy, the bulge is there and extends all the way to the rear of the canopy. I don't know what to say if you can't see it looking at wartime photos, it's like a pimple on a pretty girl's nose.

 

[Mad Dog]

I agree with him on 109. It was a very beautiful aircraft that looked mean and like it was meant for war. The Tempest looked like an unwanted stepchild...pfft.

I respectfully suggest you are mistaken, sir!

Either Sabre version or Centaurus:

Now compare to Old Lumpy-Bumpy-Nose-Girder-Canopy, even without the gunpods:

I suppose the Bf109F-4 was a bit handsomer, but not as much as the Tempest.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I respectfully suggest you are mistaken, sir!
View attachment 590673

Either Sabre version or Centaurus:
View attachment 590674

Now compare to Old Lumpy-Bumpy-Nose-Girder-Canopy, even without the gunpods:
View attachment 590675

I suppose the Bf109F-4 was a bit handsomer, but not as much as the Tempest.

Nope, I stand by my comments. Although, the more I look at the Tempest, the more it looks like an open mouth breather with that intake.

All Joking aside, I do think the Tempest looks nice. I prefer the looks of the 109 though.

 

[GrauGeist]

Bf109 hands-down versus the Typhoon/Tempest.

Even the P-47 had better lines over the Tiffy.

 

[PAT303]

Hey N33,

If you're ever out on the west coast, come to Chino and the Planes of Fame. We are restoring a Bell YP-59A, SN 42-108777, to flight status.

We have most of the restoration done and the GE I-16 engines (some call them J-31 engines, but that designation was some time after our airplane flew) are installed. You might enjoy an up-close-and-personal look at it. The Navy throws everything away, but the Marines keep everything since their budget is smaller. We got our engines for the Marines and they were overhauled in the late 1990s. Ran great.

Here it is at an airshow in 2007:

View attachment 590356

Looks a lot better now, but I don't happen to have a handy pic just now.

Cheers.

To me it looks like one of those grandma's with G size boobs that never wears a bra.

 

[at6]

That may be true but it was America's first jet aircraft.

 

[GregP]

Hey Pat303,

Funny you should say it that way ...

Looks like at least ONE person in 1943 saw it the same way! Sweet 16, indeed! The engines were GE I-16s (1,600 pounds of thrust) that later had the designation changed to J-31 when the U.S.A. adopted a standard system for designating jet engines.

Here's the nose art I proposed for our bird:

Perhaps not the most original ...

 

[GregP]

And the baseball cap patch:

In hindsight, maybe without the light blue background ... and a different font.

 

[N33]

The O-47 wouldn't win a "most beautiful" contest, but apparently it was a very successful aircraft in carrying out its mission. That information about using pigeons is really amazing - I had no idea. I would like to write a book on the use of non-human animals during WW2 in various weapons systems. I'd cover the ill-fated Project X-Ray, among others.

We can make fun of the P-59's appearance, but in reality it was a good streamlining idea to bury the jets and intakes in the fuselage.

 

[contrails16]

I have to say that I think the A6M Zero series of planes are my favorite. Simple, yet elegant.

 

[GrauGeist]

We can make fun of the P-59's appearance, but in reality it was a good streamlining idea to bury the jets and intakes in the fuselage

Agreed - and if compared to other nations' first jet aircraft: Germany's Heinkel He178, Italy's Campini N.1 and Britain's Gloster E.28/39, the P-59A is the best looking of the bunch.

 

[wuzak]

We can make fun of the P-59's appearance, but in reality it was a good streamlining idea to bury the jets and intakes in the fuselage.

It may have been a good idea, but the execution wasn't that great. From what I understand, the engine installation for the P-59 was particularly draggy.

 

[at6]

It may have been a good idea, but the execution wasn't that great. From what I understand, the engine installation for the P-59 was particularly draggy.

Please remember what company designed it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Bell Aircraft had good designs.