Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?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?
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
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.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
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!
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.
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.
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.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
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.
Please remember what company designed it.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.