NA-73 Mustang I, best options in 1/72nd

[FinnAndersen]

46 minutes ago, Courageous said:

Very informative guys, thanks.

 

Looking at the plan shots between the early and late wings, the kink looks like it starts in exactly the same place but the angle is different, the 'D' seems to join the fuselage further forward?

The underside shots of the undercarriage doors suggest that their is less clearance between door and leading edge on the early, where as the 'D' has more clearance?

If my assumptions are correct and the 'D' joins a little forward, how much are talking; 6" is only 2mm in 72nd, and as the for the 'droop' in this scale...maybe for the purists? 

 

Stuart

The start of the kink is further outboard on the D, not much.

 

Compare this with talk about some Allison models having a B fuselage with the wing being 3" (or 4½") lower mounted, in 1/72 this is 1 or 1.5 mm.

 

Noticeable? Well, if you do something about it, you are a hero; if not, hrrm,  human?

 

cheers

Finn

[gingerbob]

1 hour ago, Courageous said:

Looking at the plan shots between the early and late wings, the kink looks like it starts in exactly the same place but the angle is different, the 'D' seems to join the fuselage further forward?

The underside shots of the undercarriage doors suggest that their is less clearance between door and leading edge on the early, where as the 'D' has more clearance?

If my assumptions are correct and the 'D' joins a little forward, how much are talking; 6" is only 2mm in 72nd, and as the for the 'droop' in this scale...maybe for the purists?

 

Actually, the D "leading edge extension" does start farther out, but it is hard to eyeball.  The angle is quite similar (in directish plan-view).  The wheel cover doors are somewhat different in shape to match the wing (not sure about the oleo leg covers).  The droop is subtle, because it all depends on the viewing angle, but from the right angle it is very obvious, and it naturally affects how the wing root meets the fuselage.  Would the average person looking at your model spot it?  Probably not.  But with all the other questions you are worrying about, can you really just say, "I know, but..." about this distinctive element?

 

In short, I'd find a proper B or earlier wing, NOT a D geometry wing.  Like Troy, I don't keep up with 1/72, but I do know that this has been a problem with 1/72 Mustang kits.  If what you're after is in fact a P-51A (that warbird, in that "skin", is unfamiliar to me) then all the better, because the armament configuration is the same as a P-51B.  I notice that the warbird even appears to have the stiffeners that were added just forward of the ailerons on the B- they should not be there on an original Allison bird.  (I also notice that it has the "flared" intake for an air filter, rather than the "straight" intake of the NA-73.)

 

bob

 

p.s. The P-51A also has a unique radiator fairing, which (if you worry about it) you will probably have to finesse yourself with a bit of sanding- as far as I know, the kits will all have the "regular" Allison belly, while the A's is (I think!) somewhat shallower/sleeker, and the shape of the inlet also changed over time.

 

p.p.s. Commenting on the reply that came in while I was composing this one, YES, the P-51B (and subsequent Merlin Mustangs) had the wing mounted 3" lower compared to the Allison ones.  It doesn't sound like much on a 1/72 kit, but if you have the side "door" (glass) open, it makes quite a difference in where the lower edge of that falls relative to the wing root.

Edited September 25, 2017 by gingerbob

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

P-51 D also had slightly thicker wing cross section than earlier models to dispense with tilted machine guns, which jammed frequently during dogfights. This deeper airfoil could amount for apparent ˝higher˝ installation of D wing. Will check and come back later. Cheers

Jure

[Courageous]

Mmm, interesting...Is the earlier wing set lower as suggested by @gingerbobor a thicker wing suggested by @Jure Miljevic?

 

I am led to believe that the Model News kit of the Mustang I is rather horrid but did it have a better wing?

The article in Internet Modeler dated 1999 does mention the fact that the wing root leading edge is further back relative to the same point on the Italeri fuselage... Has anybody had any experience of this MN kit, it's accuracy (forget about its quality)?

 

I see plenty of these kits for sale 'across the pond' in the US but postage kills this idea

[Graham Boak]

Jure:  I haven't seen that elsewhere and don't believe it - this would change the entire wing section co-ordinates and hence the aerodynamics.  It would be a massive change in production tooling.  However, there's no suggestion of a higher installation of the D wing relative to the B - it is the B relative to the Allison variants and the installation is lower.

 

Just waving numbers like 3 inches around and saying how small this is is a failure to understand reality.  It isn't the overall length that gets noticed by the eye but the proportions.  Over a span or a length this indeed won't be noticed by anyone. This is the difference between a Hurricane Mk.I and Mk.II fuselage - and there it is only noticeable because can be seen as a difference in other short distances around the nose.  In the case of a P-51, over a short distance such as that between the top of the wing and the bottom of the canopy frame, 3 inches is a large proportion.

 

The MN kit is best avoided.

[FinnAndersen]

If you have trouble getting the Academy kit, this might help:

 

http://stoppel.dk/shop/p-51-f-6a-na-mustang-462p.html

 

HTH Finn

[72modeler]

6 hours ago, FinnAndersen said:

Basic shape, as I recall, is not bad, but it's almost a ½ century old, with raised panel lines and a canopy more like a lump of semi clear glue. Also, you will have to add chin guns to the Frog kit.

 

If the choice is between the Special Hobby and Frog, I'd go for the SH kit and try to modify the leading edge extenstion.

 

HTH

Finn

Zac,

I wouldn't bother with the Frog kit, having built one for Replica in Scale magazine eons ago. The wing has the D wing leading edge extension, the wingtips are squared off, the radiator housing is way too shallow, the wheel bays need to be boxed in, and the lower nose contours lack the double hump curve from the spinner to the wing root; then, as Finn said, there's that  horrible canopy. IIRC I used the canopy from the Monogram P-51B, but it was no fun getting it faired in, as the Frog part was too shallow. (Would somebody, anybody please get an Allison-powered Mustang  right in 1/72 scale?)

Mike

 

P.S. The wing leading edge extension on the Mustangs prior to the D begins much closer to the wingroot than on the D model, it's just hard to tell in many photos. There was a lot of discussion regarding the extension, with drawings, text, and photos on the P-51 SIG a while back to confirm that fact; I will try to find the forum topic. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by 72modeler
added additional information

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Graham, I agree. But with D model North American was in for some significant changes anyway, in aerodynamic, construction and production sense of the word. Beside the more pronounced leading edge kink, which was the most obvious change on the wing, the main spar had been strengthened to cope with heavier loads (extra gun with ammunition in both wings, overall increase of ammo from 1250 to 1880 rounds, provisions for rockets, bigger drop tanks, and I suspect also for heavier bombs). While this could have been accomplished by introduction of new alloy as wing main spar's building material I suspect design team decided to go the whole hog and simply increased its dimensions. This would allow for use of thicker airfoil which, with P-51 D's substantial weight increase over P-51 A (about 1500 lb, speaking from the top of my head), was needed to provide additional lift anyway. Nevertheless, I am browsing through my books to find the source of airfoil change information from my previous post. Cheers

Jure

Edited September 25, 2017 by Jure Miljevic
corrected ˝from 1250 to 1880 rounds per gun˝ to ˝from 1250 to 1880 rounds˝

[Courageous]

After all that has been said, the bottom line is that nobody produces an accurate early wing and that @Tony Edmundsonwith:

On 23/09/2017 at 5:23 AM, Tony Edmundson said:

Of course, your mileage and modelling skills may vary.

seems to be the way to go and start with the Academy kit but others have said, this is still 'D' wing and being IA, doesn't have the chin guns.

So, why not go with the SH kit, you have to do the wing anyway but it has chin guns?

So can those that know tell us roughly, how much we need to move the 'kink' inboard and move the fuselage/wing join rearward. This surely will put us into 'the best we can expect' area? And as for the "3-inch" drop from wing to canopy lip, in this scale would only be about 1mm, and I wouldn't lose sleep over that? Undoubtedly their will be other things to correct.

 

Stuart

 

[Work In Progress]

2 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hello

Graham, I agree. But with D model North American was in for some significant changes anyway, in aerodynamic, construction and production sense of the word. Beside the more pronounced leading edge kink, which was the most obvious change on the wing, the main spar had been strengthened to cope with heavier loads (extra gun with ammunition in both wings, overall increase of ammo from 1250 to 1880 rounds, provisions for rockets, bigger drop tanks, and I suspect also for heavier bombs). While this could have been accomplished by introduction of new alloy as wing main spar's building material I suspect design team decided to go the whole hog and simply increased its dimensions. This would allow for use of thicker airfoil which, with P-51 D's substantial weight increase over P-51 A (about 1500 lb, speaking from the top of my head), was needed to provide additional lift anyway. Nevertheless, I am browsing through my books to find the source of airfoil change information from my previous post. Cheers

Jure

This kind of baseless speculation really doesn't help.

The P-51 root and tip airfoils were not changed until the lightweight models, the F, G and H.

[Work In Progress]

1 hour ago, Courageous said:

as for the "3-inch" drop from wing to canopy lip, in this scale would only be about 1mm, and I wouldn't lose sleep over that? Undoubtedly their will be other things to correct.

 

Stuart

 

Up to you, it's your model and if you can't see the difference you're under no obligation to worry about it. But most people should, , even in 1/72 because visually to many of us it's extremely obvious.

 

The difference is shown in the NAA documentation as displayed in this post

 

[johnd]

21 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

if you can't see the difference you're under no obligation to worry about it. But most people should, , even in 1/72 because visually to many of us it's extremely obvious.

Exactly right, plus it may come to be obvious to you after it's finished and too late to do anything about it. This is the voice of experience.

 

John.

[John Thompson]

2 hours ago, Courageous said:

start with the Academy kit but others have said, this is still 'D' wing and being IA, doesn't have the chin guns.

 

 

So much information is being presented, quoted, requoted, and disputed here that I think confusion is setting in. I see nothing in this thread which says the Academy P-51 (kit #12401) has a P-51D wing. Direct comparison shows that the wing matches exactly the Allison P-51 drawings prepared by Jumpei Temma, and that's pretty damn good, in my book. FYI:

http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p51a/p51a-1.html

 

John

[k5054nz]

Based on photos of my subject I don't need chin guns, and representing the aircraft as it appeared at Reno means no wing guns either (taped/fabriced over).

Edited September 25, 2017 by k5054nz

[72modeler]

14 hours ago, k5054nz said:

Based on photos of my subject I don't need chin guns, and representing the aircraft as it appeared at Reno means no wing guns either (taped/fabriced over).

 

 

 

Zac and others,

 

If you look at the excellent photo that shows the Mustang in profile, you can see the 'droop' of the LE extension, which was a result of this part of the wing being cambered downwards. I just got through reading all of the discussion (and there was a ton of it, let me tell you!) on the P-51 SIG website regarding the differences in the P-51/B/C wings compared to the D wing, and I will start a new forum topic describing  what I found out, as it really doesn't need to clutter up this discussion. I will be paraphrasing from the P-51 SIG and will not attach links, as the site is not open to non-members, and I don't want to offend the many highly knowledgeable people who are regular contributors, nor do I want to post anything without permission, as I want to remain a member in good standing. If there are any of you BM-ers who are also members of the SIG, I know you will understand.

Mike  

 

Whoa! Just noticed in the last photo you posted that the retract rams/jacks for the inner fairing doors are at the back of the wheel bay, which is correct for a D/K, but not for an Allison Mustang or P-51B/C, which had them at the front of the wheel bay/door! The fairing doors look like they are from a D model, as well. I also just now noticed, in the photo that shows the upper surfaces from the rear, that the two chordwise stiffeners are visible ahead of the ailerons- again, correct for a B/C/D but not for the earlier variants. Makes me wonder what Mustang parts were used in this restoration, as it certainly appears to this untrained eye that a D wing was used and modified to resemble the earlier version. It seems to be a composite of more than one Mustang variant- always a problem with restorations. If you look at photos of D's that show the inner fairing doors and retraction arms, and compare them to photos of the same parts of earlier variants, you will see what I mean.

Edited September 26, 2017 by 72modeler
added additional comments, corrected one fact

[John Thompson]

46 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

 I just got through reading all of the discussion (and there was a ton of it, let me tell you!) on the P-51 SIG website regarding the differences in the P-51/B/C wings compared to the D wing, and I will start a new forum topic describing  what I found out, as it really doesn't need to clutter up this discussion.

 

Now that sounds like an excellent idea - please carry on!

 

John

[Procopius]

I really like the look of the early Mustangs, but whenever I start to look into getting some good kits to build them in 1/72, I read threads like this and sink into a deep depression.

[fernandocouto]

On ‎2017‎年‎9‎月‎25‎日 at 03:55, Chuck1945 said:

Yes

So SHB made the same mistake as Hasegawa's P-51B, didn't they?

[Chuck1945]

Based on these sprue shots, yes

[Harry Lime]

11 hours ago, fernandocouto said:

So SHB made the same mistake as Hasegawa's P-51B, didn't they?

No.

9 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

Based on these sprue shots, yes

But on direct plastic to plastic comparison, no they didn't. When holding a SH Mk.I wing to an Airfix D wing, the SH LE kink clearly starts further inboard of the Airfix D. As and when I can sort out a new photo host, I will happily post up pics comparing the various wings from the various 1/72 Allison engined Mustangs in my pile, unless someone else beats me to it. I have the Academy, 2x Special Hobby and an Italeri.

 

Mark.

[John Thompson]

While it's in 1/48 scale, this new article by Jumpei Temma describing his build of the Accurate Miniatures P-51A may provide some inspiration (or discouragement, depending on how seriously you take your modelbuilding...):

http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p51a/p51ae-1.html

 

That;s part one; part two is linked as "Next" at the bottom of the page.

 

Read 'em and weep!

 

John

[Beard]

14 hours ago, Procopius said:

I really like the look of the early Mustangs, but whenever I start to look into getting some good kits to build them in 1/72, I read threads like this and sink into a deep depression.

 

You and me both.

[k5054nz]

12 hours ago, Harry Lime said:

As and when I can sort out a new photo host, I will happily post up pics comparing the various wings from the various 1/72 Allison engined Mustangs in my pile, unless someone else beats me to it. I have the Academy, 2x Special Hobby and an Italeri.

Thanks Mark, that will be much appreciated by many.

 

So while the Academy kit seems to have "THE" fuselage, it still has the D leading-edge wing root shape? Is that right?

 

I'm likely to splash out on a High Planes short-run kit - it's strange theirs never come up in discussion on this issue. I can't find sprue shots, only found one build: https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/us/usaaf/p51/gros51a.htm

Edited September 27, 2017 by k5054nz
Edited to correct stupid error on my part

[John Thompson]

2 hours ago, k5054nz said:

So while the Academy kit seems to have "THE" fuselage, it still has the D leading-edge wing root shape? Is that right?

 

 

No, that's absolutely WRONG! See my previous post, about halfway up this page, which I've copied below; no wonder there's so much confusion on this topic!

 

On 9/25/2017 at 2:07 PM, John Thompson said:

 

So much information is being presented, quoted, requoted, and disputed here that I think confusion is setting in. I see nothing in this thread which says the Academy P-51 (kit #12401) has a P-51D wing. Direct comparison shows that the wing matches exactly the Allison P-51 drawings prepared by Jumpei Temma, and that's pretty damn good, in my book. FYI:

http://www.geocities.jp/yoyuso/p51a/p51a-1.html

 

John

 

John

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, John Thompson said:

 

No, that's absolutely WRONG! See my previous post, about halfway up this page, which I've copied below; no wonder there's so much confusion on this topic!

 

 

John

That has been my understanding, too, John. On the P-51 SIG a while back there was a pretty involved article with photos that pointed out the numerous problems with the KP P-51B/C but also compared all of the best candidates/combinations to make an accurate P-51B/C. According to the reviewer, the KP wing was very, very good and had a few minor issues, but the fuselage had a lot of problems.  IIRC, one of the better conversions involved mating the Hasegawa P-51B/C fuselage with the Academy P-51B/C wing, which actually looked like it fitted extremely well with some trimming. The Hasegawa kit is one of the few that got the upper cowling contours correct. IIRC there was a small issue with the shape of the upper fin and the prop- neither one was a deal breaker. I will see if I can paraphrase from the review for those of you who might be interested. Of course, as soon as one of us does a conversion, we will get a new-tool state of the art kit!

Mike