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

[k5054nz]

Whew, sorry John! I've no idea where I got that from!

 

A few options are opening up for me to get an Academy kit.

[John Thompson]

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

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.

 

 

Yeah, I did that once, and it worked pretty well. Never finished it, but the thing looked quite good when assembled.

 

Speaking of the Academy P-51B, those who have built this kit may remember that the empennage is separate from the fuselage (to allow for fin fillet or no fin fillet in the -51C and -51B versions), and that the fabric detail on the rudder and elevators is much more realistic-looking than that of the Academy Allison P-51 kit. Slicing off the P-51 tail at the appropriate panel line allows you to use the empennage from the P-51B with very little difficulty. You can then use the Academy P-51B wing that's left over to fix up the Hasegawa P-51B as you describe.

 

John

[John Thompson]

25 minutes ago, k5054nz said:

Whew, sorry John! I've no idea where I got that from!

 

A few options are opening up for me to get an Academy kit.

 

my mistake - perhaps I overreacted. I'm sorry. Good luck with chasing down the Academy P-51; FWIW, there were a couple of ebay sellers in South Korea who were selling Academy kits for good prices and shipping them for free, yes, free,  as in, at no cost to the buyer, if you were willing to go with regular delivery (2 - 3 weeks). Express delivery was something like $3 US, IIRC.

 

John

Edited September 27, 2017 by John Thompson

[Procopius]

2 hours ago, 72modeler said:

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

 

@Cookenbacher built a brace of those two years ago.

[k5054nz]

1 hour ago, John Thompson said:

 

my mistake - perhaps I overreacted. I'm sorry. Good luck with chasing down the Academy P-51; FWIW, there were a couple of ebay sellers in South Korea who were selling Academy kits for good prices and shipping them for free, yes, free,  as in, at no cost to the buyer, if you were willing to go with regular delivery (2 - 3 weeks). Express delivery was something like $3 US, IIRC.

 

John

No problem - your original post settling the Academy wing question was directly above one of mine!

 

I've only managed to find two on eBay, one in Germany and the other in Spain...the seller of which quoted shipping of 15 Euro, for a kit sitting at 12 or so...sometimes I really hate being in New Zealand. On the bright side I've found a US seller with a couple so we'll see.

 

Then, of course, there's a seller in Australia who has a reasonably-priced HPM kit I'm waiting to hear back from regarding postage.

[rav]

On 22.09.2017 at 8:49 AM, Courageous said:

With what's available now and without breaking the bank, how would you produce this aircraft to an acceptable example and catch the 'key' features of a Mustang I.

I have built my Mustang Mk.I using the Academy kit. Just a little conversion of the wing was needed (guns, panel lines). Fuselage guns were added. The result is here.

[Courageous]

@rav, that looks very nice. After everything thing that has been mentioned on this topic, do you feel you have captured the features to an acceptable level or do you wish you could have done more...what ever that 'more' is?

 

Stuart

[rav]

55 minutes ago, Courageous said:

@ravAfter everything thing that has been mentioned on this topic, do you feel you have captured the features to an acceptable level...

No. I have captured all the features BEFORE anything was mentioned in this topic.

 

According to serial number, my model depicts NA-83. However, a colleague commented in my gallery on another forum that the exhausts look rather like on NA-73. I did not know there was any visible difference. Maybe this is something you could investigate further.

[gingerbob]

There were various exhausts tried/used on RAF Mustangs.  The fishtails for the Kittyhawk worked as well as any, as I recall (flame damping).

 

[Cookenbacher]

14 hours ago, Procopius said:

 

@Cookenbacher built a brace of those two years ago.

 

Just a note, I updated the link to show pics of the Mustang III's, post-photobucket debacle.

 

Bedders (Justin) is doing the same with a Hasegawa fuselage and the KP wing, and it looks fantastic.

 

To atone for my off topic-ness, here is a pic of the 'P-51A' in question (quotes intended) I took in Reno a couple weeks ago.

 

I wish I'd read this topic while I was there, as it would have been possible to track someone down to get the whole scoop on the provenance of the various parts that make up this beautiful racer. I wouldn't be surprised if it had parts from every surviving variant of P-51.

For example, there was a Yak racer there as well, and everyone just called it a 'Yak'. I finally learned that the reason for no number assigned was that it had a Yak-3 fuselage, a Yak-11 wing and an Allison engine!

[Graham Boak]

Yak fighters around are either from a batch of Yak 9s built new by the factory with Allison's, or converted from Yak 11 trainers.  The Yak 11 was basically  a Yak 3 with the wing centre section removed, so the conversion back to the fighter is fairly straightforward - although I doubt that the centre section is replaced.  Not being factory-produced, these don't have proper designations and probably all differ anyway.

[k5054nz]

3 hours ago, Cookenbacher said:

To atone for my off topic-ness, here is a pic of the 'P-51A' in question (quotes intended) I took in Reno a couple weeks ago.

I wish I'd read this topic while I was there, as it would have been possible to track someone down to get the whole scoop on the provenance of the various parts that make up this beautiful racer. I wouldn't be surprised if it had parts from every surviving variant of P-51.

All the 1:1 experts I've read recognise this as a P-51A. The first time round it had a D wing and a fuselage based on a B, but Pacific Fighters' restoration to this result was much, much more authentic according to those who know their Mustangs.

 

Quote

For example, there was a Yak racer there as well, and everyone just called it a 'Yak'. I finally learned that the reason for no number assigned was that it had a Yak-3 fuselage, a Yak-11 wing and an Allison engine!

It's a Yak-3M, registered as such with the NZCAA and with RARA. I've no idea why people just kept saying "Yak" or why people believe it has "no number assigned" when it is legally a Yak-3. Every single inline Yak-3 and Yak-9 flying today has an Allison and has an airframe either built by Yakovlev in the early 1990s (like Graeme Frew's) or based on Let C.11s recovered from Egypt. Graeme's Yak uses a Yak-11/LET wing because of the structural advantages including the fuel tanks, a choice made by Graeme when the restoration/rebuild from its prior US-based incarnation (written off at Reno in 1999) was done in NZ.

 

Anyway, this is a Mustang thread.

[Cookenbacher]

Great info, thanks Zac. Glad to hear that the P-51A restorers consciously made it as authentic as possible, it certainly looked amazing. The NZ Yak-3 was very impressive in the races, qualifying for the Gold final after winning Bronze and Silver heats - really something to see.

[k5054nz]

It made a lot of Kiwi warbird fans into air race fans, folks who never saw the point in Reno (I've always been in a tiny minority, I think). Plus Graeme was born in my hometown, and I had a few friends in the pit team, so it was super exciting to follow. Three years ago he was in the stands watching!

 

Mustangs. Oh boy have I goofed. This from John Terrell, P-51 expert and walking encyclopaedia, on September 9:
"They've done a ton of work to make the aircraft resemble a P-51A, closer than what had been accomplished in its first restoration. Although the main fuselage and wings are still all from a P-51D, it now has an A-model type radiator scoop/doghouse section and a lot of detail work has been poured into the cockpit to present it as a stock A-model"

And as proof, photos from the restorers on Facebook:
The Wing 01 by Zac Yates, on Flickr
The Wing 02 by Zac Yates, on Flickr

 

So I guess I need a D wing after all!!!!!!!! I feel a right fool. At least it means I only need to spend NZ$12 or so.

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by k5054nz

[Graham Boak]

11 hours ago, k5054nz said:

All the 1:1 experts I've read recognise this as a P-51A. The first time round it had a D wing and a fuselage based on a B, but Pacific Fighters' restoration to this result was much, much more authentic according to those who know their Mustangs.

 

It's a Yak-3M, registered as such with the NZCAA and with RARA. I've no idea why people just kept saying "Yak" or why people believe it has "no number assigned" when it is legally a Yak-3. Every single inline Yak-3 and Yak-9 flying today has an Allison and has an airframe either built by Yakovlev in the early 1990s (like Graeme Frew's) or based on Let C.11s recovered from Egypt. Graeme's Yak uses a Yak-11/LET wing because of the structural advantages including the fuel tanks, a choice made by Graeme when the restoration/rebuild from its prior US-based incarnation (written off at Reno in 1999) was done in NZ.

 

Anyway, this is a Mustang thread.

 

As it still has a P-51D, then it isn't (quite) a P-51A, however good the fuselage may be.  It is some kind of hybrid.

 

The same argument applies to these "Yak-3"s.  In the case of the new Yak 9s, these were built by the Yakovlev factory and hence officially named as such.  But what is the origin of this Yak-3M designation?  That the name is registered to one example doesn't make it "right".  Does it apply to all such conversions, and if so, on whose authority?  Do any of them actually have a Yak-3 wing as opposed to a Yak.11 one?  If not, then a more accurate designation would be Yak 11M.  Of course, that's less sexy, but putting a Zero-outline fuselage onto a T-6 wing doesn't mean that you end up with a Zero.

[k5054nz]

That's a good point about the Mustang. But it has an A dataplate and from what I've read the fuselage of an aircraft has the identity. What would you call one of the restored Spitfires that uses a majority of new metal but, say, a Mk.IX dataplate and Frame 5 recovered from a South African scrapyard?

 

16 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

But what is the origin of this Yak-3M designation? 

Pass - I'm struggling to find an answer to that. The Yakovlev company at Orenburg built 19 new Yak-3s (11 on contract from Flight Magic in Santa Monica) designated Yak-3UA. These were built to original -3 spec (except for the Allison) and I don't know how many, besides ZK-VVS (aka Full Noise), have had an -11 wing retrofitted.  Three aircraft designated Yak-3U were built at the same factory, now named Strela Aviation, on contract by Richard Goode Aerobatics - these were the same, still with Allisons.

 

As far as the -9s are concerned, Shadetree Aviation had the same Orenburg outfit build nine Yak-9UM and Richard Goode ordered three. In all, Wikipedia says "From 1991 to 2002 there were 21 Yakovlev Yak-3, Yak-7 and Yak-9 aircraft produced in the former Soviet Union using the original plans and dies" but I've used Geoff Goodall's Warbirds Directory for my info.

 

Alain Capel had a Romanian company restore five Yak-11s (perhaps LETs?) as radial-engined, single seat Yak-3UTI-PWs (weird a single-seater has UTI in its name). Jean Garric in Texas has restored/converted several -11s to Allison-powered Yak-3UA replicas.

 

A LET C.11 is being restored as an Allison-powered Yak-9V in New Zealand, and another (formerly with OFMC) was restored as a Yak-3U with an Allison but, like ZK-VVS, is registered as a Yak-3M. Others have popped up around the world in various guises, including a Yak-9T in France.

 

You can see the spread of models in the USA, including three -3Ms, here: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&Modeltxt=YAK-3&PageNo=1

 

As it stands none of the new-builds, replicas or Yak-11-based conversions fly with a Klimov and there are no airworthy originals.

 

I think I'll ask around about the origin of the -3M designation. QUICK EDIT: I checked with a friend who occasionally hangars ZK-VVS - and who's been in the warbird business longer than I've been around - and he said it's an Orenburg-built Yak-3 and the -11 wing doesn't change that.

Edited September 29, 2017 by k5054nz
typos

[Bedders]

I've just been tooling around on the interweb and found this which looks quite useful as a reference:

 

http://aircraft-in-focus.com/north-american-p-51-mustang/

 

Justin

 

[72modeler]

4 hours ago, Bedders said:

I've just been tooling around on the interweb and found this which looks quite useful as a reference:

 

http://aircraft-in-focus.com/north-american-p-51-mustang/

 

Justin

 

We've got 'em covered, coming and going! I also posted this in the Aviation Photography section...great minds think alike!

Mike

[Jure Miljevic]

Too late to resurrect this topic? P-51 D did have slightly thicker airfoil than earlier versions. Take a look at publications on these links:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2535.pdf

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/5/54/Master_Dimensions_Book_P-51D_1943.pdf

On page 66 of the first one leading dimensions of Mustang I are given. Maximal airfoil thickness at the wing root at 0,040% of span (1,486 ft. from the center line) at 39% of the chord is given as 15,1%. On pages 12-19 of the second publication Master wing ordinate chart for P-51D is given with ordinates of upper and lower camber for various wing stations. Adding ordinate of the upper camber to ordinate of the lower camber (8,923 + 6,884 = 15,807) for the second station (17,5 inches or about 1,416 ft. from the center line) at 40% of the chord gives airfoil thickness of 15,87%. 0,77% does not sound like very much but at chord length of 99,594 inches P-51D airfoil is more than three quarters of an inch (0,767 inch) thicker than Mustang I airfoil. Leading edge kink is not included in data for neither subtype. On a wingtip (0,482 of wingspan or 17,9 ft. from the center line, 50% of the chord) Mustang I airfoil's thickness is 11,4% or 5,704 inches and P-51D's is 11,44% (216 inches or 18 ft. from the center line, 50% of the chord) or 5,72 inches.

A quick glance over data in Master dimension book P-51D shows that unlike most of the aircraft of the day P-51's airfoil thickness (in % course) changes constantly. This is due to efforts of design team to delay flow separation and drag generating turbulent airflow for as long as possible. Cheers

Jure

[Graham Boak]

At the wingtip you are quoting a difference in thickness of 16 thou.  This is probably close to the build tolerance, which strictly should always be quoted in these matters, and may simply be a recognition of the actual production build standard being achieved.

 

Looking at the root (near root) figures that you give, the spanwise position quoted is further inboard for the P-51D than for the Mk.I, so yes it would be slightly thicker.

 

I remain unconvinced that the wings were different.  Making changes in this manner to a production line is expensive in terms of time and production, and would not have been authorised without major improvements, which would not come from what can only be described as small differences.

[72modeler]

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 2:30 AM, 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

The Frog kit has the P-51D LE extensions and the wingtips are too square. The radiator scoop is too shallow and the carburetor scoop on top is too shallow and not shaped correctly; The canopy sits too low and the w/s is not shaped correctly. I should know- I bashed one into semi-accurate shape for the old Replica in Scale magazine eons ago. I'm still toying with how to incorporate that section of the Monogram kit into the most accurate current kit....but I am still keeping my fingers crossed for a new-tool kit that gets everything right. The way Eduard engineers their new aircraft kits for multiple versions, they would be my first choice, in both 1/72 and 1/48... the Allison powered Mustangs and the P-51B/C's.....we really don't need another 1/48 P-51D, as in my opinion, Airfix/Tamiya/Zokei-Mura have pretty much set the bar for that version, but I also understand the sales aspect of doing yet another D.

Mike

[Bedders]

Interesting stuff. I thought that the D wing was made thicker to allow 6 x .50s to stand upright, while the thinner B wing only had space for 4 x .50s lying at an angle (which caused stoppages during high g manoeuvres). Perhaps this was one reason why the D was a bit slower than the B, though I think the bubble canopy also had a negative impact compared to the original fastback design.

 

Justin

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Bedders

[Graham Boak]

The D was partly slower because of the canopy, but also because the engine had a lower full throttle height, giving better performance at this altitude and below, at the expense of slightly poorer performance above.  This was the same effect as that between the Spitfire F Mk.IX and the LF Mk.IX.

[72modeler]

1 hour ago, Bedders said:

Interesting stuff. I thought that the D wing was made thicker to allow 6 x .50s to stand upright, while the thinner B wing only had space for 4 x .50s lying at an angle (which caused stoppages during high g manoeuvres). Perhaps this was one reason why the D was a bit slower than the B, though I think the bubble canopy also had a negative impact compared to the original fastback design.

 

Justin

 

The wing thickness was the same for the B's and the D's. IIRC, the landing gear geometry was altered, due in part to the actuating rams for the inner fairing doors being moved from the front to the back of the doors, as well as the increased chord of the LE extension to counter an aft cg issue. The shape of the inner fairing doors and the uplocks were changed from the B/C to the D. The D was slower than the B/C, I think I remember reading this, due to the greater fineness of the fuselage of the B/C with its taller  and smooth line from canopy to fin, unlike the D, whose bubble canopy greatly improved visibility, but was not as smooth, airflow-wise than the hump-backed Mustangs. Since the Mustang was designed from the outset to mount 20mm cannon, the wings were made thick enough to cater to that armament option. Lots and lots of discussion on these very two topics can be found on the P-51 SIG website.

Mike

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

I must correct myself. 17,5 inches is 1,458 ft. and not 1,416 ft. Slip of finger while calculating probably. So, P-51D and Mustang I airfoil wing positions I had been referring to are one third of an inch apart. Even so P-51D airfoil is thicker for more than twice this length than Mustang I airfoil, far too steep an increase on such a short distance. So I stick to my guns in I claim P-51D has thicker airfoil than Mustang I. All data I worked with are in primary documents linked to in my previous post and, if in doubt, anyone can calculate it by himself or herself. Also, these documents contain plenty of very useful drawings and other information.

Justin, in a book I read some time ago (and I still cannot provide a quote because I cannot find it) the reason given for modified airfoil was higher weight of a D model. Slightly thicker wing provided more lift, however drag also increased. More room inside the wings eliminated the need for tilted machine guns more as a byproduct (though a very welcome one) and higher weight and more drag resulted in slightly lower maximum speed. Cheers

Jure