Missouri Armada P-51D Mustang: documents and partial scratch from the Tamiya 1/48 kit

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Thank you so much John for these great pics, the only close-ups of -1DFF up to now on the thread. You underline that here, we have rivets while on period aircrafts, they were spot welded. It is an interesting info of course, but concretely, at 1/48, it doesn't change many things for me, the difference being too subtle at such a scale.

On the other hand, looking at these pics, it seems to me that the front edge of the vertical stabilizer is less thick than in versions with straight DFF, like the Frenesi fe:

 

Other example with straight DFF:

 

On the other hand, with -1 DFF:

 

If this feeling I have is correct (tell me what you think please), I have to thin the front edge of the vertical stabilizer as well as the DFF on my Missouri Armada, the Tamiya kit representing it much wider...

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Here is a really great pic (again many thanks Laurent...) among others. Notice the rivets on the hinge:

[Totally Mad Olivier]

[John Terrell]

Olivier, there is no difference in the leading edge thickness of the vertical tail fin no matter which fillet was installed - they are all the same. The early curved fillet has all the same dimensions as the later straight fillet, and either type can be installed on any airframe (there really isn't much difference between the two different fillets). What you're seeing is only a difference in perspective. The curved dorsal fin fillet has just the same amount of thinness and thickness transition as the straight fillet, and all within the same area. In-fact, the shape/contours are identical between the curved fillet and the straight fillet from the vertical tail fin up until the panel line split in the fillet. It is only from that panel line split, up to the forward most tip of the fillet, that it has any difference in shape/more cuvature than the later straight fillet.

Edited March 22, 2018 by John Terrell

[Fencer-1]

Hello Olivier,

This is flap riveting pattern drawn for Meng P-51D flaps replacement. Rivet patterns here from NAA plans.

Flap by Alexey Matvienko, on Flickr

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Waooh, thanks Alexey, this is the ultimate doc to reproduce accurately the flaps!

Ok John, thank you for these précisions about the leading edge of the vertical tail fin and the DFF. Photos may be confusing, as we can see, and the ones above were particularly for me...

[Totally Mad Olivier]

I have spent several hours on the up right flap, inspired by our docs (especially the Fencer-1 one). The result is far from being perfect for this first experience with the Herold's method to create a stressed surface, because of mistakes (take care and be very thorough in the measures if you wish to do the same job). I have represented also the details on the hinge (except one, see the pic below). I have then applied the white alu and the Dark Green. Of course, this is just a dry fit assembly, that will be useful to improve (I hope) the result.

 

 

This detail missing will be have to be added:

[Torbjorn]

Before you create that detail (flap indicator), note that it shouldn’t go on the wing you just posted.

[Totally Mad Olivier]

You mean this flap indicator was present only on the left wing ?

[Torbjorn]

Yes.

[antonio argudo]

Hi Olivier,

just saw this today, A.M.U.R.Reaver announced this resin set of flaps in 1/48 and 1/32 in his facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AMUR.Reaver/

cheers

 

[Biggles87]

Thanks for posting Antonio, that could save a lot of work on the Revell 1/32 flaps.

 

John

[Totally Mad Olivier]

1) Thanks Tornbjorn for this important info, I had not noticed that.

2) Waooh, Antonio, these flaps look great, even if I feel a bit surprised with the first pic:

 

 

3) I have been seeing on the facebook page and I could see 2 different flaps, one with stressed surface and one not. I wonder the stressed surface corresponds to the 1/32 flaps... as there are (or will be) 2 versions, 1/32 and 1/48...

 

Cheers

 

P.S: now that I see again the pic just above, I now see the rivets lines hollowed!!! an optical illusion, as it seems... Do the experience: if you look at them, they first appear so (rivets lines hollowed), but if you go on looking, you see the contrary! Magic!! 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

 

If I had not ever spent a lot of time on the flaps, no doubt, I would have ordered the A.M.U.R resin flaps. But now that I have done nearly half of the way, I will probably go on with my craftmade flaps...

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Oh! I saw that it is Alexey Matvienko (Fencer-1) who sells these nice resin flaps on A.M.U.R Reaver. I could finally change my mind (you are used to that with me ) and order them, if they are available soon...

The main reason of this change is that my flap is not bad now, but the skin should be more stressed. The Alexey ones are indisputably better on this point (and not only on this point...)

 

P.S: I just got a reply by email from Rust of A.M.U.R. (probably a collaborator of Alexey). The flaps (1/32 and 1/48) will be available within 2 weeks... I decide to stop for now with mine and to focus on another aspect of my build, probably the wheel wells...

Edited March 26, 2018 by Olivier de St Raph

[ArmouredSprue]

Fantastic building.

I'll be following to see how it will end.

Cheers mate!

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Thanks mate! I think I am gonna first go back first on the canopy rails, inside panels, K14 gunsight and details to finish the cockpit and close the 2 half fuselages, before working on the wheel wells. But I have actually very few time for my hobby, and I have to undergo a necessary intervention under general anesthesia in the next days. So, don't be surprised if my build goes on slowly. I hope I will be fine very soon, because like you, I would like this build to go on...

About the inside right panel, I recall that I had ordered the Aires kit 4072 for Tamiya and I am wondering if I use it for the right panel, or if I do it by scratch as I did for the left one...

One thing is sure, the hose would be much more realistic done by scratch, as the great Antonio 1/32 right panel (that should inspire me, among others) shows (see below):

 

The raw Aires right panel:

 

The Antonio great right panel on his 1/32 build, very inspiring:

 

Screen capture of the docs 52 and 54 to have a nearly full view of the right panel: notice how Antonio was faithful to details, such comparisons being merciless...

 

 

Cheers

Olivier

 

[Biggles87]

Good luck for your intervention Olivier, I hope everything goes well.

 

John

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Thanks John, it is not too serious, an ureteral calculus to remove... 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Before beginning to work on this right panel, and considering the many versions, updates etc, I would like to be sure of the reference docs I use. In other words, are the docs 52 and 54 right for the P-51-10-NA?

Some complementary pics showing the right panel on this version will be welcome...

Cheers

Olivier

[John Terrell]

Here is the right-side of a P-51D-10-NA cockpit:

 

 

Make sure that you don't depict the beacon receiver box that you see mounted on the floor, as it was removed as soon as or before the aircraft reached England (as well as the removal of the wire antenna, which was for the beacon receiver).

[Totally Mad Olivier]

I have finally found the solution for the rails:

 

 

 

Conclusion: this rail (maybe 3% of the kit) is probably the only thing I will use from the Aires kit. But I don't regret, because I could not have represented as well this important element...

[Totally Mad Olivier]

12 minutes ago, John Terrell said:

Make sure that you don't depict the beacon receiver box that you see mounted on the floor, as it was removed as soon as or before the aircraft reached England (as well as the removal of the wire antenna, which was for the beacon receiver).

Thanks John! this beacon receiver box was represented (very summarily...) in the Tamiya kit, and I had removed it... I ever had this pic but it is good to know this one is a good reference for the Missouri (except the box)...

[John Terrell]

For anyone interested, here is a little more information on the beacon receiver, which should not be present on the aircraft...

 

The beacon receiver, also known as the BC-1206 (made by both the Detrola and Setchell Carlson companies), was just a basic, general purpose receiver that picks up low-band frequencies. In the United States during WWII, all of the control towers and navigational beacons only transmitted on low frequencies, but in England, and other Theatres of operation, VHF was adopted as the main/only source of communication. So while aircraft like the P-51 were manufactured with the VHF SCR-522 receiver/transmitter radio set installed for use overseas, they still needed something to be able to receive the low frequencies when flying across the U.S., and that is where the beacon receiver came into play. The beacon receiver unit only took a few minutes to install/remove, and could be plugged into the SCR-522 radio. It was actually designed so that the round portion that sticks out was small enough (3" diameter) to fit in a standard instrument panel gauge opening (though it was never fitted that way, at least in the fighters). While still in the United States, the beacon receiver was used for tower communications and with the navigation ranges across the country. The navigation ranges operated by transmitting beams from directional antennas along "airway" routes. If you were "on the beam" you'd hear a single steady tone. If you strayed too far off course in either direction you'd hear the Morse-Code of either D or M (and later either A or N), and you'd know which direction you'd have to change course back to.

 

The beacon receivers were meant to be removed by the ferry pilots as soon as the aircraft reached its last destination in the U.S. before being shipped overseas, and then they were to be recycled back into another newly-produced aircraft, and so-on. I've seen some that actually had a sticker which states that if the ferry pilot had not removed it, that you were to follow the instructions of the unit commander (whether to remove it or not). The wire antenna, which would connect at the armor plate/headrest and run through the canopy up to the vertical tail was for use with the beacon receiver, and thus, after the beacon receivers were removed, that antenna wire was usually removed too. The little roller assembly on the canopy was then often removed (especially within 8th AF Fighter Groups) and a mostly oval-shaped clear plexi patch would be screwed into place to cover the hole in the canopy, which I believe was the case with "Missouri Armada".

The preserved P-51D 44-73349 has just such a patch on the canopy, covering the hole for the antenna wire (don't copy the leather pouch on the back of the headrest, however - that, as I recall, is a Swiss Air Force addition).

 

 

 

Here is a close-up of a factory-fresh P-51D-10-NA, still in the U.S. Note the early canopy frame and squared release panel/"hand hold" on the canopy frame. On the canopy frame of early P-51D's, such as the D-10-NA, they didn't have the rectangular release handles on either side, as you see on later D's (and most often depicted), they only had a single small square panel on the left-side and nothing on the right-side.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by John Terrell

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Thanks John for these very interesting infos about the beacon receiver and also - and especially! - for the infos and the close-up showing very precisely the patch (definitely our best document to represent it) we can discern on the Missouri. Good to know too  that the leather pouch concerned only the Swiss  AF versions.

If I understand you well, I should represent this small squared panel on the left side of the canopy, another detail to approach truth to the closer...

 

Your contribution to the thread is huge, because of your knowledge on the subject. I could rename it in "documents, informations and partial scratch..."