PRU Blue Mustang III

[Seahawk]

A while back MAM had an article which a. reproduced the one known photo of this aircraft and b. featured a 1/48 build by Neil Robinson. Can anyone please tell me what issue this was please? I've gone through my collection right back to the start of Neil's rule without finding it.

Many thanks.

Nick

Edited July 3, 2010 by Seahawk

[Gundylunch]

If you get any answers, wouldn't mind sharing the info !!

[MFord]

It was the June 2005 issue, article was by Paul Lucas.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy - I have May & July, but not June. I only realised because there's a follow-up letter in July.

[Seahawk]

It was the June 2005 issue, article was by Paul Lucas.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy - I have May & July, but not June. I only realised because there's a follow-up letter in July.

Many thanks. I had just logged on to report finding it myself. And I was wrong: the article doesn't include the original photo, just Neil's model (p.24) and Jon Freeman's artwork (p.36).

But thanks again for looking - and the tip-off re the follow-up letter.

[Edited to say: just checked and the letter (from one Terry McGrady not altogether unknown here) comments on Paul Lucas' Mustang colours article (the green and brown camouflage controversy) but doesn't that I can see have anything to say about the PRU Mustang.]

Nick

Edited July 3, 2010 by Seahawk

[Terry McGrady]

Many thanks. I had just logged on to report finding it myself. And I was wrong: the article doesn't include the original photo, just Neil's model (p.24) and Jon Freeman's artwork (p.36).

But thanks again for looking - and the tip-off re the follow-up letter.

[Edited to say: just checked and the letter (from one Terry McGrady not altogether unknown here) comments on Paul Lucas' Mustang colours article (the green and brown camouflage controversy) but doesn't that I can see have anything to say about the PRU Mustang.]

Nick

I am 'ere :lol

I have a copy of the photo showing the Mustang somewhere on disc . Its a matter of personal interpretation . To me it appears to be PRU Blue . to others , it may appear to be ordinary Day Fighter scheme . The choice is yours .

Easiest way is to do two one in each scheme then you are bound to be right one way or another

Cheers

Terry McGrady

[Colin S-K]

Terry,

Most interested in any information you can share regarding these aircraft, pictures would be most appreciated.....

Colin

Photo Recce SIG

email at,

decalbank@googlemail.com

[Seahawk]

Terry,

Most interested in any information you can share regarding these aircraft, pictures would be most appreciated.....

Colin

Photo Recce SIG

email at,

decalbank@googlemail.com

There are two relevant threads over on Hyperscale, one in "Plane Talking", titled "PRU Mustang" and started 28 June 2007 and one in "Plastic Pics" entitled "Mustang in Blue" and started 3 Feb 2006, which has a 1/48 model of the aircraft (not Neil R's) and a copy of the photo. Between them I think they contain most of what is known about this/these aircraft.

Nick

[brewerjerry]

Hi Nick,

thanks for posting the info about hyperscale,great info & pic

cheers

Jerry

[Andrew Jones]

A small point perhaps, but one usually missed , is to fill the filler cap behind the cockpit on the portside, since RAF Mustang III's did not have the rear fuselage fuel tank fitted.

[David M]

Andrew,

This may be so for some RAF Mk IIIs but at least some had the fuselage tank and filler. Several owned by the RAF and operated by 3 Squadron RAAF in Italy had filler caps - and the attendant staining - plainly evident on their port sides.

HTH

David Muir

Author 'Southern Cross Mustangs'

[Andrew Jones]

Andrew,

This may be so for some RAF Mk IIIs but at least some had the fuselage tank and filler. Several owned by the RAF and operated by 3 Squadron RAAF in Italy had filler caps - and the attendant staining - plainly evident on their port sides.

HTH

David Muir

Author 'Southern Cross Mustangs'

I can't argue with you over RAAF aircraft ,since I haven't seen the photos, but the filler caps are not visible on most RAF Mustang III's, not being visible in photo's of 65 or 19 sqd aircraft.

Ken Delve in his book "The Mustang Story" says RAF Mustangs were not fitted with the 85 gallon fuselage tank. He also quotes " The minutes of the C-in-C's conference at AEAF HQ for 23 February 1944,......'d) The range of the Mustang III in 2nd TAF appeared less than that of 9th Airforce P-51's......., With regards to range, some of the 9th Airforce P-51's were fitted with 85 gallon tanks. To fit similar tanks to 2nd TAF Mustangs would require 450 man-hours per aircraft, which was out of the qiuestion at the present stage of the war ".

Perhaps the Mustangs used by the RAAF in Italy were P-51's from US stocks ?.

[Test Graham]

This could be a matter of changes to the production line. The long range escort programme saw many USAAF Mustangs modified in a modification centre in the US, and aircraft intended for the RAF would not have been streamed through there. The RAF would be receiving aircraft to officially the same standard as the US under Lend Lease rules, but that would not apply to national modifications. The RAF requirement for long range fighters lacked the same urgency as the 8thAF, the un-improved range being good enough for 2 TAF's remit.

I strongly suspect that at some stage the US will have introduced the 85 gallon tank onto the production line, but sadly Ludwig's excellent book ont he Mustang doesn't go that far. In which case the RAF will have received such aircraft, which is presumably what is being seen in the Italian theatre photos.

With rare exceptions, the RAF and USAAF did not "swap" aircraft about. RAF Mustangs came from the RAF supply line. It would be interesting to find photos of later UK-based RAF aircraft with these tanks.

[Andrew Jones]

This could be a matter of changes to the production line. The long range escort programme saw many USAAF Mustangs modified in a modification centre in the US, and aircraft intended for the RAF would not have been streamed through there. The RAF would be receiving aircraft to officially the same standard as the US under Lend Lease rules, but that would not apply to national modifications. The RAF requirement for long range fighters lacked the same urgency as the 8thAF, the un-improved range being good enough for 2 TAF's remit.

I strongly suspect that at some stage the US will have introduced the 85 gallon tank onto the production line, but sadly Ludwig's excellent book ont he Mustang doesn't go that far. In which case the RAF will have received such aircraft, which is presumably what is being seen in the Italian theatre photos.

With rare exceptions, the RAF and USAAF did not "swap" aircraft about. RAF Mustangs came from the RAF supply line. It would be interesting to find photos of later UK-based RAF aircraft with these tanks.

It would appear that US aircraft were being fitted with the 85 gallon tank on the production line at the same time that British aircraft were being built, the 85 gallon tank not being a British requirement at this time. Careful study of wartime photos of RAF Mustang III's, show a faint circular outline of a blanking plate where the fuel filler fitted in some cases ,although nothing is visible in others. Much of the equipment used by British and Commonwealth forces in the Italian Campaign was delivered direct from the US and did not come through workshops in the UK, This is particularly apparent with armoured vehicles where they do not have many of the British applied fittings seen in NW.Europe, The same may have happened with aircraft.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Andrew Jones

[dambuster]

It would appear that US aircraft were being fitted with the 85 gallon tank on the production line at the same time that British aircraft were being built, the 85 gallon tank not being a British requirement at this time. Careful study of wartime photos of RAF Mustang III's, show a faint circular outline of a blanking plate where the fuel filler fitted in some cases ,although nothing is visible in others. Much of the equipment used by British and Commonwealth forces in the Italian Campaign was delivered direct from the US and did not come through workshops in the UK, This is particularly apparent with armoured vehicles where they do not have many of the British applied fittings seen in NW.Europe, The same may have happened with aircraft.

If it is of any interest, here's one that didn't have the tank:

And here's one that did:

Peter

[Terry McGrady]

I can't argue with you over RAAF aircraft ,since I haven't seen the photos, but the filler caps are not visible on most RAF Mustang III's, not being visible in photo's of 65 or 19 sqd aircraft.

Ken Delve in his book "The Mustang Story" says RAF Mustangs were not fitted with the 85 gallon fuselage tank. He also quotes " The minutes of the C-in-C's conference at AEAF HQ for 23 February 1944,......'d) The range of the Mustang III in 2nd TAF appeared less than that of 9th Airforce P-51's......., With regards to range, some of the 9th Airforce P-51's were fitted with 85 gallon tanks. To fit similar tanks to 2nd TAF Mustangs would require 450 man-hours per aircraft, which was out of the qiuestion at the present stage of the war ".

Perhaps the Mustangs used by the RAAF in Italy were P-51's from US stocks ?.

The Mustang MKIII as operated by the RAAF in Italy ie 3 RAAF WERE RAF A/C as David has stated ,from RAF allocations . Remember too that in Late 1944 and to the end of the war RAF Mustangs based in the UK were engaged on Long range escort missions.

Dambuster,s photo's sum it up nicely

Cheers

Terry McGrady

[Andrew Jones]

The Mustang MKIII as operated by the RAAF in Italy ie 3 RAAF WERE RAF A/C as David has stated ,from RAF allocations . Remember too that in Late 1944 and to the end of the war RAF Mustangs based in the UK were engaged on Long range escort missions.

Dambuster,s photo's sum it up nicely

Cheers

Terry McGrady

Many of the Mustangs used from late 1944 for long range escort duties, were Mustang IV's which of course were build with the fuselage tank.

[Test Graham]

The different Marks can be seen together in line-up before missions. They do not seem to have been differentiated in unit service, despite the small difference in performance.

We can reasonably assume that those with and without the 85 gall tank were kept distinct, but this may not have been necessary for all or many missions. Given some guide to the appropriate serials it may be possible to determine more about their use - for example that those without the tank were held back for OCU use once this became possible, or concentrated in certain units.

[Terry McGrady]

This could be a matter of changes to the production line. The long range escort programme saw many USAAF Mustangs modified in a modification centre in the US, and aircraft intended for the RAF would not have been streamed through there. The RAF would be receiving aircraft to officially the same standard as the US under Lend Lease rules, but that would not apply to national modifications. The RAF requirement for long range fighters lacked the same urgency as the 8thAF, the un-improved range being good enough for 2 TAF's remit.

I strongly suspect that at some stage the US will have introduced the 85 gallon tank onto the production line, but sadly Ludwig's excellent book ont he Mustang doesn't go that far. In which case the RAF will have received such aircraft, which is presumably what is being seen in the Italian theatre photos.

With rare exceptions, the RAF and USAAF did not "swap" aircraft about. RAF Mustangs came from the RAF supply line. It would be interesting to find photos of later UK-based RAF aircraft with these tanks.

Hi Graham,

The 85 gallon fuselage tank was factory installed on the P51B-10NA from December 1943 onwards. Prior to this the fuselge tanks were installed at Mod Centres , which led to a change of block nunber - a P51B-5NA receiving the tank would become a P51B-7NA .A white cross would be on the A/C data plate

The fuselage tank was factory fitted on the 450 Dallas built P51C-5NT and subsequent 950 P51C-10NT from Feb 1944 .

The Majority of RAF Mustang MKIII were P51C-1NT. ( FB125 - 349) P51C-5NT ( FB350-399, HB821-899) P51C-10NT -(HB900-961, KH421-640 ) .

From FB350 then the RAF Mustang MKIII would have had the fuselage tank

Those MKIII (P51B-1NA) in the FX and FZ*** serial range+ FB100-124 P51B-5NA and FB125-349 C-1NT would not have had the fuselage tank unless later modified

Cheers

Terry McGrady

[Terry McGrady]

Many of the Mustangs used from late 1944 for long range escort duties, were Mustang IV's which of course were build with the fuselage tank.

The Mustang MKIV did not enter service with the RAF in the UK until Early 45

The first deliveries of Mustang MKIV- P51D-5 NT did arrive in this country until late September 1944 and were not issued to Squadrons before Feb/March 45

The earliest use of MKIVA by RAF Squadrons was in December 1944 in Italy.

Terry McGrady

Edited July 4, 2010 by Terry McGrady

[Seahawk]

Hi Graham,

The 85 gallon fuselage tank was factory installed on the P51B-10NA from December 1943 onwards. Prior to this the fuselge tanks were installed at Mod Centres , which led to a change of block nunber - a P51B-5NA receiving the tank would become a P51B-7NA .A white cross would be on the A/C data plate

The fuselage tank was factory fitted on the 450 Dallas built P51C-5NT and subsequent 950 P51C-10NT from Feb 1944 .

The Majority of RAF Mustang MKIII were P51C-1NT. ( FB125 - 349) P51C-5NT ( FB350-399, HB821-899) P51C-10NT -(HB900-961, KH421-640 ) .

From FB350 then the RAF Mustang MKIII would have had the fuselage tank

Those MKIII (P51B-1NA) in the FX and FZ*** serial range+ FB100-124 P51B-5NA and FB125-349 C-1NT would not have had the fuselage tank unless later modified

Cheers

Terry McGrady

Right, (trying to guide this thread slightly closer to the original topic), so from the above this bear of little brain concludes that all 3 541 Squadron PR Mustangs (FB182, FX952 and FZ855) would, unless later modified, have been without the filler cap on the port side behind the cockpit. Useful.

Don't suppose any of you can come up with a pic of the vertical camera installation ahead of the tailwheel as fitted to USAAF F-6C Mustangs? Specifically where precisely was it, say, in relation to the side camera port (of which I have found a photo) and the jacking point? Was it flush or slightly protruding? I ask because it seems likely that the PRU Mustang fit emulated that of the F-6C.

Also, it's my impression from said pic that the camera in the lower fuselage of the F-6C was more a horizontal rather than an oblique (ie it does not seem to be inclined downward (or rear wards). Can anyone confirm?

Also, are Mustang droptank pylons permanent fixtures or removable when not required?

TIA

Nick

[brewerjerry]

Hi

a few links

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapo...-6_Mustang.html

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/northam/f-6c.htm

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000...eng_p51late.htm

cheers

Jerry

[Seahawk]

Hi

a few links

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapo...-6_Mustang.html

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/northam/f-6c.htm

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000...eng_p51late.htm

cheers

Jerry

Many thanks for looking out these references for me. The view in the second link is the best I have found of the side camera port.

Nick

[Ed Russell]

Another PRU Mustang build - 1/48 ICM kit.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/5-d-day-i...uild-23103.html