Radicaldude1234
Well-Known Member
Just thought I'd separate updates from my previous "Doodles" thread since these are neither new tech nor actual design (I won't be discussing actual engineering numbers).
I've drawn these over the years as a way to relax...and to learn about the monocoque geometry these aircraft had.
Currently drawing the Mustang since it's possibly the most documented warbird in existence, with the possible exception of the Spitfire. Started off with free "scale modeler" drawings I found on the internet and am now fine-tuning the model with factory drawings. The Mustang was also the first aircraft to be designed with Conics, curves can be easily reproduced with high accuracy without using hard to define splines.
The fuselage shape was extremely challenging to reproduce given that even the factory drawings present conflicting information. Most drawings of the forward fuselage are incorrect with too much "bulge). Quite confident that after the most recent adjustment that most of the fuselage geometry is within 1", which is probably the best I could do without actually scanning formers and ribs.
Next step is to adjust the flying surfaces and scoop:
Difference depending on interpretation of factory drawings:
Size comparison with the Mustang's direct competition:
Some of the trends I've observed is that the geometry late-war aircraft tend to be simpler in terms of compound curving (which is complicated to produce). An example is that for fuselage of the P-51D above, only the middle side panel and the turtle deck (non load bearing) has compound curving. Contrast this with the P-47, which started off as a prewar design and had a fuselage that was mostly compound curved to produce the smoothest shape. The Thunderbolt started off requiring 22k man-hours to produce and ended up taking up 9K hrs. The last Mustangs took just over 2000 hrs to make.
For the Germans, the Bf-109 and Me-262 are similar in that there is minimal compound curving in the forward fuselage (with exception of cowling) and the rear fuselage is comprised of half-"hoops" where the former and skin are one piece and is made on a mandrel. It's a simple way to obtain complex geometry once the tooling is completed, but requires precision to work in practice. Towards the end, they were using upwards of 100lbs of streamlining filler (bondo equivalent) to get a good fit. You can see this on pictures of unpainted Me-262s.
After the war, the first generation of jet fighters (and continuing to this day) went back to using as much compound curving as possible for aerodynamics, understandable given the need attain supersonic speeds.
Questions welcome as long as they don't involve actual engineering and, since I draw these for fun, no requests please.
PS: I did start a Spitfire sketch but stopped after seeing the "Artisan" nature of construction.
I've drawn these over the years as a way to relax...and to learn about the monocoque geometry these aircraft had.
Currently drawing the Mustang since it's possibly the most documented warbird in existence, with the possible exception of the Spitfire. Started off with free "scale modeler" drawings I found on the internet and am now fine-tuning the model with factory drawings. The Mustang was also the first aircraft to be designed with Conics, curves can be easily reproduced with high accuracy without using hard to define splines.
The fuselage shape was extremely challenging to reproduce given that even the factory drawings present conflicting information. Most drawings of the forward fuselage are incorrect with too much "bulge). Quite confident that after the most recent adjustment that most of the fuselage geometry is within 1", which is probably the best I could do without actually scanning formers and ribs.
Next step is to adjust the flying surfaces and scoop:
Difference depending on interpretation of factory drawings:
Size comparison with the Mustang's direct competition:
Some of the trends I've observed is that the geometry late-war aircraft tend to be simpler in terms of compound curving (which is complicated to produce). An example is that for fuselage of the P-51D above, only the middle side panel and the turtle deck (non load bearing) has compound curving. Contrast this with the P-47, which started off as a prewar design and had a fuselage that was mostly compound curved to produce the smoothest shape. The Thunderbolt started off requiring 22k man-hours to produce and ended up taking up 9K hrs. The last Mustangs took just over 2000 hrs to make.
For the Germans, the Bf-109 and Me-262 are similar in that there is minimal compound curving in the forward fuselage (with exception of cowling) and the rear fuselage is comprised of half-"hoops" where the former and skin are one piece and is made on a mandrel. It's a simple way to obtain complex geometry once the tooling is completed, but requires precision to work in practice. Towards the end, they were using upwards of 100lbs of streamlining filler (bondo equivalent) to get a good fit. You can see this on pictures of unpainted Me-262s.
After the war, the first generation of jet fighters (and continuing to this day) went back to using as much compound curving as possible for aerodynamics, understandable given the need attain supersonic speeds.
Questions welcome as long as they don't involve actual engineering and, since I draw these for fun, no requests please.
PS: I did start a Spitfire sketch but stopped after seeing the "Artisan" nature of construction.
Last edited:
