P-51 Replica. It's a Slow Day, so Let's Design One.

[TerryM76]

If I recall correctly it would mean using the actual P51 as a male mold to make a female mold to cast or mold parts from.

 

[TXFlyGuy]

Latecomer here...but why not just take a current design that is readily available?

Jurca has plans, as do some other companies. If you are wanting full scale, 100% sized, you need big bucks.

A company planed to offer a full size kit. It would start at $500,000. By the time you finished, you probably could have bought a flying P-51 for the same price. And been flying, instead of building.

 

[Victor Bravo]

The only pipe-dream / longhot / Hail Mary chance you'd have is the concept that they could 3D print fuselage molds or foam cores or bulkhead forms nowdays that they couldn't have done previously. But other than that, it'd be a huge project regardless.

One of the modern era Edwards AFB test pilots (and former F-4 Wild Weasel) was asked what was the most disappointing aircraft he ever flew, and the answer was the P-51.

The P-51 and warbird community is very proud of the statement that they have brought back and restored many more Mustangs than had been flyable in the previous decades. If this is true, then there is not a serious shortage of Mustangs in the world, compared to the number of potential buyers.

Ifyou're going to go to thehuge effort to make warbird replicas, then there are many other airplanes that are just as deserving, and that probably fly better. ScaleBirdsScott is involved with that concept with their Hellcat I believe.

VanGrunsven or someone could create an incredible sheet metal E-AB replica kit for a Zero, using an 1830 engine By all reports it was a very good flying aircraft.

 

[TFF]

I think anyone brought up on boosted flight controls is not quite the right critic. If Wildcat pilots could get the Zero to dive they had them. The ailerons got so heavy they could not turn. We are not talking Extra 300. If any of these planes didn’t hold their own, there would not be the love we have for them. Doesn’t matter which.

 

[Aerowerx]

......
One of the modern era Edwards AFB test pilots (and former F-4 Wild Weasel) was asked what was the most disappointing aircraft he ever flew, and the answer was the P-51.
......

Did he say why?

I had read once a long time ago that the P-51 was the best fighter aircraft, relative to the time it was introduced, than any other at any time in history.

 

[Victor Bravo]

The Mustang performed a vital mission extremely well... the entire mission and how it affected the war... not whether the airplane was fun to fly or handled well.

My test pilot friend was not ever saying that the P-51 didn't deserve its legendary place in history (it does), he was saying that flying it didn't live up to his hopes and expectations, so it was a disappointment.

My one ride in a Mustang was in an airplane that didn't have dual controls, so I can't offer even an amateur impression of how it flies. I can speak very accurately and eloquently about the noise, however.

 

[Deuelly]

I've seen a lot of experienced pilots get disappointed over the flying qualities of a plane they didn't know how to fly.

Brandon

 

[cluttonfred]

Don’t get me wrong, I admire the P-51. I cherish the time I got to meet three Tuskegee Airmen and hear them argue over which was their favorite of the WWII, Korea, and Vietnam fighters they had flown. It was a toss up between the P-51B and P-51D. ;-)

That said, history is written by the victors and colored by wartime propaganda, the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia, and even enduring racism (such as regarding Japanese aircraft). Industrial might was far more important than individual weapons—the USA alone produced about 1/3 more aircraft than all the Axis powers combined, add the USSR and British Commonwealth and it’s about 3:1.

That’s not to say certain planes weren’t exceptional for their time, but it’s worth looking at hard numbers.

Did he say why? I had read once a long time ago that the P-51 was the best fighter aircraft, relative to the time it was introduced, than any other at any time in history.

 

[bifft]

I had read once a long time ago that the P-51 was the best fighter aircraft, relative to the time it was introduced, than any other at any time in history.

Saburo Sakai said the P-51 flew better than the Zero: An afternoon with Saburo Sakai

Zero did handle better at low speed by all accounts.

 

[Deuelly]

The P-51 is a great flying plane with limitations. Those limitations are clearly spelled out in training videos and pilots manuals available today. Like any plane, understand and fly within those limitations and you will not be disappointed. Fly outside those limitations, without killing yourself, and you will be disappointed.

The P-51 was probably one of the worst allied fighters of WWII below 15,000 feet. The P-38, P-40, or P-47 are probably a far better choice. To make a scale replica, of any scale, with the same flying qualities is a bad idea. Build the plane to look like anything you want, but design it to fly in the environment your going to fly in.

Now back to our regularly scheduled nine year old ghost thread.

Brandon

 

[BJC]

That’s not to say certain planes weren’t exceptional for their time, but it’s worth looking at hard numbers.

Available here WWII Aircraft Performance

Also need to consider the philosophy behind the design.


BJC

 

[Saville]

My one ride in a P-51was in the Collins P-51C. So it was dual controlled.

I was just coming in with a Citabria I rented to do some aerobatics and the tower told me I was #2 behind the B-17....

Behind the B-17?!?!?!? How cool is that.

So after I landed I went over to the other side of the airport where the Collins planes were located. If you donated - you got a ride,. You had to donate a lot but I figured I may NEVER have this chance again. And the gods saw fit to arrange this ride at a good time: I was trained and confident in acro (as opposed to before I got m license, or as a kid, for example)

So I took an hour in the P-51. My dream plane.

After takeoff I got the controls and we were in a climb. I was told to maintain 170 - not hard.

Then I did some lazy 8's to get a feel for the plane and then I did some aileron rolls. That's where I noticed the difference between a P-51 and the other acro planes I had flown at the time (Super Decathlon and Citabria):

The ailerons.

I pushed on the stick with the force I usually applied and I noticed I had not gotten the stick over all the way. I had to really push. That was something of a surprise.

This was all at fairly low speeds - no 400mph maneuvering.

I had about an hour and a half in a T-6 some time before that where I had done loops, rolls, lazy 8's and Cuban 8's I never noticed any need to push hard on the stick.

This this was a noticable difference.

Well there was one other noticeable thing: it was REALLLY hot in the back seat.

Time of my life.

 

[Saville]

The P-51 is a great flying plane with limitations. Those limitations are clearly spelled out in training videos and pilots manuals available today. Like any plane, understand and fly within those limitations and you will not be disappointed. Fly outside those limitations, without killing yourself, and you will be disappointed.

The P-51 was probably one of the worst allied fighters of WWII below 15,000 feet. The P-38, P-40, or P-47 are probably a far better choice. .....

Now back to our regularly scheduled nine year old ghost thread.

Brandon

Um I think if you look around you'll find ample documentation that at low altitude the P-47 was a dog. It shown at high altitude.

Not wanting to start a WWII airplane performance flame war but everything I've read told me this is true.

Also there's a series of good videos where design and performance of WWII fighters are gone over in great technical depth: Greg's Airplanes (different Greg)


You can start with :

 

[BJC]

My one ride in a P-51was in the Collins P-51C. So it was dual controlled.

Saville:

Do you recall the name of the Collins pilot? My neighbor, Bob, flew for them for many years.


BJC

 

[TXFlyGuy]

I think several of you are referring to the Collings Foundation. The FAA pulled their certificate for allowing anyone to ride in their planes.

 

[TXFlyGuy]

The P-51 is a great flying plane with limitations. Those limitations are clearly spelled out in training videos and pilots manuals available today. Like any plane, understand and fly within those limitations and you will not be disappointed. Fly outside those limitations, without killing yourself, and you will be disappointed.

The P-51 was probably one of the worst allied fighters of WWII below 15,000 feet. The P-38, P-40, or P-47 are probably a far better choice. To make a scale replica, of any scale, with the same flying qualities is a bad idea. Build the plane to look like anything you want, but design it to fly in the environment your going to fly in.

Now back to our regularly scheduled nine year old ghost thread.

Brandon

My friend who owns Buzzin' Cuzzin says the P-51 is fairly easy to fly, as long as you stay inside of the normal operating envelope. Go outside that envelope, and she will bite you. You might live to talk about it, and you might not.

The recent fatal crashes of P-51's while carrying passengers illustrate this very well.

 

[Deuelly]

Um I think if you look around you'll find ample documentation that at low altitude the P-47 was a dog. It shown at high altitude.

Not wanting to start a WWII airplane performance flame war but everything I've read told me this is true.

Also there's a series of good videos where design and performance of WWII fighters are gone over in great technical depth: Greg's Airplanes (different Greg)


You can start with :

Yes the P-47 is better up high. It's comparable to the P-51 down low. What makes it a better choice than the P-51 down low, but not the best, is it's durability and fire power. This is only based on first hand knowledge and talking with the guys that flew them during WWII so the info may not be that accurate.

Brandon

 

[Victor Bravo]

Yes the P-47 is better up high. It's comparable to the P-51 down low. What makes it a better choice than the P-51 down low, but not the best, is it's durability and fire power. This is only based on first hand knowledge and talking with the guys that flew them during WWII so the info may not be that accurate.

You have first hand knowledge of the P-47 vs. the P-51? Way cool, I'm jealous!

 

[TXFlyGuy]

Yes the P-47 is better up high. It's comparable to the P-51 down low. What makes it a better choice than the P-51 down low, but not the best, is it's durability and fire power. This is only based on first hand knowledge and talking with the guys that flew them during WWII so the info may not be that accurate.

Brandon

The other thing I have been told is that the early Allison (A model) powered Mustangs would actually out perform the Merlin versions down low, say below 10,000 feet.

 

[BJC]

I think several of you are referring to the Collings Foundation. The FAA pulled their certificate for allowing anyone to ride in their planes.

Yup, that restores the “g” that I misplaced.

Based on what I know about the B-17 operation, they likely will payout large sums of money to the families of those who died in the Crash.


BJC