P-51 Mustang and Derivates Ideas and Inspiration

[elmayerle]

A question comes to mind for that Evan, where would you put the arrester hook ?  Can an aircraft use 'two' hooks at the same time if it had two

And if one hook breaks?  The asymmetrical loads would rip the other hook off and spin the aircraft round.  With a twin-Mustang, the best place would attached forwards, just behind the centre wing, attached to the fuselage on either side.  It would have to be obviously a wide, V-shaped one which was also quite long, to reach down below the main under-carriage legs.

Pretty much in line with my thinking.  Even if both hooks catch and hold, if they should happen to catch different wires, you're going to get quite asymmetrical loadings.  Either that wide-V hook or my central "stinger" nacelle suggestion would work; I reckon it's a matter of weights, loads, and aerodynamics as to which was used.

[Rickshaw]

A question comes to mind for that Evan, where would you put the arrester hook ?  Can an aircraft use 'two' hooks at the same time if it had two

And if one hook breaks?  The asymmetrical loads would rip the other hook off and spin the aircraft round.  With a twin-Mustang, the best place would attached forwards, just behind the centre wing, attached to the fuselage on either side.  It would have to be obviously a wide, V-shaped one which was also quite long, to reach down below the main under-carriage legs.

Pretty much in line with my thinking.  Even if both hooks catch and hold, if they should happen to catch different wires, you're going to get quite asymmetrical loadings.  Either that wide-V hook or my central "stinger" nacelle suggestion would work; I reckon it's a matter of weights, loads, and aerodynamics as to which was used.

If it was British, it would be wide v-shaped hook and if it was American, it would be a central nacelle. 

[kitnut617]

I think I like the pod idea, the V-Frame (they're really called an 'A-Frame') would be totally impratical (I'm looking at my F-82 as I write this).  The pod would have to be built into the wing center section because hanging it down under the wing would serve no benefit as the wing trailing edge is close to the ground.  I could see a radar pod being extended out the rear and built into the wing though.

[kitnut617]

This is something I've been working on lately,  it'll have tricycle undercarriage  -----

Robert, what are you going to use for your nose gear?  I have been stumped on what to use for a similar project involving a ModelCraft F-82 Twin Mustang that would be built as a slightly larger Mustang using just one set of the fuselage parts.  The inside of each fuselage half has slots for the horizontal stabilizers and I figured that was one option but the desire to have a tricycle landing gear arrangement with nose gear has me stalled.

I like your F-82 idea Jeff, got another idea now.  I went with the F-51H because it's a bigger aircraft than the P-51D (everyway except the wingspan) but an F-82 fuselage would be even better for a Griffon powered one which wouldn't have to be drastically changed like the real world Griffon Mustangs are.  And I've got some spare F-51H wings left over ---- and a Supermarine Spiteful nose too ---

[kitnut617]

What a Tri-gear Mustang would look like.  There's something familiar with the look which I can't quite put my finger on at the moment ---

[Old Wombat]

Looks a bit like the Pilatus PC-7, to me.

[Logan Hartke]

I can see that, Wombat. There's a bit of YAT-28E in there for me, but I don't think that's all of it, either.



Cheers,

Logan

[Volkodav]

Looks a bit like the Pilatus PC-7, to me.

Can't the PC-7 be traced back to the ME109?

[Old Wombat]

It must be a long & twisted road!

[Rickshaw]

What a Tri-gear Mustang would look like.  There's something familiar with the look which I can't quite put my finger on at the moment ---

P-63 King Cobra? 

[kitnut617]

I think Logan has got it closer ---   I keep going back to it and look again  -- it's going to bug me now ---

But it's more the size of a Tucano than the PC-7 or PC-9.

Last year I got to stand right next to a T-28 at an airshow and that is a big aircraft for a trainer --

[Logan Hartke]

Hmm, how about the XF2R Dark Shark? I think that's what might've been in the back of my mind.



Cheers,

Logan

[kitnut617]

That's it Logan    :)

[Logan Hartke]

Yay! What do I win?

Cheers,

Logan

[kitnut617]

 

But it's given me another idea, what about a Mustang with a turbo-prop at the front and a turbojet at the back using the radiator intake as the jet intake and exhaust like the Dark Shark

[Jeffry Fontaine]

But it's given me another idea, what about a Mustang with a turbo-prop at the front and a turbojet at the back using the radiator intake as the jet intake and exhaust like the Dark Shark

Suggesting such things on other forums might get a lynch mob looking for you by talking such heresy :)

Adding a jet engine to the Mustang would certainly take away the rather clean appearance it has aft of the cooling scoop.  My own bent on such things is to just remove that huge scoop and try to install a turbine up front with a vent to one or both sides of the fuselage while adding in a nose wheel and well plus trying to change the location of the main gear so it can act like it is balanced on all three points instead of dragging the tail.   

[elmayerle]

I suspect a T-28 wing would do for the main landing gear change, but I may be mistaken.

[kitnut617]

I will have to try and find a 1/72 kit of it Evan, just to find out. But I had thought the T-28 derived from the T-6. 

[jcf]

I will have to try and find a 1/72 kit of it Evan, just to find out. But I had thought the T-28 derived from the T-6.

Nope, nothing in common between the NA-16/T-6/SNJ and the T-28 aside from manufacturer
and role. The T-28 definitely shares some design DNA with the Mustang.

[GTX_Admin]

The T-28 definitely shares some design DNA with the Mustang.

As one can see from pg 1 of this thread.

[kitnut617]

Been doing some comparisons, I found that the P-51H wing is a bit different to the P-51D wing.  Apart from not having the LERX, the whole leading edge is further forward from the main spar meaning it has a longer chords throughout.  I found though, that the FJ1 Fury wing matches the F-51H wing and includes a LERX too, which is a bigger one than what the P-51D has. This would probably be a better option if I were to do another tri-gear P-51 as the wing already has the main gear in the right place.

I noticed that NA did quite a bit of re-positioning of parts when they designed the P-51H, the cockpit was raised up (about 6-8 inches) but the front of it remained the same distance from the rear of the spinner. However the rear fuselage was extended about 12" with the wing being moved back the same distance which gives the P-51H a longer nose look.  I found this quite interesting ---

I've seen a few what-if's done with the F-82, making them as single fuselage versions.  Jeff's idea of making his into a tri-gear is interesting but I think I'll make a couple of tail-draggers out of one of my kits.  Only I'll use a Firefly Mk.IV nose on one of them (Griffon engine) and a Tempest Mk.I nose on the other (Sabre engine but converted to Sabre VII or VIII) but I'll shorten the rear fuselage a bit, so instead of being seven feet longer than a P-51D it'll be only about three and half feet longer. I'll use some P-51H tail planes as they are much bigger than the P-51D tail planes.

I've read that the F-82 outer wing panels were taken from the XP-51F/G (modified without u/c of course), and they also got used on the P-51H. Comparing the kit parts though, there's not very much the same about them, but sometime ago I had laid the Revell/Monogram parts over the 3-View found in 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers' and saw that they matched very well.

[kitnut617]

Some more interesting comparisons, while delving into the stash looking for something else, I stumbled onto my RoG boxing of the F-82.  Doing some measuring and matching of parts with the High Planes P-51H reveals that the fuselages are quite similar.  And interestingly, the vertical panel lines on the F-82 rear fuselage happen to be spaced at 3'-6".  The cowling nose line from the spinner to the cockpit has the same slope and is the same distance from spinner to front of cockpit, and the rear fuselages slope back down to the fin at the same angle too. It's just that on the F-82 the slope continues further back and down.  The radiator duct on both are very similar in size and shape and practically match one another in their location.

Studying on how to shorten the F-82 fuselage, it would seem to be quite an easy kitbash, just involves some careful 'Z' cuts to make it work.

Because I have a spare set of P-51H wings left over, I'll use them.  But I'll have to extend the inner ends about 10mm so they will match the wing root fairing on the F-82. Which will be a bonus because the main wheels I want to use will be from a 'D' variant which are bigger than the 'H' variant.  The F-82 wheels on the other hand are a bit too big for a single fuselage F-82.

Another interesting match-up is when I offered up my Hawker Fury Sabre Mk.VII engine front, the top of cowling slope matches the F-82's and the depth is almost bang on so fit up will be minimal fuss.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Robert,

It is definitely nice to have all of those spare parts on hand to experiment like that?

Instead of trading out the F-82 MLG/wheels you could explain it away as an option for rough-unimproved airfield field or austere airfield operations where ground pressure would be a factor.  Also for hauling extra weight in the form of ordnance might necessitate the need for larger tyres and wheels. 

[kitnut617]

Yes we could do it that way Jeff, but I think we would need a LERX to accommodate the wheel bay better

[kitnut617]

I've been going back & forth with this tri-gear project and I've decided to abandon the Beechnut kit of the P-51H.  Comparing it to the High Planes one, it appears to be not only the wrong shape but undersized too. So now I'm going to use the High Planes kit instead which is still available through their website (plus another manufacturer makes one too).

After doing my P-51H/F-82 comparison I've decided to use the nose of the F-82 for my tri-gear project as it has a much deeper underside to the cowling which will be better for the nose gear stowage.  The nose I'll cut off the P-51H I'm going to drop in rubber and make some castings of it, then those will go on the front of the F-82 to make an 'XP-82' and a 'B' variant.  I've also got a plan to use one of the castings I'll make for a Spiteful, that real project had three Spitfire MK.VIII's set aside for the development of it so what-if they used a Merlin instead of a Griffon for the Spiteful.  I could see a Merlin Mk.130 being used ---

I've got a Monogram F-82 built, and I have a RoG boxing of it too, I also picked up a Modelcraft Hobbycraft boxing of it sometime ago which had a number of parts from it used on another project.  Interesting thing about the Modelcraft Hobbycraft boxing, it has both propellers the same hand, not opposite like on the other two boxings.  This could lead to an 'P-82A' variant but as none were built, figuring what the cowling looked like might be difficult.  Of note is that although the two props are made for turning in the same direction, they actually made to turn the wrong way --

EDITED: