Twin-Mustang line drawings ?

[raafif]

guys, I'm looking for accurate line drawings for the F-82s showing basic panel lines, shapes etc for the F-82B, F-82C/D, F-82E & F82G.  Sadly Squadron publications don't fall into the catagory of "accurate"

Anyone have proper technical profiles ?

[perttime]

There's quite a bunch of F-82 drawings at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2146099
... but I have no clue where they came from or if they are any good.

[elmayerle]

I've got the D&S book that covers the later Mustangs and the F-82 if that is of any use to you.

[raafif]

thanks guys,  I now have enough drawings & photos for my needs.

It seems that there are NO completely accurate drawings of the different versions out there.  Even the Detail & Scale ones have "B" panel-lines on the nose of the "G" version & their aft-end of the belly-scoop is also quite wrong but overall they seem to be the best.

[kitnut617]

I'm not sure just how accurate the Monogram kit is of the F-82, but I do know that it matches the 1/72 3-View drawings in the book 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers-Vol.VII'

Looking at these though, they have the captions the wrong way around

 http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/JJELLIS_PHOTO/F82%20Twin%20Mustang/F823v4.jpg

[raafif]

I no longer trust any line-drawings alone ... you have to compare them to 100+ photos of the real aircraft & fix them accordingly before trying to render an accurate model.

Even kits laser-scanned from the real 1:1 scale vehicle have a few inaccuracies to fix

[GTX_Admin]

Alternatively, I am happy if something looks close enough.  This is not to say that I don't appreciate and never fail to get extremely impressed by those who can do such exact reproductions or the like, its just that it doesn't worry me.

[raafif]

I am happy if something looks close enough.

Me too but all the F-82 drawings I've seen are each sooooo wrong in a few obvious areas that I can't accept them as valid.  The drawers obviously thought that P-51 items & positions are ok to use but they're not ie. the cockpit of the F-82 is much further forward over the wing than the P-51s.

[kitnut617]

ie. the cockpit of the F-82 is much further forward over the wing than the P-51s.

Actually the cockpit is in the same position as a P-51's cockpit, only it's raised as in the F-51H.  I've found that from behind the spinner, the cockpit is the same distance on all P-51's and F-82's, as is the air intake opening for the radiator duct.  Most of the F-82 fuselage is the same as the F-51H fuselage except where the rear fuselage was extended 67", and this extension is a continuation of the F-51H profile lines.

What I have found is this, when NA extended the F-51H fuselage 13", they not only extended the radiator duct, they moved the wing back that 13" too. Then when NA built the F-82, they moved the wing back another 12-13" (measurements from the rear of the spinner to the wing root leading edge) and on top of that the wing had a massive chord increase.  BTW, the wing of the F-51H has a broader chord than the P-51H, it seems that the whole forward part from the main spar to the leading edge has a different chord.

So this is why the cockpit on a F-51H and the F-82 look like they are further forward, when in reality, just the wings have been moved backwards.

What I'm trying to find out now it whether the XP-51J had it's wing moved backwards, because this aircraft had the 13" rear fuselage extension too --

[kitnut617]

What I'm trying to find out now it whether the XP-51J had it's wing moved backwards, because this aircraft had the 13" rear fuselage extension too --

Well looking at various photos of the XP-51J, it doesn't look like the wing was moved back as on the F-51H