Comments: 41
ComannderrX [2014-06-22 17:00:26 +0000 UTC]
probably the best allied prop plane, along with the spitfire. too bad the p-51A and p-51B had crappy engines... or so i've heard...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to ComannderrX [2014-06-22 17:57:24 +0000 UTC]
The P-51A had an Allison V1710 engine. The ONLY real problem with that engine was its lack of high altitude performance.
Above 10,000 feet its performance dropped off severely, but below that, it was a throughbred. Chuck Yeager himself agreed; he even commented that the P-51A had perhaps the best airframe to engine harmony and handling he had ever experienced. The P-51A was also the most heavily armed Mustang variant, some of them carried four 20mm cannons.
The P-51B had a Merlin V1650 engine, the same engine used by the Spitfire (all Mustangs starting with the P-51B would use variants of the Merlin engine). This engine gave the Mustang supreme high altitude capability. The trade off was less agility down at low altitude, but due to needing to operate at high altitude in order to escort the B-17 and B-24 raids, this trade off was more than acceptable.
The P-51C had the longest range of all Mustangs, with a range of 2,100 miles. The P-51D, which is what my model is, introduced the "tear drop" bubble canopy that gave supreme visibility, and added two more machineguns bringing the total to six.
The P-51H was the fastest Mustang, and one of the fastest piston engine aircraft in the world. Top speed is 486 mph.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ComannderrX In reply to Russian-Fox [2014-06-22 20:58:24 +0000 UTC]
thats pretty fast for a prop plane!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to ComannderrX [2014-06-23 20:39:34 +0000 UTC]
That it is.
Some of the earliest jets were slower than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ComannderrX In reply to Russian-Fox [2014-06-24 04:00:13 +0000 UTC]
a jet being slower than a prop plane? really?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to ComannderrX [2014-06-25 01:54:59 +0000 UTC]
Yes.
Some of the early jet engines just did not have enough thrust for high speed flight.
Plus, a number of early jets were built more like prop planes, with areodynamics that were fine for high torque piston engines, but rather poor for jet engines.
The P-59 was one such example. Early models had a top speed of only 400 mph or so. It was a big, heavy airframe better suited to a radial engine like the R-2800 Double Wasp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ComannderrX In reply to Russian-Fox [2014-06-25 21:45:44 +0000 UTC]
im sure that would have been embarrassing if your were flying a gloster meteor and could not catch up to a prop plane
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to ComannderrX [2014-06-26 01:27:16 +0000 UTC]
Perhaps.
But the early Meteors, like many early jets, were used more for testing and training than combat.
The Metor Mk I was the slow one, but late in World War II, the Meteor Mk. III appeared. It had better speed,
about 525 mph.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SoftShellback [2012-08-23 23:50:43 +0000 UTC]
The Delta model. Very nice! The greatest incarnation of the Mustang!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to SoftShellback [2012-08-24 01:46:39 +0000 UTC]
Much thanks. =3
And indeed, the Delta model was a very good one. I'd like to get a Hotel model, the fastest version.
Historical note: In World War II, it was the Dog model, because the phonetic alphabet was different back then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the7kid90 [2012-06-01 02:37:50 +0000 UTC]
A wonderfuly simple plane, rugged and tough. I'd still rather be hidding behind an A-1 SKyraider, P-38 or others but this is a bad ass plane.
Vary nice model, but may I ask ware you get em? I want to see if I cant find my self an A-1 or P-38 model.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to the7kid90 [2012-06-01 03:26:01 +0000 UTC]
Indeed. I prefer the Corsair myself, but the Mustang is a very nice machine. I don't like how it was used as a bomber in Korea though...Mustangs are pure fighters; the only thing you should ever put under a Mustang's wings are drop tanks.
Thanks. I have a P-38 and a Skyraider in my gallery if you'd like to see 'em. =3
I get most of my models online, either ebay or Squadron: [link]
The best brand to get is Tamiya. My Skyraider is a Tamiya kit, and came with not just the ordinance you see on it, but enough to arm 2 aircraft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the7kid90 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-06-01 05:07:29 +0000 UTC]
The Corsair was more of an attack air craft then the Mustang, and your right. Drop tanks are the only think (besides rockets?) that should've been under the wings.
I've seen the 38, and the A-1 I just saw.
Noted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to the7kid90 [2012-06-02 01:14:41 +0000 UTC]
Indeed it was. The Corsair was purpose built to be a fleet defense fighter, but it was well equipped to take on the ground attack role as well. Its air cooled radial engine also made it less prone to combat damage than the Mustang's liquid cooled inline.
I'd say only drop tanks for the Mustang. While I do favour rockets as weaponry, for the Mustang...just those 6 Brownings in the wings.
*nods*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the7kid90 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-06-02 02:09:53 +0000 UTC]
Plus I can imagine, like the old 109's that the radial engine also provieded some type of sheilding agenst the Jap's Zeros. Six browings and a crap load of bombs, hmmmm, I beilve that makes for a good plane XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to the7kid90 [2012-06-03 19:57:46 +0000 UTC]
109s had inline engines. You're thinking the 190. X3
And yes, the engine can provide you protection against enemy fire. Its a solid block of case hardened steel.
Speaking of Brownings...did you know that every single gun used on U.S. aircraft during WWII, regardless of caliber, was a Browning design? From the .30 caliber guns on the Devastators to the massive 37mm cannon on the P-39, all U.S. aircraft guns were designed by John Browning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the7kid90 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-06-04 15:59:32 +0000 UTC]
I stand corrected.
Though granted, a sheild does you little good when you have to bail out of the plane after getting the engine badly shot up.
Intresting fact, that makes sence, one manufature of guns, one person making the parts, so you know who to call when your sending all your planes over seas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to the7kid90 [2012-06-04 18:33:23 +0000 UTC]
Well yes. But the object isn't to bail out of your plane. Its to make the other fellow bail out of his.
(quoted from a video about flying the P-38. XD)
Indeed.
I think that happened more or less by coincidence though, rather than intention.
During the war itself, Colt, Remington, Winchester, Harrington and Richardson, basically every firearms manufacturer was making the M2, the 1919, the AN-M2 cannon, etc. Hell, even IBM and Rock-ola (a jukebox manufacturer) were making guns.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the7kid90 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-06-04 20:20:06 +0000 UTC]
I saw that video lol I knew right away which one you were referring too XD
IBM was around back then? o.o
Dosnt supirse me, it went from 90% focus on Domestic to 90% (concidering we just came out of the depresion when the war broke out, I am guessing) on Military. Hell Ford was making the 1945 Mustang. (lol I am funny)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to the7kid90 [2012-06-06 19:32:23 +0000 UTC]
Ah. XD
Yes it was.
IBM goes back...at least to the 1920s. Might be even further.
Indeed. We quite literally shifted the entire industry base to the war effort. At full speed, we were building aircraft faster than the Luftwaffe could shoot them down. In the time it took to shoot down one U.S. fighter (average dogfight lasts 14 seconds), three more rolled off the assembly lines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the7kid90 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-06-07 16:16:24 +0000 UTC]
I had a lot of respect for the Luftwaffe during the war, thats for sure. But thats kinda sad XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to the7kid90 [2012-06-08 04:23:12 +0000 UTC]
Its all due to attrition replacement. The U.S. sustain it, Germany couldn't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the7kid90 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-06-16 05:52:36 +0000 UTC]
At the same time Logistics might of been a problem. Think of the tet offencive of the Vietnam war, how they moved what suplies they had. They launched one of the biggest attacks in milatary history and didn't even need an air lift.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to the7kid90 [2012-06-18 02:02:34 +0000 UTC]
That too.
Anything that moved on the ground got the crap shot out of it. Hell, I've heard of P47s strafing people on bicycles late in the war. And they weren't just using overkill; often times people would strap up to a dozen Panzerfausts onto bicycles and ride to combat units.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BlueFox284 [2012-05-01 22:22:28 +0000 UTC]
No wonder it was so good. . .A German had a hand in building it. . .lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to BlueFox284 [2012-05-01 23:22:16 +0000 UTC]
Heh, yeah, in a way. XD
Kinda ironic too, the Germans had a hand in their own demise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the7kid90 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-06-01 02:35:41 +0000 UTC]
"Dont punch your self" Comes to mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DingoPatagonico [2012-05-01 17:01:25 +0000 UTC]
excellent work!! x3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SwiftFlyer [2012-05-01 13:58:56 +0000 UTC]
Great looking model! I keep telling those car guys that I want a 1945 Mustang, and they always give me a weird look. I tell them it has 12 cylinders and almost 1600 HP and will hit 400 MPH, and most still say that Ford did not make the Mustang then. I smile and say, 'Who said I was talking about a Ford?'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to SwiftFlyer [2012-05-01 23:26:31 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. =3
Actually, Ford did make the Mustang aircraft. During World War II, one of their factories was set up to build aircraft and they built the P-51. In 1963, when they needed a name for their new sports car, they drew on the P-51's name because most people were familiar with the P-51's military career and its high performance, thus Ford took the Mustang name and applied it to their car.
But yeah, my choice of Mustang is like yours. Even the '68 Boss Mustang with the 429 can't compete with the '45 Mustang with the 1650. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SwiftFlyer In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-05-01 23:30:16 +0000 UTC]
All of the auto manufacturers helped and built aircraft or components. I did not know that Ford built Mustangs. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to SwiftFlyer [2012-05-01 23:34:45 +0000 UTC]
Indeed they did.
You know the Hemi engine from Chrysler, found in their muscle cars of the 60's and 70's? That actually originated in World War II, in a variant of the P-47 Thunderbolt. Appropriately enough, it was nicknamed the Hemibolt.
And sure thing. =3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YellowSeven [2012-05-01 09:09:46 +0000 UTC]
Probably has the same 'nearly lost' story as the Mosquito in a sense the USAAF wasn't interested at first...was built for the RAF but the original engine and canopy setout wasn't to our liking as a fighter...nor ground attack, most were sent to Scotland for air defense there... but that RR engine and other refinements made really did make it a legend; if the spitfire was the Queen/ballerina, then the mustang was that cadilac C:
Interesting paint scheme, reminds me of the post war Royal Navy FAA scheme.
Good job C:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to YellowSeven [2012-05-01 23:32:16 +0000 UTC]
Indeed.
History is full of these "nearly lost" stories. To this day, many people insist that the Mustang's origin never laid in Germany, even though the designer, Edgar Schmued himself said otherwise.
Thanks. And I thought the exact same thing about it. Its a real Mustang color scheme, though slightly modified. According to the book I got it from, the scheme is from the 361st Fighter Group, 8th Air Force, based at Bottisham, Cambridgeshire, UK in 1944.
The last pic in the More Pics section shows the page from book where I got the inspiration from.
Thanks. =3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
enc86 [2012-05-01 05:27:42 +0000 UTC]
looks great man! awesome paint job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Russian-Fox In reply to enc86 [2012-05-01 05:30:09 +0000 UTC]
Much thanks. =3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
enc86 In reply to Russian-Fox [2012-05-01 05:32:44 +0000 UTC]
your welcome man
👍: 0 ⏩: 0