I have been thinking about building another Mustang and it seems that every kit I look out seems to always have something wrong with the outline in some fashion or another. I know that the same problem exists with drawings. Who do you guys think has the most accurate 5 views, stations and cross sections?

The plastic models seem to think that the Tamyia 1/48 Mustang D series is the most accurate representation of a D. It wouldn't take much to pull sections and use this as a basis for some plans. If you think there is some drawings better, lets talk about them.

What's a good scale to design in? If you get to big the cost gets to high and if you get to small its tougher to add detail and keep the wing loading within reason. The Topflite 1/7 scale kit is about as good as it gets in that scale. There is nothing close in the 46 size in kit form.

Do you think there's room in the market place for a very accurate laser cut warbird kit in scales that would accommodate say an OS 91 in the 1/7 scale and an OS 46 in the 1/8 scale.

I'm going to retire in the next few years and have been thinking about designing and kitting some nice warbirds.

Thanks

John

In the .60-.90 size range I don't think you will find anything better than the Brian Taylor design. Not a true kit but Bob Holman has laser cut parts and a fiberglass fuse/accesories. For sheer accuracy the Doss Steed plans are touted to be the best, generated from original North American Micro Fiche engineering drawings. I think his airplane is around 92 inches but the plans could be scaled much more easily than generating new stations from a plastic model. Just my .02 cents.

The pick of Mustangs in the 80-90 inch range are either 1. not real scale (as the topflite 1/5) or 2. excellent scale but Real Expensive (as in the Aerotech Model). IMHO a real good, real scale P-51 in that span would be worth designing. The problem with the smaller scales, say 46-60 is the weight penalty in adding the nice scale additions. These would include working inner gear doors, sliding canopy, full cockpit.. etc. For flying, the larger planes fly much better even with the additional weight. As for expense..if you look at the proliferation of Aerobatic 25% and Larger.. there is no scarity of those.. So I would say the larger planes are very affordable to many.. just my thoughts BobH.

That was my thoughts two. I know Steed has a great set of plans and Holman still carries the plans, but not much else.

1/5 is a good scale to work with and the wing loading is fair and supports the scale details. Bigger flys better thats for sure.

Thanks for the input. I have time and I'm open to all suggestions and comments.

Thanks

John

One area that almost all of the kits on the market have wrong is the position of the main gear. It is very close to the leading edge and is angled forward when down. Also when retracted the wheel is again close to the leading edge. Sierra Precision is making gear with the strut cantalievered of the front of the mounts so you can get it in a more scale position. Its tough with the thin laminar wing section but it can be done. I think Jim Meisters Master scale kit that he did in the early 80s is probably one of the most accurate kits ever done although with a 74" ws was a little on the small side. I think that one done in the 90" ws range would be a real winner. Don

Don, good point on the gear. It does need to be right forward to look and be scale.

Hemi, if you do go with the Taylor Mustang, which is certainly one of the best for scale outlines of it's size, Unitracts make a mechanical unit that is cantilevered and fits the wing correctly. The plans are drawn to accept this unit.

I have built 2 Taylor Mustangs so let me know if you have any questions or would like to see some pictures.

Good luck!

Hemi:
I would like to add one thing. You stated you wanted to possibly design scale warbird kits in the near future. I think that is good. The one thing I would like to suggest is if the wing is 80 inches or greater, design the wing so that the outer panels plug in. The Vailley and Ziroli kits are great flying warbird but they have long one piece wings that make it difficult to transport. I do not think someone should have to buy a trailer or a gas guzzling SUV just to haul around a wing.

Since I'm in the gather ideas stage all of your pints are well taken. I know the nose, main gear position and inner doors are all critical areas to making a Mustang look right. The largest Mustang that I have built and flown was my Byron.

I could be wrong but I think Steeds Mustang was 92" so that size seems to be what I'm hearing would be good to work with. I have a set of Taylors plans and it looks very good.

The next question is what would be an ideal engine to use that could be enclosed in the cowl? Would this be an opportunity for another type of prop drive? Sort of sounds like re-inventing the wheel doesn't it. Finding the perfect Mustang is sort of like searching for the holy grail but for me part of the fun of this hobby is learning about the details and striving to recreate a piece of aviation art.

Thanks

John

hemi.. now the engine hmmmm thats a problem!!.. if you look on Brison engines page they have a new engine that is rear induction rear exhaust. According to them its more powerfull than their 3.2 engines. That type of engine would be a good choice in my thinking. The rear intake engines atleast can have the carbs hidden within the fuse preserving the lines of the front... BobH.

Bob H

I'll check out Brisson. What I liked most about my Byron Mustang was the sound of the four blade beating the air on a low pass.

So we are looking at a Mustang at about 1/5 scale that is as accurate as possible. We know the outer wing panels should be removable for transportation. We know nothing should be hanging out thats not on a full scale Mustang.

What would be a construction preference? Glass & foam. All build up or a combination of all three? If glass should the panel lines be molded in or left off so the builder can decide how much detail they want.

What other thoughts do we have?

John

I would put in the Major panel lines. Glass and foam offer the convience of faster building times and a warp free wing. Its a little heavier but the 1/5 scale can handle the extra weight with out a problem. A good wood kit is worth while also as many like to build. My preference would be Glass and foam.. atleast for now. Personally I think Yellow AC is a good mfg model. They provide a decent product for a reasonable price.. They don't make a Mustang for what ever reason?.. Hemi, I think your asking all the right questions tho... just my thoughts..... BobH.

I was looking at the drawings in Aero Detail this morning and was wonder what you guys think of the accuracy of those drawings?

If I'm going to kit a Mustang I prefer to start with what Mustang lovers would consider to be accurate 5 views, cross sections and stations.

Thanks guys

John

hemi, I have that book and I think its pretty accurate.. I cant swear that its 100%. but it looks close if nothing else.. One thing about designing a kit and using a decent set of drawings is that if I (or someone else) were to build it for scale competition.. we would use the same drawings you usded in designing the kit as our documentation. That really helps with the out line points!!... BobH.

Having built three Dave Platt 81 inch Mustangs here is how I would go about it if I were going to make a kit. First, a fiberglass fuse complete with vertical fin would be a huge advantage. The Mustang fuse has some pecularities when it comes to shape that are hard to capture unless you have really great documentation. Best to put the R&D into the plug and not let the customer have to worry about it. A particular area to be careful of is, of course, the nose. Most people don't realize a Mustang fuse, when viewed from the top, is constant width from about the trailling edge of the wing to just in front of the exhaust stacks. It then pinches in rather dramatically to match up with the spinner. It is NOT a nice flowing curve into the spinner. It is much easier to incorporate a full cockpit and/or some type of internal exhaust routing within a glass fuse. Just make sure you do your homework while creating the plug! Same goes for the panel lines. If you're going to put them on make sure they are accurate and let people know which drawings you used for documentation purposes.

For the wing I would use CNC cut foam except for the retract area. Everthing in front of the main spar from gear to gear would be built up to incorporate the retract units and make for a scale appearing wheel well. On anything 85 inches or less I would not make plug in wings as there is no good place to hide the break, IMHO. We do want this to be the most scale Mustang available right? The horizontal stab and elevators can be CNC cut foam also. However, they need to be cut seperately as the elevators do not match the airfoil of the horizontal stab at all. They are a bit fatter and somewhat teardrop shaped. For landing gear I would see about getting Sierra Precision to do the retracts and struts. They did the struts for my Platt airplanes and they are beautiful. This is the kit I would like see made but that's just my .02 cents.

Chad & Bob H.

Thats exactly the kind f information I was hoping to get. I'm well aware of the fact that when you design a kit the three view used become the basis for your documentation. So I'm going to use the Aero Detail drawings for the source.

Chad your right about removable out panels, the break line at the outer portion of the wing is about 25% into the ailerons. The next break is about 25% into the flap area so you would need detachable flaps to potentially use this section. It would be simpler to just stick with a one piece wing.

If anyone has any other thoughts let me know via this thread, I'll watch for updates and keep you posted.

Thanks
John

hemi.. Oh yeah. dont forget to pay attention to the exhaust stacks and manifold covers.. they are Oft neglected to get them looking right and one of my major peeves lol!!! Sierra can make great retracts for sure... When you look at Brison and their Revolution 52.. you can download the drawing and then see how it fits into your proposed fuse if you have CAD...that really helps for sure. BobH.

Bob H

Many of the 51 I've seen miss the fact that the engine has 1.5 degrees off down thrust and they get the exhaust out of position. Aerotech did a good job on the shrouds and exhaust

I have been collecting and studying Mustang data for years. The Air Force museum has been a major help to me over the years.

The revolution 52 looks pretty good thats for steering me in that direction. I'm trying to get my hands on the 51 Airframe Maintenance manual. I have pieces of it but I want the whole thing.

Thanks

John

hemi, your welcome.. I am curious to see how the Rev. 52 engine runs.. I did get an email from brison which indicated that it was more powerfull than their 3.2 and thats pretty good!.. I think the AF Museum folks are some of the best..!!! they have always been so helpfull to me when I visit there.. Let me know how your Mustang project proceeds ok?... BobH.

Bob & Chad and anyone else who might know.

The main gear on the 51 is canted forward, somewhere I thought I read that it was 5 degrees but I'm not sure. In fact here are some questions that might be worth knowing for anyone interested in full scale Mustangs.

1. Down thrust on engine 1 degree 30 minutes
2. Wing dihedral 5 degree
3. Washout ?
4. Horizontal stab incidence 1 degree
5. Vertical 1 degree offset to left

Are these numbers right?

The Revolution 52 looks perfect for this project. The carb is in the rear. from the backing plate to the mount is 8.4" and the height is 6.1.

Whats the web address for Siera Precision I can't find it?

Thanks

John

And what about the fuselage?

Mustang 51

Based on input from the guys on this thread, this Mustang would be about a 90" wingspan. The fuse should be glass with a molded in vertical stab with only the major panel lines. CNC cut foam core wings and stab. At this time I'm leaning toward building the plug using the Aero Detail drawings and sections. The engine I'm looking into is the Brison Revolution 52. The gear from Siera Precision looks pretty accurate. Do you have any suggestions. Would this be a kit that Mustang lovers might like to own?

John

I have a 104" FW 190. It has a two piece wing. Joined in the center by an aluminum wing tube, along with a smaller alignment tube aft. Join the two wing halves with the poles, then bolt to fuselage via conventional means. I love this set-up. It's a huge wing that is easily transported.
I'm sure there are guys that will want to build a model of this size. Personally speaking, my tastes are leaning towards the larger airplanes,98" and above.
Give that 2 piece wing a thought .

-Mustang51

Mustang 51

I will give it some thought, the 51 wing is joined in the center and then attached with four mounting lugs to the fuse. I just went looking through the P 51 airframe manual pages that I copies at the AF Museum years ago have and discovered I have the half breadths and stations for the vertical and horizontal plus many other great shots from the airframe repair manual. The manual is AN-01-60-03. I'm going to get a copy of the whole book and use this as my primary source to design this model.


Thanks

John

hemi.. sierra advertises here on RCU often.. you can probably find him by just doing a search within this site.... and your numbers look pretty good to me. The difficulty with the gear is that the mustangs gear pivots near the strut in the foward section of the wing.. most retracts pivot farther back so they dont mount as close as they should to be absolutely scale.. the only person I know who makes retracts like that is Ultra precision.. the retract valve guy. He makes/made a set that went between the ribs (from front to reat) and used a gear to operated the strut.. it was for a larger scale mustang.
I would stay with the one piece wing because of the inner gear doors.. I guess you could engineer it as a two piece and make it all work. its just more work.....Regards BobH.

Bob

I'm having fun doing the research on this project. I put the 1/48 Tamiya Mustang on top of the 1/48 drawings in Aero Detail and the two were not even close. I can see why Steed went right to North American. If its going to right I think maybe the original half breadths and section stations is the only way to go. It sure would be great if Steed was on-line with us. He has done the most research on the Mustang.

Thanks

John