SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old May 07, 2014, 01:41 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
Dimensions to specific points and other lines of reference , largely eliminate the need to guess anything. It also does away with worry about distortion of reference drawing image. I feel the latter is even a larger problem than line width.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 08, 2014, 08:05 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
Merlin cowls

Adaptation of Merlin 61 (Packard RR V 1650 -3) to was not a straight forward affair. Officially suggested at MANY different levels (RR, RAF, USAAF), as early as Jan.'42.

Roll Royce conversions (10 total) in England were rather unsightly , resulting in a large chin oil cooler and looking rather P-40' ish. These were test of concept aircraft. 433 mph at 20,000 ft, and boosting max ceiling to 30,000ft was quite an improvement. First flights Oct.42.

NAA conversions (2 total, P-51's) started out with rather pointy looking nose, almost needle like. However these lacked the chin intake and carburetor ducting. In fact, when finally adopted, the chin intake was actually grafted on, resulting in a rather abrupt lower cowl to wing transition, bulging down, right in front of "clam shell" landing gear doors. There was also a bit of experimentation with upper nose profile, going back to windscreen. Final P-51B cowl put the intake duct inside, and faired into the lower wing by the rather extreme(but elegant) action of lowering of wing by 3". At this point, probably 96% of the classic P-51 nose shapes had been established. I'm guessing for production reasons the experimental upper profile shapes toyed with, were abandoned in favor of existing features of earlier models. Final evolved changes would be made on the D.
See MM&E #24 for comparison views of Merlin nose progression. Also look at the different profile to windshild. THEY ARE DIFFERENT, but only slightly (Link to MM&E #24 at Report #19, this thread).

AFAICT, upper B/C/D cowl formers are identical in shape& ht. There is one just in front of the engine block, at Cowl Sta .406 and another right behind the block, at C. Sta. 47-1/8. There are no formers aft until the firewall. Lower cowl formers are also identical B/C/D, from the aft end of cast aluminum chin intake proper, C. Sta. -37/16 (negative 3-7/16"), the canted panel line begining at CSta. 24.4 (at profile). A "vertical" side panel line at C. Sta 58-1/8 (on P-51B/C) or C.Sta. 50.5 (on P-51D, which also added a lower one piece panel, below).

I suppose, at this point it might do, to explain the Station system. All Fuselage stations are located along the Fuselage Reference Line, either in front of (negative stations) or behind (positive stations) Fuse. Sta. 0. All locations are expressed as inches from Fuse Sta.O. ALL fuselage Stations are considered perpendicular to the FRL. On the other hand, Cowl Stations are considered perp to Engine thrust line. So to properly layout a Mustang cowl one would start by establishing a level line, we'll call the FRL. On that line we would establish a perpendicular line, extending well above and below. Let's call that one: Fuse. Sta. 0. Now , measure (from Fuse Sta 0) to the rear of the aircraft, along the FRL, a distance of 41.600". At that point, on the FRL well now strike a thrust line, sloping down toward the nose and extend ,upwards toward the tail . The angle of the thrust line will diverge from FRL. by 1.75 deg. Where the thrust line intersects the previously establish Fuse Sta 0 perp. is the location of Cowl sta 0, on the thrust line. Cowl Stations are measured/located along the angled thrust line, either in front of, or behind Cowl Sta 0. Again, Fuselage stations are 90 deg to FRL. Cowl stations are canted forward at their tops, scewed 1.75 deg off fuselage stations. It can get a bit confusing when the loft has Fuse. Stations defining cowl section etc. Fuse. Sta 20 is one such section which also defines external cowl shape/profile. Front of Spinner is C.Sta.- 34.436, back of spinner is C.Sta. -8.060. Front of cowl (spinner disc) is 3/8" father aft. BTW, NAA mixed fractions with decimals ALL the time, on the evolved types . Later efforts show a move toward drawing simplification, no negative stations etc.

Just a quick comment about different upper nose profiles. P-51B/C at top of canted firewall is 7/16" HIGHER (above frl) than P-51D canted firewall, same spot. Lower profile identical on all, to front of landing gear doors. Extreme rear of cowl is slightly farther forward on D than B/C, due differing Ht on same angle and location (relative to intersection at FRL) of canted firewall.

P-51B cowls sometimes appeared "lumpy", especialy at the top of canted firewall, altering the profile even more. This appears to have been mis-adjustment of the cowl mount tabs, attached to the front face of the firewall. These could be adjusted in, out ,up, down, to keep the cowl panels in line with fixed skins aft. C/D can suffer same , as the attach system is identical. However, it appears to have been more common on B's, early '44.

I have often wondered why the side cowls were multiple strips, affixed to shaped channels running fore/aft. Stainless steel panel at exhaust ports may explain some of that, but...? I suspect most of the side panels are flat sheet, nudged into compound curves, of a sort, fwd. BTW, most scale drawing side views show all the side panel lines as parallel to thrust and each other. Bottom most is definitely curved over its forward half.

This will end our consideration of cowls (we'll save geometry of engine mount structure for a latter discussion!). In reality the Mustang's fuselage was viewed as being made up of three sub-assemblies. The Engine Section (fwd of firewall), the Forward Fuselage (canted firewall to Fuselage Sta 248 and, IIRC , the Tail Section (aft of 248). The fuselage will "break" for transport or repair at firewall and or Fuse Sta. 248.

Next time, less drudgery, I promise. Well be tackling the longeron's. Another strange trip.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2014, 08:36 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
Longeron evolution is a facsinating (at least to geeks like me) sub-story of the Mustang saga. They are integral with major developements in the basic airframe, in becoming THE Mustang.

Mustang I defined the basic semi-monocoque fuselage. One innovative feature was the lack of stringers. Most a/c of the period had close set, light guage formers and multiple stringers, covered with a thin surface skin. Mustang used four longerons with wider spaced formers, only two stringers, in the upper aft fuselage, and a bit thicker skin. This is a major component of the Mustang's overall success. It was relatively easier and cheaper to produce. It was also easier to maintain and repair.

Allison types
Major portions of the longerons are aluminum extrusions of " H " cross-section. Both upper and lower are 2.5"x 2.5". Lower has the H's legs vertical, while the outer legs of the uppers H section slant inward at the top, outward at bottom, a constant 10 deg. both were machined to decreasing sections, aft of the cockpit area, and then bent to match exterior contours. The upper longeron assembly runs straight (side view) from the canted firewall, at front to Fuse Sta.232, where it abruptly ends (more about this later). The lower longerons also runs from the back of canted firewall, cranks sharply up to Fuse 104 and thence straignt back to sta 184. The entire assembly however, continues straight, all the way to Fuse. Sta 248, the "Transport break".

P-51B/C has identical upper longeron and similar skinning configuration as earlier. In a rather odd situation, the structural loads aft of Fuse. Sta. 232 (upper longeron stopps) are carried by the large side panels, which bridge the gap from above and below, back to tranport joint. The large panel goes from lower longeron to stringer above (interesting that a number of published works indicate fuselage insignia location is measured from a longeron centered panel line. However, the panel line they call out doesn't exactly exist! ). At least on B/C, etc.

P-51D introduced a complete full length longeron assembly, to match the lower. it also introduced a panel line on the upper longeron where none existed before (now the books are correct!). This is a good determining feature for a number of currently flying examples, being shown and claimed as earlier models, when in fact they are modified D fuselages. Another distinguishing feature of true early airframes (B/C and earlier) is that that they had a roll over pylon behind the pilot. Aircraft with this feature had a canted side panel line that followed the angle of the pylon structure. D's had no roll over structure (seat armor servings that function)and changed from a canted to a vertical panel line. (P-51C "Princess Elizabeth" is a D fuselage, nose cowls ,etc. "Polar Bear" is a P-51D airframe, back dated to P-51A like condition).

P-51B/C saw the wing lowered by 3 vertical inches, to accomodate the taller V 1650 and chin ducting. Extruded portions of the lower longerons went with it. Sharp angle lessened, between firewall and 104. At Fuse. Sta. 168 to 184, a secondary crank was introduced to get back up to the original fore/aft line. This secondary crank is covered by that curious fin like projection added onto the aft wing to fuselage fillet.


Some notes about skinning: Allison type had skin at fuselage sides, over wing, extend below lower longerons, trimmed to match upper wing surfaces. P-51B had same skins trimmed to just beyonf center of longeron, in straight lines. All open spaces being covered by fillet pieces. D also had only two stringers supporting the rear skins. However the foward portions are below the skin lines in the area immediately aft of the canopy and not attach to the skins there.

P-51A and earlier had three panels covering the spine, between 168 and 248. On P-51B/C this was changed to a single stretched piece, which constituted the only compound curvature of the forward fuselge. Earlier models appear to have none. On P-51D the only compound curvature occurs aft end of canopy, at sides and end, both sides of the canopy rail. I've heard that another panel, just aft ofvthose already mentioned are also formed but another re-builder told me it's not so. I'm going with the latter, as photos seem to bear this out.

The Forward Fuselage section has flat sheet riveted into mild compound curves at the sides. Very clever.

We will next explore the Rear Fuselage section, from Fuse. Sta 248 & aft.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2014, 12:11 PM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2009
2 Posts
Thanks to ”packardpursuit” for the excellent MUSTANG drawings.

Can anybody give me these dimension of reaL MUSTANG?
JOZSEF is offline Find More Posts by JOZSEF
Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2014, 03:08 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
Give me a day or two to find the item in question. I'm pretty sure the NAA parts and assembly drawing has the data you requested.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2014, 02:02 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
Rear Fuselage Section, for all of the evolved types, are near identical, except that for P-51D, which has shorter/reshaped formers, just in front of the stab.

At first glance rear section looks rather like the forward section, with four longerons but the uppers are actually the bent flange of a flat bulkhead, @ water line 10 (10" above FRL). This bulkhead forms a shelf for the stab and fin to attach to, and runs from the backside of former at F.Sta.248 aft, stopping about 12" forward of the Rudder Hinge Line, which is 327.11. It also defines the fuselage shape at the WL 10, as it is full width over its length. BTW, the fin and rudder is offset for torque by 1 deg to the left. What is curious is the point of fin rotation is not the Rudder hinge line, but actuallyoccurs some 7" forward of that position. This puts the rudder hinge somewhat right of center. There is a great photo looking straight up at the aft fuselage and lower rudder in one the maintenance manuals. You can actually see the rudder crowding the right fuselage shell.

The elevator hinge line is located at F.Sta. 306 and sits 12.21 " above the FRL.

The lower longerons are L shaped aluminum extrusions, approx 1.2" x 1.2". In side view they are angle but form a staight line. Like longerons forward, they are curved a bit, in top view. They are the widest part of the fuselage. They also provide attachment for the tail wheel mount and retraction system.

The Rear fusealge skinning is some of the most curious on the aircraft. It is combination af compound curve and flat wrapped. The area over the top, just in fron of the stab is slight compound curve. Nearly all the rest is flat-wrapped.
according to a fellow rebuilding a P-51C, he had to run a one or two edges through thee English wheel just to get the edges to stay flat. I believe, in the 40's era factories the sheets were rolled to acomplish the same thing. Not really compound curvatuture but...? Tail wheel doors have piano hinge, so that id definitely a flat/striafht metal work. at least for 22" or so. There seems to be definite change in panel contour just aft of the tailwheel , in lower panels. However,occisionally the panels show has a straight line from F.Sta 248 to rudder. The loft shows this profile as a smooth curved line. IMHO, photos are more correct, in this regard than the loft. We will have to discuss the loft at length, in a future installment.

Next time, we'll cover the radiator fairings.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2014, 06:12 AM
Registered User
md6364's Avatar
United States, MN, Park Rapids
Joined Feb 2014
471 Posts
Back in February of this year, the wife and I had the amazing opportunity to visit Aircorps Aviation http://www.aircorpsaviation.com/ in Bemidji Minnesota. This company is only located around 50 miles from my home. An R/C flying buddy of mine is doing research on a P 51 project they have going on there. Sierra Sue II (P-51D-20-NA) had been painted in red with racing numbers on her the last time I saw her down at Flying Cloud airport, south of Minneapolis. The owner decided he want to do a complete restore on he aircraft back to her World War Two fighting trim. Visit the Aircorps Aviation website to see what this company is capable of and the projects they have going on!
md6364 is offline Find More Posts by md6364
Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2014, 09:21 AM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
What I'm waiting for is a trend among owners, is a return to colorful schemes from the 46' thru 49' racing era. I'd probably have to start it myself, and since I won't/can't be buying a real one, any time soon....

Your comment got me to thinking about Kermit Week's P-51C, "Ina the Macon Belle". It's probably the oldest racing Mustang, still flying. It won the Bendix Trophy 1948. One of the more interesting things about this particular Mustang is that it still wears an experimental "one piece" spinner, that mounts quite a bit differently than stock. It had this spinner back in the day, too.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2014, 03:33 PM
Registered User
md6364's Avatar
United States, MN, Park Rapids
Joined Feb 2014
471 Posts
I'm much more interested in War Birds having their original markings, not the racing livery.
md6364 is offline Find More Posts by md6364
Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2014, 04:59 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
see # 64 this thread.

JOZSEF,
Well, there are no DIRECT dimensions for "Plate Assembly - Carburetor Air Filter" , save one. The part/drawing number is 104-310276, and is found on Roll S and frame #199 of the WWII era microfilm.

The surface mounting screw center, at extreme top left. is located at Cowl Sta.14-11/16, and 7-5/8" below the CL engine crank shaft. The aft screwcenter at top, is on Cowl STA. 29-5/16, and is 10-5/8" below the CL crankshaft center.

The SINGLE dimension give is a general ht of the panel, which is 7", when viewed from side. The piece is actually larger because of the curvature of the cowl. The piece is laid out "square", that is all conners save bottom right are 90 degrees. A constant 1/2 " radius is in each corner and to outside edge of the panel. The odd lower aft screw center is 2-58" forward of Cowl Sta 29-5/16.
The center of the 7" parallel view bi-sects the center screws 3.5" down from top edge.

I wish I could just post the image but cannot at this time.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2014, 07:25 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2009
2 Posts
Thanks for your help.
JOZSEF is offline Find More Posts by JOZSEF
Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2014, 10:57 AM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
I meant to add the holes are 1" in diam. HT dimension at extreme left of your diagram is 7", at extreme rt at top is 3-1/2".

I'm also trying to locate the center line of the crankshaft. IIRC, it is some 9+" below the thrust line and parallel to it. I got to wondering why some things on the airframe are referenced from the engine crank, instead of the thrust line. Both are fixed.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Last edited by packardpursuit; May 23, 2014 at 11:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 03, 2014, 04:26 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
Radiator, "Scoops", and Fairings

While most Mustang history will concentrate on the the adaptation of the "Merlin" or chant the praises of the P-51D's new canopy and or guns, there was another area that saw as much or more outward change and considerably more engineering effort. That would be the efforts at cooling of the engines.

A main identifying Mustang feature has been the placement of the radiator. This was central, below and aft of the wing. Why there? Two reasons: According to Horkey and Schmued it was "the only place lef"t and it is in a better position for optimal stream line. It was felt the aft placement would delay overall undisturbed air flow qualities over more of the aircraft. It also meant that it would have to operate in disturbed boundary layer airflow.

Early on, NAA felt a moderately recessed radiator, with appropriate internal ducting of air for heat exchange (intake and exhaust) would suffice. They also provided a variable air intake, along with a variable hot air shutter, at rear. It was felt through proper manipulation of the two shutters, optimal cooling could be adjusted for. In practice, it seems, the the front shutter was found a bit impractical. With the appearance of A-36, the front was a stand alone fixed scoop. and only the rear shutter was used to regulate airflow through the radiator, IIRC.
P-51A carried this concept forward, and saw some interesting attempts to overcome the old bugaboo, disturbed boundry layer ingestion. The initial fitting of the Merlin engine on XP-51B's only exacerbated the issue. For one, the radiators required were significantly larger, which meant intake and exhaust ducting had to be larger, too This meant a larger fairing overall, and a significant further intrusion of the radiator, up into the fuselage. It was also found that the boundary layer bypass (gap between the top of the scoop and lower surface of wing) had to be greater, as well.

One of the XP-51B's had it's wings cut to fit within a wind tunnel at NACA's Ames Research Center., where it was tested up to 500mph. This was an attempt to discover the source of a very disturbing buffeting within the cooling ducts, which was threatening further development. After trying several mods to the intake configuration, the duct itself, internal bleeds and shapes, etc., the final outcome was the production variant, with its characteristic slanted intake lip and refined internal shaping of the ducts themselves. The lip appears to have been the answer to the buffeting and was suggested by an engineer named Irve Askansas. According to NAA aerodynamicist, Ed Horkey, more engineering hours were spent refining the the B/C/D interior air ducts for radiator and oil cooler, than the whole of outside of the aircraft!

I purposely have not mentioned the Meredith Effect, til now. Horkey contended the " mathematical formula proposed by some British professor"(paraphrased) "was not used by us at any time". It seems clear NAA was using principles put forward by Meredith, but it would also seem NAA was taking the idea farther than any had before. To this day, there is considerable controversy surrounding the Mustang's achievements, in this regard.

I would also point out there was considerable post war public disagreement between NAA VP (later president) John Atwood, and the design team, about the relative importance of the Meredith Effect, in overall Mustang successes.

My own personal view is that this controversy is like others which seem to haunt the aircraft's popular historical perspective. For example, there have been recent attempts to discuss how the Mustang's airfoil did not actually achieve "laminar flow." and thus in need of correcting an historical falsehood. However, I'd like to know who ever said the airfoil "had to achieve laminar flow"??? It's apparent these detractors have not looked up the definition of what constitutes a "laminar flow airfoil". Same with the notion of offering a corrected view of the Mustang and the Meredith Effect. Did the Mustang's cooling configuration ever achieved "jet thrust"? Not sure NAA ever claimed that they did. It was highly successful at keeping the coolant temps within bounds. Throw personality conflicts into the mix, within NAA itself, and you have an executive claiming he introduced the Meredith Effect into the Mustang design criteria, while the engineers who designed and tested it on a daily basis, say otherwise.
Who you gonna believe?? The salesman/promoter of NAA products, or the guys who worked on the specifics? Different perspectives of the same aircraft.

As for the actual shapes, the Allison versions have their radiator fairings with side skins, as part of an integral (partial wrap around) fuselage structure. With the B/C/D, the fairing was was made up of separate and removable structures, forward/aft of radiator. The radiator bay was covered with removable panels. One facet not covered by most scale drawings is the fact that the radiator fairing is somewhat narrower than the fuselage longerons, at fuse Sta 159, which is the separation between the forward structure and cover panels. The fuselage cross-section here is actually "hour glass" like. This appears to be from re-fairing of original Allison contour lines into B/C/D radiator fairing. The feature is very hard to appreciate when the aft wing to fuselage fairings are in place. Fuselage Sta. 159 is shown in the P-51B loft, report #35, earlier this thread.

Guess it's time we talked about the loft and what it shows. Next time.
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 06, 2014, 12:09 AM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
1,529 Posts
P-51 Fuselage Loft

The " lofting process" is the act of determining the important shapes of an object (primarily nautical and aerodynamic forms) in full size. Other disciplines might call it the "layout". Think of it as a full size drawing, establishing side, top, and front/rear views. And more importantly, using those established lines to accurately draw each transverse and special sections or stations, as required.

A "loft" is typically a report of those shapes compiled from information generated during the lofting process. This report usually consists of tables of offsets, or ordinates charts (for each station), and graphic illustrations. The more complex an object's shape is, the more detailed the report tends to be.

Both terms, "loft" and "lofting", derive from where, historically, the layout activities traditionally took place. Usually on a boat shed's open attic floor space.

For basic hull lofting , this site is relatively easy (!) to understand. http://sandypointboatworks.com/index...lofting-basics

It looks more complex than it is, but takes more mental effort than you might think. When all lines are observed to be "fair" (smooth, no kinks) and passing thru all section intersections, and similar at buttocks, water lines and diagonals, the sections so defined, will "work" correctly.

Just think "fuselage" everywhere the article indicates " hull" or "boat".. Also, aircraft fuselages usually are a bit more complex, in that a boat hull only represents the "lower half" of a complete fuselage. The important things to come away with, from this article, is to pay attention to terms such as profile, center line ship, water lines, and buttock lines. It is also important to remember traditional lofting is a trial and error process. So, especially look at function of "diagonal section lines", as these provide the final visual check to see if the sections, buttock and waterlines drawn are "fair", or not, causing abrupt, visually unpleasant changes in surface contour.

Now, I'm switching directions and letting you know , NAA did not use traditional lofting methods, but rather, introduced to the modern aircraft industry, a mathematical method of determining fair lines and resulting sections. It was not entirely new. Again, it was a method borrowed from and pioneered by the ship building trade. As ships got bigger , traditional lofting was getting to be impractical. "Conic Lofting", based upon mathematical formulas for generation of accurate sections of a cone, or sometimes known as "the second degree development of a curve", gave a repeatable method for determining a string of fair points and intersections, between , over, around, established design elements.
As I understand it, it is vastly more accurate than the empirical method. It may be NAA's and the Mustang's most enduring contribution to aircraft design.

I know how to loft via the older graphic methods. It's really not hard, once certain steps are known. It is dull and repetitive. I do not pretend to understand any of the mathematical method, except for generalities. In the latter, basic placement of power plant, pilot/payload, wing and tail are established, just like earlier. However the connecting outlines are determined by calculation, ensuring a very accurate and more efficient curve than the eye can produce. In the traditional method, the diagonals provided the final check for smooth surface transition. If you guessed wrong, either the station had to be corrected to meet (intersect) the fair diagonal section line, or you you had to adjust the diagonal., or the water lines or the buttock lines...Much drawing and re-drawing resulted. Great care is required so as not to become confused. Accuracy is considered good when you are within +/- 1/8". of all intersections . With the mathematical process, tolerances could be held to within a few 1000ths, or less, for each path of points generated. The real advantage to the newer process was that fair diagonal section lines could be generated earlier, as "shoulder lines", BEFORE the transverse sections were even guessed at. As such, buttock and waterlines are not always needed to determine final section shape.

Yet, despite how accurately the points for a given line path could be calculated beforehand, actual drawing of the lines themselves, still required traditional graphic means. And conversion of the data generated, needed to be expressed in traditional formats. Industry standard at the time saw the loft lines rendered with a finely pointed scratch awl, into white painted panels of aluminum sheets, which were screwed to a large area raised floor or platform.

If my ham-fisted explanation hasn't put you to sleep, and complex number crunching is right up your alley, I would suggest consulting "Mathematical Technique of Lofting" by Carter M. Hartley and Roy A. Liming, 1943. This treatise also appeared in more than 20 successive issues of war time Aero Digest magazine. Both gentlemen were NAA engineering staff and literally wrote the book on the process. Today, CAD does the work in seconds

We will attempt to finish discussion of specific P-51 Fuselage Loft in the next installment.

Again, if any wish to disagree with my understandings, PLEASE feel free to comment. Corrections and questions welcome. Maybe I'm not explaining it right??
packardpursuit is offline Find More Posts by packardpursuit
Last edited by packardpursuit; Jun 06, 2014 at 12:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted JPower mini warbird (Rarebear or P-51), and only in great shape. T-CAT Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 2 Apr 22, 2011 11:20 PM
Sold um p-51 great shape low time $65 pyrobus Aircraft - Electric - Micro & Indoor Airplanes (FS/W) 1 Feb 17, 2011 05:54 PM
Sold Parkzone micro p-51 in great shape BNF ERGO60SX Aircraft - Electric - Micro & Indoor Airplanes (FS/W) 8 Jul 11, 2010 08:28 AM
Sold LEG P-51 mustang 72" shaped fuse and canopy joemach1 Aircraft - Sailplanes (FS/W) 1 May 02, 2009 09:59 AM
Wanted Someone to shape my DAM P-51 Fuselage SchiessCo Aircraft - Sailplanes (FS/W) 0 May 24, 2005 09:53 PM