Jump to content

what areas to putty on P51 wings?


pzcreations

Recommended Posts

Anyone who has been around real aircraft for any period of time knows just how unreliable and wrong that assumption is..          

 

Well, if you speak of wartime conditions of 65+ years ago then I may be inclined to agree to a certain extent based on location, conditions and necessity. If however you're speaking regarding modern day aircraft, military or civilian, I will have to disagree.  Having been around aircraft for over 26 years, I'll be the first to say that if it's not in the manual or in a directive someplace you'd better not do it (paint notwithstanding with certain caveats for control surfaces).  Or, if you do it, make sure you get approval from the regulatory agency before you actually do it so you won't be left hanging out on a limb when said regulatory agency (read as FAA and/or EASA) comes a knocking and wants to know under what authority you used to take such action and God help you if said aircraft is in an incident or accident and you don't have that approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tim

Having been around aircraft for a similar time as you at 31 years of flying experience 16 with airlines there are many exceptions to rules.

Aircraft with patches and dings many with modifications that make them non standard.

Sure nobody paints over a static zone but ive seen plenty of rivets where there isnt supposed to be any.

Thats in the tightly controlled world of 2013.

Can you imagine how uncontrolled a maintenance shed on the other side of the world with extreme pressure for max flyable airframes every day would be with most work done in the open.

People who think flaps are retracted every time an aircraft land for gods sake..lol..im not sure if they have ever been to any airport in there life but i think they should. Even today airliners taxi in flap down for various reasons all of which are non standard as no manual says to leave them out..well except the 717 unless you have been on contaminated surfaces anyway.

In short non standard happens as a fact of life and no manual however well meaning can cover every circumstance in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radu, you're just not getting the point. Yes they are very nice pictures and yes I can see imperfections in the wing, but they are still restored air frames so just not a reliable source of information for this type of detail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad,

 

I understand your standpoint with regard to restored warbirds. However, the fact that a plane has been restored 50 years after an era does not mean it cannot be used as a clue to know how things look like 50 years earlier! This is even more valid when some people from different parts of the world got similar restoration results on different planes at different times! For sure, I agree that the conditions and times are/were different but the similarity cannot be only refuted.on such grounds.

 

Otherwise, I may even say that plane number 9 of the same squadron seen at the same period cannot be used as a clue to know how plane 10 looked! For sure, they were different! With such a perspective, the only "accurate" solution would be a full wartime walkaround of pictures of the specific airframe! Considering this we should stop making models and start knitting..

 

The problem here is not the restoration accuracy. It is actually the fact that even if the wings were puttied, according to the light they may be smooth as baby skin or show some details here and there. This is not limited to airplanes. A close friend of mine used to repair car bodies for many years. He complained regarding this problem more than once!

 

My 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right with the accuracy comment. If someone is really concerned with total accuracy of their model chances are they will never build one (that really is not a concern for me though). I will still view restored aircraft as unreliable, just look at the corsair thread regarding the step in the flap posted here. Another example of why restored aircraft may not be reliable for how aircraft appeared over 50 years ago in combat situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd imagine some restorers of old real aircraft are just as fanatical as scale modellers over the accuracy issue, so thats another grey area into the mix :) Obviously there are different interpretations by a real aircraft restorer as pictures show, so not a black and white yes no answer ... I guess even Tamiya measure restored Aircraft mainly.

 

I guess too (especially in wartime) and from different factory's and even individual QC inspectors there could have been slightly different results on aircraft, especially in the pressure to produce during wartime ... thinking more exact paint shades here though.

 

For me I'll only rectify howling errors if I learn of them researching a build, I'll certainly not worry about this particular issue when I build my Tamiya Mustang, perhaps if I still owned the Dragon P-51D but we all know about its engraving :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, interesting subject indeed and all said n done still good discussion.

 

I didn't really want to get involved so please don't 'shoot me down', personally I think Jen and Radu are both correct....why? Well I have had a good opportunity to look at this in depth over the years. I helped load Maurice Hammonds ex RNZAF Mustang (now flying as 'Janie' in the UK)into a container many years ago. This point of painted/puttied wings interested me then.

 

I came across several sections of original wing still in original NAA factory finish. I had to be careful as a number of ours as per official Airforce request (I have seen the original documentation at the RNZAF Museum) had to have the 'knifing compound' or filler removed due to cracking. I have seen a section of wing that this was evident on and it was unusual in that it wasn't cracked all the way through but had the surface effect like you see cracked ground in the desert. This was to be replaced with much heavier paint application over the panel lines instead (so only peculiar to the RNZAF).

 

What was clearly evident was where the original filler was you could still see the rivet detail as Radu says(partially in some areas, but definitely there), I would liken it to when we get putty shrinkage on our models today.Now I photographed an original section with my old film camera and you cant really see it(but I will dig up the old photo and scan it later), so puttied yes....beautifully smooth no. However as I mentioned it was not really evident in my old film shot taken in the early 90's.

 

Here is NZ2423, with puttied wings, see the top surface here with wear and the pinkish grey filler showing through the heavily worn HSS lacquer finish.

garden029_zpsa7fec07b.jpg

 

Notice the remanents of rivet detail showing through? Now this is a less worn area for foot traffic but clearly shows rivet detail, bare in mind also the paint finish is now pretty scruffy.

garden024_zpsd4b04b2c.jpg

 

Not overly visible, but barely discernible in real life, probably not in long distance pics

Mossie036_zps0949e66f.jpg

 

I like this photo here when they were brand new and getting RAF 'style' roundels applied over the US insignia. To me I can still barely see rivet detail....barely. As Jen says, build it how you like I think it is personal taste.

rnzaf-mustang-paint-roundel_zps12468f4f.

Sorry this pic is not mine but taken from Ventra Models website and used for ref only, possibly a Robert Montgomery image.

 

So anyway there is my 2c for what it is worth, I don't begin to say I definitely know the answer, these are just my personal findings, don't flame me.

 

For me I will lightly spray Mr Surfacer 1000 over the wing so it is barely discernible when painted, that satisfies me.

 

Cheers guys

Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at my pics from Seattle Paul Allens Mustang wing pretty much refelcts Jennings diagram to a tee.

However an aircraft lovingly restored on an unlimited budget gets far more love than any Mustang off a production line in wartime conditions.

Combine that with 3-12 months of operational service in every weather imaginable.(Ie we are talking about Europe here) with temperatures ranging from 30c to -56c means a very quick degradation. Putty included.

In short build it how you like you are certain to be right at one time or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a photo of Paul Allen's Mustang.

 

http://fotodj.com/elements/2008/Oceana%20Air%20Show/Action%20Pictures/slides/GJ20_085.html

 

You can see the lengthwise panel lines behind the gun ports and the lines leading from the ammunition bays to the wingtip. You can also see the "quilted" effect around the rivet line, look at the space behind the ammunition bays towards the wing tips (around the elongated blisters). This matches precisely what you can see on the Hendon Mustang and every other flyable Mustang, as also illustrated in the many photos posted here. This exactly what all flying Mustangs I have ever seen feature on their wings. There are puttied panel lines that did not disappear completely and then there are panel lines that were never puttied. A completely smooth wing devoid of all detail is actually wrong.

 

There are a lot more photos of Paul Allen's Mustang on the internet. Google "P-51 Little Horse" and you will find plenty of detail on those wings.

 

No one said that Jenning's drawing is "wrong". I said repeatedly that I am firmly convinced that the wings were puttied. Others said the same. The point of contention here is not the putty itself but rather the effect yielded by applying that putty.

 

Anyway, this is not about "who is right" but rather about "what is right".

 

As this is a thread about the 1/32 Tamiya Mustang, my advice is to leave the wing well alone. It is superb as it is. Obliterating the detail would be a shame.

 

Radu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with a smooth wing. I have no problem with rivets or panel lines. I have no strong likes or dislikes on the subject, either way. It really does not matter to me. I only want to know the truth based on ALL information available. I strongly suspect that I am not on my own.

Radu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a photo of Paul Allen's Mustang.

 

http://fotodj.com/elements/2008/Oceana%20Air%20Show/Action%20Pictures/slides/GJ20_085.html

 

You can see the lengthwise panel lines behind the gun ports and the lines leading from the ammunition bays to the wingtip. You can also see the "quilted" effect around the rivet line, look at the space behind the ammunition bays towards the wing tips (around the elongated blisters). This matches precisely what you can see on the Hendon Mustang and every other flyable Mustang, as also illustrated in the many photos posted here. This exactly what all flying Mustangs I have ever seen feature on their wings. There are puttied panel lines that did not disappear completely and then there are panel lines that were never puttied. A completely smooth wing devoid of all detail is actually wrong.

 

There are a lot more photos of Paul Allen's Mustang on the internet. Google "P-51 Little Horse" and you will find plenty of detail on those wings.

 

Radu

 

 

That is not Paul Allen's Flying Heritage Collection Mustang, that appears to belong to a Paul 'Ehlen'.  I have seen Upupa Epops up close on multiple occasions, and I can assure you the wing is puttied smooth as a baby's bottom.  Upupa Epops is one of the *very* few P-51Ds restored to true factory configuration, none of the restorations you posted in this thread are even remotely restored to 1944-45 service condition.  See the following link....

 

http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplatePlane.aspx?contentId=29#

 

353rd FG wartime shot....

 

http://www.littlefriends.co.uk/gallery/353g/sx-dbar.jpg

 

Unputtied/poorly puttied wings are perfectly accurate for post-war and Korean War Mustangs, and supported by photographic evidence.  This is not the case for WWII P-51Ds.  P-51Ds in WWII combat service lasted, at the absolute upper limit, 11 months- the vast, vast majority lasting far less time.  I have never seen photographic evidence of a WWII in-service P-51D that showed more than a hint of panel line or rivet detail forward of the 40% chord area.  Even the most beat up wings show that the smoothing procedure remained largely intact.  This is the wing of P-51D-5-NA TK589, one of the first P-51Ds to arrive in the UK and passed from the USAAF to the RAF for testing.   The wing is beat to hell, but there is just a hint of rivet detail from the bottom edge of the ammo bay door back to the flap.

 

TK589stbdwing.jpg

 

Brent Erickson

Edited by BrentE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okey dokey, pig in a pokey!

Let us play this game then...

Here is a photo of "Upupa Epops" http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschultz742/9353482367/

Please note how the rivet lines are revealed by the quilting effect on the wing and also you can see the panel lines that were puttied. This is EXACTLY what anyone can see on most preserved or flyable Mustangs.

Please let me repeat, oh... maybe for the millionth time... I do not dispute that the wings were puttied and smoothed. I am only saying that in certain light, when the light hits the wing in certain ways, you can still see the construction details.
Radu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents,

 

It sounds like you could be all in violent agreement here!

 

I think that we need to remember the design intent here. The objective (as I percieve it) is to present a smooth surface finish to the airflow for at least 40% of the mean wing chord for smooth laminar airflow considerations.

 

The key words here are surface finish and the interperration of those words. Manufacturing tolerances and operational use will show evidence of skin stressing as Radu has pointed out. Puttying (or knifing) panel lines and excessive defects, followed by smoothing and repeated applications of filler and paint/laquer will provide the necessary design smoothness aerodynamically desirable but will not provide a glass like smoothness in a single plane like a polished marble top, as I do not believe that it was designed to address this issue; so surface irregularities and rivet locations will most likely be seen in the skins at the right reflective light angles, but it will still feel and look smooth to the touch.

 

I therefore believe that both camps are right here and it sounds like an amount of subjectivity leeway may be needed here for modellers to finish their own models as they see fit (variety is always a good thing). As for the kit, I think that it looks great and cannot wait to buy one one day.

 

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...