what areas to putty on P51 wings?

[Radub]

Let me try again. Here are some photos of the Mustang wing in Hendon.

 

 

This is puttied the way the maintenance manual requested. The leading edge is coated with a heavy layer of putty while the rear is just coated in primer. You can see the transition from smotth front to rough back. Note the panel lines. Some were filled in, some were never filled in. The line going up and down on the right has a line of Philips head fasteners. The lines going from left to right are puttied.

 

Here is an enlargement of the photo above. This clearly shows the smooth putty at the leading edge but it also shows that it did not indiscrimintaley remove everything.

 

Here is another example of how smooth the wing is.

 

But look what happens when you zoom in.

 

I have seen this on many Mustang wings. I urge all of you to go to your nearest museum or airfield and look at the Mustangs there. I refuse to accept the argument that all restorations are bad. I bet that even those "fantastic restorations" that prove the dogmatic argument show the same detail when you get close enough. I also looked at all of my references on the Mustang. If you look hard, you can see this even on wartime planes.

 

Radu

[BradG]

No need to defend yourself to me for I get where you are coming from. As I said. perhaps both camps are right, some wings being beautifully made, others with the ghost rivets showing or maybe the wing was only partially filled. However, I'm not convinced looking at restored aircraft for details like this is entirely the right thing. Remember that restoration workers will have pretty much the same information the rest of us do, which will have an impact on how they choose to restore any particular aircraft.

 

I'll give you a very good example of why restored aircraft should be looked at with caution;

 

Many years ago at a museum here in Melbourne, a noted but nameless aviation author came into the museum. Now on display was a Jumo engine that was used as an instructional engine and had the front cowling painted green. Nameless author looked at it and proclaimed it as proof that RLM 'whatever it was' was used on late war Me 262's. What the members on the museum really didn't have the heart to tell him, was it was painted with Dulux house paint by a member.

Edited September 25, 2013 by BradG

[Radub]

I am aware that restorations can be bad. But my point is that the "bad restoration" dismissal is used too casually and too carelessly to the point that it has become "the boy who cried wolf". It lost all of its value. I will glaldy concede that the Hendon Mustang is a crappy restoration ONLY when faced with evidence to prove that. "It disagrees with dogma" is not evidence.

 

As I said, I looked in other places. I have seen other Mustangs. I have a number of books on the Mustang. Looking in these books I see the same effect and the same lines. I can spend some time and get more similar info if you wish - the books are brimming with similar photos, all you need to do is see with your eyes, not with a view blinkered by internet meme. The reason why I use the Hendon Mustang is that it is placed in such an unique way that allows anyone to see this effect. Other Mustangs that feature the same effect may not reveal it as easily because of how they are displayed or stored. I am absolutely convinced that the Hendon Mustang wing is coated with putty and lacquer as per the maintenance manual instructions. You can see that clearly. You can see it in photos but it is even more evident in real life. Dismissing it as a "fake" does not disprove anything. Words are easy to throw around. The only way to disprove this evidence would be to show photos of other Mustangs depicting the same areas as depicted in these photos, but proving the exact opposite. So far, no one has done that.

 

I repeat (oh how many times is it now?) that I do not dispute the FACT that the wings were puttied. I dispute the claim that this puttying yielded a wing devoid of any lines, fasteners, inspection holes, drains, rack mounts, access panels. This is like the story of "emperor's new clothes". See for yourselves with your own eyes, not someone else's eyes. Make up your own minds.

 

Radu

[BradG]

So, you don't need any proof that the Mustang at Hendon has been restored authentically, but others need to prove that it hasn't been? You can't have it both ways. I have no idea if it is or not and unless you have talked to the people who actually did the work, neither do you. Even then, they still have the same information that we do and it's still a restoration, thus unreliable to use as a reference for this type of detail. Also, absence of evidence is not evidence in itself.

 

I would be interested to know if there is a P-51 in existence that has not been restored. Although, either way I still don't really care, I just like a good debate.

[Guest Nigelr32]

I would like to know which panels would be visible with regard to lines and screws or rivets. i am waiting for an outcome to this debate before I get the Mr dissolved putty or 1200 Mr Surfacer out on my wings.

[BradG]

How many years are you planning to wait Nige lol

[Radub]

So, you don't need any proof that the Mustang at Hendon has been restored authentically, but others need to prove that it hasn't been? You can't have it both ways. I have no idea if it is or not and unless you have talked to the people who actually did the work, neither do you. Even then, they still have the same information that we do and it's still a restoration, thus unreliable to use as a reference for this type of detail. Also, absence of evidence is not evidence in itself.

 

I would be interested to know if there is a P-51 in existence that has not been restored. Although, either way I still don't really care, I just like a good debate.

 

Whoa there, no need to twist my words. Stay on target! Also, please keep in mind that you are no longer discussing the Mustang wing, you are discussing me. Play the ball, not the player. This is how rows start.

 

All you said above applies to you in equal measure, if not more.

 

I clearly said: "I will glaldy concede that the Hendon Mustang is a crappy restoration ONLY when faced with evidence to prove that". That means "show me the proof and I will glaldy join your side". THATis a clear invitation to show me the proof that the Hendon Mustang was restored well or badly.

 

Radu

[BradG]

I'm not twisting your words or personally insulting you which would be considered 'playing the man', I am questioning your position and your opinion. It's called a discussion.

 

I can't show you any proof that the restoration is authentic or not and neither can you although if you are holding something back, please share. Just saying 'I am absolutely convinced...' is not evidence, it's opinion. Since there is currently no hard evidence either way, this aircraft is an unverifiable and subsequently unreliable source of information. Not saying you are wrong, not saying you are right, but I am saying your conclusion cannot be substantiated at this time.

[BradG]

Here are another couple of very good pictures. I can't spot anything on Nooky Booky and being pretty filthy, dirty should be showing up in any rivet or panel line impressions like the flap. On the second one I think I see very faint rivet lines at the bottom right hand corner of the ammo bay.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2013 by BradG

[Radub]

I saw the wing from up-close. There is clear evidence that it was puttied according to the specifications. To my eye, according to spec, and in the absence of contray evidence, this is the real deal.

Furthermore, you confess that you have no evidence one way or another. Then what makes you choose to believe that it is fake? Here is my question: "WHY should this wing is not to be trusted?"

I showed photos with clear evidence of putty on the wings. I showed photos that prove that from a distance the wing is as smooth as claimed it should be, but in certain lights and from certain distances you can see details. Apart from the fact that it challenges "dogma" what is wrong with it?

Radu

[BradG]

It seems from what you are saying, you're the person carrying the dogma. Fake is the incorrect word and I never actually said that, I said unreliable and unverifiable which is quite different. It means that if I, or anyone is trying to build an ultra realistic model of an aircraft as it appeared during it's service life, that viewing restored airframes is not always the best thing to do for work crews may not restore an aircraft as it was originally built. Restored airframes also see much easier lives than combat aircraft. There is the possibility that over the life of a Mustang in service that the panels had to be refilled and fixed and maybe not as well as done in the factory. There is simply no defining, definitive answer that will fit every aircraft but I think actually looking at period pictures along with documentation from the time will give a much more reliable answer to how P-51 Mustang wings appeared during combat....and if you take a look at the black and white pic above, it would seem to support the idea you are putting forward and we have come full circle to my original point, that perhaps both sides of this debate can be correct.

[Radub]

It seems from what you are saying, you're the person carrying the dogma.

 

According to Wikipedia "Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true". Believe and do not question. I am not the one doing that. I already told the readers of this thread to ignore me and do their own research and come to their own conclusions. I am not forcing a point of view, I am questioning the point of view that is being forced upon me. 

 

I looked at the Aero Detail book on the Mustang. I invite everyone who has that book to go to the followng photos: page 1, page 28, page 33, page 36. These are all existing airframes and they all show the panel lines, fasteners and rivets in exactly the same place as the Hendon Mustang wing. I simply refuse to believe that they are all bad restorations, and restored badly in exactly the same places and in exactly the same manner. It just does not make sense.

 

Then, I went to the book "Southern Cross Mustangs" and looked at wartime photos. I advise anyone who has that book to go the following photos: page 60, 104, 149 (superb!), 198, 199. These are the clearest, but there are more photos. And they all feature EXACTLY THE SAME DETAIL as the Hendon Mustang in exactly the same place.

 

 

Sorry, but if your attention to detail doesn't even go far enough to look at the many available photos of wartime Mustang stencil data, then I can't trust that the rest of your restoration is any better.

 

Hmmm, are you sure? I paid good attention to detail, maybe you just did not pay attention to the details I wrote. If you go back to post 20 in this thread, you will find a link to the history of the Hendon Mustang (as well as links to other Mustangs with the same type of detail on the wings). If you read that link, you would have noticed that in 1982 this plane was restored as "Barbara-M". After that the plane remained flyable. I do not know how the mechanics who maintain flyable warbirds in America do their work, but I would really love to think that they restored the flyable airframe to precise factory specifications. Furthermore, I do not know how FAA carries out their inspections on flyable warbirds, but I would really like to believe that they make sure that everything is done to factory specifications before passing muster. On the same page you will find photos of this aircraft flying in the markings that is wearing now in the Museum. This airframe was flyable until it was donated to the museum.

 

I repeat, the Hendon Mustang has a wing that was puttied and lacquered in the manner described in the manual. From a distance, it looks smooth. But the advantage of this Mustang is that it is mounted on a rotating plate high above the ground and under a balcony. You can stay on the balcony above it or on the ground below it and watch how the wing changes as the plane slowly rotates into the light. No other Mustang that I know of can offer that opportunity. Go there and make up your own minds.

 

I said what I had to say. I continue to advise everyone to do some research and come to their own conclusions. You want to obliterate the detail of your Tamiya Mustang? Fine by me. You want to leave it alone? Fine by me.

 

Radu

 

PS, later edit. Here are some photos of flyable airframes (I saw the Duxford warbird in the air many times). They all feature the same details in exactly the same place as the Hendon Mustang.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2013 by Radub

[pzcreations]

wish I had known this was so controversial before I posted..sorry LSP,didnt mean to start a heated thread.

[Juggernut]

LOL...  It all amounts to one school of thought or the other.  All the rest is just rhetoric.

[Darren Howie]

Part of the issue is modern dslr's capture so much more detail than a ww2 camera.

Run through photoshop far more detail is visible to the eye than unprocessed image from film that was far less sensitive than the equivalent iso today.

Hence most fine detail was lost. the moment the shutter was pushed.

Combine that with flat finish on hard working aircraft many having flownn many missions in the harshest of conditions means lots of detail easily visible on glossy pristine aircraft gets lost forever in images.

The thing i love is how people so undyingly believe if its in a manual t must be true for every aeroplane in every circumstance.

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

Edited September 25, 2013 by Darren Howie