Mustang Wing Panel Lines...From the Preeminent Mustang Restorer's Point of View

[Juggernut]

1 hour ago, SB20 said:

The problem is people want black and white when the world is grey.  No one argues how the aircraft left the factory.   Nice and smooth.  Where the differences come in is over time how the aircraft evolves based on operational stresses.  Environment, g-force stressing, etc....all will affect the initial finish.  My car left the factory absolutely pristine,  but it isnt now.  As builders we need to remember there is so much variation over an aircraft's lifespan that the same aircraft can be built completely differently based on what time in it's life you've decided to model.  Fresh from the factory, smooth as can be.  Operating in the Pacific for awhile and been to depot maintenance a few times,  probably gonna see the panel lines relatively well.  Just build to what pictures you have and what makes you happy. 

 

Ok, was your car pristine less than one year after you got it?  I'm willing to bet it was close unless you beat the snot out of it.  Mustangs (P-51B, C, D, and K) were in action around two years at the outside; D/K models for approximately one year.  WWII aircraft, contrary to what some may believe, did not pull 9 G's in turns or in dogfights.  Yes, they pulled G but it's my opinion that the wing experienced a lot lower G forces; somewhere around 6 or 7 at the most.  I will be surprised if it went much higher  than that.  ETO (other AO's may not apply) aircraft were regularly serviced, maintained, and repaired by dedicated ground crew on prepared airfields for the most part, while in England.  The thought that these aircraft were beat down, abused and neglected is just plain wrong.  Did they wear and get dirty?  Hell yes they did.  That does not mean they were neglected.  Smooth airflow across an airfoil is KEY to speed which is why a lot of aircraft had their wings waxed.  You can see it in photos that show glossy paint (on the OD/NG machines).  For a combat fighter pilot - speed is life (among other things).

 

As far as the P-47 is concerned, I'll have to look into the documents and see what I can find on whether the wing was finished like the Mustang wing was.  I knew a P-47D crew chief  (combat veteran) from the 4th Fighter Group for many years and don't ever recall him mentioning it.  Not that that's evidence it wasn't done, just that he never mentioned it in our discussions.  If it was done, I'm going to venture a guess that it was done on the M models as those were the "hot rod" jugs the USA developed to combat the buzz bombs....fastest propeller driven US production aircraft of WWII.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Juggernut
grammar

[Juggernut]

Radu,

 

Those are all nice photographs by the way.  However, I do not believe that what you're seeing is the result of the finishing of the wing to factory specifications.  What I think you're seeing (and what I suspect) is that whomever refinished this aircraft, used modern, high solids primer and epoxy topcoats on the wing.  I don't think there's any putty in those wing joints at all, I think it's the high solids primers and the topcoats that are making the finish smooth.

 

Those shots of the wing underside showing the fuel cell panels are typical of the underside of the Mustang in that area.  You may already know this but these panels were never puttied or filled as they were  removable.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Juggernut
grammar

[John1]

1 hour ago, Radub said:

I am not ignoring anything. As I said to you, let us look at all evidence. Here are some photos of the same wing I took from up close:

 

Radu 

 

 

Why is this “evidence”?  It’s a museum exhibit so it’s either restored (which means very little) or it’s a 75-year old original (which also means very little as I’m sure the wing finish degraded over 3/4th of a century).   

[D.B. Andrus]

I can say from experience that putty is more work than a high-solid primer/surfacer. That said, putty will fill the seam much better and it will last longer doing the job. Since there's documentation from the pros and I happen to like the look of filled-seams on the P-51 wing, that's that, for me.

 

Cheers,

D.B.

[LSP_K2]

1 hour ago, dmthamade said:

So, you say the thunderbolt wings were puttied and smoothed, anyone have pics of this? Maybe we should have a discussion? Thoughtful, civilized repartee?

 

I'd be all for that myself. I have quite a bit of reference on the P-47, but never really paid much attention to the wings, as such.

 

1 hour ago, rigor said:

Looks like panel liNes to me but on another note never knew the wings where puttied On a thunderbolt I have a lot on a thunderbolt never seen this 

 

Nor did I, though Radu is saying that's what he heard, he's not stating it as an absolute fact.

[Juggernut]

8 minutes ago, D.B. Andrus said:

I can say from experience that putty is more work than a high-solid primer/surfacer. That said, putty will fill the seam much better and it will last longer doing the job. Since there's documentation from the pros and I happen to like the look of filled-seams on the P-51 wing, so that's that, for me.

 

Cheers,

D.B.

 

I entirely agree that putty is much more work than the high-solids primers having used both in my aviation career.  It is SO much easier to spray a nice coat of primer, let it dry and then wet-sand it rather than applying putty, wait till it dries, wet-sand, prime, wet-sand again, fill any "irregularities", wet-sand again, prime and only THEN apply topcoats (with washing the surface in between each step to prevent sanding dust buildup.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Juggernut

[SB20]

You completely missed my point and responded in a way I do not appreciate.   Build it however you'd be happy to look at it.  

[TwoHands]

14 hours ago, Artful69 said:

 

I agree ... stuff all was visible from 3 metres away on the two flying examples I saw ... and these dudes are restoration experts ...

Good enough for me  ... Thanks mate.

 

Rog

So that means in 1/32 scale filled panel lines should be just visible from 9cm...

[John1]

The mods banned any threads that discussed the 737Max because the issue was just too contentious.  I'm wondering if we need to do the same for any discussion on P-51 wings*

 

*only slightly tongue in cheek.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by John1

[Juggernut]

Well, since this forum is aviation discussion I thought it pertinent to post here.  While it does concern modelers in the grand scheme of things, the basic discussion is about aviation history and there's nothing I will fight harder for than an accurate historic record (as accurate as humanly possible)...  Now whether that record is in favor of my point of view or not remains undecided but I am steadfastly convinced I am more right than wrong (but not unwilling to consider other points of view).  

 

I liken it to authors using  colorized B&W photographs as primary source material even though at best, they're only representations, a painting if you will, of what an artist thought the colors should have been, based on their knowledge, experience and other things thrown in the mix.  It is in that context that this should thread be read/reviewed.  I am not suggesting how anyone should build (or not build) their model.

[Radub]

10 hours ago, Juggernut said:

"Experimental" is an airworthiness category created by the FAA (CAA) that warbirds fit into (as do most homebuilts) since they were not certificated (approved) for manufacture by the Federal Aviation Administration (formerly the CAA - Civil Aviation Administration).  It doesn't mean that there's anything "special" about them other than that.

 

I don't know if this is "pedantry* or something else... "Experimental" has more than one meaning.

I thought you knew what "Excalibur III" was. What I meant was that it was used in a famous "experiment", it was not your regular garden variety Mustang. 

 

As for the rest of this discussion... Yeah... There is no point. As you probably know I have been involved with the Mustang for a certain amount of time. When I designed the Revell Mustang I spent some time inside and outside real Mustangs. Some were flyable and maintained to specifications. Some were museum pieces. Some were unrestored and untouched. I was the one who designed the Revell Mustang D-5 as a distinctively unique version of the Mustang, I designed the specific parts for this version and put "D-5" in the box. Up to then, the general modelling public used to call it "early Mustang" or "filet-less Mustang", but now even Eduard and Airfix call theirs D-5. Where am I going with this? Do I believe that spending 10 months of my life with my head buried in thousands of factory drawings, many many photos, manuals, literature and real airframes makes me some kind of "Mustang expert?" No! I do not see myself as a "Mustang expert". But I have a certain amount of personal, close and direct knowledge of the aircraft. I have seen and touched a number of Mustangs with panel lines on the wings. You tell me to ignore what my senses tell me and instead believe your words. There is a word for that: gaslighting. I refuse to be gaslit. I refuse to drink your Kool Aid. 

At this point I know that you will go on to mock me and call me names. You will say that my personal experience is somehow "tainted" and only you know the real truth. You have done that before. So I will stop here. You go on believing in your featureless Mustang wing. Everyone else, when you find yourself near a real Mustang and see the panel lines remember to "call BS".

Radu

Edited December 8, 2019 by Radub

[thierry laurent]

I think part of the problem is there is no final and absolute 'truth' and this is probably linked to the fact both parties are supporting their standpoint with some evidences. Accordingly, for that specific case I would personally go with Jennings standpoint. A kit is never going to be a perfect replica as even Mona Lisa was not a perfect photography of that Italian lady. One compromising approach could be to fill partly the wing panel lines and avoid filling them with a harsh wash. This would create a contrast with other panel lines while only leaving them faintly visible. I think this is what I would do... My 2 cents. 

[Juggernut]

6 hours ago, Radub said:

 

I don't know if this is "pedantry* or something else... "Experimental" has more than one meaning.

I thought you knew what "Excalibur III" was. What I meant was that it was used in a famous "experiment", it was not your regular garden variety Mustang. 

 

As for the rest of this discussion... Yeah... There is no point. As you probably know I have been involved with the Mustang for a certain amount of time. When I designed the Revell Mustang I spent some time inside and outside real Mustangs. Some were flyable and maintained to specifications. Some were museum pieces. Some were unrestored and untouched. I was the one who designed the Revell Mustang D-5 as a distinctively unique version of the Mustang, I designed the specific parts for this version and put "D-5" in the box. Up to then, the general modelling public used to call it "early Mustang" or "filet-less Mustang", but now even Eduard and Airfix call theirs D-5. Where am I going with this? Do I believe that spending 10 months of my life with my head buried in thousands of factory drawings, many many photos, manuals, literature and real airframes makes me some kind of "Mustang expert?" No! I do not see myself as a "Mustang expert". But I have a certain amount of personal, close and direct knowledge of the aircraft. I have seen and touched a number of Mustangs with panel lines on the wings. You tell me to ignore what my senses tell me and instead believe your words. There is a word for that: gaslighting. I refuse to be gaslit. I refuse to drink your Kool Aid. 

At this point I know that you will go on to mock me and call me names. You will say that my personal experience is somehow "tainted" and only you know the real truth. You have done that before. So I will stop here. You go on believing in your featureless Mustang wing. Everyone else, when you find yourself near a real Mustang and see the panel lines remember to "call BS".

Radu

 

 

We'll, in this case, EXPERIMENTAL on the tail of that aircraft is there because of the reasons I mentioned, period.  Makes no difference if the plane was used in tests or not.  As a civilian aircraft it is certificated in that category.  And you can plainly see panel lines on the fuselage in my photographs in that post. 

 

As for chest besting - I know all about your involvement in the Revell kit.... Let me give you mine for comparison.  I'm 57 years old and have spent my entire lifetime around, in, on,  and studying aircraft.  I am a licensed Airframe and Powerplant mechanic with 32 years of adult aviation experience added to that.  I think I'm more than well-versed in all things aviation from airframe to engines, down to the littlest AN 960 (old name) #10 washer that goes under the nut of an AN3 (old name) bolt.  I've taught airframe and power plant subjects to students and helped them prepare for their FAA mechanics exams. I know how to read and interpret technical manuals, engineering drawings (having worked the light helicopter production line along with being an S-70. (UH-60) Blackhawk inspector on the  modification line.  I still don't know all there is to know.  But I'm smart enough to know where to ask questions of the people who do know what I don't which is exactly why I reached out to the Mustang gurus at Midwest Aero. They are the experts....end of story.  If you see this as mocking then I'm guilty as charged. For the record, I don't need to insult your experience but pity I'm not extended the same courtesy.

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Juggernut
Incorrect word usage.

[modelingbob]

[Radub]

No "chest beating", just saying that I have direct first-hand experience with real Mustangs. I didn't just repeat what others said. 

Radu