Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RLWP said:

 

You are very likely to win that challenge, the cameras and film in use by people taking snapshots at the time are not going to reveal that kind of information because they lack the quality to do so

 

And this is a genuine Mustang wing, and it has a story to tell. Best thing is to fully understand what it is telling us before drawing a conclusion

 

Richard

 

You're kidding, right?  Look at any period photo of a Lancaster nose and you will see all the warts, blemishes and oil canning taken with photographic equipment available at that time.....this wasn't 1917...it's 1944/45.  

 

Genuine mustang wings were discarded by the dozens...doesn't make them any less genuine.  I had a n A-1H Sky raider wing at my A&P school for years...just sitting out in the elements rotting away.  Didn't make it any less genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... if one was to read the WNW Lancaster discussion, there are pages and pages of people saying "I am looking at photos and I see no oil canning" while others are saying "here are photos of oil canning". :-) 

Radu 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Juggernut said:

 

You're kidding, right? 

 

No, I'm not kidding - you asked a specific question:

 

"I challenge anyone to find a contemporaneous photo that shows a similar wing finish with exposed dimpled rivets and oil canning in the 40% chord region. " from which I assume you are talking about Mustangs, not Lancasters

 

And I doubt you'll find a good enough picture

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RLWP said:

 

No, I'm not kidding - you asked a specific question:

 

"I challenge anyone to find a contemporaneous photo that shows a similar wing finish with exposed dimpled rivets and oil canning in the 40% chord region. " from which I assume you are talking about Mustangs, not Lancasters

 

And I doubt you'll find a good enough picture

 

Richard

 

My response was predicated on this part of your post ".... the cameras and film in use by people taking snapshots at the time are not going to reveal that kind of information because they lack the quality to do so.", which is complete BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mark P said:

I predict this thread destined to be locked...

 

Mark Proulx

 

Well, I hope not, some of the information is fascinating - which I'm sure some will take on board when they come to make a Mustang, while others will take a different path, and we should acknowledge there is no definitive right or wrong, and subsequently respect other people's right to have an opinion different to our own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Juggernut said:

 

My response was predicated on this part of your post ".... the cameras and film in use by people taking snapshots at the time are not going to reveal that kind of information because they lack the quality to do so.", which is complete BS.

 

Let's see what turns up then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what a worn Mustang wing looks like

 

GYVxDOP.jpg

 

No panel lines visible except the ammo bay an gun cover doors (and the wing root fairing covers).

 

Note the visible rivets on the fuselage below the windscreen, on the engine cowl (no, not the panel fasteners), the screws attaching the wing root fairings, the panel lines in between the sections of the same...not present on the wing forward of the gun bay/ammo covers.

 

Image is for discussion only and is used under the fair use clause of the United States Copyright law.  All copyrights remain the property of their original owner and/or the following source, accessed 12/13/2019: https://353rdfightergroup.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/lt-james-g-bartley-jockey-74-of-the-352nd-fighter-squadron/

Edited by Juggernut
Added callout to riveting and obvious panel lines
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Juggernut said:

This is what a worn Mustang wing looks like

 

GYVxDOP.jpg

 

No panel lines visible except the ammo bay an gun cover doors (and the wing root fairing covers).

 

 

 

I claim to know nothing of the accuracy of the color or tone of the photo, but that is an excellent pic IMO. It really gives a sense of worn and weathered (as we modelers know it) aluminum with a good amount of reflective properties left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Juggernut said:

This is what a worn Mustang wing looks like

 

GYVxDOP.jpg

 

No panel lines visible except the ammo bay an gun cover doors (and the wing root fairing covers).

 

Note the visible rivets on the fuselage below the windscreen, on the engine cowl (no, not the panel fasteners), the screws attaching the wing root fairings, the panel lines in between the sections of the same...not present on the wing forward of the gun bay/ammo covers.

 

Image is for discussion only and is used under the fair use clause of the United States Copyright law.  All copyrights remain the property of their original owner and/or the following source, accessed 12/13/2019: https://353rdfightergroup.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/lt-james-g-bartley-jockey-74-of-the-352nd-fighter-squadron/

Nice-n-smooth, unlike that beat-up “restored” example in the museum!   Great picture.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Juggernut said:

 

My response was predicated on this part of your post ".... the cameras and film in use by people taking snapshots at the time are not going to reveal that kind of information because they lack the quality to do so.", which is complete BS.

 

Which brings us to this

 

2 hours ago, Juggernut said:

This is what a worn Mustang wing looks like

 

GYVxDOP.jpg

 

No panel lines visible except the ammo bay an gun cover doors (and the wing root fairing covers).

 

 

The panel lines on the fuselage are faint too.

I already posted three different wartime photos showing panel lines in this thread. 

Radu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

Huh?  You realize that many WWII period photos were shot on large format film (120 or even 3x5")  that was very bit as capable of capturing every minute detail than any modern camera, right?   Not sure who told you that story, but they were flat wrong.

 

 

 

OK, I'll butt out and leave you guys to it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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