Mustang: F-51, A-36, F-82, Cavalier, and Piper PA-48 Enforcer

[Arc3371]

Perhaps they have the jigs and tools tucked away somehere for the P-51 (like they did for the Yaks)

[dy031101]

     IIRC, the PA-48 had very little in common with the P-51D's structure. I believe dimension-wise, it was about 10% larger. I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

After a quick browsing on Wikipedia, I found that the PA-48 is said to share less than 10% of the Mustang airframes taken for the conversion.

Okay that'd be relatively easy then- just modify the essentially-new design into a two-seater.

[kitnut617]

      Without trying to give a math lesson, I think if you multiply a number by 200%, it is the same thing as multiplying by the number '2', as in 'twice the size'. Multiplying a number by 100% gets you nowhere. 50% bigger would actually be 150% bigger than original.

Erm ! what  

200% is twice as big
100% is nothing
50% is 150% bigger

I think you're getting confuse with percentages and multiplying

Lets look at it this way
If I have a box of Corn Flakes a which says it has 50% more it means it has 1 1/2 the usual amount right
So if it says it has 100% more it means that it has two times as much
If it said it had 200% more it would mean it would have four times as much

[NARSES2]

[Lets look at it this way
If I have a box of Corn Flakes a which says it has 50% more it means it has 1 1/2 the usual amount right
So if it says it has 100% more it means that it has two times as much
If it said it had 200% more it would mean it would have four times as much

Don't really want to get involved in this but all I will say is that 200% one looks wrong to me. 100% is twice as much yes, but 200% is 3 times as much as the origional. It's say a 100 grams +100 grams for the 100% increase and then another 100 grams for the second 100% increase, giving 300 grams.

I used to give marketing presentations and I've known senior marketing managers get confused over percentile increases/decreases. Which is why I used to say a fourfold increase/decrease etc. Still confused the hell out of some though 

[famvburg]

      What I meant was 100% more is the same as 200%. Sorry for that bit of confusion. However, I'm not confusing anything. Back to the original point, the XF8B-1 is NOT twice as big as a P-51. If he based the info on his models themselves, then they're not the same scale. However you figure it, multiplying a 37' span by 2, or 200%, or adding it twice, (37 + 37) comes up 74'. If you multiply 37' by 1.5, 1 1/2, 150% or multiply it by 50% & then add that (18.5) back to it, it all adds up to 55.5', which is a heck of a lot closer to the XF8B-1's 54' span, which goes right back to what I said, the XF8B-1 is not twice as big, but about 50% bigger, or 150% the size of a P-51. Get a calculator if you must. That's what I do.

      Without trying to give a math lesson, I think if you multiply a number by 200%, it is the same thing as multiplying by the number '2', as in 'twice the size'. Multiplying a number by 100% gets you nowhere. 50% bigger would actually be 150% bigger than original.

Erm ! what  

200% is twice as big
100% is nothing
50% is 150% bigger

I think you're getting confuse with percentages and multiplying

Lets look at it this way
If I have a box of Corn Flakes a which says it has 50% more it means it has 1 1/2 the usual amount right
So if it says it has 100% more it means that it has two times as much
If it said it had 200% more it would mean it would have four times as much

[famvburg]

         I was pretty sure there was little commonality. It's really amazing the number of P-51s that really share few parts, such as the H (& probably the G & J prototypes) & of course the F-82) in common with the P-51D/K, but are still clearly a Mustang. The Cavalier Turbo Mustang III, was a basic (Cavalier) P-51D with a RR Dart & I think was converted back to a Merlin later in its life. IIRC, there was another that Cavalier had, which they sold to Piper, that had the Lycoming T-55, but it was still a Cavalier Mustang airframe. Piper used that engine & prop on the Enforcer, which was a new-build, different airframe.

     IIRC, the PA-48 had very little in common with the P-51D's structure. I believe dimension-wise, it was about 10% larger. I'm pretty sure that's what I read.

After a quick browsing on Wikipedia, I found that the PA-48 is said to share less than 10% of the Mustang airframes taken for the conversion.

Okay that'd be relatively easy then- just modify the essentially-new design into a two-seater.

[sequoiaranger]

I think the Monogram 1/72 Twin Mustang is the only one made (correct me if I'm wrong), and it comes with a radar pod (looking like a capsule, with circular cross-section and roughly parallel sides) slung under the center wing section. I had thought of making that a glass-nosed, prone-pilot position and fairing over the regular cockpits, making them strictly engine pods. Just for grins!    

Another idea was to put a single or twin jet there on a pylon, to boost speed in the combat area, but use the more economical (I would hope?) propeller engines for transiting between base and target area. Both with this version and the one described above, armament would be in the outer wings a la P-51.  

LOTS of fodder for whifs!

[kitnut617]

I think the Monogram 1/72 Twin Mustang is the only one made (correct me if I'm wrong),

RoG and Hobbycraft too and all parts totally interchangable so I would say re-boxings (or copies), but the Hobbycraft kit has one significant difference, both propellers turn in the same direction whereas the RoG one has the two counter rotating.  Not sure which way the Monogram kit has it though as I don't have one of those.

[famvburg]

       Monogram's are counter-rotating & should be the same mold as RoG.

I think the Monogram 1/72 Twin Mustang is the only one made (correct me if I'm wrong),

RoG and Hobbycraft too and all parts totally interchangable so I would say re-boxings (or copies), but the Hobbycraft kit has one significant difference, both propellers turn in the same direction whereas the RoG one has the two counter rotating.  Not sure which way the Monogram kit has it though as I don't have one of those.

[kitnut617]

       Monogram's are counter-rotating & should be the same mold as RoG.

I wonder why Hobbycraft changed it then, as the kits are identical except for the props.  Mind you it does provide props for the one variant that did have them turning in the same direction, P-82C I think, or it could be the D.  The only thing you'd have to do is give it a Merlin engine cowling.

[raafif]

F-82 ...
In 72nd scale, Idea did a really crappy (illeagle ?) copy of the Monogram kit and Frog did a very nice version, reproduced by Novo (bagged & no decals).

Aftermarket decals were done by Microscale/Superscale, IPMS & Travers -- the Travers ones were the best by far with accurate instrument panels.

In 48th scale there was only the one kit in 2 versions -- really awful to build.

[Chris707]

Enforcer/Sabre hybrid...something of an L-39 air about it. You could use the leftovers to make an XP-86 as well ;-)



Chris
-----------------------------------
http://www.dataviewbooks.com/aircraftreference.html

[Wyrmshadow]

how about a single fuselage P-82?

[elmayerle]

Perhaps they have the jigs and tools tucked away somehere for the P-51 (like they did for the Yaks)

Unlikely.  Heck, they don't even have th Space Shuttle jigs anymore and those are much more recent.  With all that's happened to what used to be North American Aviation, you can bet the jigs are long gone (neither Rockwell International after they took them over nor Boeing are the kinds to leave stuff like that tucked away somewhere - I've heard how RI purged NAA's historical files).

[elmayerle]

I've been shceming for some time now on a "Twin Mustang" similar in concept to the "Twin P-40" that Curtiss mocked up, but a more refined design.  Singe fuselage (a blend of P-51B/C and F-82 fuselages, F-82 wing, and two engine nacelles trimmed from F-82 front ends.  The only thing I've really not worked out is where/how to place the radiators adn oil coolers so as to get the same results the basic Mustang did.  Of course, the fuselage would have a multi-gun n.ose inaddition to wing guns and hardpoints.