Al's plane in flight

Well, it looks a lot like it anyway

http://www.warbirdalley.com/p51pic.htm

LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-04 AT 10:55 PM (CST)
 
Maverick took some inflight photos of Snaggletooth's first flight but he didn't have the shutter speed high enough to get clear photos. One of these days we will make a better effort.

"Ahh....Easy 2 Sugar, Sheppard approach, we're seein' a smoke trail your aircraft. Do you require special handling?" "Ah..Sheppard, negative. I'm running 11/11 castor/synthetic and that's normal for this aircraft." "Roger, Sugar. But it's making smoke rings!" "Sheppard, Sugar. Copy. Request hydrazine unit, Landing, full stop."

LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-04 AT 10:46 PM (CST)
 
Those photos of American Beauty on Warbird Alley show an inaccurate paint scheme. The fuselage is OK but the wing and stab are colorfully mismarked. at the time of the invasion in June 1944, it was required to paint "invasion stripes" which went all the way around the wings and fuselage. In September 1944 the instructions were to remove the invasion stripes from the top of the fuselage AND THE TOP OF THE WINGS. In January of 1945, the stripes were removed completely.

American Beauty has correct markings on the fuselage for the period. that is, with the upper fuselage stripes omitted. When they were omitted, so should the upper wing stripes have been painted over. Actually, it looks like E2-S was probably delivered to the theater at a time between June and September and never had the upper stripes painted. for that matter the black stripe on the stab is incorrect also. Stab stripes were black on metal finished airplanes and white on color painted surfaces. E2-S had a black stab stripe on the bottom unpainted side of the stab and no stripe on the top. Also, notice there is no national insignia on the top of the left (port) wing.

Incidentally, the other two Mustangs on Warbird Alley, Geraldene E2-B, and Lou IV E2-C are properly marked with stripes omitted from both the top of the fuselage and wings.

Actually, I was simply looking for cockpit details when I ran across this site. I posted this because I thought it looked a lot like your plane. I honestly didn't notice any differences. However, I ended up glueing the canopy on my Strega without cockpit details for numerous reasons. I do like history snd this is very interesting. Thanks for the lesson and please mail me your plane. I love it.

>Those photos of American Beauty on Warbird Alley show an
>inaccurate paint scheme. The fuselage is OK but the wing
>and stab are colorfully mismarked. at the time of the
>invasion in June 1944, it was required to paint "invasion
>stripes" which went all the way around the wings and
>fuselage. In September 1944 the instructions were to remove
>the invasion stripes from the top of the fuselage AND THE
>TOP OF THE WINGS. In January of 1945, the stripes were
>removed completely.
>
>American Beauty has correct markings on the fuselage for the
>period. that is, with the upper fuselage stripes omitted.
>When they were omitted, so should the upper wing stripes
>have been painted over. Actually, it looks like E2-S was
>probably delivered to the theater at a time between June and
>September and never had the upper stripes painted. for that
>matter the black stripe on the stab is incorrect also. Stab
>stripes were black on metal finished airplanes and white on
>color painted surfaces. E2-S had a black stab stripe on the
>bottom unpainted side of the stab and no stripe on the top.
>
>Incidentally, the other two Mustangs on Warbird Alley,
>Geraldene E2-B, and Lou IV E2-C are properly marked with
>stripes omitted from both the top of the fuselage and wings.
>
>Al

Hi Al,
As I'm sure you know, but others may not, the actual "American Beauty" P-51D was from a different squadron, and had a totally different paint scheme than E2-S.
I think the owner just liked the combination of colors on his real P-51, not actual authenticity.
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-04 AT 11:18 PM (CST)
 
Look at those smoke rings in the exhaust trail. Is it possible those are the result of each firing of the engine. Hey Brett, the airplane is flying 11 laps each minute and the engine is turning 7700 Revolutions each minute, but, since it is running four stroke and actually firing only every other stroke, then there are 3850 firings in 11 laps. figuring 68' radius, how far apart along the flight path would each firing occur?

Check my math.

68'R x 3.1414 = 213.62' each lap
213.62' x 11 laps = 2,349.82' flown in 11 laps
2,349.82' x 12 inches =28,197.84" inches flown in one minute, eleven laps
28,197,84" divided by the 3850 firing strokes = 7.32" for each stroke

If this math is true, then that is a photo showing individual firings of the engine as it runs four stroke. I'm no math wizard. Can it be true?

>Look at those smoke rings in the exhaust trail. Is it
>possible those are the result of each firing of the engine.
>Hey Brett, the airplane is flying 11 laps each minute and
>the engine is turning 7700 Revolutions each minute, but,
>since it is running four stroke and actually firing only
>every other stroke, then there are 3850 firings in 11 laps.
>figuring 68' radius, how far apart along the flight path
>would each firing occur?
>
>Check my math.
>
>68'R x 3.1414 = 213.62' each lap
>213.62' x 11 laps = 2,349.82' flown in 11 laps
>2,349.82' x 12 inches =28,197.84" inches flown in one
>minute, eleven laps
>28,197,84" divided by the 3850 firing strokes = 7.32" for
>each stroke
>
>If this math is true, then that is a photo showing
>individual firings of the engine as it runs four stroke.
>I'm no math wizard. Can it be true?

Well, for the most part. The circumference is 2pi*r, not pi*r. So it's really 427 feet around the circle. That makes it 78 feet/second. 7700 rpm = 128.33 revs/second, or .61 feet/7.32 inches/rev. Assuming it's 4-stroking, there should be two exhaust effects - one every 7.32", of two different sizes. The big puffs ought to be more like 14". Scaling from the wing chord, that's looks about right. Of course, it's very likely more like 8700 in-flight, but that's well within the tolerance.

We've been noting this sort of effect on takeoff rolls. With a pipe stinger pointed right at the ground from a few inches away, it leaves a very distinct series of oil spots. What's amazing is that in some cases, the spots become a fixed distance apart in the space of about 25 feet. Meaning that the airplane reaches full speed darn near instantly.

Ain't science wonderful?

Brett,

Yeah, I came back to edit and correct my stupid mistake. I knew better. You beat me to it. Your explanation is better anyway, and it makes my point that those smoke rings were probably a result of individual firings of the engine.

Thanks much, Brett. When it comes to debunking stupid ideas, you are the man.

>Brett,
>
>Yeah, I came back to edit and correct my stupid mistake. I
>knew better. You beat me to it. Your explanation is better
>anyway, and it makes my point that those smoke rings were
>probably a result of individual firings of the engine.
>
>Thanks much, Brett. When it comes to debunking stupid
>ideas, you are the man.

Thank you sir.

With a little effort to get a better perspective on the pictures, so it could be "scaled" better, this would be a reasonable way to get a rough hack at the in-flight RPM. I still think the "slave engine" method (run a throttled engine in the pits, run it up and down until it sounds in sync with the airplane to the pilot's perspective) is probably the most practical way, but this could work in a pinch.

We have only done a few experiments, but the unload for my PA61 on a pipe was a less than I expected - only 800 rpm, from 10000 on the ground, to 10800 in the air.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-22-04 AT 06:51 AM (CST)
 
>I still think the "slave engine" method (run a throttled
>engine in the pits, run it up and down until it sounds in
>sync with the airplane to the pilot's perspective) is
>probably the most practical way, but this could work in a
>pinch.
>
> We have only done a few experiments, but the unload for
>my PA61 on a pipe was a less than I expected - only 800 rpm,
>from 10000 on the ground, to 10800 in the air.
>
> Brett

Brett,
About 30 years ago, the speed team of Frye & Roselle was using an "Audio Tach" to check their in-flight RPMs. This was nothing more than an audio oscillator with a well-calibrated vernier frequency scale, and was extremely accurate considering that it was an analog device. The only potential disadvantage was that it had to be used in the center of the circle to eliminate Doppler Effect.

No reason why this same technique couldn't be used today with a digital tachometer having an audio input instead of (or in addition to) the photo-cell. It would still have to be in the center, of course.

No matter if they are a little blurry, the in flight shots still look good. There is one of these Mustangs in my future..........nice plane, real nice

At EAA Airventure 2003 in Oshkosh there were
quite a few P-51's.

Cool photo. The Minnesota ANG had a similar lineup at summer camp, Casper Wy, 1955. We were one of the last outfits flying the 51. But ours didn't look quite that good!

>Well, it looks a lot like it anyway
>
>http://www.warbirdalley.com/p51pic.htm

In the 7th photo in the series (next to last) there's some sort of "lacy" construct in the lower left which almost looks like a wooden roller coaster but probably isn't. Can anyone suggest what they might be???