Author Topic: P-51-D Serial 404017 (Read 3750 times)

50+AirYears · « **on:** November 30, 2010, 10:42:19 PM »

Has anybody tried a Sterling profile P-51 in profile carrier? I have at least one picture in my files showing a Mustang with fin #404017 with flaps and hook down on approach to a carrier. Actually, I only remember seeing one set of plans for a Cl 1 mustang in MAN back when MAN was still a model airplane mag. Except for that, I haven't seen anything in any mag showing a Mustang in competition, even though that particular Mustang made a number of take-offs and landings during an evaluation period.

Back in the AF, I also met a Tsgt in my outfit who had spent some time on one of our carriers during trials of the C-130. Now That would be an interesting model for Cl 2, with something like 5 OS Combat .15s or so.

john vlna · « **Reply #1 on:** December 01, 2010, 08:31:09 AM »

The Mustang is legal. I have flown one to 3rd place at the Nats, in Class II. The old sterling kit would be legal for profile, could be flown class I, but no bonus points since it is a profile. It is also legal as a nostalgia model.
john

Joe Just · « **Reply #2 on:** December 01, 2010, 09:25:08 AM »

I built a Sterling P-51 (as reproduced by Brodak as a F-51) for profile carrier and wrote an article about it for one of the early issues of Control Line World. Dave miller of Pasco, WA flew it at a meet in Portland OR and did quite well. My "sportsman" ship used a LA .25. It still remains intact in my shop and gets in a flight or two every year.
It features my own re-designed 3-line bellcrank also.
Joe Just

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #3 on:** December 01, 2010, 09:31:17 AM »

I had a Class 2 Mustang built from a foam-wing RC kit that was imported from England. It was an easy conversion and originally had a Fox .45 Schneurle and later an Irvine .61. It wasn't terribly fast but flew pretty well. I never actually measured anything to compare it to the 3-view and check how close to scale it actually was. If I recall it spanned 43" so was just barely legal in wingspan.

50+AirYears · « **Reply #4 on:** December 01, 2010, 01:20:28 PM »

Afraid I have to admit to a boo-boo. The plane used for carrier eval was 414017, not 404017.

Someday I have to get my Sterling AD-2 in the air. Power is a Fox .36 Schnuerle. My first used an Enya .35 RC that had decent power but no real speed. The Fox turns a given prop at least 3000 RPM faster.

Most of my flying is done at the local RC clugb field, so I either have to get set up for CL flying before the other club members show up, or wait till the field is empty. And a lot of us fly from early start time to sunset.

Some of us have been trying to find a space for a CL circle on the property we rent, but about all the space we can find that wouldn't impinge on the RC area would be limited to 1/2A with maybe 42' lines. Limited space between the RC Flight line and pits, Access road, and the edge of the hill. Otherwise, when I get there at the right time, I will fly RC, CL, FF, Model Rockets, and kites. I also used to run RC boas on a pond on the property, but the new owner is concerned about the boats disturbing migratory and other waterfowl that use the pond.

Someday I need to build that XFL-1 Airbonita from the old MAN plan I have. That's the carrier based prototype of a plane based on the P-39 Aircobra. From what I've read, the change to conventional LG from the tricycle configuration and other changes to the basic Aircobra airframe to strengthen it for carrier landings added so much extra weight, the performance dropped lower than what it was originally.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #5 on:** December 01, 2010, 01:56:11 PM »

Quote from: john vlna on December 01, 2010, 08:31:09 AM

The Mustang is legal. I have flown one to 3rd place at the Nats, in Class II. The old sterling kit would be legal for profile, could be flown class I, but no bonus points since it is a profile. It is also legal as a nostalgia model.
john

Imagine that, here is the answer I was trying to get over a year ago about the origins of a kit to be legal for nostalgia......

The sterling mustang was not produced as a carrier kit but it qualifies for nostalgia ,,

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #6 on:** December 01, 2010, 03:14:53 PM »

John: Not trying to

here but is there any documentation that the Sterling P-51 had been flown as a carrier model during the Nostalgia period? I flew one during that time but have no proof. Without proof that it had been converted and flown as a carrier plane during the Nostalgia period I question whether or not it would be eligible for the 100 (?) pt historical model bonus.

I ran into this before trying to enter a Navalized Buster in Nostalgia. Was told it was not eligible for historical model points (25 at the time) because although the design was old enough there was no proof that it had been flown as a carrier plane during the era. I think this logic might apply to the Sterling P-51 as well. Of course, that was one ED's opinion. I don't necessarily agree with it but it it went for that contest anyway and I haven't tried since. It would be nice if the NCS would rule on this topic.

As far as the P-39 goes, I don't have a source but did read somewhere that the British Navy conducted sea trials with a P-39. It failed miserably but that does make the design carrier legal.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #7 on:** December 01, 2010, 03:25:45 PM »

This was my problem, the RULES do NOT stipulate that the model had to have been flown as a carrier model, just that it was kitted before that date,,

50+AirYears · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2010, 06:18:01 PM »

A problem with local judges interpretation of the rules. The Sterling kit was designed, kitted and flown during the Nostalgia period. During WW-II, at least one mustang was converted for carrier operations, fin # 414017. If the sterling kit was decorated for this particular plane, it would in fact be a profile scale model of a plane that landed on and took off from at least one carrier. Seems to me, that should make it just as legal as any other carrier plane. I imagine no judge would reject a P-51D 414017 in any other class, would they?

As far as the Aircobra, one P-39 was modified with an arrestor hook and conventional landing gear on May 13, 1940, to the USN, as the Bell XFL-1. After an evaluation period, it was found that with the extra weight, the plane had a top speed of only around 307 mph, and other flight characteristics that made it inferior to the standard P-39, or even to the Grumman F-4F Wildcat. Even slower than the Brewster Buffalo, apparently. Only reference to a Royal Navy P-39 I found was a Submarine P.39.

john vlna · « **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2010, 06:35:13 PM »

Dick Perry is the expert on Nostalgia, but as far as I know as long as the model was designed, kitted or built before the rules changed the plane is legal. I don't think it has to be a purpose designed carrier plane but I am not certain. Ted Kraver has a model that he can prove was used years ago as a carrier plane and that is legal even though the design was not published. Under the old rules there is no scale requirement in profile. I have been using a Mottin XPC-1 published in AAM, definitely not scale. It has a ringmaster wing and jet like fuse. I even use a ST 35, same as Howard did. It gets bonus points in profile.
But to get bonus points in Class I/II it has to be scale I believe. For example the Sterling Skyshark could be flown Class I but would not get the bonus since it is a profile.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2010, 11:31:24 PM »

I interpret the rules as having been built as a carrier aircraft before the rules changed. Sort of makes sense - just taking an old design and putting a hook and throttle on it shouldn't qualify it as an historical carrier model. There should be proof that it was flown as a carrier model during the era to quailfy for the 100

historical model bonus points. This is what Ted did and I'm OK with that. But is there proof that the Sterling P-51 was flown as a carrier plane during the nostalgia era? The Motin "Starjet" is in a different catagory. Although having a Ringmaster wing it was published as a carrier design and clearly a historical model... and cool looking one as well.

For the record, the Airabonita was not a modified P-39 but a separate design altogether although it looks like a P-39 with a tailwheel. As has been stated, it did not meet performance expectations and only one was made. The Charles Reeves Class I model is a good choice for Nostalgia carrier. I made one back in the day.

I stand by my assertion that the British Navy tested a P-39 on a carrier making it legal for the event. I don't know why they did this but hey, it's the Brits and they were at war. They did not like them and sent most of their P-39s to Russia. For the record, B-25's (or the Navy version PBJ's) are legal as the Navy tested one on the carrier "Shangri La" at the same time it tested P-51 414017.

john vlna · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2010, 08:49:51 AM »

Pete I get your point, but the rules do not say that. The following is from the last update publishe 1 jan 2010.

3. Model Requirements: Model design is unrestricted except as
specified below and in the AMA Official Model Aircraft Regulations. To
encourage models which accurately reproduce actual nostalgia era Navy
Carrier models, bonus points are awarded.

5. Historic Model Bonus: A bonus of 100 points will be awarded for
models which were designed, published, or kitted prior to January 1,
1978. The Contest Director may require proof of eligibility, which
shall be the responsibility of the contestant. Proof may consist of
dated, published plans; construction article, photograph or
advertisement from dated magazines; dated photographs, and/or letter of
confirmation of the date of design. Plans of un-kitted, un-published
designs must be made available to NCS membership. To qualify for this
bonus, models must comply with the following requirements:

Note the following requirements have to do with modifications and engines. None of this rules out any "carrier" type plane, even if it was not intended as a carrier model in my view.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #12 on:** December 02, 2010, 10:18:46 AM »

Quote from: Pete Cunha on December 01, 2010, 11:31:24 PM

For the record, the Airabonita was not a modified P-39 but a separate design altogether although it looks like a P-39 with a tailwheel. As has been stated, it did not meet performance expectations and only one was made. The Charles Reeves Class I model is a good choice for Nostalgia carrier. I made one back in the day.

The Airabonita was developed "in parallel" with the P-39 - same basic airframe and engine but navalized by being made a tail-dragger and having an arresting hook. It's biggest drawback was the Allison engine and related problems. Also had problems with the landing gear.

Quote from: Pete Cunha on December 01, 2010, 11:31:24 PM

I stand by my assertion that the British Navy tested a P-39 on a carrier making it legal for the event. I don't know why they did this but hey, it's the Brits and they were at war. They did not like them and sent most of their P-39s to Russia. For the record, B-25's (or the Navy version PBJ's) are legal as the Navy tested one on the carrier "Shangri La" at the same time it tested P-51 414017.

Here is a passage from Wikipedia's entry on the P-39 Airacobra:

...... The Airacobras already in the UK, along with the remainder of the first batch being built in the US, were sent to the Soviet Air force, the sole exception being AH574, which was passed to the Royal Navy and used for experimental work, including the first carrier landing by a tricycle undercarriage aircraft on 4 April 1945 on HMS Pretoria Castle,[34] until it was scrapped on the recommendation of a visiting Bell test pilot in March 1946.[35]

david smith · « **Reply #13 on:** December 02, 2010, 10:37:40 AM »

Just an fyi the b25 should be legal.

David

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #14 on:** December 02, 2010, 10:40:48 AM »

Thanks for that John. I appreciate you copying the new rules. I tried to get them on the NCS site but have been having computer problems and they wouldn't come up. Per paragraph 5 then, any design can be a historical carrier model and be eligible for the points as long as it was built, kitted or published prior to 1978 and conforms to the profile carrier specs. Nobler as a historic carrier plane maybe?...many were painted in Navy colors.

Before awarding those points though, one should look at the last sentence in paragraph 3 Model Requirements: "To encourage models which accurately reproduce actual nostalgia era Navy Carrier models, bonus points are awarded". To my way of thinking, this clarifies the intent of paragraph 5 and eliminates non-carrier designs from bonus points unless it can be proven that they were flown as nostalgia era Navy Carrier models. The Starjet has plenty of proof, any design that was published as a carrier plane has proof, Ted's plane has proof, but I have not seen proof that the Sterling P-51 was modified and flown as a carrier plane prior to 1978. Ditto for my Buster-Cat.

We both know that back in the day, many "vintage" profile stunt planes were flown in carrier however, without proof they do not qualify for bonus points per paragraph 3 although paragraph 5, read literally, would allow them. When the historical model bonus was only 25 points, it was not a big deal. Now with 100 points on the line clarification is necessary. Defintely something to bounce off of Dick Perry.

john vlna · « **Reply #15 on:** December 02, 2010, 12:20:52 PM »

Pete,
Thats the problems with rules. It is hard to get every nuance in there. I am sure when Dick originially came up with the rules the intent was just for planes used in carrier to get bonus points, hard to prove sometimes. Here is a case to ponder, you are the cd.

Modeler one flies a F6C. He says it was designed by Martinez. ( he actually did design and fly one)
Modeler two flies a F6C, He says it was designed by Walt Musciano, (he actually did design one)
Are both legal? Walt never flew carrier as far as I know, so it is doubtful that his design flew in carrier, both are essentially the same plane. Walt Frequently showed a tailhook on his Naval designs.

Are Both legal?

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #16 on:** December 02, 2010, 12:28:26 PM »

Here is a better question,
I show up to fly carrier at your contest,, I want to fly nostalgia profile, I have what appears to be a sterling mustang,, Its my first or second contest,, do you give me the bonus, or send me away likely to not fly carrier again,,
whats the focus here, to preserve the trophies for the veterens, or get new blood in. As I understand it, profile and nostalgia is the "fun" event, not the cutthroat competative event with sliders and screaming motors,, of course thats my perspective
I wont build something I dislike just because,, I wont be made to feel as though I am being judged differently because I am new,, but ,
the rules may IMPLY one thing,, but what they say is different.Just what the heck am I supposed to do, build a plane, practice, show up and then find out that on THIS day, its not qualified for the bonus, but tomorrow it might be? .

This is exactly what prompted me to put my brand new K and B back in the box,, put the plans and kit away,, and build a new stunt ship instead.
because the rules as printed do NOT make clear what the stand on nostalgia is,, and I want to enter a model I can fly competitively in profile, and Nostalgia ,,
so perhaps, instead of this exact conversation taking place several times a year, someone who is in the event, should make CLEAR in the RULES what is and what is not legal.

john vlna · « **Reply #17 on:** December 02, 2010, 12:45:41 PM »

Well if I was the CD I would allow the P-51. By the way you can fly any model in nostalgia. I have seen Nelson powered modern MO-1's in the event. That is why the bonus points were increased, to encourage older designs. I have only flown it at the NATS, but I have never seen anyone get to picky over Nostalgia, The primary goal is fun. If you like to fight fly AMA carrier.

It would be possible, but difficult to have a nostalgia model that can be truly competitive in both Nos and AMA events. I fly my Myrt and Skyraider in both but they can't score as high as a modern rule type plane.

Here are the latest rules that I am aware of

50+AirYears · « **Reply #18 on:** December 02, 2010, 02:32:14 PM »

I'm getting confused. Of course, that could be a result of being married for 41 years.

As I understand it, a Sterling P-51 profile, while obviously being a nostalgia eligible design, could not be built as 414017 with flaps, throttle, and arrestor hook, and entered in Nostalgia Carrier competition unless the entrant can show that a Sterling-specific profile P-51 had been flown in carrier prior to the cut-off date, even though it is replicating an actual P-51 that was operated from an aircraft carrier in WW-II, both landing and take-off, while an indeterminate B-25 model could be entered, even though no B-25 ever made a landing on a carrier, only loaded by crane for a one-time take-off.

Does that mean I could build the old C-130 from a 1956 ATHYM, add 4 .09 RC engines with throttle control and enter it, even though it never needed an arrestor hook for carrier operation?

I'm confused! Sounds like a Govenment committee at work.

How about my Sterling Skyshark, Fox .36 BB Schnuerle power, even though it has inadequate wing area under the AMA competition rules for profile?

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #19 on:** December 02, 2010, 03:41:36 PM »

That is because there are some terminologies that are being obscured here - Primarily, the term "Legal" is being used when "Receives Bonus Points" should be used.

For AMA Rulebook events there are 3 classes of competition - Profile, Class 1 and Class 2
All three are similar in that ANY model can be entered (ie: it is "Legal") if it meets certain spec's regarding size, engine displacement, etc.

But, to receive BONUS points, it must meet other criteria as to its scale outlines. If it does not, it can still fly and score - it just does not receive scale bonus points. Therefore, you can enter a profile airplane in Class 1 and receive High Speed, Low Speed, and Landing points - but no Scale Bonus because of the profile fuselage.

For the NOSTALGIA class, you are flying to the 1974 rulebook. Profile models did not receive scale bonus points by that rule set. So whether your model is a Profile Hellcat or Wildcat or Zero doesn't matter - you don't get any Scale Bonus points. However, Nostalgia class also has Bonus points for eligible models of from the Nostalgia ERA (defined as being prior to 1978). So if the model was designed prior to 1978, it receives 100 Bonus points - in any class. Again, doesn't matter if it is Scale or not - Harry Higley's MO-HO and SUPER MO-HO were both profiles from the Nostalgia era - they receive Nostalgia Bonus Points because they are pre-1978. A Sterling Guardian is Nostalgia Era for Class 1 or 2 - it receives 100 Scale Bonus Points and 100 Nostalgia Bonus points.

Or, I can design a NEW model - say a Hellcat for Class 1. I can enter it in Nostalgia Class and fly to the 1974 rules. I would receive Scale Bonus points but not Nostalgia Bonus points.

OR - I can take an old Rat Racer, put a throttled engine in it and a tail hook, fly it in Class 1 or Nostalgia Class 1 and receive no bonus points at all - but it IS "legal".

The discussion here is whether models that were from the Nostalgia Era but NOT specifically designed as Navy Carrier models need to show PROOF of having been used in the Navy Carrier event. That would include Sterling P-51's & Yak-9's, Ringmasters, Flite-Streaks, etc.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #20 on:** December 02, 2010, 03:46:15 PM »

Good explanation Mike, way better than I could do. Now for my Buster-Cat, to be a historical model or not to be...probably not unfortunately but it sure was fun to fly and collected many trophies in its day.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #21 on:** December 02, 2010, 04:50:36 PM »

Bring it to our spring contest and I'll will give you bonus points - Based on this logic:

As ED I " .... may require proof of eligibility ", not "MUST require proof ..." but even if I do ask you to prove it, that proof " ... may consist of
dated, published plans; construction article, photograph or advertisement from dated magazines; dated photographs, and/or letter of
confirmation of the date of design. Since there is obviously a desire to allow models - even unpublished or unkitted - to be flown if they are "Nostalgic" to the contestant there is a very 'liberal' interpretation of what constitutes models from that era. If you made up some profile model from a kit or kit parts you have done the 'design' work to get it flyable as a Carrier plane so that letter or statement can simply be your own word that the model replicates something you flew prior to 1978. Good enough for me!

As you said, we all remember various models adapted to Navy Carrier before scale bonus points made MO-HO's etc., outdated. I chose the four examples above (Sterling P-51's, Yak-9, Ringmaster and Flite-Streak) BECAUSE I have personally seen examples of all four flown in profile carrier prior to 1978. My own first Carrier model was a Veco Tomahawk, built box-stock except for 3-line bellcrank and tail hook. It was flown in 1975 - do I have pix or some other proof that it existed? Well, probably, but the sentence that mentions a letter of confirmation makes that point moot - I did the 'design' work, built the model and flew it - that appears to me to be enough proof of eligibility.

Similarly, as ED I specifically remember examples of all four of the above - As ED, I am not REQUIRED to have the contestant show proof of eligibility, because the rules don't REQUIRE me to. Some other model that I am unfamiliar with, I MAY ask to see some documentation.

THAT SAID, though, I would certainly check ahead if there was any doubt in my mind at some other ED's contest. In this day and age, it would be child's play to photoshop some "proof" together anyway

As Mark alluded to above - the question is do we get nit-picky or do we take a promotional attitude and let people fly? As a CD & ED my primary goal is to have the deck BUSY from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM ... I have to justify the club's outlay for trophies and circle time every year and the more flying that gets done the easier it is for me.

(By the way, that looks like one fine-flying guitar you've got there!

)

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #22 on:** December 02, 2010, 05:34:49 PM »

Mike: I like your philosophy and hope to make your contest someday. You'd like my other "historical?" carrier plane, it's a Goldberg Shoestring bashed into a very realistic Vought Vindicator. The Buster Cat flies better though. Guitar, oh, the caption, right. Most of the pics on that download were my son's guitars for insurance purposes. He is a touring rock guitar player, currently with the band "Burn Halo". Theyv'e had a couple of hits and are pretty good.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #23 on:** December 02, 2010, 06:00:12 PM »

.. And welcome back to David, too!

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #24 on:** December 02, 2010, 08:38:49 PM »

Try this link for the navalized P-51
Wayne
http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/naval/naval.htm

john vlna · « **Reply #25 on:** December 03, 2010, 11:26:23 AM »

Wayne,
Nice Mustang site
John

john e. holliday · « **Reply #26 on:** December 07, 2010, 06:17:11 PM »

Quote from: Ty Marcucci on December 02, 2010, 05:34:17 PM

Wow David. Many thanks for that photo, I have been looking for some time for one of the B25 doing the tailhook bit.

From the documentary I have watched on the military channel. The Doolittle B-25's never landed on a carrier. Unless being put on board with a crane a landing. They were meant for take off only. They were never equipped with a hook either. That shot you see is the take off angle they used to get up into the air. Watching the film I kept thinking they were going to stall out.

50+AirYears · « **Reply #27 on:** December 07, 2010, 09:09:24 PM »

At first I missed the full view of that B-25 (or PBJ?) making an arrested landing on a carrier. I think I was distracted by discussion of the Dolittle raid. The picture shows a later model with the solid gun nose, not an earlier model with the transparent nose. I can almost imagine the structural reinforcement needed to keep the hook from breaking the plane.

david smith · « **Reply #28 on:** December 07, 2010, 10:15:55 PM »

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-picture-requests/b25j-h-aka-pbh-1h-carrier-takeoff-landing-photos-9224.html

This is the website that I found the pic and there is more info. It was PBH-1H 43-4700 BuNo 35277 the test took place aboard the USS Shangri La Nov 15, 1944. I am going to try to find a good source with maybe some more pics. If you look close at the pic you can see the hook pulling on the arresting wire. At that site there are some more pictures.

50+AirYears · « **Reply #29 on:** December 07, 2010, 11:35:36 PM »

I added that site to my favorites. Not registered on the site, so I couldn't open any links, but the posts were interesting reading. I have some old tapes from various History and other channels showing P-47s and P-40s taking off from what might have een Jeep carriers, probably just being ferried to Pacific island sights. I imagine the crew thought the ship was going to sink when they saw the Thunderbolts eing loaded.

A local library has a book written by a German test pilot who had a plush assignment in WW-2: Test flying recovered Allied planes. He said they nearly had fights over who was going to fly the first Mustang, in fact thinking he was going to be court marshalled for knocking somebody in front of him to get to be the first to fly the newly repaired 51. The guy he knocked down was a General. After the flight, the General just wanted to know how it handled. When they had P-47s, the plane looked so big, pilots early on had to be ordered to fly it, at least till they got some experience and confidence in Thunderbolts.

Chris McMillin · « **Reply #30 on:** December 08, 2010, 12:13:22 AM »

Oh yeah, gun nose PBJ on the deck. That is so cool.
Chris...

john e. holliday · « **Reply #31 on:** December 13, 2010, 09:05:57 AM »

No pictures.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #32 on:** December 13, 2010, 10:53:37 AM »

Doc -

I think he's referring to David's picture above (post #14).