Building factory "new" P-51s?

[warbird1]

There was another serious attempt at reproducing the P-51 in a "factory-like" replication line. During the late 90's/early 00's, there was a Mustang that was going to be sent overseas to reverse engineer to set up a Mustang production line by a company in Romania. I can't recall exactly who, but I think it was the same company who did major structural components of the Flug Werk 190's. The airplane going to be used was an ex-Domincan Republic P-51, I believe it was HJGB, before it was restored. Apparently they had major import or export problems and the Feds wouldn't allow the aircraft to cross borders. After a long period of lengthy paperwork to no avail, the principles of the company canned the project and decided it was more trouble than it was worth. The company that set this up was not Flug Werk and was unrelated to them, other than the fact that the company which would have been sub-contracted to build the actual Mustang parts was Romanian and the same one as Flug Werk used for the 190 project.

[ZRX61]

The company that set this up was not Flug Werk and was unrelated to them, other than the fact that the company which would have been sub-contracted to build the actual Mustang parts was Romanian and the same one as Flug Werk used for the 190 project.

The Sukhoi factory where the P51 exhaust stacks etc came from before that deal went to crap?

[JDK]

The Mustang has to be the easiest of all the WWII era airplanes to replicate and rebuild. ...

Probably better to say easiest high-performance fighter type to build as a factor of popularity. There are plenty of W.W.II. types - including fighters - that would be easier to build (The PZL P-11c was one that was proposed; the CAC Boomerang another* - in both cases easy engine options, basic or shortcut structure) but they all have a much more limited potential market.

Of the equivalent types to the Mustang most had a much more meagre airframe supply, parts stockpile and thus behind the start line compared to the Mustang/Merlin combo then and now. Many of them also, as Jim's touched on, are more complex to replicate from scratch - (Hurricane structure, Corsair spar etc.) particularly if there's a limited number of buyers for a production run.

Regards,

*I'm thinking near-replica rather than authentic exact replication - the Boomerang's wings were a challenge with no drawings!

[Obergrafeter]

That "reverse engineering" P-51 Model is still alive and well in West Texas. The gubmit didn't want weapons of mass destruction being exported and imported was what queered the deal.

[Mike]

The PZL P-11c was one that was proposed........

Now wouldn't THAT have been something!

[warbird1]

That "reverse engineering" P-51 Model is still alive and well in West Texas. The gubmit didn't want weapons of mass destruction being exported and imported was what queered the deal.

So what is the status of it? Last I heard the project went away and the model P-51 that was to be used was sold.

[warbird1]

The company that set this up was not Flug Werk and was unrelated to them, other than the fact that the company which would have been sub-contracted to build the actual Mustang parts was Romanian and the same one as Flug Werk used for the 190 project.

The Sukhoi factory where the P51 exhaust stacks etc came from before that deal went to crap?

I thought it was somebody other than Sukhoi, but I could be wrong.

[JBoyle]

What does bother me is that the over-representation by just two front line types (the B-25 and the P-51 - and the P-51D particularly) obscures the much greater variety and importance - and thus obscures the veterans - of all the other Allied medium bombers of W.W.II, and all the other fighters; many less adequate, but all we had when the enemy was advancing, not retreating.

I understand your sentiments, and basically agree, but I'll just point out that NOT building/flying/restoring P-51D, Spitfires, B-25s and B-17s is NOT going to create any more
P-47s, Hurricanes, B-26s or B-24s.

At this late point in time, any WWII era warbirds will help the hobbby & historians as time goes on.

[John Beyl]

[quote=
"Jim, I understand that a Mr. Rousch in Michigan is manufacturing new heads and blocks for MERLINS".[/quote]

Inspector,

Roush Aviation (RA) is not manufacturing new castings for the Merlin, at least any of the major castings. Jack estimates there are approximately 3-4 sets of castings, in various states of serviceability, for every flying application that uses them. In fact, it's his contention that there are plenty of castings as long as we're careful with those we have left.

He and his engineers have developed welding processes that can repair cracked heads which not long ago, were deemed unserviceable. RA also has the technology to repair large areas of missing casting by weld process and then re-machine them to spec. I've seen repaired examples...it's beautiful work and is as structural as the base metal around it.

RA has already re-engineered to modern standards (Not reverse engineered) and is currently producing many of the parts that we were once scrambling to find or were already down to using the best of the used. At this point, if a customer brings two bear, cracked head castings and water jackets to them, RA can recondition the heads, water jackets to better than new condition and build up the balance with new parts...not NOS parts...NEW parts (Including new pistons, rings and wrist pins!

They are also working on the long standing issues with the Northeast magnetos because there are simply not enough Rotax Magnetos to go around and the Northeast’s are good pieces! To date they've determined the issue and are working on a fix for it.

RA is also producing a litany of other parts for the Merlin that are either suffering the ravages of age or it simply make sense from a safety standpoint to build new. That includes everything from new oil lines to larger, stronger transport style main bearing caps to steel head nuts. Currently on the board is a new set of connecting rods that marries the size required for the Merlin to the better, stronger design of the Allison without having to outhouse engineer a set of Allison rods to make them fit in the Merlin as has been done in the past. Good -7 and -9 rods are getting as scarce as hens teeth.

In the end, if it wasn't for Jack Roush's love of aviation and his passion for the Mustang, the Merlin would be getting close to flat line right now. If any of you enthusiasts ever get a chance to meet Jack in person, don't ask him for his autograph, put your hand out to shake his and tell him thanks!

Don't feel bad about burning up a bunch of "Junque" 40 or 50 years ago. Back then nobody would have ever dreamed this stuff would be worth more than a bucket of a slop water.

Regards,
John

[AvroAvian]

I don't know if any of you have seen the Rolls Royce Repair and Salvage Manual, but you would be very surprised at what can be repaired on a Merlin, including procedures for casting in new sections of crankcase that have been 'windowed' by thrown rods and repairing cracks in the crankcase/rear reduction gear housing caused by belly landings. This manual was developed during the war when the RAF were really hard up for replacement engines. I've only seen one copy and unfortunately, it was a very tightly guarded source of information. Does anyone else out there have access to a copy?
I applaud Jack Roush's enthusiasm and foresight to help keep these engines going. There is nothing like the sight and sound of a large V12 in action.

[JDK]

What does bother me is that the over-representation by just two front line types (the B-25 and the P-51 - and the P-51D particularly) obscures the much greater variety and importance - and thus obscures the veterans - of all the other Allied medium bombers of W.W.II, and all the other fighters; many less adequate, but all we had when the enemy was advancing, not retreating.

I understand your sentiments, and basically agree, but I'll just point out that NOT building/flying/restoring P-51D, Spitfires, B-25s and B-17s is NOT going to create any more P-47s, Hurricanes, B-26s or B-24s.

Hi John,
Yes and no! Obviously I'm not advocating that people turn down a perfectly good option for something more interesting and difficult to restore. There are some who take that 'road less travelled' and I'd just like to see more of them and more encouragement for that route.

However it is true that money and effort and restoration-shop-time spent on restoration 'a' means that restoration 'b' waits in the queue. On that basis, I've little interest in yet another nice but indistinguishable P-51D resto is pushed out of the shop. Interesting things can be done (the F-6D resto, NACA and most of Mike VdbCs team efforts) but otherwise, it's just another wannabefighterpilotpimpedride.

I think we'd agree that the NASAM and NMUSAF were off track if they only added P-51Ds to the collection, one after another, after another... Diversity is important in the air as well as in national collections.

At this late point in time, any WWII era warbirds will help the hobbby & historians as time goes on.

Firstly, we are still in living memory of W.W.II - in history terms, that's 'yesterday'. Most warbirds and the information are not precious as data sources in the way that, say ancient Egyptian artefacts are. We are going to lose a lot more yet. What will the people of the 25th century know of W.W.II?

The availability of artefacts does distort and influence our understanding of history. As you'll hear on most history efforts the phrase 'the earliest/biggest/most significant X...' which should be coupled with '...that we are aware of / ...has been preserved.' but usually isn't.

Or in another maybe familiar form: "There are known warbirds. These are the warbirds we know that we have. There are unpreserved warbirds. That is to say, there are warbirds that we now know we don’t have. But there are also unknown warbirds. These are the warbirds we do not know we don’t know of.”
[Not] ex-United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Regularly here someone posts a bit about an obscure warbird, and for many posters it's an 'unknown unknown'. Good that it's posted about and discussed. Better if it's preserved.

Just my view, of course.

[John Beyl]

[quote=
"Jim, I understand that a Mr. Rousch in Michigan is manufacturing new heads and blocks for MERLINS".

Inspector,

Roush Aviation (RA) is not manufacturing new castings for the Merlin, at least any of the major castings. Jack estimates there are approximately 3-4 sets of castings, in various states of serviceability, for every flying application that uses them. In fact, it's his contention that there are plenty of castings as long as we're careful with those we have left.

He and his engineers have developed welding processes that can repair cracked heads which not long ago, were deemed unserviceable. RA also has the technology to repair large areas of missing casting by weld process and then re-machine them to spec. I've seen repaired examples...it's beautiful work and is as structural as the base metal around it.

RA has already re-engineered to modern standards (Not reverse engineered) and is currently producing many of the parts that we were once scrambling to find or were already down to using the best of the used. At this point, if a customer brings two bear, cracked head castings and water jackets to them, RA can recondition the heads, water jackets to better than new condition and build up the balance with new parts...not NOS parts...NEW parts (Including new pistons, rings and wrist pins!

They are also working on the long standing issues with the Northeast magnetos because there are simply not enough Rotax Magnetos to go around and the Northeast’s are good pieces! To date they've determined the issue and are working on a fix for it.

RA is also producing a litany of other parts for the Merlin that are either suffering the ravages of age or it simply make sense from a safety standpoint to build new. That includes everything from new oil lines to larger, stronger transport style main bearing caps to steel head nuts. Currently on the board is a new set of connecting rods that marries the size required for the Merlin to the better, stronger design of the Allison without having to outhouse engineer a set of Allison rods to make them fit in the Merlin as has been done in the past. Good -7 and -9 rods are getting as scarce as hens teeth.

In the end, if it wasn't for Jack Roush's love of aviation and his passion for the Mustang, the Merlin would be getting close to flat line right now. If any of you enthusiasts ever get a chance to meet Jack in person, don't ask him for his autograph, put your hand out to shake his and tell him thanks!

Don't feel bad about burning up a bunch of "Junque" 40 or 50 years ago. Back then nobody would have ever dreamed this stuff would be worth more than a bucket of a slop water.

Regards,
John




After receiving a PM last night regarding my post I felt it necessary to make one correction and a point of clarification:

Regarding the Northeast magneto modifications, apparently Dwight Thorn and Mike Barrow determined what the issue was with them and created a suitable fix for them. Roush Aviation has been using these modified magnetos with great success.

My comment “Outhouse Engineering” regarding the modified Allison rods used in the Merlin was understandably taken out of context. Certainly it is understood that a great deal of true engineering work had to be undertaken by Dwight Thorn to make this mod work as successfully as it has proven to be over the last three decades. My point was that Roush Aviation was going to take that innovation one step further by creating a rod based on the proven positive design elements of both rods and incorporating them into one rod assembly that requires no modification for strength and durability.

My apologies to Miike Barrow for the misinformation and misunderstood comment posted above.

Regards,
John

[The Inspector]

John,
Don't back away from the 'outhouse engineering' thing. Back in the mid 1980's the engine shop for the 'SQUIRE SHOP' U-2 unlimited hydroplane was in a critical state. The crew chief had gone thorough just about every engine in the shop (blown them up in heat races). The engine boys took a block from this engine and a block part from that engine, a part of an "A" bank head and another piece and welded it all together and built a -7/-9 they named 'Acne' because it was ugly. 'Acne' was almost indestructable, it ran and ran and finished all but I think two heats the next season (and in boat racing we spun the motors 5500 revs and more plus lots of nitrous oxide and the props about 16000 RPMs), lots of amazing things happen when two creative minds get together and say '.......HMMMM, I wonder if...............' A local boat racer back in the late 60's lacked about 40 hours of machine shop work to graft a MERLIN blower to an ALLISON block, he was also looking at ALLISON rods cut down for MERLINS so 'outhouse engineering has its place.

[John Beyl]

John,
Don't back away from the 'outhouse engineering' thing. Back in the mid 1980's the engine shop for the 'SQUIRE SHOP' U-2 unlimited hydroplane was in a critical state. The crew chief had gone thorough just about every engine in the shop (blown them up in heat races). The engine boys took a block from this engine and a block part from that engine, a part of an "A" bank head and another piece and welded it all together and built a -7/-9 they named 'Acne' because it was ugly. 'Acne' was almost indestructable, it ran and ran and finished all but I think two heats the next season (and in boat racing we spun the motors 5500 revs and more plus lots of nitrous oxide and the props about 16000 RPMs), lots of amazing things happen when two creative minds get together and say '.......HMMMM, I wonder if...............' A local boat racer back in the late 60's lacked about 40 hours of machine shop work to graft a MERLIN blower to an ALLISON block, he was also looking at ALLISON rods cut down for MERLINS so 'outhouse engineering has its place.

I'm not backing off on outhouse engineering. It has its place and I've banked all my marbles in that basket many times and gotten away with it. Lot's of crazyassed ideas born from outhouse engineering has yielded some mighty cool widgets. In the earlier post, my comment was simply misunderstood and was admittedly a poor choice of words...A minor misunderstanding is all. The world is still round.