Fragile But Agile - P-51K 44-12016

[Mike]

..........the only thing I can't get my head around is why a PTO aircraft would end up being shipped to Europe in August (or later) 1945, when the war in the ETO ended several months earlier and rows of P-51s sat on the Continent awaited redeployment (TO the PTO) , sale, and most cases being scrapped where they stood.

Did the Israelis acquire any P-51s off the civilian market via various 'back door' means in the early days?

[Jack Cook]

So if #106 was with the 348th FG in 1945
and the was in Japan with the 8th FG in May 1947 and wrecked
470526 P-51K-10NA 44-12016 80FS 8FG 5AF GL 3 Waterman, Lloyd W JPN Ashiya AAB
when and how and why did a wreck get to Israel and if it was repaired back to my question??? Any other
wrecked P-51s in Japan get shipped to Israel

[Second Air Force]

Is it possible that an Israeli group could have purchased the damaged airplane (ostensibly being a scrap dealer or some such thing) and had it shipped from Japan to Israel? The first few Mustangs the IAF got were bought in somewhat the same manner by scouring Europe for them. Just a thought.

All the other stuff aside, it is a FANTASTIC looking machine and thanks for letting us in on it, Steve.

Scott

[Jim Beasley]

Hey Jack -- do you really think the Israelis, having started a new country in May 1948, gave a crap about proper record keeping? They were trying to stay afloat and used anything, from anywhere, that they could. ME 109s, Spitfires, Mustangs, whatever and however they got it, probably lots of secret handshake deals too, that were and will never be documented.

Isn't it enough that we have beautiful aircraft like this to enjoy and people committed as much as some are to keep them going? Why throw rocks?

So if #106 was with the 348th FG in 1945
and the was in Japan with the 8th FG in May 1947 and wrecked
470526 P-51K-10NA 44-12016 80FS 8FG 5AF GL 3 Waterman, Lloyd W JPN Ashiya AAB
when and how and why did a wreck get to Israel and if it was repaired back to my question??? Any other
wrecked P-51s in Japan get shipped to Israel

[Jack Cook]

The very first thing I said was..................
that's the use to be Twilight Tear and it looks smok'in hot!!!
I don't understand why it always has to be a combat vet. If it never
went anywhere but storage it'd still be cool!

[51fixer]

I don't understand why it always has to be a combat vet. If it never
went anywhere but storage it'd still be cool!

There are few chunks of aircraft that show some sign of being in combat.
The BBMF operates at least one Spit that is known to have seen combat. When recently restored they replaced some skins with bullet holes.
Shipley's FG-1D, now owned by Paul Allen, has its overseas travel and combat in Philippines listed in it's logbook.
Dottie May was easy to connect to being operated in Combat.

Others don't openly have a set of paperwork or continued operation or events that make it easy to see the connection to their combat operation.

On Princess Elizabeth the Spinner has gouges around the aft end. I couldn't figure out why. Later I read some history of Israeli P-51s that were used for disrupting communications. They attached a long cable and winch that would be used to snag telephone cables. The problem was the cutter cables would break. To finish the missions they would use the prop to cut the phone lines. Pete Regina had collected many of the parts used to build PE from Israel. I am going to to recognize that the spinner probably came from aircraft used in the 6 day war where the 51s were used.

FBA has the scratches in the fus skin. They match the photos from the war. Other research correlates that this was Bert Lee's aircraft or at least the same fuselage.
What do you make of this? Wouldn't you pursue getting the proper ID returned to this airframe?

[Ztex]

aircraft used in the 6 day war where the 51s were used.

Just curious...I thought the 1956 Suez Campaign was the last Israeli Mustang action. 116 Squadron phased out of P-51's and into the Mystere in 1961. The Six Day War was in 1967.

[JDK]

Isn't it enough that we have beautiful aircraft like this to enjoy and people committed as much as some are to keep them going?

Truth and beauty, or truth or beauty? I didn't know we had to choose.

I have no public opinion on this particular Mustang saga. I spent too long working with Paul Coggan.

The following is very much musing on the general, rather than the particular.

We are all aware (or should be) that aircraft combat history has a tendency to grow; much of that's genuine misunderstanding, some of it is (usually owner-driven) enhancement for status, money or flightline-bragging points. Very occasionally new data comes to light that shows an aircraft has a more significant history than was previously thought.

But I can't recall many news items where someone disappears head-first into an aircraft and emerges with incontestable proof that the fighter ~ only served in storage and training units forever.

Conversely, the number of Hispanos from Spain that have had been discovered to be German made all along is enough to make you lose your Merlin.

Some of us are keen to work on and fly these things; there history isn't important compared to structural integrity and service standards - rightly so. Some of us (sometimes the same people) are interested in them for commemoration or their history or what they tell us about history. I have no opinion on their 'beauty' in this context, but the 'truth' of their history, yes, here, is important.

'Good' histories can be shown with solid evidence and clear provenance. However honest people may be, confusion and muddle, however genuinely caused, are the same thing you see as when someone's trying to pull a con. Naturally confusing data rings warning bells, just as much as a too good to be true history should.

There are today, many lists of aircraft histories, despite some of the first compilers being warned off or told no one was interested or it wasn't important, or it was only of interest to 'rivet counters' (some of those dismissing such efforts have been the same people offering that data when an aircraft is sold, adding dollars to the price, interestingly.)

What is often overlooked, just like pilots and owners have knowledge of good and bad stuff that never gets published about people places and things, there is the same informal, unwritten, but very accurate tracking of aircraft and identities where 'well-watered' histories are kept accounted for. The sad thing is that some people in a position of power and ownership forget that while no-one will argue with them about the suddenly enhanced status of their toy, that doesn't mean they aren't going to be a bit of a joke to those less easily impressed. That isn't just the anorak-bedeck enthusiast, but other, well informed owners - and buyers.

Then again, these are generally not 'an aircraft' but a restoration. If you have a fuselage from one machine of no-great history and a wing from one flown by Ace Jones, then there's a strong temptation to chose the wing's identity, after all where's the harm? Again, most of those famous aircraft's seats weren't the same ones warmed by the ace's rear, but a legitimate, later replacement.

The BBMF operates at least one Spit that is known to have seen combat. When recently restored they replaced some skins with bullet holes.

I don't think that's quite what you meant to say, Rich! I just can't see those bullet holes having the structural strength to work, myself.*

There are a lot of aircraft with combat history, fewer with such neat evidence flying about for the reasons Rich has touched on. It's just another reason that both flying and properly preserved static and original aircraft are important to have.

What do you make of this? Wouldn't you pursue getting the proper ID returned to this airframe?

Of course. As we all know it's easy, too.

My understanding is that most aircraft regulatory bodies don't care an aircraft's got the 'right' identity as long as the paperwork's straight and it's not obviously a ringer or a wreck. Once they've got that paperwork, they really don't like to miss the doughnut break by having to change any of it, however legitimate that may be.

Regards,

(*Not poking Rich, we all do this at times - it just made me smile. And it was a lot more fun than correcting Human Resource training PowerPoint typos, I tell ya.)

[eallen]

where are the pix? they are not coming up on my end?

[51fixer]

aircraft used in the 6 day war where the 51s were used.

Just curious...I thought the 1956 Suez Campaign was the last Israeli Mustang action. 116 Squadron phased out of P-51's and into the Mystere in 1961. The Six Day War was in 1967.

Sorry,
In my haste I had a brain lock.
The Suez operation you mention is what I referring to.
Thanks for the correction.

[51fixer]

Dammit James, I'm an aircraft Mechanic, not a historian.

[Jim Beasley]

JDK, BWB and Rich you're all exactly right and expressing better what I was trying to write. No one is choosing truth or beauty; we're trying, as a community, to divine both. It is a flowing process that, fortunately, we as a group continue to add to so that we can get closer to the truth.

The realities of Mustang use over the past 65 years can make that challenging. Contrasting that with the 109E now in Chino that recently came from its time capsule, or Shipley’s old FG1D that had clear logbook entires of combat (why t-f he ever sold that is still beyond me) Mustangs are much harder to properly trace. FBA is a classic example, but in my view is now properly identified and represented. Does it warrant attacks because the dataplate is an authorized recreation or because the Israeli and Swedish governments apparently, without ill will, got it wrong? I don't believe so, certainly no more than the Bill Lear wreck, now being completely rebuilt, deserves any attacks because it, apparently, doesn't have an original dataplate either and will be basically a new build aircraft -- which is has to be because of the tragic crash way back when. That aircraft, if past ND builds are an indication, will be beautiful and as properly represented as possible. It and its crew deserve applause rather than criticism even though it's not and can never be 100% Twilight Tear. Yet I hope it is represented as such and that Ron Fagen and the folks building it are given kudos for the impressive commitment of finances, time and skills to recreate Twilight Tear.

So we do the best we can with truth and beauty. To make this personal, for all I know my Mustang really isn't 44-73029a. Some have written that Stephen Grey's "Miss Velma" is really that serial number, yet Miss Velma has a "6" series serial number attached to it. What is right? I dunno. Some also say that Bald Eagle has a 4th FG history. Does it? How would we really find out? Would it be wrong, with the presently available data, to represent it as a true 4th FG plane? I think so, but if physical evidence arose that changed that conclusion, it may not be. If memory serves the lot of Mustangs that went to or returned from Nicaragua all traveled under the same paperwork as GN122, and how do I know that my dataplate is correct? It looks real, but if it was installed in the 60's upon return to the US, 40+ years of aging is hard to discern from 60+ years. So I'll likely never know the true history. That is not the case with FBA, because of the physical evidence as compared with the photo BWB has posted. Same with Ron Fagen's plane.

I think it'd be pretty neat to get a photo of the two planes together to close this loop. My $.02. jb

Isn't it enough that we have beautiful aircraft like this to enjoy and people committed as much as some are to keep them going?

Truth and beauty, or truth or beauty? I didn't know we had to choose.

I have no public opinion on this particular Mustang saga. I spent too long working with Paul Coggan.

The following is very much musing on the general, rather than the particular.

We are all aware (or should be) that aircraft combat history has a tendency to grow; much of that's genuine misunderstanding, some of it is (usually owner-driven) enhancement for status, money or flightline-bragging points. Very occasionally new data comes to light that shows an aircraft has a more significant history than was previously thought.

But I can't recall many news items where someone disappears head-first into an aircraft and emerges with incontestable proof that the fighter ~ only served in storage and training units forever.

Conversely, the number of Hispanos from Spain that have had been discovered to be German made all along is enough to make you lose your Merlin.

Some of us are keen to work on and fly these things; there history isn't important compared to structural integrity and service standards - rightly so. Some of us (sometimes the same people) are interested in them for commemoration or their history or what they tell us about history. I have no opinion on their 'beauty' in this context, but the 'truth' of their history, yes, here, is important.

'Good' histories can be shown with solid evidence and clear provenance. However honest people may be, confusion and muddle, however genuinely caused, are the same thing you see as when someone's trying to pull a con. Naturally confusing data rings warning bells, just as much as a too good to be true history should.

There are today, many lists of aircraft histories, despite some of the first compilers being warned off or told no one was interested or it wasn't important, or it was only of interest to 'rivet counters' (some of those dismissing such efforts have been the same people offering that data when an aircraft is sold, adding dollars to the price, interestingly.)

What is often overlooked, just like pilots and owners have knowledge of good and bad stuff that never gets published about people places and things, there is the same informal, unwritten, but very accurate tracking of aircraft and identities where 'well-watered' histories are kept accounted for. The sad thing is that some people in a position of power and ownership forget that while no-one will argue with them about the suddenly enhanced status of their toy, that doesn't mean they aren't going to be a bit of a joke to those less easily impressed. That isn't just the anorak-bedeck enthusiast, but other, well informed owners - and buyers.

Then again, these are generally not 'an aircraft' but a restoration. If you have a fuselage from one machine of no-great history and a wing from one flown by Ace Jones, then there's a strong temptation to chose the wing's identity, after all where's the harm? Again, most of those famous aircraft's seats weren't the same ones warmed by the ace's rear, but a legitimate, later replacement.

The BBMF operates at least one Spit that is known to have seen combat. When recently restored they replaced some skins with bullet holes.

I don't think that's quite what you meant to say, Rich! I just can't see those bullet holes having the structural strength to work, myself.*

There are a lot of aircraft with combat history, fewer with such neat evidence flying about for the reasons Rich has touched on. It's just another reason that both flying and properly preserved static and original aircraft are important to have.

What do you make of this? Wouldn't you pursue getting the proper ID returned to this airframe?

Of course. As we all know it's easy, too.

My understanding is that most aircraft regulatory bodies don't care an aircraft's got the 'right' identity as long as the paperwork's straight and it's not obviously a ringer or a wreck. Once they've got that paperwork, they really don't like to miss the doughnut break by having to change any of it, however legitimate that may be.

Regards,

(*Not poking Rich, we all do this at times - it just made me smile. And it was a lot more fun than correcting Human Resource training PowerPoint typos, I tell ya.)

[lmritger]

I may not be a pilot but I am a researcher, and there's an awful lot of accurate and well-stated commentary in here about the difficulties in sorting out airframe identities and history 65-70 years after the fact. When one has a very large and personal stake in a project whose provenance rests on the efforts of such research, there's a natural tendency to take any questioning of the results of that research personally, but I don't think we've seen that in this thread- just a lot of genuine, honest puzzlement over the journey this particular airframe has taken over the past few decades. Considering the empirical evidence noted (remnants of the pilot's name and kill marks on the fuselage), I think it's fair to say we definitely have the right aircraft here regardless of whether the dataplate mounted is original or a certified authentic reproduction.

I am as eager as the rest of you to learn the history behind Fragile But Agile, and I am absolutely thrilled to learn it's not just a tribute restoration, but a restoration of the actual combat aircraft, made all the more rare by the theatre in which it served. It's truly a beautiful piece of work on the part of the restoration team- so a hearty "well done" is richly deserved by all involved with this effort.

Lynn

[JDK]

Thanks Jim. And yes, a tip of the hat from me too to BWB, 'cos he has the firsthand I just report about.

Dammit James, I'm an aircraft Mechanic, not a historian.

And thus are much more useful and liable for employment also. One of those phrases we don't expect to hear anytime soon (as a pilot exits the 'plane wearing an expression of light, but controlled, concern) is: "Oh, no it looks bad, send for the journalist!"

Regards,

[Django]

I am as eager as the rest of you to learn the history behind Fragile But Agile, and I am absolutely thrilled to learn it's not just a tribute restoration, but a restoration of the actual combat aircraft, made all the more rare by the theatre in which it served. It's truly a beautiful piece of work on the part of the restoration team- so a hearty "well done" is richly deserved by all involved with this effort.

Lynn

Definitely agree! Who would have thought we'd ever have a flying PTO combat vet Mustang?