Save the Mustangs?

[Jay Honeck]

So, after our long, drawn out thread (last month) about whether P-51
Mustangs should be flown, only kept on static display, and/or are worth
saving for future generations, it turns out to all be a moot point -- these
guys are gonna build new ones!

http://www.fighterfactory.com/

I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[No Such User]

In article <82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>
>I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?

....or 130 octane fuel?

[Dudley Henriques]

"No Such User" > wrote in message
...
> In article <82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>>
>>I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?
>
> ...or 130 octane fuel?

With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is.
If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things
from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "No Such User" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>>>
>>>I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?
>>
>> ...or 130 octane fuel?
>
> With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is.
> If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things
> from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!
> :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> Dudley Henriques

My understanding is that 100 octane was the best available at the beginning
of WWII, and due to capacity limitations on the high test stuff, 100 octane
was the standard fuel for most of the bomber force in Europe during the war,
while the fighters got the higher octane stuff. In this area, the allies
had a huge advantage over the Axis, which relied on lower octane brews.

Bottom line, Merlins run fine on 100LL, but can generate much more power on
130 octane. Fortunately, the extra power isn't as necessary today, because
Mustangs are flown at much lower weights today than they were during the
war.

KB

[Dudley Henriques]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "No Such User" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article <82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?
>>>
>>> ...or 130 octane fuel?
>>
>> With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it
>> is. If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn
>> things from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!
>> :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> My understanding is that 100 octane was the best available at the
> beginning of WWII, and due to capacity limitations on the high test stuff,
> 100 octane was the standard fuel for most of the bomber force in Europe
> during the war, while the fighters got the higher octane stuff. In this
> area, the allies had a huge advantage over the Axis, which relied on lower
> octane brews.
>
> Bottom line, Merlins run fine on 100LL, but can generate much more power
> on 130 octane. Fortunately, the extra power isn't as necessary today,
> because Mustangs are flown at much lower weights today than they were
> during the war.
>
> KB

Yes, I know. :-)

DH

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?

The web page says no; they intend to use original engines and other systems.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jay Honeck]

>> I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?
>
> The web page says no; they intend to use original engines and other
> systems.

Well, they're either not planning on selling too many, or there are a whole
BUNCH of Merlin engines out there that I haven't heard about.

I thought they were in short supply?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, they're either not planning on selling too many, or there are a whole
> BUNCH of Merlin engines out there that I haven't heard about.

Perhaps you should actually *read* that page? They say they intend to make 10
planes.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> The web page says no; they intend to use original engines and other
systems.

I had read that there are no machines left that are capable of machining new
crankshafts. True?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:58:12 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>So, after our long, drawn out thread (last month) about whether P-51
>Mustangs should be flown, only kept on static display, and/or are worth
>saving for future generations, it turns out to all be a moot point -- these
>guys are gonna build new ones!
>
>http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>
>I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?

Anybody know for sure if the Piper "Enforcer" (I think) down at WPAFM
was a re-worked existing P-51 or a Piper-built P-51?

TC

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:28:54 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"George Patterson" > wrote
>
>> The web page says no; they intend to use original engines and other
>systems.
>
>I had read that there are no machines left that are capable of machining new
>crankshafts. True?
>--
>Jim in NC

While I'm not a machinist, I don't think this is accurate. There are
not a small number of V12 engines still being manufactured today. Ever
heard of Ferrari? There is, or was, also a V12 being used in
Scandinavia for a fishing boat engine. And then there's the "Thunder
Mustang" http://www.thundermustang.com/ which uses a Falconer V12
and is still being manufactured.

I think that any lathe designed to turn out crankshafts could probably
mill something with 12 throws as well as 8. It should be just a
matter of telling it to make four more. But I could be mistaken, the
length of the crankshaft might make it impossible for it to fit in the
most common machines. On the other hand, there are the large
locomotive diesels still being manufactured so someone can still do
big crankshafts.

6 years ago our library installed an emergency diesel generator in our
new addition. It was about 350 cubic inches in displacement, and was
a V12...

Back when V12's were common in the automotive world, in the 20's and
30's, the auto manufacturers didn't seem to have a problem milling
them out with the equipment available then. Ever see a straight
eight? It's a looonnnngggg engine.

Corky Scott

[Matt Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>
> >> With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it
> >> is. If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn
> >> things from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!
> >> :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> >> Dudley Henriques
> >
> > My understanding is that 100 octane was the best available at the
> > beginning of WWII, and due to capacity limitations on the high test
stuff,
> > 100 octane was the standard fuel for most of the bomber force in Europe
> > during the war, while the fighters got the higher octane stuff. In
this
> > area, the allies had a huge advantage over the Axis, which relied on
lower
> > octane brews.
> >
> > Bottom line, Merlins run fine on 100LL, but can generate much more power
> > on 130 octane. Fortunately, the extra power isn't as necessary today,
> > because Mustangs are flown at much lower weights today than they were
> > during the war.
> >
> > KB
>
> Yes, I know. :-)
>
So, what gives Dudley? You only carrying half an ammo load?

[Dale]

In article et>,
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:


>
> With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is.
> If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things
> from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!


45 inches? When I flew Crazy Horse we used 55 for takeoff, 46 for
climb. As far as I know Lee was using 100LL.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Doug]

There are plenty of Merlin engines around.

I landed in Salinas CA and a guy came by and took me over to his
hangar. He was building NEW Mustangs. At that time the price tag was
about a million. I asked him about engines and he said there were
plenty, have to be rebuilt of course. Not sure why that is, perhaps
they kept the engines around when they scrapped the airframes. The
design is in the public domain. You never hear about this operation,
maybe he never continued, this was about 4 years ago. But he did
complete at least 2 or 3, I believe.

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> I had read that there are no machines left that are capable of machining new
> crankshafts. True?

I doubt that. I would think the stumbling block is the castings. Even there, one
could probably make new ones at a price of several million dollars.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:49:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>> > Bottom line, Merlins run fine on 100LL, but can generate much more power
>> > on 130 octane. Fortunately, the extra power isn't as necessary today,
>> > because Mustangs are flown at much lower weights today than they were
>> > during the war.
>> >
>> > KB
>>
>> Yes, I know. :-)
>>
>So, what gives Dudley? You only carrying half an ammo load?

No ammo, no guns, no 75 gallon rear fuselage tank, no armor plate, no
hanging ordinance and no drop tanks. Did I miss anything? Oh yes, no
monster radio that sat behind the pilot.

Maybe no oxygen too, but that's just a guess.

Corky Scott

PS, some guys have the guns and ammo for show.

[Flyingmonk]

Read a great article on turbine powered mustang last week, forgot the
name of the mag, while waiting for daughters at Borders. Not quite
original, 13" longer nose, but not noticable. Two exhaust outlets
instead of twelve, but looked really good.

Love them Mustangs...

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "George Patterson" > wrote
>
>
>>The web page says no; they intend to use original engines and other
>
> systems.
>
> I had read that there are no machines left that are capable of machining new
> crankshafts. True?

That seems pretty hard to believe. I wouldn't be surprised that the
machines used for this originally aren't available, but I can't believe
that there aren't lathes available today that could do this with proper
setup and programming. Lots of large cranks are still made for
locomotive and other engines much bigger than the Merlins and others of
that era.


Matt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it
>> is.
>> If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things
>> from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!
>
>
> 45 inches? When I flew Crazy Horse we used 55 for takeoff, 46 for
> climb. As far as I know Lee was using 100LL.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk

You're right. 55 inches is correct. Typo!! Meto for climb is 46/27

Dudley

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "No Such User" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>>>
>>>I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?
>>
>> ...or 130 octane fuel?
>
> With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it is.
> If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn things
> from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!
> :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> Dudley Henriques

S/B 55 inches....sorry; typo!!
D

[Wizard of Draws]

On 8/25/05 6:58 PM, in article 82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72, "Jay
Honeck" > wrote:

> So, after our long, drawn out thread (last month) about whether P-51
> Mustangs should be flown, only kept on static display, and/or are worth
> saving for future generations, it turns out to all be a moot point -- these
> guys are gonna build new ones!
>
> http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>
> I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?

I think they're gonna need noseart.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Dudley Henriques]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> With 100, take off MP is reduced to 45 inches from the normal 61 as it
>> >> is. If they bring back 80 again, we'll probably have to drop the damn
>> >> things from a mother ship and start them in a dive!!
>> >> :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>> >
>> > My understanding is that 100 octane was the best available at the
>> > beginning of WWII, and due to capacity limitations on the high test
> stuff,
>> > 100 octane was the standard fuel for most of the bomber force in Europe
>> > during the war, while the fighters got the higher octane stuff. In
> this
>> > area, the allies had a huge advantage over the Axis, which relied on
> lower
>> > octane brews.
>> >
>> > Bottom line, Merlins run fine on 100LL, but can generate much more
>> > power
>> > on 130 octane. Fortunately, the extra power isn't as necessary today,
>> > because Mustangs are flown at much lower weights today than they were
>> > during the war.
>> >
>> > KB
>>
>> Yes, I know. :-)
>>
> So, what gives Dudley? You only carrying half an ammo load?

My bird was clean; no fuselage tank and no externals. Full fuel for me was
90 gals in each main. I used the ammo bays as luggage space for a clean
flight suit and a change of clothes (suit ) for those ever present rubber
chicken dinners the local chamber of commerce always gave for us at the
shows. :-)
Dudley

[Big John]

Jay

145 so they can pull 61" MP.

Big John


On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:31:40 GMT, (No Such User)
wrote:

>In article <82sPe.279071$x96.34814@attbi_s72>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>http://www.fighterfactory.com/
>>
>>I wonder if they're going to manufacture new Merlin engines, too?
>
>...or 130 octane fuel?

[Big John]

They tried to sell this as a CAS bird in VN as I recall.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````

On 26 Aug 2005 08:34:48 -0700, "Flyingmonk" > wrote:

>Read a great article on turbine powered mustang last week, forgot the
>name of the mag, while waiting for daughters at Borders. Not quite
>original, 13" longer nose, but not noticable. Two exhaust outlets
>instead of twelve, but looked really good.
>
>Love them Mustangs...
>
>Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone