Hi, what's your take on the outside visibility from inside the cockpit? It seems that the jockey sits quite deep and has limited view of the ground from the sides. The back seats seems even worse in the video
“BEAUTIFUL, exquisite,”..doesn’t EVEN begin to describe THIS plane. “Plane” doesn’t even come close! What an awesome aircraft/project..just phenomenal! I’d be terrified to fly it at all (PRIOR helo pilot). Best vid I’ll see for a LONG time..
Love the video! Getting my PPL now and this is a dream plane. Although the rotax is enough I’d love a v12 in there for the functional pipes! See you say the avionics are just ok. What avionics would you recommend?
Keep the dream alive AJ. The avionics that I was talking about were only used in SN01. In fact it even that airplane is being upgraded with Garmin. Options for traditional avionics (6 pack style) or the most advanced G3X are available.
Seeing your young man in the back seat was worth the price of admission ! Do you know if the leading edge of the vertical fin is offset to port side by 1 degree or there a bouts ?
With the ability to have self designed parts manufactured at such high quality these days, ide be shocked if someone doesn't scale down the designs for a Royce engine, and kit this plane out to be a true 70%.
Dozen, as an RV8 owner I was intrigued with the comparison comment. So it brings on more questions that the SW website doesn't cover: - How slippery is it in the vertical? How fast does speed increase downhill? - And aligned with that, what's VNE? Especially if someone puts a Honda in there and they upgrade to prop shaft?
So I did some BFM in the Mustang against my buddy in his RV-8. They honestly handle very similarly. He won in a drag race with his 210HP, but I had a slight edge in the slow speed fight. The SW is a bit more nimble as well. I’m not sure what the flutter test was engineered for, but I know that SW paid some of the top engineers a lot of money to ensure it was designed for a high Vne. If I find out what that number was I’ll post it here.
@@DozenDuzit Tks! My 8 is a 180hp lycoming w/2 blade fpp. The vne is 230 TAS due to flutter. Va is 140 (ias mph), and there's plenty of power (adding more just puts you into the VNE corner downhill). And the 230TAS limits altitude at speed. I could expand my build with flutter testing, but evidently there has not been a flutter survivor in the plane. And fwiw, my flight videos are at channel N349DM
Yeah. For sure. You can pick up one of those for about the same price. Your operating cost are about 10x though. Not to mention hangar, insurance, ect. And your are flying a 80 year old airplane instead of a new Carbon fiber one. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a T-6, but it’s an antique so I’d be more worried about breaking it and, the cost of flying/maintenance would have me reluctant to fly it all the time.
Unbelievable review! You are great. I’m not qualified to ask this but how much of an issue is the propeller shaft in the future if you want to mount variable (more powerful) power plants? And what do you think would be the optimal, piston driven engine with regard to the attainment of the “ultimate” performance envelope.
I think a reasonably sized engine could be an automotive inline six, because it will have a sound similar to a V-12. Apart from that, any other engine configuration will have a sound that doesn't fit the airplane. (Except for a V-12 of course). I adressed the prop shaft issue in another post.
What an amazing plane! I'm surprised to hear that there's one here in Florida. Would the owner be willing to offer other pilots the opportunity to fly it?
How was the fit sitting in the cockpit? The scale wings website says it's only 23" across? That seems so tiny! I'd say I'm about an average sized human being. 6'0" and 215. But I don't know if I'd fit in there!
Watch the next video. My buddy who is 6’5” sat in the back seat which is smaller. The lateral room reminds me of an RV-8. You would have no problem fitting.
Very nice to see history kept alive, never heard of these before. Keeping originals flying is getting harder and harder so if we can have replicas like this that's awesome.
MIGHT be keen on... Gas turbine genset + rotary encoder for smart tech wavefront wngineering approaches to high power density and pressure vs speed and "flame within a sflame*" waveform modulation /Pwm Controlled turbulence localisation system
Great idea Jaguar is the first that comes to mind and are Fairly Cheap depending on which year and Model i bought an xJs 5,3 in an estate sale that was not running for cheap Just had to Clean the Fuel rails and Injectors Not sure how heavy it is.. I'm sure it could make Great HP with a Turbo LOL maybe way to Much RPM would need a gear reduction
@@mmancino1982 I always had this thought experiment in my mind on if for some reason modern aviation companies and individuals found themselves making and selling weapons to ww2 like era factions (Think of something like the anime GATE but the portal leads to a ww2ish setting.) how much better could they make the war machines all while being as cheap or as simple to make and maintain.
Great in depth review, this one is definitely on my bucket list! It's either this or the JMB VL3 Evolution. With the JMB, it is similar price and engine, but fully assembled and side by side seating. Glad to hear of your positive experience!
Yes. The JMB looks like a really sweet airplane. I want to fly one and test it out for sure. The numbers (speeds) they are talking about are wild for a rotax. It looks like an amazing cross country airplane. How much is it? It depends on your mission I think. If you are using the airplane as a exclusive cross country airplane, the JMB looks great. If you are looking for something fun on the weekends, unmatched ramp appeal, and to feel like you are flying a warbird, then it’s the SW-51. Totally depends on your mission and desires.
@@DozenDuzit The JBM, depending on how you spec it, is around $300K fully assembled. They've also just delivered their 500th model, so needless to say, they've had a lot of opportunities to refine the product and deal with all the niggles. But you are right, it really comes down to what I want to do with the plane and how I want to use it. For me, my use at the moment, will be a sunny day run and gun, with occasional cross country or weekend getaways. Still a big chunk of money to put down, as well as it is also a kit. So lots to consider, including build time. Cheers for your reply!!
What a great first step. The engine and prop are obviously in desperate need of upgrade. I'd love to see this with at least 300hp and a bigger prop. The RV-8 being less than HALF the price (with much better performance) is going to be a major factor.
@way2sh0rt07grad I'll go call up W.A.R. REPLICAS and see if they have plans for a P - 51 Mustang. The old Home Depot special sounds a lot cheaper right now. All I have to do is find a Suzuki V6 with a super charger on it to stuff into the engine bay. 🤣
I've been waiting for a video of this plane after I saw it at OSH this past summer. Awesome video, my friend. If I had a cool $300k to spend on a toy, this would be the one!
3:50 if that's 25kt crosswind, I'm farting high subsonic.. It's not a replica with puny Rotax and composite structure. It's a "flyable model", nothing more. I do appreciate affordability of such inventions, but to a true warbird or even decent replica, that's a fluffing abomination. 7:15 yeah, sure H4 engine sounds JUST LIKE V12, no matter the physics, aerodynamics and soundwave propagation :D
Just found your channel and it's seriously under rated. I've loved the idea of the sw51 since they first announced it years and years ago. I love what they've done with it. Still a bit out of my price range but super cool plane.
Thanks for making this video! There isn’t enough content on the SW51 out there. Does it have inverted fuel/oil systems or are you limited to +g aerobatics?
There isn’t a lot of content because it’s brand new to market. I’ll do my best to answer. The Rotax does not have inverted fuel/oil. If I remember correctly, neither did the Original P-51. This airplane is ideal for basic aerobatics, but if you are wanting to do outside maneuvers, I’d recommend either find a different plane (Extra/Gamebird/ect) or since it experimental, find a solution to the problem with a different engine. The airframe is plenty strong, the only limit right now is a reliable engine that can fit in the cowling. I am actually really excited to see what innovative customers do to their airplanes to continue to evolve it.
Interested!!! Even more interested in the "drop tank" option when or if coming to fruition.... maybe a five-hour flight/1,000-mile flight time? Obviously, a fair-weather VFR fun ride, but, then again, that's when you want everyone to see and hear it! lol Far cheaper than a Thunder Mustang!
I'm surprised the Rotax is burning that much. I know in the Autogyro Cavalon it burns 5 gal in cruise. What percentage of power are you running in the '51?
One of the biggest question marks I have about this is the fuel capacity. 26 gallons seems a bit of a joke, particularly if you fit it with a larger engine like the 600hp Supercharged Corvette motor mentioned in the materials on their website. That motor at cruise would burn through that 26 gallons in no time. Realistically, I think you need 75-90 gallons of fuel on board. I haven’t been able to find any information at all on whether this is a contemplated issue or not by the designers. I’m wondering if they’ve made provisions in the wing design for larger tanks, and if the 26 gallon tanks currently offered are really the beta/1.0 design of the airplane with the idea of using the Rotax
A friend of mine just received his kit and I asked about the fuel capacity issue. He said that there will be external “drop tanks” if you need more fuel capacity but I can’t find any reference to the website. In their PDF brochure, it gives spec’s for an experimental version with the 600hp Chevy engine with a max weight of 1200kg vs 700kg with the Rotax. With that big of an increase, I wonder if it is a different kit to accommodate the bigger engine.
@@BrentT70 yeah I thought drop tanks might be an option. But I think that their utility (what they can carry realistically) will be pretty limited. And they’ll certainly alter the flight characteristics and add a bunch of drag. I too noticed the weight difference, which made me wonder if that was related to bigger in-wing tanks. That would be the ideal solution for me. A lot of the appeal of the P51 in the first place is it’s performance. This plane won’t come close to the original climb rate of the original with the Merlin unless if packs some serious power up front. 600 would certainly give it real teeth, but you wouldn’t practically be able to use that power without more fuel on board
Great question. I asked the same thing. Right now the inner wings are wet, but the outer half are dry. They have the models to add fuel to the outer wing as well. That should double the capacity which would help with a bigger engine for sure. The 26 gallons is great with the Rotax or something burning 7-8 GPH, but 100% agree, not nearly enough for a big engine. Drop tanks are an interesting idea. I hadn’t heard that. I’d hate to add all that drag though if more fuel can go in the wings.
I agree about internal fuel being much more preferable. Drop tanks would cause all kinds of potential problems. From a power perspective, the OG Mustang gross weight was 9,200lbs pushed by 1490HP. Assuming 50 Galons, bigger engine weight, and two 170lbs adults, your are looking at a weight of about 2,000 lbs for the Saw-51. To have the same thrust to weight as the original mustang, the Carbon Mustang would only need 323HP. 600HP might be good for Reno, but IMHO anything over about 220-250HP is a waste for normal use.
I don't think any chevy engine burns 26 gallons an hour. The fuel flow would be comparable to what would find on the street to keep reliability a reality. I talking a recreational plane not a racer.
When you join the military and they make you a pilot, what happens when you end your military career? Do you automatically have a civilian pilots license when you get out or do you have to go through the same process as civilians that become pilots?
You still have to go through the licensing procedure and get checked out by and instructor pilot in the airframe you will be regularly flying. What happens is that your military training record applies to the training requirements and basically they look over your logbook, contact your branch and confirm your course completions. Like getting credit for going to one university for a while or community college and then switching to a new school and transferring your credits to complete your degree. The FAA doesn't give you a rubber stamp, military procedures and regulations are not the same as civilian ones. Lots of overlap, but they need to verify your training is certified and authentic, before giving you "credit" so to speak.
Sorry, I like this Mustang replica, but it doesn´t sounds like a real one, but same like any other fast plane with same engine. Compare it with sound of VL3 with 915, sounds absolutelly same and outer shape of plane is totally different.
yep like fashion models 'dreams' for most ,but mate a nice job done , can they do a spitfire ?, and I hear calls for a fockerwolf 190 ,and corsair . probably the honda V6 aero ,245Hp,conversion package would be a nice fit too . do I hear a top gun dog fight school being set up ,with lazer tag 50 cals ?. [who'll play lufty waffies ], would need ballistic chutes .
Why not hust build it full size, with modern materials and run a turbo prop....I ve also wondered with modern engine management computers , the power out put of a modern V-12 , V16, or radial engine would be insane...to match ww2 power levels should be rather easy..........
Whydoyoutalksoridiculouslyfast? Why is their web page down? (Granted the video is now a year old). Why were you stupid enough to do your first flight in that much crosswind? What V-8 engine would fit in terms of weight? And why buy a sport airplane for boring cross country, sitting their straight and level? Two point landings are normally called wheel landings. Piston engines don't have "igniters." Some good perspectives on the airplane, though. You didn't mention different handling with the back seat occupied.
The wings should not show rivets. The original P-51 wings had the rivets filled to smooth out the airfoil so this SW-51 should not have rivets showing. Look it up.
Huge mistake on their part to not give it some beans, a 250+HP V6 or V8 should've been the smallest engine it comes with. Then they only gave it 24gal of fuel, when they could've easily given it wet wings and 100gal tanks at least. The all aluminum S51 of the same scale has been modified for 150gal in the wings (and usually has a 400+HP engine or better), so there's plenty of room for more fuel in this one seeing as how it's all composite construction. Even if it did have a decent engine, that 24gal would give the plane tiny midget legs with maybe an hour of fuel with reserves. Probably wouldn't be worth it anyway as you're stuck with a 215kt Vne, not much better than an RV8. We needed a P51 replica that was somewhere between a Thunder Mustang and a Titan51, capable of Glasair/Lancair cruise speeds to make the actual flying fun and interesting...instead we get something priced halfway between the Thunder Mustang and T51 with the performance of an RV8 at best. Not spending $300K and a year of my life building for something like that, all of those fancy pretend rivets and fabric pinking is great when it's sitting on the ramp being admired by random people while you're eating a hamburger in the FBO but you won't be seeing any of that while you're flying the struggle bus with a snowmobile engine. Couldn't even get the instrument panel to look like a P51, instead you get to look at yet another hodgepodge RV panel in front of you, so the experience of flying a Mustang is only there when you're looking out of the cockpit at your own wings. Fat lot of good those details and proportions do when you're not even looking at them. People are expecting to see a fast flyby when they see a Mustang, not a highly accurate reproduction sputtering along at Cessna 182 speeds. This is what happens when a model builder that's obsessed with details makes a scale Mustang instead of a pilot who wants to fly them. Part of that model builder mentality snuck in with that stupid exhaust stack coming out like it was a 2-stroke powered RC plane. All that scale-ness and super detail, only to screw the pooch with a afterthought of an exhaust stack. The whole thing is so disappointing, because it could've had so much potential.
FYI, I bet if you partner with some automotive channels (carwow, stradman, etc, you could have the makings for some really unique and entertaining content!
Faux exhaust stacks for show?! Sorry - but N.O. Leave 'em off and lose the drag - or buy a Thunder Mustang. If it don't make it go faster, slow down, or comply with Flight Reqs., leave it on the ground.
it's all very clever putting the rivets in the moulds etc..but its proportions are just wrong, it barely looks like a facsimile of a P-51, the Thunder Mustang actually looks correct !
Cool plane, but I would've preferred an original design. Low wing single engine retractable gear planes are by definition good looking machines, feels almost like a waste to make it look like something we already know like a P-51.
This is super cool! I really hope I can get a private pilot's license once I get through college. I love flying rc stuff a whole lot, but learning to fly a real plane would be an awesome experience!
Yeah. It sounds surprising. The RV-8 bang for buck is impressive. Great aircraft. They are cheap because for some reason the work that goes into building them isn’t included in the price. 2-3k hours of build time. The advantage here is you don’t have to worry about who built it. Since the Carbon work is done at the factory, it’s a more consistent aircraft than RVs are.
Not a purist, but I don't understand the point of doing a carbon fiber version that recalls the original when nothing else does: the scale, the engine, etc. Might as well just make it as efficient and affordable as possible while still tipping the hat to the history. I seriously doubt anyone cares that the rivets were modeled, however painstakingly. You could gain quite a bit of performance by just utilizing the strengths of the new tech that you're already employing.
Regarding the limitation of propeller inertia due to the small prop shaft, it should be possible to design a new gearbox for the Rotax, that has the necessary strength and at the same time a much higher gear ratio so the tips of a scale propeller won't be overspeeding. The gearbox could also be longer to add clearance between the engine and the front of the cowling.
I love everything here except the cockpit. I really wish they made it a bit more authentic to the original with some modern touches to keep it in line with todays standards. From the outside it looks like a P-51, but from the inside it doesn't...
I wonder what someone who actually piloted a p51 would think about this one. I bet the p51 was more controllable but this one probably wouldn’t be far off
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you to Flying Eyes for sponsoring this video. Use the link and code DOZEN for 10% off at checkout. 👉 flyingeyesoptics.com/eyewear/?ref=DOZEN
Weeellllp.. gonna head down to the local 24/7 and get me a couple powerballs...
You and me both!! :D
Only way to afford one.
Right!?
I hope you didn't do what I did. I bet on the Eagles to win Super Bowl 57. Drat! No SW-51 for me for a while! I lost big time. 🤑🤠
I saw an interview that the quick build itself is in the $20-30k not including the avionics, engine, etc... so maybe it's 100k at most
Hell yea, saw this fly at AirVenture last year, it’s so cool, took a picture in front of this exact plane actually! She’s such a stunner!
Hi, what's your take on the outside visibility from inside the cockpit? It seems that the jockey sits quite deep and has limited view of the ground from the sides. The back seats seems even worse in the video
I wish someone would do the same for the P-47 Thunderbolt. Who doesn’t love the Jug !
“BEAUTIFUL, exquisite,”..doesn’t EVEN begin to describe THIS plane. “Plane” doesn’t even come close! What an awesome aircraft/project..just phenomenal! I’d be terrified to fly it at all (PRIOR helo pilot). Best vid I’ll see for a LONG time..
this was really well timed just saw a picture of this plane this evening and found your video was released today just perfect timing
imagine having kitplanes looklike f22s in future (we currently have p51 looklike kits)
This was a really fun video to watch, I subscribed!
Very cool! Thank you for sharing your time, talent and experience!
Great review!! Thanks for sharing dozen!
Thanks for watching!
Love the video! Getting my PPL now and this is a dream plane. Although the rotax is enough I’d love a v12 in there for the functional pipes! See you say the avionics are just ok. What avionics would you recommend?
Keep the dream alive AJ. The avionics that I was talking about were only used in SN01. In fact it even that airplane is being upgraded with Garmin. Options for traditional avionics (6 pack style) or the most advanced G3X are available.
Looks like a dream !
Very nice, someday somebody will make a full scale Mustang or something else!
Keep on Flying! 👍
There're dozens of full scale Mustangs under construction and some 150+ Mustangs flying of which most of their structure is new built.
Seeing your young man in the back seat was worth the price of admission ! Do you know if the leading edge of the vertical fin is offset to port side by 1 degree or there a bouts ?
With the ability to have self designed parts manufactured at such high quality these days, ide be shocked if someone doesn't scale down the designs for a Royce engine, and kit this plane out to be a true 70%.
Dozen, as an RV8 owner I was intrigued with the comparison comment. So it brings on more questions that the SW website doesn't cover:
- How slippery is it in the vertical? How fast does speed increase downhill?
- And aligned with that, what's VNE? Especially if someone puts a Honda in there and they upgrade to prop shaft?
So I did some BFM in the Mustang against my buddy in his RV-8. They honestly handle very similarly. He won in a drag race with his 210HP, but I had a slight edge in the slow speed fight. The SW is a bit more nimble as well. I’m not sure what the flutter test was engineered for, but I know that SW paid some of the top engineers a lot of money to ensure it was designed for a high Vne. If I find out what that number was I’ll post it here.
@@DozenDuzit Tks! My 8 is a 180hp lycoming w/2 blade fpp. The vne is 230 TAS due to flutter. Va is 140 (ias mph), and there's plenty of power (adding more just puts you into the VNE corner downhill). And the 230TAS limits altitude at speed. I could expand my build with flutter testing, but evidently there has not been a flutter survivor in the plane.
And fwiw, my flight videos are at channel N349DM
Very cool plane! It sure is expensive though, I would look at an old T6 or SNJ for that price personally
Yeah. For sure. You can pick up one of those for about the same price. Your operating cost are about 10x though. Not to mention hangar, insurance, ect. And your are flying a 80 year old airplane instead of a new Carbon fiber one. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a T-6, but it’s an antique so I’d be more worried about breaking it and, the cost of flying/maintenance would have me reluctant to fly it all the time.
@@DozenDuzit true, lots of things to think about! Having a nice new engine in the SW-51 is a big plus!
This dude reminds me of the Indycar driver Josef Newgarden.
Unbelievable review! You are great. I’m not qualified to ask this but how much of an issue is the propeller shaft in the future if you want to mount variable (more powerful) power plants? And what do you think would be the optimal, piston driven engine with regard to the attainment of the “ultimate” performance envelope.
I think a reasonably sized engine could be an automotive inline six, because it will have a sound similar to a V-12. Apart from that, any other engine configuration will have a sound that doesn't fit the airplane. (Except for a V-12 of course). I adressed the prop shaft issue in another post.
Great job!
man that REALLy looks the part. Some of the t-51's looked slightly odd. This looks and sounds fantastic. The price is absurd though.
Whats the VNE and cruise on this aircraft? I would be left with no choice but to see and hear a V8 502 roar out of this unit!
Your smile tells us that you love this plane…….
Yes, does it come in p40 warhawk?
Schönes flugzeug die p 51 mustang die yellow jacket nose art
Cool, but flying is just so ungodly expensive feels like GA will just keep on a dwindling trend.
After I win the lottery that'll probably be the first thing I buy
What an amazing plane! I'm surprised to hear that there's one here in Florida. Would the owner be willing to offer other pilots the opportunity to fly it?
Very cool plane! I’m wondering what the runway length is required to takeoff and land in it?
Modern aeronautical materials and engineering into a classic aircraft design. How about that?
How was the fit sitting in the cockpit? The scale wings website says it's only 23" across? That seems so tiny! I'd say I'm about an average sized human being. 6'0" and 215. But I don't know if I'd fit in there!
Watch the next video. My buddy who is 6’5” sat in the back seat which is smaller. The lateral room reminds me of an RV-8. You would have no problem fitting.
@@DozenDuzit great to know! I've got quite a bit of time in an RV-8. It's snug, but it's cozy! Lol
Thanks!
What airport was in the final scene over the river?
hi iam from the uk. what type of engine is in this please.rolls royce are the best. merlin.
How big of a difference is 70% scale vs 100% in the mustang? What do they shrink?
Everything is scaled down. So the entire plane is propionate to the original.
@@DozenDuzit I think he's referring to the SW-51 characteristics such as flight envelope, energy management and maneuverability.
That's some pretty dark paint for a composite aircraft - no issues with sunshine and temperatures?
Improvements in epoxy, etc. over the last couple of decades have made dark paint on composites not an issue anymore.
The Rotax 915 is a great motor but its 141 hp max. None says its making 150.
There 141hp is a manufacturer minimum. On the dyno, most of them are making around 150. They don’t advertise that though.
Put a 200hp turbo prop in it & a bigger Fuel ⛽️ Tank
That is about the coolest kit plane I've ever seen! I wish someone would do a P-38.
agreed! or from the other side a bf-109 would be sweet too.
@@nickrockz97 so many great options! Could build a whole fleet of reproduction warbirds.
It'd be some damn expensive but so cool at the same time to have a scale P-38.
@@ryan0U I can't even afford this thing, but it would be a cool dream. 😂
Whole time I was thinking a P-39/-63 would be pretty badass 😅
Very nice to see history kept alive, never heard of these before. Keeping originals flying is getting harder and harder so if we can have replicas like this that's awesome.
It is a smaller scale model, not a replica
I CANNOT wait for some legend to stick a V12 in this! That will be the cherry on top. Bigger prop, and more sound!
MIGHT be keen on...
Gas turbine genset + rotary encoder for smart tech wavefront wngineering approaches to high power density and pressure vs speed and "flame within a sflame*" waveform modulation /Pwm Controlled turbulence localisation system
Great idea Jaguar is the first that comes to mind and are Fairly Cheap depending on which year and Model i bought an xJs 5,3 in an estate sale that was not running for cheap Just had to Clean the Fuel rails and Injectors Not sure how heavy it is.. I'm sure it could make Great HP with a Turbo LOL maybe way to Much RPM would need a gear reduction
@@LDHAl412 I think somebody actually tried to do this once. They call it the mini merlin. I do not recall anything more.
1,200lbs is insane considering the actual thing was 9,000lbs to 10,000lbs when combat loaded!
I wonder what kind of payload this would have considering the rigidity of the carbon fiber
@@mmancino1982
I always had this thought experiment in my mind on if for some reason modern aviation companies and individuals found themselves making and selling weapons to ww2 like era factions (Think of something like the anime GATE but the portal leads to a ww2ish setting.) how much better could they make the war machines all while being as cheap or as simple to make and maintain.
This is lighter, but it’s also scaled down, correct?
@@DrKnowNothing1 Yes 70% scale. Still impressive weight wise and wings tested to 12G!
Welp there goes the kids college finances.
Kids can get a j o b 🤣
These cinematics are unreal. Great video!
Thank you. Please share! 🙏 We are still a very new channel.
Great in depth review, this one is definitely on my bucket list! It's either this or the JMB VL3 Evolution. With the JMB, it is similar price and engine, but fully assembled and side by side seating. Glad to hear of your positive experience!
Yes. The JMB looks like a really sweet airplane. I want to fly one and test it out for sure. The numbers (speeds) they are talking about are wild for a rotax. It looks like an amazing cross country airplane. How much is it?
It depends on your mission I think. If you are using the airplane as a exclusive cross country airplane, the JMB looks great. If you are looking for something fun on the weekends, unmatched ramp appeal, and to feel like you are flying a warbird, then it’s the SW-51. Totally depends on your mission and desires.
@@DozenDuzit The JBM, depending on how you spec it, is around $300K fully assembled. They've also just delivered their 500th model, so needless to say, they've had a lot of opportunities to refine the product and deal with all the niggles.
But you are right, it really comes down to what I want to do with the plane and how I want to use it. For me, my use at the moment, will be a sunny day run and gun, with occasional cross country or weekend getaways. Still a big chunk of money to put down, as well as it is also a kit. So lots to consider, including build time.
Cheers for your reply!!
Great review of a beautiful aircraft. Just wondering, does anyone know why it was scaled down to 70% instead of 1:1?
What a great first step. The engine and prop are obviously in desperate need of upgrade. I'd love to see this with at least 300hp and a bigger prop. The RV-8 being less than HALF the price (with much better performance) is going to be a major factor.
No need for more HP, Rotech eng supplies more than enough HP. No need for overkill.
Really cool plane! Hope they continue making other classic fighter designs as well!
I don't understand why a 1:1 kit isn't available.
The rural airfield (with the lake) much of this was filmed at, looks phenomenal!!! 😍
5M5 is the airport code for Crystal Lake. One of our favorite places!
"$300,000.00?!" "OUCH!" "RICHIE LIKEY, BUT NO TOUCHY!"😭
Yea, still 1/10th the price of a real one lol.
@way2sh0rt07grad I'll go call up W.A.R. REPLICAS and see if they have plans for a P - 51 Mustang. The old Home Depot special sounds a lot cheaper right now. All I have to do is find a Suzuki V6 with a super charger on it to stuff into the engine bay. 🤣
Seen a lot of 3/4 P-51s, and this one is definitely one of the coolest. I'm curious if they would ever consider making a scaled down P-47, or F4U
Or a FW190 :)
Would you actually buy one or do you just want to watch someone on RUclips flying them
I've been waiting for a video of this plane after I saw it at OSH this past summer. Awesome video, my friend. If I had a cool $300k to spend on a toy, this would be the one!
I have used those scooter tires and they are much more durable than an aircraft tire of the same size.
3:50 if that's 25kt crosswind, I'm farting high subsonic..
It's not a replica with puny Rotax and composite structure. It's a "flyable model", nothing more. I do appreciate affordability of such inventions, but to a true warbird or even decent replica, that's a fluffing abomination.
7:15 yeah, sure H4 engine sounds JUST LIKE V12, no matter the physics, aerodynamics and soundwave propagation :D
Stunning, it is about time! Bring back a ww2 scale collection.
Just found your channel and it's seriously under rated. I've loved the idea of the sw51 since they first announced it years and years ago. I love what they've done with it. Still a bit out of my price range but super cool plane.
Welcome aboard!
This was a great video. You did a great job. Enjoyed learning about this plane. Merry Christmas to you and your beautiful family.❤️
The closest anyone can get to being tom cruise with his real p51
I got to see this plane in person at the Reno Air Races this year. Beautiful plane, super nice people. I really hope to see them in ‘23
Thanks for making this video! There isn’t enough content on the SW51 out there. Does it have inverted fuel/oil systems or are you limited to +g aerobatics?
There isn’t a lot of content because it’s brand new to market. I’ll do my best to answer. The Rotax does not have inverted fuel/oil. If I remember correctly, neither did the Original P-51. This airplane is ideal for basic aerobatics, but if you are wanting to do outside maneuvers, I’d recommend either find a different plane (Extra/Gamebird/ect) or since it experimental, find a solution to the problem with a different engine. The airframe is plenty strong, the only limit right now is a reliable engine that can fit in the cowling. I am actually really excited to see what innovative customers do to their airplanes to continue to evolve it.
I was about to ask the same. Was wondering if this plane could do some loops and barrels to make the fun even better.
should put some 5.56 machineguns on there
Interested!!! Even more interested in the "drop tank" option when or if coming to fruition.... maybe a five-hour flight/1,000-mile flight time? Obviously, a fair-weather VFR fun ride, but, then again, that's when you want everyone to see and hear it! lol Far cheaper than a Thunder Mustang!
I'm surprised the Rotax is burning that much. I know in the Autogyro Cavalon it burns 5 gal in cruise. What percentage of power are you running in the '51?
800 to 1000 hrs is an insane amount of time. 😢
One of the biggest question marks I have about this is the fuel capacity. 26 gallons seems a bit of a joke, particularly if you fit it with a larger engine like the 600hp Supercharged Corvette motor mentioned in the materials on their website. That motor at cruise would burn through that 26 gallons in no time. Realistically, I think you need 75-90 gallons of fuel on board.
I haven’t been able to find any information at all on whether this is a contemplated issue or not by the designers. I’m wondering if they’ve made provisions in the wing design for larger tanks, and if the 26 gallon tanks currently offered are really the beta/1.0 design of the airplane with the idea of using the Rotax
A friend of mine just received his kit and I asked about the fuel capacity issue. He said that there will be external “drop tanks” if you need more fuel capacity but I can’t find any reference to the website. In their PDF brochure, it gives spec’s for an experimental version with the 600hp Chevy engine with a max weight of 1200kg vs 700kg with the Rotax. With that big of an increase, I wonder if it is a different kit to accommodate the bigger engine.
@@BrentT70 yeah I thought drop tanks might be an option. But I think that their utility (what they can carry realistically) will be pretty limited. And they’ll certainly alter the flight characteristics and add a bunch of drag. I too noticed the weight difference, which made me wonder if that was related to bigger in-wing tanks. That would be the ideal solution for me. A lot of the appeal of the P51 in the first place is it’s performance. This plane won’t come close to the original climb rate of the original with the Merlin unless if packs some serious power up front. 600 would certainly give it real teeth, but you wouldn’t practically be able to use that power without more fuel on board
Great question. I asked the same thing. Right now the inner wings are wet, but the outer half are dry. They have the models to add fuel to the outer wing as well. That should double the capacity which would help with a bigger engine for sure. The 26 gallons is great with the Rotax or something burning 7-8 GPH, but 100% agree, not nearly enough for a big engine. Drop tanks are an interesting idea. I hadn’t heard that. I’d hate to add all that drag though if more fuel can go in the wings.
I agree about internal fuel being much more preferable. Drop tanks would cause all kinds of potential problems.
From a power perspective, the OG Mustang gross weight was 9,200lbs pushed by 1490HP.
Assuming 50 Galons, bigger engine weight, and two 170lbs adults, your are looking at a weight of about 2,000 lbs for the Saw-51. To have the same thrust to weight as the original mustang, the Carbon Mustang would only need 323HP. 600HP might be good for Reno, but IMHO anything over about 220-250HP is a waste for normal use.
I don't think any chevy engine burns 26 gallons an hour. The fuel flow would be comparable to what would find on the street to keep reliability a reality. I talking a recreational plane not a racer.
That's awesome! I have always loved the vintage warbirds. It would be sweet if they made a Corsair like that!
When you join the military and they make you a pilot, what happens when you end your military career? Do you automatically have a civilian pilots license when you get out or do you have to go through the same process as civilians that become pilots?
You still have to go through the licensing procedure and get checked out by and instructor pilot in the airframe you will be regularly flying. What happens is that your military training record applies to the training requirements and basically they look over your logbook, contact your branch and confirm your course completions. Like getting credit for going to one university for a while or community college and then switching to a new school and transferring your credits to complete your degree. The FAA doesn't give you a rubber stamp, military procedures and regulations are not the same as civilian ones. Lots of overlap, but they need to verify your training is certified and authentic, before giving you "credit" so to speak.
Incredible replica!
Please do a review on the Stewart mustang!!!! It’s a full metal 70% scale replica
If you know of one I can fly for a month, I’d love to do a side by side comparison.
Sorry, I like this Mustang replica, but it doesn´t sounds like a real one, but same like any other fast plane with same engine. Compare it with sound of VL3 with 915, sounds absolutelly same and outer shape of plane is totally different.
Great ship! Would love to see a P-47 with a Verner Scarlett 9.
Personally I love to fly the AN-2, it's a camping bus for 8-10 of your best friends!😃
Big Thank You to Polish
Engineers for building these P51 Mustang Replicas In Poland 🇵🇱
yep like fashion models 'dreams' for most ,but mate a nice job done , can they do a spitfire ?, and I hear calls for a fockerwolf 190 ,and corsair . probably the honda V6 aero ,245Hp,conversion package would be a nice fit too . do I hear a top gun dog fight school being set up ,with lazer tag 50 cals ?. [who'll play lufty waffies ], would need ballistic chutes .
When fifth scale RC gassers aren’t enough for you
Why not hust build it full size, with modern materials and run a turbo prop....I ve also wondered with modern engine management computers , the power out put of a modern V-12 , V16, or radial engine would be insane...to match ww2 power levels should be rather easy..........
Whydoyoutalksoridiculouslyfast? Why is their web page down? (Granted the video is now a year old). Why were you stupid enough to do your first flight in that much crosswind? What V-8 engine would fit in terms of weight? And why buy a sport airplane for boring cross country, sitting their straight and level? Two point landings are normally called wheel landings. Piston engines don't have "igniters." Some good perspectives on the airplane, though. You didn't mention different handling with the back seat occupied.
The wings should not show rivets. The original P-51 wings had the rivets filled to smooth out the airfoil so this SW-51 should not have rivets showing. Look it up.
Huge mistake on their part to not give it some beans, a 250+HP V6 or V8 should've been the smallest engine it comes with. Then they only gave it 24gal of fuel, when they could've easily given it wet wings and 100gal tanks at least. The all aluminum S51 of the same scale has been modified for 150gal in the wings (and usually has a 400+HP engine or better), so there's plenty of room for more fuel in this one seeing as how it's all composite construction. Even if it did have a decent engine, that 24gal would give the plane tiny midget legs with maybe an hour of fuel with reserves. Probably wouldn't be worth it anyway as you're stuck with a 215kt Vne, not much better than an RV8. We needed a P51 replica that was somewhere between a Thunder Mustang and a Titan51, capable of Glasair/Lancair cruise speeds to make the actual flying fun and interesting...instead we get something priced halfway between the Thunder Mustang and T51 with the performance of an RV8 at best. Not spending $300K and a year of my life building for something like that, all of those fancy pretend rivets and fabric pinking is great when it's sitting on the ramp being admired by random people while you're eating a hamburger in the FBO but you won't be seeing any of that while you're flying the struggle bus with a snowmobile engine. Couldn't even get the instrument panel to look like a P51, instead you get to look at yet another hodgepodge RV panel in front of you, so the experience of flying a Mustang is only there when you're looking out of the cockpit at your own wings. Fat lot of good those details and proportions do when you're not even looking at them. People are expecting to see a fast flyby when they see a Mustang, not a highly accurate reproduction sputtering along at Cessna 182 speeds. This is what happens when a model builder that's obsessed with details makes a scale Mustang instead of a pilot who wants to fly them. Part of that model builder mentality snuck in with that stupid exhaust stack coming out like it was a 2-stroke powered RC plane. All that scale-ness and super detail, only to screw the pooch with a afterthought of an exhaust stack. The whole thing is so disappointing, because it could've had so much potential.
Man, I love that little strip right on the lake.... So jealous lol.
FYI, I bet if you partner with some automotive channels (carwow, stradman, etc, you could have the makings for some really unique and entertaining content!
Those tiny propeller blades are so disproportionate it's makes the whole think look comical.
Faux exhaust stacks for show?! Sorry - but N.O. Leave 'em off and lose the drag - or buy a Thunder Mustang. If it don't make it go faster, slow down, or comply with Flight Reqs., leave it on the ground.
Hey man, your videos are awesome keep it up! Thanks for doing these great "reviews".
Thank you Elias!
it's all very clever putting the rivets in the moulds etc..but its proportions are just wrong, it barely looks like a facsimile of a P-51, the Thunder Mustang actually looks correct !
Cool plane, but I would've preferred an original design. Low wing single engine retractable gear planes are by definition good looking machines, feels almost like a waste to make it look like something we already know like a P-51.
This is super cool! I really hope I can get a private pilot's license once I get through college. I love flying rc stuff a whole lot, but learning to fly a real plane would be an awesome experience!
Awesome plane I’d this a more reliable though. I’d say a LS1 and would produce more hp.
How on earth did they get a Rotax to sound so good!? It's incredibly sexy, but how do you beat an RV-8's bang-for-the-buck?
Yeah. It sounds surprising. The RV-8 bang for buck is impressive. Great aircraft. They are cheap because for some reason the work that goes into building them isn’t included in the price. 2-3k hours of build time. The advantage here is you don’t have to worry about who built it. Since the Carbon work is done at the factory, it’s a more consistent aircraft than RVs are.
Really awesome but why 70%? What's the issue with making g a full size replica? Is that extra 30% that much more $?
Did ScaleWings purchase the assets of Papa51 Thunder Mustang?
Not a purist, but I don't understand the point of doing a carbon fiber version that recalls the original when nothing else does: the scale, the engine, etc. Might as well just make it as efficient and affordable as possible while still tipping the hat to the history. I seriously doubt anyone cares that the rivets were modeled, however painstakingly. You could gain quite a bit of performance by just utilizing the strengths of the new tech that you're already employing.
Regarding the limitation of propeller inertia due to the small prop shaft, it should be possible to design a new gearbox for the Rotax, that has the necessary strength and at the same time a much higher gear ratio so the tips of a scale propeller won't be overspeeding. The gearbox could also be longer to add clearance between the engine and the front of the cowling.
I love everything here except the cockpit. I really wish they made it a bit more authentic to the original with some modern touches to keep it in line with todays standards. From the outside it looks like a P-51, but from the inside it doesn't...
I wonder what someone who actually piloted a p51 would think about this one. I bet the p51 was more controllable but this one probably wouldn’t be far off
They need to make a Fw190 and a Spitfire to go with it! 😄
Speak any faster and you're gonna start running into compressibility issues.
These are great, and achievable war birds…. But do the pilots wish they had another 30%?
Such a beautiful bird! Would love to build one of these!
300k man shoulda started with that I would’ve clicked off the Video
Who was the drone pilot? I’d love to get with him for some videos of my airplane.