Talk:North American P-51 Mustang

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has been selected for use on the United States Air Force Portal. Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Wings of fury

Not sure if "variant" is apt, especially since the name never applied, but IIRC, the FJ-1 Fury bears the same relationship to the 'stang as Attacker does to Spiteful. Worth a mention? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not as clearcut as there was an attempt to redesign the Spiteful as a jet-powered version. I don't think the FJ-1 Fury went through the same transformation, more of keeping a similar wing profile much in the same way that the NS Navion also used an offshoot of a P-51 wing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Yeh, my recall was NAA lifted the laminar wing, & I can't recall (& really don't want to look ;D) to know if they adopted the 'stang fuselage or built new, nor how much the Attacker was re-engineered; IIRC, the idea was similar. I won't push for inclusion (not a big deal either way to me), but if somebody's got the sources handy, maybe it can get settled, & include/not if appropriate. The idea being, a) how much is familial, b) how like/unlike Supermarine's approach was it, & c) how were 1st gen jets designed (in which vein I think of the MiG-9, with internal engines, v Su-9, with the commonly-accepted podded engines). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The FJ-1 and P-51 definitely count as related in design, though not that closely, and probably with no interchangeable parts. I have a book with a diagram of their side views overlayed, and their is a definite resemblance, even in the fuselage. That said, the FJ-1 is definitely not a jet-powered P-51, at least not in the sense of the Saab 21 and Saab 21R. If we can find a reliable source detaiking the relationship of the P-51 and FJ-1, I think it would be worth including. I'll check the book I mentioned to see if there is enough info to cite. - BilCat (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Preddy

The following submission was recently made: "Major George Preddy is the world's top Mustang ace with 26.83 aerial victories. Most of these victories were gained while Preddy was flying the Mustang named Cripes A'Mighty 3rd. One of the first restorations by Kermit Weeks was a P-51D in the markings of Preddy's Mustang. For more information on Major Preddy, see www.preddy-foundation.org." It reads like an ad, and I have temporarily moved it here for further comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Might be better as just a See also link to George Preddy. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Loaded weight figures

The change of loaded weight from 9,200 lb to 9,700 lb in the section on P-51D specifications may well be from the pilot's manual, but this source has not been cited in the specs nor has it been added to the bibliography, in which case it can be rmoved and contested. Another page from a pilot's flight manual in this case an F-51-D has a note "At 9500 lb gross weight with 80 gal of fuel..." I have other sources which list, for example, a tare weight of 7,120 lbs, a maximum permissible weight of 9,500 lbs for all forms of flying and 10,500 lbs for straight flying; another lists a t/o weight with no stores as 9,450 lbs - so, we have one source which says 9,700 lbs, two, including another flight manual, list 9,500 lbs and another 9,450 lbs. Equipment weights in different block numbers would have varied, with the final blocks including features such as, for example, APS-13 tail warning radar from December 1944. So the original weight listed, 9,200 lbs, may well refer to an early P-51D-5NA/NT without additions such as the dorsal fin etc. I suspect the 9,700 lbs is for a late D-30NA or NT with all of the wartime modifications, including the D/F loops used in the Pacific, zero-length rocket rails etc, which would not apply to the majority of Ds built. 9,500 lbs is probably about average. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case you should list 9,500 lbs instead of 9,200 lbs. However the later developed P-51H was engineered to be lighter than the P-51D/K normally loaded, and the P-51H weighed 9,500 lbs in its' normal loadout. So I'd say the 9,700 lbs as listed in the -51D's Pilot's Manual is what needs be listed. Therefore I will ask you to revise the figures back to 9,700 lbs loaded weight. --Wulf Jaeger (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have figures of 8,500 lbs for the P-51H...You have stated your information comes from the manual yet you have not provided this as a source, so, until the source is provided by you nothing can be done. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That you have figures of 8,500 lbs is unimportant cause that is not the fully loaded weight, which is quite clear to anyone in possession of the aircraft's POH or Technical manual (where you can add up every single component of the aircraft to confirm the weight if you wish) or even to those remotely familiar with the aircraft. You can look here for more information regarding weight as-well as special performance testing: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

As listed in the documents the normal clean loaded weight of the P-51D is 9,760 lbs, where'as the P-51H weighes in at 9,544 lbs. Just as I mentioned.

So unless you feel you have more accurate data than that presented by the Flight Test Engineering Branch of Wright Field Ohio in 1944 then present it, otherwise please restore the right weight figures.--Wulf Jaeger (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am completely familiar with the data on WW II Aircraft Performance, but it cannot be used here because it is a private website and, according to Wikipedia guidelines has problems with WP:Verifiability. The crux of the matter is this; you have altered data, wrong that it may be, which is cited from "The Great Book of Fighters" and "Quest For Performance" respectively. You claim to have a pilot's manual for the P-51, yet you refuse to provide a citation for this when you have been asked several times to do so. Now, instead of providing details of the P-51 manual, you cite a website. You have no right to demand from me that I restore the "right" weight figures while you continually duck and dive over providing an accurate citation, not to mention details of the P-51 manual for the bibliography (any material cited is supposed to added to the bibliography as well). Minorhistorian (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

P-40 was a predecessor to the P-51?

(Per IP's "discussion" with me, I've brought this here for all to review)

Dave, the P-40 was a predecessor to the P-51 and in the P-51's page it mentions that the P-40 was several times. 71.94.3.192 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IP, let me just make this very clear for you to understand here: -

1. P-40 was designed and built by Curtiss-Wright;
2. P-51 was designed and built by North American Aviation (it is not related to Curtiss-Wright in anyway).

Still not convinced, why don't we bring this piece of information over to the discussion page of P-51 for further discussion with the rest of the regular editors? I'm sure we can sort this out fairly quickly, don't you agree? Alright, let's be on our merry way then, shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

USAAC Fighter Projects officer Lieutenant Benjamin S. Kelsey, an aeronautics engineer and test pilot, wrote up the initial specifications for the Curtiss XP-46, then ordered two prototypes from Curtiss in September 1939. Kelsey wished to improve upon the P-40's rather average performance. General Hap Arnold canceled the XP-46 program for the expressed reason that it would delay P-40 production by four months. Colonel Oliver P. Echols, Kelsey's boss, took the XP-46 design and shopped it around to other aircraft manufacturers, letting them know that access to the XP-46 NACA airflow data was part of the deal. North American accepted the offer, took the airflow data, and decided to give Kelsey and Echols a completely new design, which they designated the NA-73. This became the basis for the P-51 Mustang and the A-36 Apache. The connection from the P-51 to the P-40 goes through too many steps to be relevant as a related design. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the Brits asking NAA for P-40s & getting Mustangs, I don't see a connection. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

I note some sort of communications loop slightly rearward of the aerial in this image of a P51 dropping napalm in Korea. Anyone know what it is? And if they do, should it be mentioned in the caption? Moriori (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A shortwave direction-finding loop antenna? The antenna was rotated by the pilot until the strongest signal was located, to determine rough direction of radio source.

The fighter appears to be releasing its drop tanks, with no indication of what they are filled with, or if they are empty. The roundel style reveals that the date is some time after January 1947. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

Is this really a photo? Looks like a painting to me, or at least heavily retouched. //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.74.219 (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Best Israeli Fighter in the inventory? Incorrect..

Almost all the Israeli Pilots prefered the Spitfire Mk9.

"Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. "

Also many more quotes saying the same thing by the Israeli pilots on the 101 squadron page

http://101squadron.com/101/101.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.17.248 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Longest fighter flight ever?

"Blair used it to set a New York-to-London (c. 3,460 mi/5,568 km) record in 1951: 7 hr 48 min from takeoff at Idlewild to overhead London Airport."

Anyone know of a longer unrefuelled flight by any single-engine fighter? Tim Zukas (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to count any of Blair's or Mantz's records it must be noted the fighter was not a war production model complete with guns or even dicing cameras. The Blaze of Noon/Excalibur III was a highly modified Mustang with a lot of records under its belt. However, the longest fighter flight was made by a Twin Mustang:

• "On 27 February 1947, a P-82B named Betty Jo and flown by Colonel Robert E. Thacker made history when he flew nonstop from Hawaii to New York without refueling, a distance of 5,051 mi in 14 hr 32 min at an average speed of 347.5 mph. This flight tested the P-82’s range. The aircraft carried a full internal fuel tank of 576 gallons augmented by four 310 gallon tanks for a total of 1,816 gallons. This flight, to this day, remains the longest nonstop flight ever made by a propeller-driven fighter..."

Distance conversion: 5,051 miles (8,129 km). Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems unlikely but has a jet fighter flown further (unrefuelled)? I'm asking because I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.207.2 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Far as I know the P-82 flight is the all-time unrefuelled fighter distance record (not just prop-driven record) and Blair's flight is the single-engine fighter record-- but I'm no expert. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For want of a flush rivet

Considering the Mustang's importance in RAF (exceeded, I'll admit, in USAAF...), I'm pretty surprised the first RAF squadron to use Mustang Is is left out. (Or did I miss it...?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rivet added. On another subject, I find the USSR entry interesting - in what way did the Allison engined P-51s "under-perform" cf the Russian fighters? The early Mustangs performed extremely well at low altitudes - certainly better than the Yak 1 and LaGG 3, and had a good range and armament, and should have been ideal for the Russians, yet it under-performed? I get the feeling that this is the author cited taking Soviet propaganda too literally - this deserves further investigation. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

TYVM. And the Sov example bears examining. (I never noticed it... :( ) Do keep in mind Red AF theory, tho. As I understand it (& by no means expert...), CAS was #1 priority, & even air superiority (& performance for it) not as desired. If true, the Mustang might have had characteristics not as suited, so... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In some ways the Mustang was a British aircraft - but certainly it was designed and built for the RAF. Why then does the operational history deal entirely with service in the USAAF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a quite-lengthy section entitled Non-US service. - BilCat (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

in what way did the Allison engined P-51s "under-perform" cf the Russian fighters? - the Soviets initially had no access to 100 octane petrol, and were using fuel of much lower anti-knock rating. When Rolls-Royce engineers visited the SU to find out why Hurricanes Britain had supplied were performing so badly they discovered the Soviets had been running them on 87 octane fuel - the Merlin needed at least 100 octane at its-then state of development. Later 100 octane fuel was supplied to the Soviets in the Arctic Convoys. Presumably the same applies to the earlier Allison-engined Mustangs they received, as the aeroplane would have been quite well suited to the low altitudes used over the Russian Front.

BTW, the two Mustang Is built as 'freebies' for the USAAC remained in the hangar unflown for at least a year, as no-one in the USAAC could be bothered to try flying them. By the time anyone did, IIRC, the RAF were already flying their Mustangs on operations. That's how interested the US was in the Mustang.

Also, anyone wondering why the Mustang was chosen over the Thunderbolt and Lightning to provide escort to the bomber raids might find this useful for the article - I added it to the Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning page a while ago:

Early in 1944 the P-38H Lightning, P-51B Mustang and P-47C Thunderbolt, were dived for compressibility testing at the RAE Farnborough at the request of Jimmy Doolittle, as the 8th Air Force had been having trouble when these aircraft dived down onto attacking German fighters whilst providing top cover for the bombers. The results were that the tactical Mach numbers, i.e., the maneuvering limits, were Mach 0.68 for the Lightning, Mach 0.71 for the Thunderbolt, and Mach 0.78 for the Mustang. The corresponding figure for both the Fw 190 and Me 109 was Mach 0.75. The tests resulted in the Mustang being chosen for all escort duties from then on. One of the pilots performing these dive tests was Eric "Winkle" Brown, and he talks about the above on page 70 of his book; Wings On My Sleeve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.46.142 (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting info there; however, the bit about the Mustangs being left unflown by USAAC for a year is a myth which has long been refuted by aviation historians - eg; Bert Kinzey: "On 7 July 1941, the Army placed an order...for 150 P-51s...even though the two XP-51s had not yet arrived at Wright Field. This is clear evidence that the United States already recognized the significant potential of the design....Out of the 150 ordered two were held back for eventual testing with the Merlin engine...the claims that the U.S was not interested in the Mustang, and that its testing and evaluation were mishandled, cannot be substantiated by documented facts."(1996, P-51 Mustang in Detail and Scale Part 1 Prototype through P-51C pp. 17-18). The first XP-51 arrived Wright Field 24 August, 2nd arrived 16 December; both were flown and continued to be tested almost as soon as they arrived - no way did they remain in a hanger for a year: the real problems lay in the USAAC having to transition from a relatively small, underfunded peacetime organisation to full wartime status, which led to a decision to focus on funding and producing as many P-38s, P-39s and P-40s as possible, without neglecting the P-51. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence misleading - UK designed and first used the Mustang

Calling the Mustang a USA plane is misleading, as it was designed by a UK commission and first used by the RAF. At that time the USA services were happy with their existing planes. The Mustang came into its own when the UK replaced the Allison engine with the Merlin, progressively improving the Merlin's ceiling and top speed. The USA then made Mustang their main fighter and fighter-bomber. All of this is described in the main text, with citations. --Philcha (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

???Please read the article more carefully - the Mustang was not "designed by a UK commission", it was designed by NAA in response to a request by the British commission that NAA build the P-40 under licence - NAA designed and built a better fighter in response. Neither the British nor the Americans adopted the Allison-engined Mustangs as their main fighter - for the Brits it was the Spitfire and for the Americans it was the P-40; the P-51s in British service were used by Army Co-Operation Command and, later 2 TAF for tactical reconnaissance duties.

As Kinzey describes in his book on the P-51 trough to P-51B/C the Americans were fully aware of the performance of the Allison engine and had ordered two airframes to be set aside to be converted to Packard Merlins before the XP-51 flew (Kinzey 1996, p. 7.) First flight of the XP-51B was 30 November 1942, just after the first Mustang X flew in Britain. To say that the British pioneered the use of the Merlin is completely wrong because it was developed simultaneously by both Britain and America. It was the American P-51B that was adopted for production and used as one of the main USAF fighters in Europe, not the British Mk X. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead should say that the P-51 was conceived, designed and built by North American Aviation. Philca above is doing the misleading saying the U.S. was building a British plane. It's a 100% American plane being sold to the British. The British were in the U.S. to buy American planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.34.105 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The development of the Merlin-powered P-51 is covered in detail by the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, specifically, in Birch, David. Rolls-Royce and the Mustang. Derby, UK: Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, 1987. ISBN 0-9511710-0-3. The period of development may have coincided with work at North American, but Rolls-Royce took the lead in the work, despite Kinzey's effort to consider the two projects as independent. FWiW, in retrospect, the two projects did proceed without much interaction, see later comment. Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Should'nt the article mention somewhere that the "specifications" for the P-51 submitted to North American by the British Purchasing Commission consisted only of no. of guns, their caliber, the engine, unit cost, and delivery date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.10.45 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with the theory that R-R took the lead in the Merlin conversion work is that there were major differences between the work done by R-R to the Mustang Xs and the XP-51Bs by NAA; for a start NAA completely re-engineered the cooling sytems, centre-fuselage and engine mounts and forward fuselage structures to cater for the increased weight and cooling requirements of the Packard Merlin; the Mustang X was a much simpler conversion using Merlin 60 series engines. Does the book state that R-R designed the new cooling systems and engine mounts and handed on the work to NAA to engineer and work into the XP-51B, or does it point out that information and design ideas were exchanged between R-R and NAA, leading to the development of the P-51B over the Mustang X? Minorhistorian (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not a theory at all, Rolls-Royce made the first proposal to North American about a Merlin engine Mustang in 1940, sending three engineers led by James Ellor to supervise the adaption and manufacture of an American version of the Merlin 61, the same type that was already being considered for the Mustang X experimental series. On 9 June 1942, the first memos from W/C I.R. Campell-Orde of the RAF Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford, reveal that an effort was being made to convince North American to adopt a Merlin-powered Mustang. Work in the US was stymied not only due to an initial lack of interest but also to mechanical failures with the first powerplants built by Packard. In the event, both projects commenced at nearly the same time with the first Mustang X in the air about a month earlier than the XP-51B. FWiW, see Birch who indicates that although there was an attempt by R-R to have North American accept British Merlin 61s in American airframes, it is clear that the parent company wanted to control their project and was essentially building production-standard aircraft rather than the experimental series that saw each of the Mustang Xs trying out new design elements. A fascinating offshoot was the mid-engine Rolls-Royce "Griffon" Mustang that actually made it to the mock-up stage, albeit with a Merlin installed amidships. Bzuk (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Artist's concept drawing of the Rolls-Royce F.T.B.

... led by James Elliot - that was probably James "Jimmy" Ellor; [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

P-51 Was Built By Fokker

Here's an interesting tidbit: in 1929 General Motors acquired Fokker Aircraft Company, moving it to Baltimore where it was re-named General Aviation Incorporated; then it moved to California and was called North American Aviation. So Fokker's company built the P-51 Mustang! 69.238.198.195 (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not an interesting tid bit at all. It's a quite silly long bow. It's like saying Tata built the Jaguar E-Type . Maybe there's a blog somewhere which might be interested. Hopefully not. Moriori (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Rickenbacker thought the Fokker/P-51 Mustang relation was important--he goes into it for two pages in his autobiography "Rickenbacker", Fawcett Crest, 1967, pgs. 191 to 192. Rickenbacker even worked for Fokker Aircraft for a while, he was vice president in charge of sales. On page 330 Rickenbacker relates how he recommended that the Rolls Royce Merlin 1,600 hp engine be installed instead of the Allison 1,450 hp engine. Thereafter just the P-51 frames were shipped to England, where the Merlins were installed. Rickenbacker then stopped by the Allison factory and told Allison to increase their horsepower, and they increased the Allison engine hp to 1,750, with no increase in weight. I should point out that the Mustang was great in combat because it was acrobatic, pilots could do all kinds of manouvres with it because of its center of gravity providing a pivot point. People generally think of it as a "speed" airplane. I talked to a P-51 pilot. Everytime you fire the guns, the recoil from the machine guns causes the plane to slow by 15 knots. 67.117.24.125 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love those acrobatic aircraft! Clever fokkers indeed. Moriori (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

P-51 production delay

I recall that production of the P-51 was delayed until 1942 because Dutch Kindelburger refused to be involved in kick-backs. Anybody know anything about this? Anybody got any RS? Would this make a good addition to the article? Thanks. 71.139.247.247 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There were other good reasons for the P-51s being "delayed" in production (see "For want of a flush rivet" above) - the P-51 was not unduly delayed, considering the circumstances in the American aviation industry in the early 1940s. Without credible verification such a story as this can't be added to the article. Minorhistorian (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Captured P51s

I have a photo of a captured P51 with german markings but I am not sure how to use it in this entry.Articseahorse (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/planes/capp51.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articseahorse (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Groovy. It'd make a swell entry. 209.77.229.200 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Aluminum or Aluminium

"The aircraft’s two-section, semi-monocoque fuselage was constructed entirely of aluminium to save weight"

--Ericg33 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

changed to aluminum. american plane, american spelling.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.134.173 (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable media events

While an air accident at an airshow involving a P-51 is an interesting and current story [2] it does not qualify as a notable media event "Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed." This means more than a current news item. The Mustang was one of several aircraft at one of many airshows that take place in a year (and thank goodness there were no human casualties, although it is sad to see the Mustang being destroyed). To include this event will open the floodgates for every P-51 related air-show story notable or not. It might be more appropriate to include this in the article on List of surviving North American P-51 Mustangs ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 11:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree and the event being described is of a minor nature anyways and certainly doesn't fit the standard idea of a popular cultural connection. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Related development of T-28?

Hello. The article lists some aircraft with related developments. At first I thought it odd to find the FJ-1 Fury there, but the FJ-1's page does explain the relationship. Then the article lists the T-28. I visited the T-28's page, but I do not see the connection. Granted that they are both single-engined, piston monoplanes by NA, but does this warrant the "related development" mention? SrAtoz (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point: if there is no discussion about how and why the T-28 and P-51 are "related developments" in either article there's no reason to add the T-28 to the list. Also, how does one define "similar aircraft?" It seems to me that this rather loose category lends itself to extended lists of single-engine, single seat fighters of WW 2, depending on how far individual editors can see similarities. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Similar aircraft

Nope, please see discussion page here: the category includes "Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one" I cannot see how the Hurricane, Yak 9 or IK-3 fit the bill for "similar role, era, capability" - the Hurricane is clearly a couple of generations behind the P-51, and certainly did not have the same capabilities as the Mustang; by including the likes of the Hurricane one could then add all sorts of similar aircraft ad nauseum - P-35? P-40? Ki-43? D. 520? lots of candidates...the MiG-3 had similar capabilities to early P-51s but was limited in most ways, including armament etc: the Yak-9 and IK-3 (the latter did not even enter service) were of a similar era, but were of mixed construction, with none had the advanced aerodynamic features that characterised the Mustang, and were not in the same ball-park in regard to overall performance and capabilities. By contrast the La-9/11 series were closer in design era and capability, although probably debatable as this series didn't emerge until post-ww2: the Fw-190 had a radial engine - excluding the D series - but was of the same generation as the P-51, had similar characteristics and was also notable for advanced aerodynamics, mainly engine installation, and set a new standard for fighter performance. Again, such a list can be highly subjective - I can think of the Hawker Fury or F8F, but am trying to stick to ww2 era. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in order to mud things up a bit, confusing rather than clarifying -- the Hurricane had a Merlin engine, same as the P-51 and the Spitfire (which is listed as similar). I will admit that the Hurricane was a much previous design and built more for toughness than for speed, but anyway. SrAtoz (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at similar a different way, then: inlines, not radials, for a start. IIRC, this has come up before, & was resolved differently, so it appears more clarity may be needed to avoid another round. (Or, at least, better recall; I don't recall the outcome linked above. :( ) No further beefs from me on it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

List of surviving North American P-51 Mustangs

List of surviving North American P-51 Mustangs should be modified to include planes historically operating after the war, so that the list isnt eventually reduced to nothing. the recent destruction of The Galloping Ghost airplane shows that needs to be done, as this WAS a surviving plane, and deserves to remain on the list despite the event.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.134.173 (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Costa Rica has no military after 1948, yet it mentions that Costa Rica Air Force had a P-51 Mustang or a few in the 50's and 60's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.6.196 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Life archive has photos showing at least 3 P-51s in Costa Rican markings (consisting of a horizontal band in the colours of the national flag), and several web sites have additional info (the best of which is probably http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_163.shtml ).NiD.29 (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops

With this edit I reverted a strange format change by 192.138.83.34 and didn't notice the placement of a new image (which I accidentally zapped). Thanks for reverting me Bzuk.Moriori (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

why the expert opinion

in reviewing some other pages, such as the ME109 and Spitfire, there is no expert opinion. But there is on this page. Seems bias to me jacob805188.23.112.91 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No bias at all, just that no-one has yet got around to adding such content to those articles. Care to start? The ME109 you mention is at Bf 109, and the Spitfire at Supermarine Spitfire. Moriori (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reservations about putting "expert opinion" in these articles because the accusation can be made that such opinions are selective and subjective, leading to the temptation to counter with opposing opinions. It seems to me that the in-flight qualities of the Mustang - including the control problems encountered with the addition of the fuselage fuel tank in the P-51B-K - have been adequately covered without needing to be bolstered by the opinions of pilots who may or may not have been closely associated with the Mustang: I cannot, for example, see the point of quoting Robert Johnson who flew the P-47 in combat... ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You should have seen it before, the present article seems to reflect more of a balanced approach compared to its earlier incarnations, and the attention of many editors has helped ensure its continued development. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Construction?

Someone add some details of construction and alloys used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea: How about if you research it and add it yourself? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)