Talk:North American P-51 Mustang

Template:FAOL

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 ant-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.