Talk:North American P-51 Mustang

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)

That is incorrect. The British Air Ministry directed NA to the NACA laminar wings and the XP-46, insisting NA pay £52,000 for the test data to get the job. If they didn't they would have ended up with a P-40 fly-alike. 2.221.196.12 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2016 (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)

You need top read a hell f a lot more. The Brits setup the conceptual design, directing a rookie company to what THEY wanted. The Mustang, it initial first name, not the later P51, was a British plane made by a US company for THEM. The Brits paid for the development and the manufacture. 2.221.196.12 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no link between the P-40 and the P-51 exept for the Allison engine of the early Mustangs, later changed to the Merlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.169.205 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2012 (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)

It is a DF loop, but this one (like the smaller WW2 German loops) is fixed, the armature in the receiver rotated. Rotating loops were usually in a teardrop shaped fairing sometimes referred to as a football. RandyX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.79.211 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

T9

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)

Not a year but the US military did not swarm all over the two they were given. There were left in the hangar for a considerable time.2.221.196.12 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2016 (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)

You are wrong. The Air Ministry was directing NNA to the laminar wings and other aspects pioneered by Curtiss. The plane was conceived by the British. It was their plane, for them and paid for by them. 94.193.157.145 (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2014 (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)

You are 100% wrong.

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)

- my mistake - it was A. G. Elliott I was thinking of. He was involved in Merlin development at RR as he was Chief Engineer for a time and later became Joint Managing Director of the firm.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

solution; ... as an American built, single engine, propeller driven Fighter plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B122:67F8:E0C2:D605:D761:5A5 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a terrible article. Just useless. It gives a negligible account of the Mustang I in RAF service (which included the first Mustang air-to-air victory by a US pilot in the RCAF during the Dieppe Raid) and says nothing about early 20mm-armed Allison-engined USAAF P-51s in North Africa or dive-bomber versions in Italy. It doesn't explain the development of the Merlin-powered Mustang X in England or how North American then improved the conversion by upgrading the airframe to take the extra power, it doesn't go into the problems with the rear-fuselage fuel-cell shifting the c.g. -- it doesn't tell you anything, really. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Its an appalling article. It is so bias towards the USA is cringeworthy.

The Mustang was a British plane made by an American company for them. It is that simple. The Rolls Royce Merlin V12 engine made the Mustang perform superbly. The plane initially used a straight 10 cylinder Allison engine, which was only good at low level, as the US were behind the British in supercharging. The British gave the U.S. the auto supercharging technology free. The first use of the Mustang by the US military was for ground attack because of the poor high level performance of the Allison engine.

The U.S. government allowed the British & French to directly approach U.S. aircraft makers bi-passing them, as would the British government approach say Hawker. The British needed all types of planes urgently, even the P-40 which was inferior to their own planes. But warplanes they were and useful in certain theatres and for training. In early February 1940 the British asked North American Aviation's President Dutch Kindelberger to furnish additional P-40s made under licence from Curtiss, as Curtiss could not supply demand.

Kindelberger told the British, without any detailed drawings or plans, "I can build you a better airplane, and I can get it built fast". Contrary to popular belief in the USA, North American did not have a prototype ready design which the Brits just happened to have snapped up under the noses of the US military. North American were first approached in Feb 1940, who had no "detailed drawings or plans". The British gave this young inexperienced company a chance. In May 1940, they still never presented any detailed plans, mailing a "design concept" to the British delegation in New York. This never had the famed laminar flow wings. The British Air Ministry accepted the inferior Alinson engine as Rolls Royce were working flat out 24/7 unable to meet demand for Merlins. New Merlin factories were being set up but not yet on-line.

In the interim from Feb to May, three months, the British Air Ministry were forming the fundamentals of the design concepts directing North American to Curtiss and the NACA, the developer of the laminar flow wings, to ensure a fighter with some leading edge design points, not produce another P-40 fly-alike wasting valuable time.

The Air Ministry directed NAA to the Curtiss XP-46 experimental plane with all the leading edge design points of top European designs, and a few of their own, rolled into one. It never worked as the individual points never complimented each other when merged into one complete whole. NAA were ordered to buy the plans and test results of the XP-46 plane from Curtiss if they wanted the job, at a whopping $52,000, a lot of money at the time. Curtiss engineers always said the Mustang was their design. Not quite as the British Air Ministry had a lot to say in the leading design points - they were paying and calling the shots.

There was a danger the Mustang may end up the same way as the XP-46 - a plane with leading edge points that flew like a dog. The British Air Ministry took a major gamble with NAA so were active in the design. The Ministry wanted something better than the poor P-40, and were prepared to wait, but realistically never expected a Spitfire. Initially that was the case with the first deliveries using the Alinson engine - better than a P-40 but no Spitfire. The initial Alinson engined Mustangs filled an RAF niche, so no problems for the British at that point of WW2.

The US military overall initially didn't want to know the plane. The Mustang was not even in U.S. service when shooting down FW 190s by the RAF over France. The Air Ministry gave the U.S. military two planes which were left in the corner of a hangar for a long period. They initially never assessed it. Quite amazing, as the USA never had a decent front line fighter at the time. The excuse not to take up the plane by U.S. forces was that it was liquid cooled and vulnerable in frontal attack. This was a poor excuse to reject the plane because it wasn't theirs. What went over their heads was that the world's two best fighters locked horns in the Battle of Britain, both with liquid cooled engines.

With British support, the Mustang finally was noticed by the U.S. Army Air Force. The US military had to go to England to fully assess the plane as it was finished off in Liverpool. They did eventually adopt the plane calling it the P-51 when in U.S. service.

The U.S. hijacked some British specification Mustangs destined for the British after the Pearl Harbor attack. The British were miffed as it was "their" plane, their order and they needed them.

UK and U.S. Mustangs for the European war theatre were finished off in Liverpool. They were test flown and delivered to the units by young English girls, many of them teenagers. 2.221.196.12 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to improve the article that is not already mentioned that is encyclopedic, relevant and reliably sourced, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (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)

• A Google search of the terms "P-51 delayed by kickbacks" produced this website: http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51.html which states the following:

It wasn't until 1942 that the USAAF decided to order 310 P-51As and 300 ground attack/bomber A-36A Mustangs. The reason for the delay in procurement of the type was for somewhat murky reasons, uncovered during an inquiry known as the Truman Report.[9] The demand for kick-backs was refused by Dutch Kindelberger in order to get a production award. "Ultimately, even those who sought to block the procurement could not sustain their position, because of the obvious qualities of the airplane."[10]

• The references cited are:

[9]. Enzo Angelucci and Peter M Bowers. The American Fighter. Mila, Italy; Haynes Publishing Group., 1987. p. 331.

[10]. Richard Atkins. Aircraft In Profile. The North American P-51b & C Mustang. Surrey, England; Profile Publications Ltd., 1969. p.4.

• The book "P-51 Mustang: Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter" by Paul Ludwig (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1903223148/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk) also cites the fact that early on its history, the USAAF showed an inordinately low degree of interest in the P-51. It does not mention kickbacks, but does talk about the fact that other aircraft manufacturers had lobbyists and sales forces which aggressively pushed for their projects onto the USAAF. The book describes a large number of other USAAF projects that never made it to production, and one can't but help but see that the procurement process during WWII must have been politically driven. One of the worst manufacturers, Curtiss-Wright, had a very aggressive sales and profit oriented corporate culture that pushed numerous experimental projects onto the USAAF, none of which came to fruition. The book "Curtiss-Wright (greatness and decline)" by Louis Eltscher (see my review: http://www.amazon.com/Curtiss-Wright-greatness-decline-Louis-Eltscher/dp/0805798293/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330000069&sr=1-7) describes Curtiss-Wright's successful lobbying efforts to get funding for its profitable projects - unforunately, there was no engineering to back up the sales pitches, and everything that Curtiss-Wright designed during WWII suffered from severe defects.

• I am unable to find the original Truman Committee reports cited above (they must be buried somewhere in the NARA archives) - There were a number of Truman Committee reports, delivered at regular intervals, all of which uncovered vast quantities of bribery, corruption, and complete wastage of government money, so the story is hardly new that there was corruption involved in weapons acquisition during WWII. But the story has the ring of truth - Curtiss Wright and other manufacturers were probably engaged in bribing USAAF procurement officers (the findings of the Truman Committee eventually put some of these people, including a general, into jail). NAA's corporate culture during WWII on the other hand was oriented towards excellent engineering, not sales and profits.

• DarthRad (talk)

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 [3] 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).

Opinion fails to meet the research standards, introduces bias, and degrades facts to antidote. The selection of who is an expert is subjective, introducting an atmosphere of debate. Expert Opinion sections are a poorly conceived idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually there was "expert opinion" in the Spitfire article. It was German pilots saying pretty much the same as in the P-51 article. The felt they had the measure of the Spitfire. Now here's where the fun begins. The statements by the Germans was followed by some qualifying remarks by an editor. He said the Germans HAD to say those things for reasons of patriotism or propaganda, I really don't remember. I went back three or four months ago to have another look but they were already gone. The editor didn't say the Gestapo were holding guns to their heads, but you get the drift. Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.37.132 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2012 (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)

Missing in Action - The HUGE Story of how the P-51 became the Great Fighter of WWII

This Wikipedia article is COMPLETELY missing the great centerpiece story in the history of the P-51 - the fact that it started out life quietly as a minor British aircraft and was essentially ignored by the USAAF for the first two years of its existence, was limited to low-medium altitudes (as were all Allison V-1710 powered aircraft without a secondary supercharger/turbocharger), and then was completely transformed by the obvious-in-hindsight decision to re-engine the plane with the Merlin engine, and then the final decision to add the 85 gallon aft fuselage tank, which completed its transformation into the long range, high altitude air superiority fighter that it became. All of this happened organically, in synergy with its British connections, and not because of any master planning from the USAAF, which grabbed the plane back from the British once it saw what it was capable of doing with the Merlin engine.

Much of this story is contained in this great reference book: "P-51 Mustang: Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter" by Paul Ludwig, which is not cited at all in this article. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1903223148/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk

The book "Mustang Designer", which is cited in this book, contains parts of that great story also, but is severely underutilized in this article.

I'd write this stuff myself, but I'm really busy right now (hint, hint)

DarthRad (talk)

Here we go again. The British wanted North American Aviation to build the P-40. Instead, NAA designed and built the P-51. The British throw around the word "specification" as if it was a detailed document. B*** S**** It has even been said that since the canopy is on top, the wheels on the bottom, the propeller in front, the tail in back and the wings somewhere in between, it has to be British because that's the way a Spitfire is built. Sheesh. Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.24.199 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The P-51 was an American-built aircraft whose chief designer (Edgar Schmued) was a naturalized American citizen of German-Austrian origin (he had once worked for the American Fokker company, which had no connections to Germany - its name came about because Dutchman Anthony Fokker was its head. North American's origins had nothing to do with Fokker - all of this info is in the book "Mustang Designer"). The early P-51s were all owned by the British. So it was an American built aircraft owned and operated by the BRITISH. The USAAC bought 500 as the A-36, used it as a dive bomber in the Mediterranean, and bought 1200 as the P-51A and used it mainly in the China-Burma theater. These were roles that the P-40 also filled, so the P-51 was essentially viewed by the USAAF as a faster version of the P-40.

The single seminal event in the history of the P-51 was when the BRITISH figured out that the P-51 could become not just a good low level fighter, but a terrific all around fighter including the high altitudes of the Western European strategic bombing campaign by putting in the Merlin engine. Rolls Royce did the initial conversion, to the Mustang X. North American did the definitive airframe design changes to smoothly incorporate the Merlin and this became the P-51B

The irony of this current P-51 article is that there is a perfectly good Wikipedia article on the Mustang X: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Mustang_Mk.X

This current P-51 article DOESN'T EVEN LINK to this other Wikipedia article.

It is clear from the history of what happened with a similar later attempt to convert the P-38 to the Merlin engine (quashed by the USAAC due to protests from Allison - that this happened is stated flatly as a fact in Graham White's "Allied Piston Engines of WWII" book) that this conversion of engines from an American engine to a British engine was allowed ONLY BECAUSE THE BRITISH WERE PAYING FOR THE RE-ENGINED AIRPLANE. The British ordered some 400 of these. There was no interest, nada, on the part of the USAAF to take this drastic step. Until the P-51B showed up in England and was shown to the USAAC pilots and brass. At that point, the USAAC got very excited, and in fact stole/diverted some of the initial batch of P-51Bs headed for the British for its own use. And started buying more of its own.

DarthRad (talk)

Where to begin? The "story" of the P-51 being ignored by the USAAC & USAAF has long been debunked by, amongst others Bert Kinzey;to have it reappear in a 2003 book is poor research on the part of that author. Read North American P-51 variants "The first American order for 150 P-51s, designated NA-91 by North American, were placed by the Army on 7 July 1940...The relatively small size of this first order reflected the fact that the USAAC was still a relatively small, underfunded peacetime organisation. After the attack on Pearl Harbor priority had to be given to building as many of the existing fighters - P-38s, P-39s and P-40s - as possible while simultaneously training pilots and other personnel, which meant that the evaluation of the XP-51s did not begin immediately. However, this did not mean that the XP-51s were neglected, or their testing and evaluation mishandled." Kinzey 1996, pp. 7, 17-18

As for the story of the USAAF ignoring the potential of a Mustang with a two stage Merlin...wrong again: "...in mid-1941, the 93rd and 102nd airframes from the NA-91 order were slated to be set aside and fitted and tested with Packard Merlin engines, with each receiving the designation XP-51B". This was well before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Development of the P-51B in America happened concurrently with the British conversion into the Mustang X and, because it was a more thorough conversion of the airframe, it first flew slightly later - 30 November 1942 versus 13 October 1942 - which blows the theory about the USAAF being disinterested right out of the water. Nor did the British pay for the NAA conversion. Between them the USAAF and RAF ordered 2000 P-51B/Mustang IIIs before both variants flew. The first production P-51B flew 5 May 1943 with the first operational group - The 354th FG - receiving them in England by November - this unit was equipped right off the production line with no "diversions" from the RAF. Where White got his "info" I don't know...

"The P-51 was conceived, designed and built by North American Aviation (NAA), under the direction of lead engineer Edgar Schmued, in response to a specification issued directly to NAA by the British Purchasing Commission;" This can be called BS by an ill-informed IP address but the specifications issued by the British to NAA can be found in the late, great Jeffrey Ethell's Mustang:A Documentary History, for example. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DarthRad, you appear to hold a black & white view of things but there were shades of gray. Some members of the USAAC did not want to spend much on fighters. Fighter advocates Captain Saville and Lieutenant Kelsey thought otherwise, and they pushed forward the NACA wind tunnel research project to try and figure out what could be done to improve the P-40. The XP-46 was the result, but this was canceled by their boss Hap Arnold because it would delay P-40 production. The NACA data was shopped around and NAA bought it. They designed the P-51's very fine wing airfoil after seeing the data. Kelsey pushed through an order for A-36 attack aircraft because it was the only way he saw to keep NAA from folding up for lack of orders. Kelsey felt that the P-51 was going to be a winner, and he wanted to keep the door open.

Regarding the notional P-38 with Merlin engines: Lockheed thought it worth looking into but they ran into a brick wall with Lt. Gen. William S. Knudsen. Knudsen was in charge of US government war purchases—the guy had been a top executive at General Motors before the war. Warren Bodie writes that Knudsen likely had a vested interest in GM, the competitor of Packard who was making Merlins for US aircraft. Knudsen was not interested in giving Packard any more business than absolutely necessary. If Allison had the capability (and they did) then they were going to get the contract, no arguments. Binksternet (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A February 1942 letter from J. H. Kindelberger on doubtful future of Mustang production line once production for Britain had been fulfilled, here: [4] - he suggests that NAA will store Mustang jigs etc., and use floor space to produce B-25s instead.

This letter could be characterized as pitch from a salesman to someone he thinks may be interested in a product: Act now and save time and money. The order came so it was successful. It doesn't strike me as being an indication Kindelberger was actually afraid the line was actually going to be closed down (he had a lot of confidence in the aircraft as stated in the letter). JetMec (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, a P-38 was allocated to Rolls-Royce for Merlin conversion at Hucknall, but it was either never delivered, or the experimental conversion itself was cancelled.

... and some of you might find this site interesting: [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sired by the English out of an American mother, the Mustang has no parent at Wright Field to appreciate and push its good points". - Lt. Col. Thomas “Tommy” Hitchcock, assistant air attaché at the American embassy in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A 1944 Flight advert by Rolls-Royce for the Merlin including a New York Herald Tribune quote about the Mustang here: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The first American order for 150 P-51s, designated NA-91 by North American, were placed by the Army on 7 July 1940...The relatively small size of this first order reflected the fact that the USAAC was still a relatively small, underfunded peacetime organisation. - these aircraft were the first Mustang Is supplied to the UK under the then-new Lend-Lease and were never used by the USAAC themselves. Under the terms of Lend-Lease the USAAC had to first buy them using their own funds and the aircraft where then 'lent' to the UK. Prior to this all Mustangs had been paid for by the British under Cash and Carry, as was development of the Mustang itself. [7]

The second USAAC order for Mustangs was also for supply to the British, again under Lend-Lease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Initial USAAC order for 150 was for aircraft serials 41-37320 to 41-37469 and these 20mm Hispano cannon-armed aircraft were destined for the RAF under Lend-Lease as Mustang Mk.IAs under British serials FD418 to FD567. After Pear Harbour some were re-possessed by the USAAC. [8]

The P-51 was built at what is now LAX, and in Grand Prairie Texas

It's also about time that we got the locations of the North American factories where the P-51 was produced straightened out. The locations are currently described as "Inglewood" and "Dallas". That's simply sloppy history and bad geography and not accurate.

The NAA factory in Los Angeles was located right next to the airstrip, and within the ground of Mines Field, which later became Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Today, the site of the old NAA factory is at the southeast corner of the grounds of LAX in a patch called the International Cargo Complex.

References: "Los Angeles International Airport" http://books.google.com/books?id=38YHabG2GVEC&pg=PA54&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false The International Cargo Complex shows up on this map of LAX as "ICC" in section A1: http://www.globalair.com/d-TPP_pdf/00237ad.pdf

The "Dallas" factory was located at Hensley Field in Grand Prairie, Texas, next to Mountain Creek Lake. Grand Prairie is one of those towns located between Dallas and Fort Worth, near the DFW Airport. The grounds of Hensley Field later became Naval Station Dallas, which was then closed in 1998.

Reference: "Historic Grand Prairie" http://books.google.com/books?id=8F_BIzw1QOAC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=north+american+factory+hensley+field&source=bl&ots=Hj2x9nRE8w&sig=igOE0vr6HDv_UnwpWiQ5Mk7W-6k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rU5HT56xEJDKiQLQpZ3bDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=north%20american%20factory%20hensley%20field&f=false

Having lived in both Los Angeles and Dallas, I know the difference.

DarthRad (talk)

Early Inglewood included the ranch which was leased by Los Angeles to become Mines Field. NAA began in Inglewood.

Binksternet (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

NAA did not go into specific geographical locations when it named these factories - they were called Dallas and Inglewood for convenience, not to satisfy revisionists from 70 years later, when the locations have been swallowed up by post-war urban sprawl. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eric Brown quote comparing Spitfire and Mustang

On September 28, 2010, Gian pero milanetti added a quote from Eric Brown, taken from a book written for gamers, including a description of aerial tactics of WWII fighters. Gian put wikilinks into the quote, a practice which is deprecated in MOS. I restored the quote with its awkward English, but I wonder if Gian (a native Italian speaker) accurately represented the book's English. Do we have another source for Brown's comment? Do we trust that Gian got the quote right? Do we silently correct any strange English in the Brown quote? Do we trust the book itself? Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've read some of Brown's books comparing aircraft. They probably qualify as sufficiently reliable sources to be quoted in Wikipedia. However, we should get the original quote and not the butchered (twice translated?) second-hand quote presently in the article. --Yaush (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Range/Radius

The figures for the P-51's range is inaccurate, that's a radius listing. AVKent882 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dorsal fin extension/strake

Please take a closer look at the group of 361st FG P-51s in the info box photo - only one of the Mustangs is fitted with the dorsal fin extension:

Lou IV, lead Mustang:

Next Mustang E2-S

E2-A, next in line, doesn't have the extension and the last Mustang is a P-51B, without extension - so there's really no need to change the caption. Interestingly a closer look at E2-S shows that the carburettor intake has a plain plate fitted in the panel below the exhaust stubs. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 04:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the damndest I've heard in awhile. I always thought that strake was standard off the line... Thx for the correction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduced at block D-5-NA and some C-NT were modifed before AAF final acceptance. The appearance of the kit fix on the C series also debunks and belies the often appearing statement that the strake compensated for loss of dorsal area occasioned by the 360 canopy. not true. It was the torque of the Merlin/four blade prop that initiated the modification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:862A:A8AC:CFFF:54D2:D0BB (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Meaningless contradictory quote

This is a quote (by Eric Brown) in the article :

The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by no means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!

The sentence in bold makes no sense at all. If it is a quote how do we know that the book it is quoted from got it right ? Even if it did it is conradictory and meaningless so should either be deleted or edited so it makes sense.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me although they are not the words that we would be used today, it is a quote you cant really mess about it with it and change it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, how does "it could not by no means out turn a Spitfire" make sense ? ! ? Quite apart from anything it`s a double negative, i.e. it could out turn a Spitfire. At the very least (sic) [indicates that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source complete with any erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation] should be inserted into the quote, though personally I`d edit it because I can`t believe that Eric Brown said it, or if he did it was a slip of the tongue. Incidentally, where`s the proof he did actually say that and it wasn`t just a transcribing error in the book ?--JustinSmith (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually introducing two commas helps it make slightly more sense :

"it could not, by no means, out turn a Spitfire"--JustinSmith (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that what Brown actually wrote, or is it a poor transcription of Brown's opinion? Go back to the original, if possible. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Late to the party on this one, but what you have here is emphatic speech. Try reading it as "it could not - by no means - out turn a Spitfire" and you can see how it works. Alternatively it can be interpreted as a double negative to "intensify the negation" as the Wikipedia article has it. (Seeing him on the TV Brown is a Scotsman and he is more dialectal than Standard English) . GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm Xaviera, fly me

As a result of the recent bit of back & forth, I wondered: shouldn't the bomber self-defense doctrine & why fighters were, or weren't, used be covered by escort fighter, & not here? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole article really needs a facelift and some culling: as it is there are nine paragraphs, dedicated to a lengthy appraisal of USAAF bombing strategy, in two poorly referenced sections before the P-51 is even mentioned, starting with yet another unreferenced paragraph. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was so busy getting rid of incorrect statements that I digressed at excessive length. I hope my latest change seems like an improvement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant no criticism. It was your trying to fix it that got my attention to the matter at all. I agree, saying something about why the Mustang wasn't in service sooner, & why she was at all, is germane to the page; I just question(ed) the emphasis. So, per usual practise, I'd suggest a link out to escort fighter & a passing mention to her intended role. Something in the vein of, "Despite British & German experience, USAAF did not believe there was a need for an escort fighter, instead being convinced bombers could defend themselves." (with sourcing, & less POV). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs more background history

I for one agree that the article really needs a section discussing the Allison engine variants and their combat usage by both the RAF and the USAAF. The P-51 may be best known for its work as an escort, but it was used very effectively as a tac-recon and attack fighter for some time before it even existed in its Merlin-engine form. I think this info is important to the general story. If I dig up references and write a section for it, it's not going to get deleted, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reinstated informative text

I have reinstated text which was removed from the caption in the infobox with the edit summary "all the detail (is) on the image page itself". Firstly, we need to be consistent with the captions of the other images in the article. Secondly, the information is useful, and it is/was news to some people as comments earlier in this talk page will show. Thirdly, removing informative text from an article because it is available somewhere else is unhelpful IMMHO. Moriori (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a photograph of four Mustangs, but the fourth one is mostly obscured. There is no reason we need to have the caption go into detail about this one. The aircraft itself is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur. I've removed it. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mustang"

The usage of Mustang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Mustang horse -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun, revisit

Several times over the years, attempts to include Empire of the Sun (film) to the list of notable appearances of the P-51 in media has been reverted with a dismissive comment. The most recent reversion refers to it as "cruft", and so far every other reversion I've seen, including the original archived talk page discussion, is similarly dismissive without providing any rational grounds for excluding the entry.

Let me address some objections:

• "Brief appearance of no notability." Brief, yes, but irrelevant. Appearing briefly isn't relevant because the presence, or prospect, of P-51 appearances is woven throughout the film. The entire story leads to the climax that features the aircraft. Claiming this isn't notable is as ridiculous as claiming that David Carradine's presence in Kill Bill Volume 1 is too brief to be notable (he is unseen throughout the film, but it's still all about him).
• "Most of the footage was done with RC models" (claimed in the archive). Irrelevant. Most of the X-Wing fighter footage in Star Wars was also done with models, and later, computer graphics. So what? The footage still features the aircraft, regardless of whether they were vintage aircraft (which were actually used) or models, or computer-generated graphics. The fact remains that the aircraft play a predominant role in the film.

Finally, the film introduced the phrase "Cadillac of the skies" to describe the P-51, a phrase that has become so well known that has entered urban mythology as being attributed to the war years, according to our article on the film. The 2004 Encyclopedia of Military Technology and Innovation quotes the phrase, and companies such as General Dynamics have borrowed it to describe their aircraft. The point is, the film had an impact on popular culture that would not have happened without the build-up to the climactic scene with the P-51 Mustangs. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sources to support this position? I had a quick look at Empire of the Sun (film) and it wasn't any help - doesn't mention the theme of expectation of the Mustangs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That article could use some work. I didn't claim there was a "theme of expectation" although I do recall having that sense of expectation personally when I saw the film decades ago. The fact remains that the whole story led up to this climax, which is easily verified by noting that every single review you will find mentions it. For example, New York Magazine says of the scene "It's Spielberg's most emotionally reverberant moment, and one of the rare movie scenes that can truly be called epiphanies."[9] If that isn't a strong statement about the significance of that scene, I don't know what is. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources used in Empire of the Sun (film) don't support the idea that the phrase in the movie was the source of use in popular culture, and an editor has used their own opinion to say that Bull has the dating wrong in the Encyclopedia of Military Technology and Innovation. Please bring sources which support your position.

I can find references the the phrase in conjunction with a De Haviland in 1970, and the Lockheed JetStar in 1969. (Hohum ^@) 22:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My position, which hasn't been addressed, are that the two assertions I mentioned above are invalid reasons to reject the inclusion of this film in notable appearances. I provided a source immediately above to support the first item. The argument about RC models is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve further discussion, particularly when I have already provided an analogous counterexample. I don't have access to the sources cited in the article about the film, so I have no way of knowing how authoritative the article is, I just offered it up as another argument. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention either of the objections you brought up in your original post. I made my own points. (Hohum ^@) 01:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. After examining some sources, it seems you're right, the term "Cadillac of the skies" existed before the film, and was used to describe various other aircraft in the past. Then again, it seems over 60% of Google hits for the term use it in conjunction with "Empire of the Sun". In any case, the origin or meaning of that phrase wasn't my actual argument. I was mostly responding to objections I saw raised in the past, that seemed wanting.

So then, is there any objection to including this film in the list of notable appearances, citing the reference I used above? Reviewers seem to consider it a significant scene in cinema, so shouldn't the article reflect that? ~Amatulić (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the Cadillac name most commonly associated with one fighter: the Lockheed Lightning P-38. That airplane was said to be quite luxurious in terms of pilot experience, and it was also an expensive airplane with lots of automatic systems to make the pilot's job easier. Most importantly, the 1948 Caddy came with fins that were said to be modeled after the P-38. This was the start of the big fin era in American cars.

Regarding the phrase "Cadillac of the skies", I notice that the China Clipper was described in such terms, as was the Lockheed Constellation, the and even the Airco DH.4 of 1916.[10] To me it looks like the connection between the phrase and the Mustang arises with author Mark Hanna in 1987 as he was writing about the filming of Empire of the Sun. The Mustang was not luxurious inside like a Cadillac, nor even like a Lockheed, so I don't know why anyone would think to call it luxurious. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable Apperances" is called that for a reason - it indicates that the aircraft played a central role in the story line; it is not intended to describe fleeting, peripheral apperances which are incidental to the overall plot. Empire of the Sun is not about the P-51, or personalities associated with the P-51, while any mention of the P-51 is an incidental part of the overall theme - the "Kill Bill" analogy is completely erroneous. The P-51 has also appeared briefly at the end of "Saving Private Ryan" and in other such films; are these to be included as well? Were all brief appearances by P-51s be included in "Notable Appearances" it would end up becoming an article in itself. Read the rest of the "Notable Apperances" entries and use that as a yardstick. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly the lack of central focus that led me to remove "Empire of the Sun" each time. If every film with an appearance of a P-51 in it is included, the list would be ridiculously long. The lack of centrality, plus the repeated adds, may have led me to stronger languange than warranted, but this looks like fancruft... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Central focus" is not the sole criterion for notability. The fact that the scene is widely noted among reviewers, noted as a special and significant cinematic moment, is also an indication of notability. Which brings us back to my original point, that has yet to be addressed: This entry keeps getting removed with the reasoning that the appearance is brief. That is not a valid reason. The fact is, that the appearance is significant and notable, even if it is brief. The coverage of the appearance by reviewers (see the quote of one I included above) should be sufficient to include it by Wikipedia's WP:SIGCOV requirement. I see no policy or guideline supporting the assertion that "central focus" is required for this. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldnt the notable appearances just link to Aircraft in fiction#P-51 Mustang which already deals with these appearances. Its fairly standard on other aircraft articles to do this. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a {{seealso}} tag to the section, good idea.

However, the issue remains that we have a notable cinematic moment that is not only missing from the article, but also complies with the section header comment, namely This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft ... has an "especially notable" role ... A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required ...' I have also complied with that notice by discussing it here after a recent attempt to include it (not mine) got reverted as "trivial cruft", which it demonstrably isn't. I believe I have provided evidence that the scene from Empire of the Sun, however brief, is "especially notable" to deserve mention, and I have also provided a reliable source with a quotation to demonstrate it. The counterarguments about the scene being "brief" and not the "central focus" have no grounding in Wikipedia guidelines for notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to raise some of the same points here as I have written about Ballard's inclusion of the "Cadillac of the Skies" as a modern fable that never, I stress, never, appeared in contemporary literature during World War II. No references have ever alluded to the use of the term in regards to any other aircraft until the publication of the novel Empire of the Sun. If you read the novel, the P-51 Mustang becomes a central focus of Jim's obsession with freedom and the Allies' ability to come to his rescue. He scavages magazines for photos of the aircraft and when the appearance of two P-51 Mustangs strafing and attacking his prisoner of war camp, it is a cathartic moment. Mark Carlson devotes two pages on the film in Flying on Film (2012). I certainly would like to discuss this further with the editors who regard the appearance of the Mustang as "trivial", "cruft" or "fanboy". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC).

Sounds like it's the novel where the Mustang is the important element rather than the film. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Six Mustangs appeared in Empire of the Sun in model form as well as two warbirds featured in the climatic raid on the POW camp. The novel and screenplay specifically refer to the role of the P-51 Mustang as representing the tide of war changing. In film historian James Farmer's account of the film, the Mustang is identified as important to the film. In aviation writer Michael O'Leary's behind-the scenes article on Empire of the Sun, (Air Classics, January 1988), 11 pages are devoted to the pre-production and principal photography of the film, with specific emphasis on the P-51 Mustang. Three full-color and two black-and-white photographs of the P-51s used in the film as well as a two-page full-color spread, appear. Director Steven Spielberg considered J.G. Ballard's work as a seminal piece about the war, and his film brackets the other World War II-themed films he had created. Filming in Shanghai and on location involved meticulous research and Spielberg wanted to ensure historical integrity by following the novel's plot arc faithfully, including the need to introduce the P-51 Mustang as the "Cadillac of the Sky", an integral element of both the film and the novel. The filming of the raid was the most complex and elaborately staged sequence of the film, involving the entire prison camp set, and approximately 60 hours of aerial footage of the Mustangs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed information. It confirms what I've been trying to explain all along, better than I've been able to explain it. I don't think there should be any doubt that this film deserves a mention in the list of notable appearances. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for wording

Based on what has been written above, I suggest the following wording for the entry. The proposal is a bit wordy but it captures the reasoning for inclusion:

• The 1987 Steven Spielberg film Empire of the Sun featured models and restored Mustangs in an attack against a Japanese internment camp. This P-51 raid was the most complex and elaborately staged sequence of the film, requiring over 10 days of filming and 60 hours of aerial footage of Mustangs. Film historians and reviewers identify the scene as a significant cinematic achievement; for example, New York Magazine called it "Spielberg's most emotionally reverberant moment, and one of the rare movie scenes that can truly be called epiphanies."[11]

Any suggestions? I omitted the "Cadillac of the Sky" bit; including it made the passage too long. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My revision:

• The Empire of the Sun (1987) directed by Steven Spielberg, and based on the J.G. Ballard novel of the same name, featured models and restored Mustangs in an attack against a Japanese internment camp. This was the most complex and elaborately staged sequence of the film, requiring over 10 days of filming and 60 hours of aerial footage of Mustangs. Film historians and reviewers called it "Spielberg's most emotionally reverberant moment, and one of the rare movie scenes that can truly be called epiphanies." <Denby, David. "Empire Builders: Empire of the Sun is Spielberg's most psychologically complex work." New York Magazine, 14 December 1987. Retrieved: 1 January 2014.> FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen this movie, but I do have a question - is the appearance of the Mustangs in this case actually "about" the Mustang as a type? or might they have used (say) Thunderbolts or Corsairs instead, assuming those type had been available, without affecting the plot or dramatic effect in any way? If the Mustang simply appears as a generic WWII American fighter-bomber then I would be very doubtful as to whether mention of the movie can be justified here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been said that the Mustang is core to the novel. Why not turn the phrasing around. eg

"In the J.G. Ballard novel Empire of the Sun the characters expectations...Mustang et etc. For the 1987 film of the book directed by Steven Spielberg, the sequence of an attack on a Japanese internment camp by Mustangs.... This was the most complex and elaborately staged sequence of the film, requiring over 10 days of filming and 60 hours of aerial footage of Mustangs. Film historians and reviewers identify the scene as a significant cinematic achievement." GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In creating the rationale for the inclusion of this novel and film connection to the P-51, wouldn't it be imperative to leave an "invisible note" within the text rather than trying to create the justification in what was originally a two-line note, now extended to that of a minor section/paragraph?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Further to an earlier query, the main character in the Empire of the Sun, Jim Graham is an English child growing into a teenager in the midst of a POW camp, torn by the emotions of a coming-of-age and drawn into the world of the American prisoners who run a clandestine operation. Wanting to be like them, he devours the few magazines that they have and sees the P-51 Mustang as an iconic war machine, as author Ballard penned, the "Cadillac of the skies". Jim is completely absorbed by the thought that the Mustangs will come to rescue him and when two P-51 appear over the camps, he is at first mesmerized by the sight and as author O'Leary describes, "thrilled by the appearance ...". Spielberg films part of the scene in slow motion as Jim not only sees the pilots in a close-up but one of the pilots turns and acknowledges him, completing the transformation of Jim just surviving to that of a time of change where the Mustang represents the overthrow of the Japanese in the Pacific. The story then changes to a winding down of the Japanese presence with the camp guards slipping away and the nearby airfield being abandoned. The young Japanese teen that he had befriended becomes the lone remnant of the Kamikaze training school, and meets an unfortunate end in trying to remain a friend to Jim. The novel makes the clear contrast between the technological superiority of the P-51 Mustang to the Mitsubishi Zero fighters that now lay dormant on the abandoned airstrip, with their last role being that of suicide aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

An interesting correlation in both the novel and film is also made about American technology with Jim wandering through a junk yard and coming upon a Packard automobile, clearly much more substantial and sophisticated than the other cars scattered about. When the P-51 Mustang is introduced in the story, it is the same, the epitome of aviation technology and clearly representative of the Americans that will ultimately save him. Likely, any aircraft attacking the prisoner of war camp would have been significant, that it was the P-51, the one aircraft that Jim knew and eulogized, made the aerial attack such a cathartic and exhilarating experience. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

To address GraemeLeggett's proposal, I do think it's kind of WP:UNDUE weight to devote too much text to this scene, compared with other entries in the article. Perhaps it would be better to have just a sentence or two for the entry, with explanatory comments in the "Notes" section already in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Last Mustang Downed?

The page currently states that the last Mustang was downed in combat by the US in 1965, Operation Power Pack. Capt Fernando Soto Enrique of Honduras is credited with downing an El Salvadorean P51 in July 1969. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U_Corsair#.22Football_War.2270.209.202.79 (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What is a "proper long-range escort fighter"?

This sentence is in dispute:

What was needed was the proper long-range escort fighter, a class that both the RAF and Luftwaffe had tried and failed to successfully fulfill.

If by a "proper long-range escort fighter" is meant a day fighter, capable of tackling the day fighters trying to shoot down the bombers, then this is probably fair enough. The "heavy fighter", owing its range to increased size, and typically having two engines, had proved incapable of filling this role as early as the Battle of Britain - although two engined fighters had useful roles, especially at night, they could not effectively escort day bombers. The sentence may well need to be rephrased, and it may also belong to the next paragraph? For the moment I have simply reverted its deletion.

I have also left the "cn" tag for the moment, although a good deal of following text goes on to support the statement, it is arguable that it is the more specific statements that need citation. Very hard, and not necessarily productive, to ask for citation of general statements that simply summarise a series of (hopefully cited) specific ones. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the source for: " both the RAF and Luftwaffe had tried and failed to successfully fulfill" ? Ykantor (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I find myself asking "What where the British efforts on a long range escort fighter?" The twin-engine designs at the start of the war where generally an attempt to carry a large cannon armament. In my reading of Buttler Secret Projects 1935-1950, I don't recall range as a key specification: Typhoon and Tempest are about speed, Mosquito starts as a bomber. Bomber Command's heavies commit to night flying, the medium bombers are operating over France and the low countries within range of UK-based fighters. British efforts seem to have side-stepped the issue rather than fail to tackle it. I shall have to have another look at the Spitfire developments. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Navy of Japan had a long-range bomber escort with the very lightweight Zero. They used the Zero as an escort for tactical bombers because they did not have strategic bombers. They also used the Zero to escort some transport flights, such as the failed escort of Yamamoto, a pair of medium bombers which was accompanied by six Zeros.

Japan's Army had the twin-engine Kawasaki Ki-45, and used it as a tactical bomber escort.

The US and Germany both had long range heavy twin-engine fighters at the moment each country became a belligerent: the Lockheed P-38 and the Messerschmitt Bf 110. The P-38 was the first Allied bomber escort to appear over Berlin, and it could hold its own against enemy single-engine fighters. The Bf 110 was less suited to escort work because it was not as maneuverable, yet it was used in that role. If the word "proper" means "successful", the Bf 110 should be struck down. I think the actual practice should win out here, not a judgement of what is properly an escort fighter. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a common attitude the P-51 was the only correct solution, but if we are going to say "first" or "successful", I agree, the P-38 needs to be mentioned. If we argue for "most successful long range escort", which I have the sense is intended, I won't gripe. (I suspect that begs edit wars over "most"...) I'm also unaware of British efforts, beyond fairly unsuccessful work with "slipper tanks" on Spits. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

-I propose to delete the " a class that both the RAF and Luftwaffe had tried and failed to successfully fulfill"

- As for the P-38 lightning, it had some drawbacks, similar to the twin engine ME-110 , as Adolf Galland said. Kurt Bühligen, third highest scoring German pilot on the Western front with 112 victories, recalled later: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven. One sees a great distance in Africa and our observers and flak people called in sightings and we could get altitude first and they were low and slow.” General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring, "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."..."After some disastrous raids in 1944 with B-17s escorted by P-38s and Republic P-47 Thunderbolts, Jimmy Doolittle, then head of the U.S. Eighth Air Force, went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE), Farnborough, asking for an evaluation of the various American fighters. Fleet Air Arm Captain and test pilot Eric Brown recalled: "We had found out that the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn't fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties." The P-38 was used to escort bombers, when there were no better fighters available.

- The P-47 Thunderbolt : German pilots gradually learned to avoid diving away from a Thunderbolt. Kurt Bühligen, a high-scoring German fighter ace with 112 victories, recalled: "The P-47 was very heavy, too heavy for some maneuvers. We would see it coming from behind, and pull up fast and the P-47 couldn't follow and we came around and got on its tail in this way". Ykantor (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Mustang wasn't originally designed as a long-range escort fighter; that role evolved as the USAAF struggled with finding that an escort was needed for its bombers. Initially the bombers were to be escorted by the "gunship" version of the B-17, the YB-40, and it wasn't until this idea failed that the USAAF turned to the P-38, after which consideration was given to both the P-47 and P-51B: this article http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090529-044.pdf is well worth reading for a good description of the chain of events(starting at page 167-168). If anything I would suggest something like "The P-51 evolved into one of the most successful single-seat, single-engined escort fighters of WW 2", citing the article. As it is that whole section badly needs a major overhaul because it has accumulated lots of uncited material and some totally irrelevant material - what Galland thought about the P-38 is irrelevant, both in the context of the development of the escort fighter and the P-51 in general; I've kept it as a note but, IMO it belongs in the article on the P-38 itself (Bühligen's opinion on the P-47 should also be left out). ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 12:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This section is about the disputed sentence:"What was needed was the proper long-range escort fighter, a class that both the RAF and Luftwaffe had tried and failed to successfully fulfill". I proposed to delete the second half of it. As for the first half, there is an on going argument , what is a proper escort fighter. In order to reply, one have to consider the alternative to the Mustang: P38 and P47 who were the other U.S fighters with a possible range to Berlin. (Although not at the same date). Ykantor (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Min✪rhist✪rian's summary is correct and I think we should implement his suggestion. Moriori (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This section was omitted: "The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was capable of meeting the Luftwaffe on more than even terms, but did not at the time have sufficient range. The Luftwaffe quickly identified its maximum range, and their fighters waited for the bombers just beyond the point where the Thunderbolts had to turn back." I suggest to add it again. It clarifies that the Mustang was the only available escort fighter for long range bombing missions. According to Galand, At 1943 beginning, the Thunderbolt radius was limited to 150 mile, so most of the escort fighters left the bombers as they entered Germany. At 1943 autumn, their radius was increased to 300 mile. some of the bombing missions were flown to a longer range with nearly unbearable losses, due to a lack of escort fighters. Even at Jan 1944, The Americans had one Mustang wing only, so only one bombers formation (among 3 ) enjoyed escorting fighters inside Germany. The Mustang was indeed a better dog fighter than the thunderbolt, but it was chosen as the main escorting fighter simply because it could fly further. BTW The long range P-47N arrived at the end of 1945 and was used against the Japanese. Ykantor (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement about the P-47 was uncited; as it he entire section needs some intensive copy-editing and pruning as well as proper referencing eg:

The outcome of these air battles were extensively studied by both forces. The Luftwaffe felt their primary problem was armament, as their fighters were designed for combat against other fighters and lacked a weapon suitable to quickly knocking down an aircraft as large as the B-17, preferably from beyond the effective range of the bomber formations' heavy defensive firepower. As almost every B-17 or B-24 aircraft in a typical USAAF combat box heavy bomber formation had, by 1944, at least a dozen Browning M2 "light-barrel" .50-cal guns aboard them for defensive firepower, an eighteen-plane "box" possessed a combined level of defensive firepower consisting of upwards of well over 200 Browning M2 machine guns, with dozens of them aimed in virtually every direction that a hostile fighter could approach it from. The Luftwaffe responded to this need by fostering the development of heavier, 30 mm caliber autocannons like the MK 108, and other weapons, as well as moving twin-engine heavy fighters to the bomber destroyer role that could carry the 37 mm and 50 mm Bordkanone series of heavy-caliber, auto-loading guns, as well as the BR 21 heavy-caliber unguided rockets that entered service in the spring of 1943. With these changes, along with better command and control needed to direct the large number of aircraft, their forces developed for a return of combat in the spring.

Completely unreferenced, and what the heck does a study of the evolution of German armament have to do with the P-51 becoming an escort fighter? The details, as interesting as they might be, belong in the relevant article Strategic bombing during World War II: if anything this entire paragraph is surplus to requirements because readers can be redirected to the details via wikilinks.

I suggest ending the section at the statement "Losses were so severe that long-range missions were called off." and going straight to "P-51 Introduction" which can then start with "For the US the very concept of self-defending bombers..." The rest is just padding.◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all your proposal. However, It seems to me that the sentence:"In early 1943 the USAAF also decided that the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51B be considered for the role of a smaller escort fighter and, in July a report stated that the P-51B was "...the most promising plane..." need clarification. The P51 was chosen because of his long range, while the P47 range was too short (until the P47N appeared, but too late). If you agree that this clarification is sufficiently important, I'll look for a wp:rs . Ykantor (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Mustang was eventually solely used for escort duties in preference to the Lightning and Thunderbolt because it had a higher Critical Mach number than either the Thunderbolt or Lightning, which was important for use at the high altitudes that aircraft providing top cover to the bombers, had to fly. The high Mcr was necessary when diving down at these altitudes to intercept the defending Luftwaffe fighters, both the Lightning and to a lesser extent, the Thunderbolt, had lower Mcr's that induced buffeting and the other aerodynamic effects of approaching the sound barrier in a dive. These three fighters were dive tested at the RAE Farnborough at the request of Jimmy Doolittle and one of the pilots doing these tests was Eric "Winkle" Brown. The resulting Mcr figures were M = 0.68 for the Lightning, M = 0.71 for the Thunderbolt, and M = 0.78 for the Mustang. The corresponding figure for both the Me 109 and the Fw 190 was M = 0.75. In contrast, the figure for the Spitfire was M = 0.86.

These figures were important for fighting at high altitude, as at 30,000 ft the speed of sound is approximately 100 mph lower than at sea level, and during combat some WW II fighters could easily get local flow near enough to Mach 1 over certain parts of the airframe to suffer its compressibility ill-effects.

BTW, the British never had any need for a long range escort fighter as pre-war it was assumed that any German bombers would be flying from Germany itself and any British bombers bombing Germany would be flying from French airfields, as no-one ever expected France to surrender as she did in 1940. For the short period when an escort fighter would have been useful the air war had not really reached the extent of heavy RAF bombing that later occurred after 1942, and the size of RAF attacks on Germany prior to this were only of one or two hundred bombers. Due to this the RAF bomber losses could be more or less negated by going over to bombing at night, albeit with poor accuracy. The size of bomb loads delivered was not great at this time, so was not of such importance to the British war effort as it was to become later, after 1942, when the four engined heavies entered service, such as the Halifax and Lancaster. So bombing by day gradually became restricted to the RAF Tactical Air Forces, and Mosquitoes, which didn't need an escort.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Up to a point. On 27 August 1944, 216 Halifaxes of 4 Group led by 14 Mosquitos and 13 Lancasters of 8 Pathfinder Group attacked the Rheinpreussen synthetic oil refinery at Meerbeck, near Homberg in the Ruhr, escorted by 16 squadrons of Spitfires, the first daylight operation by Bomber Command against Germany since 12 August 1941. (Martin Middlebrook & Chris Everitt, The Bomber Command War Diaries, rev. edn. Midland Publishing 1996, p.574.) RAF heavies regularly attacked German targets in daylight under Spitfire or Mustang fighter escort from then on. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

F-6 production?

AAF statistical digest of WW2 claims 299 direct-build F-6 by NAA Dallas, 74 in 1944 and 225 in 45 (up to August). Matches the 136 F-6D + 163 F-6K claimed as "converted" by other sources. Availabe at page 132. Shouldn't they be treated as production versions in the list here and at the variants subpage? I'm wondering a bit about that late date + the availability reports per theater vs Germany and Japan had far more F-6 on hand than should have been officially converted by then.--Denniss (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

the Merlin problem

Lots of talk about this, but still nothing in the article itself, except a teeny tiny notation under "variants," which is kind of nonsense. The addition of the Merlin was a key factor in the development of the aircraft. Should be there.Theonemacduff (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

All this info was layed-off to the variants subarticle, the development section here is more like a stub. There should be some extended summary in this section with link to subarticle. --Denniss (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

use of "Specification" in lede

As it stands at moment: "The Mustang was conceived, designed and built by North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a specification issued directly to NAA by the British Purchasing Commission." Where specification links to List of Air Ministry specifications but there is no mention (that I found) to the Mustang on the linked article.

Was there a formal specification for the Mustang issued by the Air Ministry, or an officially listed requirement for a fighter to supplement the Tomahawk supply?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cant see any official Air Ministry Specification that relates to the P-51 (or any American aircraft), I presume the BPC made one up. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No point in linking to the list then, I think. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

While the NA-73 was to HMG spec (or requirement), AFAIK there was never an AM Spec# attached; AIUI, that's for domestic companies (& that's more guess than informed...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The sequence of events (as recorded in several sources) seems to have been something very like this:

• The British purchasing mission want more P40s than they could get from other manufacturers.
• They ask North American if they can "do up a batch" for them - one imagines that this must have been with the permission, if not at the suggestion, of the U.S. authorities.
• Someone at North American replies to the effect "we can make a better fighter than that obsolete dog with our eyes shut - and deliver them as just as quick, too".
• The British (and, surely the American) authorities are sufficiently impressed by this boast to take them at their word and North American start work on what is intended as a P40 replacement (initially, using the same engine) - primarily for the RAF (although they must have had hopes, at least, of also selling some to their own air force).

None of this, apparently, involved any issuing of official "specifications" - nor pace an insistent friend - in any way justifies calling the Mustang in any sense "British". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A case for a "Mythbusters" experiment?

Is it physically possible for aircraft propeller to be used to cut a telephone line without damaging the propeller so severely as to crash the aircraft concerned? Would even the most foolhardy pilot attempt such a thing? Frankly, I have my doubts, and even assuming our reference is 100% reliable I think a mild disclaimer, such as "reputedly", or "it is said that" is by no means unreasonable in a case where the event described is (frankly) so very highly improbable. (This refers to a specific edit). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The correct way to resolve this is first to examine the original source and see whether it makes this claim with a straight face, or reports it as a kind of urban legend. If the latter, we should probably remove the claim completely.

If the source makes the claim with a straight face, we should probably reexamine the reliability of the source.

On the question of plausibility: Fighter pilots include a few who really are foolhardy, and, as a matter of physics, yes: propellers are one of the strongest parts of an aircraft, since they are subject to very high G forces *and* apply the entire thrust of the engine to the rest of the aircraft, and a telephone wire is usually stretched pretty taut by its own weight. I have my doubts about the story but it's not physically impossible. --Yaush (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm the person who added that claim in the first place, and have a copy of the source. The book claims, straightfacedly, that a pilot "reportedly" used his propeller to cut the phone lines. The source is highly reliable--a very well-researched and detailed history of North American Aviation--and I see no reason not to accept the claim at face value; that there were reports of such an incident occurring. I'd be just fine with the "reputedly" disclaimer, or using the same "reportedly" as the original source, or even "allegedly." Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we could ever get any more confirmation one way or the other, but fighter pilots are crazy, and Israeli fighter pilots are noted for being particularly bold, so I wouldn't be shocked if it happened--even if it wasn't planned. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In some senses an aircraft propeller must be "strong" - but it is also quite vulnerable to damage (for instance in even the mildest of "nose-over" incidents or striking the water in low level flight over the sea) - fair enough a telegraph wire would be cut by a spinning propeller, but it would surely slice though, or at least badly bend, a prop blade in the process - even if the loose end did not get entangled round the prop shaft!. At very low altitude the pilot would have no opportunity to correct the resultant change in flight characteristics (to put it very mildly) - at the height of a telegraph pole an aeroplane is milliseconds away from hitting the ground at the best of times. All-in-all, if the source had "reportedly", then I think my original edit, which restored "reputedly" (which someone had deleted with the comment that it was "discriminatory") is pretty reasonable. With the best will in the world the incident is very unlikely indeed - even if it is (just) physically possible (hence my reference to the "Mythbusters" program). Fighter pilots are indeed "mad" - they are also much given to telling tall stories and repeating unlikely boasts (they had a name for this sort of thing in the RAF). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)