Talk:North American P-51 Mustang variants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.


This article is intended to provide a quick guide to the specifications (dimensions, performance and armament) of different variants of the P-51 Mustang.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Placing the list of P-51 variants at the head of the article was badly thought - the more logical place for this was at the end of the technical descriptions, where it is now. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

P-51H load factors[edit]

The USAAF required airframes built to their acceleration standard of 8.33 g (82 m/s²), a higher load factor than that used by the British standard of 5.33 g (52 m/s²) for their fighters. Reducing the load factor to 5.33 would allow weight to be removed, and both the USAAF and the RAF were interested in the potential performance boost.

Just curious because I'm pretty sure that contemporary RAF fighters were designed to load factors of around +9g, or at least the Spitfire was. I may be mis-remembering this figure, but 5.33g seems awfully low for a fighter. IIRC, the Lockheed U-2 (a notoriously fragile aeroplane) was designed to a load factor of only around +2.5g and I'm pretty certain few pilots would want to fly in aerial combat in an aeroplane only stressed to roughly twice that of a U-2. Perhaps the did RAF later reduce their airframe strength requirements during the war but I seem to remember the pre-war Spitfire was designed for +9g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also an unsourced statement: now ring-fenced until properly confirmed and sourced. Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks - and as regards; "The USAAF did not like the mixed armament of the British Mustang Is and instead adopted an armament of four long-barrelled 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk II cannon, and deleted the .50 cal engine cowling mounted weapons."
I don't see why the USAAF would specify 4 x 20mm Hispano when the British were already going over to this armament for all their future fighters. I suspect the 4 x 20mm was actually specified by Britain for the Mustang IA, the Hispano Mk II being a British version of the HS.404 cannon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The 4 x 20mm Hispano was specified by the RAF for the Mustang IA and as the NA-91 these were the first 150 aircraft procured by the USAAC for Lend Lease to Britain. See here: [1]

File:25 P 51XR Mustang N6WJ Precious Metal Reno Air Race 2014 photo D Ramey Logan.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:25 P 51XR Mustang N6WJ Precious Metal Reno Air Race 2014 photo D Ramey Logan.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 30, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-10-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Precious Metal"
"Precious Metal", a custom built, highly modified variant of the North American P-51 Mustang, racing in the Unlimited Gold Final Heat at the 2014 Reno Air Races. This aircraft runs a Rolls-Royce Griffon engine originally produced for the British Spitfire, and features coaxial contra-rotating propellers.Photograph: Don Ramey Logan

Document shows different Data[edit] to reach 472 mph (760 km/h; 410 kn) at 21,200 ft (6,500 m)...

The linked document claims this speed for an altitude of 22,700 ft. --WerWil (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North American P-51 Mustang variants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ride, Sally, Ride[edit]

I'm not going to delete or change it, but I'm wondering if the lead pic should be an air racer & not a more typical, more common, type... Wilson Pickett slow down! 15:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of replacing it. The user who took the photo and added it here is indef blocked and not likely to be returning, so there should be no objections to its removal. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The inability of a user to object to a change of picture would be a rather odd reason to make that change. As it happens, that photo was chosen not long ago as Today's featured picture and is indeed a very nice photo, which does the job pretty neatly. There are probably many other photos that would be equally well-suited, but that wouldn't prompt me to change the current one. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a bad picture, just that it's not exactly representative of the bulk of the variants. A good-quality one that is, IMO, should be heading the page. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why delete the specifications chart?[edit]

This is addressed to editor BilCat who has unilaterally decided on removing detail from the article by way of deleting a table of specifications for different variants of the P-51 Mustang. Claimed justification for this action is that "significant differences should be detailed in the narrative not in a large table."

However, you have not made any additions to the narrative at all to offset the deletion of the data from the table. You have simply scrubbed this information from the page. I don't see this action as being in line with any existing precedent or standard - the Supermarine Spitfire has its own article of variants with their specification listed in tables. Wikipedia in the Russian language also routinely includes tables of data on multiple variants of the same aircraft in their main articles - and I often have to go there and work through the language barrier in order to find this information, which is lacking in the English pages.

Your change is in no way helpful to anyone seeking information on variants of the P-51 Mustang, which is exactly what this page exists for.

You have once again deleted this information from the article after it was restored, calling for a discussion and building a consensus. I am restoring it once again, not in the interests of sparking a childish edit war but for the reason you cited - I believe the burden of building a consensus is on you before you go and delete a major chunk of the article. 2601:2C3:877F:C290:ED8C:FFEB:388A:8A5F (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to make it clear the table was removed last year and not by BilCat. It was removed as it is not normal practice to include such tables and significant differences should be detailed in the narrative not in a large table. Its clear that since November nobody has deemed the information significant to add to the article prose. The fact that the table in the Spitfire article should be removed as well for the same reasons, also note what other websites do is not relevant either. It is not wikipedias jobs to list every single detail of every variant only those that make it different from other variants. If you think any of the figures are important then you are welcome to add them to the narrative, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh and adding content back after you started a discussion is edit warring and being disruptive so perhaps you should consider undoing your edit. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed a couple of months ago, and yes, by you. Once again, I believe you are making a fatuous argument about "standard practice." It's hardly a standard practice to have a separate article at all for variants of an aircraft - in the category of World War II aircraft I only know of three other such pages (for the Supermarine Spitfire, the Bf 109, and the FW 190). Of these, two (the P-51 and the Spitfire) list specifications in tables, the other two do not.
Russian language Wikipedia is not a different website, it is Wikipedia in another language. Nor is the Russian language version the only one to do so - if I go to the German Wikipedia articles for the Bf 109 or the FW 190, for example, I will find full stat blocs on five or six variants of the aircraft each.
Furthermore it is standard practice on the page of every single military aircraft on every version of Wikipedia to list the specifications of at least one main version, in a bloc format in its own section at the bottom of the page. Not to have this information scattered throughout the narrative, as you say it should be.
Why is this? For obvious reasons of convenience to the user. I can find more or less the same information available on every aircraft in the same place on their page. I don't have to go hunting through multiple paragraphs and thousands of words of text in order to find their key statistics. Having specifications listed in a table at the end of this page (again, a page devoted to variants of the P-51, not the main P-51 article), follows this precedent by putting key information in one place. With the table, a user can see the differences between variants listed side-by-side. Without it, they are forced to scroll up and down the page, jumping back and forth from one paragraph to another, trying to memorize scattered bits of information if they wish to make any sort of comparison between them.
Against all this, we have only your assertion that "it shouldn't be this way." Information should be erased, the users of the site should be inconvenienced, and the page should be made less useful as a reference, because you say so. I think not. I do not believe that Wikipedia's written guidelines support your claims. What Wikipedia is Not ( states that "statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Which is what this page had before, a narrative overview of the aircraft's variants and then a table of the relevant statistics. Furthermore, Wikipedia's manual of style on the use of tables ( states that prose is preferred when it "allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not." In this case however I have argued that it does just the opposite: it robs the statistics of these aircraft of context by removing the ability to compare them side-by-side at a glance. I am less able to understand the degree of the increase in engine power and speed from the P-51B to the P-51D to the P-51H if they are not available side-by-side in a tabular format.
Therefore I rest my argument: this deletion is unhelpful, unwarranted, and unsupported by Wikipedia policy, and thus it should be undone.
2601:2C3:877F:C290:C60:1FD:E996:AC8A (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Apart from a number of factual errors I am not sure making personal attacks helps your argument. MilborneOne (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m deeply sorry that you feel personally attacked by cited references from the Wikipedia guidelines and policy pages. From now on I will argue in a less hostile manner following your fine example. How about “I am not sure having no argument whatsoever helps your argument.” Is that better? (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not buying the "redundancy" argument. I like the convenience of having all the specs in one place. So my view is contrary to WP policy; what else is new? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I note that it has now been four months since the argument over the chart began, and in that time, neither MilborneOne nor BilCat have made any attempts to add the information they eliminated by deleting the chart back into the narrative of the article. At this point it seems unlikely they have any intention of doing so, lending further credence to my argument that this action was detrimental and destructive. They have provided no supporting arguments to claim that this information was irrelevant, only that the format in which it was presented does not meet their interpretations of Wikipedia's standards. Eliminating rather than reformatting this information has thus been a destructive edit and should be reverted until they provide a convincing argument to do otherwise. 2601:2C3:877F:C290:ED71:CA52:1B13:37D6 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)