![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Can someone please help link to this orphan? Gbawden ( talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article does not state when the plane entered US service. It does not state when the US first tested the plane. They left the two planes given to them by the contract terms in the corner of a hangar. It does not state when the US first used them inn operational combat.
The article in the US operational section goes on and on about how poor US bombing tactics were, and relegated the British section, after all it was British plane, as an after thought. The article appears unstructured and needs some moving of sections and maybe one section about US bombing needing long range escorts rather than having this mixed up with the plane itself. 94.193.157.145 ( talk) 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added a gallery of racing aircraft that were at the Reno Air Races this year, and will continue to expand it, I have many wonderful photos of other P 51's from Reno 2014. This Wiki should mention the racing use and the many planes that are modified and maintained for the annual event and that alone. talk→ WPPilot 13:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not contribute any text other then the description of my photo. Yes you are correct in that I am the photographer, and frankly speaking my only concern is offering a depiction through my lens that is superior to what the public see's in that space prior to the addition. Intention is required for a conflict of interest, in that I would have to intend to be offering these photos purely for self promotion, something that I could care less about. One of the photos from that gallery you removed was of the cockpit of these awesome aircraft, and considering none of the other photos has such detail, and I have even better close up's taken inside of Strega these highly modified planes and the pictures of them to educate the younger people that have no idea that this was once a main stay of entertainment in America. In regard to your concern about a gallery, I think considering the things I mention above that it as per the policy, a gallery would be appreciated here of the top tear of these machines that still fly today. Lastly, not wanting to be challenged again perhaps you might want to update the fact that these planes, many of whom were sold for a dollar, are in fact today selling for | 2.5 million, not the 1 million that is mentioned in the story under the civil use section. talk→ WPPilot 18:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I cut this well-meant edit:
Actually a lot of truth in this - all single (piston) engined aircraft tend to swing on take off. Most WWII fighters (and the Mustang was certainly no exception) were notorious, as their airframes were as light as possible - while their powerful engines drove relatively large, heavy propellers and generated lots of torque. But remarks like this need to be in context, and to be backed up with references. They also need to be expressed in encyclopedic, literate English. A well written version of this edit may have got away with one mention of the word "take off" for instance? And is there a place in the article where we discuss the Mustang's handling qualities? That's obviously where things like this go. Sticking it into a passage describing the engines used is confusing. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 01:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone linked mentioning the illegal sales of Mustangs (immediately post-war, when they were still potent weapons) with the actions of that nice German chancellor (what was his name) and those nasty people who want to bomb us in our beds. Pleeeze keep politics out of aeroplane articles. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 23:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mustang (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In particular, trying to go to the Mustang disambiguation page now takes one straight to the Mustang (horse) article; that is, the horse editors have claimed that their article is primarytopic, at a discussion that was not advertised to editors of the various car, airplane, and city articles affected, and was also not advertised as WP:RM as is standard. This notice is an attempt to get wider participation from editors of affected articles, but so far it has not. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia
|
---|
This article infers the P-51 had the range to escort bombers to Berlin. That inference creates a false impression. The operational combat radius was not sufficient to stay with the bombers (weave), engage the enemy, and maintain an emergency reserve. Only by means of an intricate relay/rendezvous tactic could a series of escort mission fulfill the mission. each indivdual mustang could not, no matter how large the formation. This infers the need for quanitity (force strength) besides range to cover penetration and withdrawal to and from the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B115:C19C:39AD:3E86:E31C:6E07 ( talk) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
The Mustang was a British plane built by a US company for them. Without the British it would never have existed. The US government allowed the British to by-pass them and go directly to US companies for supplies, as if they were British companies. The plane was a British requirement and they dictated design. They were paying.
The British and French needed as many planes as possible to counter the Nazis. Their own aircraft plants were being expanded however could not cope with demand. The US made front line planes were far inferior to the Spitfire and Hurricane but they were planes and available, so could be fitted into niches and used for training. Curtiss could not make enough P-40s. So, in early February 1940 the British asked North American Aviation's President Dutch Kindelberger to furnish the additional P-40s they needed - make them under licence. Kindelberger told the British, without any detailed drawings or plans, "I can build you a better airplane, and I can get it built fast". North American did not want to make another company's plane.
North American mailed the British delegation in New York drawings of a design concept for the new aircraft in early May 1940, which never had the laminar flow wings, and on 29 May the British awarded a contract to North American for the "NA-73X" fighter, named "Mustang" by the British Air Ministry. The contract specified initial prototype delivery in January 1941, and completion by September 1941. North American were first approached in Feb 1940, who had no "detailed drawings or plans". In May 1940, they still never had any, mailing a "design concept" to the British delegation in New York.
In the interim from Feb to May, three months, the Air Ministry were banging out the fundamentals of the design and directing North American to Curtiss and the NACA (they developed the theoretical laminar flow wings) to ensure a fighter with some leading edge design points, not produce another P-40 fly-alike. The Curtiss XP-46 was an experimental plane with all the leading edge design points of top European designs rolled into one, and a few of their own. It never worked as the points never complimented each other when merged into their complete whole. There was a danger the Mustang may end up the same way - a dog. The British Air Ministry insisted North American buy the plans and tunnel test results of the XP-46 from Curtiss for North American to study for a whopping $56,000 at the time.
There were similarities between the design of the NA-73X Mustang and XP-46 that would eventually lead Curtiss engineers to accuse North American of plagiarism. They were not far wrong as the British Air Ministry were telling North American to adopt some of the design features of the XP-46. Curtiss never made another front line fighter after the Mustang was introduced. The Mustang killed Curtiss, who claimed they were responsible for many plagiarised design aspects. The US military wanted the experimental XP-46 to be pushed forward in R&D. When the P-40 production ramped up for French, British and US orders, it put the death spell on the XP-46. It was shame as the XP-46 could have been developed into a world beating design.
The British Air Ministry took a major gamble with this inexperienced US company. The Ministry wanted something better than the poor P-40, but realistically never expected a Spitfire. Initially that was the case with the first deliveries of the Mustang using the Alinson engine - better than a P-40 but no Spitfire. The Alinson engine was approximately the same size as the RR Merlin, which could be dropped in if the need was there. The initial Alinson engined Mustangs filled an RAF niche. Also, all RR Merlin production was spoken for with a new factory being built in Manchester to expand production. 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.
The British Air Ministry could have said to North American, "drop the laminar flow wings as they are not proven in real world flying fighters, we want a fighter that works ASAP, without any initial major hitches". The British Ministry techies recognised it would work, and even they were taking a big risk at the time, as the RAF may end up short of planes because of a poorly designed dog.
The US military overall, didn't want to know the Mustang plane even after it was shooting down FW 190s over France. This I find amazing, as the USA never had a decent front line fighter at the time. With British support, the P-51 finally got 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. The US military were contemptuous of North American, as this company, which was only a few years old, had never built a top military fighter plane - It built trainers and later the B-25 bomber. The excuse not to take up the plane by US 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 goes over the heads of these people is that the world's two best fighters locked horns in the Battle of Britain, both with liquid cooled engines.
The US military hijacked some British specced Mustangs after the Japanese attacked the British and Americans in Dec 1941, keeping the British specification planes to the annoyance of the British. After all this was their plane and these finished planes were ordered by them.
The Ministry pushed North American in the direction they wanted. If it ended up being a P-40 type of plane then they lost nothing, except valuable time. If it was better then some gain somewhere. What was being put together was untried by a new inexperienced company, so a great gamble for the Air Ministry. The Ministry specified a US engine the same physical size as the Merlin, so the Merlin could be dropped if need be - which did happen. British engineers were putting in Merlins and testing shortly after deliveries in England, before the US military had ordered the plane. After delivery, the British Air Ministry did not want any RR Merlin engines dropped into the Mustang as they needed all the Merlins for Spitfires to combat the FW-190. The Mustang was shooting down FW-190s at low level even with the Alinson engine before the US military ordered any Mustangs, yet they were still ignoring the plane because it was "foreign". This view is amazing, as at this time the USA never made a top front line fighter - all were dogs. They needed one, as they were in the war, yet were ignoring this plane. The USA talked good planes and had good plans of planes, but none flying. If the RR Merlin was not made under licence in the USA by Packard, would the US military have been interested in the plane in RR Merlin form?
The Mustang was a result of Anglo American cooperation. 94.193.157.145 ( talk) 13:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This article, and a number US contributors, is falsely attempting to state that the Mustang was a 100% US plane. This BilCat accuses me of inserting a POV when I wrote fact. I put in an opening para in the Operation section, getting the info from the article itself and he says it POV. This is childish. 78.105.8.41 ( talk) 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Undeniably, the origins of the aircraft were through Anglo-American cooperation. From the outset, even though it had a British supply mission as the basis of its genesis, North American Aviation always had the US Army Air Corps in mind for future sales and development. From the P-51A and A-36 on, the aircraft was an entirely US-based design. The use of the RR Merlin did not, in any way, confer anything other than an engine choice. Every authoritative reference source will acknowledge the British connection to the design, as well as recognizing that the NA P-51 Mustang was one of the preeminent warplanes to come from the US. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether some people like it or not if it hadn't been for the British and the RAF the US would never have had the Mustang at all. Similarly if the UK had not been available to fly from, the Mustang would not have been able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin.
The BPC paid North American Aviation to design the NA-73 and also paid cash for the first Mustangs built, the first of which they received a couple of month before Pearl Harbor. Not only that, they also were the ones responsible for the first 600-aircraft order for what the Americans call the P-51B - the Mustang III or 'Merlin-Mustang'. The USAAF only got the P-51 by accident, by the time they used them the RAF had been operating the Mustang I and II for nearly two years.
It would seem that the major British responsibility (along of course with NAA) for the Mustang amounts to "the Elephant in the room" that no-one likes to talk about.
Well, the phrase "credit where credit is due" comes to mind - unless you think that your British allies don't deserve the courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.121 ( talk) 10:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is rubbish and completely fails to explain the Mustang's history and development. And if you think the British were not your allies there is something radically, seriously, horribly wrong with you. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 20:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
North American P-51 Mustang. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
T9
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Calling the Mustang a USA plane is misleading, as it was designed by a UK commission and first used by the RAF. At that time the USA services were happy with their existing planes. The Mustang came into its own when the UK replaced the Allison engine with the Merlin, progressively improving the Merlin's ceiling and top speed. The USA then made Mustang their main fighter and fighter-bomber. All of this is described in the main text, with citations. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
???Please read the article more carefully - the Mustang was not "designed by a UK commission", it was designed by NAA in response to a request by the British commission that NAA build the P-40 under licence - NAA designed and built a better fighter in response. Neither the British nor the Americans adopted the Allison-engined Mustangs as their main fighter - for the Brits it was the Spitfire and for the Americans it was the P-40; the P-51s in British service were used by Army Co-Operation Command and, later 2 TAF for tactical reconnaissance duties.
As Kinzey describes in his book on the P-51 trough to P-51B/C the Americans were fully aware of the performance of the Allison engine and had ordered two airframes to be set aside to be converted to Packard Merlins before the XP-51 flew (Kinzey 1996, p. 7.) First flight of the XP-51B was 30 November 1942, just after the first Mustang X flew in Britain. To say that the British pioneered the use of the Merlin is completely wrong because it was developed simultaneously by both Britain and America. It was the American P-51B that was adopted for production and used as one of the main USAF fighters in Europe, not the British Mk X. Minorhistorian ( talk) 10:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead should say that the P-51 was conceived, designed and built by North American Aviation. Philca above is doing the misleading saying the U.S. was building a British plane. It's a 100% American plane being sold to the British. The British were in the U.S. to buy American planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.34.105 ( talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"The aircraft’s two-section, semi-monocoque fuselage was constructed entirely of aluminium to save weight"
-- Ericg33 ( talk) 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
While an air accident at an airshow involving a P-51 is an interesting and current story [7] 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 jacob805 188.23.112.91 ( talk) 09:42, 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)
Someone add some details of construction and alloys used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
Binksternet ( talk) 09:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
The figures for the P-51's range is inaccurate, that's a radius listing. AVKent882 ( talk) 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
"it could not, by no means, out turn a Spitfire"-- JustinSmith ( talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The usage of Mustang ( | 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)
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:
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)
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).
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:
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:
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)
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)
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.22 70.209.202.79 ( talk) 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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 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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Can someone please help link to this orphan? Gbawden ( talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article does not state when the plane entered US service. It does not state when the US first tested the plane. They left the two planes given to them by the contract terms in the corner of a hangar. It does not state when the US first used them inn operational combat.
The article in the US operational section goes on and on about how poor US bombing tactics were, and relegated the British section, after all it was British plane, as an after thought. The article appears unstructured and needs some moving of sections and maybe one section about US bombing needing long range escorts rather than having this mixed up with the plane itself. 94.193.157.145 ( talk) 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added a gallery of racing aircraft that were at the Reno Air Races this year, and will continue to expand it, I have many wonderful photos of other P 51's from Reno 2014. This Wiki should mention the racing use and the many planes that are modified and maintained for the annual event and that alone. talk→ WPPilot 13:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not contribute any text other then the description of my photo. Yes you are correct in that I am the photographer, and frankly speaking my only concern is offering a depiction through my lens that is superior to what the public see's in that space prior to the addition. Intention is required for a conflict of interest, in that I would have to intend to be offering these photos purely for self promotion, something that I could care less about. One of the photos from that gallery you removed was of the cockpit of these awesome aircraft, and considering none of the other photos has such detail, and I have even better close up's taken inside of Strega these highly modified planes and the pictures of them to educate the younger people that have no idea that this was once a main stay of entertainment in America. In regard to your concern about a gallery, I think considering the things I mention above that it as per the policy, a gallery would be appreciated here of the top tear of these machines that still fly today. Lastly, not wanting to be challenged again perhaps you might want to update the fact that these planes, many of whom were sold for a dollar, are in fact today selling for | 2.5 million, not the 1 million that is mentioned in the story under the civil use section. talk→ WPPilot 18:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I cut this well-meant edit:
Actually a lot of truth in this - all single (piston) engined aircraft tend to swing on take off. Most WWII fighters (and the Mustang was certainly no exception) were notorious, as their airframes were as light as possible - while their powerful engines drove relatively large, heavy propellers and generated lots of torque. But remarks like this need to be in context, and to be backed up with references. They also need to be expressed in encyclopedic, literate English. A well written version of this edit may have got away with one mention of the word "take off" for instance? And is there a place in the article where we discuss the Mustang's handling qualities? That's obviously where things like this go. Sticking it into a passage describing the engines used is confusing. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 01:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone linked mentioning the illegal sales of Mustangs (immediately post-war, when they were still potent weapons) with the actions of that nice German chancellor (what was his name) and those nasty people who want to bomb us in our beds. Pleeeze keep politics out of aeroplane articles. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 23:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mustang (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In particular, trying to go to the Mustang disambiguation page now takes one straight to the Mustang (horse) article; that is, the horse editors have claimed that their article is primarytopic, at a discussion that was not advertised to editors of the various car, airplane, and city articles affected, and was also not advertised as WP:RM as is standard. This notice is an attempt to get wider participation from editors of affected articles, but so far it has not. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia
|
---|
This article infers the P-51 had the range to escort bombers to Berlin. That inference creates a false impression. The operational combat radius was not sufficient to stay with the bombers (weave), engage the enemy, and maintain an emergency reserve. Only by means of an intricate relay/rendezvous tactic could a series of escort mission fulfill the mission. each indivdual mustang could not, no matter how large the formation. This infers the need for quanitity (force strength) besides range to cover penetration and withdrawal to and from the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B115:C19C:39AD:3E86:E31C:6E07 ( talk) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
The Mustang was a British plane built by a US company for them. Without the British it would never have existed. The US government allowed the British to by-pass them and go directly to US companies for supplies, as if they were British companies. The plane was a British requirement and they dictated design. They were paying.
The British and French needed as many planes as possible to counter the Nazis. Their own aircraft plants were being expanded however could not cope with demand. The US made front line planes were far inferior to the Spitfire and Hurricane but they were planes and available, so could be fitted into niches and used for training. Curtiss could not make enough P-40s. So, in early February 1940 the British asked North American Aviation's President Dutch Kindelberger to furnish the additional P-40s they needed - make them under licence. Kindelberger told the British, without any detailed drawings or plans, "I can build you a better airplane, and I can get it built fast". North American did not want to make another company's plane.
North American mailed the British delegation in New York drawings of a design concept for the new aircraft in early May 1940, which never had the laminar flow wings, and on 29 May the British awarded a contract to North American for the "NA-73X" fighter, named "Mustang" by the British Air Ministry. The contract specified initial prototype delivery in January 1941, and completion by September 1941. North American were first approached in Feb 1940, who had no "detailed drawings or plans". In May 1940, they still never had any, mailing a "design concept" to the British delegation in New York.
In the interim from Feb to May, three months, the Air Ministry were banging out the fundamentals of the design and directing North American to Curtiss and the NACA (they developed the theoretical laminar flow wings) to ensure a fighter with some leading edge design points, not produce another P-40 fly-alike. The Curtiss XP-46 was an experimental plane with all the leading edge design points of top European designs rolled into one, and a few of their own. It never worked as the points never complimented each other when merged into their complete whole. There was a danger the Mustang may end up the same way - a dog. The British Air Ministry insisted North American buy the plans and tunnel test results of the XP-46 from Curtiss for North American to study for a whopping $56,000 at the time.
There were similarities between the design of the NA-73X Mustang and XP-46 that would eventually lead Curtiss engineers to accuse North American of plagiarism. They were not far wrong as the British Air Ministry were telling North American to adopt some of the design features of the XP-46. Curtiss never made another front line fighter after the Mustang was introduced. The Mustang killed Curtiss, who claimed they were responsible for many plagiarised design aspects. The US military wanted the experimental XP-46 to be pushed forward in R&D. When the P-40 production ramped up for French, British and US orders, it put the death spell on the XP-46. It was shame as the XP-46 could have been developed into a world beating design.
The British Air Ministry took a major gamble with this inexperienced US company. The Ministry wanted something better than the poor P-40, but realistically never expected a Spitfire. Initially that was the case with the first deliveries of the Mustang using the Alinson engine - better than a P-40 but no Spitfire. The Alinson engine was approximately the same size as the RR Merlin, which could be dropped in if the need was there. The initial Alinson engined Mustangs filled an RAF niche. Also, all RR Merlin production was spoken for with a new factory being built in Manchester to expand production. 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.
The British Air Ministry could have said to North American, "drop the laminar flow wings as they are not proven in real world flying fighters, we want a fighter that works ASAP, without any initial major hitches". The British Ministry techies recognised it would work, and even they were taking a big risk at the time, as the RAF may end up short of planes because of a poorly designed dog.
The US military overall, didn't want to know the Mustang plane even after it was shooting down FW 190s over France. This I find amazing, as the USA never had a decent front line fighter at the time. With British support, the P-51 finally got 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. The US military were contemptuous of North American, as this company, which was only a few years old, had never built a top military fighter plane - It built trainers and later the B-25 bomber. The excuse not to take up the plane by US 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 goes over the heads of these people is that the world's two best fighters locked horns in the Battle of Britain, both with liquid cooled engines.
The US military hijacked some British specced Mustangs after the Japanese attacked the British and Americans in Dec 1941, keeping the British specification planes to the annoyance of the British. After all this was their plane and these finished planes were ordered by them.
The Ministry pushed North American in the direction they wanted. If it ended up being a P-40 type of plane then they lost nothing, except valuable time. If it was better then some gain somewhere. What was being put together was untried by a new inexperienced company, so a great gamble for the Air Ministry. The Ministry specified a US engine the same physical size as the Merlin, so the Merlin could be dropped if need be - which did happen. British engineers were putting in Merlins and testing shortly after deliveries in England, before the US military had ordered the plane. After delivery, the British Air Ministry did not want any RR Merlin engines dropped into the Mustang as they needed all the Merlins for Spitfires to combat the FW-190. The Mustang was shooting down FW-190s at low level even with the Alinson engine before the US military ordered any Mustangs, yet they were still ignoring the plane because it was "foreign". This view is amazing, as at this time the USA never made a top front line fighter - all were dogs. They needed one, as they were in the war, yet were ignoring this plane. The USA talked good planes and had good plans of planes, but none flying. If the RR Merlin was not made under licence in the USA by Packard, would the US military have been interested in the plane in RR Merlin form?
The Mustang was a result of Anglo American cooperation. 94.193.157.145 ( talk) 13:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This article, and a number US contributors, is falsely attempting to state that the Mustang was a 100% US plane. This BilCat accuses me of inserting a POV when I wrote fact. I put in an opening para in the Operation section, getting the info from the article itself and he says it POV. This is childish. 78.105.8.41 ( talk) 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Undeniably, the origins of the aircraft were through Anglo-American cooperation. From the outset, even though it had a British supply mission as the basis of its genesis, North American Aviation always had the US Army Air Corps in mind for future sales and development. From the P-51A and A-36 on, the aircraft was an entirely US-based design. The use of the RR Merlin did not, in any way, confer anything other than an engine choice. Every authoritative reference source will acknowledge the British connection to the design, as well as recognizing that the NA P-51 Mustang was one of the preeminent warplanes to come from the US. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether some people like it or not if it hadn't been for the British and the RAF the US would never have had the Mustang at all. Similarly if the UK had not been available to fly from, the Mustang would not have been able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin.
The BPC paid North American Aviation to design the NA-73 and also paid cash for the first Mustangs built, the first of which they received a couple of month before Pearl Harbor. Not only that, they also were the ones responsible for the first 600-aircraft order for what the Americans call the P-51B - the Mustang III or 'Merlin-Mustang'. The USAAF only got the P-51 by accident, by the time they used them the RAF had been operating the Mustang I and II for nearly two years.
It would seem that the major British responsibility (along of course with NAA) for the Mustang amounts to "the Elephant in the room" that no-one likes to talk about.
Well, the phrase "credit where credit is due" comes to mind - unless you think that your British allies don't deserve the courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.121 ( talk) 10:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is rubbish and completely fails to explain the Mustang's history and development. And if you think the British were not your allies there is something radically, seriously, horribly wrong with you. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 20:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
North American P-51 Mustang. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
T9
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Calling the Mustang a USA plane is misleading, as it was designed by a UK commission and first used by the RAF. At that time the USA services were happy with their existing planes. The Mustang came into its own when the UK replaced the Allison engine with the Merlin, progressively improving the Merlin's ceiling and top speed. The USA then made Mustang their main fighter and fighter-bomber. All of this is described in the main text, with citations. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
???Please read the article more carefully - the Mustang was not "designed by a UK commission", it was designed by NAA in response to a request by the British commission that NAA build the P-40 under licence - NAA designed and built a better fighter in response. Neither the British nor the Americans adopted the Allison-engined Mustangs as their main fighter - for the Brits it was the Spitfire and for the Americans it was the P-40; the P-51s in British service were used by Army Co-Operation Command and, later 2 TAF for tactical reconnaissance duties.
As Kinzey describes in his book on the P-51 trough to P-51B/C the Americans were fully aware of the performance of the Allison engine and had ordered two airframes to be set aside to be converted to Packard Merlins before the XP-51 flew (Kinzey 1996, p. 7.) First flight of the XP-51B was 30 November 1942, just after the first Mustang X flew in Britain. To say that the British pioneered the use of the Merlin is completely wrong because it was developed simultaneously by both Britain and America. It was the American P-51B that was adopted for production and used as one of the main USAF fighters in Europe, not the British Mk X. Minorhistorian ( talk) 10:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead should say that the P-51 was conceived, designed and built by North American Aviation. Philca above is doing the misleading saying the U.S. was building a British plane. It's a 100% American plane being sold to the British. The British were in the U.S. to buy American planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.34.105 ( talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"The aircraft’s two-section, semi-monocoque fuselage was constructed entirely of aluminium to save weight"
-- Ericg33 ( talk) 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
While an air accident at an airshow involving a P-51 is an interesting and current story [7] 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 jacob805 188.23.112.91 ( talk) 09:42, 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)
Someone add some details of construction and alloys used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
Binksternet ( talk) 09:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
The figures for the P-51's range is inaccurate, that's a radius listing. AVKent882 ( talk) 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
"it could not, by no means, out turn a Spitfire"-- JustinSmith ( talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The usage of Mustang ( | 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)
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:
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)
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).
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:
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:
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)
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)
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.22 70.209.202.79 ( talk) 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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 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)
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)