![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Our friend PhaseAcer made an offhand comment above about the Mustang coming out of the "weeds", without the help of the USAAC brass, and it made me think about Benjamin S. Kelsey, the sole USAAC officer in charge of fighter projects for a critical period in the 1930s, when the bomber brass was busy limiting fighters in favor of bombers. Kelsey did a helluva lot with his small portion of the budget. Kelsey started the airfoil research project that eventually became the Mustang, and Kelsey kept the core of the Mustang project alive by ordering 500 units of A-36 Apache to keep the NAA assembly line busy, so they would be ready to make Mustangs under a new contract. This website says that Kelsey "was the single most important man in the acquisition of what would eventually become the P51 Mustang fighter," yet the Wikipedia article here doesn't even mention him. The omission is regrettable, but we can fix it. Binksternet ( talk) 02:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Air Ministry insisted on NAA obtaining aerodynamic data on the P-40 from Curtiss because NAA had never designed and built a 'high speed fighter aeroplane' and so had little experience of high subsonic Mach number handling. Curtiss, in the P-40, which could be dived at what was for the time, high speeds, had. At the time in 1940 the fastest thing NAA had designed and flown was the B-25.
Recent British experience of aerial combat had taken place at speeds and altitudes where the effects of what later became known as the sound barrier were being felt. This made them aware of the importance of good handling in this high-subsonic region, speeds which could be achieved by the latest fighters in prolonged dives at high altitude. At the time there were no high-subsonic or supersonic wind tunnels so no such prior data could be obtained on a particular aircraft design making it necessary to rely instead on empirical data such as had been obtained with actual flights. The P-40/Tomahawk was therefore a 'known quantity', whereas NAA's NA-73 was not. The requirement for P-40 data was therefore the UK insurance against NAA making simple mistakes, through lack of relevant experience, that could be easily avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.130 ( talk • contribs)
Trolling from persistent disruptor. Nothing constructive here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have a book with copies of official US letters in it, confirming that the Mustang did NOT have laminar flow wings, as they were considered too sensitive to give to a foreign country (UK). Although it was stated the Mustang had them. Quite a revelation. Also, when tested later in the war at Farnbourgh Aircraft Establishment, the so-called laminar flow wings proved to have no advantage. When I have time I will dig it out inserting the information in the article, amending the parts that state it does of course. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:18CF:81CE:89F5:79D ( talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This guy is disruptive; don't get caught up in his notions. Using the IP range
Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:0:0:0:0/64, he's been causing a great many headaches at the UK HIgh Speed 2 article, with the problem going to ANI twice: first
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#User:_2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A/High_Speed_2 two months ago and currently
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruption_at_High_Speed_2. You cannot reason with him. This thread is another instance of trolling. Ignore it.
Binksternet (
talk) 08:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Eight years ago the image on the right was removed from this article because it had become image overloaded. It's fine that an image prune was done but I think it was a mistake to can this excellent actual action illustration of the P51 doing what it did so well, in anger at very low level. The article has lots of pretty pictures, but nothing as graphic as this one IMMHO. I'd like to see it restored. Anyone agree? Incidentally, 10 other Wikipedias of various languages use this image.
Moriori ( talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
A pair of Mustangs are featured on the 2021 Tuskegee Airmen quarter, the final issue of the America the Beautiful quarters. Is this worth mentioning in the article? - ZLEA T\ C 19:14, 20 April 2021 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Our friend PhaseAcer made an offhand comment above about the Mustang coming out of the "weeds", without the help of the USAAC brass, and it made me think about Benjamin S. Kelsey, the sole USAAC officer in charge of fighter projects for a critical period in the 1930s, when the bomber brass was busy limiting fighters in favor of bombers. Kelsey did a helluva lot with his small portion of the budget. Kelsey started the airfoil research project that eventually became the Mustang, and Kelsey kept the core of the Mustang project alive by ordering 500 units of A-36 Apache to keep the NAA assembly line busy, so they would be ready to make Mustangs under a new contract. This website says that Kelsey "was the single most important man in the acquisition of what would eventually become the P51 Mustang fighter," yet the Wikipedia article here doesn't even mention him. The omission is regrettable, but we can fix it. Binksternet ( talk) 02:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The Air Ministry insisted on NAA obtaining aerodynamic data on the P-40 from Curtiss because NAA had never designed and built a 'high speed fighter aeroplane' and so had little experience of high subsonic Mach number handling. Curtiss, in the P-40, which could be dived at what was for the time, high speeds, had. At the time in 1940 the fastest thing NAA had designed and flown was the B-25.
Recent British experience of aerial combat had taken place at speeds and altitudes where the effects of what later became known as the sound barrier were being felt. This made them aware of the importance of good handling in this high-subsonic region, speeds which could be achieved by the latest fighters in prolonged dives at high altitude. At the time there were no high-subsonic or supersonic wind tunnels so no such prior data could be obtained on a particular aircraft design making it necessary to rely instead on empirical data such as had been obtained with actual flights. The P-40/Tomahawk was therefore a 'known quantity', whereas NAA's NA-73 was not. The requirement for P-40 data was therefore the UK insurance against NAA making simple mistakes, through lack of relevant experience, that could be easily avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.130 ( talk • contribs)
Trolling from persistent disruptor. Nothing constructive here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have a book with copies of official US letters in it, confirming that the Mustang did NOT have laminar flow wings, as they were considered too sensitive to give to a foreign country (UK). Although it was stated the Mustang had them. Quite a revelation. Also, when tested later in the war at Farnbourgh Aircraft Establishment, the so-called laminar flow wings proved to have no advantage. When I have time I will dig it out inserting the information in the article, amending the parts that state it does of course. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:18CF:81CE:89F5:79D ( talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This guy is disruptive; don't get caught up in his notions. Using the IP range
Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:0:0:0:0/64, he's been causing a great many headaches at the UK HIgh Speed 2 article, with the problem going to ANI twice: first
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#User:_2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A/High_Speed_2 two months ago and currently
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruption_at_High_Speed_2. You cannot reason with him. This thread is another instance of trolling. Ignore it.
Binksternet (
talk) 08:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Eight years ago the image on the right was removed from this article because it had become image overloaded. It's fine that an image prune was done but I think it was a mistake to can this excellent actual action illustration of the P51 doing what it did so well, in anger at very low level. The article has lots of pretty pictures, but nothing as graphic as this one IMMHO. I'd like to see it restored. Anyone agree? Incidentally, 10 other Wikipedias of various languages use this image.
Moriori ( talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
A pair of Mustangs are featured on the 2021 Tuskegee Airmen quarter, the final issue of the America the Beautiful quarters. Is this worth mentioning in the article? - ZLEA T\ C 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)