Talk:North American P-51 Mustang/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Fly Navy

-- On page 51 of "FLY NAVY" by Phil Kaplan there is a discussion of the top secret "Seahorse" project. In late 1944 Naval Aviator and later test pilot Bob Elder flew carrier trials with a modified P-51D. There was great concern at the time regarding the ability to escort B-29s on bombing raids over Japan. The Seahorse project was cancelled after Iwo Jima was taken by the U.S. Marine Corps and its airfields used for P-51 escort missions. The Seahorse was not a P-51H as cited in the wikipedia article. - LegacyDriver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.151.188 (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


ÁHi, I wrote a very big portion of the article. Most of the information was taken from my own site, so that obviously there's no problem with copyright. --Uriyan


Added some stats (climb rate, ferry range) from http://www.319th.com/p51.htm and specified P-51D for the climb.Chairboy 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency: Me 262 page says "The Tempest was the first Allied plane to shoot down a Me262 ..." though this page says "Chuck Yeager, flying a P-51D, was the first Allied pilot to shoot down a Me 262 ..." Mjs

They're both wrong - it was a Spitfire XIV that shot down the first Me 262. Ian Dunster 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The result was astonishing

The sentence "The transformed Mustang could outfly anything in the air including the latest British fighters" was Revised as of 07:56, 17 July 2005 to "Although the Mustang could not live with the Supermarine Spitfire in a dogfight, its extra range with the use of drop tanks, enabled the mark to excel as bomber escort. ". please see Talk:Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants) for a discussion on the two statments. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How can that be explained: the maximum speed of the P 51 is given with 784 km/h. The record set by a Me 209 was 755 km/h, which was valid until 1969, when an F8F reached a new record speed for piston-engined aircraft. Astonishing, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.92.57 (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the 209 was a specially-prepared record-breaker, not a combat-ready fighter, not really. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mustang I (Dive Bomber)?

One aircraft was passed to the British who gave it the name Mustang I (Dive Bomber).

I have a British aircraft recognition handbook from around 1943/44 that states that the British name for the A-36 dive bomber variant of the Mustang was Invader I (I don't mean the Douglas B-26/A26 one!) - If anyone wants a scan of the handbook entry then drop me a line via my e-mail link. Ian Dunster 15:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


http://www.vectorsite.net/avp51.html is my source on that information. Seeing as the A-36 was originally named the Invader this could also be true. I don't know what Greg Geobel's source on that information is. -- Thatguy96 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"the A-36 was originally named the Invader"? Apache, no? Beau LaDuke 12:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to a very rare colour photo from the 40s

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/boundforglory/images/bg0066.jpg


A-36--an early P-51 variant that had a different engine and flew ground attack instead of dogfighting with 4x20mm cannons. Someone who knows HTML should do linky stuff.

Great photo but it's not an A-36. A-36 can be best distinguished by fence airbrakes on top and bottom of the wings as well as by additional .50 cal Brownings in the nose under the engine. They were also armed with .50 cals in the wings. This is a cannon-armed P-51A. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
One other tell-tale thing that makes an A-36 easy to pick out is the boom-type pitot tube set in the starboard wing leading edge 3-4 feet inboard of the tip (all other production Mustangs had an L-shaped pitot boom underneath the starboard wing located at approximately mid-chord & halfway between the root & the tip...more or less, even with the outboard edge of the flap). As to proper nomenclature, there was a time in the Air Corps when, if there existed only a single variant of a given type (in this case, "P-51"..."XP-51" & "A-36" don't count), no sub-type letter was suffixed to the designator (the P-40 was the first type to use the new designation system). So, that is a photo of a "P-51"...just plain ol' "P-51"192.100.70.210 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat
(Actually, the P-40 was the first to use the new production block numbering system introduced immediately prior to WWII)192.100.70.210 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat
Just to nitpick, but the only cannon armed P-51s I know about are the NA-91s, the P-51A is the NA-99, the NA-91 was designated the P-51 by the USAAF and Mustang IA by the British. I could always be wrong too. - Thatguy96 00:23, 20 December 2005
Yeah, I think you are right. I was too lazy to see what it said on the Accurate Minuatures box in the basement. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 16:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Photo looks great. But which variant is it?

P-51/Mustang IA with 4x 20 mm cannon armament. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
"One other tell-tale thing"? Weren't all A-36s Allison-powered? So the "nostril" intake was common, no? Cyrano Kindelberger 12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OPERATIONAL SERVICE

I have some issues with the section labeled "Effects of the P-51", ranging from timeline to generalizations of cause and effect that led to the employment of the Mustang as the escort fighter of choice in the ETO. The summary of the heavy bomber effort in particular is skewed, and while the conclusion is correct (i.e. heavy losses led directly to the conversion of all but one P-47 and P-38 groups in England to the P-51), this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so generalizations should be accurate. The literature on heavy bomber operations is massive, and I have most of it in my library, so I will attempt to correct the section without turning it into an article on heavies.131.238.92.62 08:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Buckboard 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Losses to rocket attacks

This article claims that most Allied bomber losses were to rocket-firing German aircraft. This is wrong. The Gr.21 rockets were wildly inaccurate and were used only in an attempt to scatter bomber formations. Guns, big guns and bigger guns was what the fighters used. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1600 km

There is a problem with the range, which states 1000 miles, and 1600 km with drop tanks. But 1600 km is only 994 miles.

To maintain an equivalent number of significant digits between the original number and the conversion (to avoid creating precision where there is none) 1,000 mi is 1,600 km (both accurate within a hundred). - Emt147 Burninate! 06:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture not clear

Maybe I'm being a bit too strict, but to some people, it might seem that the Mustang P-51 is the very modern F-14 or F-15 in the back (I can't tell which it is). Maybe somebody could put up a picture with only the P-51 Mustang as the main article picture? Marcos Juárez 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. A picture with only the P-51 is better.--Darz Mol 16:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable?

Under the heading Comparable Aircraft the article lists the CAC Kangaroo. The Kangaroo never went into production so isn't Comparable stretching it a bit. What say you? Moriori 21:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Originally the CAC CA-15 was listed in the article, incorrectly, as a "related" aircraft (as was the F-82). That was presumably a result of superficial similarities in appearance between the P-51 and CA-15, from side-on. I changed it to "comparable", which I'm inclined to accept as also being incorrect, given that design work on the Kangaroo didn't begin until 1943. Grant65 | Talk 15:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-maru (talk) - contribs 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Err...

"In 1946, the designation P-51D (P for pursuit) was changed to F-51D (F for fighter) because of a new designation scheme throughout the USAF." Spot the problem...

Two problems, it was 1948, and the USAF didn't exist in 1946. However, the USAF did exist when the system was actually changed. The models still in service were the following (plus what they were previously): F-51B (P-51B), F-51D (P-51D), F-51K (P-51K), RF-51D (F-6D), RF-51K (F-6K), TRF-51D (two-seat F-6Ds conversions). -- Thatguy96 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
(The order was published February 1948, for what it's worth.)192.100.70.210 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

POV

I have hung back from doing this, but the problem just won't seem to go away. The claim of "free hunting" in "May of 1944" needs to sourced. The idea of strafing airfields on an organized and sanctioned basis came as early as January 1944 when Hap Arnold sent a directive to Kepner calling for it. The first organized hunting mission occured in March 1944. The sanctioning of strafing airfields on the way home from escort missions began at the same time. P-51 enthusiasts are dipping into mythology on this point--if you have the source, put it up--at least here. Secondly, the scorekeeping regarding kills is grossly misleading. Only three of the 38 fighter groups in the ETO flew the P-51 exclusively in WWII--the 339th, 354th, and 357th. All the others flew something else--the P-47 or P-38 primarily--before some of them converted to the Mustang. Those that converted had some high-scoring P-47 totals--such as the 355th and 78th groups. To atrribute all the kills and all the losses to P-51s, again without sourcing, is grossly misleading. This can be a good article, but only if we get beyond the rah-rah chatter for an admittedly superior aircraft.--Buckboard 23:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

[1] has many more pictures. I can't read the text. --Gbleem 22:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

P-51 in film

Much of that section (aside from violating WP:AVTRIV) does not pass the "notability" criteria. Let's examine:

  • Fighter Squadron, a 1948 film, depicted a P-47 unit based loosely on the 4th Fighter Group (sometimes known as "Blakeslee's Bachelors"). The 4th FG flew P-47's in combat from April 1943 to March 1944, when they converted to Mustangs. In this film, the German Bf109s are actually painted P-51s.
How is this relevant to the article about P-51? Let's name every movie where an airplane was painted like some other airplane, and throw in 500 Ace Combat references while we are at it. The movie is about P-47s, it says so right in the text.
  • Battle Hymn, a 1956 film, is based on the real-life experiences of Lt Col Dean E. Hess (played by Rock Hudson) and his cadre of US Air Force instructors in the early days of the Korean War, training the pilots of the Republic of Korea Air Force and leading them in their baptism of fire in F-51Ks.
Haven't seen the film but at least it's about a P-51 unit.
  • The 1987 Steven Spielberg film, Empire of the Sun, features the P-51D. A flight of 51s attacks and destroys the Japanese airbase near Soochow Creek Interment Camp, wartime home to the story's protagonist, Jim Graham.
Brief appearance of no notability.
(Most of the footage of the P-51 attack on the airfield was done with BIG P-51 RC model airplanes anyway; they can be seen in the Special Features section of the DVD. 192.100.70.210 (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat)
I have not seen the DVD Special Feature you are refering to, but I seriously doubt what you saying!! There's absolutely not one single frame of a "BIG P-51 RC model airplane" in Empire of the sun what so ever! I personally knew all three pilots who flew the very real and authentic P-51's in this movie, and I've heard all the stories about gathering them and flying them to Spain for the shoot! I think you not paying attention and mix it up with the BIG RC model of a B-29 in the movie!--Towpilot (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You really should take a look at that section of the DVD, as it's quite interesting (honestly, I was quite suprised to see how much RC work was used!). There definitely are some short, really fine shots of REAL P-51s, but a lot of what ended up in the final product were the RC models.71.228.225.234 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CBSHellcat

Spielberg's 1998 film, Saving Private Ryan, also features the P-51D, at the end of the final battle in the fictional French town of Ramelle. The small squadron, referred to as "tank busters" by Private Ryan himself, destroys a small detachment of German Tiger I tanks and lends air support to Captain Miller's platoon as they defend a strategic bridge. (The film's website states "P-51s were used instead of the more suitable P-47s, because it is possible P-47s could not be obtained").

The entire scene consists of a 10-frame pass of a pair of P-51s. Is this really notable enough to be included in the article?

I removed the text which was restored by another editor because apparently every P-51 appearance, no matter how short or insignificant, should be documented. To quote the consensus-derived contents guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Due to the large number of survey and arcade simulations, an effort should be made to avoid tallying every sim appearance unless there are very few of them. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research. Can I get some opinions on whether irrelevant 5-second film clips constitute notability? - Emt147 Burninate! 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with the above comments as to the significance of the P-51 in the "film" section, I think a revising of the "Saving Private Ryan" section would be appropriate. How about this: Spielberg's 1998 film, Saving Private Ryan, features the P-51D briefly, at the end of the final battle in the fictional French town of Ramelle, in the destruction of German Tiger I tanks.

I would certainly like to recommend the inclusion of Lady Takes a Flyer, (1958) where a P-51D features prominently in the final sequence when Lana Turner (as Magie Colby) crashes dramatically at the end of a perilous ferry flight to England. Bzuk 05:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine if it's featured prominently. SPR is still a very soft call IMHO -- the appearance of the P-51 in the scene has no significance (i.e. it could've been a P-39, P-40, P-47, P-63, Il-2, etc.) - Emt147 Burninate! 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added to and ammended the "P-51s in Film" section with appropriate entries. Bzuk 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Should a mention be added of the P-51s in Flags of our Fathers? There were more shots of them in that film than there were in Saving Private Ryan.

I wrote the original entry about Battle Hymn. I'm a personal friend and something of a literary protege of Colonel Hess. I wrote that they were F-51Ds, but someone changed it to F-51Ks. A close examination of the propellers of the Mustangs used in the film shows that they were apparently a mix of Ds and Ks. However, records indicate that Colonel Hess's real-life mount, ROKAF #18, was indeed a D. I'm revising this entry as "F-51D/Ks".

Lyle F. Padilla (lpadilla@voicenet.com)

P-51D's representing the Tuskegee Airmen of the 99th Squadron were used in the movie "Hart's War."

P-51B/Cs and P-51Ds were used in the movie Tuskegee Airman. To see fine examples of P-51B/Cs look up CAF P-51C Tuskegee Airman or Kermit Weeks P-51C Ina the Macon Belle. Rsmalec52 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Victories and loses..

4,950 aircraft shot down (about half of all USAAF claims in the European theatre), and 4,131 destroyed on the ground. Losses were about 840 aircraft.

--

4,950 air, 4,131 in ground and only lost 840? This is sad, really sad and also has nothing to do with the reality, try to come up with better and more numbers.

1. Germans did not lose this many aircrafts to Mustangs. 2. They shot down and or effected damage which led to write offs to more than 840, several fold.

The Luftwaffe was decimated by the 8th, 9th and 15th AF fighters in 1944-5; that is a fact. In the 18 months or so the P-51 was in action the Luftwaffe in fact inflicted far less losses than the 840 stated; many of these P-51 losses were to flak and ground fire while strafing; see for example the 355th Fighter Group record as evidence (although they also include P-47 losses the principle is proven)- 365 air claims, 505 ground kills, for 191 aircraft lost, of which just 46 losses were due to Luftwaffe fighters, and 83 to flak (and the balance due to non-combat causes) But if you have access to more verifiable figures for kill claims and losses then by all means please share them with us- otherwise the numbers here have to remain (which derive from several sources including the definitive 'The Mighty Eighth' tome.) [[Harryurz 12:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)]]


Well on the other hand, you cant compare the victories and losses and say, this plane was better then the others. Because of the fact, that the Luftwaffe was badly needed on the more important eastern front, there were far less german planes that have to deal with British and US planes. I think when there are 5 people fighting with one unlucky guy in the streets, you cant clearly say the winners are the better fighters. Also the primary targets of the Luftwaffe Fighters which had to be destroyed were the Bombers, not their escorts. So everyone should be clear now, that these numbers up there aren´t "real" dogfight statistics and cannot say that this plane was more effective then the british and german ones. I think this should be noticed in the article because in my humble opinion, the P-51 is more a propaganda star to have a popular plane (just like the spitfire.. the real working horse was the hurricane) and this image reflects itself in popculture until everybody believes it or want to believe it. And since Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia...

Gimme a break, you're making a statement like this based on popularity and not performance? Let's compare that, shall we? Even as early as WWI iwas was starting to be noticed that the single most important determinant of air combat success was outright speed. That's because you can run in at your target before they can get out of the way, or even see you. In defense, you can simply leave anything you don't like. The Mustang was faster than anything the Germans fielded against it. In realistic terms it was 15 to 20% faster. Yes, the Germans fielded some very fast aircraft, notably the jets, but they had no effect on the war effort and could have been matched by the UK jets if needed. They weren't. Secondly, the Mustang had this advantage while over the enemy territory, something none of the British or German planes could do. That forced the Germans into confronting them, where they lost in combat. It was able to do this even in a single-engine platform, and thereby be competitive on everything from price to maintainability. Every other platform with the same sort of range was more expensive and typically a twin, and all of them had less performance. Sure, you can pick one statistic and say that some other plane is better at that single thing, and then pick another and pick another plane, but you're never going to find another aircraft that competes on all of its strengths. There's really no debate here, the Mustang is the most "game changing" aircraft of the war, and it's no coincidence that within two months of it becoming widely available the Luftwaffe was broken. More aircraft transfered from the east simply would have meant more losses.Maury 13:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Survivors

What is the section on Survivors trying to say? It looks to be a listing of aircraft held at an air museum. If so, it coudl use some better formatting and a better explaination. If it is more than that, or somethign else altogether, it definitely needs major rework.

-- Bill 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has just added another flying example, which makes three out of the 287 survivors. With so many P-51s around should this list be restricted to examples on public display instead of just a few random examples? MilborneOne 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Distinctive Appearance of the Mustang

What is the big scoop on the bottom of the airplane aft of the cockpit? Intercooler? More could be said about the aerodynamic and performance reasons for the distinctive look of this and other iconic planes like the Spitfire and P-38.

I would like to say something regarding the actual design of the Mustang.It does in fact look like a weird combination of British and American design-the pointed nose and elegant body shape of a British plane and the square wing tips of an American. The plane was designed exactly to British RAF specifications-and looks it.I wonder therefore just what percentage of US design work went into it.I suggest very little-except perhaps for those wings-though maybe the British wanted to have a plane sightly more suitable as a dive bomber so they needed stronger wings—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aberdale (talk • contribs).

Find verifiable references to the effect, and it would make an interesting piece of info for the article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Aberdale, please educate yourself on aerodynamics and the basics of airplane design. The Loftin paper referenced in the article is a good start. Your entire post is non-sense, particularly the part about square wingtips (or are you also the one to argue that clipped-wing Spitfires were an evil American influence?). The large scoop on the bottom is the intake for the radiator. The design actually provides net thrust by managing airflow and adding hot air from the coolant. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Aberdale, it seems to me that you have failed to grasp the difference between a specification and a design. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so sit up and pay attention! A specification states what the product should do in performance terms and sets out the limitations on how that should be achieved (i.e. x mph at y altitude, withstand zG, max laden weight w KG). The design of the Mustang was entirely North American's, and the plane they designed and built in six months was extraordinary. Now go and read the article again. --pepperrell 13:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the fact that it was made good by a British engine might make it not quite 100% US... 86.133.50.99 (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A British-designed engine, improved for mass production by and built by Packard in the US! :) - BillCJ (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dark BW lead pics

Front view of a P-51 Mustang.
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).

It is my understanding of WP:Air/PC guidelines that the lead pic (the one in the info box) should be one that shows the aircraft best, from several angles. I prefer to use color pics, period pics or recent, but that's a preferrence, not a requirment.

Recently, I have noticed a trend in articles on older aircraft to replace the color lead pic witha BW one. This in itself is not bad. However, these pics are usually of poorer quality than the ones they replace, mostly commonly being too dark to really see the aircraft well.

I see no reason why this type of dark BW pic should be in the lead in this article, especially whth so many good pics out there (BW and color). However, Signaleer, the only user on Wiki with an exemption from the 3RR policy, added this dark pic himself, and so feels that qualifies the pic for the lead spot on that basis alone.

Talking to him is usually pointless, as he is also the only adult on Wiki, and therefore always right. It's bad enough he reverts any constructive changes made, but he insists on having TWO copies of his pic in the article. But I'm only a child, so I guess I just don't understand that Wikipedia is here to do Signaleer's will. - BillCJ 01:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to comments left on previous post and userpage.
--Signaleer 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is how he responds to people:

We play this game all day, it's your choice. Personally, I recommend we come to a truce. You stay off the pages I work normally work on and I won't touch your precious helicopter pages--savy?--Signaleer 02:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Posted on my talk page.

Rather than deal with the issue at hand, and try to form a consensus, and follow it whether it goes his way or not, he just wants his way! And I'm not the only person he does this to - is this way whenever anyone disagrees with him.

In response, NO! Grow up, and learn to get along with others, even if you don't get your way. If I see something that looks bad on an article, I'm NOT going to check the history first to see who did it. For the record, I had no idea Signaleer posted that pic, or even uploaded, and frankly I DO NOT CARE. Who made the edit has nothing to do with it being a good edit or not. I'm not going to play that game. - BillCJ 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and deleting userboxes off of user pages is not my idea of adult behavior, and I'm not going to start in order to be considered an adult. Nor am I going to revert incessantly, deleting others contrubutions in the process, or search out articles other have edited to insert thumb sizings against WP:AIR consensus. If this is what adult behavior is, as that's what Signaleer claims to be, then I guess I'll never grow up! - BillCJ 03:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Signaleer, this is how Wikipedia works. Be bold and make a change with the understanding that it is fair game to be reverted if others disagree with your edit. If and when they revert you, go to the talk page and try to convince them why your change is for the better--maybe some editors will even join up and shout down the reverter. But don't just engage in slow-paced revert wars as I've seen you do so often; remember, the 3RR is not a pass to do three reverts in 24 hrs, it's a definition of the absolute minimum standard of acceptable behaviour.
Now, regarding this particular dispute, Bill has reverted your change to the image. It's hard for me to make a call, but I think I'm going to go for the colour image. They present the aircraft roughly equally well, but colour trumps bw. Karl Dickman talk 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I too prefer the color image. Akradecki 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your right to change the image, I can revert all I want.
--Signaleer 16:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

When it's against the consensus view, that's considered vandalism, and if you pursue it enough, will lead to another block. Akradecki 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Go cry to someone else about your petty threats Akr.
--Signaleer 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Signaleer, you are on the verge of being listed for blocking due to your disruptive behavior. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to Akradecki about that as well, is he an administrator? Does he have the power to block me? If you don't consider this statement "When it's against the consensus view, that's considered vandalism, and if you pursue it enough, will lead to another block." not to be a threat, then I suggest you re-examine my statement and his. -Signaleer 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the BW photograph, have you people considered the context of the subject matter for an ioda? The P-51 Mustang was used most heavily and designed for World War II. Not a modern Airshow, context of the subject matter people. -Signaleer 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, there are great color and BW pics of the P-51 available. However, on a 14-inch monitor on a 800MHz PC-clone in 800x600, the pic you have chosen looks like a big black blob, and you can barely tell it even has wings. That has been my only complaint regarding your choice of pics here. Others have expressed similar problems on the B-36? page, and I've noticed this also with the lead pics on the P-38 and P-47 pages. Maybe you're blessed with a top-of-the-line comp and monitor, but many of us are not. I know that User:Aerobird's machine is so old he can only run Win95!

Again, I just want the best pics for the article, esp in the lead. I hope we can find a great period pic to replace the current lead pic soon, and I am looking for one. - BillCJ 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Until you do, you have taken it upon yourself to change the photograph from the get go without even discussing this issue because you have that right. Again, I will revert the image until you do :-D -Signaleer 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you even bothered to read the above discussions? The color pic was re-added by an admin after he read the duscussions. At that point I had backed of, and was leaving your pic on. The consensus since then has been to leave the color pic there for now. SO I have no idea what you are talking about. If you chose to revert against consensus, that's your choice. But you have been warned. - BillCJ 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus and majority win on Wikipedia? Gee, I didn't know that. I suggest someone goes into the Wikipedia Guidelines and change that. Go for it Bill! If the majority does make the rules and decisions, you should hop over to the WASP page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots and help your buddy Akradeckiout because he's losing 2 to 1 right now. -Signaleer 19:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered looking outside of the Commons pages and upload a copyrighted image yourself? Or are you just looking for a consensus to satisfy yourself? You've already changed it without discussing the matter to begin with. Refer to this change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-51_Mustang&diff=103326453&oldid=103321047 -Signaleer 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not think that a genuine effort to improve the article would get such a disruptive response, especially given that that image had been uploaded without discussion itself. We can play that game forever and not get anywhere.

Yes, looking outside Commons is an option, one that I had hoped others with experiance at doing that could tackle. I know my own limits in dealing with copyrights, and the image-nazis have enough to do as it is without me adding more for them to go after! :) It's never been a matter of me having my own way, but of improving the article. There is nothing wrong with having your pics in the article, and I have been careful to keep the pic in question in a relevant section of the article. But there are better pics that can serve as the lead, yet your position seems to be that only yours should be there. How about we put the pic that was there before you replaced it without discussion? Would you accept that?

Note that you have yet to actually address any of the issues regarding the pic itself being a poor choice for the lead, and the reasons for that. At this point it doesn't matter who did what, but how we go about solving the issue. Or is the issue that I have "dissed" you by rejecting your choice of lead pic, and therefore nothing I say or do can be considered? - BillCJ 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point, you're beating a dead horse. Lets draw out some facts.
1. You replaced the image with poor judgement.
2. You posted this topic for removing the photograph on the basis of a pervious article that has nothing to do with this one and made assumptions and asserstions that are asinine.
3. Clearly this matter will have to be settled through another means because it is clear that you lack ability to settle this through a civil means.
-Signaleer 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, has nothing to do with why an dark, blobby pic taken years before either of us were born should be in the lead spot of an article many are attempting to improve. - BillCJ 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to add to the dissention here, but rather to pay homage to the airplane that we all are obviously very enthused about, FYI the photo at the head of this section entitled, "Front view of a P-51 Mustang. Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007)" is actually one of the half dozen existing P-51Hs. It's been on the parade ground at Lackland AFB since about 1955, &, during that time, it has been displayed in several color schemes (I have a photo floating around somewhere that I took of it while stationed in south Texas during the mid 1980s of it freshly sprayed overall silver). Several times during its stay at Lackland, it has sported the "Petie" paint job--one of the P-51Ds flown by John C. Meyer (if memory serves, the "Petie"s (1st), "2nd," & "3rd" were named for Meyer's brother) while with the 352nd Fighter Group in the ETO. This airplane is displayed on the parade ground next to one of the few remaining F-82 Twin Mustangs. Nice photo.71.228.225.234 08:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

infobox military?

Should this article use Template:Infobox_Military_aircraft? --Gbleem 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No article should be using that infobox. It was created outside the scope and community consensus of the WikiProject:Aircraft. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead pic

I'm removing my experiment in consensus development, as it seems to be a moot point now...that' a gorgeous pic, Bzuk! Akradecki 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jagdverbände

How about a definition/translation? Clarityfiend 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Roughly "hunting band" or "hunting party", but my German's not so good I'd include it. Trekphiler (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

H model service in WW-II

This article states the H model was too late to see service in WW-II. William Green's series on WW-II fighters (c.1961) says the H model was used briefly in service against Japan, just before the end of the war. Are there any other references on this issue? Karl Kleimenhagen 10:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

David McLaren in his wonderful short book on the H model (North American P-51H Mustang, 2000, published by Steve Ginter) states, "To dispel any rumors that the P-51H actually saw combat during WWII a research of every P-51H Individual Aircraft Card was accomplished. None ever departed the United States during the war." 192.100.70.210 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Operational service. Non-US P-51 Mustangs at war in WW2

Hello. Just wondering if the section on operational service (during WW2) in the P-51 Mustang article needs some info on non-American users? Pretty sure that British, Canadian and Polish Mustangs saw action. Cheers Chwyatt 13:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang#Operational_service

Operationg service during WWII of Mustangs with British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and Polish forces in exile (among others), can be noted in their relevant sections under "Non-US Service." -- Thatguy96 14:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that the Luftwaffe captured and operated some Mustangs during WWII. The Luftwaffe should, in turn, be inculded also in the non-US operator list.
Do you have any sources that support that claim? I've never heard anything about Germans using rebuilt captured P-51s; B-17s turned into gunships to infiltrate bomber groups yes, but P-51s I haven't heard. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Some comments about development

In all the years I've been reading about the P-51, I've never came across this one: "Because North American lacked a suitable wind tunnel, it was forced to use Curtiss’ facility." This is absolutely not true. Many available sources agree that the wind tunnel work on the NA73 largely took place at Caltech (in Pasadena, California, just a few miles over the hills from North American's plant in Inglewood, not 2500 miles away at the 'Curtiss facility' in Buffalo, New York!). When the Caltech facility proved too small to obtain satisfactory results with the new wing, the model was transported to the University of Washington's larger wind tunnel in Seattle.
I remember reading several years ago an article (I believe in Air Classics magazine) authored by Ed Horkey, who was the chief aerodynamicist for the Mustang. He confirmed the purchase of the Curtiss data, but he also stated very little of the information was used. He dismissed the data as "amaturish and of little value."
The statement "The United States Army Air Corps could block any sales it considered interesting, and this appeared to be the case for the NA-73," seems somewhat a misrepresentation. Under the terms of Lend-Lease, aircraft exports effectively had to be of designs either in use by or under procurement for the Army Air Corp; the Brits could not independently sponsor the development of a new design in the States unless they paid for it directly. To comply with the rules of Lend-Lease, the Army had to "procure" the "defense article" (hence the assignment of the "XP-51" nomenclature) to be 'disposed of,' and the Army got to retain what became their two prototypes at the pleasure of the Chief of Staff of the Army. This 'procurement' also served to keep the Army abreast of the machinery (and hence the technology) being sold abroad.
One more point, this regarding the A-36. The US Army Air Corp was never very interested in dedicated dive bombers. A very few Douglas Dauntless and Curtiss Helldiver airframes were procured, as the A-24 & A-25 respectively, but they never saw much use. The A-36 came about because of prewar budget constraints. Lt. Benjamin Kelsey, at that time the Army's Fighter Projects Officer, realized the potential of the new P-51 design, but he had no more money in his FY 1941 pot for the development of a new Pursuit airframe. Funds were available, however, for the development of another Attack design. With war seemingly inevitable, rather than risking the problems that could arise from an interruption of production at Inglewood until further funding for Pursuits became available, he obtained authorization for the development and production of the A-36, with changes to the airframe necessitated to fit into the framework of the US Army's Attack mission role. The 500 examples built turned out to be money well spent, despite the Army's typical lukewarm attitude toward dive bombers.
On the positive side, THANK YOU for NOT revisiting the old myth about the British stipulating a limit of 120 days to build the first airplane! 192.100.70.210 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Your comment on the wind-tunnel data is interesting, and may in fact have something to do with the RAF's initial interest in having the Curtiss P-40 licence-built by North American. Dutch Kindleberger would have needed the P-40 and XP-46 specs to show that the P-51 design was a better one. You may be right about the A-36 being fundable when the P-51 couldn't be, but it's frankly immaterial, as the Merlin conversions didn't fly until after Pearl Harbour. I concur with your comments about the effect of Lend-Lease on procurement policy. I reiterate my point in the main article: that Carl Spaatz was given two of the first five Merlin-engined Mustangs on Freeman's instructions, and that the initial evaluation by the USAAF of the Merlin-engined Mustang therefore took place in the UK. It was a very fortunate and supremely successful cooperation between the US and the UK, one of many both before and since. --pepperrell 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
In Mustang At War by Roger A. Freeman (Ian Allen Ltd, 1974), John Atwood, in 1940 NAA's Vice-President & chief negotiator with the British Purchasing Commission, indicates (written in first person, so I would assume them to be Mr. Atwood's words) the Curtiss design data was purchased at the insistence of the BPC & Sir Henry Self due to reservations on the part of the Commision that NAA "had not ever designed an actual fighter plane." Sir Henry Self indicated to Atwood that, if NAA could secure the wind tunnel & flight test data of the P-40 airplane, "it would increase [the BPC's] confidence in [NAA's] ability to move forward in a timely way." Atwood obtained the data, NAA obtained the production contract & the world has never been the same, etc. etc. Between the comments of Mr. Atwood & the previously cited comments by Mr. Horkey, the Curtiss Data ended up being nothing more than $56,000 spent to assuage the BPC's reservations, and, in the event, had practically no influence on the actual design of the NA-73 (I must admit that outwardly the two designs appear similar, but internally, save for the fact the two designs use the same powerplant, the two aircraft are radically different). 71.228.236.40 15:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

I know what is intended, but.....

Under the subheading P-51 Pilot Medal of Honor recipients there is the statement that Major Sebille "continued his attacks until finally deliberately diving his Mustang into an enemy antiaircraft battery". That infers suicide to me, which I don't think is intended. We know he was deliberately diving to attack an anti aircraft battery, obviously against horrendous odds and at extreme risk to his own safety. We can assume he intended to pull out of the dive but died because he was hit by fire from the battery. I think we do him a great disservice by saying he deliberately dived into the aircraft battery. Thoughts anyone? Moriori 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I do not see suicide at all. I see a pilot who realizes his aircraft is already so heavily damaged (as the article clearly states) that a successful RTB would not have been possible. A warrior who stands and fights to the death is not a suicide by any means. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditching hazard

Anybody have a source for reputed ditching problems where the big ventral scoop interfered with a smooth water landing? I vaguely recall something about that... I guess the same goes for belly landings. Binksternet 09:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the original WWII Pilot Manual for P-51D which clearly says "Do not attempt ditching!" since the airplane is expected to float for 2 (yeah, that's a two!) seconds due to the big air scoop! The only alternative over water was to leave the airplane in a timely fashion with a parachute. Belly landings shouldn't be of any specific problems in a P-51. The cooler will simply collaps and crush under the weight of the aircraft itself.--Towpilot 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Uhhh, does the manual actually state "two seconds"? I've read it myself and don't recall anything like this.Maury 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The manual I read was The Real McCoy, not a reprint or something similar. I think the given time was more of a way to emphasize "Do not even think about it!" rather than an exact fact. It is however several years since I read this, so if someone claims three seconds I will stand corrected. But I do remember the given time was extremely short, and discussing it with the smiling owner of the manual who at the time recently had flown his Mustang (N167F) over the Atlantic to Europe!--Towpilot 07:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This evening I chatted with a friend who happens to be the pilot in the P-51 in this image (free use image deleted by bot), and I asked him what the instructions were re ditching. His response was - don't and never ever unless there was absolutely no other option, because the aircraft would nose in (with the scoop being only part of the problem). He said it was drummed into them that if the aircraft over water needed to be vacated the preference was always to bail out rather than ditch. He also said that to bail out, the seat needed to be lowered as far as it would go and the pilot needed to scrunch down as low as he could, because when released the canopy tended to lift from the back and pivot the front of it forward, meaning the top front of it was acting a little like a rearward projecting guillotine right where the top of the pilot's head would normally be located. Curiously enough, although my mate was lucky enough to never having to splash a P-51, he did ditch a TBF Avenger in the Waitemata Harbour in New Zealand after engine failure. The three on board escaped injury, luckily. Moriori 08:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I finally got a copy of the actual F-51D Mustang Flight Handbook, T.O. No. IF-51D-1, 20 January 1954 and the exact wording in the "Ditching" section reads:

"Warning: Airplane will sink in approximately 2 sec." Further, the manual states "The airplane should be ditched only as a last resort. If it is impossible to maintain sufficient altitude for bail-out, ditch according to the following procedure:

  1. Follow radio distress procedure, giving location.
  2. Jettison external load.
  3. Unbuckle parachute; make sure life raft is fastened to you.
  4. Lower seat and head as far a possible and pull canopy emergency release. Use crank if necessary to relieve pressure against windshield bow.
  5. Tighten seat belt and lock shoulder harness because of high final impact.
  6. Disconnect headset, oxygen equipment, and anti-G suit. Make sure no personal equipment will foul on your way out.
  7. Check gear up and flaps one-half down.
  8. Land into the wind with one wing about 20 degrees low and maintain enough speed above stall to keep rudder control. As the low wing hits the water, kick hard inside rudder to spin the P-51 around on the surface to prevent severe diving and quick deceleration. As soon as airplane comes to rest, get out immediately."

A three-part diagram illustrating the ditching procedure accompanied the instructions." FWIW Bzuk 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC).


Ahh, so my memorystick still works fairly! It must be at least 16-17 years since I read the manual myself. That is by the way a really cool formation picture!--Towpilot 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on the first paragraph-It lists the "Definitive version powered by the Packard V-1650-3 engine." I don't want to start a flamewar over which version was definitive, but if we agree the defninitive version was the P-51D, then it should be the V-1650-7 engine; only the P-51D-1-NA's sent to CAC for license-construction had the V-1650-3; all other D's had the -7 engine. -gale_dono —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.89.142 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Most WWII fighters sink like bricks (ever watch those classic films of Corsairs & Hellcats splashing into the ocean next to the carrier after a torque roll which resulted from a botched wave-off?). They're fighter planes, not canoes. Anything that has an eleven, twelve or thirteen foot prop out front (which, by the way, weighs between 300 & 450 pounds, depending on the prop), is going to "tuck under" when that prop hits the water, regardless of whether the fuselage has a scoop underneath or not. And those fighters are built like swiss cheese so they'll drain rain water & condensation (lest their aluminum structures corrode from the inside & their steel fittings rust), so there is very little to keep the structure from flooding. It's simple physics! Drop any compact 4-ton, well-ventilated object into the sea and watch how fast it goes down. Have that object smack into the water at over a hundred miles per hour with a BIG, DRAGGY prop and a 2000+ pound engine section in front (scoop or no scoop) and it's going to rip open engine cowling panels, landing gear doors, and wing fillets (water at 100+ MPH is incredibly dense and destructive!), and in a matter of a few seconds, you have a man-made reef in the shape of a P-51! 71.228.236.40 (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat
Given that the pilot would also adopt a ditching procedure that would place the aircraft in a nose-high attitude that would lessen the chances of an immediate dive, the manuals clearly indicated that ditching was not recommended. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

If the fascinating pilot anecdote which follows is anything to go by, the P-51 does seem to have been a "ditching death-trap", relative at least to other WW2 fighters and the scoop does seem to have been a significant factor:

...I was just about to hit Lake Kasamigura... I had a sudden realization that I was over Japan and not back home... It also flashed back to me that we had been taught that a P-51 was almost impossible to ditch safely; but with the prop frozen and the air-speed deteriorating rapidly, I realized I was going in the water without any alternate option. So, I bit the bullet, ducked my head, pulled the canopy jettison handle, and the canopy flew off, barely grazing my noggin. By that time I was at 90 miles an hour and skimming the ripples and little waves at about ten feet off the water. I lowered full flaps, and just at stall, released my forward pressure on the stick and put both of my hands on the K-14 gun sight a few inches in front of my face. Thinking back, it seems weird that in that predicament—90 miles an hour, about to hit the water which would be like hitting a brick wall, in a country not known for kindness to prisoners, and thousands of miles from home— I took time to protect this pretty face! The Mustang by now was in a nose-high attitude as it skimmed over the water on the flaps. As it slowed down, and just before stopping, the aircooler scoop on the belly gulped in the water, and with the heavy engine up front, the nose of the aircraft pitched down toward the bottom of the lake An instant before going under, I took a deep breath and unbuckled my seat and shoulder harness. Pushing out of the seat with my back-pack-parachute and seat raft was very very difficult. I finally broke free and started scrambling back up to the surface of the lake. Oh how I needed that gulp of air by now, but I was glad to be rid of the plane which continued to head for the bottom of the lake. ("A Fish Eyes View of Kasamigura Air Field, Honshu, Japan" by 1st Lt. Gordon H. Scott, United States Army Air Corps)

Grant | Talk 06:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See also this official history: The Army Air Forces in World War II, Volume Seven: Services Around the World, p.483 Grant | Talk 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tale but the pilot did everything "by the book" and despite loosing the aircraft, he survived by following the manual and by "keeping his cool." The P-51 was notorious for its proclivity to violently pitch into the water during ditching but not many other fighters would have provided more than momentary survival in similar circumstances. Read the earlier submission for reasons why not to ditch in a wartime fighter. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

Sure, although the P-51 is also singled out in the official history cite above: "Only once was the P-51 known to have ditched successfully, and this minor miracle could not be repeated deliberately since the pilot lost consciousness and therewith all memory of his technique. Normally the radiator scoop of the Mustang plowed the plane under at impact." A remarkable factoid, if it is true; it doesn't appear that the author is referring to Lt Scott. Grant | Talk 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New Article Vs. Re-write

23:03, 20 December 2006 Bzuk (Talk | contribs) m (Needs a rewrite- how about separating the variants and putting out a new article?)

I personally propose we just incorporate that section into the main article instead of creating another article on the same subject --Signaleer 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but let's "tighten it up" as it is a very long article. Bzuk 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! Have fun with that, my hat is off to you! :-D --Signaleer 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I made a start- take a look at the article- I incorporated two similar sections and corrected a number of errors in the P-51K section but it still needs work.Bzuk 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the variants section still needs a rewrite? It repeats a great deal of what is included in the earlier development section. FWIW Bzuk 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC).

Added information on Propeller

Just a minor point, but one not often described is the different propeller used Post-WW2: The "cuffed" Hamilton Standard unit was replaced with a unit using slightly wider "uncuffed" blades with blunter tips, and a slightly shorter spinner.. I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning this small change in the P-51D/K section. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a late production line change. It's usually noticed on post-war airplanes because those very late production airplanes mostly never got shipped overseas during the war, so those ended up being the airplanes that equipped the new Air National Guard Units & stateside training activities during the late 40s (remember, most deployed fighter airplanes that weren't necessary for the minimized occupation forces were broken up for scrap--or razed or bulldozed!--often on the airfield they ended up on when the war ended). These last produced machines were also the airplanes that ended up in storage (usually with a bare minimum of flight time on the airframes/engines) right after the war, and, consequently, these were the airplanes that were pulled out of storage, rejuvenated & sent to Korea (hence you see far fewer cuffed props in photos of Korean War era late-production P-51s, especially on stateside airplanes) There was no change to the spinner--it was the same NA-109 part number for the later prop (some production blocks of the P-51D actually used a NA-104 part number spinner—the same as on a P-51B!). As far as part numbers go, the two props were the same part number, also, with the difference being in the part number for the blades. I'm pretty sure that was also the same spinner part number on the K production airframes with the Aeroproducts Unimatic prop, although I haven't been able to find it yet in the books. As far as size & curvature, there was practically no difference between the NA-73 through P-51D/K spinner (there were, of course either 3 or 4 holes in the sides for blades, as the design went from the Allison to the Merlin engine, with corresponding changes to affixing hardware & backplate design).71.228.225.234 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat
I understand from Caidin's Fork-Tailed Devil the wide-blade ("paddle") props improved thrust. Can somebody confirm & include? Trekphiler (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ref: Design and development

I'm curious what the sentence "Test pilot Hatton was the first to fly this aircraft" refers to. It is well known that Vance Breese was the first pilot to fly the NA-73X on 26 October 1940. If you require a reference, Mustang At War by Roger A. Freeman (Ian Allen LTD, London, 1974) is the closest source to hand, but very many other sources will agree. Paul Balfour flew it next (on it's fifth flight), and, as the story goes, Breese won a bet that Balfour would crash the airplane on his first flight in it.71.228.225.234 08:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

That was added in this edit as the only edit by an IP user. It's written like the usual vandalism that get's put in articles all too often. Oh, the joys of open editing! - BillCJ 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
PS, given the dificulty you had earlier redacting your own comments, if you're not going to use a registered user name, be sure to make it clear that you're the same user who wrote the comemtns in your first edit. You'd be suprised how many vandals like to change others users' comments! - BillCJ 09:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger that. Thanks again BillCJ for making me aware of the problem(s) I was mindlessly causing with the different IP addresses.71.228.225.234 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Variants/Development ideas in response to RV

So after my edit was reverted, I've looked at the overall structure of the article and wonder if doing something like the B-17 article might not be applicable here. Could we move the variants section into the development paragraph and move the more specific detailed entries about variants that precede this awkwardly placed variants specific section into a new article on P-51 variants? Would that make sense to people? Wouldn't take much effort to achieve the shift. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage. Bzuk (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
K, I just don't see the reason for have a variants section after the description of variants that precedes it. Basically it functions now, at least in my opinion, as an unnecessary summation, and if anything might be better still integrated into the development section. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, why not try out the edit on a sandbox project. FWIW The probable reason for the immediate revert was that it was not accompanied by a talk page discussion. Now that you have initiated the discourse, I would accept the premise that a streamlined format would be suitable. Bzuk (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
I might if I find time. BillCJ reverted it because of the accepted norms for variants sections and that it should go toward that, not away from it. It caused me to simply wonder why the section was there in the first place. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Goring

Surprised Gorings famous quote "When I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up" isn't in the article. 193.35.129.169 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Added information/cut and pasted paragraphs

I've done a bit of rewriting of the "Merlin Engine Mustangs" which, I hope, has helped clarify the sequence of events and the armament; for example, the description of the reasons why dorsal fins were fitted to D/Ks didn't make it sufficiently clear that the flight problems first came to light in B/Cs fitted with the fuselage fuel tank.

Also the significant differences between the Mustang Xs and the XP-51Bs was a little blurry and it was a little unclear that the American version reached production. Plus I couldn't resist describing some of the main experimental Mustangs. Hope the additions haven't lengthened things too much.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merlin engines mounted BEHIND the cockpit

"Also, two aircraft of this lot were fitted with Packard-built Merlin engines mounted BEHIND the cockpit, in the fashion of the P-39.[10] This was identified as Model NA-101 by North American and XP-78 by the USAAF, later redesignated XP-51B." Ahhh yeah rrrright...moving the engine behind the cockpit - the CoG movement must have been.....rather difficult to deal with.... not to mention the structural changes etc... I think someone is indulging in a bit of leg pulling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.130.110 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If the airframe wasn't designed for it to begin with, maybe daunting; the point was, this was designed for mid-mounting. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Trek, what does "this" in your last clause refer to? None of my sources, and I've checked several good ones, say anything about the two XP-78s (later XP-51Bs) having the Merlins mounted behind the cockpit. IIRC, the superchargers were mounted there, so perhaps that's where the confusion lies. Anyway, the source given in the text is confusing, listing two books togetehr. I have the second one, and the claim is not there. I've therefore added {{vs}} and {{dubious}} tags to the claim. - BillCJ (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting, based on the source, it was mid-engined. Beyond that, I can't say anything; I've never seen a better source (or heard of it anywhere else), but I'm by no means expert on the P-51. There were quite a few wild trial models (not least the twin-engine P-40), & I wouldn't be surprised a trial P-51 was mid-engined like a P-39, & wore the "XP-78" (which is what the source led me to believe). Could as easily be there's a mistake in the source; it wouldn't be the only one. If you've got 1 authoritative (2'd be better, for the sake of certainty) contradicting, I've no beef it being taken out. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you combined Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare and Donald's Encyclopedia of World Aircraft within the same ref tag? If you have now objection, I'd like to separate them, since Donald makes no such claim of it being mid-engined. Just looking at the P-52 airframe, I can't see that mounting the engine behind the cockpit would be a simple matter - it would require a major redesign; by all accounts, NA just took two airframes, and installed Merlins in them in fairly short order. Do you have the source at hand where you could double-check it quickly? I know you aren't stupid, but we all make mistakes, especially if something is not written clearly. I don't have anything that says point-blank that the engines were not mid-mounted, but I have 5-6 that sure don't mention it. -Anyway, we'll see what our other editors can find in teh meantime. - BillCJ (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In Angelucci's The American Fighter, page 331, bottom left, there is a photo captioned "XP-51B conversion of P-51 (41-37421)". It looks like the engine is in the nose on that one. I can email a scan if you'd like me too. Anyway, I have been up all night sick, and so I'm going to try to get some sleep now. Later. - BillCJ (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cant find any evidence that it was not just a re-engine job here is at least two references that make no mention other than an engine swop:

  • The original conversion was made in Great Britain by Rolls Royce Ltd by the installation of a Merlin 61 engine in the Mustang II. The success of the conversion was such that steps were immediately taken to by N.A.A to re-design the P-51 to take the 1,520 h.p. Packard V-1650-3 (Packard-built Merlin 68, with two-speed two stage supercharger and aftercooler) which at the time was going into production in the United States. The airframe was strengthened to take the new engine, the radiator installation was re-designed, new ailerons were installated and streamline racks for long-rang tanks or two 500lb. bombs were provided under the wings. The bomb load was later increased to two 1,000 lb. bombs. The new design was originally given the designation XP-78 but this was later changed to P-51B. Bridgman, Leonard (1988). Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II. New York: Crescent Books. ISBN 0-517-67964-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • XP-51B - Two P-51-NA (41-37352, 37421) re-engined with a 1380hp V-1650-3 (Packard Merlin 61) Originally designated as XP-78-NA, they were also given modified ailerons and deeper ventral radiators.Andrade, John (1979). U.S.Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Midland Counties Publications. ISBN ISBN 0 904597 22 9. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Here is an image of 41-37352 [2] from [3], I wonder if somebody presumed the new radiator was an intake! MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

From [4]:
  • The Merlin 61 V-12 with its two-stage compressor really cooked the air before it entered the carburetor. An intercooler had to be installed to cool the intake air. The Brittish installed the intercooler under the engine near the intake trunk of the Mustang X. The Americans put the intercooler in the doghouse assembly with the coolant radiator under the fuselage. This reduced the size of the cowlings around the new engine but increased the size of the belly scoop area. - BillCJ (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And a very interesting pice from [5], credited to Joe Baugher:
  • A bizarre proposal by Rolls-Royce was a test installation of a 2400hp Griffon 63 in a Mustang mounted amidships, like P-39 Airacobra, driving a contrarotating prop via an extension shaft and a cockpit moved forward well ahead of the wing. It was anticipated that te modification would make possible speeds up to 500 mph. A mockup was prepared, but the concept was abandoned. - BillCJ (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
If I've combined them, it was a boob, do fix it. As for the cites here, I wasn't actually asking to see them (tho I'm always grateful for new source material, thanks ;) ), just asking you to check 2 before changing.
Looking again at W&W, I see the mistake is mine. (Evidently not an unusual occurrence, sad to say.) It mentions the mid-engined mockup & I somehow managed to confuse it with the entirely unrelated XP-78... I do wish I knew how I manage that, so I could stop doing it. Apologies to all for the extra work... And to BillCJ, get well soon, if you can get past me wearing you out & trying your patience. ;D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No worries! I am just glad we found the root of the confusion. And thanks for the well-wishes. It's good to see editors who are willing to own up to mistakes, even inadvertant ones. We all make them. Anyway, I would love to have actually seen them go forward with the mid-engine Griffin - that ought to have been a sight to be seen! We should definitely mention the study/mock-up in the text. For a plane as well-renowned as the P-51, I still think it's underated! - BillCJ (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Mark your calendar, I won't be admitting another one soon. =] I'm a sucker for the P-39, & this strikes me as a Merlin-powered 'cobra, which is best of both worlds. I'm also nuts for the oddballs & what-ifs, like the 2-seat 'cobra trainer I've seen mooted (in a modelling mag line drawing only, blast it :[ ). That would make my day. Ever see the scorpion-tail P-38? (Did I see pix on the P-38 page...?) That's a conversion I'd have standardized whether it fixed the compressibility problem or not, 'cause it looks great. (OK, OK, production delays were a plague already, I know... I can dream. :D)
Is there a guideline on use of model kit pics for things like that? There's a really good web forum I've been on, & I could see if anybody's built 1 & would be willing to release pix. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
IMNSHO, the swoop-tail P-38 was ugly and perhaps a weaker airframe overall. As far as oddballs go, though, you're getting your money's worth with the swoop-tail as it was also a piggyback two-seater. If it had survived one more step down the prototype road it would have had floats. Yeeehaw! Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You say tomato, I guess. ;D I think the piggybacks were an abomination. If you're going to build a 2-seater, build a 2-seater. (Would have been a better NF than the P-61, & sooner, too.) AFUS (or USN, anyhow) disclaimed a need for 'em, refusing a 2-seat F4U (another 1 I'd love to see to have reached production), which leads me to wonder how many cadets got killed transitioning from SNJs for lack of 1.
Weaker airframe? Couldn't say. Knowing it was a Kelly Johnson project, I'd guess not, but I've never seen stress data comparing the 2 (or any, as far as that goes). And did they genuinely propose floats? Yikes. (But didn't I see a ski 'stang project? Or was that a P-38, too?) And it might not have been completely useless; the float Zeke had some usefulness. (Don't ask me what for...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

'Best Israeli Fighter' quote incorrect?

Hi guys, notice that someone has written that the P51 was known as the 'best Israeli fighter' However most of the Israeli pilots rate the SPitfire IX as the best fighter plane they had. PLease change this part.

See quotes from the real pilots :-

h**p://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

Two examples from the interviews on there...


'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. (Levett 1994)'


'Syd Antin enjoyed his Mustang time:

Wonderful airplane. Great airplane. But for our situation there, not as good as the Spitfire. The reason? The Mustang was built for longer range, it was a heavier aircraft - it could not maneuver as tightly as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was designed and built as a short-range fighter. You gotta remember that all it had to was cross the English Channel and it was in a war zone. The Mustang was designed and built to escort long-range bombers and to defend them in the air. Consequently, it had to have more armament and more fuel capacity, so it was heavier and it couldn't maneuver anywhere near as good as the Spitfire.

The Mustang? Great, I loved that airplane. For our job over there, for combat, we only had to fly a few miles to get to it so we didn't need the long range.'

Xiolablu3 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Max take-off horse power in a Merlin

I had dinner several days in a row recently with Tom Reilly who told me he just bought two Roll Royce Merlin engines for his XP-82 Twin Mustang restoration back to flying project. Unlike the later F-82, that is exactly the same engine as in P-51B, C and D. I asked him about the horse power in those engines at 61 inches of manifold pressure, wich according to pilot manual is the max take-off power. Without even blinking he answered "1490 hp!" "But...." he continued "... a lot of people seems to mix up the displacement of 1650 cubic inches with the horsepower, but that is incorrect!" It should be noted for those of you who do not know who the hell Tom is, that he has accumulated a massive experience in restoring warbirds back to flying condition since way before people started calling them "Warbirds"! I've heard this abot the horse power several times before from other people working with Mustangs that are flying today. The WEP of 67 inches of manifold pressure, also called "Get-The-Hell-Out-Of-Here-Power-Setting!!" would give about 100 extra hp for a very limited time. Not even that adds up to 1650 hp! So the question is, who dares to correct this long line of missinformation that the engine in a P-51D has 1650 hp when it should say only 1490 hp? --Towpilot (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead & change it. 1hp/ci is pretty good for a mid-'50s auto engine, never mind a '40s a/c engine. (It's pretty good now, never mind 1944!) To keep the "citation nazis" off you, tho, steal Reilly's V1650 assembly manual & get its particulars, 1st. ;D (You could also copy it & send it to me. =]) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The 1,600+ hp figure may be WEP with 67 in of manifold. Most of the advanced aircraft engines of WW2 made around 0.9 hp/ci. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Very possible, but not max t/o power, I don't think. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Smithsonian says 1490 hp at 3k rpm. An archived version of the Flight Journal website agrees, and supplies WEP figures as well. I've edited the specs section with these references. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The 60-series Merlins used in the contemporary Spitfires were around about 1700hp. To only get 1490hp out of the US-built equivalent is unlikely, as when Rolls-Royce developed a new Mark of Merlin the design was passed to Packard who were then able to manufacture a V1650'dash' version of the new Mark in the US, and 1490hp is around about what one would get out of a Merlin 45-series single-stage engine. The final Merlin 130-series military engines used in the de Havilland Hornet were rated at 2080hp at 32lb boost and in ~1940 RR were running a special Merlin, intended for the 'Speed Spitfire' attempt on the World Speed Record, at 2700hp using a special fuel cocktail. BTW, the "Get-The-Hell-Out-Of-Here-Power-Setting!!" was called something like 'Combat Five-minute limit' in UK Air Ministry Pilots Notes. Ian Dunster (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt it was capable of that, but what is that rating for? Is that an emergency setting, max t/o, or max continuous? Seems to me that needs answering, not just "is the figure legit?" TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of the confusion lies in how take-off power is rated. The ratings used by Morgan and Shacklady cited in the article are altitude ratings, using the second (FS) supercharger stage; these ratings are totally different from take-off when the first (MS) supercharger stage is used. If the pilot is using +18 lbs boost and the engine is running on 150 octane fuel 1700 hp for take-off is possible. However the Spitfire VII and VIII Pilot's notes (Air Publication 1565G & H December 1943) specifies the maximum take-off boost to 1000 ft as +12 at 3000 rpm using 100 octane fuel (applies to Merlins 63, 64, 66, 70 and 71, +12 lbs boost = 54" of mercury). The Spitfire pilot's notes also state that "+7 lb./sq.in is sufficient for a normal take-off." This would be the normal rating used for most operational purposes. Using higher boost pressures at take-off off might result in a shorter run and higher climb-out speed, but only at the risk of wrecking the engine. As it is I have a feeling that the hp figures quoted by Morgan and Shacklady might have been Merlins using 150 octane fuel and + 25lb boost.
P-51s in American service only used 150 octane fuel for a short time towards the end of the war because of problems with fouled sparkplugs. In normal service it is presumed that they used similar operating limitations to those of the Spitfires. Gruenhagen 1980, which seems to be the most reliable source of information, specifies 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 13,750 ft (4,191 m) (61" Hg, low blower, 3,000 rpm) for the 1650-3 (P-51B/C)and 1,590 hp (1,185 kW) at 8,500 ft (2,590 m) (61" Hg, low blower, 3,000 rpm for the 1650-7 (P-51D/K) and these are the figures I've used in P-51 variants. These are more or less the same figures as those quoted by Tom Rielly - the 1650-7 was able to generate 100 more hp at a lower altitude because of slightly smaller blower impeller blades. I'll go back and see what ratings are used for take-off. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I suspected something like that. Now all we've got to do is make it clear for non-specialists without taking 5 'graphs to do it... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dominican Service

An editor keeps putting the retirement date of the six Dominican Republic P-51's into the infobox. I changed it to the retirement date of USAF use as this was OVERWHELMINGLY an American aircraft. The retirement date for Dominican service is important maybe as a footnote under the "Users" section but is highly misleading in the infobox. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The P-51/F-51 was not retired in 1957. The USAF might of retired it, but it was not retired from MILITARY service in 1957. The Dominican Air force has more than six aircraft in service after 1957. Bolivia, Taiwan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia. Israel, Italy, Nicaragua, Philippines, South Korea, Switzerland and Uruguay all used the P-51 past 1957. The P-51 was used in combat by the Dominican Republic, Honduras and El Salvador after 1957. To say the 1957 were retired in 1957 is misleading and incorrect. I will comprise with you and I will put both dates in, like other articles have done.--Panzertank (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise what? This is a concensus building exercise, not a negotiation. You're speaking about a drop in the bucket... 6 planes out of 16,000 that 'served' in a tiny nation... a statistical blip. You're making it out to be something significant. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What about all the other aircraft that served after 1957? There were HUNDREDS of examples in service after 1957. Do we not count those? The Mig-21 is used in large numbers by many countries, but no longer used by Russia. Should we say that it is now retired? The part of the article we are talking about states when the aircraft was retired. Anyone would assume that would mean MILITARY service. Saying it was retired in 1957 is incorrect.

The F-51 was used as a MILITARY aircraft for almost 30 years after the USAF stopped using it. I was willing to compromise with you and put both dates down, as other articles have (look at Me-109 article). Don't be so stubborn.--Panzertank (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont agree to having two dates in infobox - should be with this sort of aircraft when the type was retired from operational use (which means the last military operator). Other dates can be explained in article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is arguing to the absurd. The F-51 was retired from US Service in 1957. The other dates are wildly insignificant in the face of it. In fact, given the weight of numbers the US Air Force operated, every other operator beyond 1957 is trivial. Do they deserve mention? Yep... but in the users section, not in the infobox. An average user will look at the infobox and glean information from it. To state that there was any significant service of the F-51 beyond 1957 is ABSURD. The US Army used the F-51 as a chase plane for helicopters long after the US Air Force had retired the type, and that is also insignificant in the infobox. Don't let trivia geeks run the infobox. Put real information there. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you ask for a concensus, and now two people agree and since they don’t agree with you it is absurd. It is absurd to say an aircraft is retired after it is used for almost thirty in an operational military role.

When the USAF retired their F-51s, the Dominican Air Force had more than forty F-51s in service. That is almost as many fighter aircraft that Mexico and Central America had combined. The F-51 saw combat in Central America and Asia after 1957. HUNDREDS of aircraft remained in service after 1957. It is irrelevant that the USAF retired it in 1957. F-51s were used as operational military aircraft until 1984. I am reverting it to read the type was retired in 1984. I will revert it everyday if I have to.--Panzertank (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Nukes, I think Pz's right. It's not "last use by a major power" or "last use by design country", it's "last use". Which does, in cases like this, mean handfuls in tiny countries. (I don't doubt Somalia or Belize or someplace will still have MiG-21s in service in 2050, when the major powers are all flying Mach 5 RPVs.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Panzertank!! To deny that there was any significant service of the F-51 beyond 1957 is ABSURD! The last ten airplanes were retired by the Dominicans in May 1984. One was kept for museum, the other nine and the entire stock of spare parts were sold to Brian O'Farrell/Johnson Aviation in Miami, Florida! We are talking about an airplane that saw combat more than ten years after retirement from USAAF. If that's not "significant service", what is? --Towpilot (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a significant flaw in this entire line of thought. The P-51 is still being used to a greater extent today by air show pilots than it EVER was by the Dominican Republic. Therefore, it's 1957 or present. If you argue against using 1957, then you must also argue against using 1984 unless, as I said, it's not an absolute date we're looking for. The Confederate Air Force operates P-51's on a regular basis as do several other private organizations and individuals. Therefore, there is going to be an astrics on ANY date we put in there, it might as well be a significant date. Therefore, using your arbitrary logic, I'm going to put "present" on there and see if that flies. To be more specific, there are between 156 and 164 flyable P-51's in existance. That's significantly more than the 6 that the Dominican Republic "operated." --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made a change which I think (hope) gets over the problem. See de Havilland Tiger Moth for precedent. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Nukes, your arguments are now down to an obtuse level! Comparing hard military service (including combat) with some civilian display flying at some occasional airshows shows nothing but your lack of knowledge about that subject. Remember also there is a big differense between a "flyable" and operational or airworthy airplane before you specify the number 156-164. You seem to have missed such a common knowledge today that there is nothing called "Confederate Air Force" anymore! I'm also curious if your statement that the Dominican Republic only had six Mustangs is a typo, or if you don't even know they had more than 60 of them in military service? Kaiwhakahaere's last edit is perfect. Let's keep it that way!--Towpilot (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

.50 cal poor penetration?

Cannon were superior air-to-air weapons in many respects than heavy machine guns, but not due to superior penetration. If anything, the .50 cal probably had superior penetration to any 20mm or even 30mm cannon mounted in any airplane I know of. The cannon caused more structural damage by exploding, which is more efficient than punching holes, but the .50 was better at piercing armor. If you doubt this there are numerous ballistics tables available on the internet.

[Drifter Bob]

Drifter-cannons had a lower rate of fire and poor spread. Cannons were effective close in and against jets. The spray of .50 cal AP was devastating.

The maximum speed of the P-51H is incorrect. It was approximately 487mph, not 444mph.

Hi, I added the little trivia part. Feel free to remove it if it dosn't feat with the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien Chatillon (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop-Culture Section

As iconic as the P-51 is, it seems as though it's article should have a Pop-Culture section. One could mention things such as its use in Grand Theft Auto (San Andreas), or Chuck Yeager's love of its manuverability.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.164 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Razorback Ds

Seems to me long ago I read that there were about five P-51D-1-NAs built with the razorback as opposed to the bubble canopy. The bubble canopy started with the D-5s. Any info on the D-1s? AMCKen (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)AMCKen

That sounds more like the P-47 to me. The term "Razorback D" for a P-51 is an oxymoron! PhantomWSO (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Machine guns: M2 or MG53?

This article has always stated that the P-51 was armed with Browning M2 .50 caliber guns. I've seen several sources stating that it they were actually Colt MG53 .50 caliber machine guns. I believe that the MG53 was a derivative of the M2, but it had its own nomenclature and was definitely different enough to be considered a different weapon from the M2 and not a variant of it. Anyone know the actual story? PhantomWSO (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the proper WW 2 designation of the aircraft variant of this weapon is AN/M2 (eg:http://liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/01_50cal.htm), indicating the light barrelled, air cooled model as opposed to the HB/M2 (Heavy Barrel) which was used by the ground forces. As far as I know M53 refers to a modified/modernised post-WW2 version. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Macchi Veltro vs Mustang

The new paragraph added by Gian piero milanetti appears to me to be a way to bring the Veltro to this article and show it in a good light. We have peacock words to describe the aircraft and we have a total of 58 Mustangs shot down by Veltros "at a high price". How many Veltros were shot down by Mustangs? I'd like to see the paragraph greatly reduced to be a straight telling of how tough the two adversaries were to each other, without going into detail about the Veltro. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I temporarily "shelved" this section as it is probably best placed in the MC 205 article at the least and more likely has to be re-written into original statements rather than large verbatim quotes. one of the sources seems to be more of an illustrated work and not by a well-known author or historian. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

So many external links!

I took a new Mustang website out of External links per WP:NOTLINK which says

I believe we have enough external links, and possibly too many. Should we trim further? Delete all but one? Should we let the new one back in and allow the list to grow? Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think more pruning is required - most dont really add any value to the article which is the intention of the external links section. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Paraphrasing WP:ELYES for our purposes, good criteria for external link value include:
  • Non-free images with encyclopedic content
  • Detailed lists such as aircraft identification numbers, missions, pilots, victories and losses, performance data
Beyond that, I don't see the need. I think the enterprising reader will be able to find them all very easily with a simple web search. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Engine choice confusion

I think the treatment of the choice of engine is very confusing. The early paragraph suggests the plane began in response to a British request and it had a Packard engine. Then there is a section on planes with the Alison engine. Does anyone have a clear time line of the engine decisiion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Packard Merlisn statement is just there for context. However, you are right that is is confusing, and it's not really relevant in that paragraph anyway. I've removed it. Thanks for bringing this up. - BillCJ (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mustang research paper

I came across this; P-51 research

a research paper on the "Mustang as an Escort Fighter" submitted in 1996 to the Air War College, Air War University by a Lt Col Karen Daneu. It can be downloaded as a PDF file. Worth adding to External Links? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Service details

I think the article needs a section on the countries and units that used the P-51, in what numbers and when. It was a very popular plane, if only for a short time. Grant65 (Talk) 16:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to start a Foreign Service section to answer that question. I'll complete it later on... Any help would be welcome, though.

Cockpit visibility

I understand from an air show documentary that, when landing, the pilots can't see the landing strip in front of them due to the angle at which it lands, nose-up. Is this correct ? If so, this just seems insane to me, and sure enough a pilot died during the air show because of this lack of visibility. Why don't they put some cameras on it (perhaps in the landing gear) for air shows so they overcome this blatant deficiency ? We now have small, inexpensive radio-transmission cameras which would suit the bill nicely. Has anyone so equipped a P-51 ? I'd like to create a subsection on this visibility issue once I have all the facts straight. Does anyone know how many have died due to this problem ? StuRat (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a big problem in the 1940s when most fighters had Conventional landing gear and the pilots learned the how to approach to maximise the view. Not sure it is an issue peculiar to the P-51 so may not be really worth mentioning. The Conventional landing gear article already has a section on disadvantages. Pretty sure they didnt have video cameras in the 1940s either! MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's not put that bit in this article as the problem was true for nearly all tail draggers. The fact that it made landing dangerous was taken in stride—the solution was to judge position by keeping track of objects to the left and right of the nose. Taxiiing was accomplished with someone standing on the ground or sitting on the wing giving directions. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The standard RAF technique was a curving approach, allowing the pilot to see the airfield over the left or right side of the nose, followed by straightening out just before touchdown. This applied to all single engined fighter aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.22 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There was also usual in Spits (if N 'stangs) a weave-taxiing. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, yes, if you have ever flown a tail-dragger, especially a rather powerful one, they can be a bit tricky on take-off. Landing is rather easier, as it is usual to put the mains on the ground first, have a bit of a look-round, then chuff the stick and let the tail drop. Ground loops on take-off are another matter. Taking off in a light, well-powered A/C is an invitation to ground loop if one doesn't co-ordinate the throttle and rudder to keep the nose lined up. StuRat, landing (or should I say touch-down) is done more or less at flight attitude, where you have excellent foward visibility. If you are thinking of the aircrash in Nevada, the pilots were landing in close order, AFTER the tail had dropped, and the mate to the rear had neglected his throttle a bit.Foamking (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_P-51_Mustang/Archive_1&oldid=1090572808"