Talk:North American P-51 Mustang/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

use of "Specification" in lede

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

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

Cant see any official Air Ministry Specification that relates to the P-51 (or any American aircraft), I presume the BPC made one up. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
No point in linking to the list then, I think. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
While the NA-73 was to HMG spec (or requirement), AFAIK there was never an AM Spec# attached; AIUI, that's for domestic companies (& that's more guess than informed...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The sequence of events (as recorded in several sources) seems to have been something very like this:
  • The British purchasing mission want more P40s than they could get from other manufacturers.
  • They ask North American if they can "do up a batch" for them - one imagines that this must have been with the permission, if not at the suggestion, of the U.S. authorities.
  • Someone at North American replies to the effect "we can make a better fighter than that obsolete dog with our eyes shut - and deliver them as just as quick, too".
  • The British (and, surely the American) authorities are sufficiently impressed by this boast to take them at their word and North American start work on what is intended as a P40 replacement (initially, using the same engine) - primarily for the RAF (although they must have had hopes, at least, of also selling some to their own air force).
None of this, apparently, involved any issuing of official "specifications" - nor pace an insistent friend - in any way justifies calling the Mustang in any sense "British". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
US authorities had nothing to with it. The British government could approach US companies "direct" by-passing them. NA were only 6 years old and wanted business, any business. They had no experience whatsoever of a leading edge fighter NONE! The British had the finest fighter in the world at the time. Its 2nd line Hurricane was even better than any US fighter. They would have to hold the and of this fledgling company. The Air Ministry held NAs hand and directed them at the technology THEY wanted. Like a university professor getting individual students to do research into the parts of a project, and when satisfied with results gets them to put it all into one whole for the output. 2.221.196.12 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
WP talk pages aren't forums for discussing the topic, but are devoted primarily to improving the article. Without reliable published sources, there's no way any of that is going into the article, and so posting it here without is an exercise in futility. There are dozens of reliable published works about the P-51, many of them by well known and respected British authors. Some of them may well cover.your claims, and if so, please cite them. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an appalling article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing fruitless discussion. With absolutely no sources to back up argument, argument fails completely. Further discussion is pointless. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________

It is so bias towards the USA is cringeworthy. It attempts to omit the vital British involvement.

The Mustang was a British plane made by an American company for them. It is that simple. The Rolls Royce Merlin V12 engine made the Mustang perform superbly. The plane initially used a straight 10 cylinder Allison engine, which was only good at low level, as the US were behind the British in supercharging. The British gave the U.S. the auto supercharging technology free. The RAF first used the plane as it was for them. The first use of the Mustang by the US military was for ground attack because of the poor high level performance of the Allison engine.
The U.S. government allowed the British & French to directly approach U.S. aircraft makers bi-passing them, as would the British government approach say Hawker. The British needed all types of planes urgently, even the P-40 which was inferior to their own planes. But warplanes they were and useful in certain theatres and for training. In early February 1940 the British asked North American Aviation's President Dutch Kindelberger to furnish additional P-40s made under licence from Curtiss, as Curtiss could not supply demand.
Kindelberger told the British, without any detailed drawings or plans, "I can build you a better airplane, and I can get it built fast". Contrary to popular belief in the USA, North American did not have a prototype ready design which the Brits just happened to have snapped up under the noses of the US military. North American were first approached in Feb 1940, who had no "detailed drawings or plans". The British gave this young inexperienced company a chance, who had no experience whatsoever of front line state-of-the-art fighters. In May 1940, NAA still never presented any detailed plans, mailing a "design concept" to the British delegation in New York. This never had the famed laminar flow wings. The British Air Ministry accepted the inferior Alinson engine as Rolls Royce were working flat out 24/7 unable to meet demand for Merlins. New Merlin factories were being set up but not yet fully on-line.
In the interim from Feb to May, three months, the British Air Ministry were forming the fundamentals of the design concepts directing North American to Curtiss and the NACA, the developer of the laminar flow wings, to ensure a fighter with some leading edge design points, not produce another P-40 fly-alike wasting valuable time.
The Air Ministry directed NAA to the Curtiss XP-46 experimental plane with all the leading edge design points of top European designs, and a few of their own, rolled into one. It never worked as the individual points never complimented each other when merged into one complete whole. NAA were ordered to buy the test results of the XP-46 experimental plane from Curtiss if they wanted the job, at a whopping $52,000, a lot of money at the time. Curtiss engineers always said the Mustang was their design, stolen by NAA. Not quite as the British Air Ministry had a lot to say in the leading design points - they were paying and calling the shots.
There was a danger the Mustang may end up the same way as the XP-46 - a plane with leading edge points that flew like a dog. The British Air Ministry took a major gamble with NAA so were active in the design. The Ministry wanted something better in performance than the poor P-40, and were prepared to wait, but realistically never expected a Spitfire. Initially that was the case with the first deliveries using the Alinson engine - better than a P-40 but no Spitfire. The initial Alinson engined Mustangs filled an RAF niche, so no problems for the British at that point of WW2.
The US military overall initially didn't want to know the plane. The Mustang was not even in U.S. service when shooting down FW 190s by the RAF over France. The Air Ministry gave the U.S. military two planes, paid for by them, which were left in the corner of a hangar for a long period. They initially never assessed it. Quite amazing, as the USA never had a decent front line fighter at the time. The excuse not to take up the plane by U.S. forces was that it was liquid cooled and vulnerable in frontal attack. This appeared a poor excuse to reject the plane because it wasn't theirs. What went over their heads was that the world's two best fighters locked horns in the Battle of Britain, both with liquid cooled engines.
With British support, the Mustang finally was noticed by the U.S. Army Air Force. The US military had to go to England to fully assess the plane as it was finished off in Liverpool. They did eventually adopt the plane calling it the P-51 when in U.S. service.
The U.S. hijacked some British specification Mustangs destined for the British after the Pearl Harbor attack. The British were miffed as it was "their" plane, their order and they needed them.
UK and U.S. Mustangs for the European war theatre were finished off in Liverpool. They were test flown and delivered to the units by young English girls, many of them teenagers. 2.221.196.12 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have anything constructive to improve the article that is not already mentioned that is encyclopedic, relevant and reliably sourced, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It is obvious I have. 2.221.196.12 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh, no, you haven't provided anything that is reliably sourced, because you haven't cited any sources at all. Your screed is so full of errors that to simply call it wrong is too much of an understatement. - BilCat (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
"Uh, no, you haven't provided anything that is reliably sourced, because you haven't cited any sources at all.". I knew this would happen, attitude from Americans. I put no sources because it is not in the article yet. 2.221.196.12 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@2.221.196.12 You obviously sincerely believe that the Mustang is a British aeroplane. Most of us, I suspect, have seen things in Wikipedia (and Britannica, for that matter) that we consider biased, exaggerated, mistaken, or in some other way plain wrong. But encyclopedias are NOT the place for new or "unconventional" ideas, they are, by definition, a summary of existing and generally accepted knowledge. Ideas, and "knowledge" change over time, but encyclopedias (stuffy things) follow rather than lead this process. The way (assuming the exercise seems worthwhile) to propound an opposed or modified view to historical, scientific, or even literary consensus is to publish something of your own. Your concept of the "Britishness" of the Mustang goes well beyond what ANY other published writer has ever stated. If you can get a publisher to print a book or a magazine article expounding your views you are absolutely entitled to do so. But expecting a general encyclopedia to accept them in contradiction to all other published sources, is most unlikely to be fruitful. Sorry, but this IS the case. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who mentioned in one of his notes when reverting not to mention the British connection. This indicates prejudiced. I do not need a lecture on encyclopaedias thank you. The crux of your ramblings was that I made it up. Nothing could be further from the truth. The indisputable fact is the Mustang WAS a British plane made by a US company for them. The British called the shots, as they were paying.2.221.196.12 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
... So, you should be able to present plenty of RS that say that. (Hohum @) 22:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Our IP friend is misguided. Nothing in the literature supports that position. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
What literature? 2.126.207.30 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@2.221.196.12 - As far as anyone can tell, you are the only person in the world who thinks quite a lot of the things in your "ramble". The "real" stuff we already knew, and in fact it's in the article. So yes, essentially you did "discover it for yourself", if you didn't quite "make it up". The Wiki jargon is "original research". If someone else discovered it/made it up - then you would have told us who by now, surely. And you DO need the lecture, because if you had any idea at all what an encyclopedia is we just wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Sorry - but I have tried so hard to be kind, and to assume that you are NOT just having us on (it's called "assuming good faith"), but I'm starting to suspect you just have a really strange sense of humour. Sorry again, but no way - we're absolutely serious here. Boring, I know, but there are plenty of places for a good laugh elsewhere. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Soundofmusicals in your American world you mean. You are attempting to propagate untruths. Wiki has no place for this. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote I knew the Americans would come in with attitude. What I wrote was NO ramble. I notice the only ones agitated by it are Americans. I have not put down Americans. This article is full of POV and myth and vital history omitted. It is difficult to even think of the Mustang as a US plane in its initial design and build. I have a Toyota, made in the UK. People tell me I have Japanese car. I tell them it is British being made in the UK. They say 'nah, it is Japanese'. I have an American plane called the Mustang. They say 'nah that is British'. Common sense would tell you the Air Ministry would not allow a small plane maker with NO experience whatsoever of leading edge fighters, and who the RAF had only bought small trainers from, to have 100% control of the design. The Air Ministry even directed NAA to Curtiss and NACA to roll into this British plane leading design aspects.
  1. Did NAA have experience of leading edge fighters? No.
  2. Did the British Air Ministry have experience of leading edge fighters? Yes, they had the world's best.
  3. Did the USA have experience of leading edge fighters in operation at the time? No.
  4. Was the Mustang a child of the British? Yes.
  5. Was the Mustang built to British requirements and needs? Yes.
  6. Did the British Air Ministry order NAA to the Curtiss test data? Yes.
  7. Did the British Air Ministry order NAA to the NACA and laminar wings? Yes.
  8. Did the British Air Ministry specify a frame to hold their own RR Merlin engine if needed? Yes.
  9. Did the British Air Ministry specify a long range fighter? Yes.
  10. Did the British Air Ministry approve the initial design? Yes.
  11. Were British Air Ministry engineers at each test flight? Yes.
  12. Did the British Air Ministry dictate changes after each test flight? Yes.
  13. Was the Mustang for the British? Yes,
  14. Did the US military have input to the concept or design of the Mustang? No.
  15. Did the British pay for the Mustang? Yes, they paid for the design and build.
  16. Were the British first to use the Mustang? Yes, it was their plane for them, the RAF was shooting down FW-190s before in was in US service.
  17. etc.
  18. etc.
It is best some Americans stop telling themselves lies and believing them. Some Americans do like to see it as it was. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mentions of the P-38 should be removed

Extended fringe argument with no sources.

The Mustang had no connection with the P-38 being a creation of the British. The development of both were in total isolation of each other. The Mustang was a cheap to knock out fighter in comparison, while the P-38 and P-47 were big, heavy and very expensive & time consuming to produce planes. A few Mustangs could be made for the price of either of those two planes. The Mustang was being developed with NA and the British Air Ministry as France was falling. The design, as in all designs of any product, was iterative. The British then realised they needed a longer range plane as access to air bases in France to attack Germany was precluded. They needed more time over France and range into Near-Germany. Range was built into the design, which was later extended 2.221.196.12 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Malarkey. The P-38 was the longest-range and fastest American fighter until the Mustang arrived, but it had problems in Europe. The P-38 is extremely relevant to this topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The P-38 has no relevance whatsoever. This article is about the Mustang, not the P-38 or US fighters in general. The US military had no involvement in the creation of the Mustang, so any US fighter is of no relevance. By your logic, as the Mustang was a British plane in that they created, paid for the design and build to their needs and their requirements, maybe we should mention Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mosquitoes as well. BTW, for your info, the P-38 was operational 18 months after the conceptual birth of the Mustang. Another article can be created about US fighters in general, this article is not the place for it. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The development and deployment of the Mustang has to be seen in the context of the other aircraft available including their range and fighting performance. Doubly so in the case of long range escort for day bombing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It was a British plane meant for the British to meet their requirements, NOT US requirement. If any planes are mentioned in depth they have to British planes like the Spitfire which was a fast and highly manoeuvrable short range interceptor design to operate from the UK and France. The British told NAA to design into the Mustang longer range, as no UK fighter had long range. The article whitters on about US planes which were pretty well irrelevant to the birth of the Mustang. Even the US military though so as well. It had no bearing on US fighter policy because it was not commissioned by them, but the article is littered with other US planes in too much depth. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It was an American plane of American design by an American company, designed to meet Britain's need to buy American fighters. The British requested North American Aviation to build Curtiss P-40's under license to sell to them, and North American desired to build their own. The North American design exceeded the requested P-40. Not sure where you are getting your information, but it does not correlate to history. And no design is ever built in a bubble. Mentions of other aircraft available at the time are absolutely warranted. Scr★pIronIV 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Read what I wrote above. The Mustang was a British plane made by a US company for them. That is simple to understand. I recall a long time ago a magazine article that had a piece on the Mustang - I can't recall the mag. The writer interviewed one of the Air Ministry people involved. He will be long dead by now. He was adamant that the Air Ministry laid out the design features and directed NAA to what 'they' wanted. They had to, to avoid getting a dog of plane which only had range nothing else. If it failed their rear ends were on the line. In the text just deleted on this page, there was good part on RR. Read this: Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X. Do not go by Hollywood history or cheap History Channel docs. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, you have no reliable sources to support your assertion that the plane is British, and this argument is based on the unsupported assertion, so again you have nothing here, no leverage to change the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I will change the article with refs. No problems. What amazes me is that instead of being eager to get the true history, the Americans are doing all they can to prevent it surfacing. Back to this section. Heavy text on US planes should be removed or cut down vastly. This article is about an Anglo-American plane not the US air force. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Any edit made has to conform to the consensus of reliable sources, and of editors evaluating thosee sources, which is unlikely to happen. The history is settled on this. The talk section does not need to have the same counter-historical POV assertions repeated again, and again. From hence forth, it will be considered trolling. Scr★pIronIV 19:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not helpful to try to make this a nationalist issue. I happen to be born in the UK and live in Canada, so no axe to grind in claiming this as a US design. It is about verifiability of claims, which is a Wikipedia policy requirement, not nationalism. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the article is pretty good about stating who ordered it, and the roles played in the design and development. It has been treated fairly. Scr★pIronIV 19:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the lead and other sections do treat it fairly as it reads now, but let's see what new refs arise, their reliability and what they specifically say. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The lead is? It is no such thing. The Mustang was an Anglo-American plane, not "American". Without a British engine, the RR Merlin, was only good for low level work - it shined with the RR engine. The lead says, "The Mustang was designed in 1940 by North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a requirement of the British Purchasing Commission for license-built Curtiss P-40 fighters.". Wrong! It was designed by NAA with guidance and direction from the British Air Ministry to their needs. The Air Ministry called the shots. I am not the first who has brought up this ignoring the British while making out the Mustang was a 100% US plane - the name Mustang came from the British. It was called Mustang before it was ever called the P-51. They conveniently for themselves "archived" objections. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


Anglo-American

Extended fringe argument with no sources.

The Mustang was an Anglo-American project, not American. This should be mentioned in the first opening line. When this is put right, others revert it. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You need a reliable ref that says that to add it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Not again! It does not need a ref at all. The information in the rest of the article even in the poor state it is in, clearly indicates it was an Anglo-American-plane. Even the article states it was a British conception and it mainly used a British engine with the British Malcolm canopy. Please stop attempting to change history. Hollywood do that better. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but Wikipedia is based on verifiability through reliable sources, so to add this claim you need to cite a reliable source that supports it. The article text makes it clear that the RAF wanted to buy more P-40s, but North American designed them a new fighter instead. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry the talk section does not need references. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You can propose anything you want here on the talk page but it isn't going to go into the article without refs, so saying that the talk page doesn't need refs is a kind of meaningless thing to say. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." This is a Wikipedia policy, it is not optional. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
When I have time I will change it and put in refs. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Since this is controversial it would be best to propose text changes here on the talk page and provide the refs so that you can gain consensus here first. Trust me, that will save time. Besides that, the article is not open for editing right now anyway, so let's sort this out here on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I will not put the text here. No doubt Americans will revert it when it is inserted and referenced. I changed the opening sentence to Anglo-American, which the plane is. Immediately the Americans changed it back. There is enough in the article to state that it is an Anglo-American plane - I even explained it to them in the talk page. Wiki is consensual - that means they will gang up to keep untruths going. They actually do think they won the war and that the Mustang was a 100% US plane and the British just happened to be a buyer. They do. No wonder wiki is regarded as a joke. Scr★pIronIV stated on this Talk page,
"Any edit made has to conform to the consensus of reliable sources, and of editors evaluating thosee sources, which is unlikely to happen. The history is settled on this. The talk section does not need to have the same counter-historical POV assertions repeated again, and again. From hence forth, it will be considered trolling."
In short the Yankees are going to change it to look as if is a US plane irrespective. I wouldn't dream of attempting to pass of another country's achievements as British. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay so I note you have no references that assert that this was an Anglo-American aircraft. As I indicated above I am British and live in Canada, so I have no reason to promote the idea that it was designed and built in the US to a British specification, beyond the Wikipedia policy requiring verifiability of sources. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Neither the customer nor the engines determines nationality, only where the aircraft was designed AND built, and for the P-51, both unambiguously occurred in the US. The only time when a second country's name shows up as a nationality is if they had a major part in the development of the aircraft beyond merely funding it - such as actually doing a significant amount of the engineering and building them with the permission of the parent company. If another country develops a distinct version, then that version can claim both nationalities - but if it doesn't affect development of the original then the original's origin does not change, hence the Mustang X (which has its own page) may be British, but the Mustang as a whole is not, and the Buecker 133 is still just German despite it being built in Japan. The engine matters not a whit, otherwise the list of Canadian aircraft would be a long one, with all the aircraft that use PT-6 turbines. In contrast the Curtiss/Felixstowe F.5 can claim to be both British and American as the aircraft was developed by both countries in parallel (Porte in the UK being responsible for the hull and Curtiss in the US for the flying surfaces) and then produced in both countries.
I hold British and Canadian citizenship, and your increasingly strident claims of US bias hold no water with me either, and like most of the folks here, I have been studying aviation for a long time, and from a variety of perspectives - including fighting a British bias against French aircraft that dates from before WW1 (when they frequently adjusted numbers to make French aircraft look less impressive). If you are so concerned about a US bias in history you might want to look elsewhere, but the more outrageous the claim, the more you need to back it up with published authors willing to make the claim - and a claim like this that flies in the face of all the known facts will need more than one reference to show that it isn't just one opinion. That isn't to say there aren't biases and inflated claims to be brought under the microscope, and fanbois who will fight anyone saying anything bad about their pet airplane, but no-one is understating British contributions or ignoring them altogether. (for some reason, the P-38, P-47 and A-10 tend to overexcite these sorts a lot). - NiD.29 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Operational History

Fringe argument with no sources.

This is laughable. This is distorting history. The contents states "Operation History", and a sub "U.S. Operational Service"; nothing wrong with that. It is what it omits. There is no section "British Operational Service" The British were first to use the plane as it was their plane destined for them, paid for by them to their needs and requirements. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You do have look further down the article. I think that the operational service could use revisiting to give a more chronological approach but that does not make it "laughable". That it was first used by the RAF is part of the lede - it's a question of bringing more material in - eg from North American P-51 Mustang variants. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is so pro-USA it is laughable. It is attempting to distort history. It has to be put right. 2.126.207.30 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@2.126.207.30 Let me tell you a little story. I am very elderly, and long retired from full-time work, but I do host a little weekly radio program on "Musicals" (hence my Wiki-name). I remarked on air one day that Les Miserables was a very well-known French musical. I was accosted by someone from the station who informed me in no uncertain terms that I am getting senile, because while Les Mis is based on a French novel (by Victor Hugo, no less) the musical was composed and written by Andrew Lloyd Webber - which (in case I couldn't follow his impeccable logic) made it British. "I mean you just have to listen to it" (he went on) "it is exactly like Phantom of the Opera and Evita". My answer was, of course, "Look it up", specifically, consult any written source, on the web, in a book, in a magazine, and find just ONE that says that Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote Les Miserables. Or get a hold of a copy of ANY version of the original musical - a program to a performance, a libretto, the notes on a CD or LP, and tell me ONE that credits or even mentions Andrew Lloyd Webber in any context whatever. Did he do as I suggested? No, he was too good - he wasn't going to waste his precious time looking up something he already knew. Weeks, months later he was still making a [naughty word suppressed to protect the guilty] of himself ridiculing me as the "idiot who thought the musical of Les Mis (as opposed to the original novel) was French. My point in telling you this story - don't be like my colleague of the airwaves - sure YOU know that "the Mustang is more British than American and our article is unfair and biased" - but look it up for [naughty word etc.]'s sake and tell us if you can find ANY source, British, American, Dutch, Mongolian, or any other nationality that is not a good deal closer to the view taken by this article than yours. Just one. Never mind how unreliable and stupid the source is, just one, even a silly war comic if you like, that says anything of the kind. I have just done what I am suggesting you do - I have consulted every book on my shelves that mentions the Mustang (as an elderly "aviation nutcase" who has been collecting aviation books, and magazines for well over sixty years believe me, please, when I mention that I have quite a few). Then I went to our local library and hunted up a copy of a whole lot of things I didn't have. No confirmation of anything you've said that's not already quite fairly covered by the article. You won't find anything of the kind either. Because, basically you ARE making it up, whether you realise it or not. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A case for a "Mythbusters" experiment?

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

The correct way to resolve this is first to examine the original source and see whether it makes this claim with a straight face, or reports it as a kind of urban legend. If the latter, we should probably remove the claim completely.
If the source makes the claim with a straight face, we should probably reexamine the reliability of the source.
On the question of plausibility: Fighter pilots include a few who really are foolhardy, and, as a matter of physics, yes: propellers are one of the strongest parts of an aircraft, since they are subject to very high G forces *and* apply the entire thrust of the engine to the rest of the aircraft, and a telephone wire is usually stretched pretty taut by its own weight. I have my doubts about the story but it's not physically impossible. --Yaush (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm the person who added that claim in the first place, and have a copy of the source. The book claims, straightfacedly, that a pilot "reportedly" used his propeller to cut the phone lines. The source is highly reliable--a very well-researched and detailed history of North American Aviation--and I see no reason not to accept the claim at face value; that there were reports of such an incident occurring. I'd be just fine with the "reputedly" disclaimer, or using the same "reportedly" as the original source, or even "allegedly." Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we could ever get any more confirmation one way or the other, but fighter pilots are crazy, and Israeli fighter pilots are noted for being particularly bold, so I wouldn't be shocked if it happened--even if it wasn't planned. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In some senses an aircraft propeller must be "strong" - but it is also quite vulnerable to damage (for instance in even the mildest of "nose-over" incidents or striking the water in low level flight over the sea) - fair enough a telegraph wire would be cut by a spinning propeller, but it would surely slice though, or at least badly bend, a prop blade in the process - even if the loose end did not get entangled round the prop shaft!. At very low altitude the pilot would have no opportunity to correct the resultant change in flight characteristics (to put it very mildly) - at the height of a telegraph pole an aeroplane is milliseconds away from hitting the ground at the best of times. All-in-all, if the source had "reportedly", then I think my original edit, which restored "reputedly" (which someone had deleted with the comment that it was "discriminatory") is pretty reasonable. With the best will in the world the incident is very unlikely indeed - even if it is (just) physically possible (hence my reference to the "Mythbusters" program). Fighter pilots are indeed "mad" - they are also much given to telling tall stories and repeating unlikely boasts (they had a name for this sort of thing in the RAF). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Any pilot deliberately contacting a suspended wire with a propeller or any other part of an aeroplane is living dangerously. Whilst there are numerous WW II accounts of low-level aircraft hitting unseen telegraph wires, telephone wires, etc., this was not something to be done lightly, for one thing there's a considerable risk of the freed wire wrapping itself around and entangling the propeller - result, no power. On a single-engined aircraft you go down, and face a long walk home. Or capture.
" ... tall stories and repeating unlikely boasts" - In the RAF it was called "line shooting" or "shooting a line". I don't know why.
"In conjunction with the para drop, four Israeli P-51 Mustangs using their wings and propellers, cut all overhead telephone lines in the Sinai, severely disrupting Egyptian command and control.[171][172]" I think the usage of wings is very do-able. In any event they did it. Propeller use was probably accidental. I have added cites and expanded the section slightly. It happened. I recall reading an article in I think Flight International in the 90s detailing the mission. Irondome (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Foreign use of the mustang

In 1984 I was a mud logger working out of Malayia when I was sent on a job to Myanmar. As I landed at Rangoon airport I was surprised (but pleased) to see a flight of 4 Mustangs coming in for landing at the military side of the airport. They were close enough that I could see that the guns had been used. My assumption then and now is that they had been used to do ground attack against the rebel forces in northern Myanmar. How Myanmar acquired these aircraft I have no idea (I assume they bought them third or fourth hand on the open market). Everything I have seen has said that they went out of use world wide by the early 1970's but I provide an eyewitness account of their combat/COIN use a decade later. 69.123.234.95 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC) W.C.Wilson

Do you have a reliable source for this as an eyewitness account is not seen as a being a reliable source for wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For all that - the Brits WERE the first to use the Mustang!

For some time I have actually thought that "hiding" information about the use of the Mustang by the RAF down at the bottom spoiled the chronological flow. A good chance while we have respite from the "Anglo-American" IP to make this adjustment, which may even satisfy his/her feeling that the article is/was "biased". Apart from actually moving the relevant section I have kept edits to a minimum, at least for the moment. Reactions welcome, naturally, but discuss it here first, please... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I know what you mean. In general in these sorts of article, where possible the flow of the operational narrative should be chronological though it would be impossible to interleave completely between the one operator and the other without confusing a reader. The B17 article seems to handle it fairly well, though in that case there was a clearer period between UK use in combat and US use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Effectiveness summary" should be removed

The title alone is misleading. It's not a summary of the type's effectiveness, nor an evaluation of the type's effectiveness. It is, rather, a polemic that asserts "light fighters" are superior to "heavy fighters" because the P-51, which was lighter and cheaper than P-38s and P-47s, accumulated more air-to-air victories per sortie than those types. This is all a piece of the debate about whether "light fighters" are superior to "heavy fighters" - see the Light Fighter article. That article is the appropriate place to outline the argument, and have contributors endlessly modify the page to try prove they're right.

This, however, is an article about the P-51. It does not need to be made a component of the interminable dispute about the superiority of one type of aircraft over another. It lowers the tone of Wikipedia when articles that have a plethora of factual information, of the type people come looking for - e.g. how many guns the type mounted, when the Merlin was first tested on the type, number built, first flight, etc - also have poorly written arguments about tangential subjects. It is, after all, obviously specious to simply divide all air-to-air victories of a type by the number of sorties by type; it takes no account of the later design of the P-51 (including the use of laminar-flow wing), or of the changing operational conditions that obtained (more of the P-51s operational life took place after the Luftwaffe had ceased to be truly effective), or of the roles (as the P-51 came into service the P-47 and P-38 assumed more ground-attack missions). The obvious attempt to prove a point, with such weak reasoning, doesn't fit the rest of the article. There might as well be a section titled "Why the P-51 is better than the Spitfire" or perhaps "Combat Evaluation" that proceeds to explain why the Yak-3 is better. Leave that to people to debate for pleasure on forums, this isn't the place. 114.198.21.171 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree this seems to be continuation of Light fighter and related also to Talk:Fighter_aircraft#Breaking_Fighter_Effectiveness_and_Light_Fighter_vs_Heavy_Fighter_into_Two_Sections. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Reread it through and compared it with Light fighter. Definitely following a theme of fighter "weight" rather than directly addressing why P51 effective over Europe. That the Thunderbolt is mentioned without addressing the context of the P47 being used for ground attack seems a case of selective quoting. Also the citation pile-up is bit of a clue to assembling facts rather than finding an encylopaedic summary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been Bold and have removed the section per this discussion. Scr★pIronIV 14:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that this discussion and section removal should all happen in a single day after this material has been here without objection since last December. Very well, since we're entering a BRD cycle, allow me to comment.

1. "Weak reasoning" and "specious"? Review of comparative kill rates is as bottom line "effective" as can exist. That is not creating a "dispute" between fans of particular aircraft. It is objective review of combat performance, which is the most important thing about fighter aircraft.

2. The data showing P-51 effectiveness as a function of superior surprise, numbers, and maneuverability are fully referenced from multiple high authority sources. Stevenson and Sprey have detailed discussions of P-51 effectiveness based on these factors, and Wagner provided the detailed combat results to back it up. More detailed discussions of secondary issues like the laminar flow wing were not given in the interest of space, however that is a modest factor in favor of the P-51 in that it provided better fuel economy (numbers at the point of combat) and surprise (higher cruise speed to come upon the enemy from behind rather than vice-versa).

3. The basis of the removal is not that the material is wrong or in disagreement with sources, as the material is sound and in perfect agreement with sources. No counter-sources have been quoted. The reason appears to be the "not what Wikipedia is for" argument. Let's check that. In the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself, it states that the articles must be encyclopedic and fully referenced. The “Coverage of topics” section states “Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia”. The definition of encyclopedia given by Wikipedia is: “An encyclopedia is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.” “Comprehensive” and “all human knowledge” are not encouraging rejection of information--they demand inclusion of key information. And, in an article about an item of military equipment, what issue carries more weight than how well it performs its military function? PhaseAcer (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:COAT - this section was not dealing with the stated title; rather, it wandered off into an entirely different topic - the light fighter vs. heavy fighter debate - and added a good bit of WP:OR into the "cost per kill" argument. It has been appropriately removed. Scr★pIronIV 14:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Scrap, in your opinion it has been appropriately removed. But, here is a quote from the Coatrack article: "An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability."
Similarly, the material on the military performance of the P-51 is its main claim to notability, though here it was only taking up a tiny fraction of the article that you have deemed to be too much. Again, what is more noteworthy for a fighter than combat performance? And, what is more central to Wikipedia policy than use of references, which I am doing and you are not?
For your argument to carry weight, you would need to bring logic and references. So far you seem to be saying "I'm right because I am the judge of appropriateness, and many professional quality references to the contrary carry less weight than my opinion". PhaseAcer (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not disagree that such a section would be valuable; however, it would need to include something other than the tired old Light vs. Heavy debate. That is what has been coatracked into the P-51 article, and is not needed. It would need to focus on the actual performance of the P-51. As it stood, it included WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I would recommend that you focus on the article content in your responses, not put words in my - or anyone else's - mouth. Scr★pIronIV 16:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Scrap, in the above comments words are certainly being put in my mouth. I am accused of having an improper agenda to promote lighter weight fighters, that I am using original research to do so, and that the presentation is weak and specious. This is untrue. I am honestly reporting what the literature of the field says about the military performance of the P-51. If the literature attributes its success to its relatively small size and high cruise speed supporting surprise (80% of kills being the result of surprise), and its relatively low cost and long range supporting higher numbers, and its laminar flow wing allowing a relatively heavy weapons load for its size, and the total result being high effectiveness, then that is what I am bound to report and is what I have reported. When this is the strong majority view of the references of the field, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy as well as poor editing to remove such important material. If you do not agree with the writing, then it is fully appropriate to improve the writing. PhaseAcer (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the section. It was problematic as described above; a synthesis of sources to fuel an argument appropriate to a different article about fighters in general. Off topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree wity removing it, it was too WP:COATRACK. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


If there is legitimate concern with OR or synthesis, the section could be rewritten to address those concerns. It could be worded differently, but the bottom line would still be that the P-51 was successful because it well meets the four characteristics of the fighter effectiveness criteria. A big part of why it meets the criteria is because it is of small size for an escort fighter. That supports superior surprise (hard to see), numbers (low cost), and maneuverability (lower wing span and single centralized engine with low angular inertia). That is not opinion or OR or synthesis or a “tired old light vs heavy argument”. It is simply what the references report, and these scientific and data driven professional references would appear to be quite sound.
The issue of “appropriateness” is worth special attention by the editors. With the mission of Wikipedia clearly stated as a “comprehensive” encyclopedia of “all human knowledge” based on references, it would seem to be difficult to reasonably reject military performance of fighter aircraft as described in the literature as being worthy of inclusion. A logical analysis would lead to military performance being accepted as the most important characteristic of any fighter aircraft.
But, that reality is not yet fully accepted in the Wikipedia aircraft project, and including it seems to draw all kinds of objections in the effort to discredit it. Part of the rejection process seems to be opinion among some editors over their most desired type of content (the current status quo) that over time has become practice, and practice over time that has become accepted as a kind of fundamental policy that overrides all others. Then, all an editor has to say to overcome reality and references is a phrase like “not appropriate” or “not what the article is about”. These appear to be code phrases that are supposed to evoke a knee jerk obedience to this assumed most important of all policies. The problem is that it is not only NOT policy, it is actually in direct conflict with the core policy of comprehensive inclusion of all major issues as described by references.
I would request to the other editors to consider if more openness to change, if logical and supported by strong references, could lead to higher quality articles. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Similar objections to your additions to Fighter aircraft have been discussed and although it is appreciated your eagerness to push this Fighter Mafia point of view in related articles you can see by the comments above that just because you believe that it a "major issue" others dont although you believe we should include your research material as a "comprehensice inclusion" it still has to be relevant to the subject and not as it appears to be a fringe or controversial view. MilborneOne (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
User:PhaseAcer, it seems you have little support for including in this article or other articles. If you feel this strongly that the subject has merit and is notable then i would suggest you collect all the information into a stand-alone article and see how that evolves. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The Mustang was effective over Germany because it had a combination of operational range, firepower, pilots, support, tactics, and the Luftwaffe's capability was being destroyed (as per the plan) and To drag in bald stats out of context on the P47 (switched to ground attack, hence most of its later sorties where not against enemy fighters) is to misdirect readers. That the removed text was coined in terms such as "clearly showed that...." and the first paragraph set up the parameters of the argument, marks it as what is expected of a paper or presentation not an encyclopaedia article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Milborne, my opinion, your opinion, and even the group opinion are secondary to what the references say. I have brought a professional body of references to the table that have the strong majority view that the fighter effectiveness criteria is valid, and that in general smaller fighters are a better fit to it. The P-51 is quoted as a prominent example in several of these references, hence the appropriateness of giving combat performance information pertinent to the Mustang in the P-51 article. This view is so strong that there appear to be NO significant minority views to report that disagree. The consensus process of Wikipedia can be used to withhold those references and the information they present, though my opinion is that keeping out such expert and pertinent scholarship only hurts article quality. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Also, on the subject of taking data from references that may support the American fighter mafia or defense reform movement, here is the policy: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." PhaseAcer (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Graeme, the combat record is the scientific experiment that puts the test to military strategies and equipment, and it sure is needed to settle basic points. For example, in the 1930's the U.S. Army still believed that horse cavalry was not obsolete. It nearly ended the careers of Generals Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton to disagree with that foolish groupthink opinion. Then...WWII. On the subject of P-51 combat performance compared to P-47, the data may well be skewed to favor the P-51 by the P-47 flying a higher percentage of ground attack sorties, though part of the reason the P-47 got that assignment was that the P-51 was the better air-to-air fighter. But, that possible distortion in the data does not justify totally suppressing the data we have that is still very valuable in judging combat performance. It is not our place as editors to withhold valuable information from the readers that they desire in order to draw their own conclusions. As a Wikipedia reader, I never want such information withheld from me. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Ahunt, I'm perfectly happy to write separate articles on the fighter effectiveness criteria and on fighter weapons as well. What I suggested as summaries for the Fighter Aircraft article were just brief introductions intended to get the most basic information out there until such articles could be written. But, that is a process that takes a lot of time and work. I saw no value in withholding that information from readers, and from the editors of other articles who may want to reference it, before such stand-alone articles could be written. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


All, my 93 year old father-in-law was a bomber machine gunner in WWII, and a USAF officer after the war. He enjoys discussing these air combat issues with me, and understands them perfectly well. His advice to me on getting the fighter effectiveness criteria material into the Wikipedia fighter articles is typical Great Depression era attitude: "Take what you get and don't pitch a fit." So, I've made my case and I'll go along with whatever you guys want to do about it. Since the material is valid and well referenced, it will hopefully get in there in the long term. PhaseAcer (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal

I'm going to remove the statement "As a result, the Luftwaffe lost 17% of its fighter pilots in just over a week, and the Allies were able to establish air superiority", referred to Caldwell & Muller, as it hardly correspond to the original text. (lopsided, flawed, etc)

Caldwell & Muller:
"The weather over Europe now changed for the worse, and Spaatz brought Big Week and Operation Argument to an end. Both sides needed a pause. The Fifteenth Air Force, as noted, was out of the battle. It had lost 90 bombers, 14.6 percent of those to sortie, in striking contrast to the Eighth, which lost 157 bombers (4.8 percent), and RAF Bomber Command, which lost 131 bombers (5.7 percent) during this week. The operational strength of the Eighth Air Force bomber units had dropped from 75 percent of establishment strength at the start of the week to 54 percent; the strength of its fighter units had dropped from 72 percent of establishment to 65 percent. The RLV had lost 355 fighters, and its serviceability hovered at about 50 percent. But more serious was its loss of pilots—almost 100 were killed during the week."
Furthermore:
"Nevertheless, Big Week was a major Allied victory, even though no single battle with the drama of a Schweinfurt had been fought. Aerial superiority had passed irrevocably to the Allies. The message of Big Week was crystal-clear to the American planners: Allied fighters could dominate the air over any part of Europe, by their mere appearance. The German fighter force remained a formidable foe, but the era of maximum defensive effort against every American bombing raid was over."


Another issue, Caldwell & Muller notes that 355 aircrafts were lost (ca. 50%) and with 100 pilots killed in just over a week, which equate to about 14 percent of pilot losses, not 17 percent as claimed - a simple regula de tribus. Dircovic (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Eric Brown's tests and fighter sweep tactics

Today I removed a bit of synthesis introduced by The PIPE, text that made a connection between the terminal velocity tests performed by Eric Brown, and the new fighter sweep initiative which allowed American fighters to roam far ahead of bomber formations. This same sort of connection had already been added by The PIPE to the articles Eric Brown (pilot),[1] Jimmy Doolittle[2] and Allied technological cooperation during World War II.[3]

The cited reference is Eric Brown writing in his book Wings On My Sleeve, but I think the source was likely misinterpreted.

I haven't seen such a connection made in any of the books in my collection. If anyone here can point to a reliable source making this connection I will restore the text I removed today. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, Brown's statements were specifically in reference to the bomber escort operations which were carried out at relatively high altitude where the fighter's Critical Mach Numbers became more relevant, as the escort fighters were positioned above the already high-flying bombers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.15 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the tests Brown performed were not 'terminal velocity tests' but rather tests exploring the maximum speed (Mach No.) at which the aircraft was still controllable by the pilot. Beyond this speed the aeroplane has no useful fighting ability. Terminal velocity tests were eventually abandoned for monoplane fighters as most will reach their limiting Mach Number or break-up before drag equals thrust/gravity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North American P-51 Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Titles in tables

The tables start with the RAF name of the Mustang as they were the only people using the plane (it was their plane), then as the US adopted the plane only the US name for the plane is used. Both names, need to be in the left hand columns. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Just trying to save space a repeating the name every time the P-51 is used, after all but one variant were called Mustang and the RAF looks different as they dont use the P-51 designation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead / infobox image

Current, poor colour, poor detail
Greyscale, larger and crisper detail, better contrast with background

@BilCat and Ahunt: The current infobox / lead image has rather poor colour quality, and although relatively large in pixel size, has poor detail resolution when viewed full size. I had tried to improve the image about a year ago, but it is still very washed out, with the only significant colour being a yellow nose.

The image I replaced it with is "only" greyscale, but is larger, crisper, has more detail, and has better tonal range. It also represents the shape of the aircraft more effectively due to contrasting with the background.

We could change it to a recent image of a restored aircraft, which would be very high quality, but would lack the historical aspect.

Discussion and suggestions welcome. One way or another, we should be able to do better for the first image users will see. (Hohum @) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons you stated, the B&W image is a better choice for the lead image. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, the quality of the color image is poor, but if it's possible, IMO the page warrants a color lead image. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to find a period, three quarters view, flying, high quality, colour image on commons, but came up blank. (Hohum @) 00:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
While a period (ie not modern) colour image would be okay, I do think that the B&W image gives a flavour for the period the aircraft first operated in, when most photos were B&W. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, what are those things? The greyscale version has an inherent problem, the black, rounded designs along the upper wing root. They are not mentioned in the article, so would need explanation in the caption. A google image search reveals the designs were very rare. Moriori (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

How about colorizing the grayscale one? Then we have the best of both worlds; a color image in high resolution detail. I ran the grayscale photo through http://demos.algorithmia.com/colorize-photos/ and got a rather attractive result, with blue sky, although with a rather reddish-looking port wing. That's an automated AI-based tool; nothing really beats the manual effort in Photoshop or GIMP, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Should I point out that colourizing B&W photos is an abomination or just WP:OR? - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:OR doesn't really apply to images; many images on Wikipedia are original works. And I disagree that colorizing one is original research or an abomination, if done carefully. Colorizing would resolve the dispute here; you'd get a color image with the fine detail of the grayscale one. I seriously doubt that anyone would have noticed or cared if Hohum (talk · contribs) had uploaded a carefully colorized image instead of the grayscale one, because nobody would have known it had been colorized. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I'll go back to my original argument that I think the B&W image suits the period. I think it is fine as it is. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The BW is what I would have added. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 15:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Colourizing the image is problematic. Reference images would need to be used, and although this one is probably reliable, since it's a museum recreation of that exact aircraft (plus invasion stripes), the light blue colour would be troublesome - there are also reference images which show this aircraft as being more of a navy blue, gray, brown, or green. Plus, I'm not going to spend the significant effort doing it if rejection for in-authenticity is likely. (Hohum @) 17:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Forget problematic, colorizing should be grounds for crucifixion. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This probably isn't the correct forum for the general subject of colourising, but I think that is a little narrow minded. As long as enough care is taken to make sure the colours are correct by viewing other source pictures, colourisation can provide a useful image. In the case of 1940s Bundesarchiv images, colourisations can be superior to the colour photographs - which need significant adjustment to look vaguely real.
..Assuming the colourist who did the images below did his research, I'd find it hard to crucify him. Whether I'd want to use the colourised one in an article, however, depends on what it was for. Showing a specific camouflage or marking scheme if no alternative was available - yes, probably, clearly noting it was colourised. In a general WWII article that referred to the pilot, or the operation it was on, probably not. (Hohum @) 17:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(Hohum @) 17:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reinstated the greyscale image in the infobox as it seems the consensus is for that, pending a good quality colour replacement being found. (Hohum @) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Does not mention the first kill

This article does not even mention the 1st kill for the Mustang. Pretty poor article. 94.3.13.229 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that describes it? if so it can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
First Mustang 'kill' was a Fw 190 over Dieppe by Plt. Off. Hollis Hills, No. 414 Squadron RCAF, on 19th August 1942, who was an American serving in the RCAF. First pilot to become an ace (with five or more 'kills') while flying the Mustang was Flt. Lt. Geoffrey Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.157 (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Anglo-American again

An IP editor recently added "Anglo-American" to the lead sentence and supported it with two paper refs, Taming the Skies: A Celebration of Canadian Flight By Peter Pigott, Page 115 and Dive Bomber!: Aircraft, Technology, and Tactics in World War II By Peter C. Smith, page 291. I have removed the edit for discussion here first. Since this is controversial and we want to get it right, before this is added to the article, I think we need to know two things. First what those paper refs say (are they just simple statements or is a case made in either one, for instance) and then we need to see what other refs actually say. If there are many more reliable refs that say that this is an "American" aircraft and not a joint "British-American" aircraft, then the two paper refs quoted would be minority views amongst historians and should not be quoted in the lead para as per WP:UNDUE. They might be noted further down as a controversy, though. So let's start with quotes from those two paper refs, please. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How Anglo-American, do you want Anglo-American to be? 94.5.15.252 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if a couple of references call the fighter an Anglo-American venture they don't outweigh the much greater mass of sources calling the fighter an American effort. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The plane is Anglo-American for sure, even two references state so. That is FACT! I also have also a third and can go on and on. http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/01/stuff_eng_profile_mustang3.htm Some people are determined to distort history.
It seems the goals posts have been moved by some individuals from a reference to seeing if some think it is a reference. If they do not likes facts introduced that oppose their pre-conceptions, they kick up. Two book refs were given and now a magazine article is to be added, that is three references. That is enough. How many refs does it need? This becoming childish.
The article is pretty poor overall and so US biased it is disappointing to someone who knows the history of the plane. The article is very amateurish. It whitters on about US pre-WW2 bombers and the likes as if the Mustang was created to fill a US bomber escort gap. The Mustang was created to fill a gap in the RAF's capability. US bomber escort (the US was not in the war) was not on the minds of the British Air Ministry at all when they laid down its specifications. The USAF saw what the plane could do and adopted it after seeing it in RAF service. The sections on US bombers, planes and the likes needs removing or seriously cut back.
The plane is so Anglo-American that RR improved it with their version the Mustang X Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X
94.5.106.139 (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The lead section already explains that it was a British specification and an American design, materials and construction. How is the existing wording not correct? As far as two references that were cited go, I'll ask again, what do they say? Obvious the refs offer some disagreement, so let's add up what we have for refs and see if the "Anglo-American" claim is based on more than just setting a specification and also whether it is a minority position, as explained in WP:UNDUE. If the majority of historians do not call it "Anglo-American", but "American", then those that do can be noted further down in the article as a disagreement amongst historians, but it won't go in the lead section. So can you please quote here what your refs say? - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay I have gone through my library of paper books looking for how the various historians refer to the aircraft. Out of a dozen books that detail the P-51, that I have, about ten do not label it as to nationality explicitly, but most say that it was designed and built by North American Aviation to a British requirement. M. Allward's Source Book of Aircraft explains the history well and clearly labels it an American aircraft. His entry says, "This single-seat fighter was the first American aircraft designed to satisfy R.A.F. requirements. Although the performance of the prototype proved far superior to contemporary American fighters, particularly at low altitudes, it was handicapped at height by the weak Allison engine. However, the installation of an American-built 1,680 h.p. Rolls—Royce Merlin made it one of the R.A.F.'s best fighters, and when fitted with drop tanks it had a remarkable operational range of over 1,700 miles (2,700 km.)." Probably the mostly respected British aviation historian ever, John WR Taylor, FRHistS, AFRAeS, FSLAET, who was editor of Jane's for several decades, described the P-51's origin in Jane's simply as "USA". From this survey of my books it would seem that labelling it "Anglo-American" would be a minority position amongst historians. - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
All POV. There are THREE references that state that the plane is Anglo-American. References were asked for and they were given. Sorry if it doesn't match your perceptions, but it was Anglo-American. That is enough. Even reading the article it is clear the plane was Anglo-American you do not need a reference to see that. NAA were guided into a design by the British Air Ministry. They told NAA where to look and adopt, like the laminar flow wings and the test results from Curtiss, etc. They they would see what they had come up, approve or reject or direct them to another design aspect as it went along. The engine that made the plane stand out was a British engine - Rolls Royce. Anglo-American. 94.5.29.4 (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you dismissing Jane's as POV? What evidence do you have that that is the case? - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The plane is Anglo-American That is abundantly clear. 94.3.127.22 (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Raising this silly nonsense yet again is pure childish ignorance - equivalent to the idiots who want "Persian" substituted for "Arab" or Arabic" in any Middle Eastern cultural article. An aircraft originating in a British purchasing mission specification doesn't make it "Anglo" anything. Nor does fitting it with a British engine make it "Anglo" anything either - just imagine the aircraft we'd have to call American, or French because they were fitted with engines from those countries. The S.E.5 and the Sopwith Camel would both become "Franco-British", to take one example, albeit from another war. An aircraft that is designed and manufactured in one country, as the Mustang may be described as from that country, any connection with another country, while of interest, is not relevant at this point. If a source says something that just isn't so - and is contradicted by other sources they we certainly don't have to follow it. Even counting sources up to see which predominates is not to the point - many sources copy each other. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The plane is Anglo-American That is abundantly clear. Many refs state so. Its history states so. Its engine states so (most of the plane is engine). Your POV does not matter. 94.3.127.22 (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Abundantly nonsense. Is every aircraft using an American engine American, or every aeroplane using a French engine French? The people arguing against you are mainly British (or Australian) so claiming we have a Yank POV is simply not true. That rubbish about the Brits dictating things like laminar flow wings, or requesting extreme range are not mentioned in the refs you cite - purely in your head I'm afraid. More refs simply call it American than otherwise, as if that mattered anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Well past time to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The plane is Anglo-American. Not to state so it a blatant attempt to distort history. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, just drop it, this was settled in 2016. Get a new hobby. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, distorting history is well..distorting history. I do not go along with that. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If you hate it so much, then why are you doing it? Scr★pIronIV 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
(Per Mustang X comment) Germany fitted a captured Supermarine Spitfire with a DB601, that doesn't make the Spitfire a British-German plane. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have recently declined a request to protect the article, as frankly there are too many people making personal attacks and incorrectly accusing each other of vandalism. Let's keep the conversation focused on the sources and their appropriate weight and prominence. Nationalist debates about whether something is wholly American or a mix of American / British can be heated and controversial in the extreme, please keep calm and if you are having difficulty, consider going to the Dispute Resolution Board. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern - and sorry if I got a little heated, especially in my edit summaries. With sincere respect, this dispute has little or nothing to do with sources or their relative value. Overwhelming consensus on this question (and this is the second time around, as Ahunt mentions above) is that an aeroplane designed and exclusively manufactured in America is "American" (albeit there is an interesting British connection in this case, which has always had its due weight in the article). This is a matter of several editors (by no means just me, although I seem to have been the one "on the spot" just lately) defending one of the "high traffic" aviation articles from persistent attacks by a single IP advancing a fringe POV. Especially in the last round of "discussion" we had to field quite a catalogue of uncited (and uncitable) "facts" in support of the "Anglo" bit. These seem (mercifully) to have been dropped, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I should note that another admin has semi-protected the article for a month. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all of that, however the Rolls Royce Merlin's contribution to the success of the P-51 means that I really don't think it's such a cut and dried decision; however if the general consensus is to stay with "American" (and Ahunt seems to have summed that up quite well), then we'll stay with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not about people here judging whether a British-designed engine (made in volume by Packard) or an initial British order (for a completely different airframe) are enough to call the resulting airplane "Anglo-American". Instead, it's about representing a proper balance of published sources. Most sources call it American. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
American sources call it American. The hard evidence firmly indicates something else. It had a British engine in the models that made it shine, that was far superior to anything the US was producing, and the plane was to British specifications, for the British with no US forces involvement whatsoever. The British were paying for the plane, not Uncle Sam. It was not meant for any US forces and was not to their requirements at all, having zero input to the planes origin. The plane was specified as France was falling with the British needing a long range plane to get over Germany, as the Spitfire was a short range fast interceptor.
The British did not approach North American because they had a wonderful design track record in leading edge fighters, in fact they had zero experience, it was because all British factories were working 24/7. The reason why the British went to the US was to use the capacity of US industry as British industry was at full belt, while the US had spare capacity. The US government allowed the British approach US companies directly by-passing them. The British Air Ministry laid down the specifications and held the hands of North American as they were putting the design together, even directing them to the Curtiss experimental plane for ideas and the laminar flow wings. The British were way ahead in aviation than the USA, the US made nothing like the Mosquito, Tempest or jet planes. They knew what they wanted and directed NAA to give it.
The plane initially had the inferior Alinson engine because RR Merlin engines were not available as they were being made 24/7 in the UK. New RR shadow factories were being built at the time at Crewe, Manchester and Glasgow to build more Merlins, and later by licence in the USA. Rolls Royce took some airframes from NAA, adapted them and fitted RR Merlins calling it the Mustang X. NAA engineers were taken to the UK to see how RR did it, so they could make them in the US. Initially NAA were frightened the whole project was to be taken from them and given to Rolls Royce in England. They were relieved when they got the contract, as RR wanted to stay with just engines, their core business, not add plane bodies to their line up. To call this just an American plane is a gross insult to the British. The Mustang is an Anglo-American plane. It was called the Mustang before it was called the P-51. Many on this talk forum have brought this point up, but the contributions are conveniently archived by the Americans. Unbelievable! It is like the British trying to claim the Jeep as British as they were assembled in the UK. The British would never do such a thing. 94.3.127.22 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Mr/Ms 94.3.127.22, but that is precisely how it DIDN'T happen. All the British Purchasing Mission were interested in was another source of P40s as a backup for the RAF squadrons already operating that aircraft - North American were suggested to them as a possible source for such an order. In the event North American were reluctant to build someone else's already obsolete design and decided to go with something more advanced of their own - the Brits did not object to this, but so far as I (or anyone else here) can discover by further reading, had little or nothing to do with any "specific" specifications. The rest of your rant is also pure fantasy. Get over it, please, as we all have better things to do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly how it happened. We all know about the P-40s and NAA saying we can build a better plane to your needs. Once the British agreed and had some confidence they could do it the Air Ministry resorted to guidance directing NAA to Curtiss experimental planes, etc. They had to as this 6 year old company had zero experience of such planes. The design was all US? Was it? The Americans conveniently forget the RR Mustang X. What you wrote was pure nonsense. 94.3.127.22 (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor consensus is clearly against "Anglo-American" as are sources. That's pretty much the end of the argument for wikipedia purposes. (Hohum @) 00:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

American are you? We have a consensus of ignorance. Most of these people in your consensus group know little of the history of the plane, that is obvious, and are going on nationalistic fervour. The article is full of nonsense about the US bombers pre-war and all sorts of irrelevant stuff to the birth of the plane, which was all to British needs not US. No wonder people regard wikipedia as a joke. Reading this stuff is embarrassing for the average American. 94.3.127.22 (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been following this strange discussion with interest. As a test case, I have edited the Watchkeeper WK450 info box, national origin, to Israeli. My logic closely parallels the discussion above. The airframe of the WK450 is the Israeli Elbit Hermes 450. The addition of specific radar to the WK450 is analogous to the fitting of the Merlin engine to the P-51. It is still a United States design, as is the WK450 overwhelmingly an Israeli design. I assume therefore that any reverts my edit may experience can be overcome by the consensus reached above on an airframe from a different timeframe, and developed for a different purpose. I would therefore expect sympathetic support from my colleagues in using this case as a precedent. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Sounds rather close to WP:POINT. MPS1992 (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case I would read this:

Important note A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".

I was illustrating a very similar case which had come to my attention and shared it here as I have been following this discussion. The colleagues here have known me long enough to know I do not indulge in such rubbish. In any event I am actually totally agreeing with the P-51 consensus and applying it to a different although very similar case. Irondome (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I read that enthusiastically bolded text before making my comment above -- it doesn't apply. MPS1992 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I was born in Britain, have lived in Britain all my life, and regularly have a look at some of the historic Rolls Royce engines in the Science Museum. Consensus among everyone here is that it should be described simply as "American". That's it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That does indeed seem to be the consensus of the sources and of the discussion, even if not of everyone involved. MPS1992 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That is not a consensus of sources, it is a consensus of Editors. 94.3.127.22 (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but such a consensus is sufficient to decide what should go in the article. MPS1992 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It is a consensus of sources as well. As we have discussed above, there are very few sources that describe the P-51 as "Anglo-American", the vast majority of them describe it as "American". "Anglo-American" is a very marginal minority label in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

At the time in 1940 the BPC was pinning its hopes on the new XP-46 which had a more powerful variant of the Allison V-1710 engine and promised increased performance over the P-40, however the XP-46 proved a disappointment and was cancelled, and this is probably what gave the Commission the impetus to take up NAA's offer.

With the failure of the XP-46, Curtiss instead produced an improved P-40 variant using the more powerful Allison intended for the XP-46 and this went into production as the P-40D/Kittyhawk.

The same year the two prototype XP-47 and XF4U's had flown and both had reached 400 mph on large air-cooled radial engines and because of this the USAAC decided all future new USAAC fighters would have radial engines, and so cancelled all new USAAC-funded large inline engine development. This is one of the reasons the Allison never received a better supercharger and why it remained the only large US inline engine to be used on a large scale in WW II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It would have been a big job to put a proper Stanley Hooker type of two-stage supercharger on an Alison engine, as the head would need a total redesign. The shape of the inlet and exhaust ports was the problem. The Merlin was made in the USA under licence, so that satisfied the American nationalism, who called the engine the `Packard Merlin` to give themselves a warm feeling. RR were constantly updating the engine which the Americans also liked. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Engines do not make for airframes. If the P-51 becomes "Anglo-American" when fitted with a Merlin, then the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, & A-300, among others, also change nationality when fitted with Rolls TFs. Does any Anglo partisan seriously meant to change every one of those? I doubt it. So stop, already. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, if you do research, you will find about 1,000 sources "American" sources for every "Anglo-American" source. Also, the P-51 was also powered by the V-1710. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This is stupid, & getting involved in it may be stupider... Why, exactly, is there insistence on "Anglo-American" for this a/c and no others? Why not for the Avro Jetliner, designed by a British company? The 1000s of 727s, 737s, 747s, A.300s, & IDK what else that had Brit powerplants? And, for all that, why isn't a Sopwith Camel with a Gnome et Rhône engine Franco-British? Is a PBY built in Canada a Canadian a/c? (Hmmm... Maybe it is...) Is a Spitfire or Hurricane with a Packard Merlin Anglo-American? Why, exactly, is only the Mustang qualified? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the best answer is that "success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan." The P-51 is arguably the best American fighter of WWII, and probably the most popular even to this day. - BilCat (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, and historically correct, there were simultaneous efforts on both sides of the Atlantic to re-engine the P-51A with a Merlin. Sources too numerous to list all support this. The efforts on the American side began several months before the Mustang X first flew in England. And it should be mentioned that the US P-51B was a more compact Merlin installation that outperformed the Mustang X. It should also warrant a line or two describing how Packard made the Merlin engine truly mass-produceable, which allowed a sufficient quantity of Merlin engines so the P-51B, C, and D could be built. Scottgwalker83 (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The US intention to re-engine the Mustang with a Merlin was for a simple replacement of the Allison with a two-speed single-stage Merlin XX (Packard V-1650-1) in the same manner the P-40 Kittyhawk had been re-engined. It was Rolls-Royce, at the suggestion of Ronnie Harker, who instigated the installation of the two-speed two-stage Merlin 60-series as was then current in the Spitfire IX. IIRC, Harker had flown a Mustang I while on a visit to the AFDU at Duxford.
BTW, Rolls-Royce 'mass produced' around twice as many Merlins as Packard did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.157 (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_P-51_Mustang/Archive_3&oldid=1140260718"