Talk:North American P-51 Mustang variants

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

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

P-51H load factors
''The USAAF required airframes built to their acceleration standard of 8.33 g (82 m/s²), a higher load factor than that used by the British standard of 5.33 g (52 m/s²) for their fighters. Reducing the load factor to 5.33 would allow weight to be removed, and both the USAAF and the RAF were interested in the potential performance boost.''

Just curious because I'm pretty sure that contemporary RAF fighters were designed to load factors of around +9g, or at least the Spitfire was. I may be mis-remembering this figure, but 5.33g seems awfully low for a fighter. IIRC, the Lockheed U-2 (a notoriously fragile aeroplane) was designed to a load factor of only around +2.5g and I'm pretty certain few pilots would want to fly in aerial combat in an aeroplane only stressed to roughly twice that of a U-2. Perhaps the did RAF later reduce their airframe strength requirements during the war but I seem to remember the pre-war Spitfire was designed for +9g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is also an unsourced statement: now ring-fenced until properly confirmed and sourced. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks - and as regards; "The USAAF did not like the mixed armament of the British Mustang Is and instead adopted an armament of four long-barrelled 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk II cannon, and deleted the .50 cal engine cowling mounted weapons."


 * I don't see why the USAAF would specify 4 x 20mm Hispano when the British were already going over to this armament for all their future fighters. I suspect the 4 x 20mm was actually specified by Britain for the Mustang IA, the Hispano Mk II being a British version of the HS.404 cannon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The 4 x 20mm Hispano was specified by the RAF for the Mustang IA and as the NA-91 these were the first 150 aircraft procured by the USAAC for Lend Lease to Britain. See here:

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

Document shows different Data

 * ...able to reach 472 mph (760 km/h; 410 kn) at 21,200 ft (6,500 m)...

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North American P-51 Mustang variants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080815221501/http://www.gml2007.com/history3.asp to http://www.gml2007.com/history3.asp

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

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

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


 * I'm in favor of replacing it. The user who took the photo and added it here is indef blocked and not likely to be returning, so there should be no objections to its removal. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The inability of a user to object to a change of picture would be a rather odd reason to make that change. As it happens, that photo was chosen not long ago as Today's featured picture and is indeed a very nice photo, which does the job pretty neatly. There are probably many other photos that would be equally well-suited, but that wouldn't prompt me to change the current one. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's a bad picture, just that it's not exactly representative of the bulk of the variants. A good-quality one that is, IMO, should be heading the page.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Just to make it clear the table was removed last year and not by BilCat. It was removed as it is not normal practice to include such tables and significant differences should be detailed in the narrative not in a large table. Its clear that since November nobody has deemed the information significant to add to the article prose. The fact that the table in the Spitfire article should be removed as well for the same reasons, also note what other websites do is not relevant either. It is not wikipedias jobs to list every single detail of every variant only those that make it different from other variants. If you think any of the figures are important then you are welcome to add them to the narrative, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh and adding content back after you started a discussion is edit warring and being disruptive so perhaps you should consider undoing your edit. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed a couple of months ago, and yes, by you. Once again, I believe you are making a fatuous argument about "standard practice." It's hardly a standard practice to have a separate article at all for variants of an aircraft - in the category of World War II aircraft I only know of three other such pages (for the Supermarine Spitfire, the Bf 109, and the FW 190). Of these, two (the P-51 and the Spitfire) list specifications in tables, the other two do not.


 * Russian language Wikipedia is not a different website, it is Wikipedia in another language. Nor is the Russian language version the only one to do so - if I go to the German Wikipedia articles for the Bf 109 or the FW 190, for example, I will find full stat blocs on five or six variants of the aircraft each.


 * Furthermore it is standard practice on the page of every single military aircraft on every version of Wikipedia to list the specifications of at least one main version, in a bloc format in its own section at the bottom of the page. Not to have this information scattered throughout the narrative, as you say it should be.


 * Why is this? For obvious reasons of convenience to the user. I can find more or less the same information available on every aircraft in the same place on their page. I don't have to go hunting through multiple paragraphs and thousands of words of text in order to find their key statistics. Having specifications listed in a table at the end of this page (again, a page devoted to variants of the P-51, not the main P-51 article), follows this precedent by putting key information in one place. With the table, a user can see the differences between variants listed side-by-side. Without it, they are forced to scroll up and down the page, jumping back and forth from one paragraph to another, trying to memorize scattered bits of information if they wish to make any sort of comparison between them.


 * Against all this, we have only your assertion that "it shouldn't be this way." Information should be erased, the users of the site should be inconvenienced, and the page should be made less useful as a reference, because you say so. I think not. I do not believe that Wikipedia's written guidelines support your claims. What Wikipedia is Not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#STATS) states that "statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Which is what this page had before, a narrative overview of the aircraft's variants and then a table of the relevant statistics. Furthermore, Wikipedia's manual of style on the use of tables (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Inappropriate_use) states that prose is preferred when it "allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not." In this case however I have argued that it does just the opposite: it robs the statistics of these aircraft of context by removing the ability to compare them side-by-side at a glance. I am less able to understand the degree of the increase in engine power and speed from the P-51B to the P-51D to the P-51H if they are not available side-by-side in a tabular format.


 * Therefore I rest my argument: this deletion is unhelpful, unwarranted, and unsupported by Wikipedia policy, and thus it should be undone.
 * 2601:2C3:877F:C290:C60:1FD:E996:AC8A (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Apart from a number of factual errors I am not sure making personal attacks helps your argument. MilborneOne (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m deeply sorry that you feel personally attacked by cited references from the Wikipedia guidelines and policy pages. From now on I will argue in a less hostile manner following your fine example. How about “I am not sure having no argument whatsoever helps your argument.” Is that better?66.115.169.238 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying the "redundancy" argument. I like the convenience of having all the specs in one place. So my view is contrary to WP policy; what else is new?  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  16:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that it has now been four months since the argument over the chart began, and in that time, neither MilborneOne nor BilCat have made any attempts to add the information they eliminated by deleting the chart back into the narrative of the article. At this point it seems unlikely they have any intention of doing so, lending further credence to my argument that this action was detrimental and destructive. They have provided no supporting arguments to claim that this information was irrelevant, only that the format in which it was presented does not meet their interpretations of Wikipedia's standards. Eliminating rather than reformatting this information has thus been a destructive edit and should be reverted until they provide a convincing argument to do otherwise. 2601:2C3:877F:C290:ED71:CA52:1B13:37D6 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

P-51XR
I disagree with the claim that the designation "P-51XR" is unofficial. The FAA registry for N6WJ "Precious Metal" gives the type as P-51XR. While it is not an original manufacturer or USAAF assigned designation, that does not make it any less official. Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation built Mustangs under the designation CA-17 and CA-18, and we consider those to be official. P-51XR is the designation that World Jet Inc. gave its own one-off Mustang variant. - ZLEA  T \ C 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You need a couple of WP:SECONDARY sources using the designation, not a registry entry.
 * The XR could simply indicate Experimental Restricted, or some such thing. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * and are two sources that refer to it as P-51XR. -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt XR could stand for "Experimental Restricted". The FAA does not assign aircraft designations, let alone designations indicating airworthiness types.  Furthermore, "Experimental Restricted" is not an airworthiness certificate; "Experimental" and "Restricted" are two separate certificates which, to my knowledge, are not issued together. -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two secondary sources are fine; they prove your point. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Massive edits by Completeaerogeek
As I stated when I first reverted your edits, the edits you are making to this article are largely unsourced or improperly cited, and they ignore WP:MOS and are incoherent. Here are just a few of your changes that are problematic:
 * Removing "P-51" from the North American P-51 Mustang link in the lede.
 * The addition of a paragraphs related to the British Purchasing Commission's involvement in the development of the aircraft, which does not belong in a variants article (except maybe a brief mention).
 * Multiple unsourced one-sentence paragraphs, such as "The second batch of 300 Mustangs 1s were developed versions with a number of changes and were given the NAA model NA-83." (I'll also point out that the RAF did not use arabic numerals in their mark designations until after the war, so "Mustang 1" is incorrect)
 * You used a spam link for the "Modeller's Guide to Early P-51 Mustang Variants" source, not to mention the fact that a modeller's guide is not a reliable source.
 * Rearranging section headings to favor the RAF designations over the more commonly-known USAAF designations.
 * Whatever that unencyclopedic all-bold "A-36/NA-97 - What's in a name?" paragraph is supposed to be.
 * Did you copy large parts of the "Prelude to the Merlin" section (I'm assuming you meant for that to be a section) from Mustang the untold Story by Matthew Willis and Rolls Royce Historical Society by David Birch? I also want to know if Rolls Royce Historical Society is actually the name of the source provided there.

The changes you are making are not improvements. I suggest that you discuss any changes you want to make here before you make them so we don't have to go through this cycle again. - ZLEA  T \ C 15:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That isu sour opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)
 * I'll also point out that if you want to make large changes to this article, you can work on the changes in your sandbox and then we can discuss them once you are done. - ZLEA  T \ C 15:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please state specifically which are unsourced? If I am writing a paragraph, I am not going to cite a reference for each sentence. That not how citation works, unless they are from different sources.
 * I have sourced every single entry in full. Willis, Matthew-Mustang the untold story, Birch, David Rolls Royce and the Mustang. Hooker Stanley, Not much of an engineer., Perret Geoffrey-Winged Victory -All with publishers, dates and pages. No abbreviations.
 * The designation issue is actually germane to chronological history. What is 'common' is not what is correct. The RAF designation for the Mustang I and Ia are correct. This is well established.
 * Calling a Mustang I, a P-51 is parochial not correct. The British commissioned, paid for development and bought the aircraft privately. Their designation until the A-36 is the technically correct one. The First P-51 designation arose from a batch of Mustang 1s that were given a convenient USAAC designator, that did not change the aircraft. They remained Mustang 1s with a USAAC catalogue name.
 * They were built under a British contract not a USAAC one and NAA describes them as Mustang Is or NA73/83.
 * The Mustang I/Ia (I will accept the Roman correction-RAF used roman until 1943-44-this can be seen by the Spirfire 24) IS by definition, NOT a P-51. The NA model numbers should be in sequence of development.


 * The first Mustang built to a USAAF/C Spec was the A-36.The A-36 distinction needed to be made because there is no evidence it was ever an official USAAC/F name. The statement in the article was incorrect.
 * The first P-51 built to a USAAC specification was the P-51A (NA-99)
 * And no, I didn't copy 'large sections' of anything. Where I use quotes, I indicate that. Where condensing I paraphrase. I have introduced material you did not present, to give relevant context.
 * I also corrected some of the errors and broken citations, using more up to date research.
 * RRHS is the publisher of Birch's Book, Rolls Royce and the Mustang as I repeatedly cited in full, rather than just using abbreviations, and contains large amounts of reproduced original documents not just reference stacking.
 * The modellers' link is not mine. I did not insert it or have anything to do with it.
 * You might also do the courtesy of commenting/messaging first as other collaborators do if you see something you disagree with and question the changes rather than just doing a mass revert.
 * That just starts wars and is silly. we can usually come to an understanding and find a middle ground but where I see incorrect statements or biased slants of history, I will call it out.
 * Happy to have this arbitrated, as you seem to believe that you own this article. Completeaerogeek (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverting and calling out problematic edits is not WP:OWN behavior, so please assume good faith as I am with you. Here is a fill list of unreferenced paragraphs that you added (many of them are single-sentence paragraphs, which is a problem in itself):
 * (Fair enough. I had insomnia as was writing at 2am so i will own that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)


 * "The prototype of the Mustang, designated NA-73X, was not written to a US specification but instead was commissioned by the British Purchasing Commission as a private venture directly with NAA and with no involvement from the US Government or USAAC/Wright Field."
 * "The second batch of 300 Mustangs 1s were developed versions with a number of changes and were given the NAA model NA-83."
 * "The first RAF Mustang Mk Is were delivered the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment At Boscombe Down and the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in Cambridgeshire."
 * "From the time the first Mustangs 1s arrived in Britain in late 1941 they has been the subject of intense scrutiny, testing and assessment and modification. The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE), Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU), Aircraft Armament and Equipment Establishment (AA&E) and Rolls-Royce, were all identifying and solving problems and sending data back to North American Aviation. Issues included radiator silting, duct efficiency, oil cooler efficiency, exhaust stub configuration and an range of other challenges expect with a new aircraft type."
 * This is a Birch. RRHS. I don't one why the citations dropped out. Again the platform may have been the problem issues with visibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)
 * "Rolls Royce and the various service testing organisations remained closely involved with the various models of the Allison and Merlin Mustangs throughout the war, working in close contact with NAA representatives, including designer Edgar Schmued in March 1943, regularly visiting and following progress."
 * Birch again and this time I have a word version showing I included the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)


 * "Despite the breakthrough with Mustang X, and on to later Mustang marques, the RAF continued to value and use the Allison Mustangs in combat until VE day."
 * That citation I may have left out and I will own that - but it is from Willis. P 207. The edit interface was not the new one I am used to where you can see changes in real time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)


 * "Introduction of the B and C Mustang was not without its challenges. US sparkplugs created endless headaches at higher boost and a contract was placed by the USAAF for 100,000 UK made RC-52 sparkplugs until equivalent components could ne manufactured in the US and tested by Packard. This essentially solved the problem."
 * - I cited Birch Page 68 here. it may have been an accidental deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)


 * As a general rule, each paragraph should have at least one citation if it is sourced from a single work. This helps readers to easily find where the paragraph's content came from.  I'll also apologize for saying the spam link came from you.  The diff comparison I was looking at made it look like you had added it.  Also, thanks for clarifying that you did not copy directly from sources.  I was concerned because the tone of the section read a bit like a book, and it wouldn't have been the first time I've encountered WP:COPYVIO through such a tone.


 * (Sorry I am a published author and ext University lecturer so I know about fair use and copyright.I have 40 years of reading and reviewing these booksso my memory is pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)


 * When I was said "Rearranging section headings to favor the RAF designations", I was not referring to the Mustang Mk.I, but the Mustang Mk.IA, which was designated "P-51" (specifically P-51-NA, as well as F-6A-NA) by the USAAF. That said, after refreshing myself of the chronology of the NA-91, I am not against moving the RAF designation before the USAAF designation.  But your claim that "The Mustang Ia IS by definition, NOT a P-51" is false, as they were identical (except for later modifications by the USAAF) and even shared the same model number.


 * This is technically incorrect. They shared the same model number because the USAAC took RAF specified and ordered aircraft off the production line for their own use. If I called a P-51B a Mustang II or a P-51D a Mustang III, I would be incorrect. These aircraft were written to WD/WF specifications in a contract with NAA. Unless I was writing in a specifically British publication and even then I would asterisk )or footnote it). Mustang II is an RAF service designation of the aircraft, not its identity specified by the production order. The drawings would say 'P-51B' not Mustang II.


 * Mustang I is the name referred to it by the country that was responsible for commissioning it, ordering it and paying for its development. If I order and F-35, and F-500 is my Air Force's designation for it, it is still an F-35.
 * The USAAC had no specification for the Mustang Ia. They simply took RAF Ias off the line and gave then a designation.
 * If you can supply an official specification or order from the War Department or Materiel Command for this aircraft, (as exists for the A-36 and P-51A) I will happily accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that there should be a clarification that the A-36 was never named "Apache" (you might be interested in this discussion), but any in-depth section belongs in the North American A-36 article, not here. At most, there should only be a brief mention of the name controversy here as anything more would stray outside the scope of this article.


 * And finally, I was following the WP:BRD cycle when I reverted because I believed the large edits you were making were doing more harm than good. You don't have to agree with my judgement, but this is your chance to engage in the "D" part of WP:BRD.  If you believe the existing sourced content is biased and incorrect, you should discuss the content first so we can determine which sources are in fact problematic. -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to do so. I have a large library on these topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs)
 * Please do not directly edit my replies again. It makes it hard to determine who said what.  Perhaps I can make my point on the designations more clear.  The Mustang Mk.IA and P-51 are two different destinations for the same variant.  While individual aircraft may not have carried both destinations, it is perfectly fine to use both destinations to refer to the variant as a whole. -  ZLEA  T \ C 02:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would put it to you that if you are using a global description for Mustang aircraft variants, the article should be titled: 'North American Mustang' as this eliminates any issues including those with the A-36 which was not, by your own logic, a P-51. Whether the USAAC/F called a handful of Mustang MK1s specced and built for the RAF but taken from the production batch 'P-51 or F6A' is not relevant. They could name them Daffodils if they like, but they were Mustang Mk1/NA-73/83 to NAA. The Mustang Mk1 NA-73/NA83 is a British specification for a specific aircraft. It is physically different to the A-36 (the first aircraft designed to a USAAF spec) and the P-51A. Willis' book from p 223 goes into excruciating detail about the differences in the NA model numbers. I think it reasonable to remove P-51 from the article title for these reasons and refer to the aircraft production models correctly. Completeaerogeek (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the name that is used by most reliable secondary sources. If you believe "North American Mustang" is used more often by reliable sources than "North American P-51 Mustang", please feel free to open a move request.  I find it odd that you claim the USAAF designations are not relevant before claiming that NAA called the variant "Mustang Mk1".  Mustang Mk.I was the RAF designation for the variant.  NAA referred to the variant with the internal model numbers NA-73 and NA-83, not by any military designation.  You are right, the A-36 was never assigned the "P-51" type designation under the 1924 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system, but it is still a variant of the P-51 type nonetheless.  As for the Mustang Mk.Ia and Mk.II, they are the RAF designations/sub-variants of to the NA-91 and NA-99, respectively, differing from the US P-51 and P-51A only in minor equipment.  In later variants, the different production blocks (which often had their own internal model numbers) differed more drastically than the differences between USAAF and RAF variants, yet those blocks are still considered sub-variants of the same variant.  At what point do we draw the line between a sub-variant and a full variant?  The answer is that we draw the line where reliable sources draw it.  I have yet to see a single source that treats the USAAF and RAF aircraft as anything more than just sub-variants. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I came here following a note posted to the Aviation WikiProject. First of all, I am glad to see this is a civilised dispute between two knowledgeable editors. But those walls of text above here defeat me, and therein lies the problem. It seems to me that the root issue is the scale and speed of editing by If you could take it in smaller bites, with pauses of a good few hours between them (overnight is always good), that would give others time to digest them, and raise citation issues and stuff, before making life more complicated. Everybody will soon get the hang of others' approaches and it should then be possible to speed up a bit. All the best, folks. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)