Talk:North American P-51 Mustang/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Anglo-American" continued

Amazing how nothing is mentioned of the RR Mustang-X in this appallingly biased article. NAA were scared stiff that RR was to take over being prime contractor and most taken to the UK. The Air ministry ordered hundreds of the RR Mustang-X from RR, once they perfected the plane with the Merlin engine. RR turned it down as they wanted to concentrate on engines only, not building airframes. 90.198.218.245 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Brits were the first to use the Mustang because it was THEIR plane. It was shooting down FW-190s over France when not even in USAAF service. 90.198.218.245 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, the original Air Ministry plan was for Rolls-Royce to re-engine the Mustangs on arrival in the UK. For this Rolls-Royce would have manufactured the modification kits and then installed them themselves. Rolls-Royce weren't keen on doing this as it would have been a distraction from their main business and would have required additional skilled workers. Instead they sent a Merlin 60 to North American (IIRC, Packard had not yet built any 60-series engines at that time), and they (NAA) produced a more integrated and extensive re-design, which included the additional fuselage fuel tank which had not been possible on the Allison version. The Rolls-Royce Mustang X modifications had mainly been aimed at getting a Mustang into the air with a two-stage Merlin, and so these aircraft are sometimes referred-to as 'lash-ups', although I doubt Rolls-Royce would have been pleased to hear such terms applied to their work . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.249 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The NAA "redesign" to incorporate the Merlin was overseen by a RR guy, named I think Harker. They did what RR had done and proved worked. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

None of the above posts in this section have any factual basis. In fact one wonders if their "author" has ever done a Google, much less ever opened a book on the subject. Everyone else in the world wrong and only you have any notion of "truth"? Even on a subject like this, which is perhaps not of truly fundamental significance (in a way - but tell that to a real aviation "nut") I just don't think so. The article has never been "biassed" - except for brief periods when echoes of this nonsense were allowed to temporally deface it. Please get into your head that this is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not a counterfactual fantasy game. Even if you are enjoying yourself, all the grownups here stopped laughing at you ages ago - there ARE ways of having fun without being a nuisance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:THETRUTH - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the above two comments were aimed at the original posters. My addition above starts with the "IIRC" and is easily verifiable by anyone who can be bothered to read up on the subject. It was added FYI only as I thought, apparently incorrectly, that some of you might be interested in the Mustang's history and might want to research further.

The article has been around for years and its only in the last few weeks that anyone has added a link to the Thomas Hitchcock article, perhaps the single most influential American in the Merlin-Mustang story and the one responsible for ensuring the USAAF also got Merlin-Mustangs (in the shape of the P-51B and C) rather than just the RAF. I suspect the reason that the British side of the Mustang story in the article is so sparse is due to an aversion some editors have to reading anything originating in a country other than their own. IIRC Rolls-Royce published a number of inexpensive books on their history which I am sure are available in the US, and IIARC one such covers the Rolls-Royce involvement in the Merlin-Mustang story. There are also memoirs by people such as Stanley Hooker that IIRC also go into the Merlin aspect. His autobiography is called "Not Much of an Engineer" and I recommend it.

There is a Youtube video on Stanley Hooker, do a search. He is interviewed as well, so all quotes from that are valid as they are from his mouth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by4lH2whhjk Hitchcock was key for the USA to adopt the Mustang for sure. He saw what RR were doing. He was to see, officially and unofficially, what technology the British were developing and inform the USA or liaise to have the US adopt it. He was the one who told the US military the British actually had jet planes in the air, which they never knew. Hitchcock should be mentioned more, as the USAAF did not want to know the plane even with the RR Merlin engine. The book: Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers who Turned the Tide in the Second World War by Paul Kennedy, covered the Merlin conversion. RAF Fighter Command in April 1942 were thinking of not using the Mustang and laeving it to other units. The US Air Production Board decided the Mustang in 1940 was a "washout". When Hawker installed the first Merlin, Hives, the head of RR engines, ordered 250 conversions, RAF Air Martial Freeman doubled it to 500. Freeman knew that if enough numbers of this plane were to be built the industrial capacity of the USA was needed. This is where Hitchcock persuaded the USAAF to adopt the Merlin-Mustang.

The USA took some persuading as they initially did not want to know having a highly bureaucratic system. The US had orders of 2,500 P-40s, 8,800 P-39s and 11,000 of P-63s - all of them hopeless. The Mustang did not go through the normal channels of US engineering scrutiny, being a British plane made by a US maker, so US authorities did not like the Mustang. The US first flew the Mustang as the A-36, which first flew on September 21, 1942 with the Alison engine, nearly 6 months after the British were flying Merlin-Mustangs. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the reason the USAAF chose the Mustang for escort duties was because the Mustang's wing had a higher critical Mach number (important at high altitude) than that of either the P-38 or the P-47. They knew this because the RAE at Farnborough in the person of Eric Brown told Doolittle so. Brown was one of the pilots involved in doing the tests of all three aircraft - at the request of Doolittle. And it was the Merlin 60-series that allowed the addition of a fuselage fuel tank, because it was a two-stage engine and therefore heavier than the Allison. This moved the aircraft CofG forward and allowed weight to be added behind the pilot. This is what made the Mustang usable as an escort fighter. The Merlin also used an updraught carburettor, whereas the Allison used a downdraught one. That's why the air scoop was moved from on top of, to under, the nose. The Merlin also required an enlarged radiator with greater cooling capacity, which is why the Mustang X had an additional smaller radiator under the nose - the quickest way of adding cooling capacity without re-engineering the lower fuselage - NAA later incorporating a new larger radiator in the normal position for the resulting P-51B and C - the two models being identical apart from minor differences, the designation denoting whether they were built at Inglewood or Dallas, which is why the RAF called them both the Mustang III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.249 (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Great work by you guys. All the info you wrote is openly available. But not in this article. :( 90.213.248.226 (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Great stuff by all in this section. Why isn't the info in this section prominently written in the article. I suppose because no one has written and tried. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:44D8:9D17:3291:7AE3 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JFYI, Ronald "Ronnie" Harker was Rolls-Royce's chief test pilot at Hucknall. US designation for the Mustang was still 'XP-51' as late as November 1943; [1]

Israeli service

The section on the Mustang in Israeli service is misleading. It is true that the in first weeks of the War of Independence the only fighter that the Israelis had was the Avis-S199 but they soon acquired some Spitfires, Mark IX from Czechoslovakia and these formed the backbone of the fighter force in 1948-9. At the time of the actual fighting Israel only had two Mustangs. I do not know the provenance of the source quoted but the notion that the Mustang quickly established itself as the best fighter they had must be taken with a pinch of salt. Robert Gandt's new book 'Angels in the Sky' which is based on extensive interviews with many of the pilots reports that they preferred flying the Spitfire. Whatever the relative merits of the two planes it seems clear from looking at the operational history that the Mustang was less important to the Israeli Air Force at the time. Alan3278 (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There was IIRC an article in a 1980's issue of Aeroplane Monthly about the foundation of the IAF and the Spitfire was universally preferred, IAF pilots stating the cockpit of the Spitfire fitted the pilot 'like a glove', the Avia S-199 'like a straitjacket', and the Mustang 'like a too-comfortable armchair'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.142 (talk)

Drop tanks or napalm?

The caption in the infobox says the aircraft has underwing drop tanks. The visible one looks suspiciously like a napalm canister, such as in this photo. Comments anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs)

I believe some napalm tanks of the era used the same basic design as the fuel tanks, so they will look very similar. (Hohum ^@) 13:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ref image http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/Droptanks.jpg (Hohum ^@) 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The first napalm tanks were converted drop tanks fitted with an igniter pistol to cause the contents to ignite upon hitting the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Canopy change

The bubble canopy on the later versions is as iconic as the scoop. There is nothing in the development section or the production chart about when and why that came about. 96.241.177.111 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The canopy came about because of a wish to improve the rearwards vision, more info at Malcolm Hood and Bubble canopy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Who removed engine info from the specifications?

Engine model and power are essential info on any aircraft page, I know for a fact they were listed here last time I checked but now they aren't. Removing these for any reason (except for replacing them with a more accurate / better-sourced entry) amounts to an act of vandalism. Why has this happened here? 2601:2C3:877F:C290:ED71:CA52:1B13:37D6 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Meredith Effect

The P-51 deserves an entire section devoted to the Meredith Effect, and data to back it up. There is a short paragraph, but I don't feel that it does it justice. At one time I had come across an original source document (from the Army Air Corp) showing that the P-51 at 25,000 feet and at 400mph produced 1000lbs of the thrust via the propellor, and 375lbs of thrust via the radiator. This is really what gave the plane such an extended range, along with it's high fuel fraction. --DavidPT40 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Justice should be done at the primary article Meredith Effect, not here. The thrust data would be interesting here, but it needs to be properly sourced. (Hohum ^@) 15:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Since when is Battle Hymn (1956) fiction and Red Tails (2010) not???

The movie Battle Hymn was based on the simultaneously published autobiography of USAF Colonel Dean E. Hess, instructor pilot and senior advisor to the Republic of Korea Air Force at the start of the Korean War. To disqualify it as "fiction" in the Popular Culture section while including the entirely fictionalized Red Tails and The Tuskeegee Airmen (which is much more fictionalized than Battle Hymn and used much of the aerial combat footage from Battle Hymn, to include the South Korean yin-and-yang insignia in place of the white star USAF insignia on the Mustangs) is a joke!!! PhantomWSO (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable point, I've removed all except the film about an P-51. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, excellent point, they should all go except the documentary and they now have been. Guidance is at WP:AIRPOP. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I would rather have seen all three films included in the Popular Culture section per most other Wikipedia pages, but this works for me too. PhantomWSO (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I knew Colonel Hess and was something of a literary protege of his. PhantomWSO (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As noted at WP:AIRPOP, we have moved all fictional uses of aircraft from the aircraft type articles to Aircraft in fiction, just because the film, video game and other pop culture was dwarfing the text about the aircraft and its operational use. All we leave now is the documentary films. If you find any fictional use still in aircraft type articles feel free to move it! - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Cost per kill

Some information has been put forward about how the Mustang was a more economical fighter, but it isn't quite getting there. First, we should have a source saying that, dollar for dollar, the Mustang was the more economical aerial weapon against German aircraft. Then we can say how much was spent on the other fighters and how many kills they made, followed by a simple arithmetic calculation giving us dollars per kill for each fighter type. But the main point is that the Mustang was more economical, and this point should be cited to a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging PhaseAcer. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I have a large library on fighter effectiveness, but the P-51 data I had posted (sorties and kills, with a resulting simple arithmetic calculation for kills per sortie), is the best I have after hundreds of hours of reading on this subject. To try to get more data for you, I just ordered "Mustang: A Documentary History of the P-51", but I don't have much hope of it having better operations research data than "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51". The professional book length fighter operations research report "Comparing the Effectiveness of Air-to-Air Fighers: F-86 to F-18" (the best fighter effectiveness reference in print, available at http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf) gives a high amount of detail on issues such as sortie cost for all American fighters from the F-86 forward, but not for WWII fighters.

So, I don't think we are going to be to find a well referenced cost per kill on the P-51 and other WWII prop fighters. If we are willing to allow publication of a few simple calculations, we can give an accurate relative cost per kill of the P-51 compared to other American prop fighters in the ETO. For example, we do have good data requiring only a simple calculation for kills per sortie, in which the P-51 excels the P-38 by a factor of 1.64 on kills per sortie and, having costs of each and knowing that total operating cost is proportional to purchase price, thus excelling the P-38 by a factor 3.1 on kills per dollar. The P-51 excels the P-47 on kills per dollar by a factor of 5.25. The military operations research reasons for this superiority are covered in the Light fighter article, but are mostly based on advantages in surprise, numbers per budget and at the point of combat, and maneuverability. These realities are why Jimmy Doolittle insisted on replacing the P-38 and P-47 with the P-51 in the ETO for the escort mission. To my mind this superiority is the most important factor about the P-51, far more significant than any of the many other details cited in the article. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't need convincing of the greater economic value of the Mustang. But your proposed arithmetic takes too many steps to be called "simple calculations". Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Having read all of this it is really into WP:OR territory. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

We are given kills and sorties by Wagner, and then divide kills by sorties to get kills per sortie as a figure of merit. Is that a simple enough calculation to publish? PhaseAcer (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The involved aircraft were not given the same opportunities to make aerial kills. As the war in Europe ground on, the P-38s there were pushed into ground attack roles, so their sorties would be less likely to yield a kill. Again it's not simple arithmetic. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason the P-38 and P-47 were assigned more air to ground missions than the P-51 once the P-51 arrived (before that they had all the air to air missions, which gave them the statistical advantage) was due to their inferiority to the much lower cost P-51 in the air to air role. So, what you are saying is that the P-51 superiority results in it being undesirable to report the P-51 superiority. That is not the position taken by the references that it is our job to report. A more logical approach would be to give the numbers, with the note that the numbers may be influenced by the P-51 getting a higher fraction of air to air missions late in the war due to its superiority. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What we need to do is stick to the conclusions that cited refs actually say. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, you may be surprised to see the relative ground attack missions of the P-51, P-38, and P-47. The P-51 claimed 4950 kills air to air, and 4131 on the ground. The P-47 claimed 3082 air to air, 3202 on the ground. The P-38 claimed 1771 in the air and 749 on the ground. So, the P-51 apparently spent about 30% more time in ground attack than the P-47 (while flying half the total sorties), and the P-38 far less than either. Still, the P-51 got considerably more air to air kills and more kills per sortie than either. Taking ground attack into account only improves the relative air to air performance of the P-51. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, I agree with you on reporting what the references say. In addition to Wagner's stats on actual combat results, here are the conclusions you ask for, provided by an expert reference (a career air warfare operations researcher and warplane architect):

Sprey Report p. 15 of 159: "The P-38 was the least successful of these fighter escorts; due to high losses and poor kill record, by spring of 1944 General Doolittle had decided to begin replacing them with P-51's. The 17,500 lb P-38, despite its excellent 360 mph cruise speed and 400 mph top speed, was too large and too visible, too inferior in maximum g, and had both poor roll rate and poor dive acceleration. In addition, its two engines proved to be mostly a survivability handicap; if either one was hit over Germany, the aircraft was likely to be lost due to either fire or enemy fighters downing the straggler." Note the subtle but important final point Sprey makes here, which is that the P-38 with two engines has 50% more critical target area (engines and cockpit) than the P-51 when subjected to the enemy cone of gunfire, and is thus more likely to brought down by each burst.

"The 13,500 pound P-47 did nearly as well as the P-51. Although somewhat larger and slightly slower, it had unparalleled dive and roll performance and a more survivable engine (due to absence of a vulnerable liquid cooling system). The major advantage of the P-51 in the air war over Germany was its longer range and higher cruising speed." Sprey has a better opinion of the P-47 than the combat stats reported by Wagner actually show.

"The 10,100 pound P-51D was the most successful of the long range fighters: it was not much larger the Focke-Wulf 190A and Messserschmitt 109G, had a much better 360 mph cruise and 437 mph top speed, had better dive acceleration, could equal or out-turn the German fighters, and could match their roll performance."

Sprey's qualitative conclusions are fully supported by the quantitative combat results reported by Wagner. Furthermore, the P-51 achieved this plane for plane superiority for 60% the cost of the P-47 and 53% the cost of the P-38, as further reported and discussed by Wagner. In any war resource limits are a crucial and often deciding factor, and a weapon system that gets better results for far less money is a war winning advantage. Are these not critically important and well referenced facts to report? PhaseAcer (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume I am not getting any feedback on the above because this subject of fighter plane combat performance has always seemed a bit uncomfortable to the Wikipedia military aviation editor community. I'm puzzled by that, since combat performance and costs are the top issues for understanding the value and historical significance of any weapons system. In the case of the P-51, I propose something similar to the below in presenting the combat results. The numbers given require no more calculation than taking ratios of the numbers given by Wagner. These quantitative results can be be supplemented with the qualitative summaries of any of a number of references attesting to the superiority of the P-51. The references can be stacked chest high that report this qualitative superiority, from combat pilots, test pilots, and analysts. On the other other hand, I have never seen any reference that regards the P-51 as inferior to any other WWII prop fighter when all factors are taken into account. The Spitfire and Zero were a little more maneuverable. The Thunderbolt and Hellcat were more rugged. The P-40 was a little cheaper. The P-38 weapons suite was a little stronger. But for total combat effectiveness, the only plane even close would be the Hellcat, which ran up a big score going against obsolete Japanese aircraft late in the war (Wikipedia lists the Hellcat cost at $35k, though the plane has the same engine and a very similar airframe to the $85k Thunderbolt. I believe this is because the engine, guns, and avionics were "government furnished equipment" not counted in that cost.) I know we don't want to use words like "stunning" in a Wikipedia article, but when you take into account the strong combat superiority of the P-51 and its cost only being a little more than half the per plane costs of the P-47 and P-38, it really is stunning. Binkster, the reason I include the weights of the P-51 and its American competitors is because loss of surprise and cost are both proportional to weight.

Proposed text: "The P-51 Mustang's statistical results in the European Theater compared to other American fighters backs up its place in history as a highly effective fighter plane. The P-51 Mustang fighter with empty weight about 7,635 lb (3,463 kg) and costing approximately $51k per aircraft ("D" version), flew 214,000 sorties, lost 2,520 aircraft in combat, and claimed 4,950 air-to-air kills and 4,131 enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground. The larger and heavier single engine Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, empty weight about 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and costing $85k per aircraft, flew 423,000 sorties, lost 3,077 in combat, and claimed 3,082 air-to-air kills and 3,202 on the ground. The still larger twin engine Lockheed P-38 Lightning with empty weight of about 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) and costing $97k per aircraft, flew 130,000 sorties in the ETO, lost 1,758 in combat, and claimed 1,771 air to air kills and 749 on the ground. The P-51 scored 0.023 kills per sortie, the P-38 scored 0.014 kills per sortie, and the P-47 scored 0.0073 kills per sortie. The Mustang enemy aircraft destroyed to loss ratio was 3.6 to 1. The P-47 achieved 2.0 to 1, and the P-38 scored 1.4 to 1. The P-51 scored 61% more kills in the air and 34% more kills on the ground than the P-47, while flying only 51% of the total sorties. The P-51 scored 180% more kills in the air and 552% more kills on the ground than the P-38, while flying only 65% more sorties. On a kills per budget basis the P-51 greatly exceeded these other escort fighters, as it was 60% the cost per plane of the P-47 and 53% the cost of the P-38." PhaseAcer (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

References

You're putting your own interpretation into Sprey regarding the P-38 being a larger target to the "cone" of the enemy fire. If the enemy was spraying fire in such a cone, they would put holes in the target but likely fail to get a kill (see gun harmonisation.) A winning pilot would have to focus fire and aim for just one of the critical targets, which by the way include fuel tanks if you are firing explosive or incendiary ammo.

I think your proposed text beats on the reader too much, hammering the point home with too much repetition. And the weights of the fighters just add confusion to all the other numbers. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not really stuff for a general encyclopedia, it is more suited to a fighter fan website then here. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Milborne, as an engineer and pilot I know a great aviation design achievement when I see one. I can't help but be a fan of this aircraft and the actually magnificent performance of its designers and pilots. Since that is what is in the references, and is apparently the simple truth, it would seem to improve the article to present the combat performance numbers. If we do not present the combat performance, are we not being non-neutral in a negative way? PhaseAcer (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The proposed text reads like a chest beating, and overly granular stats dump. Stick to conclusions drawn in the sources, and then summarise those. (Hohum ^@) 23:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I note you've used basically the same text in Light fighter, where such a statistical comparison makes more sense. (Hohum ^@) 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hohum, I don't see why reporting combat statistics is "chest beating". It's the most important truth about the aircraft as given in the references. But, if you can describe it in a way that you think is more neutral, that's fine by me. We could just copy it directly out of Wagner, and let the reader draw his own conclusions. But, it certainly seems to be oppressing key information to not mention it at all. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, I did not mention the extra suceptibility of the P-38 to enemy fire in my proposed text, as I have only seen that in the one reference and it is not fully spelled out. I just think it is an interesting point to mention in case another reference should expand that and make it more clear why a twin engine fighter, which most readers would assume is more resistant to enemy fire, can with its reduced maneuverability and extra target zones actually be more vulnerable than a single engine fighter. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Milborne, there is another point here I should make. Encyclopedic does not have to be dry and stuffy--just truthful and informative. There is a human story here that is quite fascinating, and that is well described in the references. The P-51 was designed in an entrepreneurial effort, originally without the support of the U.S. Army Air Corps. The brass strongly preferred the P-38 and the P-47 that they did originally sponsor, and as often happens, the brass was dead wrong. The P-51 came out of the weeds to excel those better supported fighters by a factor of about five in combat effect per dollar (including ground kills), and to save thousands of Allied lives. That was a tremendous achievement and one of the great stories of WWII, and better description of that may help in the promotion of this article from "B-class" to "A-class". PhaseAcer (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, Milborne, for some philosophic reason I don’t understand and which is not in Wikiepedia policy, you are saying that an “encyclopedic” article should not include this kind of information. But, note this sentence in the section titled “P-51 Introduction”: “The Mustang was so clearly superior to earlier US designs that the 8th Air Force began to steadily switch its fighter groups to the Mustang, first swapping arriving P-47 groups to the 9th Air Force in exchange for those that were using P-51s, then gradually converting its Thunderbolt and Lightning groups.” And, this quick summary of P-51 combat stats in “Beyond Pointblank”: “By 8 May 1945, the 8th, 9th, and 15th Air Force's P-51 groups claimed some 4,950 aircraft shot down (about half of all USAAF claims in the European theater, the most claimed by any Allied fighter in air-to-air combat) and 4,131 destroyed on the ground. Losses were about 2,520 aircraft.”

What I had proposed was simply to better support the existing report that the P-51 was “clearly superior” to other American escort fighters by backing that report up with comparison of its combat stats and costs to those of the other escort fighters. Doesn't that make the article better? PhaseAcer (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the combining of sources and then making all these calculations falls into WP:SYNTH. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, though the statements are scattered around, right now this article already claims a high superiority for the P-51 as compared to the other escort fighters, with very little referencing. My proposal was to provide the references and data backing that fundamental claim up. By Wikipedia policy, simple calculations to better present data are fine if the editors agree, and do not qualify as synthesis. But, if you think that is really a concern, we can stack up the references and quote them exactly. PhaseAcer (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

P-51 WWII Combat Performance

The argument for removing my comment on the TALK page about the P-51 saving a lot of American lives in WWII was based on this being so much in the zone of “original research” that Wikipedia editors dare not be exposed to it (Does this truth somehow harm them?). Let me give just a little referencing on this true and crucially important fact.

From “Evaluating Weapons: Sorting the Good from the Bad”, a professional primer by ten senior officers and analysts, page 106 on key characteristics of fighters in general: “Ability to launch lots of friendly fighters into enemy skies every day (achieved through low sticker price, low maintenance leading to many sorties per day and long cruise endurance) and ability to generate lots of air combat training hours (ditto) to produce plenty of gifted pilots.”

This statement applies to ALL fighters, so I don’t see the validity of applying it to the P-51 to be in question or somehow original research. I can stack up DOZENS of references like this if you wish (see the “Light fighter” article), but here I will quote from Wagner specifically on the P-51: “Mustang Designer”, p. 127: “Another advantage of the Mustang was its relatively low cost. Air Force data indicates an average unit cost in 1945 of $50,985, compared to $83,000 for the P-47 and $97,147 for the P-38.”

The number I give of approximately 5 times the combat effect per dollar for the P-51 over the P-38 and P-47 comes from Wagner’s reported statistics of the combat record of each aircraft, which includes air to air kills, air to ground kills, sorties, and losses for each aircraft. A few lines of 9th grade math produces the number 5 in regards to combat effect per dollar. To note this on the TALK page is not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy. It is within policy to put it in the article as well, so long as the editors agree.

The huge losses suffered by American heavy bombers before the Mustang escort became available are a matter of historical record, and not original research. Nearly 100,000 American lives were lost in the ETO air war. Naturally it follows that if you have a 5X increase in combat effectiveness with the P-51 in comparison to the other escort fighters, then that saved a LOT of lives in fighter crews, bomber crews, and ground forces. That is one of those truths that is so obvious it hardly needs referencing in the article, much less on the TALK page.

It was World War II, over 50 million people died, and many references report just how well the P-51 performed and that it brought the war in Europe to a faster end. That’s why the combat performance of the P-51 in WWII is the absolutely most important point to make in the P-51 article.

If you guys are going to refuse to even allow this to be discussed on the TALK page, then it seems we must go to arbitration to settle the issue. PhaseAcer (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If a reference talks about all fighters but does not put the P-51 into the context then it's a violation of WP:SYNTH to bring that reference here to prove a point.

And you're ignoring the early years of the war where the various forces had to fly the airplanes that were available, not ones that weren't ready yet. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Another factor you aren't considering is the decision to have different companies making different products in different places around the nation, to spread the work out, to keep the materiel flowing, and to heighten the likelihood of one design being excellent. If someone in the USAAC had prematurely decided that the P-40 was the best single-engine fighter that the US could produce, then we wouldn't be here discussing the P-51. But the war production planners let a handful of different designs go forward so that their strong and weak points could be identified in combat. Kelsey talks about this, too, in his book The Dragon's Teeth, named for the mythical teeth that grew magic soldiers when thrown on the ground. He says that a competent nation, planning for future success in war, needs to have a few different industrial pipelines in place, potential sources of weaponry out of which something excellent can be coaxed when needed. But multiple avenues need to be funded or you will never know which fighter is the best. The result is a varied inventory of fighters with varied capabilities, all of which were built, paid for and delivered, most of which should be actually used for fighting or at least training, or the nation's treasury has been wasted. It's the same for guns and tanks and ships... some are really good but the mediocre ones were also built in quantity and must be deployed. A war of attrition means men will die. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I am not putting anything in the article against your wishes. I am complaining about deleting comments on the TALK page that are aimed at improving the article. Information you think might be opinion or original research or synthesis in the article is not against policy to discuss on the TALK page. Putting such discussion on the TALK page to seek consensus and find new references is the very reason to have the TALK page.

Concerning finding the best fighter escort strategy and aircraft, sure there was some need to experiment. There is also the well published failings among the USAAC senior staff to quickly understand the results of those experiments and to promote the P-51 and even the use of drop tanks to allow deeper escort. Insisting that the bombers could get through unescorted, General Hap Arnold was a key figure in that, to the point of dereliction of duty in refusing to allow the use of drop tanks on fighters, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of bomber crewmen sacrificed for Arnold to try to prove a point where he was dead wrong. Fortunately Major General Jimmy Doolittle, commander of the 8th Air Force and an MIT PhD who could process basic data without a giant ego getting in the way (despite the fact that he also held the Medal of Honor), had more sense and insisted on replacing the inferior P-38 with drop tank equipped P-51's.

Also, just tonight I discussed this issue of P-51 combat performance on the phone with an acquaintance of mine who is a well known military aviation expert and author. By coincidence he has been researching the P-51 deeply in recent years for a book he is working on, and will be recommending some additional references to go with his new book. If my friend's new book and the supporting references do not exactly present the P-51's combat effectiveness to reference the telling of the full truth here, then I will consider publishing it myself in a respected military aviation journal to order to create the exact reference you want to see. It is getting to point that I am willing to put in 50 hours writing the article in order in order to get you to stop complaining that taking the ratio of two numbers is original research that shatters the integrity of Wikipedia. It is the refusal to tell the most important truths that are right there in the references that is bad for Wikipedia. PhaseAcer (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Two things: you are perfectly free to engage in synthesis and original research if you are writing your own magazine article or book about the topic. In fact, it's expected and encouraged.

Second, if you don't want your talk page contributions to be deleted per WP:NOTFORUM then don't spout your opinions without any clear suggestion of article improvement. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I am suggesting a major improvement to the article, which is to tell the truth about THE most important issue of the P-51. The P-51 scores about 2.5 times the damage per plane of the P-38. It does for half the cost of the P-38. Similar numbers apply to the P-47. That is not a little thing. It is a giant, war winning thing, and the data showing that is right there in the references. For some reason I don't understand, you refuse to allow that to be reported in the article. Why don't we submit that to arbitration? PhaseAcer (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I am all for article improvement, in fact I'm considering restoring enough of the A-36 Apache portion of the history so that a full account of the P-51 development can be seen by the reader in this article, without jumping to another article.

Everybody here who has voiced opposition to your suggestions is doing so because of problems with synthesis of sources or because the proposed wording is not neutral. If you can compose some well-cited neutrally worded expansion text telling the reader about how the Mustang was more successful than other American fighters I don't think you'll find anyone is against it. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I appreciate that flexibility. I have four additional P-51 references on the way in the hope of better sourcing. By the way, you might consider the book "Development of the P-51 Mustang Long-Range Escort Fighter" by Ludwig if you want to give more life to the development of the P-51 and the struggle it faced getting into production against the wishes of much of the USAAF senior leadership. I'll work on some diligently neutral and brief text as a candidate over the next week on the general success of the P-51 as compared to other escort fighters. In this case, it can be difficult to sound fully neutral because just reporting hard facts like actual combat results does so favor the P-51. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In looking into more detail on P-51 aerodynamics I find this really outstanding YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqiG9VHuBbM This is from the “Greg’s planes and automobiles” channel. Greg is a very knowledgeable guy, bringing out many old engineering references and giving more detail on P-51 aerodynamics than I have ever seen before. He attributes low drag to: 1. Slippery wing even if not mostly laminar in practice. 2. Drag reduction from Meredith effect. 3. High attention to detail like gear fully tucked, low drag gun ports, high quality manufacturing.

Can this be used as a reference? PhaseAcer (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably best not to use self-made videos, if it is generally known info on the P-51 it is probably in print somewhere so you could use the video as a guide to find better sources. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Too bad though, as this guy is an engineering perfectionist who is pulling together many strong sources like engineering test and wind tunnel parasitic and induced drag reports from WWII, and then analyzing them further. Even if we can get the original reports, we won't be allowed to analyze them ourselves to recreate his results, and I have never seen them in another source. His contrasting of that hard data between the Mustang and the Bf 109 in this video is very detailed and illuminating. One of his other videos that details the efficacy of methanol-water injection (the MW 50 system) in the Bf 109 is also fascinating. It was a fully practical method that Germany had developed by 1940, and increased horsepower 20% to 40% (depending on mixture) for about 20 minutes of fighting by allowing much higher manifold pressure before engine knock occurs. Germany did not deploy this until late 1944 in some versions of the Bf 109K, leading to the reports I have seen several times of "strange Me-109's" that could outperform the Mustang. PhaseAcer (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

P-51 as a Light Fighter and Combat Results

Binkster, I see that you have instantly deleted my single sentence with three strong references asserting that the P-51 is a lightweight fighter. Your give your reason as a more significant body of literature stating that the P-51 is a "standard" fighter. I'm not aware of this being strongly asserted in the literature, or "standard" even being a well defined term of the art of fighter design, and I note you delete my three strong references without mentioning any of these other references you allude to. However, the more efficient single engine fighters of WWII that may correctly be called "standard" due to their prevalence and success are actually ALL lightweight fighters by the modern definition. "Standard" strongly overlaps "lightweight" in the WWII context.

The reason it is important to point this out is that at the beginning of the war the USAAF leadership was committed to the idea that if bombers were escorted at all, the escort would have to be by heavy fighters. This was based on the mistaken belief that only heavy fighters could have the necessary range. They totally overlooked the basic Breguet Range Equation (see Range (aeronautics)) that correctly predicts range based on fuel fraction, engine efficiency, and drag. In the book “Mustang, A Documentary History”, by Jeffrey Ethell, it is given on p. 51 that the P-51 used 64 gallons of fuel per hour, the P-47 140 gallons per hour, and the P-38 144 gallons per hour. It had this huge efficiency advantage because it was a lightweight fighter where attention was paid to drag reduction. Those efforts rendered the P-51 as far superior to the P-38 and P-47. Both its aerodynamic and combat performances were significantly better than these heavy escort fighters, at just over half the per plane cost. That is the greatest historical legacy of the P-51, the key factor that was a huge influence on the course of WWII.

You said above you would not oppose including more detailed presentation of the P-51's combat stats and cost effectiveness, IF I could back that with references. Very well, at this point I have the references and was beginning that process. But, you are again blocking the presentation, deleting my references without presenting any references of your own. You said my references are "hinting" at light weight, but in fact they are firmly and clearly stating. Let me quote directly from a strong DESIGN reference on the P-51, "Development of the P-51 Mustang Long-Range Escort Fighter", page 34: "Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during World War Two in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter". On this same page, "Schmeud's XP-51 was one of the first aircraft designed from the start with a mind to making light weight a modern goal in fighter design." Unlike other fighters that typically get heavier as the program continues, the design focus was totally on making the P-51 even lighter in the later H and J versions. The entire focus of the P-51 program, from beginning to end, was as a very efficient lightweight fighter. The success later led Schmued to define the F-86 and the F-5, two other outstanding fighters, as lightweight fighters. Light weight and cost efficiency were the foundation of Schmued's design philosophy, and this is extensively covered in the literature. For example, see chapter 6 and chapter 9 of Wagner's book "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51", which are completely devoted to explaining this design philosophy.

Right now this article goes into great depth on esoteric details, like wind tunnel testing of the laminar flow wing, and details of the P-51 development contracts. It ignores the main definition issues of this very important aircraft, and most critical combat performance issues of how it performed compared to other escort fighters, and how that performance was significant to the outcome of WWII.

I have had to fight the battle before of actually reporting what the majority of the literature states in the Light fighter article. There was a strong opinion there among Wikipedia editors that light fighters are toy fighters of almost no practical use, when a huge body of professional literature concludes that efficient single engine fighters are light fighters and that they are as good or better plane for plane, and much better dollar for dollar. I brought references by the dozens asserting this, and no other editor could bring a single reference saying otherwise. I am telling the truth here about the P-51, and bringing strong references in the process. If you can come up with any references that say differently, then bring them. Otherwise, please let the truth be told. PhaseAcer (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

You are trying to rewrite history to make a regular fighter look like it was planned and produced under the nomenclature "lightweight fighter". Your effort is revisionist. I appreciate revisionist historians who try to correct a false record but in this case the record is already well established and not questioned by anyone. The Mustang was designed and produced as a PURSUIT aircraft, under the reigning definition of the day. A pursuit aircraft in the first half of the 1940s was a standard fighter aircraft. The US of A never had a designation of "lightweight fighter" during WWII. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I am bringing a set of strong references specific to the P-51 that consider the P-51 as a lightweight fighter (now 3 and I can increase it to 5 if desired), with PROOF that the design team at North American was designing it as a lightweight fighter, and a much larger set of strong and professional grade references pertinent to all fighters that would leave no conclusion other than the P-51 being a light fighter. In the modern literature, which by Wikipedia policy takes precedence in technical fields like fighter design, light and lightweight fighters are equivalent terms (see the many references in the introduction to the Light fighter article). You are bringing zero references, your opinion, and the attitude that you are in complete command of this article. Can you show a single reference that claims the P-51 is NOT a lightweight fighter and therefore not possessed of light fighter virtues? If you keep deleting strong references based on nothing but your say so, then I have no choice but to request arbitration. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because your are only interacting with User:Binksternet doesnt mean that they "own" the article. The page has 333 watchers all could have an opinion but at this time prefer to withhold comment. As a challenged edit you need to build a case and gain a consensus for your changes. It is not up to those challenging the addition to find references. Oh and something else that might help, a lot of watchers will probably not be bothered to read through your wall of text so it may be better to make your case in handy bite sized chunks as others are more likely to read that. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Milborne, I apologize for the wall of text, but it takes some space to counter incorrect statements, to provide the key information and references, and then to suggest article text as I do below. Binkster is claiming that reporting the P-51 definition and design strategy is revisionist history because “In this case the record is already well established and not questioned by anyone.” Actually, it is questioned by a large body of professional literature that is not now reported in this article. Binkster challenged me to come up with the references, particularly ones that report directly on the P-51, and I have done so. Bringing the article more into agreement with the literature and properly presenting the place of the P-51 in fighter aircraft history is what I now propose.

For some reason, the terms “lightweight fighter” or “light fighter” are contentious to some editors here, though these are well recognized terms of the fighter design field that are described in dozens of strong references. A number of these references refer to the P-51 as a key early example of successful lightweight fighter design. Some editors have claimed that the weight of the P-51 and its competitors is such a non-issue that it should not even be mentioned here, but this is the exact opposite of the what the literature says. The literature contends that the weight, cost, and efficiency of the P-51 are of key importance in its combat success. In contrast, the term “standard fighter” that Binkster claims describes the P-51 is not defined and almost never used in my library of over 100 fighter aircraft references. Wikipedia policy on contentious issues is to quote directly from the references, so I propose something similar to this paragraph to go in the “Design and development” section.

"The P-51 was specifically conceived and designed as an efficient, low cost, lightweight or light fighter. Quoting from Ludwig’s P-51 design history text “Development of the P-51 Long-Range Escort Fighter”, p. 34, "Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during World War Two in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter". On this same page, "Schmeud's XP-51 was one of the first aircraft designed from the start with a mind to making light weight a modern goal in fighter design." In the modern literature, lightweight fighters are well known to possess advantages in the critical elements of surprise, numbers/cost, and maneuverability. Realizing the advantages of the P-51's low weight for superior maneuverability and lower cost, throughout the program the North American design team worked to lower its weight still further while increasing its power. The P-51H of 1944 had an empty weight of 6,586 lb (2,987 kg). There were 555 P-51H Mustangs manufactured, but WWII ended before they could be deployed. An even lighter "J" version with reduced armament of four 0.50 (12.7 mm) machine guns was tested in April 1945. This had an empty weight of 5,749 lb (2,608 kg)."

In the literature, the P-51 is reported as successful precisely because of its lightweight fighter virtues of surprise, numbers (cost), and maneuverability. The P-51 program emphasized light weight, low cost, and high efficiency from start to finish. The result was minimum aluminum, steel, fuel, and dollars to put the minimum necessary weaponry of four to six fifty caliber machine guns deep over Germany in just the right spot to bring down the most enemy fighters, and the program was more successful by far at that mission than any other escort fighter. So, the definition information given above is critical to report here, and supports the combat results information that I suggest go into the “Beyond Point Blank” section or a new "ETO Combat Summary" section as described below.

”The U.S. Army Air Force was originally unenthusiastic about the ability of the P-51 to perform as an escort fighter. In “Development of the P-51 Long-Range Escort Fighter”, on p. 54: “The slim little Mustang eventually took over the job only after all other possible fighter alternatives were first given a chance.” Once it finally the got the mission, the Mustang quickly altered the air war over Europe in the Allies favor. The P-51 Mustang fighter with empty weight about 7,635 lb (3,463 kg) and costing approximately $51k per aircraft ("D" version), flew 214,000 sorties, lost 2,520 aircraft in combat, and claimed 4,950 air-to-air kills and 4,131 German aircraft destroyed on the ground. The larger and heavier single engine Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, empty weight about 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and costing $85k per aircraft, flew 423,000 sorties, lost 3,077 in combat, and claimed 3,082 air-to-air kills and 3,202 on the ground. The still larger twin engine Lockheed P-38 Lightning with empty weight of about 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) and costing $97k per aircraft, flew 130,000 sorties in the ETO, lost 1,758 in combat, and claimed 1,771 air to air kills and 749 on the ground. The Mustang enemy aircraft destroyed to loss ratio was 3.6 to 1. The P-47 achieved 2.0 to 1, and the P-38 scored 1.4 to 1. The P-51 scored 61% more kills in the air and 34% more kills on the ground than the P-47, while flying only 51% of the total sorties. The P-51 scored 180% more kills in the air and 552% more kills on the ground than the P-38, while flying only 65% more sorties. On a kills per budget basis the P-51 greatly exceeded these heavier fighters, as it was 60% the cost per plane of the P-47 and 53% the cost of the P-38.”

A summary of how this success, achieved at longer range than the P-47 and P-38 were capable of, greatly assisted the bomber war and thus the total of the war in Europe, would also be appropriate here. That impact is not financially quantified in any reference I have found, but it is many times larger than the 3X to 5X kills per dollar greater cost efficiency of the P-51 as compared to the P-47 and P-38. Every bomber saved cost about as much as four P-51's or two of the heavy fighters, saved the lives of ten crewmen, and allowed that bomber crew to do their job of destroying ground targets and bringing the war to an end.

What is stated above is not hype or non-neutral. It is what is unequivocally stated in the literature, with no countering literature, and is historically the most important information about the P-51. That is why it deserves a place in this article. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Your interpretation of the literature is incorrect. You are jumping to conclusions which are unsupported by the mass of literature. You're trying to push a minor viewpoint held by few. Binksternet (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No Binkster, the view I am presenting is that of multiple authoritative design and combat operations research references pertinent to the P-51. This is the real thing as written by professionals in the business of analyzing and presenting weapon systems, not coffee table aviation picture books. In response there is no rational discussion or counter-references coming back from you. Are you ever going to present any of the "mass of literature" you keep claiming presents the P-51 as a non-lightweight "standard" fighter? Or, are you going to just keep saying that the professional literature and I are wrong, and you are right? PhaseAcer (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your sources aren't talking about the P-51 in its place in history. Rather, they are using the P-51 as an example to push their viewpoint about the more recent development of light fighters. Your sources don't support your synthesis; your interpretation of them is faulty. The P-51 was never conceived or produced specifically as a light fighter, and your sources cannot refute that. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, let me repeat this direct quote from the most authoritative book in print on the DESIGN STRATEGY of the P-51 design team: “Development of the P-51 Long-Range Escort Fighter”, p. 34, "Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during World War Two in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter". On this same page, "Schmued's XP-51 was one of the first aircraft designed from the start with a mind to making light weight a modern goal in fighter design." The author Paul Ludwig is not a lightweight fighter promoter. He's a Naval aviator and career professional pilot and author who has done a a better job researching the design of the P-51 than anyone else, based on WWII primary references.

The problem with accusing your fellow editors of distorting the references is you don't know who you are talking to. In this case you are accusing a guy of intellectual dishonesty who is a marine, lifelong pilot, and career engineer with nearly 40 technical publications and patents to his name. Correct technical writing is a critical part of my profession. I go by the facts and the science, buddy. In this case, the facts are that the P-51 is 2.5X as good as the P-38 plane for plane, and 5X as good dollar for dollar. And, when you count the better bomber protection all the way to the heart of Germany and back that saved the bomber campaign, it is 10X to 20X as good per dollar in the effect on the ETO air war as the P-47 and P-38. Why in the world would you want to stand in the way of reporting that important and well referenced truth? PhaseAcer (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't care what level of expertise you have, the problem here is that you are pushing a minor revisionist view, cherry-picking your sources to put forward the fiction that the US had a light fighter designation during WWII. Of course I know the Mustang was a damn good fighter design, a superbly economical tool of war, arguably the best and certainly one of the best of that war, but you're pushing your viewpoint too far. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Finally a partial admission of the truth. OK, Binkster, here is where you are going wrong in your own interpretation of the references. You are assuming that because a relatively small number of strong references, about half a dozen, directly and clearly deal with the P-51's lightweight fighter virtues and its resulting outstanding combat record, that such reporting is a minority view. NO, it is the majority view, in fact the ONLY view, of the references that actually address the issue. The majority of references ignore the efficiency issue as their authors are not even aware of it, and ignorance is not opposition. Reporting the references and the hard combat data that address the issue is not "cherry picking", it is good and energetic journalism in finding and reporting the valid references on these critical points. I challenge you to come up with a SINGLE strong reference that actually counters the professional references and hard combat data that I have delivered. PhaseAcer (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Asking for proof of a negative. Now you're just being silly. "All aircraft have a small amount of custard which is vital to their function." Find a single reliable source that specifically says custard isn't required. (Hohum ^@) 17:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with combat data used to illustrate for the reader the excellent performance of the Mustang, but if that data is being used to push the light fighter designation then I'm removing it per WP:NPOV. Or if the combat data taken from various sources is analyzed by PhaseAcer to make a novel conclusion then I'm removing because of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a daft question, why would the British be using a totally foreign term when specifing the P-51, it doesnt appear in any of the other ministry specifications as far as I can see. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see above that Binkster is agreeing to including the combat data showing the high superiority of the P-51. Fine, let's do so.

But then, I request you think about WHY the P-51 showed this superiority against the exact same competition. Both the P-47 and P-38 were almost as fast (P-47N even faster), so that's not it. What a large body of literature based on design for combat effectiveness and operations research for combat results analysis reports is that it is the virtues of smaller size for superiority in surprise, numbers, and maneuverability. We have adequate references directly reporting this on the P-51.

Through the history of air combat, about 70% to 80% of shoot downs occur by surprise (either complete, or discovery of attack occurring too late to avoid the attack), with many solid references reporting this in the Light fighter article. There are two flight surgeon studies of the effect of human visual acuity and fighter size also referenced in the Light fighter article, one by the U.S. Navy Top Gun School, and the other by the USAF Fighter Weapons School (these are also summarized in "The Pentagon Paradox"). They report that on average small fighters can be seen 2-3 miles away, but that larger fighters can be seen twice that far. The difference in the volume of airspace within which the enemy can be detected in the small fighter vs big fighter case goes as about the 2.5 power of visual detection ratio. So, the volume of airspace in which you can see a P-38 is about 5.7 times larger than a P-51. A Luftwaffe fighter pilot is thus much more statistically likely to see a P-38 first and get the surprise bounce advantage, whereas the odds with the P-51 are about 50-50. When you take into account that the same budget buys twice as many P-51's, and that they are better dog fighters when surprise does not lead to an instant shoot down, you can see how the small fighter DESIGN of the P-51 serves it much better than fewer, much easier to see big fighters.

In the modern literature, the term "lightweight fighter" has been used to describe these small fighter virtues. But, this term is almost hated among the Wikipedia military aviation editor community (it is almost like a lot of the editors lost their jobs on the F-15 program when the F-16 was procured). I assume this prejudice is a response that has developed over time to the fact that when fighter manufacturers are told there is a chance to sell 2000 fighters, it does not take those boys long to figure out that if those fighters are bigger and heavier that they can sell each fighter for twice as much, and make twice the profit. Then, we have to get in a war where our big fighters get shot to pieces before the truth can be acknowledged. That is what happened to the P-47 and P-38 in WWII. It happened again to the F-4 in Vietnam, where $4 million F-4's for years traded about equally with $0.2M MiG-17's and $1M MiG-21's, leading to the U.S. really losing that air war by a mile on a dollar for dollar comparison, against an opponent that did not even have an air force until 1964 (the U.S. really got hammered when you also consider the losses to ground fire). It did not happen to the P-38 in the Pacific, or the F-15 in the middle east, but that is because their opposition was aerodynamically and systematically obsolete.

I'm not saying this because I have a religious devotion to lightweight fighters. I am saying it because I have read the literature, and as an engineer I understand the logic, combat statistics, and design science of what the references are saying. I don't care what they are called, and I have used the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighters" merely because those terms are now established in the literature to describe these high efficiency attributes (and as far as I know, we must report the literature terms and not other terms like "standard fighter" that we think up ourselves). What I do care about is reporting the truth and what the references say, and the references that deal with these high efficiency and realistic combat results do seem to be telling the truth. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You are wandering off topic, talking about the theory of light fighters even though almost nobody writing about the P-51 does so. And in advocating light fighters, you appear to be stuck in the middle of the progression in which a swarm of unmanned aerial drones is the final conclusion. Light fighters are one or two evolutionary steps on the way to the swarm. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I am trying to have an honest discussion about the facts and the references, in order to improve this article. How can the basic conclusions of the professional literature on fighter effectiveness be "off topic" when presenting P-51 effectiveness? That would seem to be you refusing to have an honest discussion, and attempting instead to distract from these core issues.

You are also refusing to acknowledge the reality that when discussing a particular issue, the literature that addresses that particular issue is what we are supposed to be using. The fact that other literature does not discuss that issue is totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that you appear to be completely devoted to sweeping the literature that addresses P-51 effectiveness under the rug. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that we should be adding cherry-picked combat data that appears to be theatre and use specific, it really needs a more global view which I dont see. Dont appear to have an answer as to why the British would spec an aircraft using a term that doesnt appear to be in currency until twenty years later. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Milborne, what is "cherry picking" about the TOTAL combat data of the P-51, P-47, and P-38 in the European Theater? I am reporting ALL the data that exists, which is the opposite of cherry picking. The ETO is the ONLY theater where these three American escort fighters fought against up to date opposition, so to describe their relative virtues, the ETO is the only place to do it. And as far as saying that the references reporting on this came years later, SO WHAT? It is Wikipedia POLICY that in technical subject areas later references are SUPPOSED to be given higher weight.

I have to say I am just baffled at this refusal to publish the most important truth, combat results and the reasons for it, as told by the references, where an efficient fighter is concerned. I had a similar problem with the relatively lightweight Mirage in the light fighter article. Any reporting of combat data showing how well it performed for the Israelis is attacked by the military aviation editor cadre. On the other hand, the Heavy fighter article has a number of completely false and unreferenced statements and a total of 3 miserable references (one a coffee table book, one on the Bf 110, and one a totally irrelevant newspaper article from 1932). It repeatedly reports the P-38 as a highly successful fighter, including over Germany, with zero referencing or combat data, when the truth is the U.S. was on the verge of stopping the bomber campaign because P-38 protection was so poor that losses were unsustainable. You guys seem to be completely happy to leave its unreferenced false statements in place forever, but report truth and combat data for lighter efficient fighters as told in the references, and the results is relentless and systematic suppression. It is the very definition of "non-neutral". PhaseAcer (talk)

If you want to gather all the data from various sources and analyze it to create a complete picture of combat effectiveness then you'll have to publish your work elsewhere.

It's true there are problems with the heavy fighter article. The P-38 wasn't quite a heavy fighter as it had the great advantage of one man on board rather than a crew of three like the German heavy fighters of WWII. So it was not weighed down with extra seats and controls and armor and an extra gun mount pointing backwards with associated ammunition supply. And its genesis was in the brain of Lt Ben Kelsey who wanted 1,000 lbs of weaponry instead of 500 lbs, leading Kelsey to specify thousand-pound weaponry for a twin-engine fighter and also a single-engine fighter which ended up being the P-39. So the P-38 had the same basic idea as the P-39, putting something of a damper on the notion that one of them was conceived to be heavier, bristling with guns like the preceding failure of the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda which really was a heavy fighter. But a lot of sources talk about the P-38 as a heavy-ish fighter, for instance 1993's Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe by Richard G. Davis which says on page 74 that "the twin-engine P-38 (Lightning) was a good high-altitude heavy fighter with a combat radius more than double..." Of course, a lot of these sources would use the term heavy fighter in passing; they would be commenting on the higher mass of the P-38 rather than on its notional designation as a 1960s/1970s-concept "heavy fighter". And just as many sources talk about the P-47 Thunderbolt as being a heavy fighter, which is just as much a misnomer.

A problem with evaluating the early war records of the P-38 and the P-40 is that the fighting strategies and tactics were abysmal for at least the first year. If the fighters had been free to hunt they would have enjoyed much better results, but they were tied to the bombers by strict orders. The P-51 came later. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, except for rejecting facts and references, you are otherwise sounding like you are at least engaging in rational discussion above.

So, in the spirit of rationality, why is it that you are ferociously deleting enlightening facts and references that I am bringing, but 1. You never had a word of criticism when the Light fighter article for years made false unreferenced claims that light fighters were almost toy fighters of no practical use (the exact opposite of the literature), and 2. You are not now ripping the Heavy fighter article to shreds with its 3 pitiful references and false unreferenced claims? I see that you have made some edits on the heavy fighter article, but have brought no references, and made no challenges to the drivel it has pulled out of thin air and presented as fact for many years now.

Here are a couple of the whoppers being told in the heavy fighter article. 1. "Another successful heavy fighter of the war was the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. It was designed to carry heavy armament at high speed or long range. A complex and advanced design for the early 1940s, the P-38 experienced technical problems in its initial deployments but these issues were solved in subsequent variants and it proved adaptable to undertake multiple roles including fighter escort, reconnaissance (as the F-4 and F-5 variants of which over 1,200 were built), and fighter-bomber. As an escort fighter, the P-38 followed B-17 Flying Fortress raids deep into German-held Europe where it was able to hold its own with smaller and lighter German fighters." Based on the combat statistics I brought, you know the truth now on that one. Next quote 2. "Although numerous modern fighters could be called "heavy", with regard to their weight, the term is generally no longer used. As missiles became the standard weapons for air combat any fighter of any size could be successful in combat against almost any target, making the distinction between heavy and light fighters less relevant." Think about that for 5 seconds. Actually, the fact that a cheap lightweight fighter can use missiles to shoot down any fighter makes lightweight fighters more important than ever. And far from the terms lightweight and heavy not being used, they are used far more in the modern literature from the 1980's forward than they ever were before.

What we had previously in the light fighter article, and what we have now in the heavy fighter article, was/is effectively propaganda, whether that is intended or not. Yet, you have never had a complaint that I know of, and instead focus your energy on removing enlightening combat statistics and references from this article and the now deeply referenced light fighter article. Your position basically is "I don't want the light of truth shined here with incontrovertible combat data. And I certainly don't want the professional literature used to explain that combat data." So, there seems to be a rejection of truth, and a high tolerance for blatantly false claims in place here.

Finally, when you say that only multicrew fighters are really heavy fighters, what literature supports that as the majority view? The fact that a few generals in WWII thought bomber escorts needed to fire backwards does not set the definition today. Some of these same geniuses thought that horse cavalry was more important than tanks, right up till the Polish cavalry tried charging German panzers in 1939. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Polish cavalry 'did not' charge panzers. That is a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:1088:712c:f9e3:ad0b:e7ba:3773 (talk • contribs)

The Mustang/P-51 wasn't designed for the USAAC it was designed for the British and by 1940 British and European standards the Mustang wasn't particularly 'lightweight', making the above discussion somewhat irrelevant.

... the only 'lightweight' Mustangs were the late-war P-51G and P-51H variants which were designed to lower load factors, the original RAF load (airframe structural strength) specifications to which the NA73 had been designed by then being judged to have been unnecessarily high. For a US-specified 'light fighter' see the XP-77 although that post-dates the Mustang design by several years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You are stating your opinion. I have stacked up the REFERENCES that the designers of the P-51, Zero, Bf 109, and Bearcat ALL considered their designs to be specifically lightweight fighters that had the goal of capturing the strategic benefits of lightweight fighters (surprise, numbers/cost, and maneuverability). If you have any references that disagree, bring them. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mustang, Spitfire, Bf 109, etc., were only 'light' in relation to the 'Heavy' Fighters such as the Bf 110, Fw 187, Westland Whirlwind, Bristol Beaufighter Gloster Reaper, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.28 (talk)

... at the time the NA73 was being designed for the British in 1940 the US was not at war and had no intention of getting involved in the war, so there were no prospects whatsoever of NAA receiving any orders for the NA 73 from the USAAC. That's why the British had to pay hard cash to NAA to design the aircraft for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.28 (talk)

Arbitrary break

"Some of these same geniuses thought that horse cavalry was more important than tanks, right up till the Polish cavalry tried charging German panzers in 1939". Except that is a myth, and repeating it does little for your credibility.

You have brought references which seem to use the terms light or lightweight conversationally, rather than as the somewhat anachronistic and loosely defined design context, except for one. (Hohum ^@) 19:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

PhaseAcer, only one of your references talks about the P-51 specifically as a designated "light fighter" concept. That one reference is far outweighed by all the other references which discuss it as a standard fighter of the day. Of course every aircraft designer was concerned about mass, with some of them optimizing for lighter weight and attack power while others optimized for other things such as robust build quality, long range, defensive armor, etc. The mass of mainstream literature reflects this by calling various WWII fighters "light" or "heavy" relative to other contemporary models. These sources are not pretending that a "light fighter" designation existed in WWII, not even with Japan's Navy Zero which was designed for long range over water by optimizing for lowest possible mass. There's a little more gray area about whether a heavy fighter designation existed with regard to Germany's twin-engine models. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I have provided three authoritative sources that the designers of the P-51 considered it a lightweight fighter in the strategic sense of maximizing surprise, numbers, and maneuverability. I provided similar sources on the strategy of the designers of the Zero, Bf 109, and Bearcat (the CEO of Grumman in the case of the Bearcat). The DESIGNERS and LEADERS. The Fighter Effectiveness Criteria had yet to be formally defined, but the designers of these aircraft had an instinctive understanding of it, and there was in fact a group of lightweight fighter proponents in the USAAF even before WWII that was also pushing them to develop these fighters. I provided modern references that report the literature has evolved to consider virtually all efficient single engine fighters to be lightweight fighters, with this term having the same meaning as light fighters. In the modern literature, the term "light fighter" is a synonym for efficient usually single engine fighters (the F-5 being the only twin engine exception with its two little J-85 drone engines) that deliver maximum combat return on investment for minimum resources. This is exactly what the P-51 did, just like the F-16 and JAS 39 Grippen do now (if you want the references, I'll stack them up for you with page numbers and direct quotes). But, you keep deleting those modern references and saying that showing them is rewriting history. Your opinion is that light fighters are only VERY light fighters like the Gnat, which is not the position of the literature (show me ONE reference that states that). You ignore that fighter aircraft design is a TECHNICAL subject, and in technical subjects it is Wikipedia policy that more recent references generally deserve higher weight.

You keep mentioning these references referring to these efficient single engine WWII fighters as "standard fighters" distinct from lightweight fighters, but you have yet to deliver a SINGLE reference. References that do not address this issue at all are not references on this subject. I have been stacking the references chest deep, but you just keep denying the literature of the field in favor of opinion.

On mechanized warfare and the ridiculous opposition to it right up until WWII, see "Patton: A Genius for War", by Carlo D'Este, pages 346 to 351. But, researching cavalry vs tanks a little deeper, I see that the story of this told in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", William Shirer, is now considered to be German propaganda. OK, propaganda can sometimes fool us. Just like the unreferenced propaganda in the Heavy fighter article that reports that the term "heavy fighter" is no longer used and does not matter, in defiance of a mountain of literature on modern fighter effectiveness, is now fooling everyone who reads that article. And, apparently doing so with your approval as an editor of that article.

Similar opposition to efficient lightweight fighters existed among some in the leadership of the USAAF until late 1943. The reality of war with a failing bomber campaign suffering unsustainable losses finally overcame this boneheaded resistance. See "Development of the P-51 Mustang Long-Range Escort Fighter", where this point is discussed throughout. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

OK I think this has been going on for far to long, it is clear that there is no consensus to make the changes requested so probably time to drop the deadhorse and close this now. This omment doesnt need a reply. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Milborne, the issues have all been put on the table but one. I have brought a large body of literature on the issue of if fighters like the P-51 are "lightweight fighters" (they are by the literature directly reporting on them, and by the modern literature), and I have brought combat data and a large body of professional literature that explains the effectiveness of lightweight fighters. Not a single counter-reference has been cited, nor have any references been cited that can support the above mentioned massively false statements in the heavy fighter article. Some of my references have been removed. This appears to meet the definitions of non-neutrality and of Wikipedia:Vandalism.

So, the question is, does local consensus in favor of suppressing facts and references overcome the requirements of non-neutrality and avoiding vandalism? Or, should such actions be taken up via mediation, and if necessary arbitration, by review outside the Wikipedia military aviation editor cadre? It is a core Wikipedia credibility issue on whether consensus is so powerful as to allow a massively false narrative in defiance of the references. Is that the policy of Wikipedia senior leadership? PhaseAcer (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is a Wikipedia Policy but you are welcome to try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. MilborneOne (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The definition of consensus says it is not pure numbers, but must account for the quality of the arguments and references. In this case it is one editor, but he has a stack of quality references, while the opposing editors have no references and are at complete odds with the literature. That would seem to indicate zero quality to their argument as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Does local consensus without references override a large body of references? This is such a basic issue it has to have been arbitrated before as a general policy question, but I do not see it in the dispute resolution article. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

PhaseAcer, you are so far from making your point that nobody here feels the need to counter your nonsense claim with facts. If you take the next step in dispute resolution, you'll be washed out of whatever request for comment you care to put together. Drop the stick and move on. Is this the hill you want to die on? That a light fighter designation existed twenty years before it did? Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Article needs structure

The section P-51 introduction has a lot on Stanley Hooker's two-stage, two-speed supercharging of the RR Merlin, etc. This should be in the development section. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F556:A9FC:8EC2:60DC (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes you right. I moved the development paras to the development section. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:18CF:81CE:89F5:79D (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Meredith Effect

I am uncertain whether the Meredith Effect truly has a large impact on the speed of the P-51. It is well-known that dedicated ramjet engines fail to produce significant thrust at subsonic speeds. A radiator which operates on the same principle with far less compression ratio and far less temperature ratio should produce even less thrust. I don't believe the P-51's radiator can possibly generate thrust, and Meredith Effect should only serve to reduce drag to a certain extent.Sqrt(-1)magsqrt(-1)nary (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There is quite a bit on this subject at Meredith Effect. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

To be useful the Meredith Effect need only create enough thrust to offset the drag of the radiator installation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.130 (talk • contribs)

RAF Mustangs

Can't we include more information on what the RAF actually DID with their 900+ P-51Bs and Ds? That's not an insignificant number, but for some reason most sources online seem to dwell mostly on the Mustang I and II with the Allison engines (and not much about them either). A small amount of stuff about their high speed, low level recon sorties and fighter sweeps, but nothing at all about the role the Mustang III carried out. Was it roughly equivalent to a Spitfire, use on home defense duties? A V1 killer? Did the RAF take turns escorting American bombers in daylight? Did they start flying long range sorties over Europe to lure the Luftwaffe out? It would seem strange if the RAF was finally given a high-class, high-altitude fighter with three times the range of their best, and then had them sit waiting for German bombers to fly overhead. I've seen photos of Mustang IIIs fitted with RP rockets, so presumably they were sent over to Normandy and used for round attack like US Mustangs, but that's all I can find about it. Except that the British, through national pride, replaced most of them before the war was over with various Spitfires, range be damned. Guess they felt it was embarrassing to be using an American fighter instead of their own iconic machine.

64.223.166.179 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure we would be happy to add more on later RAF operational employment. Do you have a ref we can use? - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the RAF used the later Merlin-powered P-51B, C and D extensively as low-level fighters. At the latest before September 4, 1944, the P-51 in RAF service was cleared for operation using +25lbs = 80" Hg boost , which is higher than the USAAF limit of 75" . This would increase the P-51's low-altitude performance without sacrificing performance up high. I can't find any reports of the P-51 actually intercepting V-1 missiles in combat, but it seems the RAF had foreseen the possibility of using it as such, according to this report . I believe the V-1650-7 engine used by the P-51 is identical to Merlin 66 as used in Spitfire LF Mk. IX, however I cannot find a ref for that. The latter was also cleared for +25lbs boost.Sqrt(-1)magsqrt(-1)nary (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the RAF viewed the P-51s as stopgap/backup measure, preferring their own kit. While the British P-40s got quite a bit of use, by the time they got the P-51s their own production lines were churning out fighters at a fast clip. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

References