Talk:North American P-51 Mustang/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fighter Projects Officer Ben Kelsey

Our friend PhaseAcer made an offhand comment above about the Mustang coming out of the "weeds", without the help of the USAAC brass, and it made me think about Benjamin S. Kelsey, the sole USAAC officer in charge of fighter projects for a critical period in the 1930s, when the bomber brass was busy limiting fighters in favor of bombers. Kelsey did a helluva lot with his small portion of the budget. Kelsey started the airfoil research project that eventually became the Mustang, and Kelsey kept the core of the Mustang project alive by ordering 500 units of A-36 Apache to keep the NAA assembly line busy, so they would be ready to make Mustangs under a new contract. This website says that Kelsey "was the single most important man in the acquisition of what would eventually become the P51 Mustang fighter," yet the Wikipedia article here doesn't even mention him. The omission is regrettable, but we can fix it. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I put something about Kelsey into this article back in June 2009, but in April 2011 it was taken out by Petebutt. Petebutt was shifting a bunch of material to the North American P-51 Mustang variants article, but I think some of that text needs to be returned here to explain the chronology of the P-51. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but several points spring to mind. Firstly you seem to be over-playing Kelseys part in the P-51 saga. Secondly the part he did play is adequately explained in the Variants off-shoot, (which is a part of the P-51 article). As is explained the Mustang was a British aircraft, built and designed in America to a British specification and requirement. The USAAF/USAAC had very little to do with its genesis.--Petebutt (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct. The US forces had no involvement whatsoever with the birth of the Mustang. A British plane the British got a US factory to make for them, as their own factories were working 24/7 on other projects. The British aircraft manufacturing capacity was saturated. The RAF in Mustangs were shooting down FW-190s over France when the plane was not even in US service. The section pre-war theory should be removed from the article. Pre-war USA bomber theory is totally irrelevant to the birth of the Mustang, having no place in the article. The article looks silly and amateurish. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F556:A9FC:8EC2:60DC (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The variants article is its own thing, sure, but here at the Mustang article, the important points of the chronology should be included. We should not expect the reader to hop back and forth between articles to get a sense of how the Mustang developed.

Not everyone writing the history of this aircraft shares your view about how the Mustang is such a purely British design. Rather, they write about how NAA designed it themselves in the US after having been asked by the British to make P-40s under license (some British specs there, eh wot?)

It's not me who is "over-playing" the importance of Ben Kelsey; the literature mentions him taking various critical roles to help the P-51 along. For instance:

• Leland Atwood writes that Kelsey reportedly encouraged Curtiss management to sell NAA the aerodynamic research data on the P-40, right at the beginning of the P-51 project. NAA technical staff did examine the data, despite a Kindelberger quip that they didn't even open the package.
• Air Force Magazine in 1981 wrote about how "Contrary to the longstanding story of official neglect delaying acceptance of the fighter by the AAF, Ben Kelsey" wanted very much to have the P-51 in the USAAC stable, and he worked behind the scenes under severe limitations to make certain the project stayed alive so that American pilots could fight in the Mustang. Kelsey said later that "the birth of the A-36 had nothing to do with a need for a new dive bomber" and everything to do with keeping NAA assembly lines going so that the Mustang could be ready when needed for American fighter units.
• John Fredrickson writes on pages 147–148 of Warbird Factory: North American Aviation in World War II that Kelsey worked behind the scenes to get the Mustang produced. Kelsey created the A-36 Apache ruse to keep NAA busy making 500 Apache (Mustang) dive bombers, and he had 150 more Mustangs sent to the British under contract NA-91, a Lend-Lease program paid for by the US.
• This source talks about how Kelsey "shuttled" back and forth between NAA and the battlefields of Europe to update new Mustang models.
• This website quotes Lee Atwood, NAA chief engineer and later president, saying, "Ben Kelsey, in my opinion, was among the most effective Air Corps officers of World War II. His active liaison between combat and aircraft engineering was extremely productive and resulted in aircraft and weapons improvements in a timely manner and when most critically needed. I first met Ben when he was the project officer on the P-38 and he became interested in the P-51 at an early stage. Undoubtedly, he did all he could to bring it along. He had a low key, but very convincing approach."
• Kelsey's book, The Dragon's Teeth, goes into much more detail about the early, middle and late stages of P-51 development, and what Kelsey was doing to keep the fighter project on course. I checked out a copy of the book in 2009, but it's a rare bird, with few copies printed. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I prefer facts myself rather than American myth. The design was a to-and-fro affair with the British Air Ministry and NAA - the Air Ministry were paying, what they said went. The Air Ministry held NAAs hand, approving or rejecting each stage of the design, and also directing them to state of the art aspects of fighter plane design to be incorporated. The first offer by NAA did not have the laminar flow wings. The Air Ministry directed NAA to them. They also told them to purchase the plans for Curtiss' experimental plane to familiarise NAA with advanced features. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F556:A9FC:8EC2:60DC (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you are ignoring the facts you don't like. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer factual history, not American myth. Americans have attempted to change history. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F556:A9FC:8EC2:60DC (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A guy on YouTube slaughters American who propagate myth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA7n-Hl3vBM&lc=UgzDN0lsbiMkPf5M4ot4AaABAg A guy named John Burns. He put up two comment, replying to one to continue. His two comments are far better regarding the history of the birth of the plane, than this article for sure. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F556:A9FC:8EC2:60DC (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The end of useful discussion is always indicated when comments from "a guy on YouTube" are cited. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Is that your cop out is it? No case so retire. We could say look at the tripe children's-pedia. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F556:A9FC:8EC2:60DC (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The Air Ministry insisted on NAA obtaining aerodynamic data on the P-40 from Curtiss because NAA had never designed and built a 'high speed fighter aeroplane' and so had little experience of high subsonic Mach number handling. Curtiss, in the P-40, which could be dived at what was for the time, high speeds, had. At the time in 1940 the fastest thing NAA had designed and flown was the B-25.

Recent British experience of aerial combat had taken place at speeds and altitudes where the effects of what later became known as the sound barrier were being felt. This made them aware of the importance of good handling in this high-subsonic region, speeds which could be achieved by the latest fighters in prolonged dives at high altitude. At the time there were no high-subsonic or supersonic wind tunnels so no such prior data could be obtained on a particular aircraft design making it necessary to rely instead on empirical data such as had been obtained with actual flights. The P-40/Tomahawk was therefore a 'known quantity', whereas NAA's NA-73 was not. The requirement for P-40 data was therefore the UK insurance against NAA making simple mistakes, through lack of relevant experience, that could be easily avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.130 (talk • contribs)

What is your point? - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is set out in the above paras. Why the UK required aerodynamic data for the P-40 to be supplied. At the time the only US designed and built fighter aircraft aircraft that had been used in aerial combat against a first-rate enemy were the P-36 and the P-40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.130 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you proposing for the article and if it is what you wrote above,, then what refs do you have? - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not proposing any addition, I thought someone might like to do some research on the subject for later addition to the article. I don't have any references which is why I added it here and not in the article. I have/had a large collection of aviation books and magazines going back decades but they are now stored elsewhere after several house moves. The information above in the preceding paras is from memory but is fairly accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.130 (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, okay, pretty close to WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Laminar flow wings

Trolling from persistent disruptor. Nothing constructive here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a book with copies of official US letters in it, confirming that the Mustang did NOT have laminar flow wings, as they were considered too sensitive to give to a foreign country (UK). Although it was stated the Mustang had them. Quite a revelation. Also, when tested later in the war at Farnbourgh Aircraft Establishment, the so-called laminar flow wings proved to have no advantage. When I have time I will dig it out inserting the information in the article, amending the parts that state it does of course. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:18CF:81CE:89F5:79D (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Such a letter would be a primary source, assuming it's veracity is verifiable. While I'm not doubting your sincerity or honesty, I am suspicious of a source that's discovered after nearly 80 years that apparently contradicts dozens of reliable published sources over the years. Wikipedia reports what is published in reliable sources, and we don't judge matters for ourselves. The least we could do in this situation is to present letter as an alternative source, but without making a judgment on which is "correct". It is completely possible that there are reliable aviation sources that back up what's in the letter, but I don't know enough about the subject myself to know. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Photos of the letters. Very clear that the wings were not Laminar flow. Very genuine. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A8BD:BA16:BE3A:7864 (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia cannot make that judgment. We rely on secondary sources for that. - BilCat (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC) And what's the book with the letters? It has to be a reliable published source, preferably one that is by an author who is qualified to make such judgements on aerodynamics, or reports those experts who are. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC) How clear do you want it? He has photos of the official letters in a publish book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1088:712C:F9E3:AD0B:E7BA:3773 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC) and what do the letters say, who wrote them, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC) He claims x. He says he has a book that 'proves' x with a photo of an official letter. That is rock solid 100% evidence. Nothing else needed. It is that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:1088:712c:f9e3:ad0b:e7ba:3773 (talk • contribs) Okay, I see, you are just messing us around here. Got it: there is no book. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wikipedia is well used to dealing with spoofs and scams, sorting the wheat from the chaff, see for example WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. What is this book? Are the source documents available to public view and/or to historical verification? Has any independent and credible third party commented on their authenticity, on what they actually say and how true that might be? Without such a provenance trail, the claim cannot find its way onto Wikipedia. One might for example note that the British freely shared their jet engine technology and participated as equals in the Manhattan project. Why would the US not be similarly sharing? Then again, from 1943 UK work on laminar flow came under the aegis of the wartime Tailless Aircraft Advisory Committee and its postwar successors. The verdict was just as with the Mustang - (because of real-world imperfections and dirt) the practical benefits were small to nonexistent. Much of the Mustang's outstanding performance was instead down to its second-generation Meredith radiator installation. So we do need good, strong evidence that these documents live up to expectations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC) This guy is disruptive; don't get caught up in his notions. Using the IP range Special:Contributions/2A01:4B00:881D:3700:0:0:0:0/64, he's been causing a great many headaches at the UK HIgh Speed 2 article, with the problem going to ANI twice: first Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#User:_2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A/High_Speed_2 two months ago and currently Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruption_at_High_Speed_2. You cannot reason with him. This thread is another instance of trolling. Ignore it. Binksternet (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Regardless of any claims to the contrary, the airfoil used on the P-51 is the NAA/NACA 45-100, which is a laminar flow airfoil. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC) @Ahunt: it was a laminar flow airfoil, however there is a debate whether laminar flow actually developed on the wing in production aircraft (due to disturbance by the propeller and other elements, the manufactured full-scale wing not being totally smooth), see page 181 here. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC) @Vici Vidi: Few nowadays dispute that the laminar flow aspect of the Mustang's design proved a modest disappointment. Rather than express dubious editorial opinions as to what is or is not a "laminar flow wing", we are obliged to follow reliable sources which refer to it as such - even while they criticise its real-world performance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC) I concur. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC) I believe there is a cited section on the Wikipedia page for the P-63, which states that the P-63, with a similar "laminar flow" wing was tested by the RAF, and revealed that only an impractical treatment of polished filler paint could maintain laminar flow to 60% of the wing chord.Sqrt(-1)magsqrt(-1)nary (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo -- should it be reinstated?

The Sexy Sally II, a USAF F-51D, drops napalm on a target in North Korea.

Eight years ago the image on the right was removed from this article because it had become image overloaded. It's fine that an image prune was done but I think it was a mistake to can this excellent actual action illustration of the P51 doing what it did so well, in anger at very low level. The article has lots of pretty pictures, but nothing as graphic as this one IMMHO. I'd like to see it restored. Anyone agree? Incidentally, 10 other Wikipedias of various languages use this image.

Moriori (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Mustangs on 2021 ATB quarter

A pair of Mustangs are featured on the 2021 Tuskegee Airmen quarter, the final issue of the America the Beautiful quarters. Is this worth mentioning in the article? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA I would say. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)