Talk:North American P-51 Mustang

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)

National Origin

Should list the UK as well as USA.

Only existed per a UK requirement, first flew with the RAF, British engines. . . VSTAMPv (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No. This issue has been discussed on several occasions, none of which reached a consensus to add the UK. See:

1. Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 2#Mustang was an Anglo-American Plane
2. Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 2#Lead sentence misleading - UK designed and first used the Mustang
3. Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 3#Anglo-American
4. Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 3#Anglo-American again
5. Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 4#"Anglo-American" continued

I'd highly suggest that you carefully read all of those discussions before trying to discuss this further so that you don't retread old ground. BilCat (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I read those Talk page links. It is clear from them, and what I have extensively read of the Mustang, it was clearly an Anglo-US plane. It is disingenuous, and false, for the USA editors to claim the plane as being just theirs. The concept was British. The design took about three months being a collaboration of North American engineers and British engineers at the British Air Ministry office in NYC. It even used a Rolls Royce engine, the Merlin. The Merlin was licenced out for production in a US company's factory, Packard. This was to increase production, in addition to new shadow factories at Manchester, Glasgow and Crewe.

The word "Anglo-US" should be used. Also in the intro there is no mention of the design being a British-North American collaboration. All should be rectified. Wisdom-inc (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't go by editor's personal opinions on subjects, we stick to what reliable sources say. Got any that back your argument? - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

While there are several sources which refer to the Mustang as "Anglo-American", they are vastly outnumbered by those which refer to it as "American". The consensus among aviation historians is that it was American, not Anglo-American. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the author. Say something is all American then it sells better in the lucrative USA market. Fact is that the plane was not an all USS affair. This article distorts history for sure. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You think that a vast majority of aviation historians distort history for better sales? That's a pretty controversial take. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I sense you have an attitude. Cut that out! In the design section it actually says:

"John Attwood of North American spent much time from January to April 1940 at the British Purchasing Commission's offices in New York discussing the British specifications of the proposed aircraft with British engineers. The discussions consisted of free-hand conceptual drawings of an aircraft with the British officials."

I do not give opinion thank you very much. Passing the Mustang off as all American is distorting history, as it was no such thing. The simple fact by reading the links in the Talk page archives is that it is a reoccurring point, brought by people who have read extensively on this plane. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That it is a distortion of history is very much your own opinion. What reliable, published sources clearly and unambiguously refer to the aircraft as Anglo-American? Until you start citing such sources, there's really no reason for any of us to rehash the same old discussions again. BilCat (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not give opinion, thank you. It is distortion of history for sure. Reliable publishers? In other words you will cherry pick what you think is 'reliable', to suit your agenda. This is pathetic!

There is enough in the article that says it was Anglo US, it does not need some author to say so, or some overt US centric editors to do the picking. Some authors mention it some do not. One thing is clear it was not a US creation or a 100% US design, and the powerful RR engine, equipped with the brilliant Stanley Hooker supercharger, that made the plane had zero to do with the US, apart from providing the labour to make many of the engines for RR.

The article is distorting history for sure. That is not an opinion. The article needs to be put right. Wisdom-inc (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

So we are still just getting your personal opinion here and no cited references to back it up. Unless anyone has anything else to add, I think we can close this discussion out. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur, sir. BilCat (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2022 (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)

Article issues

The "In China and the Pacific Theater" subsection has an inline "citation needed" tag dated March 2021. There are inline "page needed" tags in the "Cuba", "Italy", and "Poland" subsections dated September 2011.

The B-class criteria (#1) states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

The "External links" section has 15 entries that do not conform to WP:ELPOINTS (#3), far surpasses being a LINKFARM, and needs drastic trimming. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

FAQ about national origin

With the "Anglo-American" controversy being repeatedly brought up, maybe we should consider adding an FAQ to the top of the talk page. I can't find any guidelines on when and where to use FAQs, but I thought I would at least bring up the possibility. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That might be good from an interdiction point of view. - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's the FAQ page I created in my sandbox. Feel free to make any improvements, and if no one objects I will probably add it to this talk page in a few days.- ZLEA _T\^C 01:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

For better flow in English, try the following wording: "A majority of reliable sources refer to the P-51 Mustang as an American aircraft. While the Mustang was built in response to British requirements, and later models used a British-designed engine, most sources agree that the original aircraft was entirely designed and built in the United States." Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Binksternet - I like that wording! - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A curious 'controversy'. as a Brit who has been around a good few years I can categorically state that 40 years ago no Brit or respectable British aviation or modelling publication would have attempted to credit anyone but the US as the country of origin of the Mustang/P-51.

The current state of affairs is almost entirely due to various web sources and a good few US-produced books over the past twenty or-so years completely neglecting the crucial UK involvement in both the origin of the N-73, and in it's subsequent development, such that the British involvement is almost, if not entirely, written out of the aircraft's history. Many newcomers to the aviation history scene note this discrepancy over what they may have learned elsewhere, and are confused. Quite why anyone would think this made the aircraft 'Anglo-American' though, I don't know.

The Mustang/P-51 is rightly credited to the US and to NAA. But the British were crucial to the aircraft's existence, and development, into what it became for you Americans. Without the Brits the Mustang would probably - no, almost certainly - never have been built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

...and the article explains that right in the first para. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The "design" was a collaboration between British Air Ministry engineers and NA engineers at the Air Ministry's NYC offices. North American had no experience of designing such fighters, so most certainly the Air Ministry led the way. The article in the Design section does mention vaguely this collaboration. It needs to be clearer and a brief mention in the intro.

This Talk section's heading is "about national origin". National origin? Clearly British. They called the shots for a plane they wanted, being made and paid for by them. North American were given prime contractor status by the Air Ministry, which could have been taken away. Which NA were fearful of when Rolls Royce made the Mustang Xs with the Merlin engine with the Stanley Hooker supercharging. Wisdom-inc (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't go by editor's personal opinions on subjects, we stick to what reliable sources say. Got any that back your argument? - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

List of units operating?

I just noticed that this article lacks the usual section, giving a list of squadrons operating the type (broken down by country/service).

I'm assuming that this is simply an random omission and there isn't an actual, obscure reason for this being absent?

Considering the large number of Mustangs built, and used by numerous air forces, I suppose a separate, fully detailed article, with a mainlink from this one might be the way to go.

Grant | Talk 03:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There have been a large number of units that operated the P-51, so a separate article would probably be the way to go to not dwarf this existing article, but all turns on having sufficient references. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I had started a draft of an operators article in my sandbox, but I eventually abandoned it and requested deletion. I could request a WP:REFUND if anyone wants to finish what I started. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)