Talk:North American P-51 Mustang

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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Not quite. The process was likely something like this: The original request by the BPC was for NAA to produce the Curtiss P-40 which the RAF knew as the 'Tomahawk'. Instead NAA responded by offering to design a better fighter within the time it would take for them to produce the first batch of P-40's. The BPC agreed and asked for a proposal regarding the fighter, and specified that the aeroplane must use the Allison V-1710 as it was the only US liquid-cooled engine available and was what the P-40 used. In addition, a condition was made that NAA obtain P-40 aerodynamic data from Curtiss as NAA had no experience in the high subsonic airspeed range where compressibility makes itself felt and which could be easily reached by a modern fighter in a dive at altitude - such effects were being encountered by RAF Spitfire and Hurricane pilots during the then on-going Battle of Britain. The RAF had tested the P-40 in these speed ranges and so knew how it behaved and that anything similar would at least be satisfactory. Provision for items such as wireless (radio) equipment and armament would also be specified by the BPC but due to US neutrality laws such items as the latter would only be fitted upon arrival in the UK.

NAA then returned with a proposal detailing the projected aeroplane, the size, speed, and range, etc., and the use of a laminar flow wing profile, with the BPC then getting its people to go over and examine the proposal. The BPC people then wrote a report on whether the projected design fitted the RAF's requirements. It did and so NAA were then given the go-ahead. When this was given, the money due would then have been paid by the BPC to NAA. The latter then decided to have the prototype flying within the time it would take to tool-up to produce the P-40, which they subsequently did.

Once NAA had flown the NA-73 prototype and it was ready for evaluation by the British, the BPC would arrange for a British test pilot to fly the aeroplane, probably someone from Boscombe Down or possibly Martlesham Heath. He would then write a report on the aeroplane, copies of which would go to both the BPC and to NAA. This report would detail aspects of the aeroplane the pilot considered good, satisfactory, and poor, with suggestions for possible improvements. These suggestions would then be considered by the BPC and NAA with discussions taking place between them as to whether these should be acted upon. Any agreed changes would then be designed and incorporated into the production design. After this a production contract would be agreed between the BPC and NAA for the first batch of aircraft, with delivery dates, aircraft outfitting, colour schemes, type of national markings applied, etc. Any projected variants would also be discussed, e.g., the Mk Ia with four 20mm Hispano cannon armament. At some time in the preceding process an RAF service name would be allocated to the design, e.g., 'Mustang'.

Subsequently I believe the first Mustang I's arrived by ship in Liverpool in October 1941 with two production Mustang I aircraft going to Wright Field to become the 'XP-51'.

Thus the BPC was the customer and NAA designed and built an aeroplane to their requirements. The aeroplane(s) were designed and built in the US. That makes the 'country of origin' the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The myth is:

1) NAA said we have never designed or built a leading edge fighter plane, and neither has any US company, but we just happen to have a world beating design under the table and it is all yours, as we do not want to give it to the USAAF.

2) The Air Ministry said toodle-pip old boy, work on it, we will go home and drink tea all day, then we will be back in a few months to see the wonder plane fly, then take it home. Thank you.

I wonder what NAA and British engineers were doing at the Air Ministry's offices in NYC for three months from January to April 1940? Not drinking coffee and eating donuts all day for sure.

When NAA said to the British Air Ministry we can make you a plane to your specs, they did 'not' have detailed design drawings only a concept. NAA came up with detailed design drawings after forming the design with British engineers/designers in the Air Ministry's NYC office over three months. Then NAA men went away, coming back with a set of detailed design drawings, based on what was worked on for three months in NYC. The Ministry approved the presented drawings. Then only after signing, the Mustang project started on 4 May 1940.

What made the plane exceptional was the advanced RR Merlin two-stage supercharged engine, of which most fitted to the Mustang were made at a RR shadow factory they had set up in Detroit to utilize idle US industry as British industry was working flat out. The US shadow factory was primarily to supply engines to Canadian aircraft manufacturing just over the border. Without the advanced British engine the Mustang would have been just another forgotten so-so WW2 plane. Note the air-frame and engine? British.

Origin? Britain for sure. Without the British there would be no Mustang. Calling it a 100% US plane is well.....taking the mickey.

Do not go by history comics on the Barnes and Noble shelves. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping we would be done with this nonsense, but here we go again. Here's the ultimate question: Was any of the design work for the original Mustang done IN Britain? No, it was not. As you said, the work done by the British engineers was done in NYC. I'm not even going to get started on why the national origin of the engine (which was built under license and further developed in the US, by the way) is not a factor in determining the national origin of an aircraft. I think I did a pretty good job explaining that below.

And take this from an American, your British impression is not funny. If you want people to take your argument seriously, you might consider dropping the tasteless impressions. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The design was done in British diplomatic premises - their territory.

Packard in the USA never developed anything on Merlin. RR controlled all and everything on their own engines.

Calum Douglas the world's go to authority on WW2 engines, author of the Great Horsepower Race, wrote:

Claiming that Britain didn't mass produce engines properly because if they had, they would never have needed to ask Packard for help. Despite having made twice the number anyone else did. It took Packard 4 years to exceed RR annual Merlin production by the way, and all the Packard Merlin`s we used had to be modified by RR after they arrived in the UK, because to allow Packard to work as they wished to, they agreed to let Packard make huge runs of exactly the same spec engines, which were obsolete by the time they were finished and had to be modified by RR in Britain to the latest mod-spec individually after shipping.

Americans are claiming something 100% theirs, which is clearly not. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying that the US is claiming 100% credit for the Mustang, but is it really worth giving Britain 50% of the credit by calling it "Anglo-American" for their engineers taking part in the preliminary design phase on diplomatic territory? The more you bend logic like that, the less it makes sense. And for the last time, the national origin of the engine is not a factor in determining the national origin of the aircraft. No one calls the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 an "Anglo-Soviet" aircraft for being powered by a reverse-engineered Rolls-Royce Nene. No one even calls the Tupolev Tu-4 an "American-Soviet" aircraft even though it is nearly a one-for-one copy of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Only just one source, many more: Allison-Engined P-51 Mustang, 1 (Air Vanguard) by Martyn Chorlton (2012).

1939:

British looking at Curtiss p-40 to purchase. Curtiss were working flat out unable to supply. The Air Ministry approached NAA to build the p-40s. NAA said they could build them a plane to RAF specs in the time it took to tool up for a p-40. Ministry took it further to see if it had legs.

Jan - April 1940 (three months):

NAA and British engineers at the British Purchasing Commission's offices in NYC, doing design to RAF specifications. They used a lot of free-hand conceptual drawings ensuring all attending had in their heads a detailed vision of the new plane. All engineers in those days could draw.

Sir Henry Self, the head, had concerns that NAA had no experience of designing and making a fighter after initial talks with British engineers. Self told NAA to buy, at great cost, the drawings and wind-tunnel test results for the Curtiss Xp-46 experimental plane and study them. The British and NAA engineers were told to look at the laminar flow wings which NACA said they had made progress on. They were told to use the Meredith effect radiator used by Spitfires.

Atwood head of NAA team in NYC was relaying back to NAA details when fixed to get draftsmen moving. After three months with a design nailed down between them, NAA went away returning with detailed design drawings.

4 May 1940:

The Air Ministry approved the presented drawings. The Mustang project started after approval with the signing of the contract. British expertise was used as such using Ken Bowen from Yorkshire, who designed the progressive curvature principle used to build the Mustang fuselage. This was quick to form and easy to jig.

29 May 1940:

After three weeks of seeing NAA operate, the Air Ministry ordered 320 planes.

9 September 1940:

First prototype complete for evaluation by Ministry.

26 October 1940:

First flight in front of NAA and Ministry engineers.

Installing the RR Merlin is another chapter. 143.58.177.5 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still noticing that all of this took place on US territory or diplomatic land within US borders. That original order for 320 aircraft was completed in Inglewood, CA. With the exception of a relatively small number of CAC Mustangs, all subsequent P-51 production was completed in either Inglewood or Dallas, TX. Britain's role in developing the Mustang is relatively small, aside from placing the original order. Britain had absolutely no role in Mustang production. I notice you're also bringing up the engine again without addressing my explanation for why it is irrelevant. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It was an American aircraft designed to a British requirement, its development entirely funded by the British government, its name chosen by the British Air Ministry, and most production examples were fitted with a British engine licence-built in the US. (If only they'd kept the quad 20mm armament of the British Mustang IA.) And it was most notable in American service. The article is OK on this matter, but as usual it suggests that the use of the Meredith ducted-radiator effect was an American innovation, when the effect was well known in Britain, where it was first discovered, and had already been used in the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Mosquito. Also the Mustang's most remarkable feature was its range, which depended first of all (even before the installation of the rear-fuselage tank, a war emergency measure that upset the c.g. and wasn't altogether sound) on the internal design of the wing, each aft inboard section of each wing containing a tank with about the same fuel capacity as a Spitfire, conferring almost double the range of the RAF's best fighter at a stroke. ('Almost', because, whatever you may read about the relative aerodynamics, the Spitfire could cover almost 5 air miles per gallon at economic cruise and the Mustang struggled to make much more than 4.) Since the fighter's wings had to accommodate structural members, flaps, ailerons, undercarriage and armament, the placement of these wing fuel tanks was a striking design achievement, and sufficient credit is never given for it. There are probably reliable sources on the subject, but I don't have them to hand. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Khamba Tendal The national origin of an aircraft is the country that developed and built the aircraft. While the British government may have funded the development of the Mustang, the actual development itself was carried out solely by North American Aviation, a US company. Also, the national origin of an aircraft's engine is almost never considered when determining the aircraft's national origin. For example, most variants of the Soviet Polikarpov I-16 were powered by an American engine or a license-built version of an American engine, yet the I-16 is considered a "Soviet" aircraft rather than an "American-Soviet" aircraft. And finally, I fail to see how this article implies that the Meredith effect was an American innovation. This isn't an article on the history of the Meredith effect, so such infrmation is just as irrelevant to the development of the Mustang as the history of Bernoulli's principle. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

See my post above. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Khamba Tendal, yes, the range was the RAFs need to get right over Germany. The fuel storage was all worked out at the design stage in NYC at the Air Ministry's offices with British and NAA engineers. That was a three months stint from Jan to April 1940. NAA had no detailed design drawings as how would they when they never knew what the specifications were. Their original ideas never incorporated a plane of such range. The design stage consisted of a lot of free-hand conceptual drawings between all the engineers. This design stage would have been similar if the Air Ministry were dealing with say Hawker in England. If the plane was designed and made in the UK it would have been superior from the outset as a RR Merlin engine would almost certainly have been used. The detailed design drawings naturally only emerged after the three months stint in NYC.

NAA then went back to their base producing the drawings quite quickly, then presented them to the Air Ministry men in NYC. They approved and on 4 May the Mustang project started after the signing of the contract.

British expertise was also used in designing the progressive curvature principle used to build the Mustang fuselage. This was quick to form and easy to jig being done by Yorkshireman Ken Bowen. 143.58.177.5 (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Germans attacked France on 10 May 1940, six days after the signing of the Mustang contract. No one thought the Germans would win so quickly expecting a long conflict as the French had a huge land army. The RAF needed long range reconnaissance planes to get right over Germany and to also escort bombers - the bomber was thought to be war winning tool in 1940. Hence they had Mustang built. 143.58.177.5 (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Diplomatic territory or not, all initial development took place within the US. All but the Australian CAC Mustangs were built in California and Texas. No production took place in Britain. Even the British Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X conversion was largely unrelated to the Packard Merlin-powered variants that later went into production. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This was put to bed years ago. It is now just one of those dead-in-the-water hobby horses that named accounts get banned for persisting with and IP editors constantly imagine that doing the same thing over and over, in expectation of a different result each time, is not a well-known definition of stupidity. Just deal with them as a disruptive vandal and be done with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Howard wasn't flying "Ding Hao!"?

Jim Howard may not have been flying his assigned aircraft "Ding Hao!" on his Congressional Medal of Honor day (11 Jan 1944) as this Wikipedia article states. He may have borrowed another aircraft. From the following website:

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/11-january-1944/

Lieutenant Colonel James H. Howard, U.S. Army Air Corps, with DING HAO!, his P-51B Mustang, at RAF Boxted, 1944. At the time of this photo, the Mustang had been modified with a sliding, blown-plexiglas “Malcom hood” canopy. (U.S. Air Force)

¹ Major Howard may have flown a different airplane on 11 January 1944. A handwritten caption of the reverse of the top photograph reads, “Howard in own P-51B at Boxted, 25/4/44 not AC in which he won MOH, lt Col James Howard was awarded only Medal of Honour (highest US Award) to go to a fighter pilot flying in the ETO. Action on 11/1/44.“ Puff41 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that we would trust an anonymous person writing on the back of the photo? How is Bryan R. Swopes considered a reliable source? He self-publishes the WordPress page "This Day in Aviation".

The source I cited is from 1993. It shows a photo with a caption reading, "Lt. Col. James H. Howard, U.S. Army Air Corps, in P51-B Mustang "Ding Hao" at the time he won the Congressional Medal of Honor. European Theater of Operations, WW II, 1944. (Courtesy of Col. C. L. March)". The caption does not confirm he was flying Ding Hao on the day of his heroic action.

A contemporary source (Popular Science, August 1944) strongly implies that Ding Hao was the aircraft he flew that day: "After all, if it hadn't been for the qualifications of his plane 'Ding Hao' (which is Chinese for 'O.K.') he could never have done it."

The 1971 book P-51: Bomber Escort (ISBN 9780345024558) by William N. Hess says about that fateful day's action, "Immediately, Howard in his Mustang, 'Ding Hao', sped to the attack."

The 1967 book The 9th Air Force in World War II, Volume 9, (ISBN 9780816870257) by Kenn C. Rust says, "In his P51-B Ding Hao..." while describing the MOH action.

Air Force Magazine, volume 68, page 101, carried an article in 1985 saying, "On January 11, 1944, as squadron commander with the 354th Fighter Group, Howard put his P-51B Mustang Ding Hao! through a series of maneuvers in actual combat that sorely tested the Mustang's reputation..."

We would need a stronger authority to contradict these other sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It's natural for authors to assume Howard was flying his own plane on 11 Jan 1944. Hard thing to prove one way or the other. I'll see if the National Archives has any internet-accessible op records for that day. 47.146.29.231 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There are two records in the US National Archives that may shed some light on which aircraft James Howard was flying on 11 Jan 1944. They are:

356th Fighter Squadron: Combat Operations Report December 1943 - April 1945, NAID: 2898546, Container ID: 3736.

354th Fighter Group: Record of Missions Flown 1944 - 1945, NAID: 2895740, Container ID: 3369.

These presumably typed records from the 354th group itself at the time in question are not viewable online, at least not at archives.gov. Archives.gov was contacted about how to get copies. This will be a long and uncertain process of at least 20 days. Puff41 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A book author or magazine article writer would be able to use those archival sources to publish a conclusion about Howard's aircraft. A Wikipedia user would not. See WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, here's a new twist. There's a slim chance, according to a published source, that Howard may have flown two P-51Bs named "DING HAO!". It hadn't occurred to me that the note on the back of the previously cited photograph might have been referring to another personal aircraft of Jim Howard. From the book "Aces and Wingman II Volume 1", by Danny Morris (1989), pg 229, James Howard is listed as having flown two P-51Bs, coded AJ-A, named Ding Hao, with serial numbers 43-6575 and 43-6515. At least one of these published serial numbers must be incorrect as there are at least four photos of Howard's aircraft with a Malcolm hood and serial number 43-6315 clearly visible on the tail or under the scoreboard. There is at least one photo of a P-51 with Howard's post 11 Jan 1944 victory markings, a bird cage canopy, and a white stripe across the vertical stabilizer but the serial number resolution under the scoreboard is too poor to read in my copy. It could be an earlier version of 43-6315. I am hoping records from the US National Archives or the Wikipedia community can clear this up. Puff41 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I received a response from the US National Archives about my request for two Mission Reports for the 254th FG.  They emailed that a staff member will respond again by Oct 17 (may take longer if US government shuts down).

A search of aircraft serial numbers at the “American Air Museum in Britain” website (https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/aircraft?fulltext=43-6375) for the first “DING HAO!” in published reference “Aces and Wingman II, Morris” shows 43-6375 failed to return from a mission on 13 Dec 1943 while being flown by Buford Eaves of the 353rd FS (citation MACR 1464, US Natl Archives online record).  That aircraft couldn’t have been flown by Jim Howard on 11 Jan 1944.  Howard could have been flying Ding Hao S/N 43-6315 or a borrowed aircraft.

A search for James H Howard at (https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/person/james-howell-howard) only lists one assigned aircraft (43-6315) indicating photos haven’t been found and posted of other aircraft that may have been assigned to Howard.  Three of the six museum website photos of Jim Howard aircraft are of interest.  Two from the Roger A Freeman collection were taken of a birdcage canopy 43-6315 on 25 Jan 1944 with Associated Press stamps on the back of the hardcopies followed by statements this is his “new plane” and “new ship, one of the crack P-51Bs ...”.  It’s not clear what “new” means and these words are less explicit than the handwritten note on the back of the previously cited 25 Apr 1944 photo of 43-6315 which states “not AC in which he won MOH”.

The third photo of interest is from the museum Cook collection where Jim Howard is posing (no head gear) in the cockpit of P-51B FT-x, 43-12175.  The following website (https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/JimHoward.pdf ) dates that photo as 20 Jan 1944 which, if correct, shows Jim Howard was in the cockpit of a P-51B other than Ding Hao in Jan 1944. 43-12175 failed to return on 8 Apr 1944 per US Archives MACR 3560.  To date, I haven’t found any photos of Jim Howard P-51s prior to 20 Jan 1944.

P-51Bs were brand new to combat in Dec 1943.  They had problems with radios, guns, heaters, fogged windshields, ... well into March 1944 causing many to not be ready for missions.  Howard as squadron CO and group leader would probably have priority to borrow an aircraft if his assigned aircraft wasn’t available.  Will see what the National Archive Mission Report records indicate, if anything, for aircraft flown on 11 Jan 1944 and/or if more photos turn up as a result of this discussion. Puff41 (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I admire how thorough you are with your research, but I feel that I must remind you of WP:OR. If you are unable to find any sources usable by Wikipedia, you could still contact the author or publisher of the book and perhaps they could correct the erroneous information. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not plan to change the article although I do believe it implies as a certainty something that is uncertain and more probably not true. I contacted the author who did the previously cited 2017 Flight Journal article about Jim Howard and who wrote in that article that it's an ongoing mystery which aircraft Howard was flying that day - no response from the author thus far. I'm planning to immediately make one more entry in the talk discussion and leave it at that unless there are unexpected developments. Puff41 (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The Air Force Historical Reseach Agency has microfilmed USAAF records created real time by Groups and Squadrons during World War II and has made them available to the public online. I requested and received over 4000 pages of PDF copies of those microfilm files which AFHRA claims is everything that was saved for the 356th FS and 354th FG. I created the attached document which describes everything I found related to the 11 Jan 1944 mission. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Air_Force_records_for_Jim_Howard_Medal_of_Honor_day.pdf Adding to this discussion: The 354th FG was the "Pioneer Mustang Group". They initially treated their new P-51Bs as "Secret". News reporters broke the ice with photos of P-51Bs as a result of Howard's mission. That may be why the photos of Howard describe his aircraft as a "new ship" since the public had never before seen a P-51B. 356th FS combat mission schedules don't list pilots for Mission 14 flown on 11 Jan 1944 but they do indicate pilots weren't flying assigned aircraft prior to 6 Jan 1944. USAAF records show Howard flew an aircraft coded AJ-A on Missions 9 and 10 and he flew AJ-X on missions 11 and 12 while other pilots flew or attempted to fly an aircraft coded AJ-A on those same missions. No squadron or group records were found linking 356th FS pilots to aircraft after 5 Jan 1944. There is a 353rd FS combat mission schedule for 11 Jan 1944 showing those pilots were flying or attempting to fly aircraft coded FT-# where # = A, B, D-F, J, K, O, Q-T, V-X, Z so Howard wasn't flying those aircraft on that day. ... and there are multiple photos of Howard on 25 Jan 1944 and after with assigned aircraft AJ-A "Ding Hao! 43-6315. My conclusion is it's uncertain that Howard flew P-51B 43-6315 on 11 Jan 1944. The photograph with the note on the back stating "not AC in which he won MOH" along with records showing other pilots flying an aircraft coded AJ-A while Howard flew AJ-X makes it more improbable than probable. Puff41 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of published knowledge. The note on the back of the photo is not published, and so it's not part of the literature on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There were two DING HAO aircraft. A photo of the original DING HAO is visible in two YouTube documentaries about the 354th Fighter Group. The photo of the first DING HAO shows the front port side of the aircraft, with three backwards white swastikas on the scoreboard, smaller plainer lettering for DING HAO (no exclamation mark), with Jim Howard perched above the cockpit with artist Will Louie apparently posing painting the third swastika. The photo resolution is not good enough to read the serial number under the scoreboard. This photo is also shown on page 59 of published author Steve Blake's book "The Pioneer Mustang Group". Steve states in the caption that the aircraft was coded AJ-A, serial number 43-6374. As previously cited, other authors have claimed the serial number of the original Jim Howard P-51B was 43-6575 (Danny Morris, probable typos) and 43-6375 (353rd FS, shot down Dec 1943 ... so probable typo). On page 58 of the same book, Steve claims AJ-X serial number 43-6441 was the aircraft Jim Howard flew on 11 Jan 1944. The photo shows the entire starboard side of AJ-X from a distance, including a barely readable tail number. In the book "Above and Beyond, the Aviation Medals of Honor" page 95, published author Barrett Tillman writes "The B-17 men insisted that the pilot in the P-51 coded AJ-X be decorated." The reference in the Aug 1944 Popular Science edition to "Ding Hao" could have been a reference to the first Ding Hao which was not serial number 43-6315 according to author Steve Blake. In the James Howard autobiography "Roar of the Tiger", my notes indicate Jim claimed three aircraft in the European theater on 20 Dec '43, 31 Dec '43 and early Jan '44. Squadron and Group mission reports from AFHRA show Howard flew on 4 and 5 Jan '44. If my notes are correct, the three swastikas on the original Ding Hao date that aircraft photo to between 4 and 11 Jan 1944 (probably 4 or 5 Jan). Only the 20 Dec '43 claim is documented in squadron and group records at the time. There is a difference among published authors about which aircraft Jim Howard flew on 11 Jan 1944. It was more likely the original DING HAO which Steve Blake claims was coded AJ-A/43-6374 (could the original DING HAO have been AJ-X?) or AJ-X 43-6441 rather than the aircraft claimed in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puff41 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Author Steve Blake sent me two photos, one of AJ-X and one of the original DING HAO which after zooming in on the aircraft serial number, ended up being 43-6315 with different, early markings. Steve also emailed me a 356th Fighter Squadron Combat Mission Encounter report 14 for 11 January 1944 from AFHRA. That document recorded by his squadron at the time clearly shows Maj Howard was flying AJ-X on his Medal of Honor mission. The mission report can be found on the American Air Museum in Britain website. Search under "people" for James H Howard to see the record or search under "aircraft" by serial number to see the photos. Puff41 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Most planes shot down by Allied fighter

The Mustang did NOT shoot down more aircraft than any other allied aircraft. That honour goes to the Hawker Hurricane. Cpives2022 (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim in the article is reliably sourced. Do you have a source that refutes the claim? - ZLEA _T\^C 09:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)