Talk:North American P-51 Mustang

2161:

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.

2680:

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.

2712:

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

1777:. 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'. 2575:

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 Knowledge community can clear this up.

2717:

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 Knowledge article.

2601:) 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 “ 858: 2235:

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.

590: 365: 930: 610: 671: 415: 249: 874: 398: 323: 890: 727: 495: 219: 842: 429: 356: 439: 799: 788: 777: 766: 567: 556: 545: 523: 1628:"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. 685: 642: 755: 534: 1689:

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

2110:, 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. - 2744:

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.

1043:

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.

1966:

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.

1139:"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." 2574:

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

2445:

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

2160:

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

2063:

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

1928:

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

1903:

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

1453:

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

2743:

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

2711:

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

2674:

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

2593:

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

2050:

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

1731:

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

2679:

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

2256:

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

1965:

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

1693:

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

2304:

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

1184:

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

2655:

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

2234:

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

2187:

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

2615:

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

2192:

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

1042:

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

1899:

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

1688:

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

1520:

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

2716:

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

1598:

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

1732:

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.

2037:

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

1521:

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.

2612:) 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. 2046:

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

1542:

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.

1147:

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.

1498:

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

2539:

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.

1694:

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.

1166:

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.

2594:

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.

2417:

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)

2511:

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.

1074:

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. -

2407:

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

1882:

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

153: 2105:

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

2656:

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.

1429: 2589:

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

865: 656: 881: 660: 1904:

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.

1303:

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

939: 306: 2456:) 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." 2054:

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

2359:

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. -

2238:

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

2423:

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.

1000: 1181:

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!

2442:

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".

2616:

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.

1984:

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

2242:

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.

1096:

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.

1851:

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.

619: 1892:

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.

1889:

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.

849: 652: 1895:

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

2634:. If you are unable to find any sources usable by Knowledge, you could still contact the author or publisher of the book and perhaps they could correct the erroneous information. - 147: 2339:

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.

1932:

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. -

1226:

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. -

1769:

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

897: 664: 2219: 1971: 1911: 1814:

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'.

1015: 2868: 2843: 1386: 995: 1309:

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.

2853: 2608:

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 (

2554:

A book author or magazine article writer would be able to use those archival sources to publish a conclusion about Howard's aircraft. A Knowledge user would not. See

2051:

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.

2838: 2517: 944: 2848: 2262: 2247: 2096: 740: 2788: 2490:, 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 1924:

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

1988:

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

1046:

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.

1919: 1010: 2813: 2176: 2162: 369: 257: 1185:

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.

44: 2694:

Knowledge 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.

2227: 2024: 1979: 1948: 1005: 2223: 1975: 1915: 1629: 1189: 1149: 1097: 1047: 697: 2402: 1393:

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. -

2778: 2675:

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.

1477: 2833: 1463: 976: 2736: 2530:

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:

2434: 2793: 2745: 2724: 2681: 2657: 2617: 2576: 2541: 2426: 1037: 726: 508: 494: 2193:

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

1348:

idea that the Mustang is an Anglo-American aircraft, which is not supported even by most British sources. This is a repeat of the previous

624: 2421:¹ Major Howard may have flown a different airplane on 11 January 1944. A handwritten caption of the reverse of the top photograph reads, “ 2333:

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

168: 2828: 1448: 1424: 135: 2823: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 79: 2374:

I had started a draft of an operators article in my sandbox, but I eventually abandoned it and requested deletion. I could request a

1558: 1055: 2863: 2773: 2251: 210: 2521: 2314: 2266: 1409: 2170: 1907:

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

2783: 1642:

We don't go by editor's personal opinions on subjects, we stick to what reliable sources say. Got any that back your argument? -

1060:

We don't go by editor's personal opinions on subjects, we stick to what reliable sources say. Got any that back your argument? -

2470:) by William N. Hess says about that fateful day's action, "Immediately, Howard in his Mustang, 'Ding Hao', sped to the attack." 2858: 2818: 2808: 1110:

You think that a vast majority of aviation historians distort history for better sales? That's a pretty controversial take. -

692: 647: 2703: 2567: 2506: 2213: 1344:

What started as a successful proposal to add an FAQ to the talk page has since devolved into a disruptive debate pushing the

984: 701: 129: 85: 2353: 2295: 2126: 2100: 1866: 1593: 1197: 1176: 1651: 1637: 1380:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1330: 1235: 1157: 1069: 266: 218: 2324:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1368: 1126: 1105: 2513: 2753: 2689: 2625: 2584: 2549: 2369: 125: 2803: 2798: 2258: 2243: 2092: 1277: 30: 2665: 2650: 2481: 2467: 2394: 2336:

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

1858: 1550: 1336: 1091: 469: 1432:

Feel free to make any improvements, and if no one objects I will probably add it to this talk page in a few days.-

456:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of 335: 175: 2768: 2676: 1390: 341: 99: 2555: 2533:

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

599: 451: 408: 403: 104: 20: 990:

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

1956:

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

74: 1001:

Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 2#Lead sentence misleading - UK designed and first used the Mustang

696:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 2732: 2279:

conversion was largely unrelated to the Packard Merlin-powered variants that later went into production. -

378: 2029:

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

2609: 2328: 299: 141: 65: 24: 1188:

The article is distorting history for sure. That is not an opinion. The article needs to be put right.

2598: 2271:

Diplomatic territory or not, all initial development took place within the US. All but the Australian

262: 185: 2005: 1959:

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

2276: 457: 2166: 1993: 1862: 1554: 1028:

of those discussions before trying to discuss this further so that you don't retread old ground.

967: 109: 2257:

bombers - the bomber was thought to be war winning tool in 1940. Hence they had Mustang built.

2194: 1349: 1297: 2494:

through a series of maneuvers in actual combat that sorely tested the Mustang's reputation..."

2450: 1690: 2699: 2677:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:US_Air_Force_records_for_Jim_Howard_Medal_of_Honor_day.pdf

2563: 2536:

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

2502: 2310: 1459: 384: 2275:

were built in California and Texas. No production took place in Britain. Even the British

2720: 1854: 1633: 1546: 1193: 1153: 1101: 1051: 322: 8: 355: 55: 2728: 2630:

I admire how thorough you are with your research, but I feel that I must remind you of

1318: 1314: 857: 233: 70: 2478: 2464: 2411: 2348: 2305:

stupidity. Just deal with them as a disruptive vandal and be done with it. — Cheers,

980: 51: 1135:

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

2749: 2695: 2685: 2661: 2621: 2580: 2559: 2545: 2498: 2484:) by Kenn C. Rust says, "In his P51-B Ding Hao..." while describing the MOH action. 2430: 2375: 2306: 1997: 1774: 1455: 1345: 1326: 1273: 1172: 1033: 975:

Only existed per a UK requirement, first flew with the RAF, British engines. . .

589: 161: 2365: 2189: 2004:

an "American-Soviet" aircraft even though it is nearly a one-for-one copy of the

1647: 1589: 1473: 1420: 1231: 1065: 463: 444: 2641: 2385: 2286: 2204: 2117: 2015: 1992:

a factor in determining the national origin of the aircraft. No one calls the

1939: 1439: 1400: 1359: 1117: 1082: 996:

Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 2#Mustang was an Anglo-American Plane

229: 2762: 2072:

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

1770: 2631: 2342: 2001: 929: 609: 2272: 2107: 1322: 1269: 1168: 1029: 234: 2361: 1643: 1599:

collaboration. It needs to be clearer and a brief mention in the intro.

1585: 1469: 1416: 1227: 1061: 2610:

https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/JimHoward.pdf

2497:

We would need a stronger authority to contradict these other sources.

2635: 2379: 2280: 2198: 2111: 2009: 1996:

an "Anglo-Soviet" aircraft for being powered by a reverse-engineered

1953:

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

1933: 1433: 1394: 1353: 1111: 1076: 1016:

Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 4#"Anglo-American" continued

873: 428: 397: 329: 2599:

https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/person/james-howell-howard

1970:

Americans are claiming something 100% theirs, which is clearly not.

1929:

an aircraft. I think I did a pretty good job explaining that below.

1313:

The "External links" section has 15 entries that do not conform to

889: 231: 670: 414: 1389:

being repeatedly brought up, maybe we should consider adding an

2446:

confirm he was flying Ding Hao on the day of his heroic action.

1011:

Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 3#Anglo-American again

841: 235: 1910:

Do not go by history comics on the Barnes and Noble shelves.

1584:...and the article explains that right in the first para. - 1352:

behavior that led to the FAQ proposal in the first place. -

2188:

national origin. For example, most variants of the Soviet

684: 641: 1415:

That might be good from an interdiction point of view. -

1006:

Talk:North_American P-51 Mustang/Archive 3#Anglo-American

2179:

The national origin of an aircraft is the country that

160: 328:

A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's

2088:

First flight in front of NAA and Ministry engineers.

2080:

First prototype complete for evaluation by Ministry.

738:

This article has been checked against the following

506:

This article has been checked against the following

434: 15: 2869:

Failed requests for military history A-Class review

2844:

North American military history task force articles

1900:

signing, the Mustang project started on 4 May 1940.

1454:entirely designed and built in the United States." 2854:United States military history task force articles 2412:https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/11-january-1944/ 2839:C-Class North American military history articles 2760: 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2849:C-Class United States military history articles 2789:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Technology 2091:Installing the RR Merlin is another chapter. 174: 2378:if anyone wants to finish what I started. - 1430:Here's the FAQ page I created in my sandbox. 2814:Failed requests for aviation A-Class review 1024:I'd highly suggest that you carefully read 261:. Please read recent comments, look in the 1468:User:Binksternet - I like that wording! - 866:North American military history task force 882:United States military history task force 690:This article is within the scope of the 450:This article is within the scope of the 2220:2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 1972:2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 1912:2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 353: 2779:Knowledge vital articles in Technology 2761: 710:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 700:. To use this banner, please see the 468:. To use this banner, please see the 2834:Military aviation task force articles 713:Template:WikiProject Military history 2794:C-Class vital articles in Technology 1376:The following discussion is closed. 349: 243: 1162:That it is a distortion of history 972:Should list the UK as well as USA. 383:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 2829:C-Class military aviation articles 1321:, and needs drastic trimming. -- 1307:The B-class criteria (#1) states, 928: 888: 872: 856: 840: 725: 608: 588: 493: 14: 2880: 2824:C-Class military history articles 2475:The 9th Air Force in World War II 2403:Howard wasn't flying "Ding Hao!"? 258:previous arguments being restated 2864:World War II task force articles 2774:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 2597:A search for James H Howard at ( 2320:The discussion above is closed. 2042:Jan - April 1940 (three months): 797: 786: 775: 764: 753: 683: 669: 640: 565: 554: 543: 532: 521: 437: 427: 413: 396: 363: 354: 321: 247: 217: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2784:C-Class level-5 vital articles 2704:20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 2690:20:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 2666:19:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 2651:22:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 2626:18:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 2585:21:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 2568:00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 2550:22:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 2522:20:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC) 2507:14:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC) 2435:01:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 1478:11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) 1464:05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC) 1449:01:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC) 478:Knowledge:WikiProject Aviation 1: 2859:C-Class World War II articles 2819:WikiProject Aviation articles 2809:WikiProject Aircraft articles 2754:23:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 2737:22:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC) 1652:17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1638:16:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1177:23:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1158:23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1106:23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1092:17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1070:17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 1056:15:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 597:This article is supported by 481:Template:WikiProject Aviation 42:Put new text under old text. 2395:19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC) 1387:"Anglo-American" controversy 1317:(#3), far surpasses being a 1278:18:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC) 1236:14:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC) 1198:11:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC) 1127:03:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) 850:Military aviation task force 693:Military history WikiProject 7: 2603:not AC in which he won MOH” 2370:11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC) 2354:03:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC) 1425:23:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC) 1410:22:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 25:North American P-51 Mustang 10: 2885: 2214:21:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) 2171:19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) 1594:20:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 1559:20:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 1038:03:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 985:03:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 758:Referencing and citation: 526:Referencing and citation: 307:WikiProject A-class review 2804:C-Class aircraft articles 2799:C-Class aviation articles 2315:16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 2296:15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 2267:12:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 2252:11:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 2228:12:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 2127:14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 2101:11:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 2025:21:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 2006:Boeing B-29 Superfortress 2000:. No one even calls the 1980:21:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 1949:14:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 1920:12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 1867:21:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 1369:23:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 1337:FAQ about national origin 936: 911: 907: 896: 880: 864: 848: 823: 819: 737: 716:military history articles 678: 616: 596: 505: 422: 391: 281: 277: 254:Discussions on this page 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2329:List of units operating? 2322:Please do not modify it. 2277:Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X 1378:Please do not modify it. 1331:13:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC) 2556:WP:No original research 2449:A contemporary source ( 1994:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 912:Additional information: 898:World War II task force 824:Associated task forces: 769:Coverage and accuracy: 537:Coverage and accuracy: 2769:C-Class vital articles 933: 893: 877: 861: 845: 802:Supporting materials: 730: 613: 593: 570:Supporting materials: 498: 75:avoid personal attacks 2195:Bernoulli's principle 932: 892: 876: 860: 844: 729: 612: 592: 497: 370:level-5 vital article 211:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 600:the aircraft project 453:Aviation WikiProject 105:No original research 2461:P-51: Bomber Escort 2218:See my post above. 791:Grammar and style: 744:for B-class status: 559:Grammar and style: 512:for B-class status: 2488:Air Force Magazine 1379: 934: 894: 878: 862: 846: 731: 698:list of open tasks 614: 594: 499: 379:content assessment 282:Article milestones 269:before commenting. 260: 86:dispute resolution 47: 2739: 2723:comment added by 2076:9 September 1940: 1869: 1857:comment added by 1561: 1549:comment added by 1377: 963: 962: 959: 958: 955: 954: 951: 950: 903: 902: 815: 814: 760:criterion not met 702:full instructions 635: 634: 631: 630: 583: 582: 539:criterion not met 484:aviation articles 470:full instructions 348: 347: 316: 315: 273: 272: 265:, and review the 255: 242: 241: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2876: 2718: 2649: 2644: 2638: 2393: 2388: 2382: 2351: 2345: 2294: 2289: 2283: 2212: 2207: 2201: 2125: 2120: 2114: 2084:26 October 1940: 2064:and easy to jig. 2023: 2018: 2012: 1998:Rolls-Royce Nene 1947: 1942: 1936: 1852: 1775:Martlesham Heath 1544: 1447: 1442: 1436: 1408: 1403: 1397: 1367: 1362: 1356: 1125: 1120: 1114: 1090: 1085: 1079: 919: 909: 908: 831: 821: 820: 805: 801: 800: 794: 790: 789: 783: 779: 778: 772: 768: 767: 761: 757: 756: 735: 734: 718: 717: 714: 711: 708: 707:Military history 687: 680: 679: 674: 673: 672: 667: 648:Military history 644: 637: 636: 573: 569: 568: 562: 558: 557: 551: 547: 546: 540: 536: 535: 529: 525: 524: 503: 502: 486: 485: 482: 479: 476: 447: 442: 441: 440: 431: 424: 423: 418: 417: 416: 411: 400: 393: 392: 376: 367: 366: 359: 358: 350: 342:October 26, 2012 325: 302: 300:January 19, 2013 279: 278: 275: 274: 251: 250: 244: 236: 222: 221: 212: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2884: 2883: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2759: 2758: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2636: 2452:Popular Science 2405: 2391: 2390: 2386: 2380: 2349: 2343: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2292: 2291: 2287: 2281: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2199: 2190:Polikarpov I-16 2123: 2122: 2118: 2112: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2010: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1934: 1691:compressibility 1445: 1444: 1440: 1434: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1395: 1382: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1354: 1350:WP:NOTGETTINGIT 1339: 1300: 1268:I concur, sir. 1123: 1122: 1118: 1112: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1077: 970: 968:National Origin 917: 829: 803: 798: 792: 787: 781: 776: 770: 765: 759: 754: 715: 712: 709: 706: 705: 668: 650: 571: 566: 560: 555: 549: 544: 538: 533: 527: 522: 483: 480: 477: 474: 473: 445:Aviation portal 443: 438: 436: 412: 406: 377:on Knowledge's 374: 364: 298: 248: 238: 237: 232: 209: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2882: 2872: 2871: 2866: 2861: 2856: 2851: 2846: 2841: 2836: 2831: 2826: 2821: 2816: 2811: 2806: 2801: 2796: 2791: 2786: 2781: 2776: 2771: 2757: 2756: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2640: 2613: 2606: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2537: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2495: 2485: 2473:The 1967 book 2471: 2459:The 1971 book 2457: 2447: 2443: 2416: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2384: 2330: 2327: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2285: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2203: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2116: 2089: 2086: 2081: 2078: 2073: 2070: 2065: 2061: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2039: 2035: 2030: 2014: 1968: 1962: 1960: 1957: 1954: 1938: 1930: 1908: 1905: 1901: 1893: 1890: 1884: 1877: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1438: 1399: 1383: 1374: 1358: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1311: 1305: 1299: 1298:Article issues 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1186: 1182: 1143:I do not give 1141: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1116: 1081: 1044: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1013: 1008: 1003: 998: 969: 966: 961: 960: 957: 956: 953: 952: 949: 948: 945:A-Class review 935: 925: 924: 922: 920: 914: 913: 905: 904: 901: 900: 895: 885: 884: 879: 869: 868: 863: 853: 852: 847: 837: 836: 834: 832: 826: 825: 817: 816: 813: 812: 810: 808: 807: 806: 795: 784: 773: 762: 748: 747: 745: 732: 722: 721: 719: 688: 676: 675: 645: 633: 632: 629: 628: 625:A-Class review 615: 605: 604: 595: 585: 584: 581: 580: 578: 576: 575: 574: 563: 552: 541: 530: 516: 515: 513: 500: 490: 489: 487: 449: 448: 432: 420: 419: 401: 389: 388: 382: 360: 346: 345: 336:On this day... 326: 318: 317: 314: 313: 310: 303: 295: 294: 291: 288: 284: 283: 271: 270: 256:often lead to 252: 240: 239: 230: 228: 227: 224: 223: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2881: 2870: 2867: 2865: 2862: 2860: 2857: 2855: 2852: 2850: 2847: 2845: 2842: 2840: 2837: 2835: 2832: 2830: 2827: 2825: 2822: 2820: 2817: 2815: 2812: 2810: 2807: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2790: 2787: 2785: 2782: 2780: 2777: 2775: 2772: 2770: 2767: 2766: 2764: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2715: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2678: 2673: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2645: 2639: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2529: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2514:47.146.29.231 2510: 2509: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2493: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2482:9780816870257 2480: 2477:, Volume 9, ( 2476: 2472: 2469: 2468:9780345024558 2466: 2462: 2458: 2455: 2454:, August 1944 2453: 2448: 2444: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2396: 2389: 2383: 2377: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2352: 2346: 2340: 2337: 2334: 2323: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2303: 2297: 2290: 2284: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2208: 2202: 2196: 2191: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177:Khamba Tendal 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2163:Khamba Tendal 2128: 2121: 2115: 2109: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2087: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2069: 2066: 2062: 2060: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2019: 2013: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1961: 1958: 1955: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1943: 1937: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1776: 1772: 1771:Boscombe Down 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1499:Mustang/P-51. 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1443: 1437: 1431: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1404: 1398: 1392: 1388: 1381: 1370: 1363: 1357: 1351: 1347: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1142: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1128: 1121: 1115: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1086: 1080: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1002: 999: 997: 994: 993: 992: 991: 989: 988: 987: 986: 982: 978: 973: 965: 946: 942: 941: 937:This article 931: 927: 926: 923: 921: 916: 915: 910: 906: 899: 891: 887: 886: 883: 875: 871: 870: 867: 859: 855: 854: 851: 843: 839: 838: 835: 833: 828: 827: 822: 818: 811: 809: 804:criterion met 796: 793:criterion met 785: 782:criterion met 774: 771:criterion met 763: 752: 751: 750: 749: 746: 743: 742: 736: 733: 728: 724: 723: 720: 703: 699: 695: 694: 689: 686: 682: 681: 677: 666: 662: 661:United States 658: 657:North America 654: 649: 646: 643: 639: 638: 626: 622: 621: 617:This article 611: 607: 606: 602: 601: 591: 587: 586: 579: 577: 572:criterion met 564: 561:criterion met 553: 550:criterion met 542: 531: 528:criterion met 520: 519: 518: 517: 514: 511: 510: 504: 501: 496: 492: 491: 488: 471: 467: 466: 461: 460: 455: 454: 446: 435: 433: 430: 426: 425: 421: 410: 405: 402: 399: 395: 394: 390: 386: 380: 372: 371: 361: 357: 352: 351: 343: 339: 337: 331: 327: 324: 320: 319: 311: 309: 308: 304: 301: 297: 296: 292: 289: 286: 285: 280: 276: 268: 264: 259: 253: 246: 245: 226: 225: 220: 216: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2719:— Preceding 2713: 2710: 2602: 2491: 2487: 2474: 2460: 2451: 2422: 2420: 2415: 2410: 2406: 2341: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2321: 2273:CAC Mustangs 2259:143.58.177.5 2244:143.58.177.5 2184: 2180: 2159: 2108:CAC Mustangs 2093:143.58.177.5 2083: 2075: 2068:29 May 1940: 2067: 2058: 2041: 2032: 2002:Tupolev Tu-4 1989: 1985: 1964: 1925: 1896: 1886: 1879: 1873: 1853:— Preceding 1773:or possibly 1545:— Preceding 1384: 1375: 1308: 1163: 1144: 1138: 1025: 974: 971: 964: 938: 739: 691: 665:World War II 618: 598: 507: 464: 458: 452: 385:WikiProjects 368: 333: 312:Not approved 305: 214: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2696:Binksternet 2560:Binksternet 2499:Binksternet 2307:Steelpillow 2059:4 May 1940: 1986:preliminary 1859:86.8.126.91 1551:86.8.126.91 1456:Binksternet 1315:WP:ELPOINTS 780:Structure: 548:Structure: 465:task forces 148:free images 31:not a forum 2763:Categories 1630:Wisdom-inc 1190:Wisdom-inc 1150:Wisdom-inc 1098:Wisdom-inc 1048:Wisdom-inc 940:has failed 620:has failed 459:open tasks 340:column on 2492:Ding Hao! 2376:WP:REFUND 2239:contract. 2181:developed 2055:drawings. 1385:With the 1346:WP:FRINGE 373:is rated 330:Main Page 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2733:contribs 2721:unsigned 1855:unsigned 1547:unsigned 1319:LINKFARM 741:criteria 653:Aviation 509:criteria 475:Aviation 409:Aircraft 404:Aviation 263:archives 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1145:opinion 977:VSTAMPv 375:C-class 332:in the 290:Process 215:90 days 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2746:Puff41 2725:Puff41 2682:Puff41 2658:Puff41 2618:Puff41 2590:down). 2577:Puff41 2542:Puff41 2427:Puff41 1883:USAAF. 1323:Otr500 1270:BilCat 1169:BilCat 1030:BilCat 381:scale. 293:Result 126:Google 2632:WP:OR 2362:Ahunt 2344:Grant 2185:built 2047:draw. 2038:legs. 2033:1939: 1897:after 1644:Ahunt 1586:Ahunt 1470:Ahunt 1417:Ahunt 1304:2011. 1228:Ahunt 1062:Ahunt 362:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2750:talk 2729:talk 2714:AJ-X 2700:talk 2686:talk 2662:talk 2637:ZLEA 2622:talk 2581:talk 2564:talk 2546:talk 2518:talk 2503:talk 2479:ISBN 2465:ISBN 2431:talk 2381:ZLEA 2366:talk 2350:Talk 2311:Talk 2282:ZLEA 2263:talk 2248:talk 2224:talk 2200:ZLEA 2197:. - 2183:and 2167:talk 2113:ZLEA 2097:talk 2011:ZLEA 2008:. - 1976:talk 1935:ZLEA 1916:talk 1874:myth 1872:The 1863:talk 1648:talk 1634:talk 1590:talk 1555:talk 1474:talk 1460:talk 1435:ZLEA 1421:talk 1396:ZLEA 1355:ZLEA 1327:talk 1274:talk 1232:talk 1194:talk 1173:talk 1154:talk 1113:ZLEA 1102:talk 1078:ZLEA 1066:talk 1052:talk 1034:talk 981:talk 462:and 287:Date 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1990:not 1876:is: 1391:FAQ 1026:all 943:an 623:an 267:FAQ 176:TWL 2765:: 2752:) 2735:) 2731:• 2702:) 2688:) 2664:) 2624:) 2583:) 2566:) 2558:. 2548:) 2520:) 2505:) 2433:) 2425:“ 2368:) 2347:| 2313:) 2265:) 2250:) 2226:) 2169:) 2099:) 1978:) 1926:IN 1918:) 1887:2) 1880:1) 1865:) 1650:) 1636:) 1592:) 1557:) 1476:) 1462:) 1423:) 1329:) 1276:) 1234:) 1196:) 1175:) 1164:is 1156:) 1104:) 1068:) 1054:) 1036:) 983:) 918:/ 830:/ 663:/ 659:/ 655:/ 651:: 407:: 213:: 205:, 201:, 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 2748:( 2727:( 2698:( 2684:( 2660:( 2648:\ 2643:T 2620:( 2605:. 2579:( 2562:( 2544:( 2516:( 2501:( 2463:( 2429:( 2392:\ 2387:T 2364:( 2309:( 2293:\ 2288:T 2261:( 2246:( 2222:( 2211:\ 2206:T 2165:( 2124:\ 2119:T 2095:( 2022:\ 2017:T 1974:( 1946:\ 1941:T 1914:( 1861:( 1646:( 1632:( 1588:( 1553:( 1472:( 1458:( 1446:\ 1441:T 1419:( 1407:\ 1402:T 1366:\ 1361:T 1325:( 1272:( 1230:( 1192:( 1171:( 1152:( 1124:\ 1119:T 1100:( 1089:\ 1084:T 1064:( 1050:( 1032:( 979:( 947:. 704:. 627:. 603:. 472:. 387:: 344:. 338:" 334:" 207:5 203:4 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index