drgondog
Major
As some of you know, I have devoted coniderable effort and time to research North American as well as Lockheed and Republic over my many years 'looking into' the history of Long Range Escort development during WWII.
In Bodie's works, and also Ethell, for both his Mustang and P-38 Fighter at War (with Christy), there are descriptions of Kelsey and Echols tirelesssly working to better the Army Air Force capability in a selfless manner. Jeff particularly seemed to take Kelsey's word that he (and Echols) were always in NAA's corner as the Mustang was being developed. Jeff was a personal friend going back to our Air Force brat days at Johnson AFB as well as Eglin AFB.
When Jeff released Mustang, he was excoriated by Horkey and Wagner and Gruenhagen for extremely sloppy (and incorrect) assembly of 'heretofore unknown facts'. I actually called Jeff to ask him why he didn't run his script past me for at least a 1st level exam of his 'engineering facts' as so many statements he made were easily correctible. It was extremely clear that Jeff had not contacted Schmued, Horkey, Atwood or Rice for his research.
Later, Paul Ludwig was the first to throw the BS Flag on both Echols and Kelsey claims to have been the hidden power to bring the Mustang to AAF.
The reason for this post however, is to ask this group if any of you have ever seen a memo or report from either Kelsey or Echols that suggested or implied that they actively and visibly supported AAF purchase of the P-51 (from X73 through XP-51B). I have reams citing Maj.Gen Muir Fairchild's battles with Echols re: A-36, P-51A and P-51B - as well as Wright Field leadership from Branshaw and Bradley to support the P-51A and B and D and others once the P-51B was a 'done deal' - but only one single Flight Teat Report filed by Ben Kelsey, dated January 1942, in which he reported some favorable attributes such as speed and dive speed over the P-40 but no real enthusiasm for the Mustang.
Kelsey departed MC shortly after for his role to assist Spaatz and Eaker in the logistics to get P-38s into, and supported by Lockheed Langford Lodge), the VIII Fighter Command. Kelsey moved on to senior staff 9th AF never returned to Materiel Command until very late in the war and AFAIK, never wrote a memo supporting NAA and the Mustang.
One note: As Chief, Fighter Branch in 1941 I believe he signed the DA-140 Defense Authorization for Britain to purchase 150 NA-91, but that wa a formal obligation for Lend-Lease and notably there was no specific provision for AAF to acquire the subset they requisitioned in May 1942. He later recounted that this was the evidence that 'he supported NAA all along'.
Lowell and I will probably write an extension to our book - If we (and Ludwig and Wagner and Gruenhagen) are wrong in our considered opinions of Kelsey - we will correct the impression.
So the question to the talented researchers on this forum - have I downplayed Kelsey role vis a vis North American Aviation as too insignificant?
In Bodie's works, and also Ethell, for both his Mustang and P-38 Fighter at War (with Christy), there are descriptions of Kelsey and Echols tirelesssly working to better the Army Air Force capability in a selfless manner. Jeff particularly seemed to take Kelsey's word that he (and Echols) were always in NAA's corner as the Mustang was being developed. Jeff was a personal friend going back to our Air Force brat days at Johnson AFB as well as Eglin AFB.
When Jeff released Mustang, he was excoriated by Horkey and Wagner and Gruenhagen for extremely sloppy (and incorrect) assembly of 'heretofore unknown facts'. I actually called Jeff to ask him why he didn't run his script past me for at least a 1st level exam of his 'engineering facts' as so many statements he made were easily correctible. It was extremely clear that Jeff had not contacted Schmued, Horkey, Atwood or Rice for his research.
Later, Paul Ludwig was the first to throw the BS Flag on both Echols and Kelsey claims to have been the hidden power to bring the Mustang to AAF.
The reason for this post however, is to ask this group if any of you have ever seen a memo or report from either Kelsey or Echols that suggested or implied that they actively and visibly supported AAF purchase of the P-51 (from X73 through XP-51B). I have reams citing Maj.Gen Muir Fairchild's battles with Echols re: A-36, P-51A and P-51B - as well as Wright Field leadership from Branshaw and Bradley to support the P-51A and B and D and others once the P-51B was a 'done deal' - but only one single Flight Teat Report filed by Ben Kelsey, dated January 1942, in which he reported some favorable attributes such as speed and dive speed over the P-40 but no real enthusiasm for the Mustang.
Kelsey departed MC shortly after for his role to assist Spaatz and Eaker in the logistics to get P-38s into, and supported by Lockheed Langford Lodge), the VIII Fighter Command. Kelsey moved on to senior staff 9th AF never returned to Materiel Command until very late in the war and AFAIK, never wrote a memo supporting NAA and the Mustang.
One note: As Chief, Fighter Branch in 1941 I believe he signed the DA-140 Defense Authorization for Britain to purchase 150 NA-91, but that wa a formal obligation for Lend-Lease and notably there was no specific provision for AAF to acquire the subset they requisitioned in May 1942. He later recounted that this was the evidence that 'he supported NAA all along'.
Lowell and I will probably write an extension to our book - If we (and Ludwig and Wagner and Gruenhagen) are wrong in our considered opinions of Kelsey - we will correct the impression.
So the question to the talented researchers on this forum - have I downplayed Kelsey role vis a vis North American Aviation as too insignificant?
