I am sorry to have disappointed you, but rest assured, your views on shortages and on the insignificance of pilot training will live long in my memory.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am sorry to have disappointed you, but rest assured, your views on shortages and on the insignificance of pilot training will live long in my memory.Three of the main voices in this corner of the internet are comfortable making even self contradicting claims while ignoring any problems and most errors, making it a sort of intellectual retirement playpen area where as so many mothers have said to daughters, remember dear, men will be boys.
Hi all,
Obviously one of the best ways to start a lengthy post battle concentrating on irrelevant data and serial numbers.
All I want to know is, did they have to move the IFF and did it have nose armour?
Speaking of which, I haven't seen P-39 Expert around for awhile...
This appears to be a self-describing statement.Three of the main voices in this corner of the internet are comfortable making even self contradicting claims while ignoring any problems and most errors, making it a sort of intellectual retirement playpen area where as so many mothers have said to daughters, remember dear, men will be boys.
Is that actually "from" or "because of"?I have to give him credit, I learned a lot about the P-39 from him.
It would be ever so simple to dismiss this member.This appears to be a self-describing statement.
But no worries, we've had worse examples grace the forums.
Not many, mind you, but some...
However, this person uses protracted strings of "data" gleaned from various sources, some of which has been proven incorrect (often time over and over) by our members who have spent countless hours researching the actual source of information (manufacturer's documents, government documents, etc.) and yet this person insists our members are wrong, often closing with snide comments.It would be ever so simple to dismiss this member.
Now i do not know even in the simplest way the stuff these 2 are talking about in depth. I do know this however. This board is for openess. Dont like the peronal garbage but love the debate. Can be sharp, must be polite.
Otherwise this debate is nothing more then a bit of face book mud slinging and of no value.
So please keep it nice i beg you. Be sharp, point at flaws mistakes blunders if you will. But please for us lesser informed, keep it nice. So much more informative when it is.
Regards
That's what I've been doing.However, this person uses protracted strings of "data" gleaned from various sources, some of which has been proven incorrect (often time over and over) by our members who have spent countless hours researching the actual source of information (manufacturer's documents, government documents, etc.) and yet this person insists our members are wrong, often closing with snide comments.
So there is a wealth of information to be learned, yes, but not from him.
I suggest (to save time) skipping over his posts and read the replies - that is where the accurate information will be found
YesIs that actually "from" or "because of"?
Asking for a friend, of course...
Note I was using block numbers? Given the US System was to try and run production blocks. And the number of Dallas D-30 was 165 versus production of 324 P-51D in July and August 1945? Plenty of web sites suggest the M-1 came from a D-25 as a result, given the M-1 was accepted in June but just as easily since Inglewood had started D-30 production the chosen M-1 airframe could have been made up to D-30 standard.Are you are laboring under an impression (or even the Air Force preparers of documents understood) that the actual shipset order of production line is 100% consistent with serial number order on the production line? Please don't. Many contrary examples.
Since AC-30479 had the P-51B block 43-6313 to 7202 they were the first built, being the B-1, 5, and the first -10 then the serials 42-106429 to 106978 of supplement 1 (less 42-106539 and 40) which were B-10 and 15 and finally B-15 43-24752 to 24901 on supplement 3, if blocks built in contract order.For your benefit, the NAA production docs and AAF IARC show that mid block P-51B-10 42-106538 was accepted 2-7-44 (15 weeks after P-51D-NA). The first of 200 P-51B-10-NA 43-7113 on 12-6-43. The first P-51D-NA was accepted 10-25-1943.
How about actually reading what I wrote. How did ""While Dallas started 1945 producing K," get the interpretation "started producing K in 1945" get created from my phrase? Did Dallas produce anything other than K models in January 1945?You are flailing. The 'K' was uninterrupted P-51D-5-NT line save replacement of prop/spinner for AeroProducts propeller. If you look at NAA records you will see P-51K-1-NT #1 begins immediately following D-5-NT #200, for K #1 in serial number sequence' and continues in sequence through K-15-NT #1600 44-12852, where Hamilton Standard propellers were once again installed in the P-51D-NT line beginning with P-51D-20-NT 44-12853. The P-51K line began in September 1944 and completed as F6K 44-12852 and accepted by AAF on 3-14-1945.
So is the idea 2 airframes were accepted as P-51 then modified and accepted a second time, but as XP-51B? Even though most references talk about 2 engineless airframes set aside?P-51-NA, 150 ordered, 150 accepted, XP-51B contract called for set aside of two P-51-NA completed airframes from AAF inventory to be retained for the Packard modification (#33 and #99) under different contract AC-32073 and charge number NA-101. I'll have to check IARC, but first flight of XP-51B 41-37352 was not until November 30, 1942 - doubt that AAF accepted the Modified Airframe per the implied NA-101 MCR until Spring 1943.
So you have not looked up whether the modifications were done before acceptance? Which is what the production reports indicate.Well, there ya go. There was no special and unique NAA charge number for 'TF-51D'. Very similar to addition of 85 gallon fuel tank, modification for bubble canopy, installation of cameras - in which a Material Change Request for 2 seat/control mod, was made by NAA to AAF spec, funded, added to the Model Specifiction (in this case original P-51D-5-NT Specification) as MCR-xxx, engineering and production work performed under AC-2400 contract. NAA Charge number NA-124. It was modified from a basic P-51D-25-NT airframe. I would have to look at the IARC for date and travel records to see if it was a.) accepted but delivered with gap of dates for delivery, or b.) accepted and delivered within a day or two. Payment for a complete ship, pre agreed modification/pre acceptance would have been a point of negotiation. If the latter, then they were delivered per the MCR and then accepted based on meeting the MCR spec..
It is known a number of earlier P-51 were modified, and the August 1944 report for Inglewood states "84 accepted as P-51 but delivered as F-6" while F-6K acceptances started in November 1944, switching to D in March 1945. So advanced production could be before acceptance?F6K were modified at Dallas in Advanced Production and part of the P-51K-NT run. Prior F-6, F-6A, B/C/D were largely Depot mods post acceptance by AAF
Meantime the RC-301 reports have FP AC-2029 for 2 XP-82 and 2 XP-82A from Inglewood, with the 2 XP-82 accepted by end September 1945 and the XP-82 moved to unsheduled and as is known ultimately not built. Various references talk about the A being Allison powered prototypes. What is the explanation for the lack of a P-82A?The original contract AC-2029 NA-120 for XP-82 called for four, Reduced to two. Two delivered. There is no 'XP-82A" or XP-82B in NAA Charge Number, nor is the use of A or B for a prototype a NAA practice for a wholly new Type. Whether typo or simply brain freeze, there was no XP-82A.
One of the things I note is the way go look up X is never accompanied with details of where X is and how it can be accessed. And apparently I am so good I can look at all that documentation in a few days.Did you research the AAF IARC's ? Kinda fundamental as they refected day by day aircraft deliveries by date, mfr, contract, serial number, type and model - as well as the movements of each aircraft through loss or salvage? Did you research the NAA Contractor and O Reports, listing every aircraft built by NAA, every Customer/contract, NAA Charge number, NA production number, AAC/AAF serial number, important descriptions?
That no doubt explains the good humour being shown. Good to know you have looked up the RC-301 reports, please tell everyone where I diverge from them. You must have done that to make the accusation of deliberately misleading. So what are the differences?But you merrily baffle the rapt readers with a blizzard of bullshit
Yes, the way you consistently misread articles here and make mistakes that you do not correct, or making up errors and assign them to others and still have people recommend your writings, error correction seems to be irrelevant. Still no explanation of the "All SUBSEQUENT P-51D airframes were assigned to Dallas in mid 1945.", given there were if anything fewer D models ordered, replaced by M.I can 'baffle' with most,
However given the response it is clear this forum is not the place to explore and resolve those differences. The P-51 is clearly a sacred object, with the law laid down by someone who knows all, do not contradict that.I draw your attention (as you have) to the basic debate; P-51M 'equal P-51H-NA w/different engine' or 'equal P-51D-30-NT w/different engine'. Your conclusion Da King?
The title of this thread is "What is a P-51M" the P-51 is not sacred, it is just the topic of discussion, not everything in the world has a religious aspect, that is why I don't treat your posts as gospel (see what I did there).However given the response it is clear this forum is not the place to explore and resolve those differences. The P-51 is clearly a sacred object, with the law laid down by someone who knows all, do not contradict that.
Maximum of seven below 15,000 ft. (acc. to Wiki).How many P-51Ms can dance on the head of a pin?
Face palm and sigh. P-51M was accepted at Dallas on 6-7-45, and delivered to Inglewood on 6-25.. Quit omitting -NA and -NT because you are confusing Dallas production with Inglewood. For informational puposes the Inglewood P-51D-30-NA #1 44-74227 was accepted on 4-12-1945 and last of 800, 45-75026 was accepted 7-20-1945.Note I was using block numbers? Given the US System was to try and run production blocks. And the number of Dallas D-30 was 165 versus production of 324 P-51D in July and August 1945? Plenty of web sites suggest the M-1 came from a D-25 as a result, given the M-1 was accepted in June but just as easily since Inglewood had started D-30 production the chosen M-1 airframe could have been made up to D-30 standard.
Or is the idea the June to August 1945 Dallas production was a mixture of D-25 and D-30 from June? The differences between the two were small enough?
Not quite. AC-30479 started with P-51A 43-6003 through 43-6312, truncated and initiated P-51B-5-NA per NAA Charge number NA-104. Inserted date-wise after NA104 began, was NA-106/107 per AC-30479 and AC-33940. The Mustangs were respectively as P-51D/E., and projected beginning insertion point 42-106539 for P-51D-NA and 42-103379 (IIRC - have to check) for P-51E-NT. The end of P-51B-10-NA was planned for B-10-NA # 42-106538.Since AC-30479 had the P-51B block 43-6313 to 7202 they were the first built, being the B-1, 5, and the first -10 then the serials 42-106429 to 106978 of supplement 1 (less 42-106539 and 40) which were B-10 and 15 and finally B-15 43-24752 to 24901 on supplement 3, if blocks built in contract order.
P-51D-NA 42-106539 was accepted 10-31-43. P-51D-1-NT was accepted 12-31-1943 - Source: USAAF IARC for both ships. SECOND acceptance of 'P-51D' was P-51D-5-NA on 2-27-44. This clarification is why the 'NA and NT' suffix is important.1,200 B-1 and 5, 974 P-51B accepted to end November, 1,223 to end December, 1,473 to end January, 1,723 to end February 1,968 to end March and 1,988 to end April. 43-7113 was number 1201 and 42-106538 was number 1,400 in the B serials list, so one was early and one was late versus strict serial number acceptances.
The differences are the USAAF contract and serial list records both 42-106539 and 40 as D-1 and the production reports have the first acceptances of D models in February 1944, with another 27 in March and 182 accepted in April.
No. From Late September to early Match 1945.How about actually reading what I wrote. How did ""While Dallas started 1945 producing K," get the interpretation "started producing K in 1945" get created from my phrase? Did Dallas produce anything other than K models in January 1945?
Complete airframes set aside, Engines removed, Merlins and new cooling system installed, 20mm cannon retained. I don't think there was a second' acceptance - they were just turned over. One went to Wright Field in May 1943, one went to Training Command.So is the idea 2 airframes were accepted as P-51 then modified and accepted a second time, but as XP-51B? Even though most references talk about 2 engineless airframes set aside?
I will pull the IARCs for both. Which date does your production report cite? Remember that any and all summary docs must depend on IARC as THE Source for Acceptance.So you have not looked up whether the modifications were done before acceptance? Which is what the production reports indicate.
Garbled question - repeat. An example is that 41-37327 was accepted as P-51-NA and left at NAA to install Camera Mods. it was delivered after Chilton flight tests and went to Wright Field. Re-classified as P-51-1-NA. Future mods were installed at US Depots and recoded P-51-2-NA on data block and traveling aircraft docs - but IARC notes only P-51-NA for all.It is known a number of earlier P-51 were modified, and the August 1944 report for Inglewood states "84 accepted as P-51 but delivered as F-6" while F-6K acceptances started in November 1944, switching to D in March 1945. So advanced production could be before acceptance?