What is a P-51M?

[drgondog]

So, I pulled the IARCs for 41-37352 and 421 ---------> XP-51B #1 and #1 respectively.

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?

BOTH were accepted on 8-25-1942. Same day. Design work (funded under NA-101 while AC-32073 was being finalized) began in late May 1942 and AAF committed V-1650-3s for the two ship product in June. Both airframes were identified at nearly the same time all committed Mustang IA had been completed and accepted. The first P-51-NA 41-37320 was accepted on 5-30 and Chilton flew first functional the next day.

#41-37353 (next prod # after XP-51B#1) was accepted 7 days earlier than 352 - on 8-18

The AAF selected factory deliveries of P-51-NA were interspersed with the ones produced for RAF but the last P-51-NA (41-37469 FD567 for RAF) were delivered 10-4-42. NOTE that ALL NA-91 were completed and delivered to AAF and RAF before the first Packard 1650-3 was sent from Wright Field bench tests. The span of actual staging and work on 352 (XP-51B) began earliest on or around 8-25-1942 and completed on October 1, ready for Merlin engine delivered on 10-18.

That said, both airframes were complete with contract cost of $41, 088 unit cost for each, same as the RAF destined Mustang IA.

I do not have a source for the disposition/trade to release the two Allison V-1710-39s Insalled in the completed airframes.
The acquisition costs for the agreed Packard V-1650s which were delivered to NAA October 8th (then failed in run up after installed on 352). The second delivered in November for 352, in which all early testing identifying the cooling issues experienced with the new design were achieved.

The third 1650-3 was delivered in February 1943 for 421 and first flight made by Chilton 3-9-43. 421 is the ship in which all the cooling systems and design changes to plenum, intake scoop geometry and lowered placement relative to frestream induced boundary layer - were made in April 1943. All the wind tunnel tests were at Ames on 421 which returned in late April to NAA.

Changes made during wind tunnel testing and real time modifications on 421, were quickly made to P-51B-1-NA 43-12093 in time for its first test flight on May 5th.

Following return both ships were flown to Eglin (5-12 for 421) and Wright Field (5-12 for 352).

So you have not looked up whether the modifications were done before acceptance? Which is what the production reports indicate.

Acceptance preceded physical Modification. Mods in Experimental Production hanger to accept 1650-3/Merlin 61 (Firewall forward and Doghouse and lower cowl, primarily) began immediately to be ready for the actual engine installation by October 1st,. See above

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?

Yes, in the case of P-51D-NA and P-51D-1-NT as I have explained earlier. They were crafted from NA-102 Fuselage Spares and NA-106 production six gun wing. I also suspect P-51M was assembled from Fuselage and Wing spare from P-51D-20-NT pre-assembly invetory, then modified to install the 1650-9A.

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 designation 'XP-82 - quantity two' survived the cancellation of the 'P-82A-quantity two'. The original contract and charge number was for four P-82. The P-82A was designed for a Packard Merlin 1650-11/21, Ditto P-82B, ditto P-82C and D. P-82E was first to be forced to install the doggy Allisons with aux second stage supercharger. On this last point I emailed Bob Gurenhagen to se if the C and D, in addition to the new radar mods - may have also installed Allisons to replace Merlins.

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.

Oh yes, you must be very good.

 

[KiwiZac]

Wow. I did not expect all this! Some very informative stuff here.

Good on ya, Zac. Welcome. I hope you got the answer you were after.

Thanks Grant! I have a lot of exploring and learning to do here. The main thing is that I know am pretty darn sure P-51M /=/ P-51H, and now I can't build the RNZAF H model I wanted to!

 

[pbehn]

And i thought Luftwaffe production documentation was difficult. Boy was i wrong. A silly question but was this only one this difficult or were others also for other types in USA production? I guess in this scale of production numbers it would be a jungle. Or was it when production was spread between locations it became more clouded? Not the name improvements during contracts. This discussion might hint it was becomming cloudy when was was comming to an end as i read it.

I am amazed that it is still possible to detail such things, I worked on several contracts where even with computerized tracking the manufacturer completely "lost it" while the contract was ongoing.

 

[SaparotRob]

Why not, KZ? It would look great.

 

[drgondog]

Wow. I did not expect all this! Some very informative stuff here.

Thanks Grant! I have a lot of exploring and learning to do here. The main thing is that I know am pretty darn sure P-51M /=/ P-51H, and now I can't build the RNZAF H model I wanted to!

revel in your decision.. source documents are hard to refute.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.

The P-51D-25-NT #1 44-84390 was accepted 4-26-45, the last of that block 44-84989 was accepted 6-45. Second and last block D-25-NT began with 45-11343 accepted in June, and the last 45-11542 was accepted 7-26.

P-51D-30-NT #1 45-11543 was accepted 7-20-1945, the last of that block ending 45-11742 was accepted 8-9-45, but several earlier ships were accepted a couple of days later. Notably many of the -30-NT went to Australia in late 45/early 1946.

Interesting how I was asking about when Dallas D-30 production began and the answer is the P-51M date, then comes the actual answer D-30 production acceptances between 20 July and 9 August 1945, so well after the acceptance of the P-51M. Thanks for the dates, so the D-30 block was mostly after the last of the D-25 block, which is what I was talking about. What I see is someone confusing what they think is being written with what is actually there.

As for the Dallas D-30 making it to Australia that is simply wrong, see ADF Serials - Mustang Australia stopped imports in September 1945 and the highest serial was 45-11483, a D-25. Australian production from the kits sent had started in May 1945, with 80 accepted to end July 1946, the mark 20. Production paused until June 1947 then restarted at a few a month until July 1951, plus the final one in April 1952. They were retained in Australia and their late production, time wise, has seen a number end up on the warbirds circuit.

And the P-51M started as D-20 or -25 standard but made up to the D-30 standard. Noting various web sites assumed D-25 presumably because of when it was accepted.

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.

So I should have made it clear I was only counting B production, since my figures put the D into a separate column. 42-103379 is listed as the first Dallas P-51C-10.

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.

So Inglewood produced D serial 42-106539 and Dallas produced a D model, serial not given, also in 1943? One reason I am using Inglewood and Dallas is the NA to NT is only a letter apart and on the left had side of the keyboard, and I have little doubt about what would happen if I typoed.

No. From Late September to early Match 1945.

I note yet again failure to correct errors. Good to know even though I mention F-6K acceptances in November 1944, my words can be distorted to say no P-51K until January 1945.

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.

Can I point out my reply was about the TP-51D?

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.

Most if not all F-6, F-6A, F-6B/C from Inglewood were accomplished at depots after AAF acceptance. Dallas C-10-NT and D-30-NT were modified to F-6 at Dallas, Before acceptance, ditto 163 P-51K from various blocks.

No its not a garbled question, but the answer bears no connection to the question.

As I have been noting the production reports say the Dallas F-6K, F-6D and TP-51 are considered accepted as such, not accepted as P-51 then modified. Then maybe notice I have never said any F-6 were accepted from Inglewood? That the August 1944 Inglewood report is all about P-51 being converted between acceptance and delivery, and there were no F-6 accepted as such until the F-6K of November 1944? And none ever from Inglewood?

So all Dallas built D-30 that ended up as F-6 were modified, not accepted? There were F-6D-20, -25 and the final 35 were -30. Does this mean the -20 and -25 were accepted as F-6?

The rest of your blather is pretty boring.

I note I am so boring multiple replies need to be made. Stop making basic mistakes, stop misreading what I write and then passing that mistake onto me, it will save much wear and tear on the readers.

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.

Now it is,

So, I pulled the IARCs for 41-37352 and 421 ---------> XP-51B #1 and #1 respectively.

BOTH were accepted on 8-25-1942. Same day. Design work (funded under NA-101 while AC-32073 was being finalized) began in late May 1942 and AAF committed V-1650-3s for the two ship product in June. Both airframes were identified at nearly the same time all committed Mustang IA had been completed and accepted. The first P-51-NA 41-37320 was accepted on 5-30 and Chilton flew first functional the next day. #41-37353 (next prod # after XP-51B#1) was accepted 7 days earlier than 352 - on 8-18

In other words the production report is correct, both XP-51B accepted in August 1942, plus a whole of other useful information, just not the correction to the original statement.

Acceptance preceded physical Modification. Mods in Experimental Production hanger to accept 1650-3/Merlin 61 (Firewall forward and Doghouse and lower cowl, primarily) began immediately to be ready for the actual engine installation by October 1st,. See above

Is this referring to the TP-51D?

The designation 'XP-82 - quantity two' survived the cancellation of the 'P-82A-quantity two'. The original contract and charge number was for four P-82. The P-82A was designed for a Packard Merlin 1650-11/21.

The RC-301 report for April 1944 has North American at Inglewood, from 1944 funds, are contracted for 2 XP-82 scheduled for February 1945 and 2 XP-82A scheduled for May 1945, as part of the experimental program, the "X" aircraft. The designations do not change all the way to the XP-82A cancellation. Not surprising the USAAF designated the aircraft bought with experimental program funds as XP-82 and XP-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.

So does the above no XP-82A quote still apply?

And once again, 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. Going to actually detail where the relevant references are?

In message 9 I noted the RC-301 to end January 1945 had no mention of F-6K, all production was P-51K, versus what the production reports were stating, the sort of anomaly that can lead to interesting places. Consulting US Archives Record Group 179 Entry 1, Boxes 1096 and 1097, Dallas production,
November 1944 264 K acceptances, 1 delivery as F-6K (Prod. rpts 208 P-51K, 56 F-6K)
December, 240 K acceptances, 71 deliveries as F-6K (Prod. rpts 222 P-51K, 18 F-6K)
January 1945, 286 K acceptances, 37 deliveries as F-6K (Prod. rpts acceptances 251 P-51K, 35 F-6K)
February 240 K acceptances, 11 deliveries as F-6K (Prod. rpts acceptances 223 P-51K, 17 F-6K)
So in the above 4 months 120 F-6 deliveries versus 126 acceptances.

March onwards no mentions of deliveries, only acceptances.
March P-51 124 D and 96 K plus F-6 37 K and 7 D.
D models only from April 1945 onwards unless noted.
April 249 P-51D, 24 F-6D
May 295, 33
June 262, 37, plus 1 M
July 269, 33, plus 6 TP-51D

The report for February 1945 is dated 5 March 1945, the one for March is dated 7 April 1945 etc. War Production Board Bureau of Program and Statistics, Military Division, Aircraft Branch.

So the monthly reports are stating accepted as P-51 then delivered as F-6 up to and including February 1945, while the full war production reports have the start of F-6 acceptances as November 1944. While both sets use acceptances for Dallas F-6D, TP-51D and the final 37 F-6K.

The reported F-6K serials blocks contain, 1, 56, 16, 22, 13, 12 and 43 serials, the final block being 44-12810 to 12852 F-6K-10.

In November 1944 Inglewood reports 4 P-51 delivered as F-6.

Or you can hang out at RG 179 Entry 294B Box 719, dated 12 or 22 July 1945, which has figures to end 1944 and they have F-6K acceptances as 56 in November and 18 in December 1944. Or Record Group 179 Entry 1, Box 1089 is the War Production Board monthly acceptances reports, November 1944 to February
1945 they are all P-51K, for March 1945 the heading becomes P-51D,K; F-6D,K but does not break down the total between P-51 and F-6

And i thought Luftwaffe production documentation was difficult. Boy was i wrong. A silly question but was this only one this difficult or were others also for other types in USA production? I guess in this scale of production numbers it would be a jungle. Or was it when production was spread between locations it became more clouded? Not the name improvements during contracts. This discussion might hint it was becomming cloudy when was was comming to an end as i read it.

The US production reports are very straight forward, if the total does not add up to the widely reported total, start looking for a typo as there are only a few military aircraft not in the reports. The main things to watch are the inclusion of the larger civil airliners in the military figures in 1940 and 1941, the January 1940 change in how aircraft for foreign militaries are counted, the counting of aircraft built in Canada paid for by the US and then finally what any totals include.

If the British total does not add up the widely reported total it is rather expected and a signal to start looking for why some have been omitted from the reports.

 

[drgondog]

As for the Dallas D-30 making it to Australia that is simply wrong, see ADF Serials - Musthttp://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.htmlang Australia stopped imports in September 1945 and the highest serial was 45-11483, a D-25. Australian production from the kits sent had started in May 1945, with 80 accepted to end July 1946, the mark 20. Production paused until June 1947 then restarted at a few a month until July 1951, plus the final one in April 1952. They were retained in Australia and their late production, time wise, has seen a number end up on the warbirds circuit.

And yet the IARC for several P-51D-30-NT clearly identified Australia as the destination - specifically August, September 1945 and January 1946. I pulled three F-6D-30-NT. 45-11703, 704 and 709 respectively were shipped, origin McClelland AB, to 'Australia' on 8-29-45, 1-1-46 and 1-31-46. Each were accepted 6-29, 8-3 and 8-29 respectively. Indifferent to your internet find as the Aussies may have sent them somewhere else (such as Phillipine Air Force).

And the P-51M started as D-20 or -25 standard but made up to the D-30 standard. Noting various web sites assumed D-25 presumably because of when it was accepted.

Bad assumption - but recall I Speculated that the P-51M was pulled from -20-NT Spares and assembled/modified to incorporate all Engineering Change Orders through the D-30-NT ship #1 (P-51M-35-NT 45-11743) based on its acceptance date - well before -30-NT was completed.

So I should have made it clear I was only counting B production, since my figures put the D into a separate column. 42-103379 is listed as the first Dallas P-51C-10.

So Inglewood produced D serial 42-106539 and Dallas produced a D model, serial not given, also in 1943?

No, Inglewood produce both - from Spare NA-102 P-51B-1-NA fuselage and P-51D-NA NA-106 wing. They were Both completed before November 1943. The The P-51D-NA P-51D-1-NT was so designated on November 11 when AAF notified that they wanted only 85 gal fuselage fuel tanks in all Mustangs delivered after January 1, 1944. P-51D-NA 42-106539 had no fuselage fuel tank. P-51D-1-NT 42-106540 had only a 55 gal fuse tank. Originally the Inglewood and Dallas P-51D airplane was NA-106 P-51D and NA-107 P-51E - all changed in mid 1943.

One reason I am using Inglewood and Dallas is the NA to NT is only a letter apart and on the left had side of the keyboard, and I have little doubt about what would happen if I typoed.

You have my sincere condolences - and admiration as I would never have thought about such a clever excuse.


I couldn't decipher your point, context or content. Let's make a deal. Anytime you wish to quote a Summary Report, please cite the sources which formed the basis of compilation into the total?

In these discussions, NAA Contract Records are the source for NA Charge Number, NA-production numbers, Contract number (AAC/AAF/Australia, Britain,Swededn, etc), customer serial number, quantity, description of the aircraft and diferentiation/similarity to other older Contacts. In these dscussions the Individual Aircraft Record is a traveling record, first issued by the AAF project office at Inglewood and Dallas - and recorded at aceptance - then annoted by movement from 'delivered' or 'available' to the next series of destination until lost o salvaged.

ALL, and I mean All AAF summary data for NAA products that does not cite both NAA records and AAF records in which the IARC is not the lowest common denominator should be viewed by you - as 'uncorroborated, hold my beer'

 

[pgf_666]

Could it just possibly be that the -M was merely the engine test bed for the production M, perhaps explaining the transfer to California? And has anyone found authoritative illustrations of the engine compartment mods?

Just a thought....

 

[drgondog]

Could it just possibly be that the -M was merely the engine test bed for the production M, perhaps explaining the transfer to California? And has anyone found authoritative illustrations of the engine compartment mods?

Just a thought....

Well - the NAA Contract Administration Contract Records - namely Contractor "O" Report (s) 1944, amended 8/1945, 56 and 57 state specificlly that the NA-124 (Texas) "Same as NA-109. Contract reduced from 2000 ships. Packard 1650 engine. Last airplane powered by Packard 1650-9A eng. and designated P-51M."

(NA-109 'Same as NA-106") NA-106 was the first P-51D designated for production with mostly NA-104 parts/sub assemblies save bubble canopy mods and six gun wing) but constructed with NA-102 Spare airframe.Had the Army elected to accept a 55 gal fuse tank, it would have been the furture first block P-51D. The NA-106 funds were allocated from AC-30479 into NA-109/AC-40064, and accepted some design changes to enable the 85 gal fuselage fuel tank to become P-51D-5-NA

It (P-51M-NT) was a continuation of the P-51D-30-NT line, with block change/designation due to change in engine. It was not a radical change, like P-51A w/V-1710-81 to P-51B w/1560-3 but still a major change with regard to GFE.

To the posters that cling to the notion that P-51M was a P-51H with engine change to eliminate water injection (1650-9 vs 1650-9A) recall that provisioning Dallas with tooling for P-51C-1-NT, and then P-51D-5-NT from P-51B-1-NA and P-51D-5-NA resulted in a 8+ month delay in 'parallel' production of same a/c. Ditto for supplying tooling AND complete parts inventory to Australia.

NAA was fully capable of producing all of the original order of P-51H at Inglewood - and had zero reason to shift to Dallas plant - after the contract was reduced from 2500 to 550 in April 1944.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

And yet the IARC for several P-51D-30-NT clearly identified Australia as the destination - specifically August, September 1945 and January 1946. I pulled three F-6D-30-NT. 45-11703, 704 and 709 respectively were shipped, origin McClelland AB, to 'Australia' on 8-29-45, 1-1-46 and 1-31-46. Each were accepted 6-29, 8-3 and 8-29 respectively. Indifferent to your internet find as the Aussies may have sent them somewhere else (such as Phillipine Air Force).

I believe the context is the RAAF had Lend Lease order for P-51 which was in progress when the war ended and the US cancelled Lend Lease, there would have been a delivery schedule, North American would have been told about it, with the aircraft delivered to the relevant depot for packing before being shipped. Good to know the RAAF Form E/E.88 cards, which are the individual aircraft histories and what the ADF Serials site uses are irrelevant. Furthermore the RAAF Chiefs of Staff reports written at the time are dismissed, they show all P-51 orders cancelled, limited to what was already on the way and no further imports after September.

Since the aircraft never turned up in the RAAF we are told the RAAF may have sent them elsewhere, apparently as a gift. Apart from the USAAF still in Australia in late 1945/early 1946 the Netherlands also had units present, and had, like the RAAF, begun the transition from P-40 to P-51 during the war, with their own Lend Lease order for 40 P-51, serials to D-25 44-84803, their fighter squadron was in Biak when the war ended. The RAAF did not get any P-51D-30, nor give/sell any in 1945/46.

Bad assumption - but recall I Speculated that the P-51M was pulled from -20-NT Spares and assembled/modified to incorporate all Engineering Change Orders through the D-30-NT ship #1 (P-51M-35-NT 45-11743) based on its acceptance date - well before -30-NT was completed.

Well this is amusing, after saying the M-1 was based on the D-30, and me reflecting that back, now it is a bad assumption, and go back and check your original ideas on the M-1 fuselage.

No, Inglewood produce both -

Which is NOT what your message says.

You have my sincere condolences - and admiration as I would never have thought about such a clever excuse.

You mean like your typo on the factories of the first two P-51D and what would happen if I did it?

I couldn't decipher your point, context or content. Let's make a deal. Anytime you wish to quote a Summary Report, please cite the sources which formed the basis of compilation into the total?

Your lack of understanding is remarkably correlated to the number of errors you make. Actually the deal I have in mind is to note the more accurate information I have the quicker it is ignored and the more editorial is added. Apparently the documents I cited go from source documents to not worth considering. No wonder you are reluctant to let people know where the North American documentation is.

Meantime AFHRA ACR-97 and 98, 112 and 113 will give most of the F-6K serials in question to see what was going on at an individual level when the system changed how it counted F-6 in March 1945.

 

[GrauGeist]

Your lack of understanding is remarkably correlated to the number of errors you make. Actually the deal I have in mind is to note the more accurate information I have the quicker it is ignored and the more editorial is added. Apparently the documents I cited go from source documents to not worth considering. No wonder you are reluctant to let people know where the North American documentation is.

It is highly amusing that you're calling drgndog out for errors.

Now might be a good time to point out that he's citing directly from government and manufacturer documents.

Surely there can't be a source any more direct than that?

 

[drgondog]

I believe the context is the RAAF had Lend Lease order for P-51 which was in progress when the war ended and the US cancelled Lend Lease, there would have been a delivery schedule, North American would have been told about it, with the aircraft delivered to the relevant depot for packing before being shipped. Good to know the RAAF Form E/E.88 cards, which are the individual aircraft histories and what the ADF Serials site uses are irrelevant. Furthermore the RAAF Chiefs of Staff reports written at the time are dismissed, they show all P-51 orders cancelled, limited to what was already on the way and no further imports after September.

Since the aircraft never turned up in the RAAF we are told the RAAF may have sent them elsewhere, apparently as a gift. Apart from the USAAF still in Australia in late 1945/early 1946 the Netherlands also had units present, and had, like the RAAF, begun the transition from P-40 to P-51 during the war, with their own Lend Lease order for 40 P-51, serials to D-25 44-84803, their fighter squadron was in Biak when the war ended. The RAAF did not get any P-51D-30, nor give/sell any in 1945/46.

Well this is amusing, after saying the M-1 was based on the D-30, and me reflecting that back, now it is a bad assumption, and go back and check your original ideas on the M-1 fuselage.

Which is NOT what your message says.

Big Yawn - flailing again.

Since you referenced ACR reel numbers below, I will take you by the hand (philosophically speaking) and point you in the right direction for Army Source records detailing acceptance dates and destinations.
First - the source For ALL of the P-51D-25-NT individual records (second block beginning with 45-11344 (#2 of second block, #602 of P-51D-25-NT built) as well as P-51M-NT are contained on ACR 115.
Second - casual inspection of the IARCs for All P-51D-30-NT are in ACR 115.
Third - The numerous IARCs for P-51D-30-NT that are maked as Destination - Australia, say from 45-11645 through 45-11716, are similarly marked for Australia. Ditto several destined for Clark Field, Phillipines beginning w/ 45 11714 before 716 was sent to Australia. ACR 115

I am consumed by indifference if the Army lost track of aircraft after they left NAA. I am consumed by indifference when you whine that don't respect summary reports as much as I favor source docs from Factory, and Army Project officers receiving and recording aircraft on Individual Record Cards from that factory. I also TEND to believe that the reporting authority that transcribed movements of said aircraft on said IARCs mostly got it correct.

You mean like your typo on the factories of the first two P-51D and what would happen if I did it?

Are you whining again? I made no typo regarding fabrication site for P-51D #1 and P-51D #2, serial 42-106539 and 42-106540 respectively. Nor did I make a a typo AFAIK regarding the final model description for both, as stated in his report of September 11, and November 11, 1943, and as stated in exchange between Rice and Materiel Command of July 21, 1943 - in which AAF stated preference for ALL delivered Mustangs in 1944, including "P-51D-NA and P-51D-1-NT" be delivered with 85 gal fuselage tanks.

Seek the project logs for C-258 at Experimental Production. They will walk you through the entire process of modifying three NA-102 airframes to receiver the "Cockpit Enclosure, Sliding". One airframe 43-12102 was intact and assigned floor ID or C-258-2. Future P-51D-NA 42-106539 is identified as C-258-1. Similarly 540 is identified as C-258-3 and noted as being prepared for Static Test before release. C-258 is the project ID for MCR-258 for "P-51B Airplane Speciication NA-102".

For your homework assignment:
1. Acquire access to NA-106 design drawings, beginning with the NA-106 106-900002 "P-51D Major Assembly Breakdown". In the field of the drawing the top block in the WBS structure denotes "P-51D (NA-106) (NA-107)" In the upper right hand "Changes" block you will find when the P-51E was removed from the Title on or about 3-23-43. Pore through the time phased changes and design configuration for what began as 'new P-51B" with bird cage canopy and six gun wing to bubble canopy with six gun wing for P-51D-1-NA and P-51D-1-NT.

2. Pull the NAA Contractor O Report

3. Pull The IARCs in reel ACR-77 and glance at site = "Inglewood".

4. Reach out to Mike Lombardi at Boeing, he has taken possession of most (not all) of 1000s of memos, docs, images etc that we sent to him after we finished the Book.

5. Stop referencing summary reports as final judgment in these types of debates?

It seems that a.) you are perpetually confused regarding the use of NA andNT to delineate between Inglewood and Dallas, but don't yet grasp that the only reason that the second D was named P-51D-1-NT was to set a tableplace for production of P-51E, then D-1-NT at Dallas in parallel with P-51D-NA. But why would NAA delay ship 2 until Dallas had ability to deiver Mustangs - six months in arrears?

Meantime AFHRA ACR-97 and 98, 112 and 113 will give most of the F-6K serials in question to see what was going on at an individual level when the system changed how it counted F-6 in March 1945.

So, no argument. You are arguing against yourself.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

It is highly amusing that you're calling drgndog out for errors. Now might be a good time to point out that he's citing directly from government and manufacturer documents.
Surely there can't be a source any more direct than that?

I have also been using government documents, as can be seen by the titles or locations provided, and noted how that is switched to "you say/your data" or <insert insult> or the material ignored. After all the data can be a problem versus your data says you are the problem. The errors I am pointing out start with the initial contract summary, serials and what was actually built.

NAA Factory serial no's 124-4426 to 44845, Customer Serial No. 44-84246 to 849 and 45-11343 to 45-11743 at P-51D-30-NT.

The way my to June 1945 totals were misread as all time figures, still not corrected. They are errors.

The RC-301 reports are quite consistent, 2 XP-82 and 2 XP-82A were on order.

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.

The designation 'XP-82 - quantity two' survived the cancellation of the 'P-82A-quantity two'. The original contract and charge number was for four P-82. The P-82A was designed for a Packard Merlin 1650-11/21,

P-51/Mustang IA and XP-51B, production reports say 148 accepted as P-51, 2 as XP-51B, acceptances from July to September 1942.

150 produced, 150 accepted, 56 retained for AAF Training and Tactical purposes as P-51-NA and F6, 2 retained as airframe to be modified later as XP-51B

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.

P-51-NA/Mustang IA, NA-91 DA-140, 150 delivered, 2 pulled for NA-101 XP-51B for AC-32073,

XP-51B

BOTH were accepted on 8-25-1942. Same day. Design work (funded under NA-101 while AC-32073 was being finalized) began in late May 1942 and AAF committed V-1650-3s for the two ship product in June. Both airframes were identified at nearly the same time all committed Mustang IA had been completed and accepted. The first P-51-NA 41-37320 was accepted on 5-30 and Chilton flew first functional the next day.

Any idea of what committed means? Given the XP-51B serials were 33 and 34 of the block and P-51/Mustang IA acceptances were 66 in July, 22 in August and 60 in September?

The monthly reports indicate in March 1945 the system of accepting production as P-51 but delivering them as F-6 changed to accepting them as F-6. Probably at the time, but no later than July 1945, the November 1944 to February 1945 figures for Dallas were recalculated, moving accepted as P-51 delivered as F-6 aircraft to accepted as F-6.

And it is the acceptance figures that are the ones reported by the USAAF/WPB/CAA. It makes it one of the few oddities in the US production reports, like the joys of the B-26/AT-23, Ventura/B-34/PV, AT-17/UC-45 splits, B-25B 42-2243 and PT-23 42-49261. Though the splits were of course moving acceptances from one designation to the other.

Then comes the P-51M, the USAAF and North American disagree, I also note that whether the aircraft was based on a D-25 or D-30 airframe seems to be defined as the opposite of whatever I write. Also worth exploring is how were the radiator and airframe expected to cope with the extra power and why the USAAF was willing to have two very different Mustang airframes in service.

So this forum is really note the place to discuss these things, given the main replies shift between patronising and insulting yet with their own errors. The upside is I have a really good chance of a reply on any topic I write about.

I made no typo regarding fabrication site for P-51D #1 and P-51D #2, serial 42-106539 and 42-106540 respectively.

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.

So Dallas built a P-51D in 1943 or rather Inglewood build it but gave it the Dallas designation.

The claim a number of P-51D-30 were sent to Australia, at least some post war, the RAAF says none received and checking the article "Fighter units of the Militaire Luchtvaart KNIL in Australia and Dutch New Guinea Dec 1943-May 1946", indicates the Dutch also did not receive any.

 

[pbehn]

So this forum is really note the place to discuss these things, given the main replies shift between patronising and insulting yet with their own errors. The upside is I have a really good chance of a reply on any topic I write about.

There is no one more patronising than you. You allow yourself the scope to digress, deviate wander and just make up new topics while any other poster even quoting a post of yours is "changing the subject". This automatically puts you in a minority of one so you can claim victimhood. Your motivation is now depressingly obvious, you are trying to make yourself taller by standing on someone else's shoulders, targeting one poster who happens to be an author, it tedious, tiresome and boring.

 

[drgondog]

I have also been using government documents, as can be seen by the titles or locations provided, and noted how that is switched to "you say/your data" or <insert insult> or the material ignored. After all the data can be a problem versus your data says you are the problem. The errors I am pointing out start with the initial contract summary, serials and what was actually built.

Yawn. Flailing again. The initial Contract Summaries are found in NAA source documents, the initial Contract, NAA Charge numbers, NAA prodction numbers and AAF serial numbers are all contained in the NAA Contractor O Report, The matching serial numbers and model aceptance dates are contained in the IARCs -

The way my to June 1945 totals were misread as all time figures, still not corrected. They are errors.

I sympathize with your problem. Look to the IARC for the serial number sequences for acceptance by date accepted, and by dates/locations for movements, and dates of loss or salvage. Those records and NAA records are essential for you to perform any manner of due diligence prior to attacking the keyboard.

Note that for NAA aircraft provided by Lend Lease, that they were a.) to be returned, or b.) Charged Off. RAF and other air forces were diligent in record keeping - but not always recorded in IARC post VE Day

The RC-301 reports are quite consistent, 2 XP-82 and 2 XP-82A were on order.

And two of that order are noted as Canceled, only 44-83886 and 44-83887 were accepted by AAF at Inglewood, as denoted and recorded on the IARCs.

I am curious about one thing. I was not able to pull the NAA file copies of AC-30479 under which NA-106 and AC-30940, under which NA-107 were funded from supplements for P-51D and -51E respectively (original - later changed to P-51D-NA and P-51D-NT - and changed again when P-51D-1-NA and P-51D-1-NT were acually built). If you have the actual Contracts you should be able to find the timing of the changes to NA-107. If not you are once again speaking from a dark place where the sun does not shine.

P-51/Mustang IA and XP-51B, production reports say 148 accepted as P-51, 2 as XP-51B, acceptances from July to September 1942.

I'm not sure what you are arguing - I pointed out that 41-37352 and 421 were Accepted as XP-51B, long before physical modifications to 352 (#1 XP-51B) began in the Experimental Department? That the last Mustang P-51/Mustang IA was accepted in November? Several months after acceptance of #33 and #102 - "as Is P-51 airframes". Also the first acceptance was May 31, 1942 for 41-37320 (#1). Does the summary report note acceptance/deliveries in ay and June also.

XP-51B

Any idea of what committed means? Given the XP-51B serials were 33 and 34 (NOPE #102) of the block and P-51/Mustang IA acceptances were 66 in July, 22 in August and 60 in September? Kinda overlooking May 31 is date of acceptance for P-51-NA #1, and several were deliered and accepted in June 1942, are there line totals for May/June? If not should you be scratching your head.

I have a real good idea what accepted means - If you were focused you would not have assumed that XP-51B #2 was accepted as #34 in the NA-91 line. I tried to help clear up your confusion several posts earlier.

The monthly reports indicate in March 1945 the system of accepting production as P-51 but delivering them as F-6 changed to accepting them as F-6. Probably at the time, but no later than July 1945, the November 1944 to February 1945 figures for Dallas were recalculated, moving accepted as P-51 delivered as F-6 aircraft to accepted as F-6.

Nope - prior to the P-51K, 'soon to be F-6 variants' were first acepted as P-51, P-51A, P-51B, P-51C and P-51D 'stock' then flown to Depots for F-6 Mod. An early exception is 41-37327 which was modified at NAA Inglewood and Functionally checked by Chilton to test both the Vertical and Oblique cameras. It was designated P-51-1-NA. The subsequent Depot camera mods were designated P-51-2-NA and later to F-6.

BTW - this series was briefly named 'Apache' by USAAF Public Relations until corrected by Kindelberger July 13, 1942 - shortly after the second & Subsequent P-51-NA deliveries.

And it is the acceptance figures that are the ones reported by the USAAF/WPB/CAA. It makes it one of the few oddities in the US production reports, like the joys of the B-26/AT-23, Ventura/B-34/PV, AT-17/UC-45 splits, B-25B 42-2243 and PT-23 42-49261. Though the splits were of course moving acceptances from one designation to the other.

Do you not yet comprehend that the IARC, prepared at the contractor site (in this case Dallas and Inglewood) ARE the Acceptance source document?

Then comes the P-51M, the USAAF and North American disagree, I also note that whether the aircraft was based on a D-25 or D-30 airframe seems to be defined as the opposite of whatever I write.

And you still clinging to the downstream USAAF reporting when the NAA contract records and AAF on-site records of acceptance - stipulating place of production - agree, and should not be ignored?

Also worth exploring is how were the radiator and airframe expected to cope with the extra power and why the USAAF was willing to have two very different Mustang airframes in service.

So, look up rated Horsepower of 1650-9A as compared to 1650-3 and 1650-7? You should feel pretty stupid for asking that question without researching the difference between 1650-9 (accompaied with Water Injection to attain 90" MP) and 1650-9A without water Injection and same general powerplant design a the 1650-3, just stronger. You do know that -3's and -7s and -9s were (and are) interchangeable - and are interchangabe in the warbirds community today - and ZERO 1650-9 are installed on any P-51 save the remaining flyable P-51H?

The primary difference between the -9 and -3 were strengthening the block for higher boost (90"), provisioning for water injection, and change to crankshaft for end to end oil feed. The 9A removed water injection but retained all else.Otherwise - the 1659-9A same as 1650-3 including rated Hp and better high altitude performance than the 1650-7 at same MP.

So this forum is really note the place to discuss these things, given the main replies shift between patronising and insulting yet with their own errors. The upside is I have a really good chance of a reply on any topic I write about.

I feel your pain. Hugs.

So Dallas built a P-51D in 1943 or rather Inglewood build it but gave it the Dallas designation.

You have a Severe reading comprehension issue.

NO Dallas did not build a P-51D (-5-NT) until July 1944.
YES, Inglewood Built 2 P-51D airframes using NA-102 Spare fuselages. The two, P-51D-1NA, and P-51D-1-NT, were so designated originally because the Dallas plant would co-produce the same airframe (as they did faithfully save the spinner/prop on the K). I suspect that they named the #2 as "NT' because a.) They could, and b.) they reached into the future and said 'this will really mess with Geoffrey Sinclair.

The claim a number of P-51D-30 were sent to Australia, at least some post war, the RAAF says none received and checking the article "Fighter units of the Militaire Luchtvaart KNIL in Australia and Dutch New Guinea Dec 1943-May 1946", indicates the Dutch also did not receive any.

Double Yawn. I won't put you on block, but you are really boring in your desire to overcome source docs from factory, both NAA and AAF Project offices on-site at Dallas and Inglewood. As an aside, the two XP-51B were 41-37352 (#33) and 41-37421 (#102) - not ships #33 and #34 as you stated above. I previously gave you the IARC data for both ships, corroborating NAA Contractor Records in O report.

I would strongly urge that you refer to Gruenhagen's "Mustang - Story of the P-51 Fighter". Wagner's Mustang Designer is also very good - but not as deep in the details.

My co-author Lowell Ford provided approximately 200 folders inclding engineering and exp dept folders, 10 Airplane Specification, 50 flight tests, 1000+ telex/letters and correspondence between NAA and AAC/AAF, several key Experimental Production Project logs ranging from P-508 mock up, and X73 fabrication in parallel with NA-73, through the P-51Ds; virtually all the correspondence from and between NAA/GM/Allison/BPC/BAM and RAF through 1943 - to add to my collection and the volumes supplied by Gruenhagen to support our project. I have the Mustang drawing collection, Performance Calculation reports for NA-73 through P-51H, including the XP-51/G/J series. The IARC files for all Mustangs, Chilton's log books, much of Horkey's files on Meredith and wind tunnel/drag reports, NACA Reports - full size NAA 3-Views from P-509 through XP-51F, to develop an expanded history of the P-51..

Forget my book - seek Gruenhagen and you will not be wrong exept in very few trivial typos. There is no other Book as comprehensive and accurate as Gruenhagen. None.

 

[Milosh]

Looks like this thread finally died. For awhile there, I thought it was going to be like the P-39 threads.

 

[Snautzer01]

Everytime i look this thread up i first put on my flak helmet and vest.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Having listed errors I received mostly silence except for a free character assessment and the usual dodge.

I am curious about one thing. I was not able to pull the NAA file copies of AC-30479 under which NA-106 and AC-30940, under which NA-107 were funded from supplements for P-51D and -51E respectively (original - later changed to P-51D-NA and P-51D-NT - and changed again when P-51D-1-NA and P-51D-1-NT were acually built). If you have the actual Contracts you should be able to find the timing of the changes to NA-107. If not you are once again speaking from a dark place where the sun does not shine.

Your anal fixation is quite obvious, you should seek help to reduce the risk of injury. Meantime the RC-301 list the first 2 P-51D under contract AC-30479, S.1, same as the consolidated listing from 1958.

Given the accuracy of the US production reports any anomalies says check your data, sure enough, I had made transcription error, for March 1944, 247 B and 25 D had become 245 B and 27D, covered by a lack of RC-301 fighter data in the final quarter of 1943. So thanks for the early D acceptance dates, that made the need for a double check clear.

Further check RG179 Entry 2948B Box 219, the airframe weight statistics report (note the spares weight is based on costs)
October 1943, 1 P-51D, 4,500 pounds, plus 90 pounds of spares.
December 1943, 1 P-51D, 4,500 pounds, plus 90 pounds of spares.
February 1944, 2 P-51D, 4,500 pounds each, plus 450 pounds of spares.

I'm not sure what you are arguing - I pointed out that 41-37352 and 421 were Accepted as XP-51B,

Reasons listed in previous message. And yes, I listed the wrong serial order for the second XP-51B the result of sorting by model.

Nope - prior to the P-51K, 'soon to be F-6 variants' were first acepted as P-51, P-51A, P-51B, P-51C and P-51D 'stock' then flown to Depots for F-6 Mod. An early exception is 41-37327 which was modified at NAA Inglewood and Functionally checked by Chilton to test both the Vertical and Oblique cameras. It was designated P-51-1-NA. The subsequent Depot camera mods were designated P-51-2-NA and later to F-6.

The lack of comprehension of what is being written is quite obvious. I note the F-6K started being counted at the acceptance stage in March 1945, and the Dallas reports were seemingly retrospectively changed to this system from November 1944, but now we have the P-51, A, B, and C, all of which were out of production by November 1944 added. No one is disputing all the F-6 from these variants were accepted as P-51, in fact all the F-6 from Inglewood were accepted as P-51. Delivery reports,

Reported Inglewood F-6D deliveries (all accepted as P-51D)
84 in August 1944,
29 in September 1944
39 in October 1944
4 in November 1944
Total August to November 156.

Reported Dallas F-6 deliveries
November, 1944 1 F-6K (56 acceptances)
December, 71 F-6K (18 acceptances)
January 1945, 37 F-6K (35 acceptances)
February, 11 F-6K (17 acceptances)
March, 43 F-6K (37 K and 7 D acceptances)
April, 31 F-6D (24 acceptances)
May, 32 F-6D (33 acceptances)
June, 38 F-6D (37 acceptances)
July, 26 F-6D (33 acceptances)
August 9 F-6D (2 acceptances)

Total 163 K, 136 D.

Do you not yet comprehend that the IARC, prepared at the contractor site (in this case Dallas and Inglewood) ARE the Acceptance source document?

Actually they are one of the source documents, the trouble here is the error rate when reporting what they say.

So, look up rated Horsepower of 1650-9A as compared to 1650-3 and 1650-7? You should feel pretty stupid for asking that question without researching the difference between 1650-9 (accompaied with Water Injection to attain 90" MP) and 1650-9A without water Injection and same general powerplant design a the 1650-3, just stronger. You do know that -3's and -7s and -9s were (and are) interchangeable - and are interchangabe in the warbirds community today - and ZERO 1650-9 are installed on any P-51 save the remaining flyable P-51H?

The primary difference between the -9 and -3 were strengthening the block for higher boost (90"), provisioning for water injection, and change to crankshaft for end to end oil feed. The 9A removed water injection but retained all else.Otherwise - the 1659-9A same as 1650-3 including rated Hp and better high altitude performance than the 1650-7 at same MP.

I was using the power ratings in America's Hundred Thousand, with the 9A ratings reported to be the same as the 9 except no water injection for military power, plus noting the exta strengthening, which normally means being able to run at higher power levels for longer, the water injection obviously allowing a further increase in maximum power. So the P-51M was going to have the heavier airframe but less take off power.

YES, Inglewood Built 2 P-51D airframes using NA-102 Spare fuselages. The two, P-51D-1NA, and P-51D-1-NT, were so designated originally because the Dallas plant would co-produce the same airframe (as they did faithfully save the spinner/prop on the K). I suspect that they named the #2 as "NT' because a.) They could, and b.) they reached into the future and said 'this will really mess with Geoffrey Sinclair.

So the designation of -NA Inglewood, -NT Dallas, has the one exception, one of the first pair of P-51D, so actually saying built at Inglewood or Dallas is actually more accurate, by a whole 1.

Double Yawn. I won't put you on block

So sad you are forever condemned to keep casting your swine before pearls. So tell again which P-51D-30 were sent to Australia and how come no one there reports receiving them?

Deliveries for Australia, Netherlands and New Zealand.
April 1944, 1 P-51D for Australia from Inglewood
No data for December 1944.
All remaining deliveries from Dallas.
January 1945, 6 P-51K for Australia
February 1945, 79 P-51K for Australia
March 1945, 50 P-51D for Australia, 10 P-51K for Netherlands
April 1945, 50 P-51D for Australia, 10 for Netherlands
May 1945, 53 P-51D for Australia, 10 for Netherlands
June 1945, 47 P-51D for Australia, 11 for Netherlands
July 1945, 35 P-51D for Australia, 1 for Netherlands, 30 for New Zealand.
August 1945, all deliveries for USAAF only.
Totals Australia, 1 early D, 85 K, 235 D, Netherlands 10 K, 32 D, New Zealand 30 D. Reported arrivals, Australia 84 K (1 lost on a US delivery flight), 214 D, plus 1 early "pattern" D, Netherlands 10 K, 30 D. (41 serials allocated but N3-632/44-84795 reported not delivered), New Zealand 30 D.

First P-51K arrived in Australia on 16 April 1945, or about 3 months from delivery, given movement to relevant depot, crating, shipping to docks, awaiting ship, loading, voyage time and unloading, so no surprise in August 1945 a number "en route" were in fact still in the US and stayed there.

Looks like this thread finally died. For awhile there, I thought it was going to be like the P-39 threads.

Some people have full and active lives beyond this forum, plus I wanted to look up the delivery reports plus the airframe weight reports for the early D acceptances, given the lack of RC-301 data.

Everytime i look this thread up i first put on my flak helmet and vest.

Participate in unmoderated forums, what is going on here does not even rate putting on a shirt. Use the measure the more editorial and/or the more insults the less likely the information is correct.

 

[wuzak]

Looks like this thread finally died. For awhile there, I thought it was going to be like the P-39 threads.

You spoke too soon!

 

[Snautzer01]

what is going on here does not even rate putting on a shirt.

Why would you not wear a shirt when frequenting this board? Strange costume you have.