What is a P-51M?

[pbehn]

Use the measure the more editorial and/or the more insults the less likely the information is correct.

Is your measure standardised on the standard metre held in Paris or the certified US national standard metre in Washington, there are 1.6 microns difference between them.

 

[drgondog]

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

Bless your heart.

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.

As I stipulated. You missed the curveball when I brought in discusion of the shuffling of AC-30479 (NA-99, NA-104, NA-106) and AC-33940 (NA-103, NA-107).
NA-107 was originally set up for P-51E,and served as the original RAAF specification for P-51E in July 1943, then changed to NA-109 when NA-107 was killed and funds re-distributed.

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.

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

Blah, bah. Yet you insisted that you actually know what you are talking about - without examining the details.

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.

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

Blah, blah blah. You rely entirely too much on summary data to conjure up opinions

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.

Refer to Gruening, Packard Merlin Bench test data and parse the various NA Performance Calculations Estimations for P-51B-1-NA (NA-102), P-51D-5-NA (NA-109) and P-51H (NA-126) Airplanes dated 10-19-43, 12-1-44, 9-25-44 respectively. They all reproduce the Packard provided data as basis for calculated HP prior to aplying ram air corrections, Ditto Hamilton Standard propeller data to calculate THp and tip effects.

Please don't 'esplain' tricky technical stuff to me. Look up the definition and difference between Military and War Emergency (or Combat Power), look up the contrast between Bench Rated HP and Actual calculated HP as function of Ram air and altitude to understand Full Throttle Height or Critical Altitude. It might have escaped your attention that the performance of the P-51M w/1650-9A was superior to the P-51B/D with 1650-7 at same MP at different altitudes. Additionally, the 9A was better suited for WEP at 75" MP. The P-51M wasn't produced to be equal of the P-51H but the 9A was a better engine than the -3 and -7 with respect to design and strength.

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.

In this example yes. As noted multiple times, including sign language. Specificity and micro examination are missing from your macro/imprecise data you throw out to gloss over important facts.

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?

The IARCs as explained to you are AAF managed records of the Individual Aircraft acceptance and travel details. I don't need to 'esplain' anything that AAF recorded in the source data, or roll up summary data. You explain the divergences. Pull the records and ponder your total acceptance of USAAF record keeping. Be a 'researcher' not a parrot.

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.

April 10, 1944 the P-51D-5-NA 44-13293 was accepted by AAF, remained at NAA until December 1944.

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.

or NA-110, only the first P-51D-5-NA (44-13293) A68-1001 was shipped one year after acceptance by AAF, intact to provide model for he 100 complete NA-110 kit order. The difference between your phone book 'airdrop' of summary data and detail data required fo real research is that you do not have cross reference for model, serial and block - with which to dive down and look into NAA and AAF IARC records. Shipment/acceptance by RAAF of P-51K/F-D after the 80 airframe/20 spares (from crates) should be for intact and completed airframes.

For example - I am still not 100% certain that all the 100 kits were NA-109 P-51D-5-NA spares. The Aussie Specs, when changed from NA-107 to NA-109 in September 1943, stated "P-51D-5-NA". I have found no contract modification to change to NA-111 (P-51D-5-NT and P-51K-NT), yet many of the Aussie images of the early assembled A68-1 through A68-100 show HamStd prop. That evidence doesn't preclude non P-51D-5-NA airframe parts with separate kits for Aeroproducts Prop/spinner - but NA 110 is listed only for Inglewood production. Additionally the NA Production numbers for the kits are within the Ingleood block.

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.

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.

Well, there ya go. How about throwing in verbosity as a metric?

 

[pbehn]

Well, there ya go. How about throwing in verbosity as a metric?

A good idea, what are the Imperial units of verbosity? Slug per foot second works for viscosity or is that summat else?

 

[fubar57]

We know the credentials of one poster. What are the credentials of t'other?

 

[SaparotRob]

Are EE (equine exhaust) units metric or Imperial measurements?

 

[special ed]

Same as bovine scatology.

 

[GrauGeist]

The long, drawn-out pontification does get tiresome.
Especially when the data changes over time in order to remain "correct".

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

As I stipulated.

Actually go back and read what you asked for.

Yet you insisted that you actually know what you are talking about - without examining the details.

Actually go back and read what I wrote about the early P-51D, the disagreement.

You rely entirely too much on summary data to conjure up opinions

Good to know the March 1945 onwards data is pushed into the ignore it area. Meantime that opinion US bombers normally over claimed kill ratios by 10 to 1, maybe as low as 7 to 1 (with pause for applause) became ignore and declare boring when the 14 October 1943 data did not fit. So a conjured opinion.

Please don't 'esplain' tricky technical stuff to me.

Actually I wasn't but as usual you misread, after all America's Hundred Thousand does not have a lot of engine technical information.

I don't need to 'esplain' anything that AAF recorded in the source data, or roll up summary data. You explain the divergences. Pull the records and ponder your total acceptance of USAAF record keeping. Be a 'researcher' not a parrot.

Another example of one way, demand others back up their data and insult away when asked to do the same. You also might consider developing self awareness, after all I am quoting RAAF and Netherlands documents saying the claimed sent P-51D-30 did not arrive, from someone quoting "USAAF record keeping". When others report on official documents is it parroting, when you do it is research, once again no evidence for D-30 making it to Australia. Time to insult and make it go away.

Shipment/acceptance by RAAF of P-51K/F-D after the 80 airframe/20 spares (from crates) should be for intact and completed airframes.

There was a short overlap time, May through August 1945 when imports and local production were happening at the same time, after that it was local production (or assembly if you like).

For example - I am still not 100% certain that all the 100 kits were NA-109 P-51D-5-NA spares. The Aussie Specs, when changed from NA-107 to NA-109 in September 1943, stated "P-51D-5-NA". I have found no contract modification to change to NA-111 (P-51D-5-NT and P-51K-NT), yet many of the Aussie images of the early assembled A68-1 through A68-100 clearly show Aeroproducts prop.

As of end December 1945, the RAAF reports receiving 74 V-1650-7 engines as spares for its P-51D and K order, in addition 146 V-1650 had been received for the local production order. In 1947/48 another 26 V-1650 received, apparently from local sources. No mention of how many spare propellers and of what type were ordered and arrived from the US, nor whether the propellers, like the engines were shipped separately or if on a separate order/requisition.

The RAAF Engineering and Maintenance Branch report has a 24D50 -DH36 propeller under test, done 80 hours on a Merlin 46 modified with a V1650 propeller shaft in early 1946. Otherwise the Mustang reports of the time period are mostly on rocket firing and DDT spraying trials, along with fire extinguishing drops.

The pause after assembling 80 P-51 is put down to the need to replace the A1 bronze sleeves on all hydraulic, fuel and instrument lines with steel sleeves. Add change from electric to gas welded control rods and the failure to provide cameras for trial fittings.

24D50 propellers were being made locally, by end 1945 total production was 5. In March 1946, the plan was 157 24D50, 5 with US splines, 152 with SBAC but production was still waiting on confirmation of what Merlin is to be fitted, 6 US spline propellers made. As of July 1946, 24D50 dropped, 24DX to be made, same as for the Lincolns. In September 1946 the first Mustang 24DX, 6 made. By this stage the first 80 local production P-51 had flown. Propeller output continued at 6 per month for a while but slowed down in 1947, with 64 made by the end of the year. Total to 73 by the end of November 1948 and 82 by end February 1950.

Well, there ya go. How about throwing in verbosity as a metric?

Given the electronic equivalent of a chorus of Solidarity Forever following this idea of measuring, along with another dose of anal fixation, more appropriate units would be scruples (20 grains) in particular fluid scruples (20 minims) while the now quite old concept of the fat dumb and happy can quote their weight in Geepounds (1 Slug or 14.5939 kg), but I doubt anyone really gives a firkin, whether 72 British or US pints, given the place is falling apart at the seams (8 bushels). They would make a rod (1 perche or 5.5 yards) for themselves and have them on the ropes (20 feet), no ifs or butts (126 US gallons), even if using their noggins (1 gill) and showing their palms (3 inches). Still I expect the chorus to peck (2 gallons) away as long as the topic lasts (2909.414 litres) even though some cannot fathom (6 feet) they are out of their league (2,640 fathoms). Start with message 53 of this topic.

 

[GrauGeist]

"Ad Nauseam"

 

[pbehn]

Actually go back and read what you asked for.

Actually go back and read what I wrote about the early P-51D, the disagreement.

Good to know the March 1945 onwards data is pushed into the ignore it area. Meantime that opinion US bombers normally over claimed kill ratios by 10 to 1, maybe as low as 7 to 1 (with pause for applause) became ignore and declare boring when the 14 October 1943 data did not fit. So a conjured opinion.

Actually I wasn't but as usual you misread, after all America's Hundred Thousand does not have a lot of engine technical information.

Another example of one way, demand others back up their data and insult away when asked to do the same. You also might consider developing self awareness, after all I am quoting RAAF and Netherlands documents saying the claimed sent P-51D-30 did not arrive, from someone quoting "USAAF record keeping". When others report on official documents is it parroting, when you do it is research, once again no evidence for D-30 making it to Australia. Time to insult and make it go away.

There was a short overlap time, May through August 1945 when imports and local production were happening at the same time, after that it was local production (or assembly if you like).

As of end December 1945, the RAAF reports receiving 74 V-1650-7 engines as spares for its P-51D and K order, in addition 146 V-1650 had been received for the local production order. In 1947/48 another 26 V-1650 received, apparently from local sources. No mention of how many spare propellers and of what type were ordered and arrived from the US, nor whether the propellers, like the engines were shipped separately or if on a separate order/requisition.

The RAAF Engineering and Maintenance Branch report has a 24D50 -DH36 propeller under test, done 80 hours on a Merlin 46 modified with a V1650 propeller shaft in early 1946. Otherwise the Mustang reports of the time period are mostly on rocket firing and DDT spraying trials, along with fire extinguishing drops.

The pause after assembling 80 P-51 is put down to the need to replace the A1 bronze sleeves on all hydraulic, fuel and instrument lines with steel sleeves. Add change from electric to gas welded control rods and the failure to provide cameras for trial fittings.

24D50 propellers were being made locally, by end 1945 total production was 5. In March 1946, the plan was 157 24D50, 5 with US splines, 152 with SBAC but production was still waiting on confirmation of what Merlin is to be fitted, 6 US spline propellers made. As of July 1946, 24D50 dropped, 24DX to be made, same as for the Lincolns. In September 1946 the first Mustang 24DX, 6 made. By this stage the first 80 local production P-51 had flown. Propeller output continued at 6 per month for a while but slowed down in 1947, with 64 made by the end of the year. Total to 73 by the end of November 1948 and 82 by end February 1950.

Given the electronic equivalent of a chorus of Solidarity Forever following this idea of measuring, along with another dose of anal fixation, more appropriate units would be scruples (20 grains) in particular fluid scruples (20 minims) while the now quite old concept of the fat dumb and happy can quote their weight in Geepounds (1 Slug or 14.5939 kg), but I doubt anyone really gives a firkin, whether 72 British or US pints, given the place is falling apart at the seams (8 bushels). They would make a rod (1 perche or 5.5 yards) for themselves and have them on the ropes (20 feet), no ifs or butts (126 US gallons), even if using their noggins (1 gill) and showing their palms (3 inches). Still I expect the chorus to peck (2 gallons) away as long as the topic lasts (2909.414 litres) even though some cannot fathom (6 feet) they are out of their league (2,640 fathoms). Start with message 53 of this topic.

A peck is a unit of dry volume, equal to other units of dry not fluid volume.

 

[drgondog]

Actually go back and read what you asked for.

Actually go back and read what I wrote about the early P-51D, the disagreement.

Good to know the March 1945 onwards data is pushed into the ignore it area. Meantime that opinion US bombers normally over claimed kill ratios by 10 to 1, maybe as low as 7 to 1 (with pause for applause) became ignore and declare boring when the 14 October 1943 data did not fit. So a conjured opinion.

Actually I wasn't but as usual you misread, after all America's Hundred Thousand does not have a lot of engine technical information.

Another example of one way, demand others back up their data and insult away when asked to do the same. You also might consider developing self awareness, after all I am quoting RAAF and Netherlands documents saying the claimed sent P-51D-30 did not arrive, from someone quoting "USAAF record keeping". When others report on official documents is it parroting, when you do it is research, once again no evidence for D-30 making it to Australia. Time to insult and make it go away.

There was a short overlap time, May through August 1945 when imports and local production were happening at the same time, after that it was local production (or assembly if you like).

As of end December 1945, the RAAF reports receiving 74 V-1650-7 engines as spares for its P-51D and K order, in addition 146 V-1650 had been received for the local production order. In 1947/48 another 26 V-1650 received, apparently from local sources. No mention of how many spare propellers and of what type were ordered and arrived from the US, nor whether the propellers, like the engines were shipped separately or if on a separate order/requisition.

The RAAF Engineering and Maintenance Branch report has a 24D50 -DH36 propeller under test, done 80 hours on a Merlin 46 modified with a V1650 propeller shaft in early 1946. Otherwise the Mustang reports of the time period are mostly on rocket firing and DDT spraying trials, along with fire extinguishing drops.

The pause after assembling 80 P-51 is put down to the need to replace the A1 bronze sleeves on all hydraulic, fuel and instrument lines with steel sleeves. Add change from electric to gas welded control rods and the failure to provide cameras for trial fittings.

24D50 propellers were being made locally, by end 1945 total production was 5. In March 1946, the plan was 157 24D50, 5 with US splines, 152 with SBAC but production was still waiting on confirmation of what Merlin is to be fitted, 6 US spline propellers made. As of July 1946, 24D50 dropped, 24DX to be made, same as for the Lincolns. In September 1946 the first Mustang 24DX, 6 made. By this stage the first 80 local production P-51 had flown. Propeller output continued at 6 per month for a while but slowed down in 1947, with 64 made by the end of the year. Total to 73 by the end of November 1948 and 82 by end February 1950.

Given the electronic equivalent of a chorus of Solidarity Forever following this idea of measuring, along with another dose of anal fixation, more appropriate units would be scruples (20 grains) in particular fluid scruples (20 minims) while the now quite old concept of the fat dumb and happy can quote their weight in Geepounds (1 Slug or 14.5939 kg), but I doubt anyone really gives a firkin, whether 72 British or US pints, given the place is falling apart at the seams (8 bushels). They would make a rod (1 perche or 5.5 yards) for themselves and have them on the ropes (20 feet), no ifs or butts (126 US gallons), even if using their noggins (1 gill) and showing their palms (3 inches). Still I expect the chorus to peck (2 gallons) away as long as the topic lasts (2909.414 litres) even though some cannot fathom (6 feet) they are out of their league (2,640 fathoms). Start with message 53 of this topic.

Yawn - you still impersonating a gadfly?

 

[GrauGeist]

Yawn - you still impersonating a gadfly?

I'd suggest that he should read this:
Amazon product ASIN 1472839668
But it seems that he's rather satisfied with the odd info that he's gleaned off the interwebs...

 

[pbehn]

There had to be a Gadfly Henderson-Glenny Gadfly - Wikipedia

 

[fubar57]

Link not working for me Dave

 

[drgondog]

Actually go back and read what you asked for.

Actually go back and read what I wrote about the early P-51D, the disagreement.

Good to know the March 1945 onwards data is pushed into the ignore it area. Meantime that opinion US bombers normally over claimed kill ratios by 10 to 1, maybe as low as 7 to 1 (with pause for applause) became ignore and declare boring when the 14 October 1943 data did not fit. So a conjured opinion.

Actually I wasn't but as usual you misread, after all America's Hundred Thousand does not have a lot of engine technical information.

Another example of one way, demand others back up their data and insult away when asked to do the same. You also might consider developing self awareness, after all I am quoting RAAF and Netherlands documents saying the claimed sent P-51D-30 did not arrive, from someone quoting "USAAF record keeping". When others report on official documents is it parroting, when you do it is research, once again no evidence for D-30 making it to Australia. Time to insult and make it go away.

There was a short overlap time, May through August 1945 when imports and local production were happening at the same time, after that it was local production (or assembly if you like).

As of end December 1945, the RAAF reports receiving 74 V-1650-7 engines as spares for its P-51D and K order, in addition 146 V-1650 had been received for the local production order. In 1947/48 another 26 V-1650 received, apparently from local sources. No mention of how many spare propellers and of what type were ordered and arrived from the US, nor whether the propellers, like the engines were shipped separately or if on a separate order/requisition.

The RAAF Engineering and Maintenance Branch report has a 24D50 -DH36 propeller under test, done 80 hours on a Merlin 46 modified with a V1650 propeller shaft in early 1946. Otherwise the Mustang reports of the time period are mostly on rocket firing and DDT spraying trials, along with fire extinguishing drops.

The pause after assembling 80 P-51 is put down to the need to replace the A1 bronze sleeves on all hydraulic, fuel and instrument lines with steel sleeves. Add change from electric to gas welded control rods and the failure to provide cameras for trial fittings.

24D50 propellers were being made locally, by end 1945 total production was 5. In March 1946, the plan was 157 24D50, 5 with US splines, 152 with SBAC but production was still waiting on confirmation of what Merlin is to be fitted, 6 US spline propellers made. As of July 1946, 24D50 dropped, 24DX to be made, same as for the Lincolns. In September 1946 the first Mustang 24DX, 6 made. By this stage the first 80 local production P-51 had flown. Propeller output continued at 6 per month for a while but slowed down in 1947, with 64 made by the end of the year. Total to 73 by the end of November 1948 and 82 by end February 1950.

Given the electronic equivalent of a chorus of Solidarity Forever following this idea of measuring, along with another dose of anal fixation, more appropriate units would be scruples (20 grains) in particular fluid scruples (20 minims) while the now quite old concept of the fat dumb and happy can quote their weight in Geepounds (1 Slug or 14.5939 kg), but I doubt anyone really gives a firkin, whether 72 British or US pints, given the place is falling apart at the seams (8 bushels). They would make a rod (1 perche or 5.5 yards) for themselves and have them on the ropes (20 feet), no ifs or butts (126 US gallons), even if using their noggins (1 gill) and showing their palms (3 inches). Still I expect the chorus to peck (2 gallons) away as long as the topic lasts (2909.414 litres) even though some cannot fathom (6 feet) they are out of their league (2,640 fathoms). Start with message 53 of this topic.

Lets take a different approach Mr. Sinclair. Help me (us) understand your propensity for unleashing a torrent of data, from which little insight may be gained?

For whatever eason you have descended upon a website with a collection of one of the most knowledgable experts in many historical disciplines related to WWII that I have ever been associate with - and I'm old - and rather than observe, ponder, question - you seemingly fling a torrent of stuff that spatters everywhere and stinks up the place.

Why?

What do you believe that you may (can) bring to this group and contribute to the knowledge base? What is your expertise? what have you been confident enough about to publish your views in a commercial environment where someone actually would pay real $$ to soak up your eloquence and brilliance and feel that value was received?

I learn 'stuff' every day - These guys keep my mind refreshed and nearly all are far more knowledgable, considerate and polite than me. You rubbed me the wrong way from your first post - for that indiscretion I apologize, but for your part in this dialogue, why don't you lurk for awhile until you see an opportunity to contribute to the base knowledge of the group?

 

[drgondog]

I'd suggest that he should read this:
Amazon product ASIN 1472839668
But it seems that he's rather satisfied with the odd info that he's gleaned off the interwebs...

Thanks Dave.

 

[ColFord]

Maybe this will work to get the point across.

And this one.......

Not forgetting the seminal Mustang history classic...........

 

[Graeme]

No image for me? But I'll still give ya a 'like' Dave -

 

[GrauGeist]

Sorry guys, not sure why the Amazon link doesn't work.

I see that it's showing in Bill's reply - perhaps the link is unique to the U.S.?

 

[fubar57]

I tried yours and Bill's and just got this

​

I'm just going to assume its one of Bill's awesome books