What is a P-51M?

[pbehn]

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.

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

Hi all,

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

 

[wuzak]

What is a P-51M?

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?

 

[nuuumannn]

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...

 

[MiTasol]

HUShhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[wuzak]

Speaking of which, I haven't seen P-39 Expert around for awhile...

He posted another thread yesterday. So he is around.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I have to give him credit, I learned a lot about the P-39 from him.

 

[Snautzer01]

Now his name is said 3 times. Beetle 39 Juice will appear.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

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...

 

[GrauGeist]

I have to give him credit, I learned a lot about the P-39 from him.

Is that actually "from" or "because of"?

Asking for a friend, of course...

 

[Snautzer01]

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...

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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

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

 

[SaparotRob]

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

That's what I've been doing.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Is that actually "from" or "because of"?

Asking for a friend, of course...

Yes

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

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..

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

But you merrily baffle the rapt readers with a blizzard of bullshit

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?

I can 'baffle' with most,

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.

So start with the implication the final Dallas 1,000 D were D-30, then the two incorrect serial batch numbers. The announcing the discussion was P-51M followed by going back to the P-51 and adding the A-36, next comes complete misreading of cumulative to end June 1945 figures for all time ones and wrong export figures and times, then comes misreading of the Dallas K order, all in 4 replies to me.

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?

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.

 

[pbehn]

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.

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).

 

[SaparotRob]

How many P-51Ms can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[pbehn]

How many P-51Ms can dance on the head of a pin?

Maximum of seven below 15,000 ft. (acc. to Wiki).

 

[drgondog]

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?

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.

P-51M with serial 45-11743 was accepted 6-7-45 as noted above, suggesting that it was pulled out of the spares in pre-assembly (not the -25-NT line) during the first block of D-25-NT production, as a blank (Spare - no serial number) moved to Experimental Production for the -9A engine installation before the last of the first block of -25-NT was completed. All the -25-NT engineering change orders scheuled for second block, as well as for the -30-NT would have been applied to the Spare fuselage.

Two points - First, NAA did not 'pull' a serial identified ship out of one block, modify the Mustang to specifications of a future block, and still retain the original serial number. The practice was to pull blank spare assemblies before they were introduced to the assembly line. Mods applied and planning reviewed where the modified ship would occupy a future serial number sequence - and make it official per the contract - without ever inserting in the line.

Second point - because it started as a Spare, it probably was from a spares block fabricated with latest incorporations of that block for which the spare (wing/fuselage/empennage) assemblies were originally intended for. In the case of the P-51M, the spares packge could have come from -20 or -25 (either -NT or-NA as they were interchangable but Dallas obvious choice for convenience.

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.

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.

After AAF decided not to produce P-51D-NA and P-51D-1-NT because 85 gal ank could not be intalled, 42-106539 and 540 respectively were test vehicles for new bubble canopy and six gun wing, and rest of NA-106 funds went to NA-109 P-51D-5-NA under AC-40064.

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.

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.

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?

No. From Late September to early Match 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?

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

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.

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?

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.
The rest of your blather is pretty boring.

 

[Snautzer01]

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.