A-36 Mustang Name Article W Atchmnts DRAFT 1-24-19

An A-36A by Any Other Name
Last accessed:9/27/2019 12:27 PM

439377034.doc
There has been a great discussion about a rather fine point for a number of years in the warbird community. It’s
not a “what aircraft in WWII made the greatest contribution to the Allies winning the War?” or “What aircraft
engine in WWII made the greatest contribution to the Allies winning the War?”. Yes…those are pretty much
“parallel situational questions” (and, yes, I made up that term!). It’s not even, “if the War would’ve raged on in
Europe, would B-29s have been used to bomb the Nazis?”. On this last one, I have read that many of the fields
in England that were used by B-17s and B-24s were long enough to handle B-29s as far as the needed number of
feet for a safe takeoff run, so it WAS, at least, possible. But for once, I’ll not digress. Like they say, “that’s
history.”
No sir and No ma’am…that’s not the discussion to which I refer. The discussion is for something that had
NOTHING to do with who won the War, which aircraft contributed more to the “win,” and so on.
That discussion, fair reader, is about the A-36A aircraft. The question has nothing to do with how many were
built…or how many missions pilots flew…in which theaters of war they operated…how many enemy aircraft
they took out on the ground or in the air…how many trains they “busted”…or when did the A-36A enter
combat…or why the RAF did not order the A-36A after trying out a sample?
It also has nothing to do with while there wasn’t an actual A-36A prototype, you know, one called “XA-36,”
NAA did come up with a more-or-less “concept plane.” To that point, there are stories about NAA’s designers
and engineers coming up with the idea of keeping production going after completing the run of NA-83s for the
RAF by “fooling around” with an NA-83 (RAF Serial Number AM118 according to Bill Marshall---in
p51sig.com, I read that first flight with dive brakes was in May, 1942. Other sources have said that the testbed
aircraft for the A-36 was taken from the USAAC’s 57 P-51s [NA-91s] – just like the two XP-51Bs), adding dive
brakes and replacing the .50 Cal BMG and two .30 Cal BMGs in each wing, with other guns: The trials
included a single 20 mm cannon and a .50 Cal BMG, in each wing; also two 20 mm cannons in each wing; also
one 37 mm cannon under each wing (faired into the wing). They were all in “canted mounts.” They were test-
flown and the aircraft and weapons apparently performed well. NAA finally settled on armament consisting of a
pair of .50 Cal BMGs in each wing, while keeping the two .50 Cal BMGs of the NA-83 in the nose. (Thank you
James William Marshall for that info!) *Some of the above facts about AM118 might be “off.”* The NAA
engineers/designers knew that the wing would need to be strengthened; the engine would have to be replaced
with an Allison V-1710 that put out more HP and optimized for lower-altitude performance, given the role of a
dive-bomber, changing the induction system for the intake air, adding bomb racks, etc. They knew, from past
experience, that most likely, other issues would pop up later, but they could all be worked out. That is not the
bone of contention in warbird circles these days, either.
Nope…it has to do with the official name…is it “Apache” or “Mustang” or “Invader”? THAT should be easy –
go to the Internet, fire up Google (or whatever happens to be your particular favorite search engine), type in “A-
36” or “A36” or “A-36A,” and click the SEARCH button or hit the Enter/Return key on your keyboard,
whatever you do to make it do its job. The last time I checked, it got something like 8,000,000 “hits.” Now I
don’t know anyone who’s going to check every one. Many have nothing to do with the North American
Aviation (NAA) aircraft. Many “hits” will be about the excellent Beech A36 Bonanza. …close but no cigar!
But nearly every one that does relate to this particular warbird will come up with “A-36A Apache.” We ALL
know folks who say, “I saw it on the Internet, so it MUST be true.” Back before “the Google,” and even
AFTER the “invention” of the “Internets,” we could look it up in books, and “Apache” was the name we seemed
to find most often. So, you have checked millions of references on the Internet and maybe dozens of references
in books, so “Apache” it is. If you search for “Apache,” aside from references to the tribe of Native Americans
(we called them “Indians” in the “old days,” but it was not a pejorative term back in the “old days”), you'll also
find the Piper Apache light twin aircraft, the excellent Boeing AH-64 “Apache” attack helicopter along with
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
A36As. BUT, most that are aviation-related will say that “Apache” is the name given to NAA's A-36A dive
bomber aircraft. Another “fact” that will be stated very often is that it's a derivative of the P-51A Mustang.
…or IS it?
The answer to my original question, “what IS the big discussion in some warbird circles,” has to do with the
NAA A-36A dive bomber. The question should be a very simple one to answer. Actually it is, although my
explanation will be a little “wordy” at times. It’s a fact: warbird aficionados LOVE to read and especially to
read about their beloved warbirds – I know that I do! But, thanks to co-called “social media,” where some of
the discussions develop into pissing matches, it becomes very UN-sociable at times! There are also forums and
discussion groups dedicated to the Mustang Family. I belong to one of the best ones out there: “The P-51
Special Interest Group.” Saying that “I belong to…” makes it sound all lofty – it’s NOT…anyone who will take
a few minutes to fill out a simple online “form” can join, and whether one contributes to the discussions or is
merely a spectator, the forum/group IS “one of the best ones.” Forum members include folks who know
virtually nothing about Mustangs, but WANT to become “Mustangologists,” and folks who know a LOT about
them (historically, mechanically, operationally...the whole gamut). I fall somewhere in between those extremes,
but I'm working my way into that latter group – or at least I THINK that I am! The subject of this article might
make some of THOSE folks wonder, “what’s the conflict all about? – That issue was clarified LONG ago!”.
Many warbird nuts have visited the National Museum of the United States Air Force (NMUSAF) at Wright-
Patterson AFB in Dayton, OH. (I finally did in October, 2018!) There’s a restored A-36A there – I finally got to
see it! Like every display there, it has a sign in front of it with its USAAF or USAF (or another nation's military
branches') designation and official name, followed by a description that includes several paragraphs describing
the role of the aircraft type, where it served, as well as “Technical Notes.” It has a sign that USED to state,
“North American A-36A Apache” in VERY LARGE, CLEAR letters.
So, my “friends” always told me and a small number of other folks, that the name is “Apache,” …period, end of
sentence! I mean, after all – this IS the official USAF/USAAF Museum! The name was “set in stone” – well, at
least painted/printed on an official sign! Furthermore, the very first sentence in the description on the sign had
the same name. Below is a crop from a photo supplied to me by Brett Stolle, a Curator and Project Manager, at
the NMUSAF, and it was very clear. Someone at the Museum took the photo with their iPhone on 9/25/17 for
Brett to send to me, after I emailed him concerning the display and sign. I had already seen photos of this sign
countless times by my “unseen Internet friends” to tell yours truly, “Shut up, you dummy, it’s ‘Apache’ – the
USAF even has it in their National Museum, and THEY should know what their own aircraft are called.” …
BUT, did they???
Crop from photo of the signage that was in front of the A-36A at the National Museum of the US Air Force until
early in the Fall of 2018
Read on to the end of the article to find out more about my communications with Brett Stolle.
…and so I begin, but first, an oft-told story to refresh the history behind this subject:
When the British Aircraft Purchasing Commission came to North American Aviation in 1940 and said, in so
many words, "build us many P-40s for the RAF, under license from Curtiss, because Curtiss cannot provide
enough of them, quickly enough." The UK's Spitfire and Hurricane output was NOT keeping up with the RAF’s
increasing need for fighter aircraft. They'd had experience with P-40s and wanted more, but Curtiss could NOT
supply extras for them, because they were busy building them for the US Army Air Corps. The higher-ups at
NAA believed that they could design and build a better aircraft (they'd been working on a fighter – or “pursuit” -
aircraft for over six months, so they had something to “start with” along these lines). In response to the request,
in April, 1940, NAA promised a "sample" to the Brits within 120 days after they accepted NAA’s design (which
had not begun yet). Once the design was accepted, it took NAA a little longer than 120 days for their new
aircraft to be test-flown. This was because even thought the airframe was completed days ahead of schedule,
NAA had to wait for GM to free-up an Allison V-1710 (these engines were all destined for P-38s, P-39s and P-
40s at that time) to provide to NAA. The Brits were already familiar with NAA’s excellent AT-6/SNJ trainer,
called the "Harvard" by the RAF, as well as the B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, so they were aware of the
quality of NAA's work. The RAF therefore did not need to approve construction methods, quality, etc at each
phase of design, engineering, testing, etc. They NEEDED fighters, ASAP! They agreed to pay up to $40,000
per unit – this was BEFORE Lend-Lease, so money was a concern for the Brits. As I alluded to earlier, for what
it’s worth, I’ve read that the folks at NAA, for some time, had been “playing with” an idea for a sleek, single-
engine fighter with an “inline” engine (in aircraft terminology, if cylinders, regardless of the number of banks,
ran basically front-to back, engines of that type were called “inline engines,” which to automotive folks, usually
means a “straight 8” or “straight 6” but NOT a V8 or a V12, but I digress).
Most Mustang-lovers probably know a good bit about how the story plays out, so I'll jump to the "Name Game”
issue that is the subject of this article. Easily obtainable data such as number of aircraft in each factory “run” of
aircraft, dates a certain model began production, the dimensions of the aircraft, performance figures, etc are
NOT included in this story, to keep it from being longer than it already IS. Those numbers, to no one’s surprise,
are available and they pretty much agree on multiple websites. I prefer MustangsMustangs.com for such facts
and numbers.
Going back to the start of this saga…
Since the aircraft that Dutch Kindelberger and his chief designer, Edgar Schmued, was NOT being built for a
USAAC/USAAF or USN contract (in other words, NOT for the US military), NAA did NOT give the aircraft an
official name during its design, building and test flights. NAA did not even give the aircraft an official name
after the British received first shipments of their beautiful little fighter aircraft. Those first group of Mustangs
supplied to the RAF were referred to by the NAA designation of “NA-73” – more about that designation system
later. The second group, identical to the NA-73 except for replacing the “tubular” exhaust stacks with “flared”
exhaust stacks, was designated as “NA-83.”
It goes without saying that neither did the US military give it a name. That is because they did not order the
aircraft. Furthermore, it was not anything they (or any other department, office, agency etc in the US
government) would be involved in, except, as noted below, the approval for NAA to provide an aircraft for a
foreign power. On documents, engineering drawings, etc, NAA designated all of their new designs and changes
to existing NAA designs as "NA-" followed by a number (and occasional a suffix letter) that was, as far as I
know, sequential by date. This number was therefore, based on all aircraft design/modified before that particular
aircraft. For instance, the prototype B-25 was called "NA-40" by NAA, and follow-on NAA aircraft were
designated “NA-41,” “NA-42,” “NA-43,” and so on. For examples of just how this “NA-number/letter”
designation was used, consider this: an interim model of the B-25D was designated “NA-100” and in NAA’s
numbering sequence, “NA-99” was none other than the P-51A. There were also other in-between NA numbers
on interim models of the B-25…and we also see this in what is going to be called the “Mustang family,” a term
I’m using for this article and certainly not an official one…it simply helps me talk about a disparate group of
aircraft that basically were derived from the same prototype. Specifically, the different members of this family
go from NA-73 (and, of course, the prototype, NA-73X) up to NA-126 (this was the P-51H). Of course, as just
mentioned, other NAA aircraft had “NA-” designations in this range, so there were not over 50 different
versions of aircraft in the Mustang family!
OK, all that said, the prototype aircraft built for the RAF order was finished basically on time, and it flew,
performing very well. It was test-flown by NAA test pilots. I mention this only to document that once again, no
military pilot(s) were involved in flying NA-73X, as stated in various reliable sources. Once again, note that
NAA, with NO official name for this beautiful little fighter, simply called it "NA-73X" - the "X" suffix meant
prototype in this instance. It did have an NAA Construction Number, and a civil registration “Tail Number,”
NX19998, but according to some references, it had no serial number, since it was NOT for use by any branch of
any military service. Yes, there was a crash of this aircraft when setting up for a landing after the 5 th test flight,
but it was traced to pilot error (the pilot failed to switch from an empty fuel tank to one that still contained fuel).
NA-73X was ONE hot little ship, was the conclusion of NAA’s test pilots who flew it. For a historical note,
there are two different versions of what happened to the aircraft after the crash. Some say that it was scrapped
right away, but the more believable ones, based on NAA documentation, state that the prototype was rather
quickly rebuilt and test flown a number of times, starting several months later. Also, not related to the A-36A
name story, there was also a second airframe with a wing, a “static prototype,” if you will, called something like
“XX-73X” and it was used for testing the strength of the wing itself and the wing-to-fuselage attachment setup.
By the way, as briefly mentioned above, the USAAC had to "approve" sale of any aircraft to a foreign country,
making sure that it would NOT be detrimental to the US national security - which only makes sense, then, AND
today.
The Brits liked the design, and received a few production "samples" (it is believed that the number was three
NA-73s, Serial Numbers AG345, AG346 and AG347). NA-73X, it’s noteworthy to repeat, still had no name at
that time. North American called them simply by their NAA model designation, "NA-73.” The RAF gave it
the name "Mustang.” It was the first operational Mustang, so they followed their system of following the name
with a “Mark Number.” This model was therefore called "Mustang Mk I" or "Mustang I." It is worth mention
that Roger Freeman, in his “Mustang at War” book, tells the story about where, it is believed, the Brits got the
name “Mustang” from this song:
“Saddle Your Blues to A Wild Mustang”

written by George Whiting/Buddy Bernier/Billy Haid in 1936
The USAAC had, while evaluating whether or not they would approve its sale to a foreign government, taken a
look at the performance, armament, range, etc of the aircraft. They were somewhat interested and had
requested, and received, two NA-73s for them to try out - these are referred to as XP-51s. One of these, SN 41-
038, the fourth NA-73 built, resides in the EAA Museum in Oshkosh. In 2002, I saw it the first night I was in
Oshkosh. I was at Air Venture 2002 and was spending the entire week there, so I planned to get back to the
Museum later in the week and take photos when my little camera memory card had "room" on it after I dumped
it onto my boss's computer back at our Oshkosh portable building. I never had time to return to the Museum, so
those photos were never taken, much to my chagrin. I remembered it as we were leaving Oshkosh on the last
day, when I was being taken to the Milwaukee airport to catch my flight back home! Damn! In 2017, the folks
at Pacific Fighters rebuilt the Frankenstang, “Polar Bear,” to very closely resemble the second XP-51 prototype
(it still retains a D-wing, and has a doghouse intake that is more like the A-36A and P-51A [THIS divergence
from “correctness” was for safety reasons – one of the builders told me this in an online message], but is
otherwise VERY close to SN 1039. It is beautiful, regardless, as rebuilt by Pacific Fighters). “Polar Bear” was
part P-51A, part P-51D and who knows what other parts came from other Mustangs.
Back to the story, the USAAC liked NA-73, basically the aircraft as supplied to the RAF. The Mustang I, was
armed with a .50 Cal BMG in each wing, with two .30 Cal BMGs “outside” of the .50 Cal in each wing. There
were also two .50 Cal BMGs in the nose, firing through the prop arc. It is noteworthy that the Brits were fans of
20 mm cannon in the wing of aircraft that would be intended to chase, catch and shoot down enemy bombers.
They wanted their “samples” to be thusly equipped, but due to a supply problem, NAA was unable at that time
to get any cannons to install in the Mustangs, so the mix of .30 and .50 Cal Browning Machine Guns was
substituted.
NAA therefore knew that the Brits really liked the idea of 20 mm cannons in aircraft, and upon receiving a
supply of these cannons, the aircraft was adapted to accommodate two of them in each wing (and no nose guns
or other guns of any kind). The resulting aircraft was the NA-91, which the RAF called "Mustang Mk IA." The
armament was changed to "only" four 20 mm Hispano cannons, two in each wing. I’m diverging like crazy, but
it’s worth noting that from NA-73X until the last P-51Ds were built by NAA in California and Texas, the wing’s
thickness was never changed (mentioned because so many references have the wing being “thickened” by NAA
for the D/K models to allow for the .50 Cal BMGs to be “stood up” instead of slanted as on previous wing
installations of the same BMGs). The USAAC/USAAF liked what they saw and they "repossessed" 57 of the
150 NA-91s that were built (the attacks on Pearl Harbor had happened by this time) and, now that these aircraft
were official USAAF (I'll call it "AAF" after this) aircraft, an official designation and name was assigned. “P-
51 Apache" was the designation/name combination given by the AAF to these cannon-armed aircraft. The
British had already given the name "Mustang" to that line of aircraft, so the RAF stuck with their name. In an
almost-unique "turn," the AAF and NAA ultimately changed the name of the Apache to "Mustang," but NOT yet
at this point in the story! Something that is “new” to me is that, reportedly, the RAF had issues with the 20 mm
cannons installed in the NA-91 by NAA, and the RAF replaced these 20 mm cannons with an improved one
(jammed less, it is reported). Also, according to Robert Grinsell, author of “P-51 Mustang” (with artwork by
Rikyu Watanabe), for the NA-91 to be “lended” to the UK under the terms and requirements of the Lend-Lease
Act (which became law in March, 1940), for an aircraft to be provided by the US to a foreign country (and for
the US to maintain its neutrality), that aircraft had to be one that was “in use” or “supplied” to a member of the
US Armed Services, and the “P-51 Apache” designation and name came about to fulfill that requirement, and
furthermore the aircraft had to have US military serial numbers, too, and THIS requirement was also met. I do
not know how much of that is true – but it’s interesting and would make sense. Maybe I’ve read it before and
did not remember it???
As an aside, the AAF officially called the cannon-armed "Apaches" the "P-51" with NO suffix letter after the "P-
51." You'll see photos of these beauties in books and on the 'net and they're all-too-often called "P-51As," and
this is TOTALLY wrong – the P-51A did not come along until 2 Mustang varieties later. Nearly ALL of these
cannon-armed P-51s were later equipped with K-24 cameras and became photo-recon aircraft. And yes, unlike
photo-recon P-38 Lightnings (F-4/F-5 designations in AAF), which had their cameras in the nose (where,
normally, its guns all “lived”), thereby leaving NO room for the Lightning’s four .50 Cal BMGs and its 20 mm
cannon, the photo-recon "Apaches" retained their 20 mm cannons and could shoot with cameras or cannons!
How's that!
In the US, the official name of the NA-91 aircraft, to both NAA and the AAF, was "Apache" until mid-1942,
when as mentioned above, they officially changed it to "Mustang." Not really associated with the A-36 issue,
but for informational purposes, since the role of the P-51, as it existed in the AAF "inventory," was not a pure
pursuit/fighter role, the photo-recon version officially became the P-51-1-NA after the addition of two K-24
cameras, to differentiate if from the P-51 (no suffix). Shortly after THAT change of designation, because
normally, photo-recon aircraft had an "F" prefix, the AAF designation was then changed to "F-6A.” Ray
Wagner, in his book, “Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51,” states that the F-6A was changed to P-
51-2-NA in October, 1942. I’m not 100% sure about that, but it’s OK. Other authors say that it was changed to
“F-6A” and that it STAYED that way. You need a score card to keep up with NA-91! What happened to the two
P-51s that did NOT get converted into camera ships? They became the prototypes for the P-51B, and were
designated “XP-51B” upon completion of modifications necessary to swap out their Allison V-1710 engines
with Packard Merlin V-1650 engines. Their serial numbers were 41-37350 and 41-37421. NAA gave the
project the company designation NA-101. Don't get distracted – that's not the subject of this article!
The A-36A (only model ever produced was the "A" and I might use “A-36” or “A-36A” – it makes no difference
– they NAA made 500 total, and did NOT build a prototype as such) was officially called "Mustang" (the F-6A,
and subsequent models of the F-6 were also called "Mustang,” by the way) from the start. That “Mustang”
name, regardless of what they had as an official designation, NEVER changed. The NAA model designation for
the A-36 was "NA-97," FYI. The main theater of operations of the A-36 (the first AAF Mustangs in combat, by
the way) was in the 12th Air Force in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations. It’s worth noting that A-36s also
operated in China-Burma-India Theater, and most accounts state that they were the first Mustangs to fight in the
CBI Theater. The A-36s in the Mediterranean had a great record as far as wreaking havoc on the Nazi/Italian
armies. Aside from the dive-bombing the enemy, the A-36s also shot down Axis aircraft (one A-36 pilot even
became an ace in the A-36). The A-36, it is worth noting, was equipped with six .50 Cal BMGs: two in the
nose, as on the RAF Mustang Mk I, and two more in each wing. There were other differences (stronger wing,
bombing “racks,” etc) between it and previous Mustangs (I feel “safe” in calling the whole line of the A-36’s
predecessors “Mustang,” even those that were built before it had an official AAF name), but the most noticeable
one was the presence of a pair of hydraulically-actuated dive brakes in each wing of the A-36 – one brake above,
and one below the wing, just outboard of the .50 cal BMGs in the wings, about mid-chord. As an aside, the P-
51A Mustang (as mentioned earlier, the P-51A was the NA-99) shared the same strengthened wing and wing
gun arrangement, but deleted the dive brakes and the nose .50s of the A-36, to name a couple of the external
visual differences between the two aircraft. NOW, would be a good time to say that the P-51A came AFTER the
A-36A, not the other way around, so the A-36A was NOT a “derivative of the P-51A” as claimed by a number
of “experts.” Unrelated to the guns, but directly related to the dive brakes (when deployed), the A-36 was unique
among the Mustang family in another external feature: the pitot mast. On every other bird in the Mustang
family, the pitot mast is L-shaped and is mounted on the underside of the right wing, well outboard of the wing
guns, maybe ¾ the way towards the wingtip. For informational purposes, but important to the reason for the
type and location of the A-36’s pitot, it’s worth mention that while all of the other Mustangs had their pitot
tube/mast assemblies located in the same location on the underside of the right wing, the mast on the production
“razorback” Mustangs (all of them up to, and including the P-51C) had a longer vertical aspect of the “L,” than
those of the production “bubble-canopy” Mustangs. The A-36’s dive brakes, when deployed, caused airflow
issues around the L-shaped pitot, so the resulting pitot tube assembly on A-36s was a rather long “spear”
projecting out of the leading edge of the right wing (similar to, if not he same assembly, as seen on the NAA AT-
6 Texan advanced trainer), as stated above, is about ¾ of the way towards the wingtip, to allow it to give more
accurate airspeed readings, regardless of the position of the dive brakes (they were either fully-deployed or
retracted, with no in-between “stops”). What the heck - another “bonus” point in this article: another external
feature, however unrelated to the NAME of the A-36, but related to identifying one in a wartime photo or one of
the three restored ones known to exist today: the landing/taxi light assembly consisted of two bulbs behind a
single Plexiglas lens, outboard of the left wing .50 Cal BMGs. No other aircraft in the Mustang family had their
landing/taxi lights in this arrangement.
Well, we’re over halfway through this article, and we are finally getting to the REASON for the article!
The A-36 pilots in the Mediterranean believed that "Mustang" was not an appropriate name for this aircraft, and
they pretty much always called it the "Invader" in theatre, because like they said, they were “always 'invading'
enemy territory.” Sidebar: just like today's USAF pilots refer to the F-16 "Fighting Falcon" as the "Viper," the
12th AAF pilots in WWII developed their own name for their aircraft because of the role that it performed so
well. OK, let’s return to WWII years... The A-36 pilots went so far as to petition the AAF to rename their A-
36, the "Invader," but naturally, it was shot down (no pun intended!) because, as a great number of warbird nuts
already know, the "Invader" name had already been given to the Douglas A-26 Medium/Attack Bomber...a great
aircraft in its own right.
So, at this point in my doctoral dissertation ( ) and more importantly, at this point in HISTORY (the 1940s),
the name "Apache" had been a name for a US aircraft, only with the NA-91 “constellation” of aircraft from a
date in 1941, until mid-1942. This time period was BEFORE the A-36 was being built let alone operational. I
believe, from doing some research and fact-checking with Bill Marshall, that the need for an “attack” aircraft
was called for by the AAF just before the "Apache" name was changed OFFICIALLY to "Mustang.” Some
accounts say that a modified NA-91, NOT a modified NA-83 was the “test bed” for the features that would be
needed for a dive-bomber (dive brakes, strengthened wing, bomb attachment points on the underside of the
wing, etc). THIS, is one of the contributors to the misnaming of the A-36 - it's rather easy to see why confusion
exists, BUT, people who are actual historians (that would exclude ME!) somehow, "conflated" the relationship
of the A-36 and the name "Apache," and this is part of the story. The only “Apache” aircraft, aside from the first
name given to the NA-91 in the 1940s, was, AFAIK, given to the Piper Apache light twin aircraft that came onto
the US market in the 1950s and the Hughes/McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing AH-64 attack helicopter in the 1970s.
The other part of the story is that so much of what we call “history” (this is not going to surprise anyone and is
not meant to attack any person or group) is written by people who know little or nothing, or who don't really
care, about so many areas of history. I’ve learned and re-learned and re-re-to the nth factor, what is called
history, and guess what – I admit that I’ll be re-learning for a long time, if I live long enough. My “coming
over” to THIS side of the A-36 argument was long in its journey and had a pit-stop in between “Apache” and
“Mustang,” and that was the confusion brought on by the “Invader” name – a name that we should now all know
was used for a name for the A-36 during the War, but now we know WHY.
I’m repeating myself (again!). The production Allison Mustangs all pretty much had the same nose profile. The
part that follows in italics can be skipped – the commas and parenthesis confused EVEN me, and I wrote
EVERY word of it! Get your books out or check on the Internet (at a reliable site!). Take a look at NA-73x,
NA-73, Mustang I, Mustang IA, Mustang II (the RAF's name for what we in the US called the P-51A – which
had armament consisting of two .50 Cal BMGs in each wing), P-51, F-6A, P-51A and the A-36A. With the
exception of a shorter air intake (Allison engines have downdraft carbs, so the air has to come in from the TOP)
on top of the nose on the NA-73X, the first few production NA-73s for the RAF and the two XP-51s (41-038 and
-039), when compared to that of the longer one on the rest of these Allison-engined aircraft, AND with the
difference that some have and others do NOT have guns poking out of the lower part of the nose...all of these
Allison-Mustangs had 3-bladed props, a sort of round-pointed spinner, gave them the same overall “nose”
profile. "Apache" was the name originally given to the NA-91s and this, along with the letter "A" suffix on the A-
36A, maybe makes MOST of these "historians" think that "Apache" is the name. For what it's worth, I've even
read and heard that the name "Apache" referring to the A-36A did not show up in print until the 1950s when
folks started writing more and more books about WWII. The “Apache” misnomer for the A-36A might have
been due to an identification problem.
Now, you might say, does anyone who REALLY knows stuff agree with ME??? The question makes ME look
like I’m calling myself an authority, but I am simply an “observer” with a big interest in all Mustangs!
This is NOT an all-inclusive list of authors and historians and documents that call the A-36A “Mustang,” but
here goes:
1. Robert Gruenhagen - formerly the historian for NAA. At the time of the writing of this document, he is
still alive, around 90 years of age, and he personally is known to still be used by some authors for fact-
checking. His book is considered the "bible" on all things related to the history (the design team is
covered, as well as the RAF's people and their requirements and requests, etc) of all versions of the
Mustang, starting with NA-73X and up to the last model of the P/F-82 "Twin Mustang." His book is
entitled, “Mustang: The Story of the P-51 Fighter (Revised Edition).”
2. Ray Wagner – his book is a smaller, yet very informative, important book. It's about Edgar Schmued and
his designs and skills leading up to the design of NA-73X. Schmued died in the 1980s, I believe, so
Wagner got to know him. Wagner's book is great and is entitled, “Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued
and the P-51.”
3. Joe Baugher - he's a retired software developer who has a very good Internet site. You have to figure
out how to navigate through parts of it, but once you get to his WWII aviation stuff, it's good. He's got
some stuff that I know nothing about, listed on there...outside the "aviation history" aspect. Joe
Baugher's Home Page will get your started – his website shows all of his MANY interests. So...after
you go to his website, find and click on/go to “North American P-51 Mustang”.
4. Boeing’s Corporate Historian, Michael Lombardi is helpful – he’s assisted me in the past on Mustang
questions. When Boeing acquired Rockwell, who had years earlier acquired North American Aviation
and its archives, they became the possessors of all of the surviving NAA documents on their aircraft.
Because I'm fortunate enough to be friends with a retired Boeing engineer (a mechanical engineer, by
the way) and who worked in Seattle, and because I'm friends with a current Boeing Aerospace engineer,
who recently celebrated his 25th anniversary with Boeing, Michael paid attention to my emails and
always responded. He's probably this cooperative with other folks doing research, but I like to think
that I'm special! Attempt at humor! This is his response to my email from September, 2017:
Hi Tom,
I agree, Apache was a tentative name given to the XP-51 and P-51 prior to the USAAF giving official names
around the end of 1942. The name never applied to the A-36.
Cheers,
Mike
Michael Lombardi
Corporate Historian,
The Boeing Company
The above email from Mike Lombardi was one of the things I sent to the USAF Museum Curator, too.
5. "AAF: An Official Guide to the Army Air Forces" – a book printed by the USAAF in 1944 - I flat
WORE out that little book as a kid. The cover and a few pages have long since disappeared. In 2005 or
2006, my wife and I were in a little book store in Anderson, TX, waiting to handle something at the
Grimes County Courthouse which was not yet open, and we were just “killing time.” I found a 1988
reprint of that book while waiting for the courthouse to open. I bought it (the reprint actually is a reprint
of the 1945 edition where they inserted "World War II" into the title and with VERY minor differences
is the same, exact book...even down to the page numbers). It has “Mustang” in one column on a table of
aircraft designations and official names and on the same row, it has both P-51 and A-36 as the examples
of the USAAF aircraft that have that name. As an aside, the name for the B-17 in this little book is
simply "Fortress." I am not as familiar with the whys and wherefores. We know that it WAS called
"Flying Fortress," but I'll let someone else split THOSE particular hairs, so why only “Fortress” (and I
am aware that the RAF called it “Fortress” and had a Mark Number behind it, as in “Fortress I,” and so
on). I've seen that in other books and sources, too, but never got too disturbed because at least
"Fortress" is in its name. I have argued with friends, that if "Flying" was supposed to be in its name,
then wouldn’t the B-29 have been named "Superflyingfortress,” since its name was specifically meant to
indicate, “you remember the ‘Fortress’? Well this B-29 is a ‘Super Fortress,’ so we’re calling it the
“Superfortress”). On another page in the same books, in a more detailed "table," the F-6 aircraft is also
called "Mustang,” it is worth noting.
6. I have a scan of an official US document on the naming of US military aircraft- it was provided to a
Facebook group on the Mustang by Chris Fahey (see #11 below). It's three pages long and page 2,
which is attached, has "Mustang" for both the A-36 and the P-51. (Note that it also has "Fortress" as the
B-17's name, for what it's worth). The A-36 is mentioned in the “Interest” section of the card. This is
included in “Attachments” section.
7. I have a scan of a US Navy ID card, dated “1943,” with accurate drawings of an Allison Mustang. It
indicates that it is for the “P-51, P-51 series and A-36” for the US Army, and “Mustang I” for the RAF.
This is included in “Attachments” section.
8. Another source, this one from the manufacturer of the A-36A, North American Aviation. NAA had an
employees’ newsletter publication called "Skywriter." I have photo of a cover of one of the WWII
issues (dated 1943) and there, in large print, NAA has "A-36 Mustang" in the headline over a captioned
photo of an A-36. I also have a photo from inside an issue of Skywriter" (not sure if it's from the same
issue as the cover I'm referencing) and it's captioned as an "A-36 Mustang" underneath a photo of one.
This is included in “Attachments” section.
OK...I could go on. You see my point: no matter how many "historians" or "correspondents" have
called it the "Apache," that does NOT make it correct! I can promise you that in most of the books on
the subject, it's called "Apache" and then states that pilots unofficially called it "Invader" (at least that
part, as we know, is true!). There's a rather new LARGE book by Graff - I own it along with
Gruenhagen, Wagner, and Mustang books by other authors. Graff makes the mistake of calling it
"Apache" too. So do other “known authorities.”
9. One more thing, and it dovetails with the "the Allison Mustangs all look alike" theory, which I posit
might contribute to the "Apache" misnomer. As most warbird enthusiasts know, the war materiel
manufacturers on all levels (from rifle ammo up to, and including aircraft and ships and tanks) had
many advertisements in magazines during the War, touting their products and the contributions made.
Whenever possible, the images are artists' drawings instead of accurate drawings or photos (yeah, they
used photos of things where "nothing was given away to the Axis that they did not know already”) so as
to not help out the Axis. There are two different diving "Apache" ads and they both have that “Apache”
name on them. Yes, I told you that "Apache" applied to the P-51/F-6A/Mustang Mk IA, but this
drawing, on purpose has NO 20 mm guns (there are tiny holes in the wings of the drawings to indicate
that “it IS armed” with some kind of guns) portrayed in the artwork, and nothing about its firepower is
mentioned. The drawings are not even 100% accurate when it comes to the airframe and wings either,
for the same reason. These ads are obviously from the time period of 1941 to mid 1942 when "Apache"
WAS the official US name for the above 3 aircraft that were operational at the time. As stated a few
sentences above, I have seen two different such magazine ads, and there are, most likely, other ads from
the same time period. I am not attaching images of the ads – they are easily found on the Internet.
10. I have a photograph of the new, correct sign at the National Museum of the U S Air Force and I
believe it’s legible enough to read the “small print,” where the “Apache” name is mentioned. I
still claim this as a small, personal victory for me.
11. Finally, Chris Fahey, a Delta 757/767 pilot for about 20 years and an F-16 combat pilot from Desert
Storm has been an "Internet friend" of mine long before Facebook. We "met" when he commented on
my photos that were on my old GeoCities website, and on "Warbirds on the Web" and my Webshots
photos from the late 1990s thru maybe 7-10 yrs ago when those three websites shut down
(damn...maybe my photos jammed up their servers?). He's also the historian at the Planes of Fame
museum in California, and pilots their Mustangs, and many more of their historic warbirds. He's got a
standing bet that he'll buy a steak dinner for ANYONE, who can provide US government or NAA
documents that call the A-36 "Apache." He's bought zero such dinners so far.
This discussion is one that I get going on Facebook any and every time someone has something about an A-36
and calls it “Apache.” This is a VERY "long version" of what I've been spouting on Facebook for a couple
years. There is one discussion that recurs on Facebook every couple months, having to do with the official
name of the A-36A, usually started when someone will comment on something about an “A-36A Apache” and
the fun ensues! A bunch of Comments/Replies spring up. A lot of these Comments/Replies are "to" or "from"
me, with some of the "to" people telling me I was full of crap. Chris would jump in and post a photo of a
document, etc, and mention his "bet" on this subject. It's fun and it keeps my brain from going south!
After the response from the Curator at the NMUSAF in Dayton, OH who sent the "we'll change the signage on
the A-36" email, I asked him that, after they've changed the sign, would he please mail the old, incorrect one to
me for my collection of stuff for my kids and grandkids to throw away one day! He replied that the sign was
USAF property, and as such, had to be destroyed when replaced. I had to settle for a new sign, with “A-36A
Mustang” as the name on the sign.
I'm getting ahead of myself! I had first emailed the Curator of the NMUSAF in September, 2017 and he replied
almost immediately. I presented a concise (for me anyway) listing of the references mentioned earlier in the
above article. They must have been “convincing.” The Curator emailed me back a few days later and informed
me (without saying, “Gee, you’re correct!”) that the NMUSAF has ordered new signage to correct the name to
“A-36 Mustang,” and in the body of the description, it will have something to the effect that “Apache was an
unofficial nickname.” He further told me that the re-do was “in the queue,” and it might take several months to
get the new sign printed and posted. I asked him to please let me know when that happens, and to send me a
photo of the new sign in front of the A-36A Mustang aircraft. I’m hopeful that the NMUSAF “higher-ups” don’t
shoot him down (pun intended!) if someone else has to approve such “major” changes. The “Memphis Belle”
Anniversary, etc was delaying the actual changing of the signs.
This past October, my wife and I made a trip to (among other places), Dayton, OH and I got to see first hand (a
friend, John Gates, sent me a photo of the new sign in late September this year, and that was HOW I learned that
the new sign was posted) the “fruits of my labor.”
“…game, set, and match,” in “my book.” I don’t even play tennis – never did – and I’ve never published a
book, but I know the meaning of those words. …and DO NOT get me started on the dumb way that they keep
score in tennis!
57
Attachments:
An April, 1943 US Navy Data Sheet on the Mustang
“New” Reprint and what’s left of my original 1944 book
Page from original 1944 book, “An Official Guide to the US Army Air Forces”
Front Page of “Skywriter” – NAA Newsletter from August, 1943

Page from “Skywriter” – date uncertain…perhaps same as above front page (8/1943)
New A-36A Sign at National Museum of the U S Air Force, taken by Tom Griffith October, 2018
Page from Official Document for Naming US Military Aircraft during During WWII

A-36 Mustang Name Article W Atchmnts DRAFT 1-24-19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A-36 Mustang Name Article W Atchmnts DRAFT 1-24-19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An A-36A by Any Other Name

Last accessed:9/27/2019 12:27 PM

Going back to the start of this saga…

“Saddle Your Blues to A Wild Mustang”

The Boeing Company

An April, 1943 US Navy Data Sheet on the Mustang

“New” Reprint and what’s left of my original 1944 book

Front Page of “Skywriter” – NAA Newsletter from August, 1943

You might also like