Razorback 'Stangs in restoration to fly

[Randy Haskin]

(Incidentally I've read comment from a 60s Ford marketing exec who claimed the name for the car actually came from the airplane rather than the horse...)

S.

Via Google (so, it's GOTTA be true!!)

John Najjar, the original designer of the Mustang I Prototype (drawings) supposedly named his design after the P-51 Mustang airplane, but Lee Iacocca has stated a few times that it was directly named after the horse itself, not the airplane.

During initial production the winning car was fitted with grills and other body parts using different names: "T-5," "Cougar," "Special Falcon," "Torino," and, at last, "Mustang."

The idea for the name came from the World War II P-51 Mustang Fighter plane, but then was selected to symbolize the Western horse with connotations of "all-American" and "independent." The advertisement agency which helped to pick a name pushed "Mustang" as having "the excitement of the wide open spaces …"

[Chicoartist]

It *is* true - the Google quote is wrong (gasp/shock/horror).

Lee Iacocca directly states in his book Iacocca that the car was named after the plane, not the horse. Read it myownsef.

But yes, the "spirit" of the horse figgers in there as well. I always thought that based on what Lee I. said in his book that they should have at least put a small P-51 silhouette or something somewhere on the car. I do understand, of course, that the marketing folks rightfully thought the horse motif would "connect" more with the population.

Now, if Lee's changed his mind since then, I don't know. But I read Iacocca in college and of course as a P-51 fan you don't forget such things.

Wade

[Django]

Since most Mustangs are D models, I just usually specify the model when it's not actually a D. Does that make sense? A P-51 is automatically a "D". A P-51B is... you guessed it, a P-51B.

[Chad Veich]

Well, since the P-51 was named after the horse I guess in a roundabout way the car was too so Iacocca's butt was covered.

[visaliaaviation]

"Since most Mustangs are D's..."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what do you call a P-51? You know, the one that's not a B/C or D, but became the Apache??

Alot of people are surprised to discover that the P-51A was not the first variant, but rather the 4th distinct type.

As has been mentioned earlier, history is in the details. One of the reasons I'm concerned about misnomers like "'stang" and "razorback" is the very fact that that they tend to obscure historical truth, as does a very human desire to call things whatever we decide and then expect others to understand our misguuided, but personal perception.

Please know this is not a personal attack, but rather an attempt to convey, what I feel , is the importance of trying to be accurate in our statements. An off hand remark appearing here , so easiliy can be misconstrued, simply because it has assumed the power of print. Yes, even if it is here on an internent forum.

[rwdfresno]

I realize any interest is better than no interest, and there will always be aberations of the truth. However, the longer I remain interested and involved from a historical perspective, the more I've come to realize that history is in the details. The rest is myth and legend.

That is all fine and dandy if you are writing a history book but in normal conversation who cares what you call it?

As far as the term razorback being a wartime term: I know several P-47 pilots and they all call the early Thunderbolts razorbacks so frankly I prefer to call it what they call it as opposed to calling it something else since I consider people who blew up trains with them to be the only authority I need.

[Django]

"Since most Mustangs are D's..."

I was referring to present day. Sorry for the confusion.

[george]

Visaliaaviation - Respectfully, I have to assume in your last posting you were just having fun with this subject, as you referred to the A-36 Invader as an Apache. If you were really serious, though, I guess you feel the terms Fort, Lanc, Stang, Lib, T-bolt, Jug, Razorback, Butcher-Bird, bubble-canopy, and on and on, are not appropriate.

I think Airdales said it best, to just call them what your preference is, they are all beautiful. And I'll add that we all know what type of plane someone is referring to when they say Lib, Stang, etc. Lets just enjoy and appreciate these wonderful old warbirds.

[mustangdriver]

You guys might hate me for it, but I think she looked better in the Shangri La scheme.

[k5083]

I realize any interest is better than no interest, and there will always be aberations of the truth. However, the longer I remain interested and involved from a historical perspective, the more I've come to realize that history is in the details. The rest is myth and legend.

History is not in the details.

Trivia is in the details.

History is more concerned with the big picture. A historian wouldn't care whether the P-51A was the fourth version of the type or whether it was called the Mustang, Invader or Apache.

We all enjoy aviation trivia and that is what we are talking about here. Let's not get worked up about history being at stake.

August

[rwdfresno]

I want to scold you all for putting me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with August .

[airnutz]

A historian wouldn't care whether the P-51A was the fourth version of the type or whether it was called the Mustang, Invader or Apache.

August

A North American Aviation historian might disagree with you on that point
August. I always considered ACCURATE history was supported by the details.
Trivia, are certain insider or historic points of data which come to light. If they don't
pass the test of fact or substantiation...then they peril at becoming myth or legend.

Edit: substituted truth for data

Last edited by airnutz on Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[k5083]

A North American Aviation historian might disagree with you on that point August.

And I might disagree, notwithstanding whatever title he may have or give himself, that a person who confined his interest and investigations to a single corporation is actually a historian.

I always considered ACCURATE history was supported by the details.
Trivia, are certain insider or historic points of truth which come to light. If they don't
pass the test of fact or substantiation...then they peril at becoming myth or legend.

I agree with much of what you say. I won't get into facile definitions of what history, myth and legend are, but they do all take the same subject matter (the past) and level of interest (big-picture, important stuff). They differ mainly in their method and, to some extent, purpose. History competes with myth and legend at interpreting the past, in the same way that science competes with religion and pseudoscience at explaining natural phenomena. One distinguishing feature of the historical method is that it is grounded in primary evidence and, as you say, built up from details. But that does not mean that an obsession with details equates with doing history. The details have to matter to an important topic under investigation.

For example, a historian might write about the combined strategic bombing campaign. In the course of that history he would likely make the point that the Americans initially took unsustainable losses during daylight bombing and were limited in their choice of targets by the lack of an escort fighter that could get to Berlin and back and still be a useful fighting machine, but that at a certain point, such a fighter was developed which alleviated those problems. He might note in passing that this fighter was designated the P-51, although already this would verge on gratuitous "color". Those two sentences capture the entire relevance of the P-51, as a distinct design, to the campaign -- indeed, maybe to the entirety of WWII, since there was no other aspect of the conflict in which the P-51 made any distinctive contribution other than as one of the USAAF's standard-issue fighter planes -- that is to say, no reason for a historian to call it out specifically as opposed to just saying "U.S. army fighters." No need, anyway, to talk about the gestation of the aircraft or the correct word for "razorback".

I can't completely rule out the possibility that the technical details of the various Mustang versions have some relevance to any important historical topic, but I've yet to have such relevance pointed out to me. Even if I accepted the corporate history of NAA as such a topic, their relevance as anything but trivia is not clear. As to discussions of nomenclature (Mustang, Apache, Invader; razorback, highback,turtleback) I'm fairly confident in treating that as trivia.

August

[visaliaaviation]

All interesting and quite vocal. I had no idea that this would turn into such a debate. I think its good, because it makes us individually scrutinize our perceptions, not to mention pre-conceptions, and re- think them, if not re-cement why we hold them.

As one with a long interest in things aviation, Mustangs in particular, I will admit to going thru a long process of ever changing values. At this point I find it very important that a distinction be made between a P-51 "Apache" and an A-36 "Invader" , and even a P-51D. All of them have been known (mostly in WWII) as Mustangs , yet each is a distinctly different aircraft. Is making such differential a trivial matter? I think so, especially on a forum ostensibly dedicated to a certain yet quite specific aircraft category.

To quote an old bluesman, "You can call it your Mamma, if you want to..." The point of the quote, as I see it, is the truth of the detail might not fit your perception and there may be some very revealing history to consider.

[Connery]

Hey Charlie, did you send your mark ups off to Jerry??? I can't wait to get started building that Allison 'stang.