An A-36A by Any Other Name

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 North American Aviation (NAA) 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 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. They accomplished this by “fooling around” with an NA-83 (or was it an NA-73?), adding dive brakes
and replacing the .50 Cal BMG and two .30 Cal BMGs in each wing, first with a 20 mm cannon in each wing,
then two 20 mm cannons in each wing (they were test-flown and the aircraft and weapons apparently performed
well), then finally settling on armament consisting of a pair of .50 Cal BMGs in each wing, while keeping the
two .50 Cal BMGs in the nose. They 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, 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.

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,” you'll also find the excellent Boeing AH-64 “Apache”
attack helicopter along with A-36As. BUT, most that are aviation related will say that the Apache is the name
given to NAA's A-36A dive bomber aircraft, and that it's a derivative of the P-51A Mustang.

…or IS it?

The answer to my original question about the “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
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
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 wonderfully-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.”
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, the 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 (but none as sharp as the one that Brett
had emailed to me), and the information on the sign had been used 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???

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 the Museum’s Curator.

…and so I begin, but first, a shortened version of 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 their
increasing need for fighter aircraft. They'd had experience with P-40s and wanted more, but Curtiss could NOT
supply extras for them, when 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 NAAs 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-40s and P-
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
39s 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.

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 the US military did not give it a name because they did not order the aircraft.
Furthermore, it was not anything they'd 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. 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,…”. 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 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 70 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. NAA, once again, with NO official name for this beautiful little fighter, simply called it
"NA-73X" - the "X" suffix meant prototype. It did have an NAA Construction Number, 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.

By the way, as briefly mentioned above, the USAAC had to "approve" sale of any aircraft to a foreign country,
making sure that it wouldn't be detrimental to the US - which only makes sense, then, AND today.
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
The Brits liked the design, and received a few production "samples." NA-73X, it’s noteworthy to repeat, still
had no name at that time. These production models were called by their NAA model name, "NA-73." The
RAF gave it the name "Mustang.” It was the first model they had operational, 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” this song:

“SADDLE YOUR BLUES TO A WILD MUSTANG”

George Whiting / Buddy Bernier / Billy Haid 1936

as recorded by Sid Buckman w Roy Fox & his Orchestra

also recorded by-

 Eddie Stone w Isham Jones & his Orchestra '36
 Red McKenzie's Mound City Blues Blowers '36
 Bob Lawrence & The King's Men w Paul Whiteman & his Orchestra '36
 Bob Mallin
 The Rocky Mountaineers
 Jay Wilbur and His Band

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 resides
in the EAA Museum in Oshkosh, and in 2002, I saw it. I was going to go back and take a photo 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 - that photo was never taken, much to my chagrin, when I remembered it as we were leaving Oshkosh
on the last day! 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, but is otherwise VERY close to SN 1039 as
rebuilt by Pacific Fighters). “Polar Bear” was part P-51A, part P-51D and who knows what other parts 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 a .303 BMG on either side of the .50. 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 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 result was the NA-91, which the RAF called "Mustang Mk Ia." They armament
was changed to "only" four 20 mm Hispano cannons, two in each wing. The USAAC/USAAF "repossessed"
about 50 of them (the attacks on Pearl Harbor had happened by this time) and, now that they 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 they stuck with it. 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!

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. A number of these cannon-armed P-51s were later equipped with cameras and became
photo-recon aircraft. And yes, since unlike photo-recon P-38 Lightnings, 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
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
cannons! How's that!

The official name to 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" (FYI, the "F-4 and F-5" were the photo-recon versions of the
P-38 Lightning). 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. You need a score card to keep up with NA-91!

The A-36A (only model ever produced was the "A" – 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 and that 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. It’s
worth noting that some A-36s also operated in China-Burma Theater. The A-36s in the Mediterranean had a
great record as far as wreaking havoc on the Nazis/Italians . Aside from the dive-bombing the enemy, the A-36s
also shot down Axis aircraft (I believe that there was an A-36 pilot who 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 I, and two 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 were built
before it had an official AAF name), but the most noticeable one was the presence of hydraulically actuated dive
brakes in each wing – one 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 (for the score-keepers out there, the P-51A was given NA-99 as its
model designation by NAA) 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. 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 2/3 – 3/4 the way towards the wingtips. For informational purposes, while all of the other
Mustangs had their pitot tube/mast assemblies located in the same spot 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 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), about ¾ 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 deployed or retracted, with no
in-between “stops”).

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 combat. Sidebar: just like today's USAAF 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, back in history to WWII years... The A-36 pilots went so far
as to petition the AAF to rename their A-36 "Invader," but naturally, it was shot down (no pun intended!)
because, as a great number of you already know, that "Invader" name had already been given to the Douglas A-
26, a great aircraft in its own right.

So, at this point in my doctoral dissertation ( ) the name "Apache" had been a name for a US aircraft
(at this point in history, because, of course, we've had the AH-64 "Apache" attack helicopter in the US inventory
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
for a couple decades or so) only for the AAF’s early "P-51 family" of aircraft, starting with the NA-91
“constellation” of aircraft in 1941, until mid-1942, BEFORE the A-36 was operational. I believe that the need
for such an aircraft was called for by the AAF just before the "Apache" name was changed OFFICIALLY to
"Mustang." 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 other part of the story is that so much history (this is not going to surprise you) is written by people who
know little or nothing, or who don't really care, in so many areas of history.

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 - armament consisted 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 and the first couple 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 have the same
overall 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.

Now, you might say, does anyone who REALLY knows stuff agree with ME???

This is not an all-inclusive list of authors and historians that call the A-36A “Mustang,” but here goes:

1. Robert Gruenhagen - formerly the historian for NAA. He was still alive, near 90, last time I checked, and
was in poor health. He may no longer be alive as I write this. His book is considered the "bible" on all things
related the history (the design team is covered, as well as the RAF's people and their requirements and requests,
etc) to all versions of the Mustang starting with NA-73X and up to the last model of the P/F-82 "Twin
Mustang." Mustang: The Story of the P-51 fighter (Revised Edition)

Mustang: The story of

the P-51 fighter
(Revised Edition)
Mustang: The story of the P-
51 fighter (Revised Edition)
[Hardcover] An excellent
history of the Finest Fighter ...

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. His book is great.

https://www.amazon.com/Mustang-Designer-Edgar-Schmued-P-51-ebook/dp/B00OEW5S6G/ref=sr_1_7?
s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1506171257&sr=1-7&keywords=ray+wagner

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
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
So...go here for Mustang-related stuff: North American P-51 Mustang

North American P-51

Mustang

Joe Baugher's Home

Page

1. 4. I've consulted with Boeing’s Corporate Historian, Michael Lombardi, in the past on Mustang
questions. 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. For those who may NOT know it, NAA merged with Rockwell in
1967, and formed North American Rockwell (NAR). In the late 1980s, the aviation and space products
division of NAR, became part of Boeing Aircraft, so now Boeing has what was left of the archival
materials from the original NAA products. 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. Does anyone remember the little 1944 paperback book entitled, "AAF: An Official Guide to the Army
Air Forces"? 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 County, TX, “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). 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
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
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 something else that's an official US document on the naming of US military aircraft. 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).

7. You're probably asleep by now or you've quit reading, but not only official US documents have the A-
36A as a "Mustang," but so does North American Aviation. They had a newsletter publication called
"Skywriter." I have photo of a cover of one of the WWII issues and there, it big print, NAA has it called "A-36
Mustang" in the captioning about a 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 called "A-36 Mustang" underneath a photo
of one.

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 about a dozen other
Mustang books by other authors. Here's an Amazon link to it (and, NO, I have no connection to Amazon, other
than buying a LOT from them several times a month, for many years):

https://www.amazon.com/P-51-Mustang-Seventy-Five-Americas-Warbird/dp/0760348596/ref=sr_1_1?
s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1506180300&sr=1-1&keywords=mustang+graff

Graff makes the mistake of calling it "Apache" too.

Oh, one more final 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”) to not help out the Axis. There are 2 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. I have seen two different
ones and there most likely are others from the period.

OH, and Chris Fahey, a Delta 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 P-51D and P-51A , and
more of their historic warbirds. He's got a standing bet: 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 (well,
regarding “bets” to do with the name for the A-36!).
 An A-36A by Any Other Name
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.” I gently – GENTLY – make this a “teaching moment” and inform folks of the correct
name. It's what I do! This article is a "long version" of what I've been spouting on Facebook for a couple years.
Currently, there's one on Facebook that after an initial post where one of the P-51 Mustang Group members
posted a photo of an A-36 advertisement and said that he KNEW that everyone in this particular FB group knew
that "Apache" was not an official name, the fun ensued. A lot of the 25-30 Comments/Replies were "to" or
"from" me, with some of the "to" people telling me I was full of crap. Chris Fahey 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 (I told him I'd gladly pay for the postage) for my collection of stuff for my kids and grandkids to throw
away one day! He replied that since the signage and everything in the Museum was USAF/US Government
property, it would have to be destroyed when it was replace. Well...I tried. I guess photos of the old, incorrect
sign from other folks will have to suffice.

I had originally emailed the Curator of the NMUSAF in September, 2017 and had provided the
documentation to him. I presented a concise (for me anyway) listing of the references mentioned
earlier in the above article. They must have been “convincing.” The Curator (who has been
gracious and accommodating from Day One with me, by the way) 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. The “Memphis Belle” Anniversary (in May, 2018, in honor of her 75 th
anniversary of completing her 25th combat mission), making a special display for her, and
rearranging the aircraft in their WWII section, etc had delayed the actual changing of the signs until
some time in September, 2018. “Better late than never,” is the old saying!

“…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!

Attachments of some of my documentation to both Boeing and the NMUSAF

(copies of pages from books by Gruenhagen, Wagner, et al are NOT included):
 An A-36A by Any Other Name

“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”
An A-36A by Any Other Name

April, 1943 US Navy Data Sheet on the Mustang

 An A-36A by Any Other Name

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

 An A-36A by Any Other Name

Page from “Skywriter” – date uncertain…perhaps same as above issue (8/1943)

 An A-36A by Any Other Name

Page from 3-page US Document for naming US Military Aircraft