when is world water day celebrated and why

World Water Day is an annual observance day on 22 March to highlight the importance of freshwater.[1] It is also used to advocate for the sustainable management of freshwater resources.[1] World Water Day is celebrated around the world with a variety of events. These can be educational, theatrical, musical or lobbying in nature. The day can also include campaigns to raise money for water projects. The first World Water Day, designated by the United Nations, was commemorated in 1993.[2]

World Water Day

UN-Water selects a theme for each year.[2] The theme for 2018 is "Nature for Water" to encourage people to "look for the answer in nature".[3] For example, nature-based solutions could be implemented to reduce floods, droughts and water pollution and to protect ecosystems.

Previous themes for the years 2015 to 2017 were "Water and Sustainable Development", "Water and Jobs'" and "Why waste water?" (which included aspects of wastewater and reuse). The focus on universal access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) is in line with the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 6.

The UN World Water Development Report is released each year around World Water Day.

World Water Day is an international observance day. The intention is to inspire people around the world to learn more about water-related issues and to take action to make a difference.[1]

The global water crisis is one of the issues that calls for action.[1] The challenges include water scarcity, water pollution, inadequate water supply and the lack of sanitation for billions of people in less developed countries. The day brings to light the inequality of access to WASH services and the need to assure the human right to water and sanitation.

UN-Water coordinates activities with UN member organisations who share an interest in that year's theme. In 2016 the "Water and Jobs" theme led to a collaboration with the International Labour Organization.[4] UN-Water mobilizes organizations of all kinds to action, whether globally or locally.

The World Water Day website announces events, activities and volunteer opportunities. In 2018, stories are about "Nature and water from around the world" in keeping with the theme of "Nature for water".[5]

Organizations active in the WASH sector use the day to raise public awareness, get media attention for water issues and inspire action.[6] Activities have included releasing publications and films, as well as organizing round tables, seminars and expositions.[1] Non-governmental organizations such as UNICEF, WaterAid and Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP).

End Water Poverty, a global civil society coalition with 250 partner organizations, sponsors Water Action Month each year and offers an event-planning guidebook.[7]

The UN World Water Development Report (WWDR) is released each year on World Water Day. Information related to the annual theme gives decision-makers tools to implement sustainable use of water resources.[8]

More and more initiatives in schools and universities are educating people about the importance of conserving and managing water resources.[9][10][11] For example, Michigan State University held a contest for "best World Water Day poster" in 2017. Primary school children in the Philippines participated in a "My School Toilet" contest in 2010.[12]

In 2016, the World Water Day campaign and related publications reached millions of people through social media, dedicated websites and other channels: The UN-Water annual report states that social media engagement (hashtag #WorldWaterDay) had a maximum potential reach of 1.6 billion people worldwide in 2016.[13]:21 Over 500 events in 1000 countries were registered on the World Water Day website that year.[13]:21

This day was first formally proposed in Agenda 21 of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. In December 1992, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/47/193 by which 22 March of each year was declared World Day for Water.[1]

In 1993, the first World Water Day was observed.[2]

The theme in 2018 explores how nature can be used to overcome the water challenges of the 21st century. This could be in the form of nature-based solutions to reduce floods, droughts and water pollution and protect ecosystems. Restoring wetlands, implementing constructed wetlands, green roofs, green infrastructure, planting new forests, reconnecting rivers to floodplains, are some examples. Each of these use natural processes to rebalance the water cycle and improve human health and livelihoods.[2][14]

In 2017, the theme was "Why Waste Water?" which is about reducing and reusing wastewater.[15] The theme is a play on words as it relates to both: the aspect of wasting water and issues around wastewater, namely treatment and reuse. Wastewater is a valuable resource to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goal Number 6. One aspect of Target 6.3 is to halve the proportion of untreated wastewater and also to increase the recycling and safe reuse of water across the globe. After appropriate treatment, wastewater can be used for a variety of purposes. Industry, for example, can reuse water in cooling towers and agriculture can reuse water for irrigation.[16]

An example activity for 2017 was the Wikipedia edit-a-thon organized by members of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance on 19â€“21 March 2017. The purpose of the activity was to improve water and sanitation related content on Wikipedia just ahead of World Water Day. The goal was to improve the quantity and quality of sanitation information available on Wikipedia for the use of teachers, journalists and the general public.[17]

The 2016 theme of "Better water, better jobs" highlighted the correlation between water and job creation, both directly and indirectly by water sources around the globe.[18] As water scarcity becomes more of a reality, industries heavily dependent on water like textiles and agriculture are at risk of increased costs, which threatens salaries and jobs. Increased costs may then be passed on to consumers.

The theme also highlights how an abundance of quality water can change people's jobs and lives for the better. The 2016 celebration created recognition for those working to improve water quality and availability, and the need for many to transition to other and better jobs.[18] Three out of four of the jobs worldwide are water-dependent. Water shortages and lack of access may limit economic growth in the years to come, according to the 2016 United Nations World Water Development Report.[19]

With the theme ‘Water and Sustainable Development’, the year 2015 provided an important opportunity to consolidate and build upon the previous World Water Days to highlight water's role in the sustainable development agenda.[20] The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were to have been achieved by 2015, so the year lent itself to discussions of the post-MDG period and aspirations for water and sustainable development. With the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), world Water Day gave specific emphasis to SDG 6, which calls for water and sanitation for all, by encouraging discussion of how SDG 6 could be achieved by 2030.[2]

The 2014 theme of Water and Energy emphasized the close linkages and interdependence of water and energy and brought attention to the water-energy nexus.[21] About 8% of the energy generated globally is used for pumping, treating and transporting water to various consumers. Furthermore, generating and transmitting energy requires the use of water resources, particularly for hydroelectric, nuclear, and thermal energy sources.

The aim of that year's theme was to facilitate the development of policies and crosscutting frameworks that would bridge ministries and sectors. It was meant to lead the way to energy security and sustainable water use in a green economy.[21]

Journalists from eleven countries in Asia met in Tokoyo from 20â€“21 March 2014 to discuss the importance of water. The event included discussion panels on topics such as privatisation of services, integration between water and energy and modernisation of water services. The journalists also developed four joint stories and 20 individual story ideas for a network of Asian journalists writing on water (and energy) in social media.[22]

In the years prior to 2014, the annual themes were as follows:[23]


when was way down by elvis presley released

"Way Down" is a song recorded by Elvis Presley. Recorded in October 1976, it was his last single released before his death on August 16, 1977. The song was written by Layng Martine, Jr. and was later covered by Status Quo and Cliffhanger. Presley recorded the song at his home studio in Graceland on 29 October 1976.

Way Down

Released as a single (with "Pledging My Love" on the B-side) on June 6, 1977, it was his single at the time of his death. It initially peaked at No. 31 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart dated August 6, 1977 and had fallen to No. 53 on the chart for the week ending August 27, 1977. Thereafter, it reversed direction and reached an even higher peak at No. 18 on 24 September â€“ 1 October 1977. "Way Down" reached No. 1 on the American Country chart the week he died.[1] Overseas, the song hit the number one in the UK Singles Chart week ending 3 September for five weeks, [2] just over seven years after his previous 16th UK number one single, "The Wonder of You", in August 1970. His previous single, "Moody Blue", had been a number one hit on the US Country Charts earlier in 1977. "Way Down" was reissued in April 2005 and reached No. 2 on the UK Singles Chart.[3]

The recording also featured J.D. Sumner singing the words "way on down" at the end of each chorus down to the note low C (C2). At the end of the song, this phrase is octaved, reaching a double low C (C1, three octaves below middle C).[4] This note was first accomplished by Sumner in a 1966 recording of the hymn "Blessed Assurance."


who plays paige mccullers on pretty little liars

Lindsey Shaw (born May 10,[1] 1989[2]) is an American actress. She is known for playing Jennifer "Moze" Mosely on the Nickelodeon series, Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide. She also co-starred in the 2007 CW sitcom Aliens in America, and was the lead on ABC Family's 2009 comedy series 10 Things I Hate About You. From 2011â€“2017 she played the recurring role of Paige McCullers on the ABC Family teen drama series Pretty Little Liars.

Lindsey Shaw

Shaw portrayed Jennifer Ann "Moze" Mosely on the Nickelodeon series Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, which debuted in 2004 and ended in 2007 after three seasons. She dated her co-star Devon Werkheiser briefly.[3][4][5][6] After the show ended, the sitcom Aliens in America debuted on The CW, where Shaw played the character Claire.[7][8] Aliens in America was cancelled after one season, lasting only eighteen episodes.[9]

Shaw played the lead role of Kat Stratford in 10 Things I Hate About You. The show lasted one season of twenty episodes.[10][11] She briefly appeared in Nickelback's "Rockstar" music video.[12]

Shaw was the 2010 Azalea Queen at the Azalea Festival in Wilmington, North Carolina.[13] She starred as Trip alongside Andy Serkis in Ninja Theory's videogame Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, released in October 2010.[14]

In 2011, she landed the recurring role of Paige McCullers, Emily's girlfriend on Pretty Little Liars.[15] Also in 2011, Shaw appeared as Lisa in the ABC Family original film Teen Spirit. The following year, Shaw starred in the film 16-Love as Ally Mash, a hard-working tennis player who learns to loosen up with the help of a carefree male tennis player. She appeared as June in five episodes of the third and final season of the ABC sitcom Suburgatory.

Shaw joined the cast of Faking It in 2015 as Michael J. Willett's character Shane Harvey's sister, Sasha Harvey, who served as a love interest for Gregg Sulkin's character Liam Booker.


the european union emissions trading system works on what principle

Under the 'cap and trade' principle, a maximum (cap) is set on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by all participating installations. "Allowances" for emissions are then auctioned off or allocated for free, and can subsequently be traded. Installations must monitor and report their CO2 emissions, ensuring they hand in enough allowances to the authorities to cover their emissions. If emission exceeds what is permitted by its allowances, an installation must purchase allowances from others. Conversely, if an installation has performed well at reducing its emissions, it can sell its leftover credits. This allows the system to find the most cost-effective ways of reducing emissions without significant government intervention.[citation needed]

European Union Emission Trading Scheme

The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), also known as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, was the first large greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world, and remains the biggest.[1] It was launched in 2005 to fight Global warming and is a major pillar of EU climate policy.[2] As of 2013, the EU ETS covers more than 11,000 factories, power stations, and other installations with a net heat excess of 20 MW in 31 countries—all 28 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.[3] In 2008, the installations regulated by the EU ETS were collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and 40% of its total greenhouse gas emissions.[4][5] By 2020 the EU hopes to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared with 1990 and to increase energy efficiency by 20%.[6]

The scheme has been divided into a number of "trading periods". The first ETS trading period lasted three years, from January 2005 to December 2007. The second trading period ran from January 2008 until December 2012, coinciding with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The third trading period began in January 2013 and will span until December 2020. Compared to 2005, when the EU ETS was first implemented, the proposed caps for 2020 represents a 21% reduction of greenhouse gases. This target has been reached six years early as emissions in the ETS fell to 1812 mln tonnes in 2014.[7]

The EU ETS has seen a number of significant changes, with the first trading period described as a 'learning by doing' phase.[8] Phase III sees a turn to auctioning a more permits rather than allocating freely (in 2013, over 40% of the allowances were auctioned[9]); harmonisation of rules for the remaining allocations; and the inclusion of other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons.[5] In 2012, the EU ETS was also extended to the airline industry, though this only applies within the EEA.[10][11][12] The price of EU ETS carbon credits has been lower than intended, with a large surplus of allowances, in part because of the impact of the recent economic crisis on demand.[13] In 2012, the Commission said it would delay the auctioning of some allowances.[13] Currently legislation is under way which would introduce a Market Stability Reserve to the EU ETS that adjusts the annual supply of CO2 permits based on the CO2 permits in circulation.[14]

Overall, since its conception, the EU ETS has been characterized by relatively high levels of policy uncertainty.[15] This uncertainty has been both technical, in terms of its detailed rules and procedures, and political, in terms of its public, industry, and governmental support. As a result, the scheme has resulted in a rather informal and tepid response by regulated organizations.

The first phase of EU ETS was created to operate apart from international climate change treaties such as the pre-existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) or the Kyoto Protocol that was subsequently (1997) established under it. When the Kyoto Protocol came into force on 16 February 2005, Phase I of the EU ETS had already become operational. The EU later agreed to incorporate Kyoto flexible mechanism certificates as compliance tools within the EU ETS. The "Linking Directive" allows operators to use a certain amount of Kyoto certificates from flexible mechanism projects in order to cover their emissions.

The Kyoto flexible mechanisms are:

IET is relevant as the reductions achieved through CDM projects are a compliance tool for EU ETS operators. These Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) can be obtained by implementing emission reduction projects in developing countries, outside the EU, that have ratified (or acceded to) the Kyoto Protocol. The implementation of Clean Development Projects is largely specified by the Marrakech Accords, a follow-on set of agreements by the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The legislators of the EU ETS drew up the scheme independently but called on the experiences gained during the running of the voluntary UK Emissions Trading Scheme in the previous years,[16] and collaborated with other parties to ensure its units and mechanisms were compatible with the design agreed through the UNFCCC.

Under the EU ETS, the governments of the EU Member States agree on national emission caps which have to be approved by the EU commission. Those countries then allocate allowances to their industrial operators, and track and validate the actual emissions in accordance with the relevant assigned amount. They require the allowances to be retired after the end of each year.

The operators within the ETS may reassign or trade their allowances by several means:

Like any other financial instrument, trading consists of matching buyers and sellers between members of the exchange and then settling by depositing a valid allowance in exchange for the agreed financial consideration. Much like a stock market, companies and private individuals can trade through brokers who are listed on the exchange, and need not be regulated operators.

When each change of ownership of an allowance is proposed, the national registry and the European Commission are informed in order for them to validate the transaction. During Phase II of the EU ETS, the UNFCCC also validates the allowance and any change that alters the distribution within each national allocation plan.

Like the Kyoto trading scheme, EU ETS allows a regulated operator to use carbon credits in the form of Emission Reduction Units (ERU) to comply with its obligations. A Kyoto Certified Emission Reduction unit (CER), produced by a carbon project that has been certified by the UNFCCC's Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board, or Emission Reduction Unit (ERU) certified by the Joint Implementation project's host country or by the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee, are accepted by the EU as equivalent.

Thus one EU Allowance Unit of one tonne of CO2, or "EUA", was designed to be identical ("fungible") with the equivalent "Assigned Amount Unit" (AAU) of CO2 defined under Kyoto. Hence, because of the EU's decision to accept Kyoto-CERs as equivalent to EU-EUA's, it is possible to trade EUA's and UNFCCC-validated CERs on a one-to-one basis within the same system. (However, the EU was not able to link trades from all its countries until 2008-9 because of its technical problems connecting to the UN systems.[17])

During Phase II of the EU ETS, the operators within each Member State must surrender their allowances for inspection by the EU before they can be "retired" by the UNFCCC.

The total number of permits issued (either auctioned or allocated) determines the supply for the allowances. The actual price is determined by the market. Too many allowances compared to demand will result in a low carbon price, and reduced emission abatement efforts.[18] Too few allowances will result in too high a carbon price.[19]

For each EU ETS Phase, the total quantity to be allocated by each Member State is defined in the National Allocation Plan (equivalent to its UNFCCC-defined carbon account.) The European Commission has oversight of the NAP process and decides if the NAP fulfills the twelve criteria set out in the AnnexÂ III of the Emission Trading Directive (EU Directive 2003/87/EC). The first and foremost criterion is that the proposed total quantity is in line with a Member State's Kyoto target.

Of course, the Member State's plan can, and should, also take account of emission levels in other sectors not covered by the EU ETS, and address these within its own domestic policies. For instance, transport is responsible for 21% of EU greenhouse gas emissions, households, and small businesses for 17% and agriculture for 10%.[20]

During PhaseÂ I, most allowances in all countries were given freely (known as grandfathering). This approach has been criticized[21] as giving rise to windfall profits, being less efficient than auctioning, and providing too little incentive for innovative new competition to provide clean, renewable energy.[22][23] On the other hand, allocation rather than auctioning may be justified for a few sectors that face international competition like the aluminium and steel industries.[24][25]

To address these problems,[citation needed] the European Commission proposed various changes in a January 2008 package, including the abolishment of NAPs from 2013 and auctioning a far greater share (ca. 60% in 2013, growing afterward) of emission permits.

From the start of Phase III (January 2013) there will be a centralised allocation of permits, not National Allocation Plans, with a greater share of auctioning of permits.[26]

Allocation can act as a means of addressing concerns over loss of competitiveness, and possible "leakage" (carbon leakage) of emissions outside the EU. Leakage is the effect of emissions increasing in countries or sectors that have weaker regulation of emissions than the regulation in another country or sector.[27] Such concerns affect the following sectors: cement, steel, aluminium, pulp and paper, basic inorganic chemicals and fertilisers/ammonia.[25] Leakage from these sectors was thought to be under 1% of total EU emissions. Correcting for leakage by allocating permits acts as a temporary subsidy for affected industries, but does not fix the underlying problem. Border adjustments would be the economically efficient choice, where imports are taxed according to their carbon content.[18][24] One problem with border adjustments is that they might be used as a disguise for trade protectionism.[28] Some adjustments may also not prevent emissions leakage.

Within a certain trading period, banking and borrowing is allowed. For example, a 2006 EUA can be used in 2007 (banking) or in 2005 (borrowing). Interperiod borrowing is not allowed. Member states had the discretion to decide whether banking EUAs from Phase I to Phase II was allowed.[29]

In the first phase (2005–2007), the EU ETS included some 12,000 installations, representing approximately 40% of EU CO2 emissions, covering energy activities (combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 20 MW, mineral oil refineries, coke ovens), production and processing of ferrous metals, mineral industry (cement clinker, glass and ceramic bricks) and pulp, paper and board activities.[30]

The ETS, in which all 15 Member States that were then members of the European Union participated, nominally commenced operation on 1 January 2005, although national registries were unable to settle transactions for the first few months. However, the prior existence of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme meant that market participants were already in place and ready. In its first year, 362 million tonnes of CO2 were traded on the market for a sum of €7.2 billion, and a large number of futures and options.[31]

The price of allowances increased more or less steadily to a peak level in April 2006 of about €30 per tonne CO2.[32] In late April 2006, a number of EU countries (the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Belgium, France, and Spain) announced that their verified (or actual) emissions were less than the number of allowances allocated to installations. The spot price for EU allowances dropped 54% from €29.20 to €13.35 in the last week of April 2006. In May 2006, the European Commission confirmed that verified CO2 emissions were about 80 million tonnes or 4% lower than the number of allowances distributed to installations for 2005 emissions.[33] In May 2006, prices fell to under €10/tonne. Lack of scarcity under the first phase of the system continued through 2006 resulting in a trading price of €1.2 per tonne in March 2007, declining to €0.10 in September 2007. In 2007, carbon prices for the trial phase dropped to near zero for most of the year. Meanwhile, prices for Phase II remained significantly higher throughout, reflecting the fact that allowances for the trial phase were set to expire by 31 December 2007.[34]

Verified emissions show a net increase over the first phase of the scheme. For the countries for which data was available, emissions increased by 1.9% between 2005 and 2007 (at the time all 27 member states minus Romania, Bulgaria, and Malta).

Consequently, observers have accused national governments of abusing the system under industry pressure, and have urged for far stricter caps in the second phase (2008â€“2012).[36]

The second phase (2008â€“12) expanded the scope of the scheme significantly. In 2007, three non-EU members, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein joined the scheme.[37] The EU's "Linking Directive" introduced the CDM and JI credits. Although this was a theoretical possibility in phase I, the over-allocation of permits combined with the inability to bank them for use in the second phase meant it was not taken up.[38]

On 27 April 2012, the European Commission announced the full activation of the EU Emissions Trading System single registry. The full activation process will include the migration of over 30,000 EU ETS accounts from national registries. The EC has further stated that the single registry to be activated in June will not contain all the required functionalities for phase III of the EU ETS.[39]

Aviation emissions were to be included from 2012.[40] The inclusion of aviation was considered important by the EU.[41] The inclusion of aviation was estimated to increase in demand for allowances by about 10â€“12 million tonnes of CO2 per year in phase two. According to DEFRA, an increased use of JI credits from projects in Russia and Ukraine, would offset any increase in prices so there would be no discernible impact on average annual CO2 prices.[42]

The airline industry and other countries including China, India, Russia, and the United States reacted adversely to the inclusion of the aviation sector.[43] The United States and other countries argued that the EU did not have jurisdiction to regulate flights when they were not in European skies; China and the United States threatened to ban their national carriers from complying with the scheme. On 27 November 2012 the United States enacted the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011 which prohibits U.S. carriers from participating in the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.[44][45] China threatened to withhold $60 billion in outstanding orders from Airbus, which in turn led to France pressuring the EU to freeze the scheme.[46]

The EU insisted that the regulation should be applied equally to all carriers, and that it did not contravene international regulations. In the absence of a global agreement on airline emissions, the EU argued that it was forced to go ahead with its own scheme. But only flights within the EEA are covered; international flights are not.[10]

Ultimately, the Commission intended that the third trading period should cover all greenhouse gases and all sectors, including aviation, maritime transport, and forestry.[47] For the transport sector, the large number of individual users adds complexities, but might be implemented either as a cap-and-trade system for fuel suppliers or a baseline-and-credit system for car manufacturers.[48]

The National Allocation Plans for Phase II, the first of which were announced on 29 November 2006, provided for an average reduction of nearly 7% below the 2005 emission levels.[49] However, the use of offsets such as Emission Reduction Units from JI and Certified Emission Reductions from CDM projects was allowed, with the result that the EU would be able to meet the Phase II cap by importing units instead of reducing emissions (CCC, 2008, pp. 145, 149).[50]

According to verified EU data from 2008, the ETS resulted in an emissions reduction of 3%, or 50 million tons. At least 80 million tons of "carbon offsets" were bought for compliance with the scheme.[51]

In late 2006, European Commission started infringement proceedings against Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy and Spain, for failure to submit their proposed National Allocation Plans on time.[52]

The annual Member State CO2 yearly allowances in million tonnes are shown in the table:

Additional installations and emissions included in the second trading period are not included in this table but are given in the sources.
*† Including installations opted out in 2005.
*†† Verified emissions for 2005 do not include installations opted out in 2005 which will be covered in 2008 and 2012 and are estimated to amount to some 6 Mt.
*††† UK's verified emissions for 2005 do not include installations opted out in 2005 which will be covered in 2008 and 2012 and are estimated to amount to some 30 Mt.
*††††Cyprus and Malta, as new EU accession states, but not Annex I countries, will have their own NAPs and participate in trading during Phase II.

The carbon price[54] within Phase II increased to over €20/tCO2 in the first half of 2008 (CCC, 2008, p. 149). The average price was €22/tCO2 in the second half of 2008, and €13/tCO2 in the first half of 2009. CCC (2009, p. 67) gave two reasons for this fall in prices:[55]

Projections made in 2009 indicate that like Phase I, Phase II would see a surplus in allowances and that 2009 carbon prices were being sustained by the need to 'bank' allowances in order to surrender them in the tougher third phase.[28] In December 2009, carbon prices dropped to a six-month low after the Copenhagen climate summit outcome disappointed traders. Prices for EU allowances for December 2010 delivery dropped 8.7% to 12.40 euros a tonne.[56]

In March 2012, according to the periodical Economist, the EUA permit price under the EU ETS had "tanked" and was too low to provide incentives for firms to reduce emissions. The permit price had been persistently under €10 per tonne compared to nearly €30 per tonne in 2008. The market had been oversupplied with permits.[57] In June 2012, EU allowances for delivery in December 2012 traded at 6.76 euros each on the ICE Futures Europe exchange, a 61 percent decline compared with a year previously.[58]

In July 2012, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon stated that it considered that without intervention to reduce the supply of allowances, the price of allowances would fall to four Euros.[59] The 2012 closing price for an EU allowance with a December 2013 contract ended the year at 6.67 euros a metric tonne.[60] In late January 2013, the EU allowance price fell to a new record low of 2.81 euros after the energy and industry committee of the European parliament opposed a proposal to withhold 900 million future-dated allowances from the market.[61]

For Phase III (2013–2020), the European Commission has proposed a number of changes, including (CCC, 2008, p. 149):[50]

As well as more sectors and gases included in Phase III. Also, millions of allowances set aside in the New Entrants Reserve(NER) to fund the deployment of innovative renewable energy technologies and carbon capture and storage through the NER 300 programme,one of the world's largest funding programmes for innovative low-carbon energy demonstration projects.[62] The programme is conceived as a catalyst for the demonstration of environmentally safe carbon capture and storage (CCS) and innovative renewable energy (RES) technologies on a commercial scale within the European Union.[63]

Ahead of its accession to the EU, Croatia joined the ETS at the start of Phase III on 1 January 2013.[64][65] This took the number of countries in the EU ETS to 31.

On 4 January 2013, European Union allowances for 2013 traded on London's ICE Futures Europe exchange for between 6.22 euros and 6.40 euros.[66]

Phase IV will commence on 1 January 2021 and finish on 31 December 2028. The European Commission plans a full review of the Directive by 2026.

On 22 January 2014, the European Commission proposed two structural reform amendments to the ETS directive (2003/87/EC) of the 2008 Climate Package to be agreed on in the Council Conclusions[67] on 20â€“21 March 2014 by the Heads of EU Member States at the meeting of the European Council:[68]

Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for Climate Change, hoped "to link up the ETS with compatible systems around the world to form the backbone of a global carbon market" with Australia cited as an example.[13] However, as the COP 19 Climate Conference again ended with no binding new international agreement in 2013, Australia has dismantled its ETS system.[71]

Before the European Council summit on 20 March 2014,[72] the European Commission decided to propose a change in the functioning of the carbon market (CO2 permits). The submitted legislation on the Market Stability Reserve system (MSR) would change the amount of annually auctioned CO2 permits based on the amount of CO2 permits in circulation.[73] On 24 October 2014, at the meeting of the European Council, the Heads of Governments of EU Member States provided legal certainty to the proposed Market Stability Reserve (MSR) by sanctioning the political project in the text of the Council Conclusions.[74] This would address imbalances in supply and demand in the European carbon market by adjusting volumes for auction. The reserve would operate on predefined rules with no discretion for the Commission or Member States.

The European Parliament and the European council informally agreed on an adapted version of this proposal, which sets the starting date of the MSR to 2019 (so already in Phase III), puts the 900 million backloaded allowances in the reserve and reduces the reaction time of the MSR to one year. This adapted proposal has already passed the European parliament and is to be approved by the Council of ministers in September 2015.[14]

Emissions in the EU have been reduced at costs that are significantly lower than projected,[28] though transaction costs are related to economies of scale and can be significant for smaller installations.[75] Overall, the estimated cost was a fraction of 1% of GDP. It was suggested that if permits were auctioned, and the revenues used effectively, e.g., to reduce distortionary taxes and fund low-carbon technologies, costs could be eliminated, or even create a positive economic impact.

According to the European Commission, in 2010 greenhouse gas emissions from big emitters covered by the EU ETS had decreased by an average of more than 17,000 tonnes per installation from 2005, a decrease of more than 8% since 2005..[76]

According to UBS Investment Research, the EU ETS cost $287 billion through to 2011 and had an "almost zero impact" on the volume of overall emissions in the European Union and the money could have resulted in more than a 40% reduction in emissions if it had been used in a targeted way, e.g., to upgrade power plants.[77]

Currently, the EU does not allow CO2 credits under ETS to be obtained from sinks (e.g. reducing CO2 by planting trees). However, some governments and industry representatives lobby for their inclusion. The inclusion is currently opposed by NGOs as well as the EU commission itself, arguing that sinks are surrounded by too many scientific uncertainties over their permanence and that they have inferior long-term contribution to climate change compared to reducing emissions from industrial sources.[78]

On 19 January 2011, the EU emissions spot market for pollution permits was closed after computer hackers stole 28 to 30 million euros ($41.12 million) worth of emissions allowances from the national registries of several European countries within a few days time period. The Czech Registry for Emissions Trading was especially hard hit with 7 million euros worth of allowances stolen by hackers from Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Estonia, and Poland. A phishing scam is suspected to have enabled hackers to log into unsuspecting companies' carbon credit accounts and transfer the allowances to themselves, allowing them to then be sold.[79][80]

The European Commission said it would "proceed to determine together with national authorities what minimum security measures need to be put in place before the suspension of a registry can be lifted". Maria Kokkonen, EC spokeswoman for climate issues, said that national registries can be reopened once sufficient security measures have been enacted and member countries submit to the EC a report of their IT security protocol.

The Czech registry said there are still legal and administrative hurdles to be overcome and Jiri Stastny, chairman of OTE AS, the Czech registry operator, said that until there is recourse for victims of such theft, and a system is in place to return allowances to their rightful owners, the Czech registry will remain closed. Registry officials in Germany and Estonia have confirmed they have located 610,000 allowances stolen from the Czech registry, according to Mr. Stastny. Another 500,000 of the stolen Czech allowances are thought to be in accounts in the UK, according to the OTE.[79][80][81]

Cyber fraudsters have also attacked the EU ETS with a "phishing" scam which cost one company €1.5 million.[82] In response to this, the EU has revised the ETS rules to combat crime.[83]

The security breaches raised fears among some traders that they might have unknowingly purchased stolen allowances which they might later have to forfeit. The ETS experienced a previous phishing scam in 2010 which caused 13 European markets to shut down, and criminals cleared 5 million euros in another cross-border fraud in 2008 and 2009.[80]

In 2009 Europol informed that 90% market volume of emissions traded in some countries could be result of tax fraud, more specifically missing trader fraud, costing governments more than 5Â billion euros.[84]

German prosecutors confirmed in March 2011 that value-added-tax fraud in the trade of carbon-dioxide emissions has deprived the German state of about €850 million ($1.19 billion). In December 2011 a German court sentenced six people to jail terms of between three years and seven years and 10 months in a trial involving evasion of taxes on carbon permits. A French court sentenced five people to one to five years in jail, and to pay massive fines for evading tax through carbon trading. In the UK a first trial over VAT fraud in the carbon market is put on track to start in February 2012.

Different people and organizations have responded differently to the EU ETS. Mr Anne Theo Seinen, of the EC's Directorate-General for the Environment, described Phase I as a "learning phase", where, for example, the infrastructure and institutions for the ETS were set up (UK Parliament, 2009).[85] In his view, the carbon price in Phase I had resulted in some abatement. Seinen also commented that the EU ETS needed to be supported by other policies for technology and renewable energy. According to CCC (2008, p.Â 155), technology policy is necessary to overcome market failures associated with delivering low-carbon technologies, e.g., by supporting research and development.[50]

In 2009 the World Wildlife Fund commented that there was no indication that the EU ETS had influenced longer-term investment decisions.[86] In their view, the Phase III scheme brought about significant improvements, but still suffered from major weaknesses. Jones et al. (2008, p.Â 24) suggested that the EU ETS needed further reform to achieve its potential.[87]

A 2016 survey of German companies participating in the EU ETS found that the majority do not expect the EU ETS to be effective in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, not even in the long-run. Under current trading conditions, the EU ETS has generated weak incentives for participating firms to adopt carbon abatement measures.[88][89]

The EU ETS has been criticized[90] for several failings, including: over-allocation, windfall profits, price volatility, and in general for failing to meet its goals.[91] Proponents argue, however, that Phase I of the EU ETS (2005â€“2007) was a "learning phase" designed primarily to establish baselines and create the infrastructure for a carbon market, not to achieve significant reductions.[92][93][94]

In addition, the EU ETS has been criticized as having caused a disruptive spike in energy prices.[95] Defenders of the scheme say that this spike did not correlate with the price of permits, and in fact the largest price increase occurred at a time (Marâ€“Dec 2007) when the cost of permits was negligible.[94]

Researchers Preston Teeter and Jorgen Sandberg have argued that it is largely the uncertainty behind the EU's scheme that has resulted in such a tepid and informal response by regulated organizations. Their research has revealed a similar outcome in Australia, where organizations saw little incentive to innovate and even comply with cap and trade regulations.[15]

There was an oversupply of emissions allowances for EU ETS Phase I. This drove the carbon price down to zero in 2007 (CCC, 2008, p. 140).[50] This oversupply reflects the difficulty in predicting future emissions which is necessary in setting a cap (Carbon Trust, 2009).[25] Given poor data about emissions baselines, inherent uncertainty of emissions forecasts, and the very modest reduction goals of the Phase I cap (1–2% across the EU), it was entirely expected that[according to whom?] the cap might be set too high.[94]

This problem naturally diminishes as the cap tightens. The EU's Phase II cap is more than 6% below 2005 levels, much stronger than Phase I, and readily distinguishable from business-as-usual emissions levels.[according to whom?][94]

Over-allocation does not imply that no abatement occurred. Even with over-allocation, there was theoretically a price on carbon (except for installations that received hundreds of thousands of free allowances). For some installations, the price had a some effect on emitters' behavior. Verified emissions in 2005 were 3â€“4% below projected emissions,[93] and analysis suggests that at least part of that reduction was due to the EU ETS.[96]

In September 2012 Thomson Reuters Point Carbon calculated that the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period had been oversupplied by about 13 billion tonnes (13.1 Gt) of CO2 and that the second commitment period (2013-2020) was likely to start with a surplus of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs).[97]

According to Newbery (2009), the price of EUAs was included in the final price of electricity.[18] The free allocation of permits was cashed in at the EUA price by fossil generators, resulting in a "massive windfall gain". Newbery (2009) wrote that "[there] is no case for repeating such a wilful misuse of the value of a common property resource that should be owned by the country". In the view of 4CMR (2009), all permits in the EU ETS should be auctioned.[98] This would avoid possible windfall profits in all sectors.

The price of emissions permits tripled in the first six months of Phase I, collapsed by half in a one-week period in 2006, and declined to zero over the next twelve months. Such movements and the implied volatility raise questions about the viability of this trading system to provide stable incentives to emitters.[94]

This criticism has face validity. In future phases, measures such as banking of allowances and price floors may be used to mitigate volatility.[99] However, it's important to note that considerable volatility is expected of this type of market, and the volatility seen is quite in line with that of energy commodities generally. Nonetheless, producers and consumers in those markets respond rationally and effectively to price signals.[94]

Newbery (2009) commented that the EU ETS was not delivering the stable carbon price necessary for long-term, low-carbon investment decisions.[18] He suggested that efforts should be made to stabilize carbon price, e.g., by having a price ceiling and a price floor.

The EU ETS is 'linked' to the Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism projects as it allows the limited use of 'offset credits' from them. Participating firms were allowed to use some Certified Emission Reduction units (CERs) from 2005 and Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) from 2008. Each Member State's National Allocation Plan must specify a percentage of the national allocation that will be the cap on the CERs and ERUs that may be used. CERs and ERUs from nuclear facilities and from land use, land use change and forestry may not be used.[100]

The main theoretical advantage of allowing free trading of credits is that it allows mitigation to be done at least-cost (CCC, 2008, p.Â 160).[50] This is because the marginal costs (that is to say, the incremental costs of preventing the emission of one extra ton of CO2e into the atmosphere) of abatement differs among countries. In terms of the UK's climate change policy, CCC (2008), noted three arguments against too great a reliance on credits:

Due to the economic downturn, states have pushed successfully for a more generous approach towards the use of CDM/JI credits post-2012.[101][attribution needed] The 2009 EU ETS Amending Directive states that credits can be used for up to 50% of the EU-wide reductions below the 2005 levels of existing sectors over the period 2008–2020.[102] Moreover, it has been argued that the volume of CDM/JI credits, if carried over from phase II (2008–2012 to phase III 2013–2020) in the EU ETS will undermine its environmental effectiveness, despite the requirement of supplementarity in the Kyoto Protocol.[103]

In January 2011, the EU Climate Change Committee banned the use of CDM Certified Emission Reduction units from HFC-23 destruction in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme from 1 May 2013. The ban includes nitrous oxide (N2O) from adipic acid production. The reasons given were the perverse incentives, the lack of additionality, the lack of environmental integrity,the under-mining of the Montreal Protocol, costs and ineffectiveness and the distorting effect of a few projects in advanced developing countries getting too many CERs.[104]

As an alternative to CDM and JI projects, emissions can be offset directly by buying and deleting emissions allowances inside the ETS. This is a way to avoid several problems of CDM and JI such as additionality, measurement, leakage, permanence, and verification.[105] Buying and cancelling allowances allows to include more emissions sources in the ETS (such as traffic). Furthermore, it reduces the available allowances in the cap-and-trade system, which means that it reduces the emissions that can be produced by covered sources.[106]

The EU is negotiating a link with Switzerland's domestic trading system.[107] Distinct emissions trading systems can be linked through the recognition of emissions allowances for compliance. Linking[108] systems creates a larger carbon market, which can reduce overall compliance costs, increase market liquidity and generate a more stable carbon market.[109][110] Linking systems can also be politically symbolic as it shows willingness to undertake a common effort to reduce GHG emissions. Some scholars have argued that linking may provide a starting point for developing a new, bottom-up international climate policy architecture whereby multiple unique systems successively link their various systems.[111][112]


cyndi lauper girl just wanna have fun album

"Girls Just Want to Have Fun" is a song written by and first recorded in 1979 by American musician Robert Hazard. It is better known as a single by American singer Cyndi Lauper, whose version was released in 1983.[1] It was the first major single released by Lauper as a solo artist and the lead single from her debut studio album She's So Unusual (1983). Lauperâ€™s version gained recognition as a feminist anthem and was promoted by a Grammy-winning music video. It has been covered, either as a studio recording or in a live performance, by over 30 other artists.

Girls Just Want to Have Fun

The single was Lauper's breakthrough hit, reaching number two on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart and becoming a worldwide hit throughout late 1983 and early 1984. It remains one of Lauper's signature songs and was a widely popular song during the era of its release, the 1980s. The "Rolling Stone & MTV: '100 Greatest Pop Songs': 1-50", "Rolling Stone: "The 100 Top Music Videos"" and the "VH1: 100 Greatest Videos" lists ranked the song at No. 22, No. 39 and No. 45, respectively.[2][3][4] The song received Grammy Award nominations for Record of the Year and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance. In 2013, the song was remixed by Yolanda Be Cool, taken from the 30th anniversary reissue of the album She's So Unusual.[5]

The song was written by Robert Hazard, who recorded only a demo of it in 1979. Hazard's version was written from a male point of view. Lauper's version appeared on her 1983 debut solo record, She's So Unusual. The track is a synthesizer-backed anthem, from a feminist point of view, conveying the point that all women really want is to have the same experiences that men can[6]. Gillian G. Gaar, author of She's a Rebel: The History of Women in Rock & Roll (2002), described the single and corresponding video as a "strong feminist statement", an "anthem of female solidarity" and a "playful romp celebrating female camaraderie."[7]

The variety of releases of the single includes an Austrian birthday card with a 3-inch (76Â mm) CD of the song inside. The song has been heavily distributed in karaoke version as well. Lauper later went on to completely re-work the song in 1994 resulting in the new hit "Hey Now (Girls Just Want to Have Fun)". The song was remade by Lauper yet again in 2005 on her The Body Acoustic album, also produced by Chertoff and Wittman with Lauper, with guest support vocals from Japanese pop/rock duo Puffy AmiYumi.

The release of the single was accompanied by a quirky music video. It cost less than $35,000, largely due to a volunteer cast and the free loan of the most sophisticated video equipment available at the time. The cast included professional wrestling manager "Captain" Lou Albano in the role of Lauper's father while her real mother, Catrine, played herself. Lauper would later appear in World Wrestling Federation storylines opposite Albano and guest-star in an episode of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show, in which Albano portrayed Mario (Albano also played himself in the episode). Lauper's attorney, Elliot Hoffman, appeared as her uptight dancing partner. Also in the cast were Lauper's manager, David Wolf, her brother, Butch Lauper, fellow musician Steve Forbert, and a bevy of secretaries borrowed from Portrait/CBS, Lauper's record label. A clip of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is featured as Lauper watches it on television.

Lorne Michaels (Broadway Video, SNL), another of Hoffman's clients, agreed to give Lauper free run of his brand new million-dollar digital editing equipment, with which she and her producer created several first-time-ever computer generated images of Lauper dancing with her buttoned-up lawyer, leading the entire cast in a snake-dance through New York streets and ending up in Lauper's bedroom in her home. The bedroom scene is an homage to the famous stateroom scene in the Marx Brothers' film A Night at the Opera.

"The year 1983 makes a watershed in the history of female-address video. It is the year that certain issues and representations began to gain saliency and the textual strategies of female address began to coalesce." In the video, Lauper wanted to show in a more fun and light-hearted manner that girls want the same equality and recognition boys had in society.[8]

Before the song starts, the beginning of her version of "He's So Unusual" plays.

The music video was directed by Edd Griles. The producer was Ken Walz while the cinematographer was Francis Kenny. The treatment for the video was co-written by Griles, Walz, and Cyndi Lauper. The video was shot in the Lower East Side of Manhattan in summer 1983 and premiered on television in December 1983.[9]
The choreography was by a New York dance and music troupe called XXY featuring Mary Ellen Strom, Cyndi Lee and Pierce Turner.

As of  OctoberÂ 2018[update], the music video has over 650 million views on YouTube.[10]

The song was released in late 1983 but much of its success on the charts came during the first half of 1984. The single reached the Top 10 in over 25 countries and reached No. 1 in ten of those countries including Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, and Norway. It also reached No. 2 in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

In the United States, the song entered the Billboard Hot 100 at No. 80 on December 17, 1983. It ultimately peaked at No. 2 on March 10, 1984 where it stayed for two weeks, behind Van Halen's "Jump".[14][15] In the United Kingdom, the song entered the chart at No. 50 on January 14, 1984 and peaked at No. 2 on February 4, 1984 where it stayed for one week.[16] In Ireland, the song entered the chart on January 29, 1984. It peaked at number one for two weeks and was on the chart for a total of seven weeks.[17] In Australia, the song debuted on the Kent Music Report Top 100 on February 27, 1984. It entered the Top 10 in only its third week on the chart and reached number one on March 26, 1984. It topped the chart for two weeks and then remained at number two for four weeks behind Nena's "99 Luftballons". It stayed on the chart for 21 weeks and was the 9th biggest-selling single of the year.[18] In Belgium, the song debut at No. 38 on February 18, 1984 and peaked at No. 4 on April 7, 1984.[19] In the Netherlands, the song entered the chart at No. 38 on February 25, 1984 and peaked at No. 4 on March 31, 1984.[20]

In Sweden, the song entered at No. 13 on March 6, 1984 and peaked at No. 5 on April 3, 1984, charting for six weeks.[21] In Switzerland, the song entered the chart at No. 15 on April 1, 1984 and peaked at No. 6 on April 29, 1984.[22] In New Zealand, the song debuted at No. 21 on April 1, 1984 and peaked at No. 1 on May 6, 1984 where it stayed for three weeks.[23] In Austria, the single entered at No. 3 on May 1, 1984 which was its peak position.[24]

7" single

12" Vinyl Promo

Single
A CD single was issued in 2007, known as a ringle, which included bonus interactive computer material as well as a code to download a free ringtone of the title track. It featured the title track and for the first time on CD, "Right Track Wrong Train". The ringle, as well as all other issued ringles, were recalled by Sony Music due to issues with the ringtone not working correctly. They have yet to be reissued.

Official versions (Hey Now version)

*sales figures based on certification alone^shipments figures based on certification alone

"Hey Now (Girls Just Want to Have Fun)" was the first single from Cyndi Lauper's Twelve Deadly Cyns...and Then Some hits collection from 1994, and her first charting single on the Billboard Hot 100 since "My First Night Without You" in 1989.

This song is a new reggae-tinged arrangement of Lauper's own "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" standard, with a musical tip of the hat to Redbone's "Come and Get Your Love". The arrangement evolved as she experimented with the song's style over the course of the 1993â€“94 Hat Full of Stars Tour. The song was a big comeback hit for Lauper, landing in the top 10 and top 40 in many countries. It was also a big dance hit in the United States. It peaked at #4 in the UK and New Zealand, its highest position.

"Hey Now" plays over a pivotal closing sequence of the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar.

The song was covered by Triple Image and Jamie Lynn Spears in 2002.

US CD single

Japanese CD single

French CD Single

Year-end charts

In 2010, Cancer Research UK arranged for a charity record for their Race for Life campaign. It features many celebrities such as EastEnders actress Nina Wadia, Coronation Street actress Kym Marsh, Life of Riley actress Caroline Quentin, glamour girl Danielle Lloyd, X Factor finalist Lucie Jones, singer Sonique (herself a breast cancer survivor), former EastEnders actress Lucy Benjamin, and Celebrity Big Brother's Nicola T.[65]


who made the engine for the p 51 mustang

The Mustang was originally designed to use the Allison V-1710 engine, which, in its earlier variants, had limited high-altitude performance. It was first flown operationally by the RAF as a tactical-reconnaissance aircraft and fighter-bomber (Mustang Mk I). The replacement of the Allison with a Rolls-Royce Merlin resulted in the P-51B/C (Mustang Mk III) model and transformed the Mustang's performance at altitudes above 15,000 ft, allowing the aircraft to compete with the Luftwaffe's fighters.[7][nb 1] The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650-7, a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 two-stage two-speed supercharged engine and was armed with six.50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2/AN Browning machine guns.[9]

North American P-51 Mustang

The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang is an American long-range, single-seat fighter and fighter-bomber used during World War II and the Korean War, among other conflicts. The Mustang was designed in 1940 by North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a requirement of the British Purchasing Commission. The Purchasing Commission approached North American Aviation to build Curtiss P-40 fighters under license for the Royal Air Force (RAF). Rather than build an old design from another company, North American Aviation proposed the design and production of a more modern fighter. The prototype NA-73X airframe was rolled out on 9 September 1940, 102 days after the contract was signed, and first flew on 26 October.[5][6]

From late 1943, P-51Bs and Cs (supplemented by P-51Ds from mid-1944) were used by the USAAF's Eighth Air Force to escort bombers in raids over Germany, while the RAF's Second Tactical Air Force and the USAAF's Ninth Air Force used the Merlin-powered Mustangs as fighter-bombers, roles in which the Mustang helped ensure Allied air superiority in 1944.[10] The P-51 was also used by Allied air forces in the North African, Mediterranean, Italian and Pacific theaters. During World War II, Mustang pilots claimed to have destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft.[nb 2]

At the start of the Korean War, the Mustang, by then redesignated F-51, was the main fighter of the United Nations until jet fighters, including North American's F-86, took over this role; the Mustang then became a specialized fighter-bomber. Despite the advent of jet fighters, the Mustang remained in service with some air forces until the early 1980s. After the Korean War, Mustangs became popular civilian warbirds and air racing aircraft.

In April 1940[12] the British government established a purchasing commission in the United States, headed by Sir Henry Self.[13] Self was given overall responsibility for Royal Air Force (RAF) production and research and development, and also served with Sir Wilfrid Freeman, the Air Member for Development and Production. Self also sat on the British Air Council Sub-committee on Supply (or "Supply Committee") and one of his tasks was to organize the manufacturing and supply of American fighter aircraft for the RAF. At the time, the choice was very limited, as no U.S. aircraft then in production or flying met European standards, with only the Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk coming close. The Curtiss-Wright plant was running at capacity, so P-40s were in short supply.[14]

North American Aviation (NAA) was already supplying its Harvard trainer to the RAF, but was otherwise underused. NAA President "Dutch" Kindelberger approached Self to sell a new medium bomber, the B-25 Mitchell. Instead, Self asked if NAA could manufacture P-40s under license from Curtiss. Kindelberger said NAA could have a better aircraft with the same Allison V-1710 engine in the air sooner than establishing a production line for the P-40. The Commission stipulated armament of four.303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns (as used on the Tomahawk), a unit cost of no more than $40,000 and delivery of the first production aircraft by January 1941.[15] In March 1940, 320 aircraft were ordered by Freeman, who had become the executive head of the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the contract was promulgated on 24 April.[16]

The NA-73X, which was designed by a team led by lead engineer Edgar Schmued, followed the best conventional practice of the era, but included several new features.[nb 3] One was a wing designed using laminar flow airfoils, which were developed co-operatively by North American Aviation and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). These airfoils generated very low drag at high speeds.[17] During the development of the NA-73X, a wind tunnel test of two wings, one using NACA five-digit airfoils and the other using the new NAA/NACA 45–100 airfoils, was performed in the University of Washington Kirsten Wind Tunnel. The results of this test showed the superiority of the wing designed with the NAA/NACA 45–100 airfoils.[18][nb 4]

The other feature was a new cooling arrangement (aft positioned, single ducted water and oil radiators assembly) that reduced the cooling drag. Later [20]  they discovered that, after much development, the cooling assembly could take advantage of the "Meredith effect", in which heated air exited the radiator with a slight amount of jet thrust. Because NAA lacked a suitable wind tunnel to test this feature, it used the GALCIT 10 ft (3.0 m) wind tunnel at the California Institute of Technology. This led to some controversy over whether the Mustang's cooling system aerodynamics were developed by NAA's engineer Edgar Schmued or by Curtiss, although NAA had purchased the complete set of P-40 and XP-46 wind tunnel data and flight test reports for US$56,000.[21] The NA-73X was also one of the first aircraft to have a fuselage lofted mathematically using conic sections; this resulted in smooth, low drag surfaces.[22] To aid production, the airframe was divided into five main sections—forward, center, rear fuselage, and two wing halves—all of which were fitted with wiring and piping before being joined.[22]

The prototype NA-73X was rolled out in September 1940, just 102 days after the order had been placed; it first flew on 26 October 1940, 149 days into the contract, an uncommonly short development period, even during the war.[23] With test pilot Vance Breese at the controls,[24] the prototype handled well and accommodated an impressive fuel load. The aircraft's three-section, semimonocoque fuselage was constructed entirely of aluminum to save weight. It was armed with four.30 caliber (7.62 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the wings and two.50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns mounted under the engine and firing through the propeller arc using gun-synchronizing gear.[nb 5]

While the United States Army Air Corps  could block any sales it considered detrimental to the interests of the US, the NA-73 was considered to be a special case because it had been designed at the behest of the British. In September 1940, a further 300 NA-73s were ordered by the MAP.[15] To ensure uninterrupted delivery, Colonel Oliver P. Echols arranged with the Anglo-French Purchasing Commission to deliver the aircraft and NAA gave two examples (41-038 and 41-039) to the USAAC for evaluation.[25][nb 6]

The Mustang was initially developed for the RAF, which was its first user. As the first Mustangs were built to British requirements, these aircraft used factory numbers and were not P-51s; the order comprised 320 NA-73s, followed by 300 NA-83s, all of which were designated North American Mustang Mark I by the RAF.[27] The first RAF Mustangs supplied under Lend-Lease were 93 P-51s, designated Mk Ia, followed by 50 P-51As used as Mustang Mk IIs.[28] Aircraft supplied to Britain under Lend-Lease were required for accounting purposes to be on the USAAC's books before they could be supplied to Britain. Lend-Lease aircraft destined for the RAF were first ordered and paid for on Britain's behalf by the USAAC.[citation needed]

After the arrival of the initial aircraft in the UK in October 1941, the first Mustang Mk Is entered service in January 1942, the first unit being 26 Squadron RAF.[29] Due to poor high-altitude performance, the Mustangs were used by Army Co-operation Command, rather than Fighter Command, and were used for tactical reconnaissance and ground-attack duties. On 10 May 1942, Mustangs first flew over France, near Berck-sur-Mer.[30] On 27 July 1942, 16 RAF Mustangs undertook their first long-range reconnaissance mission over Germany. During the amphibious Dieppe Raid on the French coast (19 August 1942), four British and Canadian Mustang squadrons, including 26 Squadron, saw action covering the assault on the ground. By 1943â€“1944, British Mustangs were used extensively to seek out V-1 flying bomb sites. The last RAF Mustang Mk I and Mustang Mk II aircraft were struck off charge in 1945.

The RAF also operated 308 P-51Bs and 636 P-51Cs,[31] which were known in RAF service as Mustang Mk IIIs; the first units converted to the type in late 1943 and early 1944. Mustang Mk III units were operational until the end of World War II, though many units had already converted to the Mustang Mk IV (P-51D) and Mk IVa (P-51K) (828 in total, comprising 282 Mk IV and 600 Mk IVa).[32] As all except the earliest aircraft were obtained under Lend-Lease, all Mustang aircraft still on RAF charge at the end of the war were either returned to the USAAF "on paper" or retained by the RAF for scrapping. The last RAF Mustangs were retired from service in 1947.[33]

Prewar doctrine was based on the idea "the bomber will always get through".[34] Despite RAF and Luftwaffe experience with daylight bombing, the USAAC still believed in 1942 that tightly packed formations of bombers would have so much firepower that they could fend off fighters on their own.[34] Fighter escort was low-priority and when an escort fighter was planned in 1941, a heavy fighter with twin engines, such as the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, was considered to be most appropriate. Another school of thought favored a heavily up-armed "gunship" conversion of a strategic bomber.[35] A single-engined, high-speed fighter with the range of a bomber was thought to be an engineering impossibility.[36]

The 8th Air Force started operations from Britain in August 1942. At first, because of the limited scale of operations,  no conclusive evidence showed American doctrine was failing. In the 26 operations flown to the end of 1942, the loss rate had been under 2%.[37]

In January 1943, at the Casablanca Conference, the Allies formulated the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO)  plan for "round-the-clock" bombing – USAAF daytime operations complementing the RAF nighttime raids on industrial centers. In June 1943, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued the Pointblank Directive to destroy the Luftwaffe's capacity before the planned invasion of Europe, putting the CBO into full implementation. German daytime fighter efforts were, at that time, focused on the Eastern Front and several other distant locations. Initial efforts by the 8th met limited and unorganized resistance, but with every mission, the Luftwaffe moved more aircraft to the west and quickly improved their battle direction. In fall 1943, the 8th Air Force's heavy bombers conducted a series of deep-penetration raids into Germany, beyond the range of escort fighters. The Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission in August lost 60 B-17s of a force of 376, the 14 October attack lost 77 of a force of 291—26% of the attacking force. Losses were so severe that long-range missions were called off for a time until an effective escort could be found.[38]

For the US, the very concept of self-defending bombers was called into question, but instead of abandoning daylight raids and turning to night bombing, as the RAF suggested, they chose other paths; at first, a bomber with more guns (the Boeing YB-40) was believed to be able to escort the bomber formations, but when the concept proved to be unsuccessful, thoughts then turned to the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.[39] In early 1943, the USAAF also decided that the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51B be considered for the role of a smaller escort fighter, and in July, a report stated that the P-51B was "the most promising plane" with an endurance of 4 hours 45 minutes with the standard internal fuel of 184 gallons plus 150 gallons carried externally.[40] In August, a P-51B was fitted with an extra internal 85-gallon tank, and although  problems with longitudinal stability occurred and some compromises in performance with the tank full were made, and because the fuel from the fuselage tank would be used during the initial stages of a mission, the fuel tank would be fitted in all Mustangs destined for VIII Fighter Command.[41]

The P-51 Mustang was a solution to the need for an effective bomber escort. It used a common, reliable engine and had internal space for a large fuel load. With external fuel tanks, it could accompany the bombers from England to Germany and back.[42]

However, the Allison engine in the P-51A had a single-stage supercharger that caused power to drop off rapidly above 15,000 ft. This made it unsuitable for combat at the altitudes where USAAF bombers planned to fly. Following the RAF's initial disappointing experience with the Mustang I (P-51A), Ronald Harker, a test pilot for Rolls-Royce, suggested fitting a Merlin 61, as fitted to the Spitfire Mk IX. The Merlin 61 had a two-speed, two-stage, intercooled supercharger, designed by Stanley Hooker of Rolls-Royce,[43] and this gave an increase in horsepower from the Allison's 1,200 hp (895 kW) to 1,620 hp (1,208 kW) (1,720 hp in War Emergency Power) delivering an increase of top speed from 390 to 440 mph (340 to 380 kn; 630 to 710 km/h), as well as raising the service ceiling to almost 42,000 ft (12,800 m). Initial flights of what was known to Rolls-Royce as the Mustang Mk X were completed at Rolls-Royce's airfield at Hucknall in October 1942.

At the same time, the possibility of combining the P-51 airframe with the US license-built Packard version of the Merlin engine was being explored on the other side of the Atlantic.  In July 1942 a contract was let for two prototypes, briefly designated XP-78 but soon to become the XP-51B[44]. The first flight of the XP-51B took place in November 1942, but the USAAF was so interested in the possibility that an initial contract for 400 aircraft was placed three months beforehand in August.[45] The conversion led to production of the P-51B beginning at North American's Inglewood, California, plant in June 1943,[46] and P-51s started to become available to the 8th and 9th Air Forces in the winter of 1943â€“1944. During the conversion to the two-stage, supercharged Merlin engine, which was slightly heavier than the single-stage Allison, so moved the aircraft's centre-of-gravity forward, North American's engineers took the opportunity to add a large additional fuselage fuel tank behind the pilot, greatly increasing the aircraft's range over that of the earlier P-51A.[citation needed]

By the time the Pointblank offensive resumed in early 1944, matters had changed. Bomber escort defences were initially layered, using the shorter-range P-38s and P-47s to escort the bombers during the initial stages of the raid before handing over to the P-51s when they were forced to turn for home. This provided continuous coverage during the raid. The Mustang was so clearly superior to earlier US designs that the 8th Air Force began to steadily switch its fighter groups to the Mustang, first swapping arriving P-47 groups to the 9th Air Force in exchange for those that were using P-51s, then gradually converting its Thunderbolt and Lightning groups. By the end of 1944, 14 of its 15 groups flew the Mustang.[47]

The Luftwaffe's twin-engined Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighters brought up to deal with the bombers proved to be easy prey for the Mustangs, and had to be quickly withdrawn from combat. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, already suffering from poor high-altitude performance, was outperformed by the Mustang at the B-17's altitude, and when laden with heavy bomber-hunting weapons as a replacement for the more vulnerable twin-engined Zerstörer heavy fighters, it suffered heavy losses. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 had comparable performance at high altitudes, but its lightweight airframe was even more greatly affected by increases in armament. The Mustang's much lighter armament, tuned for antifighter combat, allowed it to overcome these single-engined opponents.

At the start of 1944, Major General James Doolittle, the new commander of the 8th Air Force, ordered many fighter pilots to stop flying in formation with the bombers and instead attack the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found. The aim was to achieve air supremacy. Mustang groups were sent far ahead of the bombers in a "fighter sweep" in order to intercept attacking German fighters.

The Luftwaffe answered with the Gefechtsverband ("battle formation"). This consisted of a Sturmgruppe of heavily armed and armored Fw 190As escorted by two Begleitgruppen of Messerschmitt Bf 109s, whose task was to keep the Mustangs away from the Fw 190As attacking the bombers. This strategy proved to be problematic, as the large German formation took a long time to assemble and was difficult to maneuver. It was often intercepted by the P-51 "fighter sweeps" before it could attack the bombers. However, German attacks against bombers could be effective when they did occur; the bomber-destroyer Fw 190As swept in from astern and often pressed their attacks to within 100 yd (91 m).[48]

While not always able to avoid contact with the escorts, the threat of mass attacks and later the "company front" (eight abreast) assaults by armored Sturmgruppe Fw 190As brought an urgency to attacking the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found, either in the air or on the ground. Beginning in late February 1944, 8th Air Force fighter units began systematic strafing attacks on German airfields with increasing frequency and intensity throughout the spring, with the objective of gaining air supremacy over the Normandy battlefield. In general these were conducted by units returning from escort missions but, beginning in March, many groups also were assigned airfield attacks instead of bomber support. The P-51, particularly with the advent of the K-14 Gyro gunsight and the development of "Clobber Colleges" for the training of fighter pilots in fall 1944, was a decisive element in Allied countermeasures against the JagdverbÃ¤nde.

The numerical superiority of the USAAF fighters, superb flying characteristics of the P-51, and pilot proficiency helped cripple the Luftwaffe's fighter force. As a result, the fighter threat to US, and later British, bombers was greatly diminished by July 1944. The RAF, long proponents of night bombing for protection, were able to reopen daylight bombing in 1944 as a result of the crippling of the Luftwaffe fighter arm. Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, commander of the German Luftwaffe during the war, was quoted as saying, "When I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up."[49][50][51]

On 15 April 1944, VIII Fighter Command began "Operation Jackpot", attacks on Luftwaffe fighter airfields. As the efficacy of these missions increased, the number of fighters at the German airbases fell to the point where they were no longer considered worthwhile targets. On 21 May, targets were expanded to include railways, locomotives, and rolling stock used by the Germans to transport materiel and troops, in missions dubbed "Chattanooga".[52] The P-51 excelled at this mission, although losses were much higher on strafing missions than in air-to-air combat, partially because the Mustang's liquid-cooled engine (particularly its coolant system) was vulnerable to small-arms fire, unlike the air-cooled R-2800 radials of its Republic P-47 Thunderbolt stablemates based in England, regularly tasked with ground-strafing missions.

Given the overwhelming Allied air superiority, the Luftwaffe put its effort into the development of aircraft of such high performance that they could operate with impunity, but which also made bomber attack much more difficult, merely from the flight velocities they achieved. Foremost among these were the Messerschmitt Me 163B point-defense rocket interceptors, which started their operations with JG 400 near the end of July 1944, and the longer-endurance Messerschmitt Me 262A jet fighter, first flying with the Gruppe-strength Kommando Nowotny unit by the end of September 1944. In action, the Me 163 proved to be more dangerous to the Luftwaffe than to the Allies, and was never a serious threat. The Me 262A was a serious threat, but attacks on their airfields neutralized them. The pioneering Junkers Jumo 004 axial-flow jet engines of the Me 262As needed careful nursing by their pilots, and these aircraft were particularly vulnerable during takeoff and landing.[53] Lt. Chuck Yeager of the 357th Fighter Group was one of the first American pilots to shoot down an Me 262, which he caught during its landing approach. On 7 October 1944, Lt. Urban L. Drew of the 361st Fighter Group shot down two Me 262s that were taking off, while on the same day Lt. Col. Hubert Zemke, who had transferred to the Mustang-equipped 479th Fighter Group, shot down what he thought was a Bf 109, only to have his gun camera film reveal that it may have been an Me 262.[54] On 25 February 1945, Mustangs of the 55th Fighter Group surprised an entire Staffel of Me 262As at takeoff and destroyed six jets.[55]

The Mustang also proved useful against the V-1s launched toward London. P-51B/Cs using 150-octane fuel were fast enough to catch the V-1 and operated in concert with shorter-range aircraft such as advanced marks of the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Tempest.

By 8 May 1945,[56] the 8th, 9th, and 15th Air Force's P-51 groups [nb 7] claimed some 4,950 aircraft shot down (about half of all USAAF claims in the European theater, the most claimed by any Allied fighter in air-to-air combat)[56] and 4,131 destroyed on the ground. Losses were about 2,520 aircraft.[57] The 8th Air Force's 4th Fighter Group was the top-scoring fighter group in Europe, with 1,016 enemy aircraft claimed destroyed. This included 550 claimed in aerial combat and 466 on the ground.[58]

In air combat, the top-scoring P-51 units (both of which exclusively flew Mustangs) were the 357th Fighter Group of the 8th Air Force with 565 air-to-air combat victories and the 9th Air Force's 354th Fighter Group with 664, which made it one of the top-scoring fighter groups. The top Mustang ace was the USAAF's George Preddy, whose final tally stood at 26.83 victories (a number that includes shared one half- and one third victory credits), 23 of which were scored with the P-51. Preddy was shot down and killed by friendly fire on Christmas Day 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge.[56]

In early 1945, P-51C, D, and K variants also joined the Chinese Nationalist Air Force. These Mustangs were provided to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Fighter Groups and used to attack Japanese targets in occupied areas of China. The P-51 became the most capable fighter in China, while the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force used the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate against it.

The P-51 was a relative latecomer to the Pacific Theater, due largely to the need for the aircraft in Europe, although the P-38's twin-engined design was considered a safety advantage for long, over-water flights. The first P-51s were deployed in the Far East later in 1944, operating in close-support and escort missions, as well as tactical photo reconnaissance. As the war in Europe wound down, the P-51 became more common; eventually, with the capture of Iwo Jima, it was able to be used as a bomber escort during Boeing B-29 Superfortress missions against the Japanese homeland.

The P-51 was often mistaken for the Japanese Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien in both China and Pacific because of its similar appearance.

Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar-flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[59]

The U.S. Air Forces, Flight Test Engineering, assessed the Mustang B on 24 April 1944 "The rate of climb is good and the high speed in level flight is exceptionally good at all altitudes, from sea level to 40,000 feet. The airplane is very maneuverable with good controllability at indicated speeds to 400 MPH. The stability about all axes is good and the rate of roll is excellent; however, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter. The cockpit layout is excellent, but visibility is poor on the ground and only fair in level flight."[60]

Kurt Bühligen, the third-highest scoring German fighter pilot of World War II's Western Front (with 112 confirmed victories, three against Mustangs), later stated, "We would out-turn the P-51 and the other American fighters, with the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. Their turn rate was about the same. The P-51 was faster than us, but our munitions and cannon were better."[61][62] Heinz Bär said that the P-51 "was perhaps the most difficult of all Allied aircraft to meet in combat. It was fast, maneuverable, hard to see, and difficult to identify because it resembled the Me 109".[63]

In the aftermath of World War II, the USAAF consolidated much of its wartime combat force and selected the P-51 as a "standard" piston-engined fighter, while other types, such as the P-38 and P-47, were withdrawn or given substantially reduced roles. As the more advanced (P-80 and P-84) jet fighters were introduced, the P-51 was also relegated to secondary duties.

In 1947, the newly formed USAF Strategic Air Command employed Mustangs alongside F-6 Mustangs and F-82 Twin Mustangs, due to their range capabilities. In 1948, the designation P-51 (P for pursuit) was changed to F-51 (F for fighter) and the existing F designator for photographic reconnaissance aircraft was dropped because of a new designation scheme throughout the USAF. Aircraft still in service in the USAF or Air National Guard (ANG) when the system was changed included: F-51B, F-51D, F-51K, RF-51D (formerly F-6D), RF-51K (formerly F-6K) and TRF-51D (two-seat trainer conversions of F-6Ds). They remained in service from 1946 through 1951. By 1950, although Mustangs continued in service with the USAF after the war, the majority of the USAF's Mustangs had become surplus to requirements and placed in storage, while some were transferred to the Air Force Reserve and the ANG.

From the start of the Korean War, the Mustang once again proved useful. A substantial number of stored or in-service F-51Ds were shipped, via aircraft carriers, to the combat zone, and were used by the USAF, the South African Air Force, and the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF). The F-51 was used for ground attack, fitted with rockets and bombs, and photo reconnaissance, rather than being as interceptors or "pure" fighters. After the first North Korean invasion, USAF units were forced to fly from bases in Japan and the F-51Ds, with their long range and endurance, could attack targets in Korea that short-ranged F-80 jets could not. Because of the vulnerable liquid cooling system, however, the F-51s sustained heavy losses to ground fire.[3] Due to its lighter structure and a shortage of spare parts, the newer, faster F-51H was not used in Korea.

Mustangs continued flying with USAF and ROKAF fighter-bomber units on close support and interdiction missions in Korea until 1953, when they were largely replaced as fighter-bombers by USAF F-84s and by United States Navy (USN) Grumman F9F Panthers. Other air forces and units using the Mustang included the Royal Australian Air Force's  77 Squadron, which flew Australian-built Mustangs as part of British Commonwealth Forces Korea. The Mustangs were replaced by Gloster Meteor F8s in 1951. The South African Air Force's  2 Squadron used U.S.-built Mustangs as part of the U.S. 18th Fighter Bomber Wing and had suffered heavy losses by 1953, after which 2 Squadron converted to the F-86 Sabre.

F-51s flew in the Air Force Reserve and ANG throughout the 1950s. The last American USAF Mustang was F-51D-30-NA AF serial no. 44-74936, which was finally withdrawn from service with the West Virginia Air National Guard's 167th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in January 1957 and retired to what was then called the Air Force Central Museum,[64] although it was briefly reactivated to fly at the 50th anniversary of the Air Force Aerial Firepower Demonstration at the Air Proving Ground, Eglin AFB, Florida, on 6 May 1957.[65] This aircraft, painted as P-51D-15-NA serial no. 44-15174, is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB, in Dayton, Ohio.[66]

The final withdrawal of the Mustang from USAF dumped hundreds of P-51s onto the civilian market. The rights to the Mustang design were purchased from North American by the Cavalier Aircraft Corporation, which attempted to market the surplus Mustang aircraft in the U.S. and overseas. In 1967 and again in 1972, the USAF procured batches of remanufactured Mustangs from Cavalier, most of them destined for air forces in South America and Asia that were participating in the Military Assistance Program (MAP). These aircraft were remanufactured from existing original F-51D airframes fitted with new V-1650-7 engines, a new radio, tall F-51H-type vertical tails, and a stronger wing that could carry six 0.50 in (13 mm) machine guns and a total of eight underwing hardpoints. Two 1,000-pound (450 kg) bombs and six 5 in (130 mm) rockets could be carried. They all had an original F-51D-type canopy, but carried a second seat for an observer behind the pilot. One additional Mustang was a two-seat, dual-control TF-51D (67-14866) with an enlarged canopy and only four wing guns. Although these remanufactured Mustangs were intended for sale to South American and Asian nations through the MAP, they were delivered to the USAF with full USAF markings. They were, however, allocated new serial numbers (67-14862/14866, 67-22579/22582 and 72-1526/1541).[66]

The last U.S. military use of the F-51 was in 1968, when the U. S. Army employed a vintage F-51D (44-72990) as a chase aircraft for the Lockheed YAH-56 Cheyenne armed helicopter project. This aircraft was so successful that the Army ordered two F-51Ds from Cavalier in 1968 for use at Fort Rucker as chase planes. They were assigned the serials 68-15795 and 68-15796. These F-51s had wingtip fuel tanks and were unarmed. Following the end of the Cheyenne program, these two chase aircraft were used for other projects. One of them (68-15795) was fitted with a 106Â mm recoilless rifle for evaluation of the weapon's value in attacking fortified ground targets.[67] Cavalier Mustang 68-15796 survives at the Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, Florida, displayed indoors in World War II markings.

The F-51 was adopted by many foreign air forces and continued to be an effective fighter into the mid-1980s with smaller air arms. The last Mustang ever downed in battle occurred during Operation Power Pack in the Dominican Republic in 1965, with the last aircraft finally being retired by the Dominican Air Force in 1984.[68]

After World War II, the P-51 Mustang served in the air arms of more than 25 nations.[10] During the war, a Mustang cost about $51,000,[4] while many hundreds were sold postwar for the nominal price of one dollar to signatories of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, ratified in Rio de Janeiro in 1947.[69]

These countries used the P-51 Mustang:

Â People's Republic of China

Many P-51s were sold as surplus after the war, often for as little as $1,500. Some were sold to former wartime fliers or other aficionados for personal use, while others were modified for air racing.[96]
One of the most significant Mustangs involved in air racing was a surplus P-51C-10-NT (44-10947) purchased by film stunt pilot Paul Mantz. The aircraft was modified by creating a "wet wing", sealing the wing to create a giant fuel tank in each wing, which eliminated the need for fuel stops or drag-inducing drop tanks. This Mustang, named Blaze of Noon after the film Blaze of Noon, came in first in the 1946 and 1947 Bendix Air Races, second in the 1948 Bendix, and third in the 1949 Bendix. He also set a U.S. coast-to-coast record in 1947. The Mantz Mustang was sold to Charles F. Blair Jr (future husband of Maureen O'Hara) and renamed Excalibur III. Blair used it to set a New York-to-London (circa 3,460 mi/5,568 km) record in 1951: 7 hr 48 min from takeoff at Idlewild to overhead London Airport. Later that same year, he flew from Norway to Fairbanks, Alaska, via the North Pole (circa 3,130 mi/5,037 km), proving that navigation via sun sights was possible over the magnetic north pole region. For this feat, he was awarded the Harmon Trophy and the Air Force was forced to change its thoughts on a possible Soviet air strike from the north. This Mustang now resides in the National Air and Space Museum at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.[97]

The most prominent firm to convert Mustangs to civilian use was Trans-Florida Aviation, later renamed Cavalier Aircraft Corporation, which produced the Cavalier Mustang. Modifications included a taller tailfin and wingtip tanks. A number of conversions included a Cavalier Mustang specialty: a "tight" second seat added in the space formerly occupied by the military radio and fuselage fuel tank.

In 1958, 78 surviving RCAF Mustangs were retired from service's inventory and were ferried by Lynn Garrison, an RCAF pilot, from their varied storage locations to Canastota, New York, where the American buyers were based. In effect, Garrison flew each of the surviving aircraft at least once. These aircraft make up a large percentage of the aircraft presently flying worldwide.[98]

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the United States Department of Defense wished to supply aircraft to South American countries and later Indonesia for close air support and counter insurgency, it turned to Cavalier to return some of their civilian conversions back to updated military specifications.

In the 21st century, a P-51 can command a price of more than $1Â million, even for only partially restored aircraft.[98] There were 204 privately owned P-51s in the U.S. on the FAA registry in 2011,[99] most of which are still flying, often associated with organizations such as the Commemorative Air Force (formerly the Confederate Air Force).[100]

In May 2013, Doug Matthews set an altitude record of 42,568 ft (12,975 m) in a P 51 named The Rebel, for piston-powered aircraft weighing 3,000 to 6,000 kg (6,600 to 13,200 lb).[101] Mathews departed from a grass runway at Florida's Indiantown airport and flew The Rebel over Lake Okeechobee. He set world records for time to reach altitudes of 9,000 m (30,000 ft), 18 minutes and 12,000 m (39,000 ft), 31 minutes. He achieved a new height record of 40,100 ft (12,200 m) in level flight and a 42,500 ft (13,000 m) maximum altitude.[102][103] The previous record of 36,902 ft (11,248 m) had stood since 1954.

Over 20 variants of the P-51 Mustang were produced from 1940 to after the war.

Except for the small numbers assembled or produced in Australia, all Mustangs were built by North American initially at Inglewood, California, but then additionally in Dallas, Texas.

Data from Erection and Maintenance Manual for P-51D and P-51K,[114] P-51 Tactical Planning Characteristics & Performance Chart,[115] The Great Book of Fighters,[116] and Quest for Performance[117]

As indicative of the iconic nature of the P-51, manufacturers within the hobby industry have created scale plastic model kits of the P-51 Mustang, with varying degrees of detail and skill levels. The aircraft have also been the subject of numerous scale flying replicas.[124] Aside from the popular radio-controlled aircraft, several kitplane manufacturers offer ½, ⅔, and ¾-scale replicas capable of comfortably seating one (or even two) and offering high performance combined with more forgiving flight characteristics.[125] Such aircraft include the Titan T-51 Mustang, W.A.R. P-51 Mustang, Linn Mini Mustang, Jurca Gnatsum, Thunder Mustang, Stewart S-51D Mustang, and  Loehle 5151 Mustang.[126]