# Spitfire vs Mustang



## Oskar the Pilot (Dec 27, 2011)

Hello everyone, this is my first post! I thought I'd better start by posting something that we all want to know; which was the better dogfighter, the truly British Spit, or the all American Mustang? Posts like this have been done before, but I'm curious for the true answer. 

Okay, let's assume it's a Spitfire Mk XIV we're talking about, against a say, P-51D Mustang. Which would come out on top in a dogfight? The winner of this poll will be the true dogfight champion in my eyes.


Let the poll begin!

-_Oskar_


*Edit:* The winner will be in a poll against the Japanese Zeke.

*-=PLEASE VOTE IF YOU REPLY TO THIS THREAD=-*


----------



## Juha (Dec 27, 2011)

Hello
as a dogfighter or an interceptor Mk XIV was superior, Mustang's forte was its range and aerodynamical efficiency which gave it to its speed, acceleration and dive characteristics. I'd say that even slower Spitfire Mk IXs and VIIIs would have been difficult opponents to Mustangs even if Mustang had the speed and dive advantages vs Mk IX/VIII turn and climb advantages.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Dec 27, 2011)

> ....the truly British Spit, or the *all American* Mustang....



oh no.......

I thought the Mustang had a British engine?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 27, 2011)

Up to 15-20k ft performance in climb and speed are roughly equivalent between the P-51D and the Spit XIV. Performance of the P-51B is slightly better than the P-51D. Above 20k the Spitfire has a definite advantage.

However, the P-51 could engage in the fight at a much greater distance or for longer period of time.


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 27, 2011)

> For the 31 FG, March would be the last month flying Spitfires. On the 11th, Colonel McCorkle and Lieutenant Meador brought in the first two P-51B aircraft. During a mock dogfight over the field on the 14th, Colonel McCorkel in a P-51 paired up against Lieutenant Williams in a Spitfire IX. *The Spitfire completely outmaneuvered the new Mustang. *


REPORT NUMBER 88-0500

HISTORY OF USAAF SPITFIRE OPERATIONS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN (31st AND 52nd FIGHTER GROUPS)

by MAJOR CLIFFORD H. CHANDLER, JR., USAF


----------



## Juha (Dec 27, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Up to 15-20k ft performance in climb and speed are roughly equivalent between the P-51D and the Spit XIV. Performance of the P-51B is slightly better than the P-51D. Above 20k the Spitfire has a definite advantage...



Difficult to believe and British comparation trials gave to Spitfire Mk IX and XIV better climb performance than to Mustang III (P-51B/C). Soviets seemed to agree. And because of Spitfires had smaller empty weights (also smaller t/o weights but in empty weights the bigger fuel load of P-51 doesn't have influence), lighter wing loadings and Spit IXs and VIIIs more or less same power and XIV more power, so its easy to believe those tests.

On range there was no contest, Mustang was so superior to Spit Mk IX and XIV and clearly longer legged than even Spit Mk VIII.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Dec 27, 2011)

So I guess the question should be which mark of Spit would match the 51D?


----------



## stona (Dec 27, 2011)

The question was specifically which was the better dogfighter. The answer to that particular question is the Spitfire.
Some of you are trying to decide which was the better aircraft overall. That is a much more difficult question and dependant on many more factors.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Dec 27, 2011)

stona said:


> The question was specifically which was the better dogfighter. The answer to that particular question is the Spitfire.
> Some of you are trying to decide which was the better aircraft overall. That is a much more difficult question and dependant on many more factors.
> Cheers
> Steve



That's right Steve. The Spitfire was designed as an interceptor dog fighter from the out set. The Mustang was designed for another role. I think that you cannot really say which one was 'best'. The Mustang should really be compared with other 'long range fighters'.
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2011)

As a dogfighter, I would have to go with Spitfire. Of course I am sure (as when comparing all aircraft), it would depend on what conditions such as altitude, speed, etc. Overall my personal opinion however would give this to the Spitfire. 

What aircraft would I rather have though? P-51D. Overall I think it was a better aircraft, mostly because it had the range to do what the Spitfire could not, and that is take the fight to the enemy deep in their own territory. Of course this is still apples to oranges, because the Spitfire is an interceptor and the Mustang is a long range escort.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 27, 2011)

I have flown both on simulators so I am familiar with their characteristics......
Sorry could not resist~


----------



## drgondog (Dec 27, 2011)

Depends on whether you want to dogfight over Berlin, Stettin, Munich (or Tokyo) versus over London, Paris or Amsterdam.


----------



## renrich (Dec 27, 2011)

Kind of like comparing a quarter horse and a thoroughbred. They were meant for different tasks. However, the Mustang (plane) was very credible in ACM. The Spitfire could not be a long range escort.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2011)

I know one guy that flew both operationally and the Spitfire was a far better dogfighter that couldn't go to Berlin


----------



## drgondog (Dec 27, 2011)

I do also - Flt Lt Warren Peglar had 290 combat missions in combined Spit IX, Tempest, 42 missions in a Mustang. Was and exchange pilot from RCAF to 355th FG late July through mid September.

4 air to air kills in P-51, 1 ground. 4 Ground in Tempest, zero air. Zero air, zero ground in Mk IX. preferred MkIX for manueverabilty, Mustang for lethality.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2011)

My source is Charley Fox a 4 confirmed and a couple damaged and lots of rolling stock including Rommel flew the P51 as a reserve pilot post war


----------



## Oskar the Pilot (Dec 28, 2011)

Woah, you guys actually replied to my post! Thanks for giving me a friendly welcome to the forums!

_Enjoying it already_


----------



## stona (Dec 28, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Depends on whether you want to dogfight over Berlin, Stettin, Munich (or Tokyo) versus over London, Paris or Amsterdam.



Not really,a dogfight is a dogfight and I'll take the Spifire for that. Whether the Spitfire could actually get to the dogfight is a different question!
If the question had been "which of these two aircraft was the better long range escort?" then the answer would have been the P-51.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Dec 28, 2011)

stona said:


> Not really,a dogfight is a dogfight and I'll take the Spifire for that. Whether the Spitfire could actually get to the dogfight is a different question!
> If the question had been "which of these two aircraft was the better long range escort?" then the answer would have been the P-51.
> Cheers
> Steve



Not really Steve - the question, while rheorical, was about the best dogfighter if both had to fly from UK to Berlin.. escort was a role/mission, and included dogfighting, killing from ambush, strafing, etc. The Mustang wasn't designed as an 'escort' fighter, it was designed as a fighter and evolved to suit a variety of missions including interceptor, long range escort, close air support. Its exceptional range enabled it to do those roles far away.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 28, 2011)

drgondog said:


> I do also - Flt Lt Warren Peglar had 290 combat missions in combined Spit IX, Tempest, 42 missions in a Mustang. Was and exchange pilot from RCAF to 355th FG late July through mid September.
> 
> 4 air to air kills in P-51, 1 ground. 4 Ground in Tempest, zero air. Zero air, zero ground in Mk IX. preferred MkIX for manueverabilty, Mustang for lethality.


By lethality are you referring to firepower Bill?


----------



## cimmex (Dec 28, 2011)

If the P-51 pilots will use the same tactic as the FW190 did before against the Spitfire Mk5s the result would be the same and Spitfire
would loose.
Regards 
cimmex


----------



## stona (Dec 28, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Not really Steve - the question, while rheorical, was about the best dogfighter if both had to fly from UK to Berlin.. escort was a role/mission, and included dogfighting, killing from ambush, strafing, etc. The Mustang wasn't designed as an 'escort' fighter, it was designed as a fighter and evolved to suit a variety of missions including interceptor, long range escort, close air support. Its exceptional range enabled it to do those roles far away.



The Mustang,as you say,was a fighter first and foremost and capable of many roles.Some it did very well,some less well. Overall it was a more capable (to use modern terminology) aircraft than any Spitfire. I think we agree on that.
However if I had to dogfight any other aircraft in the European theatre in late '44/early '45 I'd choose a late mark Spitfire over a P-51 to do it in every time.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## renrich (Dec 28, 2011)

I think there needs to be a clarification. Dogfighting is one tactic or style of ACM. All ACM is not dogfighting. In modern terms ( I think) dogfighting is a form of angles tactics as opposed to energy tactics. The US Navy instructed their pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs not to dogfight the Zeke. That did not mean that they were not to engage the Zeke. It meant do not go around tail chasing the Zeke. Using the strengths of the Hellcats and the Corsairs and team tactics the Navy and Marine pilots began to build up big numbers against the Zeke. Bob Johnson, in a P47 against Spitfires in mock ACM at moderate altitudes developed tactics aginst the Spit which enabled him to wax the Spits. He did not dogfight them. The P47 was no Mustang.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 28, 2011)

Messy1 said:


> By lethality are you referring to firepower Bill?



Nah - the Spit had firepower all over the Mustang B/C/D/H/K.. but Peglar's comment about lethality was that it didn't matter what you had if you couldn't get to the fight. When he was flying Spits, the 8th and 9th AF were flyin P-38s and P-51s hundreds of miles deeper into Germany - and engaging.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 28, 2011)

renrich said:


> I think there needs to be a clarification. Dogfighting is one tactic or style of ACM. All ACM is not dogfighting. In modern terms ( I think) dogfighting is a form of angles tactics as opposed to energy tactics. The US Navy instructed their pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs not to dogfight the Zeke. That did not mean that they were not to engage the Zeke. It meant do not go around tail chasing the Zeke. Using the strengths of the Hellcats and the Corsairs and team tactics the Navy and Marine pilots began to build up big numbers against the Zeke. Bob Johnson, in a P47 against Spitfires in mock ACM at moderate altitudes developed tactics aginst the Spit which enabled him to wax the Spits. He did not dogfight them. The P47 was no Mustang.



I agree, and I voted for the Spit in this poll - but as you say, tactics, skill, tactical position and judgement are all very important factors in winning a 'dogfight'.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 28, 2011)

stona said:


> The Mustang,as you say,was a fighter first and foremost and capable of many roles.Some it did very well,some less well. Overall it was a more capable (to use modern terminology) aircraft than any Spitfire. I think we agree on that.
> However if I had to dogfight any other aircraft in the European theatre in late '44/early '45 I'd choose a late mark Spitfire over a P-51 to do it in every time.
> Cheers
> Steve



Steve - my vote was for the Spit in the Poll..


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 28, 2011)

Thanks for the explanation Bill. I understand your post now.


----------



## Readie (Dec 28, 2011)

renrich said:


> Kind of like comparing a quarter horse and a thoroughbred. They were meant for different tasks. However, the Mustang (plane) was very credible in ACM. The Spitfire could not be a long range escort.



The 'thoroughbred' being the Spitfire of course 
To continue the equine thing would the Mustang be a Plains pony? A little bit of everything that worked very well in practice and could run forever?

I'm not convinced that you can really compare the two planes as they were designed for different roles.

John


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 28, 2011)

Readie said:


> The 'thoroughbred' being the Spitfire of course
> To continue the equine thing would the Mustang be a Plains pony? A little bit of everything that worked very well in practice and could run forever?
> 
> I'm not convinced that you can really compare the two planes as they were designed for different roles.
> ...


I'd break in down like this Mustang=Hidalgo/ Spitfire=Secretariat or Seabiscuit


----------



## stona (Dec 28, 2011)

Readie said:


> I'm not convinced that you can really compare the two planes as they were designed for different roles.
> John



They were both designed as fighters,primarily. They evolved into different roles. The P-51D was as far away from its Allison engined forbear as the Spitfire XIV was from the Spitfire I.
The Mustang was more modern and this may well have enabled its more comprehensive capabilities. It is hard to argue against the best OVERALL single seat fighter of WWII,in Europe, being the Mustang. I'll still take a Spitfire but then I'm British and to me it's more than just an aeroplane.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Dec 28, 2011)

Messy1 said:


> I'd break in down like this Mustang=Hidalgo/ Spitfire=Secretariat or Seabiscuit



Normal horse heart= 8.5lbs. Secretariat's heart= approximately 22lbs. 
Apparently a 'big heart' is something passed down the female side of the genetics pool.

The Spitfires 'Big Heart' being the Merlin.

Hidalgo Hopkins is a good analogy for the Mustang.

Two great planes and true horses for courses.

John


----------



## renrich (Dec 28, 2011)

Unfortunately since I am a quarter horse guy, the Spit was the quarter horse, docile, quick acceleration, easy to ride, turn on a nickel and give you some change. The Mustang was the long distance runner, with great endurance, fast but not a great turner.


----------



## Readie (Dec 28, 2011)

stona said:


> I'll still take a Spitfire but then I'm British and to me it's more than just an aeroplane.
> Cheers
> Steve



Spot on Steve. Our Spitfire is our nation treasure.
John


----------



## davparlr (Dec 28, 2011)

Juha said:


> Difficult to believe and British comparation trials gave to Spitfire Mk IX and XIV better climb performance than to Mustang III (P-51B/C). Soviets seemed to agree. And because of Spitfires had smaller empty weights (also smaller t/o weights but in empty weights the bigger fuel load of P-51 doesn't have influence), lighter wing loadings and Spit IXs and VIIIs more or less same power and XIV more power, so its easy to believe those tests.


The test I saw compared the P-51B at 61 inches boost vs 67 inches for the spit. In May, '44, P-51Bs and Ds were approved for 75" boost. At this boost the P-51B gains a significant amount of climb. I do not know when the spit got approval for 80" (25 lbs) but I did see a meno indicating approval to use 21 lbs (72"?) in March, '45. At this boost, the spit should easily out climb the P-51B/D at 75" boost.

I suspect the Russian test were also at lower boost.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 28, 2011)

oops I accidentally voted for the Mustang, but meant to vote for the spit. I am so used to voting for the mustang it comes naturally. I do think the spit was the better dogfighter.


----------



## marshall (Dec 28, 2011)

renrich said:


> Bob Johnson, in a P47 against Spitfires in mock ACM at moderate altitudes developed tactics aginst the Spit which enabled him to wax the Spits. He did not dogfight them.



Where can I find more info about this?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 28, 2011)

It seems to me that the Spirtfire went through a lot more incantations then the Mustang. Was the Spitfire frame just that good or was it more out of a product of necessity?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 28, 2011)

vikingBerserker said:


> It seems to me that the Spirtfire went through a lot more incantations then the Mustang. Was the Spitfire frame just that good or was it more out of a product of necessity?




I think it was more a combination of necessity and capability, as well as the longer development timeframe of the Spitfire and the very rapid pace of engine development in the 1938-1942 period. Also, the Air Ministry could never make up its mind about exactly which direction Spitfire development should go, so there was quite a bit of fiddling about.

Also the Mustang was designed with many of the early lessons of the European air war already learned, so North American could incorporate advanced concepts straight into the design, whereas Supermarine kept updating existing types.

Looking at the Spitfire, there were 14 major sub-types, including four carrier-based sub-types. Looking at the Mustang there were just six subtypes. 

The Spitfire went through two major engine types (Merlin, Griffon), as well as three major 'families' of the Merlin and two of the Griffon.

The P-51 also went through two major engines (V-1710 and V-1650), but just a single family of the Allison and two of the V-1650.


----------



## Readie (Dec 29, 2011)

vikingBerserker said:


> It seems to me that the Spirtfire went through a lot more incantations then the Mustang. Was the Spitfire frame just that good or was it more out of a product of necessity?



The Spitfire was the 'Woodmans favourite axe' ....5 new heads, 12 new handles buit, still the best axe he had ever owned.
I did a thread on this a while ago.
Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (Dec 29, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> The Spitfire went through two major engine types (Merlin, Griffon), as well as three major 'families' of the Merlin and two of the Griffon.
> 
> The P-51 also went through two major engines (V-1710 and V-1650), but just a single family of the Allison and two of the V-1650.



The P-51H had the 1650-9 which had essentially the same gearing as the -3 but a different carb system so you could say three variations on the Merlin


----------



## renrich (Dec 29, 2011)

Marshall, there was a book entitled "Thunderbolt" I think, by Bob Johnson. I have a copy but it is packed and unavailable. A good read and I expect available on Amazon. Briefly, from memory, Johnson said that the P47 he was flying at the time had the toothpick props and the Spit could outclimb him, out accelerate him and turn better than him. The only advantage the P47 had was it could go downhill faster ( than almost anything) and could roll much better than the Spit. His tactic with a Spit on his six was to start rolling, first one direction and then the other. Then he would go into a dive, which of course required some altitude, and when the Spit was out distanced pull up into a zoom climb, which the P47 was good at. At the top of the zoom climb with the Spit below him trying to catch up, he would hammerhead stall and the Spit in a climb with not a lot of airspeed suddenly was head to head with a Thunderbolt coming down with 8 gun barrels glaring at him. Sounds like a good tactic to me.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 1, 2012)

Problem with all these trick one on one combat manouvers. While your doing your Knights of the air thing someone else will sneak in and fill you full of holes. None of the great aces seemed to have much time for fancy manouvering, prefering to get in, hit and get out leaving fancy flying to pilots who would soon be making a hole in the ground.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 1, 2012)

The 'woodman's axe' is a great analogy; the secret to the Spit's longevity was its centre fuselage, which was durable enough to remain in every mark of Spit from the Mk.V on. From Frame 5, the firewall to Frame 19, the tail section, the only change was whether the version in question was a high back or low back.







What also has to be considered when comparing both aircraft is that they were both products of their time; the Mustang was a more modern design; the P-51D was faster with a longer range than the Spit IX on the same engine, it was aerodynamically more efficient. The Spit XIV was essentially a pre war design, but modified with a bigger engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 2, 2012)

Great pic, thanks


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2012)

A while a go I read a book on a USAAF unit that moved from the Spitfire IX to the Mustang. To a man the pilots preferred the Spitfires but obviously they had no choice and Mustangs they had to use. The exception was the CO who was away when the first P51's turned up, heard what was going on, took a P51 up, wrung it out and said that he preferred the P51, but as the writer observed, what else would you expect him to say?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 2, 2012)

Glider said:


> A while a go I read a book on a USAAF unit that moved from the Spitfire IX to the Mustang. To a man the pilots preferred the Spitfires but obviously they had no choice and Mustangs they had to use. The exception was the CO who was away when the first P51's turned up, heard what was going on, took a P51 up, wrung it out and said that he preferred the P51, but as the writer observed, what else would you expect him to say?



Sounds like the 31st. Had they remained with the Spit IX, their contribution to the defeat of the LW for the 15th AF would have been far less. Better air to air but in skies with no enemy aircraft while Mustangs and Lightnings were fighting over Hungary, Yugoslavia and Austria


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2012)

I don't disagree with a word that you say. As you know this is a topic that comes up every now and again and my personal view is that if I had to fly a plane into combat I would take the Spit, if I had a choice if directing a campaign, I would take the P51 for the reasons you state


----------



## Readie (Jan 3, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Sounds like the 31st. Had they remained with the Spit IX, their contribution to the defeat of the LW for the 15th AF would have been far less. Better air to air but in skies with no enemy aircraft while Mustangs and Lightnings were fighting over Hungary, Yugoslavia and Austria



Yes but, had not the Spitfire won the air battles nearer home there would have been no need for the Mustang....
They are both superb fighters and meant for very different roles.
There is a part of me that still thinks that you cannot really compare the two...
John


----------



## marshall (Jan 3, 2012)

Readie said:


> There is a part of me that still thinks that you cannot really compare the two...
> John





I think that everything can be compared to everything...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlmzwZXa-Ww_


----------



## drgondog (Jan 21, 2012)

Readie said:


> Yes but, had not the Spitfire won the air battles nearer home there would have been no need for the Mustang....
> They are both superb fighters and meant for very different roles.
> There is a part of me that still thinks that you cannot really compare the two...
> John



John - I truly agree. One interesting aspect of this debate is to conduct a poll among those that flew both and ask them which of the two would they prefer to fly for pure enjoyment - disregard military objectives. I suspect the Spit would win hands down

Bill


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 21, 2012)

drgondog said:


> John - I truly agree. One interesting aspect of this debate is to conduct a poll among those that flew both and ask them which of the two would they prefer to fly for pure enjoyment - disregard military objectives. I suspect the Spit would win hands down
> 
> Bill


Can't be..... just finished watching Gathering of Mustangs and Legends on PBS and according to all interviewed the Mustang is the clear choice so that settles that


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 22, 2012)

But pb, how was the question asked? Were the pilots asked which they'd pefer in a dogfight or in which would they prefer to go to war? I'd want to be in an airplace that could sit over my adversary's field until he walked to his airplane and shoot him then. Hence P-51.

Also, I chose the Mustang having somehow missed the word 'dogfight' and 'vs'. Gotta check these glasses. 8)

Geez, I thought it was beauty contest! and figured Oskar was just being Eris throwing out a golden apple and shouting "Kallisti!" I figured if I made the wrong choice he'd turn me into a moose or something!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 22, 2012)

But pb, how was the question asked? Were the pilots asked which they'd pefer in a dogfight or in which would they prefer to go to war? I'd want to be in an airplace that could sit over my adversary's field until he walked to his airplane and shoot him then. Hence P-51.

Also, I chose the Mustang having somehow missed the word 'dogfight' and 'vs'. Gotta check these glasses. 8)

Geez, I thought it was beauty contest! and figured Oskar was just being Eris throwing out a golden apple and shouting "Kallisti!" I figured if I made the wrong choice he'd turn me into a moose or something!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 22, 2012)

Oooops!  Can anyone tell me if there is there a way to delete a duplicate message?


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 22, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> But pb, how was the question asked? Were the pilots asked which they'd pefer in a dogfight or in which would they prefer to go to war? I'd want to be in an airplace that could sit over my adversary's field until he walked to his airplane and shoot him then. Hence P-51.
> 
> Also, I chose the Mustang having somehow missed the word 'dogfight' and 'vs'. Gotta check these glasses. 8)
> 
> Geez, I thought it was beauty contest! and figured Oskar was just being Eris throwing out a golden apple and shouting "Kallisti!" I figured if I made the wrong choice he'd turn me into a moose or something!


I suppose if you went to the UK the answer would be Spit , to me its not so cut and dried


----------



## Readie (Jan 23, 2012)

drgondog said:


> John - I truly agree. One interesting aspect of this debate is to conduct a poll among those that flew both and ask them which of the two would they prefer to fly for pure enjoyment - disregard military objectives. I suspect the Spit would win hands down
> 
> Bill



Bill, You are right. The pilots love affair with the Spitfire will never end. 
The Spitfire has earned a place in our nation's heart and is as symbolic of British style as, say an E type Jaguar. 
Given the the choice of driving a 3.8 E Type or an same era USA sports car I would guess that most would choose the Jag...

John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

Readie said:


> Bill, You are right. The pilots love affair with the Spitfire will never end.
> The Spitfire has earned a place in our nation's heart and is as symbolic of British style as, say an E type Jaguar.
> Given the the choice of driving a 3.8 E Type or an same era USA sports car I would guess that most would choose the Jag...
> 
> John



Here are two of the most beautiful aircraft ever built or perhaps I should say, "here are the two most beautiful aircraft ever built," even though there are a lot of contenders. They are certainly in the running for that accolade. In their performance, each had _at least_ one achilles heel. I think there is also something almost mystical about the facts (well known to the denizens of this forum) that early on, USAAF american pilots flew the Spit I believe for want of a fighter of equally superb performance, while later the P-51 enjoyed the benefits of the marriage to the Merlin that made its reputation. More than that, the Mustang itself only came into existance as a response to an English need. I could argue there are larger forces at work in all this. But at the least, it is symbolic of our shared heritage. As a dog fighter, the Spitfire, and for an aircraft to take the Merlin to the enemy, the Mustang. Other wise, this seems to me to be a Sophie's choice for airplanes.


----------



## Readie (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Here are two of the most beautiful aircraft ever built or perhaps I should say, "here are the two most beautiful aircraft ever built," even though there are a lot of contenders. They are certainly in the running for that accolade. In their performance, each had _at least_ one achilles heel. I think there is also something almost mystical about the facts (well known to the denizens of this forum) that early on, USAAF american pilots flew the Spit I believe for want of a fighter of equally superb performance, while later the P-51 enjoyed the benefits of the marriage to the Merlin that made its reputation. More than that, the Mustang itself only came into existance as a response to an English need. I could argue there are larger forces at work in all this. But at the least, it is symbolic of our shared heritage. As a dog fighter, the Spitfire, and for an aircraft to take the Merlin to the enemy, the Mustang. Other wise, this seems to me to be a Sophie's choice for airplanes.



The Spitfire Mustang are both beautifull and wonderfull aircraft. The icing on the Mustang cake is the RR Merlin. The allies were in desperate need of a long range fighter to take the fight to the German heartland and, as you say, the marriage of Anglo- American industry produced a superb plane.
The Spitfire has more heritage though, tracing its roots back to the Schneider Trophy seaplanes Supermarine S.6B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is appeal to me, seeing the development of cutting edge technology, culminating in the Spitfire who fought throughout WW2 with distinction.
I also admire the later designs that were built to do a job and without which we would have been in the merde.
John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

Readie said:


> The Spitfire has more heritage though, tracing its roots back to the Schneider Trophy seaplanes Supermarine S.6B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> That is appeal to me, seeing the development of cutting edge technology, culminating in the Spitfire who fought throughout WW2 with distinction.
> I also admire the later designs that were built to do a job and without which we would have been in the merde.
> John



One of my treasured artifacts, hidden away in my disintegrating copy of the time-life volume "RAF at War" is a copy of an article in USN's BuAer News letter dated 15 October 1931, describing the victory of the Supermarine racer and the lamented decision by the USA to withdraw from the competition. It always seemed to me to be prophetic and an object lesson for any nation considering dispensing with technology development that may appear superfluous at the time but may have long term ramifications. 

Of course, I have recently seen posts that assert the Supermarine racer experience had nothing to contribute to Spitfire development! That just seems to me to be silly.


----------



## Readie (Jan 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> One of my treasured artifacts, hidden away in my disintegrating copy of the time-life volume "RAF at War" is a copy of an article in USN's BuAer News letter dated 15 October 1931, describing the victory of the Supermarine racer and the lamented decision by the USA to withdraw from the competition. It always seemed to me to be prophetic and an object lesson for any nation considering dispensing with technology development that may appear superfluous at the time but may have long term ramifications.
> 
> Of course, I have recently seen posts that assert the Supermarine racer experience had nothing to contribute to Spitfire development! That just seems to me to be silly.



Britain was lucky to have the SB series when we did, competition acted as a spur to our designers and engineers. All of which was just as well as Herr Hitler started played up and we needed modern fighters to stave off the LW.
Its an interesting point to discuss, if we have pulled out and the USA had won the Schneider would we have had the impetus to develop the Spitfire?
You are right...the Supermarine development of the SB series did contribute to the Spitfire...Mitchell Supermarine used the lessons learnt. Why wouldn't they?
John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

Readie said:


> ...the Supermarine development of the SB series did contribute to the Spitfire...Mitchell Supermarine used the lessons learnt. Why wouldn't they?
> John



exactly!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 23, 2012)

Readie said:


> ] Its an interesting point to discuss, if we have pulled out and the USA had won the Schneider would we have had the impetus to develop the Spitfire?



In that event, I think the world, and not just Britain, would have then been in deep doodoo.


----------



## SamPZLP.7 (Feb 3, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Depends on whether you want to dogfight over Berlin, Stettin, Munich (or Tokyo) versus over London, Paris or Amsterdam.


That's true but it also the pilot...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2012)

Why, is one pilot going to fly a Spit further than another?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 29, 2018)

Wow 2018 ! 
This is what is unique about the Mustang over much of its competitors.
It was more versatile! Used as a fighter and fighter bomber. Stable landing gear. 
Cost less and easier to manufacture and repair. 
Was the most cost effective aircraft in WW2 to operate.

It was a great Escort Fighter yet lightened was a good interceptor.
Maybe not as light as the Spitfire but close and a good bit faster!
You could not add enough fuel to a Spitfire to be an effective long range escort!
It could have been adopted for carrier use! One of the reasons for the H tail on P51H.

What made the Mustang great it was designed from the ground up for an in-line engine.
It was not a upgrade or adoption of an earlier design like the P40 and P47.
Though their reliability vastly improved because the design was sorted out unlike,the P38.
P38 was an expensive pita to build and took a long time to sort out.
Took twice the maintenance and resources and pilot training to compete on an even playing field.

The P39 was a great short range low medium fighter.
Worked great on the Eastern front.
Yet because of its poor range other aircraft took its place for offensive combat.
Then it twitchy flight performance when the nose weaponry was used up.
Lot of bent fuselages from surviving a spin.

Mustang was purpose built like the Wildcat and Hellcat. All smart useful designs. 
Unlike the Corsair basically the same airframe as the P66.
Adopted for a larger engine and prop with bent wings.
Know as Ensign Eliminator for losing so many Navy Pilots.

The F4U4 is always reported better performance than the Mustang.
Yet never compare the performance when the Mustang used 44-1 fuel.
Despite that the Mustangs cruise performance was 75mmph faster. 

The other false claim the P47 would have been better off in Korea.
No, it would have suffered just as bad as the Corsair and the Mustang. 
The P47 had a huge oil tank, cooler and turbo system that could catch fire from AA.
It was the Corsairs Achilles heal and the Japanese pilots knew that.
And were successful shooting them down knowing that fact.

The Corsair had another issue physically wearing out from landing on carriers.
The fuselage and Wing would become bent and performance sufffered with an out of spec airframe. 
The Wildcat and Hellcat did not suffer bent frames as much. 

The P51 was the only new plane we built and fought with in WW2.
The US was late bringing in new designs quickly.
Almost for the same reason the Mustang got a late start in the war.
We were not desperate but the Brits were!

Ok here come the opinions!

Dan


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jan 29, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> The P51 was the only new plane we built and fought with in WW2.


I'm not sure I would agree with that statement. The P61 was also designed, built, and fought with in WW2. Not in the same class as the mustang of course.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2018)

Not to mention a few non fighters. A-26 and B-29 for starters.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2018)

Only the airframe on the Mustang was designed during the war, the Merlin took to the air long before it started.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 30, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Wow 2018 !
> This is what is unique about the Mustang over much of its competitors.
> It was more versatile! Used as a fighter and fighter bomber. Stable landing gear.
> Cost less and easier to manufacture and repair.
> ...



Wow...heck of a lot of generalizations in there. 

Not sure how you quantify that the Mustang was easier to repair than its contemporaries, particularly the radial-engined fighters that were less complex due to fewer supporting systems. Also not sure the Mustang was any more versatile as many fighters could be re-roled for ground attack, notably the P-47 and P-40. Also, what about other missions like photo recce? Yes, the P-51 was used early on in the low-level fighter-recce role but it was nowhere near as capable as other platforms for the broad spectrum of PR missions.

It's also a "blinding glimpse of the obvious" that an aircraft which started development years after most of the others listed in the post should be better than those other airframes. It incorporated almost 5 years' benefit of both technical AND operational knowledge that the Spitfire simply didn't have...and those 5 years represented a period of rapid and drastic advances in both fields.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> It's also a "blinding glimpse of the obvious" that an aircraft which started development years after most of the others listed in the post should be better than those other airframes. It incorporated almost 5 years' benefit of both technical AND operational knowledge that the Spitfire simply didn't have...and those 5 years represented a period of rapid and drastic advances in both fields.



How the P51 and many were designed with a bird cage canopy years after the Spitfire with Malcolm hood was in service is a mystery to me. The fact that it could be retro fitted shows how easy it was to do.


----------

