# Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang



## Soren (Mar 25, 2005)

*Spitfire Mk.XIV*






Max Engine power: 2035 hp.

Max Speed: 721 km/h.

Max Climb Rate: 5,200 ft/min.

Wing Span: 11,23 m. 

Wing Area: 22,48 m2. 

Empty Weight: 2,994 kg. 

Max. Weight: 3,856 kg.

Armament: two 20mm cannons and four 7.7mm Machine Guns. 


*P-51D Mustang*




Max Engine power: 1720 hp.

Max Speed: 703 km/h.

Max Climb rate: 3,475 ft/min.

Wing Span: 11,28 m.

Wing Area: 21.83 m2.

Empty Weight: 3,232 kg.

Max. Weight: 5,206 kg.

Armament: Six Browning M2 .50 Caliber Machine Guns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So wich one would you bet your money on in a clash between the two ?


----------



## Mosin (Mar 25, 2005)

I am noy positive but in my mind. Heres my answer. 
The spitfire has a advantage in specifications but I think the P-51 
has better liveability exe. better armor 
Dont know but thats my opinion


----------



## Iskandar Taib (Mar 26, 2005)

The Mustang has it on range, and roll rate. It also has better ground handling (wide gear) and the ability to carry stores outboard of the landing gear (a Spitfire would tip over or stress the wing). Other than that the XIV comes out ahead. 

I wonder how the range of the XVIII (essentially a XIV with added internal tankage) compares to the P-51.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 26, 2005)

A website of interest to this topic:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

The Mk. XIV looks like a very impressive little ship. Very easy on the eyes too.

The website indicates that there was a tactical trial between the Mk XIV and the Mustang III (B/C version). 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III 

Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.

Maximum Speed
32. The maximum speed are practically identical.

Maximum Climb
33. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2005)

Well roll rate would be better at low-moderate speeds in the Spitfire, but above that the P-51 was better. (Except the Spit XIV CW could probably roll faster)

In turning circle, well a Fw-190A5 and P-51D were almost identical at all speeds, except at high speed where the Fw-190A5 would turn tighter !.(Not often you see that)

So there's no doubt that the Spit XIV will easely outturn the P-51 at all speeds.

About max speed, well the Spit XIV is also faster, and its climb rate makes the P-51's look pathetic.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

i'm with the spit.........


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 26, 2005)

Spitfire for me to.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

range really was the only thing the stang had the spit truely beat on..........


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 26, 2005)

range is'nt as important as the others (all though a really short range is not good) and the Spitfire beats the P-51 in most cases. If they met in a dogfight (v. unlikely) the Spit would properly win because of it's superior attributes (speed, climb, turning etc). However they where built for different purposes, (Spitfire is an interceptor, while the P-51 is a long range escort fighter) you can not really compare them. I'm stilll saying the Spit though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

well a long range escort is still designed to dogfight so we can compare the two.........


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 26, 2005)

yes you can but they are designed for different jobs. As a result the P-51 could afford to have a slow climb rate because it could climb all the way to the target, but in dogfights this is a set back. The Spit is designed specifically for dogfighting, the P-51 is for both dogfighting and a long range bomber escort. As a result of this, the P-51 loses some dogfighting attributes but gains range and endurance. The Spit doesn't have this combination of two roles as so is a better dogfighter and would win in a dogfight between the two (based on statistics). However it would come down to the skill of the pilot. The choice of aircraft though is purely which you prefer and I prefer the Spitfire.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

but that's why we compare, there's no point in not comparing them because they're used in slightly different roles.........


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 26, 2005)

I give in, there is no use in me argueing this anymore, the two have been compared and although they are used in slightly different roles, the spitfire still wins in my view (and yours)


----------



## Schöpfel (Mar 26, 2005)

Spit XIV vrs Mustang is a tough one. I'll go with what the AFDU wrote: "...no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste."


----------



## GT (Mar 27, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

if the pilot's quality was the same it's always gonna be the spit........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 27, 2005)

What I don't understand is why the insistence by the British on maintaining a significant armament of .303 machine guns even in the waning months of the war.

The .303 (British) 30/06 (U.S.) and 7.92mm (German) guns were poor air to air and air to ground weapons.

Round for round, the .50 BMG has well over four times the energy of the .303. The .303 British has less than 2,500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzel while the .50 BMG develops more than 12,000.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

we ditched the .303 in the spit long long before the end of the war.......


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 27, 2005)

Lanc, 

The Spitfire Mk. XIV (subject of this thread) was armed with four .303's.

I think what you meant to say was that the British ditched dental hygeine long before the end of the war.


----------



## Soren (Mar 27, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Lanc,
> 
> The Spitfire Mk. XIV (subject of this thread) was armed with four .303's.
> 
> I think what you meant to say was that the British ditched dental hygeine long before the end of the war.




Yes but since the IX and beyond, two .50's would be installed instead of the four .303's. I think this was what Lanc was refering to.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 27, 2005)

Were they field modifications? 

All the stats I have seen on the Mk. XIV show four .303's and two 20mm's. There are other later war aircraft that still used .303's too. Why?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

The Spit IXe and the Spit XIVe both were armed with 2 x 20mm Hispano II's + 2 x .50 M2 Brownings. I don't think any of the Spit XIV's were armed with .303's, but maybe there was an early version that was so armed. Some of the early test planes had that armament.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

As for the Spitfire roll rate and the clipped wings, tests with the Spit IX (I believe it was the IX) showed that some production units rolled very well with full wings, and clipping the wings on these planes did not appreciably increase the rate of roll. Other production units rolled poorly with the full wings, and on these, clipping the wings did improve the roll rate substantially.

=====================

From about 355 mph IAS on up, the P-51 rolled better than the Spitfire, below that, the Spit rolled better than the P-51. The P-51 was easier to roll at moderate speeds and above, as it took less aileron deflection to achieve the same roll. The P-51 roll rate curve is also very flat, where the Sptifire curve is decending sharply from its peak at about 200 mph, making it more difficult for the Spitfire pilot to execute precise rolling manuvers if speeds are changing drastically through a fight.

Again, what I have to wonder is who wins the expected engagement. The P-51 and Spitfire are cruising at 30,000 feet. The P-51 is making 400 mph, and has pleanty of fuel to do so. The Spitfire is making 300 mph, and is pushing his fuel supply to do so. Can the Spitfire make up a 100 mph speed deficit?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

where did you get that the P-51 would be doin 400 and the spit be doing 300?? we're talking about a dogfight so the spit would be at full-ish power, and be doni more than 300mph...........


----------



## Soren (Mar 28, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The Spit IXe and the Spit XIVe both were armed with 2 x 20mm Hispano II's + 2 x .50 M2 Brownings. I don't think any of the Spit XIV's were armed with .303's, but maybe there was an early version that was so armed. Some of the early test planes had that armament.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic




RG, 

the IX and XIV were both either armed with (apart from the 2xHispano's) 4x.303's or 2x.50's, both configurations were used. The 2xHispano's + 2x.50's first became the 'standard' armament with the Mk. XVIII.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The Spit IXe and the Spit XIVe both were armed with 2 x 20mm Hispano II's + 2 x .50 M2 Brownings. I don't think any of the Spit XIV's were armed with .303's, but maybe there was an early version that was so armed. Some of the early test planes had that armament.
> ...



Notice the "e".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> where did you get that the P-51 would be doin 400 and the spit be doing 300?? we're talking about a dogfight so the spit would be at full-ish power, and be doni more than 300mph...........



But that is not how a dogfight starts. The pilots of each side do not radio to each other asking "are you ready?". Both planes would be cruising at altitude. The Spitfire cruise is around 280 mph, the P-51 cruise is 400 mph. So when they first spot one another, the P-51 would typically have a 100+ mph advantage.

If the Spitfire were to cruise at 400 mph, it would be out of fuel when the engagement began. So in order to be at an equal energy state the Spitfire MUST spot the P-51 first, otherwise, when the fight ensue's, it would have to make up the difference in cruise speeds.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

firstly the P-51 doesn't cruise at 400mph, it's closer too 350mph, and i believe the spit could accelerate faster than the 'stang anyway........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> firstly the P-51 doesn't cruise at 400mph, it's closer too 350mph, and i believe the spit could accelerate faster than the 'stang anyway........



Look at the chart for yourself:







Collumn IV shows a 390 mph cruise at 30,000 feet with a fuel consumption of 76 gph. Collumn I shows a 425 mph cruise at 30,000 feet with a fuel consumption of 97 gph. A 400 mph cruise was certianly possible, though in fact I rounded the numbers a little bit for simplicity. The actual comparison should probably be the P-51 at 390 mph and the Spit-14 at 280 mph.

Yes the Spit-14 could accelerate faster than the P-51, but it would still take it a good minute to wind up another 100 mph at 30,000 feet. That's forever in a dogfight.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to knock the Spit-14. I'm just trying to point out that the P-51 had advantages that are not visible by comparing maximum speeds or climb rates or other stats.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 28, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Notice the "e".



Notice what you said:


> I don't think any of the Spit XIV's were armed with .303's, but maybe there was an early version that was so armed



The Spit IX and XIV had either four .303's or two .50's along with the two Hispano's. Either configuration was available, until the XVIII.

This applies both for the 'e' wing and 'c' wing types.

Here's an IX.e (Notice the four .303's  ):


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 28, 2005)

So as I was saying, why maintain an armament of .303's?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> Here's an IX.e (Notice the four .303's  ):



Umm, does that plane have any guns fitted? I think this is an unarmed air-show plane, with fake .50's AND the .303 slots marked in red.

Can you show me an actual picture of a Wartime Spit IXe or Spit XIVe with .303's?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> So as I was saying, why maintain an armament of .303's?



The reason would be that 20mm cannon are too prone to jamming to rely on just two of them. If the one jams, the other is pretty much useless. You don't want to be totally toothless, and even 4 x .303's is better than nothing.

But I really think most if not all Spit XIV's mounted .50's, not .303's. As for Spit IX's, I believe from the IXe and on, they were also mounting .50's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> As for Spit IX's, I believe from the IXe and on, they were also mounting .50's.




Thats because they were ! Both configurations were available. Ever hear about the Universal "E" and "C" armament ??


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 29, 2005)

I think we can all agree that the .303 machine gun was employed on British aircraft in later stages of the war.

Now, I can see why earlier produced aircraft that were still used later in the war retained their .303 armament. You fight with the weapons you have. That's not what I'm talking about. Why would any aircraft built from, say July of 1942 on, be outfitted with .303's? 

Were there manufacturing/supply or installation issues related to outfitting aircraft with the .50 BMG? 

Two .50's are far more effective than four .303's. So, why install a .303 armament under any circumstances?


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2005)

Your making it sound like the .303's were useless, but they werent. And the .50's werent the most effective Fighter vs Fighter round either.

The advantage of the four .303's was that they had a much higher ROF, and at 30-120m they were more than enough to put down a fighter. 

Against Bombers the .303's would be in-sufficient though, but so would the .50's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2005)

this is true..........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> Your making it sound like the .303's were useless, but they werent. And the .50's werent the most effective Fighter vs Fighter round either.
> 
> The advantage of the four .303's was that they had a much higher ROF, and at 30-120m they were more than enough to put down a fighter.
> 
> Against Bombers the .303's would be in-sufficient though, but so would the .50's.



Umm... a .50 hit is at least 6-10 times more damaging than a .303 hit. .50's had good range, .303's had poor range.

I disagree, the .50 was a decent fighter vs. fighter round. Perhaps not as good as the Hispano, but two .50's were about the equivalent of one Hispano, all factors considered. And they were almost 3 times more reliable.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Umm... a .50 hit is at least 6-10 times more damaging than a .303 hit. .50's had good range, .303's had poor range.
> 
> I disagree, the .50 was a decent fighter vs. fighter round. Perhaps not as good as the Hispano, but two .50's were about the equivalent of one Hispano, all factors considered. And they were almost 3 times more reliable.



Yes the .50 is more powerful, but the ROF is low, and at 30-120m the 4x.303's are just as good as the 2x.50's.

Anyway the Spit IX and XIV both had the "B", "C" armament, and it was sufficient.

The "A" armament (8x.303's) during BoB was sufficient for shooting down fighters, so why shouldnt the much better "B" and "C" be so to ?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 29, 2005)

I realize that I'm just basing this on my opinion but still see four .303's as inferior to two .50's. Insufficient ability to penetrate armor or inflict damage on the engine or penetrate structural members, too small of a diameter to poke good holes in the fuel system, etc.

Below are relevant excerpts (for what they're worth) from "The WWII Fightet Gun Debate"
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html

Concerning the Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IA:

The RAF was quick to understand that heavy firepower was needed, but its initial choice was an unfortunate one. The .303 was chosen over the .50 because of its higher rate of fire and better reliability, but the .303 round lacked the power to penetrate armour, and was far too light to do structural damage. Pilots preferred to use incendiary rounds, also because they could see them hit the target. Although some pilots had their guns "synchronized" to converge at a point, it was more common to have some spreading, to simplify aiming

...

*In the first phase* (of fighter armament employment) the rifle-calibre machinegun was still important. Fighters either carried a homogenous armament of such guns, or they used a mixture of rifle-calibre guns with cannon or heavy machineguns. Examples of the first approach are the eight Browning .303s in the Spitfire and the four MG17s in the early Fw 190. Examples of the second approach are the MG FF and MG 17 weapons of the Bf 109E, the two .50 and four .303 Brownings of the early P-51, or the two 20mm cannon and two 7.7mm guns in the A6M2. The first phase ended when it was generally understood that the light machinegun was ineffective against modern combat aircraft.

*In the second phase* there were still two options. Either a homogenous armament of heavy machineguns was used, or a mixture of more modern 20mm cannon with machineguns. The first approach was chosen almost exclusively by the USAAF, which equipped its fighters with six or eight .50 Browning guns. The second approach was far more common, and used by fighters such the Spitfire, the Bf 109, or Ki.84. The cannon were now in general belt-fed, high-velocity weapons with a satisfactory rate of fire. The disadvantage of cannon was that their weight and recoil precluded the use of more than one or two. Hence they had to be mixed with machineguns, with different ballistic characteristics, different ammunition and different maintenance requirements. The disadvantage of an armament of heavy machineguns only was that it lacked the destructive power to be effective against anything but small fighters or lightly constructed bombers.

*The third phase*, which lasted well beyond WWII, was characterized by a switch to a homogeneous armament of 20mm cannon. Examples of such armament are the last Spitfire models, the Typhoon and Tempest, the Soviet La-7, and the Japanese N1K-2J. Usually four 20mm cannon were carried. This was also the standard armament for most post-war fighters, except those of the USAAF. Again, there was a second option: That of heavy "bomber killer" armament. Here the German MK 108 cannon must be mentioned, as installed in the Me 262. Such cannon were either low- velocity, low-rpm weapons, or they were extremely heavy; in either case they reduced the suitability of the fighter for combat against other fighters. Because of this and the introduction of spin-stabilized and folding-fin rockets, such armament was installed in few post-war fighters, but one that must be mentioned is the MiG-15


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Umm... a .50 hit is at least 6-10 times more damaging than a .303 hit. .50's had good range, .303's had poor range.
> ...



The .50's had about five times the hitting power of the .303 at the muzzle. By 100 meters, this has increased to about eight to nine times the hitting power. The .303's had a hard time penetrating even the 109's armor from point blank range. The .50 AP or API round could easily penetrate the reaf of the fuselage near the tail, pass through the pilot's seat armor, pass through the firewall, and end up damaging the engine, from point blank range (or out to as much as 100 meters). From 300 meters, the .50 could still easily penetrate the fuselage and both the aluminum and steel seat armor to reach the pilot.

.303's could strike German self-sealing fuel tanks repeatedly with minimal effect. A single .50 hit to the fuel tank was usually enough to rupture it beyond its ability to self-seal, and often sufficient to cause a fire as well. And that does not consider the incendiary effect - when this is factored in the .303's simply cannot compare, they could not carry enough incendiary to be very effective, where the .50's could.

Even at point blank range the .303 was not nearly as effective as the .50, it would take at least three .303's to equal a single .50, even accounting for the RoF. The 1200 rpm RoF of the .303 was really not that much of an advantage over the 850 rpm RoF of the .50 BMG, given the poor .303 ballistics vs. the excellent .50 ballistics. And in 4 x .50 installations, such as on the P-51B, the guns were usually tweaked to fire at about 950 rpm.

Look at the facts Soren - the P-51B with 4 x .50's had very much superior armament to the Spitfires armed with 8 x .303's. There is simply no disputing it, even the British agreed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 29, 2005)

In case anyone is interested in calculating energy of gun projectiles in foot pounds, the following is the equation:

Take the weight of the bullet/projectile in grains and divide by 7,000. (There are 437.5 grains to an ounce.)

Take that figure and multiply by the velocity in feet oper second.

Take that figure and multiply again by the velocity in feet per second.

Take that figure and devide by 64.32 (Two atmospheres in pounds per square inch.)

So, for instance, my .338 Winchester Magnum can drive a Federal High Energy load consisting of a 225 grain bullet at 2,940 feet per second for a whopping (trust me, its quite nasty on both ends) 4,319 foot pounds of energy. That's considered quite a powerful rifle and more than adequate for hunting the largest and most dangerous species (Moose, Brown Bear) in North America. It's power exceeds the .303 British (less than 2,500 fpe)by a very wide margin yet pales compared to the .50 BMG(more than 12,000).


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Look at the facts Soren - the P-51B with 4 x .50's had very much superior armament to the Spitfires armed with 8 x .303's. There is simply no disputing it, even the British agreed.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



I never stated that the 8x.303's were better than 4x.50's RG, so stop putting words into my mouth !

The 4x.303's with incendiary rounds coupled with 2xHispano's was just as effective in their own right against enemy Fighters, as the 2x.50's coupled with 2xHispano's at 30-120m or so. 

Also the .303's did't have to make any serius internal damage to the enemy fighter, just the airframe or wings, wich they were more than capable of !

Also the Browning .303 had an ROF of 1140 rpm, whereas the Browning .50 M2 had an ROF of 750 rpm.

4x.303's will litterally 'Rain' bullets at you ! wich will make any enemy fighter look like a 'Filter' of some sort.  

In terms of ballistics and penetrating power, sure the .50's were much better, but penetrating power aint all, infact the Germans pretty much demonstrated that their incendiary rounds were more effective if they hit home.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Soren said:


> I never stated that the 8x.303's were better than 4x.50's RG, so stop putting words into my mouth !



Ahh but you are. Even in this post in your next statement you say exactly that! 4 x .303's are, in your estimation, equal to 2 x .50's (out to 120 m).



Soren said:


> The 4x.303's with incendiary rounds coupled with 2xHispano's was just as effective in their own right against enemy Fighters, as the 2x.50's coupled with 2xHispano's at 30-120m or so.



I very strongly disagree. The .303's were largely ineffective against mid-war and late-war fighters. The deWilde incendiary rounds were known to even bounce off the relatively thin skins of German fighters. When they did penetrate, they had no energy remaining to do any damage, and they carried so little incendiary that they had a hard time starting fires unless a very large number of hits were scored.



Soren said:


> Also the .303's did't have to make any serius internal damage to the enemy fighter, just the airframe or wings, wich they were more than capable of !



No, they weren't. It took a large number of hits, often a hundred or even more, to down enemy fighters with .303's.



Soren said:


> Also the Browning .303 had an ROF of 1140 rpm, whereas the Browning .50 M2 had an ROF of 750 rpm.



Why is it that when people compare the .50 Lightweight Aircraft M2 to other guns, they always choose the maxium RoF of the other gun, but the minimum for the M2? The .303 Browning had a RoF of from about 1040-1140 rpm. The .50 M2 Browning had an RoF of from 750-850 rpm (modified with a nickel in place of the fiberous buffer pad it could make 950-1000 rpm). To be "fair" you need to compare them equally, the .50 fired at about 800 rpm (the standard setting for all 6 gun US fighters), the .303 fired at about 1100 rpm.

Using these figures we see that at the muzzel the energy is 3052.64 jouls/round for the .303, and 16746.43 joules for the .50. A difference of about 5.5:1 in favor of the .50. Factoring in the RoF of the guns, the .303 does a little better at 55,965 joules/sec vs. 223,286 joules/sec for the .50, but still this is a difference of 4:1. And then you have to factor in the range effect. At 100 meters the .50 BMG has lost a wopping 5.2% of its velocity (at sea level), compared to the .303 which has lost over 15% of its velocity, so at that range the .50 holds about 90% of its initial energy, where the .303 holds only about 72% of its energy. So at 100 meters we are looking at 44,000 joules/sec for the .303 as compared to about 201,000 for the .50, and we are almost back at a 5:1 advantage for the .50. And by 200 meters, the .303 is practically worthless, but the .50 BMG is still quite potent.



Soren said:


> 4x.303's will litterally 'Rain' bullets at you ! wich will make any enemy fighter look like a 'Filter' of some sort.



Yeah, and they won't have much more effect than rain either!



Soren said:


> In terms of ballistics and penetrating power, sure the .50's were much better, but penetrating power aint all, infact the Germans pretty much demonstrated that their incendiary rounds were more effective if they hit home.



Where do you get this from? US and British incendiaries were superior to those used by the German's throughout the war. To be effective, an incendiary has to be able to "hit home", and that requires penetration or an absolutely huge amount of incendiary material.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2005)

> Ahh but you are. Even in this post in your next statement you say exactly that! 4 x .303's are, in your estimation, equal to 2 x .50's (out to 120 m).



Yes in their own right they are, and coupled with the 2xHispano's they were very effective. But i wasnt suggesting 8x.303's vs 4x.50's !



> I very strongly disagree. The .303's were largely ineffective against mid-war and late-war fighters. The deWilde incendiary rounds were known to even bounce off the relatively thin skins of German fighters. When they did penetrate, they had no energy remaining to do any damage, and they carried so little incendiary that they had a hard time starting fires unless a very large number of hits were scored.
> 
> No, they weren't. It took a large number of hits, often a hundred or even more, to down enemy fighters with .303's.



Well you see with 4-8x guns with 1100 rpm, over 100 hits are very plausible ! And although the 8x.303's proved insufficient against Bombers, they proved more than enough against the Me-109's over Britain in 1940 !




> Why is it that when people compare the .50 Lightweight Aircraft M2 to other guns, they always choose the maxium RoF of the other gun, but the minimum for the M2?



As far as I remember, you mentioned the .303 to have an ROF of 1200rpm ! and the M2 950rpm.



> The .303 Browning had a RoF of from about 1040-1140 rpm. The .50 M2 Browning had an RoF of from 750-850 rpm (modified with a nickel in place of the fiberous buffer pad it could make 950-1000 rpm). To be "fair" you need to compare them equally, the .50 fired at about 800 rpm (the standard setting for all 6 gun US fighters), the .303 fired at about 1100 rpm.
> 
> Using these figures we see that at the muzzel the energy is 3052.64 jouls/round for the .303, and 16746.43 joules for the .50. A difference of about 5.5:1 in favor of the .50. Factoring in the RoF of the guns, the .303 does a little better at 55,965 joules/sec vs. 223,286 joules/sec for the .50, but still this is a difference of 4:1. And then you have to factor in the range effect. At 100 meters the .50 BMG has lost a wopping 5.2% of its velocity (at sea level), compared to the .303 which has lost over 15% of its velocity, so at that range the .50 holds about 90% of its initial energy, where the .303 holds only about 72% of its energy. So at 100 meters we are looking at 44,000 joules/sec for the .303 as compared to about 201,000 for the .50, and we are almost back at a 5:1 advantage for the .50. And by 200 meters, the .303 is practically worthless, but the .50 BMG is still quite potent.



The .50 cal round itself was about 4.2-4.6 times as destructive as the .303.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Look at table 2 :GUN POWER AND EFFICIENCY.

Here the Browning .303 and 50 Browning M2 are listed as equal ! 

Then take a look at table 3: FIGHTER FIREPOWER.

The Spit Mk.Vc with 4x.303's + 2xHispano's; Armament power= 480.

The Spit Mk.XIV.E with 2x50's + 2xHispano's; Armament power= 520.

They are very close !



> Yeah, and they won't have much more effect than rain either!



  Nice joke, I'll give you that !

All im trying to say is that the 4x.303's + 2xHispano's armament wasnt ineffective, and more or less on par with the 2x.50's + 2xHispano's armament against Fighters.

Also the lower weight of the Browning .303 gun was an advantage of its own.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

and you could carry more .303 ammo than .50cal.............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

Soren said:


> > Ahh but you are. Even in this post in your next statement you say exactly that! 4 x .303's are, in your estimation, equal to 2 x .50's (out to 120 m).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes in their own right they are, and coupled with the 2xHispano's they were very effective. But i wasnt suggesting 8x.303's vs 4x.50's !



So you are suggesting that somehow by being paired with 20mm they become more effective?



Soren said:


> > Why is it that when people compare the .50 Lightweight Aircraft M2 to other guns, they always choose the maxium RoF of the other gun, but the minimum for the M2?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I remember, you mentioned the .303 to have an ROF of 1200rpm ! and the M2 950rpm.



My error - I should have looked up the RoF rather than rely on memory, where I rounded it to 1200 rpm.



Soren said:


> The .50 cal round itself was about 4.2-4.6 times as destructive as the .303.
> 
> http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm



Tony William's uses momentum, rather than ke, to determine hitting power. Even he admits this is a somewhat arbitrary decision. While I would agree with him that ke is not entirely valid, I also think that momentum is not entirely valid either. Something in between makes more sense, as momentum relates to penetration but ke relates to shock effect and shrapnel/spalling effect. When I did my gun tables, I used the formula:

hitting power = 1/2 mass * velocity^1.6 (i.e raised to the 1.6 power)

This formula splits the difference between momentum and ke results almost exactly in the middle.

Furthermore, they relay the power at the muzzle, not the power at the hitting distance. As I showed before, the .303 velocity drops three times as fast as the .50 velocity for a given target distance.



Soren said:


> Look at table 2 :GUN POWER AND EFFICIENCY.
> 
> Here the Browning .303 and 50 Browning M2 are listed as equal !



This table relates the weight of the gun (but not the ammo supply) to the power in the eariler table. Weight of the gun has nothing to do with effectiveness of the hits, so this table is of no real value.



Soren said:


> Then take a look at table 3: FIGHTER FIREPOWER.
> 
> The Spit Mk.Vc with 4x.303's + 2xHispano's; Armament power= 480.
> 
> ...



Again, that table is based upon the power figures he used earlier, which use muzzle momentum, not really a valid comparison at all.

The problem with the .303's is that by the time they've pentrated the skin they have little power left. They tumble easily too and don't have enough mass to penetrate well even with a perpendicular strike, a strike while oriented sideways will do little damage to most components and almost none to structure. The .50's are large enough and have enough mass/energy to penetrate the skin and do damage to anything they hit inside, even if they tumble - in fact usually they would do more damage if they tumble.



Soren said:


> All im trying to say is that the 4x.303's + 2xHispano's armament wasnt ineffective, and more or less on par with the 2x.50's + 2xHispano's armament against Fighters.
> 
> Also the lower weight of the Browning .303 gun was an advantage of its own.



Well, I really don't think this is true. By mid war, against the FW190 the .303's were nearly useless. The combination of weak initial hitting power, poor ballistics, very poor hitting power at range, and small payload all added up to an ineffective round. And it was virtually impossible to make an API round in that caliber.

The only reason the British kept using the .303 was because they had to import the .50 BMG, but made their own .303 Brownings, along with the issues of adding .50 ammo to their supply chains. They were setup to support the .303, not the .50.

The .50 BMG was a very big improvement on the .303. The gap between .303 and .50 is much larger than the gap between .50 and 20mm.

Weighing less is only an advantage if the gun is still effective. The Soviet UBK Berezin was an example of a gun that was far more "efficient" than the .50 because it had the same hitting power but weighted a lot less (and had better RoF).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2005)

RG if the .303 round can penetrate up to 9mm of steel at 200y, then it damn well wont peel off an "airframe" at that range !

So at 30-120m it is still lethal to any German Fighter ! 

Incidents where .303's rounds ricochet of German fighters, were incidents where the pilots have been a little to trigger-happy, firing at long range.

Tony's assessment is good enough for me:

4xBrowning .303's GunPower = 80 

2xM2 .50's GunPower = 120


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG if the .303 round can penetrate up to 9mm of steel at 200y, then it damn well wont peel off an "airframe" at that range !



That's at 0 degrees. Most strikes are going to be at high angles, typically 45-90 degrees. The penetration at 40 degrees is 4mm at 200 yards. At 60 degrees it would probably be about 2mm, if it penetrated at all. Punching through duraluminum at a 60 degree angle would leave very little energy for doing any damage.



Soren said:


> So at 30-120m it is still lethal to any German Fighter !



Enough of them yes. But against an FW, it would be an awful lot.



Soren said:


> Incidents where .303's rounds ricochet of German fighters, were incidents where the pilots have been a little to trigger-happy, firing at long range.



Sometimes. But they were also rounds that hit at 75 to 90 degrees off the normal (perpendicular) to the planes skin, or that hit at a lesser angle but hit where there was structure immeadiately under the skin.



Soren said:


> Tony's assessment is good enough for me:
> 
> 4xBrowning .303's GunPower = 80
> 
> 2xM2 .50's GunPower = 120



Well, maybe you should buy Tony's book, "FLYING GUNS OF WORLD WAR II", which clearly indictes that the .303's were simply too weak to be effective. In 1932-34 British studies determined that it would take 8 x .303's to deliver a lethal dose in two seconds of fire to _existing_ fighters - that's 300 rounds, and it assumes a very high hit percentage.

On his website Tony also says:



> Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber. Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it. In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated
> 
> The incendiary ammunition was also variable in performance. Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design – it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.
> http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm



And in his forums Tony says:



> The FN-built version of the Browning did 1,400 rpm (they actually pushed it to 1,900 rpm, but decided that it wore out and broke too fast). However, that wouldn't make a major difference.
> 
> There was nothing that could be done to improve the ammo. The B Mk VII incendiary was as good as rifle-calibre incendiaries got, and the AP could only have been improved by using a tungsten carbide core.
> 
> ...



And from E. Gustin's site (Tony's Co-Author for Flying Guns):



> *Phase I*
> 
> In the first phase the rifle-calibre machinegun was still important. Fighters either carried a homogenous armament of such guns, or they used a mixture of rifle-calibre guns with cannon or medium-calibre machineguns. Examples of the first approach are the eight Browning .303s in the Spitfire and the four MG 17s in the early Fw 190. Examples of the second approach are the MG FF and MG 17 weapons of the Bf 109E, the two .50 and four .303 Brownings of the early P-51, or the two 20mm cannon and two 7.7mm guns in the A6M2. *This first phase ended when it was understood that the rifle-calibre machinegun was ineffective against modern combat aircraft.*
> 
> ...



So as you can see, Tony does not consider the .303 would have been effective even if the number of guns had been increased to 12 or the RoF increased to 1500 rpm!

Another point to be made is that the .303's ballistics differed so greatly from those of the Hispano that they really didn't work together. If you were scoring with one you were almost surely missing with the other, except at point blank (closer than 50 meters) range. .50 ballistics are fairly close to Hispano ballistics.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2005)

Well you said the .303's would ricochet off the airframe, but they wouldnt, only if they hit a structured part. Also incendiary ammunition burns its way through instead, virtually neglating any slant.

The problem with the .303's and .50's were that they made relatively small holes, and only the .50's could do any _real_ internal damage to any structured part.

But still the .303's werent ineffective, as they could still cut chords, and varius other things after penning the airframe.

Btw as a little side-note: The 7.92mm AP used in Tony's mentioned test, wasnt German ammunition but British built ammunition. The Germans used hotter loads for their 7.92mm ammunition, and sometimes a Tungsten core in the AP projectile, depending on the type.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

So now Tony's opinion is not good enough for you?

----------------------------

The incendiary did not burn its way through the skin of the plane. If it burst on the skin of the plane, it was wasted and blew away.

The USN did a test against self sealing fuel tanks using AP ammo. The .30 rounds punched a .3 inch hole in the top of the tank, and sometimes made a small exit hole in the bottom of the tank and sometimes remained in the tank - in either case the holes sealed. The .50's punched a .5 inch hole in the top of the tank, and made a 4 inch by 8 inch exit hole in the bottom which could not seal. The 20mm made a 20mm hole in the top of the tank..... and blew the bottom of the tank off at the seams!

As for the German 7.92mm ammo... 







=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2005)

> The incendiary did not burn its way through the skin of the plane.



What ?! 

From Tony's site: _ *incendiaries burn on their passage through the target, setting light to anything inflammable they meet on the way.*_

You were saying ?  



> The USN did a test against self sealing fuel tanks using AP ammo. The .30 rounds punched a .3 inch hole in the top of the tank, and sometimes made a small exit hole in the bottom of the tank and sometimes remained in the tank - in either case the holes sealed. The .50's punched a .5 inch hole in the top of the tank, and made a 4 inch by 8 inch exit hole in the bottom which could not seal. The 20mm made a 20mm hole in the top of the tank..... and blew the bottom of the tank off at the seams!



Doesnt really correspond that well with previus quoted British tests though, now does it ?



> As for the German 7.92mm ammo...



Thats an S.m.K. round, not an S.m.K.H round, but even this one penetrates 3mm of armor plating at 80* from vertical.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

Soren said:


> > The incendiary did not burn its way through the skin of the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was saying if the incendiary expends on the skin, it won't burn through the skin. Also, Tony's description of how the incendiary works is just flat wrong. For the De'Wilde and M1 Incendiary, or the M8 API, the incendiary normally will not ignite on contact with the planes skin, but will ignite on contact with the next metal surface. When it does ignite, it will then ignite flamables that are contacted as it passes through the target.

If it should ingite on hitting the skin of the target this means something very solid lies beneath the skin or the angle is very oblique (and then it would usually ricochette). If this happens, the round will burst on the skin of the plane, making a visible flash but then the incendiary will probably blow away and do little damage.

In any case, the nature of the incendiary is such that it will not aid in penetration no matter what. By the time its transfered any significant heat, the metal of the round is long gone.



Soren said:


> > The USN did a test against self sealing fuel tanks using AP ammo. The .30 rounds punched a .3 inch hole in the top of the tank, and sometimes made a small exit hole in the bottom of the tank and sometimes remained in the tank - in either case the holes sealed. The .50's punched a .5 inch hole in the top of the tank, and made a 4 inch by 8 inch exit hole in the bottom which could not seal. The 20mm made a 20mm hole in the top of the tank..... and blew the bottom of the tank off at the seams!
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt really correspond that well with previus quoted British tests though, now does it ?



British tests did not setup a self sealing tank half full of water and fire the round down into it from relatively close range. But British tests drew the same overall conclusion - the .303 was relatively ineffective against self sealing fuel tanks, and the 20mm and .50 were about equal.



Soren said:


> > As for the German 7.92mm ammo...
> 
> 
> 
> Thats an S.m.K. round, not an S.m.K.H round, but even this one penetrates 3mm of armor plating at 80* from vertical.



Not sure how you're reading it. In this chart, 90 is perpendicular to the plate. The largest angle shown is 30 degrees, which would be 60 degrees off the perpendicular using 0 as the normal.

Yes, the German 7.9 mm AP ammo was better than the British - the British incendiaries were better than the German.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2005)

.303 incendiaries were reasonably effective agaisnt self sealing fuel tanks, but the .50's were better in the fact that it wouldnt take as many hits to rupture the tank.



> Also, Tony's description of how the incendiary works is just flat wrong.



I'll let Tony defend that, but thats what every other source tells me aswell.




> Not sure how you're reading it. In this chart, 90 is perpendicular to the plate. The largest angle shown is 30 degrees, which would be 60 degrees off the perpendicular using 0 as the normal.



As I said "80* from *vertical*", Vertical normally means 90*.

Above shows the S.m.K. rounds hitting a plate with a slant of 80* from vertical. (Or 20 degree's to Vertical) 



> Yes, the German 7.9 mm AP ammo was better than the British - the British incendiaries were better than the German.



Agreed.


----------



## Soren (Apr 4, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Again, what I have to wonder is who wins the expected engagement. The P-51 and Spitfire are cruising at 30,000 feet. The P-51 is making 400 mph, and has pleanty of fuel to do so. The Spitfire is making 300 mph, and is pushing his fuel supply to do so. Can the Spitfire make up a 100 mph speed deficit?
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



The Spit XIV's cruising speed was 362 mph, while the P-51D's was 275 mph. And why would they meet at 30,000ft ? Why not 15,000 or 10,000 ?

There's no question who's going to win the fight if both pilots are equal. 
Not only is the Spit XIV more maneuverable at all altitudes, but it is faster, climbs better, thus it controls the whole engagement. The P-51 can't run once they've met, and by then the P-51 is dead meat, as the spit will be behind it in seconds !

The P-51's only chance is for it to get into a steep dive, and build up some speed, thus it has a small chance of escaping.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

Soren said:


> The Spit XIV's cruising speed was 362 mph, while the P-51D's was 275 mph. And why would they meet at 30,000ft ? Why not 15,000 or 10,000 ?



You have those cruising speeds backwards.

At all altitudes the P-51 cruise is faster than the Spitfires. But the expected engagement would be at high altitude.



Soren said:


> There's no question who's going to win the fight if both pilots are equal.
> Not only is the Spit XIV more maneuverable at all altitudes, but it is faster, climbs better, thus it controls the whole engagement. The P-51 can't run once they've met, and by then the P-51 is dead meat, as the spit will be behind it in seconds !



The P-51 turns and rolls better at very high speeds. The P-51 dives faster at a moderate dive angle. And the P-51 can sustain high speeds much longer. But I agree the P-51 would have to execute hit-and-run tactics against the Spit XIV, if it turns it's dead.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 4, 2005)

> You have those cruising speeds backwards.
> 
> At all altitudes the P-51 cruise is faster than the Spitfires.



Every single source on the P-51D and Spitfire that I have read, give the stats for the two aircraft that i just presented. 275 mph for the P-51D and 362 mph for the Spit XIV.

Think about it... the Spit XIV is lighter, has more prop-blades, its got a 2050 hp engine vs the P-51 wich is heavier and only has a 1475 hp engine.



> But the expected engagement would be at high altitude.



Where the Spit still it at an advantage.




> The P-51 turns and rolls better at very high speeds.



Correction, it ONLY roll better, it NEVER turns better ! Remember how stiff the P-51's elevators would get with speed ?  



> The P-51 dives faster at a moderate dive angle.



That is true.



> And the P-51 can sustain high speeds much longer.



And what do you base that on ? The SPit can cruise at 362 mph, wich is only 40 mph away from the P-51D's "top speed".



> But I agree the P-51 would have to execute hit-and-run tactics against the Spit XIV.



Wich it can't, as the Spit is noticably faster. Hey the XIV used to catch V1's !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

I've proven in past posts the P-51 cruise speeds, which include up to 425 mph continues cruise at 30,000 feet.

I've not seen anything showing a cruise speed for the Spit XIV nearly as high as you claim. Cruise speeds I've seen listed typically run from 275-300 mph. The PR.XIX, a specialized high alt recon version could cruise at 370mph (595km/h) at 40000ft.



Soren said:


> Think about it... the Spit XIV is lighter, has more prop-blades, its got a 2050 hp engine vs the P-51 wich is heavier and only has a 1475 hp engine.



The V-1650-7 Packard Merlin was rated at 1695 hp at +18 lbs boost, about 1750 HP at +25 lbs boost. Then you have to addin the radiator thrust, worth about 300 HP at 400 mph TAS at 25,000 feet. The Spit XIV lacked sufficient cooling to sustain high level speeds for extended periods, once the bounadry layer starts seperating, the cooling system is not very efficient and creates tremendous drag.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 4, 2005)

> I've proven in past posts the P-51 cruise speeds, which include up to 425 mph continues cruise at 30,000 feet.



425 mph cruise speed ??!! You've got to be kidding me !

Read this, wich is exactly the same info you'll get from books about the P-51: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap9.htm



> I've not seen anything showing a cruise speed for the Spit XIV nearly as high as you claim. Cruise speeds I've seen listed typically run from 275-300 mph. The PR.XIX, a specialized high alt recon version could cruise at 370mph (595km/h) at 40000ft.



Well then you havent read much ! Read this: 
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/supespitfire.html#supespitfire3




> The V-1650-7 Packard Merlin was rated at 1695 hp at +18 lbs boost,



Yes your right it was 1695 hp, an error on my side.



> about 1750 HP at +25 lbs boost. Then you have to addin the radiator thrust, worth about 300 HP at 400 mph TAS at 25,000 feet. The Spit XIV lacked sufficient cooling to sustain high level speeds for extended periods, once the bounadry layer starts seperating, the cooling system is not very efficient and creates tremendous drag.



Well the Spit can maintain high speed flight long enough to get behind that P-51 and Shoot it down, wich is what matters.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> > I've proven in past posts the P-51 cruise speeds, which include up to 425 mph continues cruise at 30,000 feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 425 mph cruise speed ??!! You've got to be kidding me !



No I am not. Look at the P-51D/K pilot handbook flight ops chart for yourself:






I've highlighted the 425 mph cruise spec for you in blue. Note that this spec is a little off, as it shows an 870 mile range, but this is based upon the 23 gallons of fuel required to takeoff and climb to 10,000 feet. According to the chart on the previous page, it would take about 50-53 gallons to reach 30,000 feet (the chart only goes to 25K which takes 43 gallons), so actual range would be reduced accordingly.



Soren said:


> Read this, wich is exactly the same info you'll get from books about the P-51: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap9.htm



Which gives you one of the many cruise options. I bet if it gives a range and altitude you can index it on the chart above and find they match exactly.



Soren said:


> > I've not seen anything showing a cruise speed for the Spit XIV nearly as high as you claim. Cruise speeds I've seen listed typically run from 275-300 mph. The PR.XIX, a specialized high alt recon version could cruise at 370mph (595km/h) at 40000ft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Come on! Give me a primary source document supporting this cruise speed, or at least a reputable source, not a warbirds fan site. If you check the Fourth-Fighter Group pages, it says max sustainable cruise of the Spit XIV was 300 mph.



Soren said:


> > The V-1650-7 Packard Merlin was rated at 1695 hp at +18 lbs boost,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your right it was 1695 hp, an error on my side.



No problemo.



Soren said:


> > about 1750 HP at +25 lbs boost. Then you have to addin the radiator thrust, worth about 300 HP at 400 mph TAS at 25,000 feet. The Spit XIV lacked sufficient cooling to sustain high level speeds for extended periods, once the bounadry layer starts seperating, the cooling system is not very efficient and creates tremendous drag.
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Spit can maintain high speed flight long enough to get behind that P-51 and Shoot it down, wich is what matters.



If it can overcome the 100+ mph initial speed advantage of the P-51.

Also, you claim the Spitfire could out-turn the P-51 even at high speeds. It is true it does have a tighter minimum turning radius, but this is kind of irrelevant given that G forces will prevent the pilot from exploiting it. In a very high speed turn the pilot is the limitation, and the P-51 will loose less energy in the minimum turn the pilot can sustain, allowing him to work his way around behind the Spit unless the Spit sacrifices energy to slow down and tighten the turn... and we all know where that leads.

A little side note. In my debate on this topic someone on this board (through private msgs) claimed there was no real difference between the P-51B's and the P-51D's cruise performance, that they just found the P-51 could run at FT in the lean condition and revised the charts. I researched this and found it was not true.

In 1943 and early 1944 at the NACA Glenn research center a new fuel nozzle was developed which greatly increased the "fuel horspower" of an engine. This was applied to the P-51D/K first, starting in late-spring 1944, and then to the P-39/63 and Merlin powered Spitfires after P-51 demand could be fully met. Strangly, it seems not to have been applied to the R2800 powered US fighters, or the Napier Saber for that matter, until possibly after the war. I suspect scaling it up and tooling for production were a major undertaking.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 5, 2005)

> No I am not. Look at the P-51D/K pilot handbook flight ops chart for yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



RG this is so far from any other cruise speed info about the P-51D that i have ever read, so how can i trust that you havent messed around with these documents on your photo-program ?

I have never heard 425 mph cruise speed from any P-51 pilot, most veterans tell you that its "Max" speed was around 430 mph at 30,000 ft, and cruise speed wouldnt be close to that RG. 

Every book and site about the P-51 will tell you the same:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51.htm 
https://www.quicktechhobby.com/articles/history_of_the_p51_mustang.htm 
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/mustang.htm




> Come on! Give me a primary source document supporting this cruise speed, or at least a reputable source, not a warbirds fan site.



Its not a Fan-site, just a warbirds site. 



> If you check the Fourth-Fighter Group pages, it says max sustainable cruise of the Spit XIV was 300 mph.



Checked, 300 mph isnt mentioned.



> Also, you claim the Spitfire could out-turn the P-51 even at high speeds. It is true it does have a tighter minimum turning radius, but this is kind of irrelevant given that G forces will prevent the pilot from exploiting it. In a very high speed turn the pilot is the limitation, and the P-51 will loose less energy in the minimum turn the pilot can sustain, allowing him to work his way around behind the Spit unless the Spit sacrifices energy to slow down and tighten the turn... and we all know where that leads.



RG the P-51 has laminar wings, wich means as soon as it does a high G maneuver, it losses speed extreemly fast, alot faster than the Spit ! So turning is an abslolute NO NO for the P-51.

Hey AFDU found out that the Fw-190A turned either tighter or equal to the P-51, and the Fw-190 isnt known for its turning ability  



> A little side note. In my debate on this topic someone on this board (through private msgs) claimed there was no real difference between the P-51B's and the P-51D's cruise performance, that they just found the P-51 could run at FT in the lean condition and revised the charts. I researched this and found it was not true.



How did you find out this was untrue ? 



> In 1943 and early 1944 at the NACA Glenn research center a new fuel nozzle was developed which greatly increased the "fuel horspower" of an engine. This was applied to the P-51D/K first, starting in late-spring 1944, and then to the P-39/63 and Merlin powered Spitfires after P-51 demand could be fully met. Strangly, it seems not to have been applied to the R2800 powered US fighters, or the Napier Saber for that matter, until possibly after the war. I suspect scaling it up and tooling for production were a major undertaking.



You suspect ? Is there no clear indication ?


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 5, 2005)

The information I've recieved from *P-51 pilots* (I'm not finished looking for the truth) is that high speed cruiseis not used, even on light (no guns, ammo or fusalage tank) fully restored P-51s the normal cruise speed is 210 to 265mph depending on Plane/prop/engine setup/pilot. 

Acording to RR the merlin would fail at the RPMs required for 390mph if extended runs were undertaken. This was fixed after the war for merlins used in commercial aircraft requiring "extended high cruise RPMs".

FYI Allison rods are used in hopped up Merlins as is a Very heavy bottom end main bering girdle to rienforce the block.

I will accept that the P-51 had a better fuel management system than the P-38. It fell into the WPBs refusal to allow Lockheed to install one.

I also believe the Extra thrust ov the weaver effect is mostly theroretical. As I showed (in your other thread) In average conditions the P-38 and P-51 use the same hp/lbs to achieve the same relative top speeds. This would not be true if there was 300-400hp extra being produced by the P-51s radiator. 

The fact is that the only extra thrust is produced by the heat exchange of the radiator. The expansion of that air (heated) is the only added thrust. Just like a jet engine Compress the air entering, inject fuel and ignite to provide heat expansion then it exits at a higher velocity producing thrust. That maybe more efficent in the P-51 because of the reduction of air velocity due to the expansion chamber allows a more efficient heat transfer but the difference in the added thrust (over other aircraft) is ONLY the added efficency of the heat exchange. That all of this equipment fills in an area of high drag thus eliminating it is more important than any thrust expelled or created.

The therory that slowing the air then squirting it through a smaller exit creating thrust is Crap it only works porportionaly to the heat added.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG this is so far from any other cruise speed info about the P-51D that i have ever read, so how can i trust that you havent messed around with these documents on your photo-program ?



So now you are accusing me of modifying the pages from the P-51 pilot's handbook to lie to you about the cruise speed? Jeeze! As soon as someone came up with the original don't you think my rep would be pure mud?

Here, download the .pdf file for yourself: http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/air-manuals/usaaf/P-51D PDF/

_*You owe me an appology dude.*_



Soren said:


> I have never heard 425 mph cruise speed from any P-51 pilot, most veterans tell you that its "Max" speed was around 430 mph at 30,000 ft, and cruise speed wouldnt be close to that RG.
> 
> Every book and site about the P-51 will tell you the same:
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51.htm
> ...



None of which dispute the given cruise tables - they just choose one entry according to their own criteria of selection. Clearly "most economical cruise" settings come from Collumn V. If your definition of cruise speed is maximum distance coverage, this collumn would be the one you'd use.

Sure the cruise speed could be close to that, it just has to be at an output level that the P-51 can sustain continuously.

I really don't see how you can argue with the 1945 revised P-51D/K pilot manual as given to the pilots and mission planners. The first printing might have incorrect info in it, but the 2nd printing includes adjustments for actual combat experiances.



Soren said:


> > Come on! Give me a primary source document supporting this cruise speed, or at least a reputable source, not a warbirds fan site.
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a Fan-site, just a warbirds site.



That's what a "fan" site is. A sight that an individual who is a fan of WWII aviation has put up with their interpretation of whatever sources they have access to. There are several classes of sources:

1) Primary source documents - these are always the best. They include actual test documents involving the aircraft in question. Often these are found on military sites complying with the FIA (freedom of information act), or on fan sites where the author has access to primary source documents and provides that info - usually through scans or photo's of the originals.

2) Manufacture's documents - sometimes these are very good, sometimes not so good. You have to watch out for companies which try to make thier accomplishments look more significant than they really were, and the quoting of special case data as normal case data.

3) Books - these are only as good as the primary source documents and the reading/interpretations upon which they are based. Often mistakes in books become "facts". For example - 

JANES "All the World's Aircraft" - lists the top speed of the F4U-4 as 425 mph, when we know in fact the top speed was 464 mph. 425 mph was what the USN published back immeadiately after WWII, and this speed was intentially mis-reported.

Francillion's "Japanese Military Airfcraft of WWII" - lists the Ki-44II as having mounted 4 x Ho3 20mm cannon. But we know this is infact impossible as the only feeds for this weapon were round drum magazines and their is no way they could have been fit into the Tojo's wings. Most likely this was a translation or reading error. In Japanese the Ki-44 was the "Type two single seat (or engine?) fighter", where the Ki-45 was the "Type two two seat (or engine?) fighter". The Nick could support four Ho-103's, but there is no way the Tojo could.

4) Air Museums - sometimes these are good, but usually they are of very limited depth. It depends on the level of devotion of the particular museam historian to WWII aircraft in particular. Usually, these just regurgitate the most readily available data, usually from the most popular book sources - i.e. Jane's Warplanes or Francillion.

5) Fan sites - these usually just regurgitate data from other sites or books, but occasionally one of merit can be found, such as the fourth-fighter Group or Mark's pages, or especially RING'S PRO DOCS site (see my new post), which offer primary source documents.

6) Pilot accounts - you have to be careful about thes as pilot memories are often poor w.r.t. the actual details, pilot bias is always a huge factor, and pilots often were not given much technical data during the war and what they were given was often incorrect. And also there are a suprizing number of fakes out there - you have to really double check to make sure a pilot you meet at an airshow was really a pilot and not the tow vehicle driver or gas pumper on the airbase. Also, I've met WWII pilots who also flew in Korea who really cannot distinguish one war from the other - they talk about Mig's in WWII!



Soren said:


> > Also, you claim the Spitfire could out-turn the P-51 even at high speeds. It is true it does have a tighter minimum turning radius, but this is kind of irrelevant given that G forces will prevent the pilot from exploiting it. In a very high speed turn the pilot is the limitation, and the P-51 will loose less energy in the minimum turn the pilot can sustain, allowing him to work his way around behind the Spit unless the Spit sacrifices energy to slow down and tighten the turn... and we all know where that leads.
> 
> 
> 
> RG the P-51 has laminar wings, wich means as soon as it does a high G maneuver, it losses speed extreemly fast, alot faster than the Spit ! So turning is an abslolute NO NO for the P-51.



This is not true. The laminar flow wings involve what is know as the "laminar flow bucket" (why it's called this I don't know). At angles of attack within the "bucket", there is almost no E loss. This allows moderate turn angles which at very high speed can exceed 5 G's, with almost no E loss.



Soren said:


> Hey AFDU found out that the Fw-190A turned either tighter or equal to the P-51, and the Fw-190 isnt known for its turning ability



Actually it was. The FW190A was known to out-turn the Spitfire at higher speeds - this was one of the reasons it was so dangerous.



Soren said:


> > A little side note. In my debate on this topic someone on this board (through private msgs) claimed there was no real difference between the P-51B's and the P-51D's cruise performance, that they just found the P-51 could run at FT in the lean condition and revised the charts. I researched this and found it was not true.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you find out this was untrue ?



Because I found there was a fuel nozzle change in Spring 1944, as listed below. This is what caused them to change the way power was managed on the P-51 from the traditional "auto-lean" and "auto-rich" pilot controls to the "RUN" setting.



Soren said:


> > In 1943 and early 1944 at the NACA Glenn research center a new fuel nozzle was developed which greatly increased the "fuel horspower" of an engine. This was applied to the P-51D/K first, starting in late-spring 1944, and then to the P-39/63 and Merlin powered Spitfires after P-51 demand could be fully met. Strangly, it seems not to have been applied to the R2800 powered US fighters, or the Napier Saber for that matter, until possibly after the war. I suspect scaling it up and tooling for production were a major undertaking.
> 
> 
> 
> You suspect ? Is there no clear indication ?



Why it was not applied to the larger engines is not mentioned. But I know that in about late Summer 1944 there was a sort of a "lock" on production modifications. Unless it was crutial, changes were not made that would slow production levels. The tooling changes needed to apply the new nozzle technology to other engines (which would require bigger nozzles) was probably deemed not worth the hold up in production. Kinda like the decision on the P-38K - where it was descided that a two week hold up on the P-38L production line was not acceptable even given the performance improvement of the new prop design. We were in the "home stretch" and since we had no pressing need for further performance increases, quantity was stressed over additional quality. Thus my speculation on the reason it was not applied to the larger engines - but there may have been some other reason?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The information I've recieved from *P-51 pilots* (I'm not finished looking for the truth) is that high speed cruiseis not used, even on light (no guns, ammo or fusalage tank) fully restored P-51s the normal cruise speed is 210 to 265mph depending on Plane/prop/engine setup/pilot.



Well, sure, those private P-51's are not going to push the engine. In WWII, the expected life of a P-51 was only 50 sortie hours - they didn't care if the engine burned out after 100 hours. But for existing P-51's, they do everything they can to keep the plane airworthy. Aside from racers using modified engines, they don't even go over 300 mph to preserve the engine.



wmaxt said:


> Acording to RR the merlin would fail at the RPMs required for 390mph if extended runs were undertaken. This was fixed after the war for merlins used in commercial aircraft requiring "extended high cruise RPMs".



The RPM's required are shown in the chart. 2450-2700 rpms was not excessive for a Packard Merlin. Also, Packard Merlins were known to be more durable than RR Merlins - they used superior alloys, superior rings, and were built to more exacting tolerances. RR was much more stressed to pump out engines as fast as possible - many of the tolerances were very rough and the insides of the blocks were often not polished out at all.

I really don't see how you can argue with the chart used by actual WWII pilots and planners to determine range/speed settings for actual combat missions.




wmaxt said:


> FYI Allison rods are used in hopped up Merlins as is a Very heavy bottom end main bering girdle to rienforce the block.



So? Those planes produce what - 3000 HP?



wmaxt said:


> I also believe the Extra thrust ov the weaver effect is mostly theroretical. As I showed (in your other thread) In average conditions the P-38 and P-51 use the same hp/lbs to achieve the same relative top speeds. This would not be true if there was 300-400hp extra being produced by the P-51s radiator.



The P-38 was slower. Only if you use data from Lockheed's internal tests does the P-38L have a faster top speed. Actual speeds were ~415 for the P-38L, ~437 mph for the P-51D according to the USAAF.

But that is not the proper comparison. The proper comparison is the P-51B vs the Spit IX with the Merlin 66. The engines are of the same HP and the blower gearing is about the same. The Spit IX enjoys about 1000 lbs less weight and is aerodynamically cleaner in the wind-tunnel - yet the P-51B is a good 35-45 mph faster!




wmaxt said:


> The fact is that the only extra thrust is produced by the heat exchange of the radiator. The expansion of that air (heated) is the only added thrust. Just like a jet engine Compress the air entering, inject fuel and ignite to provide heat expansion then it exits at a higher velocity producing thrust. That maybe more efficent in the P-51 because of the reduction of air velocity due to the expansion chamber allows a more efficient heat transfer but the difference in the added thrust (over other aircraft) is ONLY the added efficency of the heat exchange. That all of this equipment fills in an area of high drag thus eliminating it is more important than any thrust expelled or created.
> 
> The therory that slowing the air then squirting it through a smaller exit creating thrust is Crap it only works porportionaly to the heat added.



The air is slowed to increase its pressure and contact time as it passes through the radiator.

The concept of thrust is not crap. Heating the air causes it to expand and this can either be regulated by the pressure nozzel to maximise pressure and therefore thrust, or it can be let to run free stream which will not maximize pressure/thrust. Holding the air in the compression chamber means that the energy of the expansion occures within that chamber and is applied against the plane when it is vented, rather than occuring after it has been expelled and thus not generating thrust.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 5, 2005)

The P-38 speed again is back to the METO 414mph? How come the P-51 people always have to handicap the P-38 to prove their point. 

Try the WEP 443mph if you want to compare them or at least use the same configuration and power setting. Just because it's realese was from Lockheed and was late in the 80's and by a third party at that doesn't make it wrong. It is common knowledge that the P-38 specs are METO throttle settings and the P-51 are WEP.

The thrust is only proportional to the heat generated period. The thrust effect is not in pratice significantly greater. the Mustange ie better at managing the boundry layer and the actual heat transfer but it never translated into 300/400hp thats more thrust than a V-1! The heat transfer energy is not that high no matter how efficiently it's managed.

You have a theory and a statement that I can't find any verification outside of your posts and only partialy in 2 out of ~50 other references that either one was really effective or utilized to the extent you propose. But I have read they were not.

I will continue to look into this and I'll change my mind If I come up with some convincing data. So far I've much more against it than for it.


----------



## Soren (Apr 5, 2005)

> So now you are accusing me of modifying the pages from the P-51 pilot's handbook to lie to you about the cruise speed? Jeeze! As soon as someone came up with the original don't you think my rep would be pure mud?
> 
> Here, download the .pdf file for yourself: http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/air-manuals/usaaf/P-51D PDF/
> 
> _*You owe me an appology dude.*_



Im not accusing you of anything RG, im just asking as its so far from any other cruise speed data about the P-51 that I've ever read. And it is also not what an WW2 veteran P-51 pilot will tell you, he will tell you that cruise speeds never exceeded 300 mph. 

But I appologize if i have offended you, as it wasnt intended to be an offensive question.



> None of which dispute the given cruise tables - they just choose one entry according to their own criteria of selection. Clearly "most economical cruise" settings come from Collumn V. If your definition of cruise speed is maximum distance coverage, this collumn would be the one you'd use.



And the speed in this collum, is the speed in wich the P-51 will be engaging the Spit with then.



> I really don't see how you can argue with the 1945 revised P-51D/K pilot manual as given to the pilots and mission planners. The first printing might have incorrect info in it, but the 2nd printing includes adjustments for actual combat experiances.



No arguing, just a tad of disbelief as this is something I've never heard before. 



> This is not true. The laminar flow wings involve what is know as the "laminar flow bucket" (why it's called this I don't know). At angles of attack within the "bucket", there is almost no E loss. This allows moderate turn angles which at very high speed can exceed 5 G's, with almost no E loss.



That RG, is for very high speed only ! The P-51D's laminar flow wings lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads !



> Actually it was. The FW190A was known to out-turn the Spitfire at higher speeds - this was one of the reasons it was so dangerous.



Yes the "Dora" was, but not the "Anton", the "Anton" series only roll'ed better than the Spitfire. 

It was an A4 wich was tested by the AFDU against the P-51, and it could follow the P-51 in low-speed turns, and outturn it in High-speed turns.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The P-38 speed again is back to the METO 414mph? How come the P-51 people always have to handicap the P-38 to prove their point.
> 
> Try the WEP 443mph if you want to compare them or at least use the same configuration and power setting. Just because it's realese was from Lockheed and was late in the 80's and by a third party at that doesn't make it wrong. It is common knowledge that the P-38 specs are METO throttle settings and the P-51 are WEP.



No the USAAF speed figures are for the P-38L at wep power, as tested. Where those Lockheed figures come from, and what the plane conditions actually were, is anyone's guess. I can reference NAA P-51 tests showing speeds in excess of 450 mph, but those are not the relevant figures for comparison. And even USAAF figures are understated - the tested speed of the P-51D was 443 mph @ 25k, 438 mph @ 30k.



wmaxt said:


> The thrust is only proportional to the heat generated period. The thrust effect is not in pratice significantly greater. the Mustange ie better at managing the boundry layer and the actual heat transfer but it never translated into 300/400hp thats more thrust than a V-1! The heat transfer energy is not that high no matter how efficiently it's managed.



The P-51B generated about 1000 lbs of thrust off the prop, and about 350 lbs of radiator thrust, and about 400 lbs of cooling system drag at 25,000 feet at full speed, and weighed about 8500 lbs. The V1 generated about 660 lbs of thrust and weighed about half as much, and had NO cooling system drag. It's not unreasonable at all.



> In the case of the Mustang, the air duct pumping system at full speed at 25,000 feet was processing some 500 cubic feet of air per second, and discharge speed of the outlet was between 500 and 600 feet per second relative to the airplane. This air jet counteracted much of the radiator drag and had the effect of offsetting most of the total cooling drag. To offer some approximate numbers, the full power propeller thrust was about 1,000 pounds and the radiator drag (gross) was about 400 pounds, but the momentum recovery was some 350 pounds of compensating thrust--for a net cooling drag of only some 3% of the thrust of the propeller.
> 
> This air discharge had what can actually be called a regenerative effect. Maximum aircraft speed is the point where the line of power available, created in the engine and delivered by the propeller, crosses the line of power required to propel the plane through the air. Since *the propelling force of the pressurized air from the radiator discharge increases as the square of the speed*, we have the favorable situation where the faster you fly the more help you are getting from this regenerative air pumping system.
> http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj99/Mustang.html





wmaxt said:


> You have a theory and a statement that I can't find any verification outside of your posts and only partialy in 2 out of ~50 other references that either one was really effective or utilized to the extent you propose. But I have read they were not.
> 
> I will continue to look into this and I'll change my mind If I come up with some convincing data. So far I've much more against it than for it.



My only difference with the explanation quoted above is that I think that overall effect was due to "thrust" and parasitic drag reduction, rather than thrust alone.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Soren said:


> > None of which dispute the given cruise tables - they just choose one entry according to their own criteria of selection. Clearly "most economical cruise" settings come from Collumn V. If your definition of cruise speed is maximum distance coverage, this collumn would be the one you'd use.
> 
> 
> 
> And the speed in this collum, is the speed in wich the P-51 will be engaging the Spit with then.



Not at all. That is the speed the P-51 would use to cross friendly territory on the way to the combat zone. Once it reached the area where it expected to encounter the enemy it would begin sweeps at the highest possible continuous cruise speed - but proably a cruise speed taken from column II rather than column I.



Soren said:


> > I really don't see how you can argue with the 1945 revised P-51D/K pilot manual as given to the pilots and mission planners. The first printing might have incorrect info in it, but the 2nd printing includes adjustments for actual combat experiances.
> 
> 
> 
> No arguing, just a tad of disbelief as this is something I've never heard before.



Well I've given you the link to the manual's PDF file, and many other manuals can be found on RING's PRO site (see my new post with main entry points).



Soren said:


> > This is not true. The laminar flow wings involve what is know as the "laminar flow bucket" (why it's called this I don't know). At angles of attack within the "bucket", there is almost no E loss. This allows moderate turn angles which at very high speed can exceed 5 G's, with almost no E loss.
> 
> 
> 
> That RG, is for very high speed only ! The P-51D's laminar flow wings lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads !



The lift is uneffected until the bucket is exceeded. At high speeds (in excess of 300-350 IAS) the P-51 could hold a high speed turn w/o loosing E and gain advantage against it's foes - if the pilot was experianced enough and cool enough to exploit this.



Soren said:


> > Actually it was. The FW190A was known to out-turn the Spitfire at higher speeds - this was one of the reasons it was so dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the "Dora" was, but not the "Anton", the "Anton" series only roll'ed better than the Spitfire.



No, at speeds above about 300 IAS the Anton out-turned the Spit. It used sort of a dish turn to do so (relatively mild bank angle) quite successfully.



Soren said:


> It was an A4 wich was tested by the AFDU against the P-51, and it could follow the P-51 in low-speed turns, and outturn it in High-speed turns.



P-51 pilots consistantly report they could out-turn the FW190 at high speeds.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

but can they be sure the -190 pilot knew what he was doing and was turning his tightest??


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

If it were one pilot, or just one account, perhaps.

But it is consistant. P-51 pilots reported that they could easily out-turn the 109 at high speeds, and that they could also out-turn the 190 but not so easily.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> If it were one pilot, or just one account, perhaps.
> 
> But it is consistant. P-51 pilots reported that they could easily out-turn the 109 at high speeds, and that they could also out-turn the 190 but not so easily.
> 
> ...



I hope you don't mind me using one of your previus comments, but:

THAT IS PURE POOP !  

In all German tests and mock dogfights the 109 ALWAYS outturned the 190 !

And let me remind you that 109 pilots found it quite easy outturning a P-51 and P-47 at all speeds ! Even a Three cannon G6 would outturn a P-51 ! 

The "Anton" wouldnt outturn a Spit, only at speeds in excess of 400 mph ! Your stats are for the "Dora's", wich could happily make a dish turn against a Spit and come out the victor, and even more easely do it to a P-51.



> P-51 pilots consistantly report they could out-turn the FW190 at high speeds.



FW pilots consistantly report outturning and outmaneuvering the P-51's and P-47s very easely at high speeds, especially the "Dora" pilots. And the AFDU's tests confirm this.

Whenever a "Dora" was in the proximity, the escorting P-51's should be very careful not to attract attention ! If seen the P-51 could forget all about dogfighting the "Dora", as the "Dora" was superior in every aspect of flight except diving !

As for the P-51.... RG there is no way that a P-51 can maintain a 5G turn with NO E loss, its simply impossible ! The Laminar wings from the start simply produced to little lift, and this would get worse if the AoA increased. Also the P-51 didnt have either good Wing-loading or Power-loading to start with, so there's simply no way that what you said is true RG.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 6, 2005)

RG,

You have my respect but here I think your off track.

The V-1 comparison was ment to be toung in cheek - my bad.

The P-38 speed of 414mph when listed with horse power is stated at 1,400 to 1,475. This is Normal full throttle or METO. the P-38J is listed by both Lockheed and Allison at 1,600hp and the L at 1,750hp WEP.

Why would the P-51 be derated and not the P-38? As you noted the 450mph P-51B (The faster of the P-51B/D/K line) was at a 5/1 lbs/hp weight not the 5.6/1 of the Mil/Average of the normal statistics a significant difference. AND it's still slower than your claims and under weight!

Why would Lockheed internal tests be weighted unequaly - my understanding is that these aircraft were set up Mil/average expected conditions.

I think your just keeping the discussion heated up/going!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > If it were one pilot, or just one account, perhaps.
> ...



Sure, because just like the British turn's were tested at speeds of 250 IAS or below.



Soren said:


> And let me remind you that 109 pilots found it quite easy outturning a P-51 and P-47 at all speeds ! Even a Three cannon G6 would outturn a P-51 !



Pure poop. 109's turned badly at speed. Even your own source you claim says otherwise actually claims this is so when put in context. 



Soren said:


> The "Anton" wouldnt outturn a Spit, only at speeds in excess of 400 mph ! Your stats are for the "Dora's", wich could happily make a dish turn against a Spit and come out the victor, and even more easely do it to a P-51.



What evidence do you have that the Dora could out-turn the Anton? It could power through a turn better, but its raw turn rate was worse.



> P-51 pilots consistantly report they could out-turn the FW190 at high speeds.





Soren said:


> FW pilots consistantly report outturning and outmaneuvering the P-51's and P-47s very easely at high speeds, especially the "Dora" pilots. And the AFDU's tests confirm this.



No the AFDU test does not say this at all. See my other post in reply to your out of context quote about the 109's turn.



Soren said:


> Whenever a "Dora" was in the proximity, the escorting P-51's should be very careful not to attract attention ! If seen the P-51 could forget all about dogfighting the "Dora", as the "Dora" was superior in every aspect of flight except diving !



Says who?



Soren said:


> As for the P-51.... RG there is no way that a P-51 can maintain a 5G turn with NO E loss, its simply impossible ! The Laminar wings from the start simply produced to little lift, and this would get worse if the AoA increased. Also the P-51 didnt have either good Wing-loading or Power-loading to start with, so there's simply no way that what you said is true RG.



Do you realize how wide a 5G turn at 400 mph is?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 6, 2005)

> Sure, because just like the British turn's were tested at speeds of 250 IAS or below.



No RG, thats not the case.



> Pure poop. 109's turned badly at speed. Even your own source you claim says otherwise actually claims this is so when put in context.



Now thats pure poop.




> What evidence do you have that the Dora could out-turn the Anton? It could power through a turn better, but its raw turn rate was worse.



Wrong again RG. 

It is commonly known that the "Dora" turned alot better than the "Anton" at all speeds, and this is also confirmed several times by Hans Werner Lerche, and ALWAYS by FW pilots ! (Mock dogfights were carried out)



> No the AFDU test does not say this at all. See my other post in reply to your out of context quote about the 109's turn.



Yes it does RG, but not the one with the 109 offcourse. I said "FW" pilots remember !  



> Says who?



The pilots and the Spec's RG.




> Do you realize how wide a 5G turn at 400 mph is?



Do you realize how much 5G is ?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Soren said:


> Do you realize how much 5G is ?



Yes - not very much at 400 mph.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

kepp the poop coming guys, i'm rather enjoying this conversation...........


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize how much 5G is ?
> ...



5G is 5G, theres no difference if its at 300 or 400 mph, only the turn radius has changed slightly.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

At 200 mph the amount of turn required to achieve 5 G's is substantial. The plane's ability to turn is usually the limiting fact on actual turn radius. 

By 400 mph the amount of turn required to achieve 5 G's is relatively slight. The pilot's G-tolerance is usually the limiting factor on actual turn radius.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## birdyadg (Sep 19, 2008)

the spitfire in my mind is a beautiful a/c and so is the p 51 mustang.

"So wich one would you bet your money on in a clash between the two"

if you are british the spit ,hurricane, avro lank are part of our folklore ,these are the a/c that saved us from the evil nazi swarm that tryed in vain to destroy our
infrastructure and moral, and leave us open to invasion.

leaving that aside, any machine is only has good as the person in control ,no matter what cannons ,303's .50 it sports or how fast it turns, if he hasn,t had chance to hone is skills, and the opponent has ,then my moneys on the opponent.
if on the other hand both pilots were experianced, the spit would have the advantage but the outcome would still depend on other factors.

they main difference between the two planes was range. which made the p51 a very useful a/c in its own right.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 19, 2008)

The thread... IT IS ALIVE


P-51 D because it was available and more reliable, safer and with excellent range and overall the best fighter of the war.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2008)

The Spitfire Mk.XIV if its for country defense, and the P-51 if it's for escort duties.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Spitfire Mk.XIV if its for country defense, and the P-51 if it's for escort duties.



This accurately describes the advantages of each.



> Whenever a "Dora" was in the proximity, the escorting P-51's should be very careful not to attract attention ! If seen the P-51 could forget all about dogfighting the "Dora", as the "Dora" was superior in every aspect of flight except diving !



I doubt that P-51s were careful to avoid attention of any aircraft when escorting bombers.

At escort altitudes, 20k up, the P-51D performance ranged from roughly equivalent to the Fw-190D-9 at 20k to clearly superior above. Aside note, the P-51B performance was equivalent to the Dora from SL to 15k, where it pulled away in speed. Above 20k it was no contest, the P-51B had a great advantage in speed, an improving advantage in climb, and of course, an advantage in dive. The Dora had better avoid the P-51B above 20k.

The Spitfire XIV was generally superior to the P-51D in airspeed and climb throughout the envelope. The ace up the sleeve for the P-51D was, of course, range. A note here, the P-51B, Spitfire XIV, and the Dora were quite similar in performance up to 15k where the Dora was starting to run out of air. At about 25k, the P-51B was starting to lag behind the Spit, which continued good performance above 35k.


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2008)

The average P-51B wasn't much faster above 20kft Davparlr, and maneuverability still wasn't as good as that of the Dora. The fw-190Dora-9 held clear advantages in speed, climb rate maneuverability up to 25 kft, after which the P-51B was slightly faster and started climbing faster as-well. However caliming it was no contest is wrong, as proven during actual dogfights at bomber alts where the Dora's were causing the escorts some real trouble.

Sadly for the Germans there were never enough Dora-9's to go around and they were always grossly outnumbered by the Allied escorts.

The real champ at all alts was the Dora-13 which was superior to any Allied fighter in service from SL and up.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> The average P-51B wasn't much faster above 20kft Davparlr, and maneuverability still wasn't as good as that of the Dora. The fw-190Dora-9 held clear advantages in speed, climb rate maneuverability up to 25 kft, after which the P-51B was slightly faster and started climbing faster as-well. However caliming it was no contest is wrong, as proven during actual dogfights at bomber alts where the Dora's were causing the escorts some real trouble.
> 
> Sadly for the Germans there were never enough Dora-9's to go around and they were always grossly outnumbered by the Allied escorts.
> 
> The real champ at all alts was the Dora-13 which was superior to any Allied fighter in service from SL and up.



The Dora never had enough numbers to do any damage, and yes they were an equal to the 51. Having said that, 8th AF pilots chased them and shot them down with the same entusiasm as the Anton.

This was all about relatively equivalent aircraft and inferior pilots, The 355th, which only number five in air to air awards for 8th AF, lost one shot down and one hitting the ground chasing a Dora for 9 awarded. This was actually a lower air ratio than against the 262.


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2008)

Pilot skill, numbers etc etc all contribute to those figures.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 25, 2008)

While I love the D-13 for its looks and performance, it never played any role at all.


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2008)

It's hard to play any role when less than ten were available


----------



## eddie_brunette (Sep 25, 2008)

Spitfire for me

edd


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 25, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The Dora never had enough numbers to do any damage, and yes they were an equal to the 51. Having said that, 8th AF pilots chased them and shot them down with the same entusiasm as the Anton.
> 
> This was all about relatively equivalent aircraft and inferior pilots, The 355th, which only number five in air to air awards for 8th AF, lost one shot down and one hitting the ground chasing a Dora for 9 awarded. This was actually a lower air ratio than against the 262.


But are they cross-checked with German losses?

I'm sure by the time the Dora arrived in any relevant numbers it simply was too late to get the recognition it might have gained if available in late '43 or early '44. It's funny though how it is seen as the ultimate German piston fighter in modern public opinion. In the end it only equalized the advantage the Allies had gained with the P-51. Back in its best days the Anton did far better than the Dora. Because it _gave_ a performance advantage and didn't just equalize one.

Regarding the Spitfire vs. the P-51: I think you guys go by performance figures way too much. First of all the P-51 D was available in much greater numbers than the Mk XIV. It was cheaper, more reliable and safer. Development potential also was higher (imo), especially when taking into consideration that the P-51 achieved a top speed of what 40-50 (?) km/h higher than the Spitfire with the same engine. The P-51's airframe was simply better. Finally, from a strategical point of view the P-51 could do anything the Mk XIV could and more.


----------



## Juha (Sep 25, 2008)

KrazyKraut
as Suren put it
"The Spitfire Mk.XIV if its for country defense, and the P-51 if it's for escort duties."

Spit XIV climbed clearly better, P-51D had much better range. I don't have price for Spit XIV (price comprasions are always a bit problematic when incl exchange rate but as USAAF late war fighter P-51D was clearly cheaper than P-47D or late P-38s), reliability or safety info, can you give some figures?

TIA
Juha


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> But are they cross-checked with German losses?
> 
> I'm sure by the time the Dora arrived in any relevant numbers it simply was too late to get the recognition it might have gained if available in late '43 or early '44. It's funny though how it is seen as the ultimate German piston fighter in modern public opinion. In the end it only equalized the advantage the Allies had gained with the P-51. Back in its best days the Anton did far better than the Dora. Because it _gave_ a performance advantage and didn't just equalize one.



The Dora didn't just equalize things, it also gave the Germans the advantage at low to medium altitudes. (Hence its sterling record in the east where it litterally slaughtered the VVS fighters) The Dora-9 was faster than the Allied fighters at low to medium alts, climbed faster and featured unrivalled manuverability at the speed regimes where most fights took place. Sadly for the Germans however there were never enough proper trained pilots, fuel or Dora's to allow it to have any significant impact. Furthermore the fights on the western front usually took place at alts greater than 25,000 ft. But the Dora did nonetheless cause the escorts some problems, as Willi Reschke relates in his book 'Wilde Sau', as it gave an enormous boost in high alt performance compared to the Anton.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 25, 2008)

Well I disagree. The Dora was a nice fighter and somewhat superior at low-to-medium altitudes to contemporary western props (though the P-51 was still faster down low iirc), but the difference (real and felt) was never as big as the difference the Anton made in late '41 / early '42. Considering the combat altitudes the Dora was still at a disadvantage a lot of times.

The VVS got slaughtered by Antons and Bf 109s aswell, the reasons mostly lie elsewhere. On the eastern front, in theory, the difference between Anton and Dora should be relatively small as the combat altitudes were so low.


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2008)

KrazyKraut,

The Dora-9 was faster than any Allied fighter at low alt, including the P-51, and much faster than the Anton. The Dora-9 was a big improvement on the Anton.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 25, 2008)

Price comparisons aren't always best either, as -durring wartime- time (man hours) required to complete them is a much more important factor than actual cost. (actual use of strategic materials would be important too, less so for the US though given the massive resourses)

If somthing is more expensive but can be built in less time the latter could be advantageous. (again, use of materials is an independent concern as well)

I'm not sure on the exact figures but iirc (from several comparisons made previously on this forum) the P-38J cost about 2x the P-51, while the P-47 cost ~1.5x the P-51 (this remaining fairly constant from 1944 onwards), however the construction times fluctuate cosiderably more (generally decreasing as the war progressed) but in one comparison the P-47 took ~2x as long as the P-51 and the P-38 ~1.5 times as long I think.


In peace time cost (and maintainence costs) would be much more of a concern.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> The average P-51B wasn't much faster above 20kft Davparlr, and maneuverability still wasn't as good as that of the Dora. The fw-190Dora-9 held clear advantages in speed, climb rate maneuverability up to 25 kft,



? 

All performance figures are for fighter weight, 9069 lbs for the P-51B, and 9480 lbs for the Fw-190D-9. 

Around 15k ft, performance comparison, at fighter weight, between the P-51B and the Fw-190D-9 is roughly equivalent.


Airspeed
P-51B 428 mph
Fw-190D-9 432 mph
Very slight advantage Fw

Climb 
P-51B 3700 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 3740 ft/min
Very slight advantage Fw

Turning – advantage Fw

Dive - advantage P-51

However at about 16k ft, the Fw-190D-9 engine starts losing significant power, while the P-51 engine is into its second wind. This starts to show up around 20k where the P-51 gains significant improvement of airspeed over the Fw.

Airspeed
P-51B 442 mph
Fw-190D-9 426 mph
Significant advantage P-51

Climb
P-51B 2940 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 2992 ft/min
No advantage here for the Fw since climbing would only improve P-51 performance over the Fw.

Turning – advantage Fw

Dive – advantage P-51

Above that, the P-51B is continually improving in performance, with only turn performance an advantage for the Fw-190D-9, a historically not an overpowering advantage. At, 25k,

Airspeed
P-51B 440 mph
Fw-190D-9 417 mph
Significant advantage P-51

Climb
P-51B 2650 ft/min
Fw-190D-9 2158 ft/min
Advantage P-51

Turning – power loss will affect turn performance but I’ll give advantage to Fw

Dive – Advantage P-51

So, at bomber altitudes, 20k and above, the Fw-190D-9 was at a disadvantage and was not the best aircraft for the job. The Bf-109K was a much better choice. 

The Fw-190D-9 a/s numbers are taken from Fw chart showing Fw-190As, Ds, and Ta-152s. Other charts show various a/s for different D-9s (different engines?). These show some versions better at lower altitudes but worse at higher altitudes. All show the Fw-190D-9 falling behind the P-51B in a/s above 15k, significantly above 25k.




> However caliming it was no contest is wrong,



Less wrong than your statement “as the "Dora" was superior in every aspect of flight except diving !”, as I have just shown.



> Sadly for the Germans there were never enough Dora-9's to go around and they were always grossly outnumbered by the Allied escorts.


Their best use would have been for protecting the Me-262s, more of which were really needed by the Luftwaffe.


> The real champ at all alts was the Dora-13 which was superior to any Allied fighter in service from SL and up.


The Dora-13 looked like an impressive aircraft, out performing the Ta-152H up to 37k. It makes one wonder why they spent resources on the Ta-152H when there was no threats up there. I’ve commented on this before. It still would have been outperformed by the P-51H up to 25k, which, by the way, was in service, as was the Tempest II, which would have outperformed the Dora-13 to 20k.



> The Dora-9 was faster than the Allied fighters at low to medium alts, climbed faster



This is not correct. The Tempest II, which was delivered, was MUCH faster at all altitudes compared to the Fw-190D-9. The P-51B airspeed and climb performance was within error calculations of both speed and climb up to 15k where it started to exhibit superior performance.

*SL*
Airspeed 
Fw-190D-9 385 mph
P-51B 386 mph 
Tempest II *416 mph*


Climb
Fw-190D-9 4429 ft/min
P-51B *4700 ft/min*
Tempest II *4700 ft/min*

*5k*
Airspeed
Fw-190D-9 405 mph
P-51B 400 mph
Tempest II *425 mph*

Climb
Fw-190D-9 4134 ft/min
P-51B *4500 ft/min*
Tempest II 4200 ft/min

*10k*
Airspeed
Fw-190D-9 413 mph
P-51B 420 mph
Tempest II *440 mph*

Climb
Fw-190D-9 *4134 ft/min*
P-51B 3750 ft/min
Tempest II 3900 ft/min

It is obvious that the Fw-190D-9 did not have a significant advantage over allied aircraft at any altitude.




> Sadly for the Germans however there were never enough proper trained pilots, fuel or Dora's to allow it to have any significant impact.



Had the Germans fielded a threatening number of Fw-190D-9s or Bf-109ks in late 44, you would have seen a rapid build up of P-51Hs, P-47Ms, Tempest IIs, and possibly P-72s, by January, ‘45, which would have negated any prop planes the Luftwaffe could field (except at very high altitude where the Ta-152H would still reign supreme.)

The truth is that by fall, 1944, the Allies considered that the war in Europe could be won with the aircraft on hand and did not pursue advanced aircraft, except for performance evaluation like the P-80, in the theater. Had the threat changed, this would have changed.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 27, 2008)

> The truth is that by fall, 1944, the Allies considered that the war in Europe could be won with the aircraft on hand and did not pursue advanced aircraft, except for performance evaluation like the P-80, in the theater. Had the threat changed, this would have changed.


We had this a couple of times now and there is no "truth" in neither what you or Soren say, because it's all just seculation. Besides that, the Tempest II never seeing any action was due to a pretty messed up production planning not because it wasn't needed. It also makes more sense to evaluate the Dora vs. the P-51 D because the transition had progressed well when the Dora arrived in numbers and I highly doubt the USAAF would've ever switched back because of the B's small performance advantage.

I think the "had this happened had that happened" game has been played to death. Let's focus on the things that actually fought.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 27, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> We had this a couple of times now and there is no "truth" in neither what you or Soren say, because it's all just seculation. Besides that, the Tempest II never seeing any action was due to a pretty messed up production planning not because it wasn't needed. It also makes more sense to evaluate the Dora vs. the P-51 D because the transition had progressed well when the Dora arrived in numbers and I highly doubt the USAAF would've ever switched back because of the B's small performance advantage.
> 
> I think the "had this happened had that happened" game has been played to death. Let's focus on the things that actually fought.



At least 20% of 8th AF FC in April 1945 were still B/C with the 1650-7 Merlin.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 27, 2008)

I know but just because the B and C had some better performance figures doesn't make them the overall better planes and I think the D would be a better comparison to the Dora.

For a similar case: Some of the early 109 Gs also had better performance than the G-6 and were used for a long time after the latter had been introduced, still it makes more sense to take the G-6 if you want to compare '43 fighter aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 27, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I know but just because the B and C had some better performance figures doesn't make them the overall better planes and I think the D would be a better comparison to the Dora.
> 
> For a similar case: Some of the early 109 Gs also had better performance than the G-6 and were used for a long time after the latter had been introduced, still it makes more sense to take the G-6 if you want to compare '43 fighter aircraft.



Well the 51D had more guns and ammo but weighed 600-900 piunds more for same airframe. 51B turned better and climbed better and was faster. One of those will usually work to your advantage. After all the wheel uplock and tail mods they were structurally more sound in a high pullout - load to load being equal.

Malcolm Hood had good visibility but not as good as teardrop so that is a downcheck, ditto the 4 vs 6 50 cal and ammo.


----------



## Juha (Sep 27, 2008)

Hello KrazyKraut
Later Tempest Vs with Sabre IIB were faster than 190D-9 at sea level and up to appr 9500ft and then again from 19500ft upwards, early Tempest Vs with Sabre IIA were faster than 190 D-9 between appr. 1,000 - 10,000 ft and then again from 19500ft upwards.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

OK, heres the thread I was referring to, but it doesn't include the P-51 like I'd thought:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/man-hours-build-aircraft-10190.html


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

davparlr said:


> However at about 16k ft, the Fw-190D-9 engine starts losing significant power, while the P-51 engine is into its second wind. This starts to show up around 20k where the P-51 gains significant improvement of airspeed over the Fw.
> 
> Airspeed
> P-51B 442 mph
> ...



Inless you're talking about the P-51 at 75" boost (with 100/150 grade fuel) that's much too fast.

P-51 Mustang Performance (which tends to be a bit biased toward allied a/c anyway)

Gives ~420-426 mph at 20,000 ft at 67" for the P-51B with either the 1650-3 or -7. (as power oupput was similar for both engines at this altitude)

I don't think the Mustang had a significant speed advantage over the Dora until ~23,000 ft.




And Bill,
Don't forget the P-51D's armament was also less prone to jamming than the earlier mustangs. (and wasn't there a structural redesign that allowed higher diving speeds without risking a structural failure)


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2008)

The P-51B didn't climb at 4,700 ft/min Davparlr, not even at 75" MAP where at at the most reached 4,380 ft/min.

At 75" MAP the P-51B-15's performance figures were as follows:

Top Speed: 388 mph at SL, 444 mph at alt.
Climb rate: 4,380 ft/min

These figures are from WWIIaircraftperformance.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> KrazyKraut said:
> 
> 
> > We had this a couple of times now and there is no "truth" in neither what you or Soren say, because it's all just seculation.
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 28, 2008)

Didn't the P-51 have a problem with the 100/150 grade fuel due to the merlin's tendency for spark plugs to foul rather heavily and rapidly when using it. (compared to the R-2800 and V-1710 which were deemed satifactory in terms of fouling using 100/150 grade)


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 28, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello KrazyKraut
> Later Tempest Vs with Sabre IIB were faster than 190D-9 at sea level and up to appr 9500ft and then again from 19500ft upwards, early Tempest Vs with Sabre IIA were faster than 190 D-9 between appr. 1,000 - 10,000 ft and then again from 19500ft upwards.
> 
> Juha


I don't know too much about the Tempest V, but according to some accounts I read from German pilots they found the Dora to be about as or slightly slower than the Tempest at low altitude but found its climb and maneouverability to be better. These are subjective assessments of course and also depend on fit and finish of the respective pilot's aircraft. For every aircraft mentioned here there is a wide range of different performance graphs available that's why I won't jump on the figure posting wagon. If I find the time I'll try to research some representative stats and draw my conclusions then. So far I'll go by the wording of the books I have which all pretty much say that these aircraft were about even, with the Dora's performance dropping off rather sharply above critical altitude.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Didn't the P-51 have a problem with the 100/150 grade fuel due to the merlin's tendency for spark plugs to foul rather heavily and rapidly when using it. (compared to the R-2800 and V-1710 which were deemed satifactory in terms of fouling using 100/150 grade)



All I know is what is on the internet. Apparently higher maintenance was required but production was high and there were several reports of 70+boost being used. Maybe someone else has knowledge of its usage.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2008)

davparlr said:


> All I know is what is on the internet. Apparently higher maintenance was required but production was high and there were several reports of 70+boost being used. Maybe someone else has knowledge of its usage.



Plug fouling was a problem with the 150 octane fuel and the crew chiefs basically changed the plugs every two missions. Speculation was that a very high percentage of engine failures resulting in a lost Mustang in late 1944 through the end of the war were in fact due to the fuel/plug issues.

The 1650-9 which came out in the P-51H, and retrofitted in post war P-51D's apparently were more reliable with the 150 octane.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Plug fouling was a problem with the 150 octane fuel and the crew chiefs basically changed the plugs every two missions. Speculation was that a very high percentage of engine failures resulting in a lost Mustang in late 1944 through the end of the war were in fact due to the fuel/plug issues.
> 
> The 1650-9 which came out in the P-51H, and retrofitted in post war P-51D's apparently were more reliable with the 150 octane.



On further reading, it appears that the Air Force did a review and determined that plug fouling was the main issue with the fuel and replacement/cleaning was required at about 50% of the time of the previous fuel. This affected the P-38, 47, and 51 equally. Procedures, like reducing idle time and "blowing" out the engine, were generated to ease the fouling problems. Also, it appears that all P-51s, 38s, and 47s, were issued the 100/150 fuel in May, '44.

The report is included in this summary.

150 Grade Fuel


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2008)

9,300 lbs seems to be the fighter weight of the P-51B davparlr, not 9,080 lbs.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Sep 28, 2008)

_"This affected the P-38, 47, and 51 equally."_

*c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines).

The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types. *


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2008)

Wow, been a long time since you posted here! Where have you been?


----------



## davparlr (Sep 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> 9,300 lbs seems to be the fighter weight of the P-51B davparlr, not 9,080 lbs.



Data from “America’s Hundred Thousand”

P-51B

Basic weight *7325*
Pilot *200* (from P-51D data)
Useable Oil *94* (from P-51D data)
Cal. 50AMMO *378* (from P-51A data, four machine guns)
Internal Fuel *1080* (from P-51D data)
Gross weight *9077*

P-51D

Basic weight *7673*
Pilot *200* 
Useable Oil *94* 
Cal. 50AMMO *564* (six machine guns)
Internal Fuel *1080* 
Gross weight *9611*

Basic weight is empty weight plus trapped fuel, machine guns, and pyrotechnics.

A detailed breakdown of Empty Weight and Basic Weight of the P-51B is in the book, too.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Data from “America’s Hundred Thousand”
> 
> P-51B
> 
> ...



Dave - I believe that would be for full (184 gallons) wing tanks and empty fuse tank. Having said that most of the 51 jocks burned a minimum of 50 gallons out of the fuse tank while forming up and climbing out. I know my father burned all before switching to external tanks - except on max range mission like the last Shuttle Mission - so the weight as you describe is pretty good combat weight for a 51 at Berlin or Leipzig or Brunswick - after dropping external tanks.


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2008)

According to wright field it is 9,300 lbs for the P-51B and 9,700 lbs for he P-51D.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> According to wright field it is 9,300 lbs for the P-51B and 9,700 lbs for he P-51D.



P-51B-5 43-6883 April 24 1944 @ Wright Pat
9205 with full fuel and ammo and pilot and oil - no fuse tank fuel

P-51B-15 43-24777 May 15, 1944 @ Wright Pat
P-51B-15 43-24777 May 20, 1944 @ Wright Pat
9680 w/265 Gallons Fuel (wing and 71 gal fuse) and ammo
9335 w/265 Gallons Fuel (wing and 71 gal fuse) - No Ammo

Subtract ~460 pound for the 71 gallons in the 85 gallon tank expended before crossing German border and the approximate fighting weight for a fully loaded ammo and wing tank fuel configuration and subtract another 50 pounds for oil consumption 

P-51B in combat config over Brunswick to Augsburg = ~9150-9170 pounds after dropping external tanks


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 29, 2008)

so need to think that luftwaffe interceptors can fly with only half fuel


----------



## ratdog (Sep 29, 2008)

you couldnt get very far with only half a tank of fuel.....


----------



## drgondog (Sep 29, 2008)

ratdog said:


> you couldnt get very far with only half a tank of fuel.....
> 
> so need to think that luftwaffe interceptors can fly with only half fuel



'half fuel" for the P-51B and D was enough to fight and fly home to East Anglia from Berlin - and represented the most typical combat condition when engaging the Luftwaffe on Target escort.

So to your points - the 51 cruises at about 235 -250 for best specific fuel consumption at 45 gph and ~ 46" Hg at 2500.. if unmolested, the P-51 "full wing tanks" of 184 gallons is LESS than 1/2 fuel for take off condition - so do the math? The 51 could drop tanks, engage for 10-15 minutes at 240gph over Berlin and still have enough to fly 600 miles back to England

The Luftwaffe interceptors were probably at 2/3 fuel remaining and only had about 40minutes high speed cruise plus 10 minutes of combat left by the time their day started with a fight... and lucky to stay in the air another 100 miles.

So, what point are you trying to make? That the Mustang weight for performance calculations in a dogfight should be Max TO weight for long range escort mission to a target 600 miles away? Or look at the weight as it was most likeley to engage? That is what Dave was saying (and I agree for what it is worth).


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 30, 2008)

the point is that if in real engage the p-51 haven't full fuel also the luftwaffe fighter haven't full fuel, and AFAIK commonly interceptors take off already with no full fuel


----------



## wh1skea (Sep 30, 2008)

I say slap a RR Griffon in the Mustang, then see how the two compare.


----------



## Soren (Sep 30, 2008)

That's a serious weight increase.


----------



## delcyros (Sep 30, 2008)

Pretty good points drgondog. Thanks for sharing them!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 30, 2008)

Anyway, the V-1650-9 with water injection had power output similar to the Griffon.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 1, 2008)

drgondog said:


> So to your points - the 51 cruises at about 235 -250 for best specific fuel consumption at 45 gph and ~ 46" Hg at 2500.. if unmolested, the P-51 "full wing tanks" of 184 gallons is LESS than 1/2 fuel for take off condition - so do the math? The 51 could drop tanks, engage for 10-15 minutes at 240gph over Berlin and still have enough to fly 600 miles back to England
> 
> The Luftwaffe interceptors were probably at 2/3 fuel remaining and only had about 40minutes high speed cruise plus 10 minutes of combat left by the time their day started with a fight... and lucky to stay in the air another 100 miles.



Re: LW interceptors, its quite unlikely. Their droptanks replenished the main tank, so when they dropped them, they were on full internal (and did not have to bother with switching between tanks as a bonus). Frankly its quite unlikely. And the main tank, either full or at 2/3s would be enough for a lot more than just 100 miles as I reckon. 

I comparison from a British report:


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 1, 2008)

40 min at high speed cruise should give ~200 mi.


----------



## Hop (Oct 1, 2008)

Note the different speeds used for the different aircraft in the table Kurfurst posted. The 109s are at significantly lower speeds than the others:

109G - 615 miles in 3.1 hours - 198 mph
LF IX - 420 miles in 1.6 hours - 263 mph
XIV - 500 miles in 1.8 hours - 278 mph
Temp - 760 miles in 3 hours - 253 mph
Must - 890 miles in 3.6 hours - 247 mph


----------



## claidemore (Oct 1, 2008)

Hop said:


> Note the different speeds used for the different aircraft in the table Kurfurst posted. The 109s are at significantly lower speeds than the others:
> 
> 109G - 615 miles in 3.1 hours - 198 mph
> LF IX - 420 miles in 1.6 hours - 263 mph
> ...



Also note the difference for fast cruising:

109G - 450 miles in 1.4 hours =321 mph
Spit IX -365 miles in 1.1 hours =331 mph
Spit XIV-375 miles in 1.0 hours =375 mph
Tempest-535 miles in 1.4 hours =382 mph
Must III - 690 miles in 1.8 hours=383 mph


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 1, 2008)

They just reflect the 109 G(-6?)'s generally slower pace compared to these relatively newer fighters (sans MkIX). Being a British report they may possibly stem from the captured G-2. Considering the argument was about who could stay how long in the fight in a escort vs interceptor scenario, the difference in fast cruise speed is irrelevant. The 109s just had to intercept the bombers afterall, if they reach them, the escort didn't have to be "caught".


----------



## claidemore (Oct 1, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> They just reflect the 109 G(-6?)'s generally slower pace compared to these relatively newer fighters (sans MkIX). Being a British report they may possibly stem from the captured G-2. Considering the argument was about who could stay how long in the fight in a escort vs interceptor scenario, the difference in fast cruise speed is irrelevant. The 109s just had to intercept the bombers afterall, if they reach them, the escort didn't have to be "caught".



But... the escorts could 'catch' the interceptors! 

Also, since the 109 shown in that chart had drop tanks, it's more likely the G6 than G2 afaik Black 6 was not fitted with drop tanks during trials. The Mustang III as well as the Spit IX would be contemporary with the 109G6 as far as production and combat use.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 1, 2008)

After quite a bit of research and pondering I think I have determined reasonable weight and performance for the P-51B post installation of the 85 gallon fuselage (extended range) tank.

First, let me define the fighter weight of the P-51 (both B and D). P-51B fighter weight is the aircraft fully loaded with ammo, pilot, liquids (not fuel), etc., plus fuel for full wing tanks, about 180 gallons, roughly 1100 lbs. This is equivalent to a fully fueled P-51A or P-51B pre-fuselage tank. It is also equivalent to the tested values of the Fw aircraft (previous discussions indicated Ta-152H tested fighter weight included one half fuel weight or about 148 gallons). I am not sure of the fuel quantity of the tested Fw-190D-9, but I believe its internal fuel capacity is 169 gallons. So, for comparison purposes, fighter weight is an equivalent weight.

The initial fighter weight that I arrived at, 9077 lbs, I believe was the Manufacturing data for the P-51B without the center fuselage tank installed, pre-P-51B-7 ((I think). Army testing of the P-51B, with fuselage tank installed, defined the fighter weight as 9205 lbs

According to wwiiaircraftperformance, two test references show,

“….at a take-off weight of 9205 lbs. This loading corresponds to the average P-51B combat weight with full oil, 180 gallons of fuel and specified armament and ammunition.”

“All test were flown… 9335 lbs… The weight flown was 125 lbs. heavier than combat weight…”

Adding to the confusion, there were two test reports on wwiiaircraftperformance of climb for the P-51B using 75” boost, one at a test weight of 9680 lbs, and one at 9335 lb. I could not find any differences between the data on the two charts. After reading the reports, I believe that the test reflecting 9335 lbs is the correct chart, and the conservative one. Using this chart, and others, and correcting for combat weight (approximately 100 ft/min), I have generated the following performance data for the P-51B using 100/150 (44-1) fuel, at combat weight. A more accurate comparison with the Fw-190D-9 follows.

It must be noted here that this data, like all data obtained through analysis and/or test (or thumb rule), has a certain error that always distorts any comparison. This error is unknown and has many variables. For example, to assume that an aircraft that a 100 ft/min tested/analyzed can actually out climb the other aircraft is risky at best but it does give a neighborhood of performance.

*SL*
P-51B
A/S 386 mph
Climb 4430 ft/min

Fw-190D
A/S 385 mph
Climb 4429 ft/min

*5k*
P-51B
A/S 410 mph
Climb 4420 ft/min

Fw-190D
A/S 405
Climb 4134 ft/min

*10k*
P-51B
A/S 420 mph
Climb 3900 ft/min

Fw-190D
A/S 413 mph
Climb 4134 ft/min

*15k*
P-51B
A/S 428 mph
Climb 3820 ft/min

Fw-190D
A/S 432 mph
Climb 3740 ft/min

*20k*
P-51B
A/S 440 mph
Climb 3200 ft/min

Fw-190D
A/S 426 mph
Climb 2992 ft/min

*25k*
P-51B
A/S 440 mph
Climb 2400 ft/min

Fw-190D
A/S 417 mph
Climb 2158 ft/min

*30k*
P-51B
A/S 429 mph
Climb rate 1700 ft/min

Fw-190D
A/S 406 mph
Climb 1476 ft/min

If you throw in the general statements that the Fw-190D could out-turn the P-51B, and the P-51B could out dive the Fw-190D, I think you can see that the performance of the two are, for all intents and purposes, equal up to 15k ft. Here, the ability of the pilot would be the determining factor.

Nearing 20k ft., the P-51B was gaining a significant amount of airspeed advantage and slight climb advantage, and, above that, this advantage increased. In this envelope, the P-51B pilot had more tools to work with.

General notes: Firepower of the Fw-190D-9 was much more substantial than the P-51B, along with better power loading (acceleration) at lower to medium altitudes. P-51B had lower wing loading (82% of the Fw-190D-9).

Notes on the P-51D with 75” boost. With a fighter weight about 400 lbs heavier than the P-51B, climb will be impacted about 250 ft/min more (roughly). Airspeed would be slightly less than the P-51B, mainly due to a slight increase in drag from the bubble canopy.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 1, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Re: LW interceptors, its quite unlikely. Their droptanks replenished the main tank, so when they dropped them, they were on full internal (and did not have to bother with switching between tanks as a bonus). Frankly its quite unlikely. And the main tank, either full or at 2/3s would be enough for a lot more than just 100 miles as I reckon.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## ponsford (Oct 1, 2008)

davparlr said:


> *SL* - Fw-190D -A/S 386 mph



That’s a bit generous davparlr for standard production aircraft in a condition approved and configured for operations


----------



## davparlr (Oct 1, 2008)

ponsford said:


> That’s a bit generous davparlr for standard production aircraft in a condition approved and configured for operations



Data is off of Focke Wulf chart and I have no reason to doubt them. A/C probably was cleaned up somewhat, like most A/C in test.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 1, 2008)

On the cruise speed, it's a bit relative. Both the Spit variants and the 109 should get maximum range when cruising at ~180-200 mph. (of course, altitude would affect the speeds as well) 

So, technically the Spitfires in that chart are not demonstrating their maximum range. (even the P-51 could go a bit farther when at minimum cruising around 200 mph ~400 hp, though the difference was much less dramatic due to the low drag airframe)

Somthing to note is that at long range cruise in clean configuration at 10,000 ft, the P-38J was only going at ~175 mph. (which dropped to ~150-160 mph with tanks, at escort altitude it should be more around 190-200 mph though)


----------



## ponsford (Oct 1, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Data is off of Focke Wulf chart and I have no reason to doubt them. A/C probably was cleaned up somewhat, like most A/C in test.



What chart is that davparlr? I have a Focke Wulf chart dated 3.1.45 that shows about 622 km/h - 386 mph for a Fw 190 D-9 equipped with the Jumo 213 A operating at 2.02 ata, however, according to Hermann no evidence has been found that this setting was ever approved for service use. Oh, that 386 mph is also without ETC rack which according to FW via Hermann was standard factory equipment and standard operational configuration. You'll be wanting to look for figures of Fw 190 D-9's equipped with Jumo 213 A's operating at 1.80 ata and ETC racks. I think you'll find those sea level speeds to be around 370 mph give or take a couple of mph.

Edit: Upon further reflection and consideration, a typical operationally configured Fw 190 D-9 with Jumo 213 A operating at 1.80 ata, equipped with ETC 504 and without any rubber engine seals (which apparently didn't make it past testing into operational service) would likely be closer to 360 mph at sea level. Let's be generous and say between 365 and 375 mph at sea level


----------



## davparlr (Oct 1, 2008)

ponsford said:


> What chart is that davparlr? I have a Focke Wulf chart dated 3.1.45 that shows about 622 km/h - 386 mph for a Fw 190 D-9 equipped with the Jumo 213 A operating at 2.02 ata, however, according to Hermann no evidence has been found that this setting was ever approved for service use. Oh, that 386 mph is also without ETC rack which according to FW via Hermann was standard factory equipment and standard operational configuration. You'll be wanting to look for figures of Fw 190 D-9's equipped with Jumo 213 A's operating at 1.80 ata and ETC racks. I think you'll find those sea level speeds to be around 370 mph give or take a couple of mph.
> 
> Edit: Upon further reflection and consideration, a typical operationally configured Fw 190 D-9 with Jumo 213 A operating at 1.80 ata, equipped with ETC 504 and without any rubber engine seals (which apparently didn't make it past testing into operational service) would likely be closer to 360 mph at sea level. Let's be generous and say between 360 and 370 mph at sea level



I'm sure that is the chart I used. I cannot say more. I do not know or have access to the validity of the chart I used to actual operational configuration. You seem to be more knowledgable about the Fw than I am, but I am surprised that has not been pointed out to me before.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 1, 2008)

ponsford said:


> What chart is that davparlr? I have a Focke Wulf chart dated 3.1.45 that shows about 622 km/h - 386 mph for a Fw 190 D-9 equipped with the Jumo 213 A operating at 2.02 ata, however, according to Hermann no evidence has been found that this setting was ever approved for service use. Oh, that 386 mph is also without ETC rack which according to FW via Hermann was standard factory equipment and standard operational configuration. You'll be wanting to look for figures of Fw 190 D-9's equipped with Jumo 213 A's operating at 1.80 ata and ETC racks. I think you'll find those sea level speeds to be around 370 mph give or take a couple of mph.
> 
> Edit: Upon further reflection and consideration, a typical operationally configured Fw 190 D-9 with Jumo 213 A operating at 1.80 ata, equipped with ETC 504 and without any rubber engine seals (which apparently didn't make it past testing into operational service) would likely be closer to 360 mph at sea level. Let's be generous and say between 365 and 375 mph at sea level




I should note here that the P-51B numbers also were without racks.


----------



## Soren (Oct 1, 2008)

The top speed of the MW-50 equipped Dora-9's running on C3 fuel at 1.78 ata was 612 to 615 km/h at SL and 702 km/h at alt, and there are several charts noting that, including flight test established ones.

The chart Ponsford is talking about shows a Dora-9 optimized for low level performance doing 621 km/h at SL at 2.02 ata (Using B4 fuel), while only reaching 695 km/h at alt. As Hermann notes this setting isn't known to have been used in the field, however that is all he says.

The issue about the rubber seals is irrelevant as the a/c which participated in the tests where this is mentioned were equipped with underperforming engines. Thus no conclusions can be drawn from those tests. 



davparlr said:


> P-51B had lower wing loading (82% of the Fw-190D-9).



But as we both know wing loading doesn't matter, it is lift-loading which counts.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 2, 2008)

claidemore said:


> BThe Mustang III as well as the Spit IX would be contemporary with the 109G6 as far as production and combat use.



I already said that abouth MkIX if you read my post. And the Mustang III didn't enter service until late 43, 5-6 months after the G-6.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 2, 2008)

Hop said:


> Note the different speeds used for the different aircraft in the table Kurfurst posted. The 109s are at significantly lower speeds than the others:
> 
> 109G - 615 miles in 3.1 hours - 198 mph
> LF IX - 420 miles in 1.6 hours - 263 mph
> ...



Note that there is no correllation between range and the endurance time figures because best range is achieved at different speeds and engine settings. You are not getting max endurance at the best speed for max. range and _vica versa_.

There are three possibilities. One is that engineers in Britain were not adept at comparing like with the like (unlikely).

The second is that we have good old Hop, is having one of his 'ultra' days and worked himself up again on the fact that Spitfires - which he recently expressed as being perfectly capable of getting Berlin and back  - were short ranged, 109s were not so short ranged, others even less short ranged and he tossed a smokescreen to muddy the water.

There's a third possibility, too. That is that Hop is right, and the 109s range is given at 198 mph. The German range tables give the 109s best cruise speed for maximum range as 410 km/h (255 mph). That would mean the 109 is actually cruising at less than optimum range and that at optimum speed (255 mph) it would have even greater range.

The truth is, of course, that Hop again finds the facts presented by the real world and real engineers disturbing, and he tries to erect a smokescreen around it.


----------



## claidemore (Oct 2, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I already said that abouth MkIX if you read my post. And the Mustang III didn't enter service until late 43, 5-6 months after the G-6.



Yes I read your post, that's why I said "as well as the Mk IX". 

The 109 G-6 was still being built till mid 1944, the AS and AM engines came out in 1944 in the G-6, and the G-6 was only approved for 1.42 ata just before the time the Mustang III came into service. The G-14 which came out in mid 1944 was basically a G-6 wth an attempt to standardize production and reduce the number of variations (reduced from a dozen to four). The different engined G-10 didn't come out till the Mustang III had been in service for almost a year. Also, G6's were used right up till the spring of 1945, being re-issued to Jg units as supplies of the newer models were not available. 
So as far as combat encounters, the Mustang Mk III/P51-B/C and 109G6 were definately contemporary.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> But as we both know wing loading doesn't matter, it is lift-loading which counts.



??? are you referring to lift distribution?


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 2, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Yes I read your post, that's why I said "as well as the Mk IX".
> 
> The 109 G-6 was still being built till mid 1944, the AS and AM engines came out in 1944 in the G-6, and the G-6 was only approved for 1.42 ata just before the time the Mustang III came into service. The G-14 which came out in mid 1944 was basically a G-6 wth an attempt to standardize production and reduce the number of variations (reduced from a dozen to four). The different engined G-10 didn't come out till the Mustang III had been in service for almost a year. Also, G6's were used right up till the spring of 1945, being re-issued to Jg units as supplies of the newer models were not available.
> So as far as combat encounters, the Mustang Mk III/P51-B/C and 109G6 were definately contemporary.


The numbers in question were certainly neither from G-6/AS nor G-10 or G-14, thus the point stands.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 2, 2008)

claidemore said:


> Yes I read your post, that's why I said "as well as the Mk IX".
> 
> The 109 G-6 was still being built till mid 1944, the AS and AM engines came out in 1944 in the G-6, and the G-6 was only approved for 1.42 ata just before the time the Mustang III came into service. ... The different engined G-10 didn't come out till the Mustang III had been in service for almost a year.
> ... Also, G6's were used right up till the spring of 1945, being re-issued to Jg units as supplies of the newer models were not available.
> So as far as combat encounters, the Mustang Mk III/P51-B/C and 109G6 were definately contemporary.



Mike Williams 'stuff', eh?  

1, DB 605A was cleared for 1,42ata MAP in October 1943.
2, What's the big deal of the G-10 of October 1944, it had the same performance as the G-6/AS with MW as of April 1944...
3, As of the 'G-6s in 1945' Mike 'Bullshit' Williams topos, certainly there were G-6s around - 76 being reported on the end of January 1945 out of 1435 first line 109s, the rest being G-10/-14/K-4 - their equipment state is a different matter, as its impossible to tell how many were retrofitted with MW-50 boost effectively making them G-14s by this time. And, series production by that time was practically limited to G-10/K-4.

I am quite willing to bet there were more Mk V Spitfires in the RAF than G-6s in the Luftwaffe. Which, from the orders of Battles I have seen, holds true also for the start of 1944...  

Thing is the most commonly place aircraft at the start of 1944 were the Mark V Spitfire, the Typhoon, the P-47, the Bf 109G-6 and the FW 190A-5/A-6. Sure the Mustang, Spitfourteens and G-6/AS and all the other flashy jet stuff was contemporary too, but just too small in numbers.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2008)

drgondog said:


> ??? are you referring to lift distribution?



No, *lift-loading* pure and simple. It's a common expression within aerodynamics. 

Wing loading is simply weight divided by wing area, while lift-loading is weight divided by wing area and then divided by the lift coefficient in order to get the true difference. (That is the point of establishing the coefficients, they are efficiency indicators) 

Wing-loading, while the prefered way for the amateur to compare a/c, is very misleading for comparative purposes as obviously different wing airfoil designs will perform differently in terms of lift drag production. Dividing the wing-loading with the lift coefficient eliminates the inherent inaccuracy of wing-loading as a comparative method and gives us the lift-loading which is completely accurate as it is based on a proportional efficiency factor established by extensive windtunnel lab test results on the particular wing.

It is for example the Fw-190's lower lift-loading which allowed it to outturn the P-51, despite the wing loading actually being higher, all thanks to the 190's high lift NACA 23000 series airfoil. The P-51's airfoil prioritized low drag instead of lift, featuring a sharp leading edge and a greatly retracted maximum chamber point, and thus it suffered in terms of lift production at the AoA's commonly reached in turns. (Lower Clmax)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> No, *lift-loading* pure and simple. It's a common expression within aerodynamics.
> 
> *In what field of aero are you referring to Lift Loading as a 'common expression'?? Try searching for it.*
> 
> ...



Soren, simply 'no' - this is nonsense...with one exception and that is that both of these birds were in serious danger of stall at low speed/high AoA, one more violently than the other.


----------



## claidemore (Oct 3, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Mike Williams 'stuff', eh?
> *Nope, Wiki! *
> 1, DB 605A was cleared for 1,42ata MAP in October 1943.
> *Yes, just before the Mustangs came into service, which is what I said.*
> ...



I agree with the other planes, but not with the Mk V being most common, the Mk IX was the most common Spitfire 'in combat' in early 1944. Sorry but the theory on the Mk V being the most common type in combat late war just doesn't hold water. If you don't believe me you can ask "Bullshit Williams" or "Smokescreen Hop".


----------



## claidemore (Oct 3, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> The numbers in question were certainly neither from G-6/AS nor G-10 or G-14, thus the point stands.



I guess I gotta go back to school and learn to write so's folks can understand me. 
My point was that the standard engined G6 would have been commonly encountered by Mustangs until mid 1944. AS engined G6's started production in April 44,(as pointed out by Kurfurst) but it takes time for that production to replace all the 'old' G6's in service. Therefore if the numbers in question are from a standard engined 109G-6, they have relevance.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 3, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I agree with the other planes, but not with the Mk V being most common, the Mk IX was the most common Spitfire 'in combat' in early 1944. Sorry but the theory on the Mk V being the most common type in combat late war just doesn't hold water. If you don't believe me you can ask "Bullshit Williams" or "Smokescreen Hop".



The following is from a British paper titled 'PROGRAMME FOR RE-EQUIPMENT OF DAY FIGHTER-TYPE SQUADRONS'

Force as at 1 Jan 1944:

Spitfire V - 24 Sqns.
Spitfire VII - 2 Sqns.
Spitfire IXF - 11 Sqns.
Spitfire IXHF - 0 Sqns.
Spitfire IXLF - 9 Sqns.
Spitfire XII - 2 Sqns.
Spitfire XIV - 0 Sqns.
Typhoon - 19 Sqns.
Whirlwind - 1 Sqn.
Spitfire XI - 1 Sqn.
Mosquito IX - 1 Sqn.
Totals: 86 Sqns.

During the month it changed somewhat, ie. by 31 Jan 1944 it was 3 Mustang III, 21 Spitfire V, 5 IXF, 19 IX LF etc.

Still it would appear to me Mk Vs were very much present, which is no particular surprise given the low production number of IXLFs in 1943.

PS: The /AS version 109s were produced from December 1943 (but only two of them, probably the protos, so production is really from January), they were being sent to the Gruppen since April 1944, at least March/April is the first month I know they are mentioned.
But basically you are right in that Mustangs commonly encountered G-6s well until the 2nd half of 1944. OTOH I believe G-6s would encounter P-47s and P-38s more commonly than Mustangs.


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

Bill,

What part about this is nonesense??:

_"Lift coefficient may be used to relate the total lift generated by an aircraft to the total area of the wing of the aircraft."_ 

Weight / Wing area = Wing loading:
4000 kg / 22 m^2 = 181.18 kg/m^2
Weight / Wing area / CL = lift-loading:
4000 kg / 22 m^2 / 1.6 = 113.63 kg/m^2

A lower Cl equals a *higher* lift-loading and vice versa, everything else being equal. 

Example:
4000 kg / 22 m^2 / 1.3 = 139 kg/m^2
4000 kg / 22 m^2 / 1.5 = 121 kg/m^2

So how exactly do you figure that to be the lower the Cl the more efficient the a/c is ? What are you talking about Bill ? It is you who isn't making any sense.

The lift coefficient (Cl) is an efficiency indicator of lift production as it tells us how efficient a wing is at producing lift pr. surface area. As we both know different airfoil wing designs produce different amounts of lift drag, thus the need for the Cl.

That having been said we know the Clmax of both the Fw-190's P-51's wing, 1.58 1.35 respectively, both figures established in extensive windtunnel tests. The Fw-190's high Clmax stems mainly from its choice of airfoil, the high lift NACA 23000 series. 

It is the lower lift-loading of the Fw-190 which allowed it to turn better than the P-51, the Fw-190's wing generating more lift pr. wing surface area:

4,575 kg / 21.64 m^2 / 1.35 = 156.6 kg/m^2
4,270 kg / 18.30 m^2 / 1.58 = 147.6 kg/m^2


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 3, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> The following is from a British paper titled 'PROGRAMME FOR RE-EQUIPMENT OF DAY FIGHTER-TYPE SQUADRONS'
> 
> Force as at 1 Jan 1944:
> 
> ...



I thought the Whirlwind was retired in 1943.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> PS: The /AS version 109s were produced from December 1943 (but only two of them, probably the protos, so production is really from January), they were being sent to the Gruppen since April 1944, at least March/April is the first month I know they are mentioned.
> But basically you are right in that Mustangs commonly encountered G-6s well until the 2nd half of 1944. OTOH I believe G-6s would encounter P-47s and P-38s more commonly than Mustangs.



The encounters with P-38s would be in the same areas as Mustangs as both were used exclusively for target escort, relegating the P-47s (and Spitfires) to Penetration and Withdrawal duties due to lack of range. So, basically all the units east of Frankfurt would be dealing primarily with Mustangs and P-38s.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> What part about this is nonesense??:
> 
> ...



Seriously, where did you discover 'Lift Loading' as a concept - I actually would like to see the analysis??


----------



## Timppa (Oct 3, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> ...As of the 'G-6s in 1945' Mike 'Bullshit' Williams topos..



Is it possible to keep the discussion civil ?
This is the absolutely the best and most knowledgeable forum on WW2 aircraft that I have seen yet. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2008)

I will say this for the last time! I have said this many times in other threads. So have other moderators. Everyone seems to enjoy ignoring it. No more!

If I read another bullshit remark about Mike Williams, the person who said it will no longer post in this forum.

Mike Williams is not here to defend himself. Talking about someone like that is cowardly in my opinion. Let alone childish!

If you disagree with Mike Williams, that is fine. You can discuss it here, but you can do so in a civil manner.

*Is that clear to everyone?*


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2008)

soren - let's not de rail this on aero. Take it to performance thread


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

> Interesting but unproven and your 'analysis' doesn't prove it



Bill how does my analysis *not* prove it ???

To do an accurate comparison you HAVE to know the Clmax and you HAVE to divide the wing-loading with it. Why ? Because it's a coefficient, it's meant to tell you how efficient the wing is at providing lift pr. surface area.

So if the wing of aircraft A has a lift coefficient which is 30% higher than that of aircraft B, then aircraft B's wing provides 30% more lift for every square cm, m, foot etc etc than the wing of aircraft A. The very purpose of Cl as an efficiency indicator. 



drgondog said:


> Seriously, where did you discover 'Lift Loading' as a concept - I actually would like to see the analysis??



Bill it is so very commonly referred to by a lot of people, also NASA. Try asking Gene as-well, I doubt he will have any objections with the term.

Try typing lift-loading + wing-loading on google.


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

drgondog said:


> soren - let's not de rail this on aero. Take it to performance thread



Not sure we're derailing anything here, but where's the performance thread ?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill how does my analysis *not* prove it ???
> 
> To do an accurate comparison you HAVE to know the Clmax and you HAVE to divide the wing-loading with it. Why ? Because it's a coefficient, it's meant to tell you how efficient the wing is at providing lift pr. surface area.
> 
> ...



Didn't find it, haven't heard it, math says WL/CL = q so it ain't non dimensional, it's a force divided by an area..

If two different ships are at same velocity and altitude we could say WL1/CL1 is proportional to WL2/CL2.. so extend your thesis from there? Clearly if WL1 > WL2, then CL1 has to be greater than CL2 for this equality to exist... but I can't see what you can say about comparing an Fw 190 to a P-51 based on WL1/CL1=q


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

Yes a coefficient is a dimensionless figure Bill (Any nr alone is), that is *until* you add a dimension to it, which is what I did when I used meters as a reference point. The Cl is just a coefficient, meant to either multiply or divide other known dimensional figures with.

And since we know the true Clmax of the Fw-190's P-51's wing, established in fullscale windtunnel tests, we can also tell the difference between the two in terms of which a/c provides the most lift pr. unit of its own weight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2008)

I will be honest. I am a merely a technician, but I too have never heard of *Lift Loading* in aerodymics. I have read it on data plates on our John Deer Tractors that we used to tow the aircraft with.

I just googled it too, to see if I am stupid and I found nothing either.


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

Well here's one from google:
http://en.scientificcommons.org/18471522


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

Type "Lift-loading Wing-loading" like so on google and look.

Then try "lift-loading stalling".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2008)

Wing loading I have heard of, but not lift loading. 

I think you are talking about wing loading. Everytime I did a search (even with your search criteria) the only things that came up were "wing loading".

But then again I am merely a technician...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> Type "Lift-loading Wing-loading" like so on google and look.
> 
> Then try "lift-loading stalling".



Soren - that article, and its reference to 'lif loading' is the influence of flow properties induced by the jet to improve Lift Distribution..or simpler, to reduce tip losses.

It has zero to do with Wing Loading divided by Lift Coefficent.

Back to your thesis, how does arriving at a value for q have anything to do with efficiency, when you divide WL by CL? "efficiency" should be expressed as a non-dimensional number and when you dive a pressure load by a non dimensional number, you get a pressure load which is curiously equal to q for a specific velocity

You would have to solve to determine at which value of V is WL/CL for that CL.. remember you only posed the CL values for a Max CL at some max AoA which you haven't specified but we assume close to stall.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wing loading I have heard of, but not lift loading.
> 
> I think you are talking about wing loading. Everytime I did a search (even with your search criteria) the only things that came up were "wing loading".


You are correct Chris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 3, 2008)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/wing-loadings-idiots-guide-15143-2.html#post406253

This may be a good place to continue the discussion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2008)

drgondog said:


> You are correct Chris



So what did your original post say? Tell me in a PM please.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 4, 2008)

All I found in a "wing loading + lift loading" google search was this topic: A Complete Waste of Space Forums-viewtopic-Lift Loading?

Which is exceedingly convoluted on the topic to say the least... ie.


> but the FW-190 had a high-speed *[airfoil]* profile that sacrificed lift


 

I'm starting this "lift loading" topic over in the more appropriate thread I referred to earlier.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2008)

I read all the threads KK. Fat Cat and Aerial Target know what they are talking about 

This is from Aerial Target

"_There are four equal factors in flight; they are lift, weight, thrust, and drag. Wingloading and powerloading only deals with two of those, completely ignoring drag. And although wingloading does involve wing area, it does not account for all of the lift because wing area cannot tell you how much lift the wing is capable of generating. It's just a foundation. 

The more weight and drag, the worse an airplane will turn. The more thrust and lift, the better it will turn. Figuring a plane's turning ability, climbing ability, or even stall speed with only thrust and weight is nuts, and throwing in the wing area isn't much better. So no, it's not exactly half of the equation because of there is wing area, but it's far from reliable or accurate. I would agree with it being roughly 70% of the complete picture. And a 30% or even 20% error is a great one. That is something like the difference between a P-38's turning ability and a Zeke's. 

Crusty wrote: 
gibbs quote thing... 
..."I strongly disagree with that since wing loadings says NOTHING about the configuration of the wing itself, and nothing about the amount of LIFT that wing is producing. Wing loading ONLY factors in a standard wing and a standard aerofoil. " 


I think the only thing we disagree on is is your second use of the word "NOTHING". in that statement..I would replace it with "RATHER A LOT" 


I'm afraid that would be wrong. Wingloading is the weight of an airplane divided by the area of its wings. It does not account for the shape of the wings in any of the three dimensions. I would say that wingloading says "very little" about how much lift the wing is generating. 

Picture a wing, 16 feet by 2 feet, with an aspect ratio of 8:1. Picture another with the same dimensions but with an aspect ratio of 1:8. Going by wingloading, the two are exactly the same. Yet they obviously produce drastically different amounts of lift. Or take two wings with the same area and aspect ratio, one being four inches thick and the other twelve inches thick. Again, the two airplanes will not even be close to each other. And that's not getting into things such as swept wings, laminar flow wings, taper ratio, propeller wash, and flap design, size, and location. 

The logical conclusion is that anyone who says, "This airplane should do better in this area than that airplane because of wingloading," is a moron. Rather say, "This airplane might be better in this area than that airplane because of wingloading. I'll check out the other factors and see." The same applies, to a slightly lesser extent, to those who use only wingloading and powerloading. 

I've been trying to explain this truth to an unwilling simulator community for quite a few years now. For some reason, most simulator users seem to find comfort in simplifying things too complicated for them and assigning to them false meanings, or taking the simulator's portrayal as truth, rather than finding out how things really work. Thus, you have the crowd which insists that this airplane must out-whatever this one, because the god Wingloading says so. Madness! Fortunately, everyone in this discussion is above that, but I do believe that some of you place too much value on wingloading._


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren - that article, and its reference to 'lif loading' is the influence of flow properties induced by the jet to improve Lift Distribution..or simpler, to reduce tip losses.
> 
> It has zero to do with Wing Loading divided by Lift Coefficent.
> 
> ...



Bill obviously the reason I'm using the Clmax figure (Which occurs close to the critical AoA) as reference is because that is the area where the a/c are going to be at in a max performance turn, which is what we're discussing here.

It isn't the wing loading which matters, it's the actual lift vs the weight of the a/c i.e. the lift loading. By dividing the Wing loading with the Cl we can directly compare a/c at specific AoA's, in this case close to the critical AoA where Clmax occurs.

What Aerial Target says is exactly the same as what I'm saying.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill obviously the reason I'm using the Clmax figure (Which occurs close to the critical AoA) as reference is because that is the area where the a/c are going to be at in a max performance turn, which is what we're discussing here.
> 
> It isn't the wing loading which matters, it's the actual lift vs the weight of the a/c i.e. the lift loading. By dividing the Wing loading with the Cl we can directly compare a/c at specific AoA's, in this case close to the critical AoA where Clmax occurs.
> 
> What Aerial Target says is exactly the same as what I'm saying.



Soren - what Gene said to separate lift loading from wing loading is correct. What aerialtarget explained regarding the fallacy of depending on wing loading as an absolute determinant is correct.

What you say about dividing lift loading by Cl is not correct.

Lift 'loading' is the distribution of lift spanwise (and chord wise for 3-d) over a wing for a particular condition of flight. If you were to look at a model like lednicers, the 'footprint' of the load distribution is shown as the pressure distribution (you remember, 'suction'?).

This 'loading' is a distribution of pressure (usually greater at the root) which tapers from root to tip - usually in an 'elliptical like' curve if the path of the curve represents the magnitude of the distribution spanwise. The 'pressure' distribution when representing 'Lift' is simply the value of pressure of the accelerating stream and is less than the freestream stagnation pressure until separation occurs - 

So, lift distribution is important for aeros to figure out what they wish to do with twist for example, and for structures guys in order to make bending and torsion calculations for the wing structure..

Dividing by Cl has no meaning. 

How about proving your thesis mathmatically and start with the AoA at which CL=0?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 5, 2008)

So the valid techincal use for the term "lift loading" would be synonymous with "lift distribution," correct?


I think Soren's point for his deviding weight by Clmax and Wing area is to provide a comparison between aircraft in terms of the maximum lift the wing can produce compared to their weight. (which doesn't really give you data that can be used in equations but makes a side by side comparison of the aircraft's characteristics)

But "lift loading" would not be correct to use here. (I don't think there is an actual term for these figures)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> So the valid techincal use for the term "lift loading" would be synonymous with "lift distribution," correct?
> 
> *Yes, and no. For level flight - 1g the lift loading of the lift distribution would be 1/3 of a 3g flight condition. The aircraft in flight has loads that pertain to the lift on the lifting surfaces.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2008)

The purpose of dividing WL with Clmax is to arrive at the 'real' wing-loading for comparative purposes, simply referred to as the lift-loading of the a/c as you now have factored in how effective the wing is at producing lift. 

To make it really simple:

If wing A features a Clmax which is 30% higher than that of wing B, the wing area of the two being the same, then Wing A will produce 30% more lift than Wing B.

There's no denying these facts. So the only problem I see here is that you (Bill) haven't ever encountered the term 'lift-loading' before and you're making a pretty big deal out of that IMO. A single term shouldn't matter in a discussion, it is the facts which it stands for which should. 

But I am willing to concede that 'lift-loading' might not be a verified term within aerodynamic lectures, but it certainly is very common in discussions on the subject, which is where I encountered it first many years back.

So how about we now move past this terminology nonesense and concentrate on the truth behind the terms ?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> The purpose of dividing WL with Clmax is to arrive at the 'real' wing-loading for comparative purposes, simply referred to as the lift-loading of the a/c as you now have factored in how effective the wing is at producing lift.
> 
> To make it really simple:
> 
> ...



It is simply dimensional nonsense. 

It is easy to deny the 'facts' and the 'truth' - do the math

Cl= L/(q*A) where q is the dynamic pressure for the velocity at which *CL is correct for the Lift vector at that AoA and velocity*

L=CL*q*A

WL = W/A where weight of the aircraft is to be divided by the area
W/A = L/A for that same flight condition in which Lift = weight (or loaded higher g 'weight')

W/A = WL = L/A = CL*q*A/A = CL*q = WL
Divide both sides by CL -----> WL/CL = CL*q/CL = q (dynamic pressure)

L/A divided by CL = q ; Lift Loading divided by CL = q.

So What?

The only useful thing this could tell you (if you knew the altitude and density) is that for a Given CL, and a Given Lift Vector, you could solve for the correct Velocity for that CL

But what does q or solving for V tell You about efficiency? 

Which 'aerodynamic expert circles" find this interesting? I really want to know because it sure doesn't mean anything to me and I really find it interesting that it means something to 'experts' in the field.

What is your source Soren?


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2008)

Bill, 

First of all:

Lift = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2 

NASA:
_One way to deal with complex dependencies is to characterize the dependence by a single variable. For lift, this variable is called the lift coefficient, designated "Cl." This allows us to collect all the effects, simple and complex, into a single equation. The lift equation states that lift L is equal to the lift coefficient Cl times the density r times half of the velocity V squared times the wing area A. _

So like I said:

If wing A features a Clmax which is 30% higher than that of wing B, the wing area of the two being the same, then Wing A will produce 30% more lift than Wing B. 

And so if you divide the wing loading with the Clmax you get the true difference between the two a/c percentage wise, which is good for comparative reasons, esp. for the amateur reader out there. 

If I wanted to find the actual lift vs the weight of the a/c then I'd use an entirely different approach as I then need the actual speed of the a/c and the air density of the inviroment it flies in:

Aircraft weight: 4,000 kg
Aircraft wing area: 20 m^2
Speed: 120 m/s
Alt: Sea level
Clmax: 1.50

Lift = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2 

1.5 * 20 * .5 * 1.225 * 120^2 = 264,600 Newtons

264,600 N = 26,981.690 Kgf

26,981.690 Kgf / 4,000 Kg
________________________
= 6.74 G


Secondly please stop dwelling on a single term, it is the truth behind it which is interesting. Why is it you insist upon discussing the term instead of the facts, is that really interesting to you ???

When I say I heard the term in discussions regarding aerodynamics then it is because I did so.. Or are you calling me liar ? If so what would I get out of lying about such a thing ? Seriously ? I have never researched the authenticity of the term itself, just used it in discussions regarding the usability of wing loading as a measuring stick for turn performance, cause if you want to find the true difference between two a/c you need to take into account the Clmax, and that is the truth.


----------



## huskerapache (Oct 7, 2008)

If they both took off from England and fought over Berlin I'll take the Mustang.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> First of all:
> 
> ...



Sources Soren. Truth always has a foundation in physics and math. References Soren. Applied math to a physical model, measured against test data and refined to a 'truth'

I don't claim you are a liar - just uninformed.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2008)

huskerapache said:


> If they both took off from England and fought over Berlin I'll take the Mustang.



Or from Iwo Jima and fight over Tokyo..


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2008)

> So, like I said - this is true for each wing at a specific AoA and Velocity.



For a specific AoA yes (In this case near the critical AoA at Clmax), but not just for specific velocities, no for all velocities Bill.

The below is the undeniable truth:
_If wing A features a Clmax which is 30% higher than that of wing B, the wing area of the two being the same, then Wing A will produce 30% more lift than Wing B_ *at Clmax*



drgondog said:


> Sources Soren. Truth always has a foundation in physics and math. References Soren. Applied math to a physical model, measured against test data and refined to a 'truth'



Then tell me with numbers where I got the term lift-loading from - that makes about as much sense as what you just said 

Bill, I've had heated discussions about wing loading and its importance many times before and it always ends up with all parties using the term lift-loading when relating to turn performance of an a/c, wether it be the right term for the subject or not. I took it to me as I found it an easy and logical way to explain the importance of knowing the Clmax while at the same time showing the true difference between both a/c percentage wise.



> I don't claim you are a liar - just uninformed.



Aren't we all ?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> Then tell me with numbers where I got the term lift-loading from - that makes about as much sense as what you just said
> 
> *I would not presume to tell you where you got either your notion of lift loading as an 'efficiency' or WL/CLmax as an efficiency or anything else you have said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Oct 8, 2008)

Again where did I say that lift-loading was an efficiency factor ? 

Cl is an efficiency factor, that is what I said.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Again where did I say that lift-loading was an efficiency factor ?
> 
> Cl is an efficiency factor, that is what I said.



Your post 146 - which started all this

"_Wing loading is simply weight divided by wing area, while lift-loading is weight divided by wing area and then divided by the lift coefficient in order to get the true difference. (That is the point of establishing the coefficients, they are efficiency indicators)" _

*This is nonsense Soren. *



Lift loading is the actual lift applied to the wing divided by area as opposed to Weight of airframe divided by the area. If that airplane is in a 3g turn in horizontal plane the Lift Loading is far higher than the airframe weight on the ground - and more than 3x as the total lift and normal forces on the wing are greater than the lift force vector equal and opposite the accelerated mass vector

Further dividing Lift Loading by CL (or CLmax) simply gives you "q" as I have shown you several times. (1/2 rho V^2)[/B]

You go on to speak of 'amateurs' in next paragraph on 146

_"Wing-loading, while the prefered way for the amateur to compare a/c, is very misleading for comparative purposes as obviously different wing airfoil designs will perform differently in terms of lift drag production. Dividing the wing-loading with the lift coefficient eliminates the inherent inaccuracy of wing-loading as a comparative method and gives us the lift-loading which is completely accurate as it is based on a proportional efficiency factor established by extensive windtunnel lab test results on the particular wing."_

*Babble. Lift Loading has zero to do with 'proportional efficiency' or 'proportional efficiency factors'. *

"


----------



## Soren (Oct 8, 2008)

Bill, 

I was talking about the lift coefficient, that is an efficiency indicator/factor. I never said lift-loading was an efficiency factor, you're twisting my words.

Here's what I said in post #146 from the very beginning of our discussion:

_"Wing loading is simply weight divided by wing area, while lift-loading is weight divided by wing area and then divided by the lift coefficient in order to get the true difference. (That is the point of establishing the coefficients, they are efficiency indicators)" _

I don't see how one can translate that into me claiming lift loading is an efficiency factor from this at all. What I am saying however is, like I explained afterwards, that establishing the lift loading is a great of accurately comparing a/c percentage wise.



> If that airplane is in a 3g turn in horizontal plane the Lift Loading is far higher than the airframe weight on the ground - and more than 3x as the total lift and normal forces on the wing are greater than the lift force vector equal and opposite the accelerated mass vector."



That is true, and as you can see from my posts I said that as-well;

_If I wanted to find the actual lift vs the weight of the a/c then I'd use an entirely different approach as I then need the actual speed of the a/c and the air density of the inviroment it flies in:

Aircraft weight: 4,000 kg
Aircraft wing area: 20 m^2
Speed: 120 m/s
Alt: Sea level
Clmax: 1.50

Lift = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2 

1.5 * 20 * .5 * 1.225 * 120^2 = 264,600 Newtons

264,600 N = 26,981.690 Kgf

26,981.690 Kgf / 4,000 Kg
________________________
= 6.74 G_

I never claimed that lift loading was an efficiency indicator or factor, just a way of easily and accurately comparing a/c percentage wise. It is the lift coefficient I say is an efficiency indicator/factor, and it is.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I was talking about the lift coefficient, that is an efficiency indicator/factor. I never said lift-loading was an efficiency factor, you're twisting my words.
> 
> ...



Lift Coeeficient/Drag Coefficient is an efficiency indicator of the wing.

Lift Coefficient is a point on a plot for a specific AoA for a 2-d airfoil section, or a calculated value if Weight, velocity and density, and wing area are known for 1 g steady flight


----------



## Soren (Oct 10, 2008)

I give up, you only wish to twist and misunderstand what I say, even when I cut it out in cardboard for you.

Don't you even understand that my calculation was for an a/c in a turn ?? Hence the use of Clmax! 

What I established in the above calculation was the G-forces a 4,000 kg aircraft with a 20m^2 wing with a Clmax of 1.5 will pull at 120 m/s when doing a max performance turn, which is 6.74 G. A similar a/c with a lower Clmax will only be able to pull less G's, hence why dividing wimg-loading with Clmax is good for comparative reasons as you can then directly compare the turn performance of a/c percentage wise.

That's it for me, I don't wish to continue this anymore as you really don't wish to understand, just preach.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 10, 2008)

Soren, I think the problem is that you still using "Lift loading" in your personal context, while Bill is using the true aerodynamic concept that that term applies to. 
(your's is somthing more like lift-corected wing loading, or CLmax corrected wing loading)

I agree though about your original post (about the "efficiency" issue), while I don't think Bill was trying to twist your words, I see how it could be confused. (thought that you were implying "lift loading" was an efficiency figure, though you'd meant the coeficients were efficiency figures)


Also, I think this is the "performance thread" Bill was referring to: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-vs-spitfire-vs-fw-190-vs-p-51-a-13369.html

Given the consistent use of the term "lift loading," I'm surprised this issue hasn't come up before.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> I give up, you only wish to twist and misunderstand what I say, even when I cut it out in cardboard for you.
> 
> *Mis understand and disagree are two different concepts Soren. I understand what you want and I disagree your physics.
> 
> ...



I didn't 'wish to continue' a long time ago. bye.


----------



## Kingfisher (Sep 19, 2010)

My grandfather flew both during the war, as a squadron leader.

He always said the Spit was his first love and that he would rather fly one in a dogfight above any other plane because the all round ability made it most likely to win. Even then, he was shot down in one over Malta by a 109, though his squadron was fighting against huge odds.

But he also loved the P51, which he flew later in the war on long range missions over France. As he said, a Spit couldn't have gone there in the first place and the P51 was still a match for anything the Germans had.

So 2 great aircraft, both top at what they did.

But Grandad ended the war on Tempest Vs chasing V1s and occasionally hunting ME 262s - how he raved about that aircraft!


----------



## renrich (Sep 19, 2010)

Nice post Kingfisher and dealing with reality rather than sentiment.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 20, 2010)

Its necromancy at this stage.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2010)

It is interesting to hear the anecdotal comparisons from the Brits/RCAF pilots that flew the Spit, the P-51B/D and Tempests. The ones I know all loved all three fighters - for different reasons.

Flt Warren Peglar flew Spits for two years, never enegaged with a german fighter, transferred to USAAF for two months with 355th FG and four air kills plus a ground kill, then transferred back to RCAF flying Tempest V to end the war but did not shoot anything down with Tempest either. 

Summary - "Gawd I loved the Spit, loved the Mustang because it was a great fighter but more important - it was great over Germany where I couldn't fight in a Spit, and by the time we were in Tempests on the continent, Jerry was east and I didn't see much of him".

He often wished he could have engaged in a Tempest just to get a relative feel of Tempest vs 190/190 vs his four air kills in a 51B.

BTW Kurfurst - He twice engaaged 109s that he couldn't close on in medium/low speed turning fights - including dropping flaps - but didn't lose ground either. His wingman got the 109s both times - which once again raises the extreme value of pilot skill vs airplnae performance.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 21, 2010)

Absolutely agree... Yeager said it so well.


----------



## Alexa (Oct 25, 2010)

that this is fun but a fortress vs. battleship argument? The Spitfire will always be, in any of it's marks, the greatest DEFENSIVE fighter of the Second World War while the P-51, in all IT'S many letters, is the OFFENSIVE fighter that *won* the war. One must also consider numbers and there is no doubt that had the U.S. 8th ever found a need to bomb England from, let us say, France? There would be so many Mustangs accompanying the bombers that the slightly superior dogfighting Spit Mk14s would be as overwhelmed as were the magnificent FW-190s? My goodness, gentlemen, the Mustang even found a way to get the better of the ME 262, simply by "lingering". One suspects the pilots of those planes to be the difference no matter what Spitfire they would have to ever have "theoretically" faced off against.


----------



## Glider (Oct 25, 2010)

You are making the huge assumption, that the RAF in this totally different strategic situation would have built the same number of Spitfire XIV. Unlikely I would suggest


----------



## Demetrious (Oct 26, 2010)

No, the problem with the original comparison- in the post that launched this thread, five years ago- was that it was always bunk.

The Spitfire XIV had a Griffon engine- a more advanced powerplant. The P-51D was still using the Merlin. That's why there was 8,000 + P-51Ds made and less then 1,000 Spit XIV's were made- the Griffon was more expensive, and American/British factories were already tooled to produce the Rolls-Royce Merlin in quantity. Many P-51s were needed to escort American daylight bombing, and the D model with the Merlin could already whup any German fighter in the air, so it was pointless to try and re-tool factories to produce Griffons.

The net consequence was that the Spitfire's capabilities jumped ahead of the Mustang's for a time because of production priorities, not any advantage inherent to the airframe. The P-51K would be the proper comparison- at combat weights, too, none of that "let's compare the Spitfire's loaded weight, with 1 hour endurance, to the Mustang with 8 hours of fuel" bunk.

A troll thread still alive five years after it was initiated? Must be a record.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 26, 2010)

Demetrious said:


> No, the problem with the original comparison- in the post that launched this thread, five years ago- was that it was always bunk.
> 
> The Spitfire XIV had a Griffon engine- a more advanced powerplant. The P-51D was still using the Merlin. That's why there was 8,000 + P-51Ds made and less then 1,000 Spit XIV's were made- the Griffon was more expensive, and American/British factories were already tooled to produce the Rolls-Royce Merlin in quantity. Many P-51s were needed to escort American daylight bombing, and the D model with the Merlin could already whup any German fighter in the air, so it was pointless to try and re-tool factories to produce Griffons.
> 
> ...



Demetrious - I believe you meant P-51H not P-51K as a proper comparison. The only true distingushing difference between D and K was the Hamilston Std vs Aeroproducts prop/pitch controls, whereas the H was lighter, more powerful and essentially a new design.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Oct 26, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Demetrious - I believe you meant P-51H not P-51K as a proper comparison. The only true distingushing difference between D and K was the Hamilston Std vs Aeroproducts prop/pitch controls, whereas the H was lighter, more powerful and essentially a new design.



Drgondog if I'm not mistaken Aeroproduct propellers used in P-51 Ks were a bit troublesome due to some vibrations and some P-51 Ks were fitted the Hamilton Standard used in P-51 Ds. is that correct?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 26, 2010)

TheMustangRider said:


> Drgondog if I'm not mistaken Aeroproduct propellers used in P-51 Ks were a bit troublesome due to some vibrations and some P-51 Ks were fitted the Hamilton Standard used in P-51 Ds. is that correct?



Yes - usually at the theatre service depots


----------



## TheMustangRider (Oct 26, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Yes - usually at the theatre service depots



Thank you for the answer.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 27, 2010)

Seems like this thread revives about every two years or so. My pick between the two would be the Spitfire XIV. It has all the advantages once you are in the fight. Problem is that there may be a lot of fights you can't get to for lack of range.

- Ivan.


----------



## Dazza44 (Apr 16, 2011)

I think what people tend to forget is that the Spitfire was designed to be an interceptor and not a long range escort. What she would have looked like if it was mean't to escort bombers is anyones guess. I love both aircraft.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 16, 2011)

As memo serves P-51 was designed as an interceptor as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2011)

(while not wanting to pile up on a new member)
To the best of my knowledge, P-51 was not designed as long range escort either, but as a 'better P-40'. 
Spitfire with additional internal fuel (Mk.VII/VIII) and drop-tank capability was there in 1942, so the long range capability was present. Allies have had the opportunity to use it in early 1943 in ETO, but missed it. Ditto for P-51A, for mid 1943.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2011)

TP is correct. The P-51 was designed as a fighter 'better than P-40' and for lack of a better phrase was a utility fighter with range and performance.

As to the MKVIII, including drop tanks, by the time the wing was re-designed to provide another 100 gallons the Spit would no longer be a Spit - but would have been an interesting and important derivative. Its drag was significantly higher 'as is' and a new wing may have increased drag even more making it difficult to get more than 250+ mile radius without huge drop tanks.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 16, 2011)

Two of the main USAAF fighters I've heard were designed to be interceptors are the P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-38 Lightning.
I don't know about the P-47 but in my opinion the P-38 would had been a great interceptor.


----------



## andys53 (Apr 22, 2011)

Gnomey said:


> yes you can but they are designed for different jobs. As a result the P-51 could afford to have a slow climb rate because it could climb all the way to the target, but in dogfights this is a set back. The Spit is designed specifically for dogfighting, the P-51 is for both dogfighting and a long range bomber escort. As a result of this, the P-51 loses some dogfighting attributes but gains range and endurance. The Spit doesn't have this combination of two roles as so is a better dogfighter and would win in a dogfight between the two (based on statistics). However it would come down to the skill of the pilot. The choice of aircraft though is purely which you prefer and I prefer the Spitfire.


 
Plus and most importantly, the Spitfire is so much prettier. 8)


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 24, 2011)

TheMustangRider said:


> Two of the main USAAF fighters I've heard were designed to be interceptors are the P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-38 Lightning.
> I don't know about the P-47 but in my opinion the P-38 would had been a great interceptor.



The P-38 was designed to be an interceptor, and nothing else. It had ax excellent time to climb to altitude. The P-47 was to be a high altitude fighter, and its performance at 30,000 ft. was good.


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2011)

I have been thinking about this thread and as to which you would prefer would simply depend on the tactical situation. If you were attacking then the P51 has it in spades due to its range while still having a very good performance, if you are defending then the Spit due to its agility and climb.

At low/medium altitude the P51 is I understand faster but in a climb to altitude the Spit has the advantage.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 24, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> The P-38 was designed to be an interceptor, and nothing else. It had ax excellent time to climb to altitude. The P-47 was to be a high altitude fighter, and its performance at 30,000 ft. was good.


 
Thanks for the clarification Syscom, which leads me to think how the P-38 would have performed alongside Spitfires and Hurricanes given a scenario in which it would have been available in meaningful numbers for the RAF during the Battle of Britain.


----------



## Nynjazen (Apr 27, 2012)

It seems RM 797 is wrong. My photo shows RM787
Jean Luc


Soren said:


> *Spitfire Mk.XIV*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kryten (Apr 27, 2012)

climb rate and acceleration favours the spit, along with the turn radius so I would have to say the spit had the technical edge, that however is nothing but academic relative to the tactical situation during the encounter!


----------



## MrJolly (Aug 12, 2012)

Lol its pretty obvious where the guest 'Lunatic' comes from, poor old Mustang still using the Merlin. Imagine a Griffon powered P51! (of course thats in essence what the UK was doing with its Spitful / Seafang - Fastest recorded Piston powered Aircraft) 

I've read through many pages here I'll clarify at short range - the Spit LF XIVe (Clipped wings - 2 50 cals 2 Cannons) was a quite literately a deadly killing machine, served with distinction in Germany, even with a drop tank it was highly maneuverable, regarding armour, the XIV fuselage was stronger than the regular merlin powered spits / with a modified firewall behind the engine (it was highly redesigned). etc etc also I quote "The visceral feeling of the power of the griffon engine transferred to the seat of a pilots seat made you want to go kill" 

Sorry but the XIVe would make short work of a P51 in a dogfight, unless of of course a Mustang MKIII pilot had the red letter S on his T-Shirt 

Why did we use so many 303 bullets earlier on ? - has anyone thought there were a few lying about at the time in the UK 

Btw I think the wing air intakes on that profile are the wrong size, i think they should be slightly larger.

S!


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 12, 2012)

I believe Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown, whom we must all accept is virtually God in such matters, rated the Spitfire XIV a little ahead of the P51D as a dogfighter. A little more controversially, he actually also placed it marginally behind the Fw190D. Ouch!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 12, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I believe Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown, whom we must all accept is virtually God in such matters, rated the Spitfire XIV a little ahead of the P51D as a dogfighter. A little more controversially, he actually also placed it marginally behind the Fw190D. Ouch!


 
I thought he ranked them Spit XIV, Fw 190 D-9, P-51D in that order.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I believe Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown, whom we must all accept is virtually God in such matters, rated the Spitfire XIV a little ahead of the P51D as a dogfighter. A little more controversially, he actually also placed it marginally behind the Fw190D. Ouch!


Brown was one of the greatest test pilots who ever lived. He was also biased and arrogant, but rightfully so...


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2012)

Given equal pilot skill, the XIV should defeat both the P-51 and FW 190 - If it could fly far enough to get to the fight.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 13, 2012)

A Griffon engined P51 - now that would be something special!


----------



## krieghund (Aug 13, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I thought he ranked them Spit XIV, Fw 190 D-9, P-51D in that order.



Actually on page 208 (Duels in the Sky) he lists the the greatest single-seat fighters in the order;

1. Spitfire and Fw190
2. F6F Hellcat
3. Mustang IV (P51D) 
4. A6M5 Zeke
5. Tempest V
6. N1K2-J George

Since he has flown all of them who are we to question the pick.

However, I think he may have a bias against the P-51D for I quote from page 208; *" Next one must look at the American fighters, and here is it easier to make a judgement. In the Far East the Hellcat almost single-handedly turned defeat into victory. The Mustang IV, though technically superior, never made an impact on any war theater."* OMG......Ooops!!!! I can see how a naval pilot could have that thought.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2012)

krieghund said:


> Actually on page 208 (Duels in the Sky) he lists the the greatest single-seat fighters in the order;
> 
> 1. Spitfire and Fw190
> 2. F6F Hellcat
> ...



I had a long running debate with the Wing Captain Brown on this very specific quote. I pointed out that a.) the IJN was rapidly being pushed back before the F6F entered combat ops, b.) the Mustang IV can Not be separated from the Mustang III/P-51B and C, and c.) that the Merlin Mustang made a huge impact on Western Luftwaffe operations. 

I also pointed out that the P-51D per se had a much bigger impact than either the Spit IX, or Spit XIV if he chose to differentiate Spitfires based on completely different engines - whilst the Mustang IV had only the canopy/turtleback mod with no change otherwise. I also pointed out that the quality and quantity of the German fighter pilots remained higher than the Japanese in 1944 s that the Mustang III and IV were still flying against tougher opponents

I then asked him whether the F4U was equally capable of doing what the F6F accomplished in 1944, then asked him to compare the 51 versus Spitfire in the defeat of LW in the west prior to and after D-Day. 

It was a good discussion and I continue to respect his point of view - I just disagree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2012)

I disagree as well. How can he say The 51 did not have an impact in any theater?


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 13, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I had a long running debate with the Wing Captain Brown on this very specific quote.



Would you mind leting us know what his side of this was?
It seems an incredible thing for a man of his experience aviation knowledge to have said.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 14, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I thought he ranked them Spit XIV, Fw 190 D-9, P-51D in that order.


 
Sorry, that’s what I meant – my post was ambiguous.
Krieghund – must have been a different text. The one I was reading was referring to the virtues of the aircraft as dogfighters only. Yours sounds more like they are being ranked according to historical significance, or some combination of the two. Still, how could anyone say the P51 was lacking in historical significance?
FlyboyJ – ‘Winkle’ was arrogant?! How dare you! Next you'll be bad-mouthing Montgomery. Just because Eric said the P-38 was useless and the Wildcat was the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war doesn’t mean we should question his judgement.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> FlyboyJ – ‘Winkle’ was arrogant?! How dare you! Next you'll be bad-mouthing Montgomery. Just because Eric said the P-38 was useless and the Wildcat was the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war doesn’t mean we should question his judgement.



Chill out, it his opinion. One that many people share. He is not discrediting the man one little bit. It his an opinion of his character, nothing else. 

While the man was a great pilot, his views are skewed because of his bias. That does not mean he does not know what he is talking about.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2012)

MrJolly said:


> Lol its pretty obvious where the guest 'Lunatic' comes from
> 
> S!



Welcome MrJolly - just for the record, Lunatic was one of, if not the biggest idiot(s) to ever come on this forum. He made a promise to do a "climb" over my house as this moron claimed he was a pilot. That was several years ago and I had yet to see that happen.
There are many enthusiasts here, some of us have been fortunate enough to actually work on some of these aircraft we love, but at the same time we are quick to call out “wanna-bees” who throw egotistical BS around for their own self-satisfaction.

Peace…


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> FlyboyJ – ‘Winkle’ was arrogant?! How dare you! Next you'll be bad-mouthing Montgomery. Just because Eric said the P-38 was useless and the Wildcat was the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war doesn’t mean we should question his judgement.


He was biased and arrogant and it has nothing to do with his opinions about the P-38, Wildcat or any other aircraft. He is and was one of the greatest test pilots who ever lived so cut the "How dare you" crap!!!


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 14, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He was biased and arrogant and it has nothing to do with his opinions about the P-38, Wildcat or any other aircraft. He is and was one of the greatest test pilots who ever lived so cut the "How dare you" crap!!!


 
Hmm, apparently 'tongue in cheek' doesn't transcribe to well into text. I was actually agreeing with you that Brown's undoubted status as a pilot does not necessarily mean he is above a little hyperbole and self aggrandisement, just like the notoriously stuffy Montgomery. I mentioned his comments about the P-38 and Wildcat as examples; unfair in the first case and highly debatable in the second.
Now nobody loves me anymore (sob!)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2012)

Sometimes written words don't come across very well. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Hmm, apparently 'tongue in cheek' doesn't transcribe to well into text. I was actually agreeing with you that Brown's undoubted status as a pilot does not necessarily mean he is above a little hyperbole and self aggrandisement, just like the notoriously stuffy Montgomery. I mentioned his comments about the P-38 and Wildcat as examples; unfair in the first case and highly debatable in the second.
> Now nobody loves me anymore (sob!)


My apologies - no worries!


----------



## Pathentx (Aug 15, 2012)

Here is one case when there was a match up between a P51 and a Spitfire IX:

21 March 31FG
For the 31 FG, March would be the last month flying Spitfires. On the 11th, Colonel Charles Milton McCorkle, born 29 Jan 1915, (McCorkle had his initials " CM-M " on his 31FG Spits and Mustangs, and the name "Betty Jane") 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 outmanoeuvred the new Mustang. On 21 March, Lieutenant Richard F. Hurd of the 308 FS destroyed two ME-109s to become the last Spitfire ace before the 31 FG was taken off operational status to transition to the P-51. Colonel McCorkle did get permission for a farewell 36-ship fighter sweep over Rome on the 29th. For the most part uneventful, 20 FW-190s were intercepted by one 4-ship of Spits, forcing the enemy to Jettison their bombs. Lieutenant Emery destroyed one of the FWs, the last enemy aircraft downed by a 31FG Spitfire.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

> Sometimes written words don't come across very well. Thanks for clarifying.



Don't beat yourself up there Cobber, they are Americans and everyone knows Americans don't get irony!


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

> Sometimes written words don't come across very well. Thanks for clarifying.



Don't beat yourself up there Cobber, they are Americans and everyone knows Americans don't get irony!


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 17, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Don't beat yourself up there Cobber, they are Americans and everyone knows Americans don't get irony!


 
Yes, all Americans are without exception pedantic stuffed shirts - Mark Twain and Tom Wolfe were kiwi ex-pats, LOL


----------



## GriffonSpit (Nov 15, 2012)

Hello!
I have read this thread with some amusement you are all making some good points, but I would hope to clarify a few things. First we are talking about spitfire MK XIV. (Yea!! One of my favorite subjects!!) But which one? There were many variants. Was it the regular wing? The high altitude variant? or perhaps the clipped wing? Once we settle that, which engine?..(Yes I know we are talking Griffon..but which one?) Type 61 or 65? Single stage turbo or two stage? I won't even get into armament (I prefer the .50 and 20mm personally). I wonder if the P51D has as much trouble holding classification? (you know the early XIV's were not really XIV's at all!!--they were earlier Marks that were ahem.. Frankenstein-ed!) The MK XIV was like a lot of models... a "work in progress" and constantly evolved for mission and technology specific updates. before being morphed into the next Mark or perhaps 2. The Mark IX actually superseded some earlier marks! Now that I have stirred up that mud pie. Let's move on which is really better the mustang or the spitfire? Well you can see by my moniker which way I lean but let me clarify. When the spitfire was developed it was a multi trophy winning racing thoroughbred. When the mustang was developed it was..well to call it trash is an insult...to trash. It was a monumental failure and would have died in the ground support role it had been dumped into, because it sure was not a fighter had not the British ordered some and insisted they be fitted with the venerable Merlin engine. At that point the mustang came into its own. The coupling of the Rolls Royce engine with the laminar air-flow wing of the mustang was "lightning in a bottle" and now we had the stuff of legends - prior, not so much. The Spitfire design to me at least, culminated in the XIV. The original concept had always intended to affix the Griffon but development was postponed for a few years while the bugs were ironed out. When it did happen well...can lightning strike twice? I am of the opinion that it not only can but the second hit was by far the fiercest. The main difference between the two planes? I believe it is wing design. The P51 has phenomenal wing loading thus the vastly extended range. The wing concept of the Spitfire is somewhat different but very suited to the loading of dog fighting. So all things being equal which is better? It depends. In reality all things are NEVER equal. Each plane has its niche and a good pilot knows the "sweet spots" and will exploit them to the fullest against each adversary. (i.e. which direction did your spit "snap-roll" and which did you have to "haul it over" - based on the centrifugal force of the engine rotation..yes it was different for a Merlin and a Griffon) The difference between hunter and prey in combat is knowing your plane and the enemies plane and aggressively exploiting them, the strengths and corresponding weakness, to their fullest. I have a personal weakness for a spit but I certainly don't hate a Mustang (with a R.R. engine that is) 
Just my two cents!!!! 
P.S. make mine a 14 please! (rounded wingtip, Type 65 with 2 stage turbo and as many .50's as will fit!! also a XXX variant would be cake!!...look it up for a real mind blow!) 
Lee


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2012)

Oh boy


----------



## Readie (Nov 15, 2012)

Well...
The Spitfire and the Mustang were the aircraft that were needed at a point in history.
I'm not sure that you could really say 'which one is best'....
Cheers
John


----------



## GriffonSpit (Nov 15, 2012)

Readie said:


> Well...
> The Spitfire and the Mustang were the aircraft that were needed at a point in history.
> I'm not sure that you could really say 'which one is best'....
> Cheers
> John



I have to agree, it becomes personal prefrence at some point and I have had a thing for the spit from the time I was a wee lad and my Mom would read me to sleep from a book on the BoB. It had drawings of the Spitfire Mk 1 and my dreams were filled with daring do over the channel at the controls of a spit. I am an old man today but I still have dreams...but I digress, what about throwing the P47 into the mix? I know she's not real pretty but with a 2K HP + engine and 8!!! .50 cal guns, she's got roughly the same rate of fire as a modern 20 MM. electric gattling gun! Point that at ANY aircraft in WWII and what you get from 1 second burst on target is hard to argue with. The gun camaras from the P47 during WWII confirm targets (including bombers)shredding in the air. Great book called "Thunderbolt!" by P47 ace that recounts his experience with this fantastic aircraft. What do you all think?

Cheers!
Lee


----------



## Glider (Nov 16, 2012)

If your defending then the SPit is the best, if your attacking the P51 is the best, its all about range


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2012)

IMO - the single niche that the P-51B/C/D filled that was out of the Spitfire XIV and say, XXI, was long range air superiority day fighter. What made the Mustang a weapon system of choice was near equal manueverability to Me 109, Spit and Fw 190 but vastly greater strategic and tactical footprint. After the war my father had some rat races with some XIV's and won some, lost some - but reckoned the wins were based on his experience and skill more than superiority of the Mustang.  I also might note that he shut down air to air engagements with the 355th because two fatal accidents (high speed stall/inverted spin) occurred with low time 355th pilots against the RAF Spit XIV. He never flew one but wanted to.


----------



## Readie (Nov 16, 2012)

GriffonSpit said:


> I have to agree, it becomes personal prefrence at some point and I have had a thing for the spit from the time I was a wee lad and my Mom would read me to sleep from a book on the BoB. It had drawings of the Spitfire Mk 1 and my dreams were filled with daring do over the channel at the controls of a spit. I am an old man today but I still have dreams...but I digress, what about throwing the P47 into the mix? I know she's not real pretty but with a 2K HP + engine and 8!!! .50 cal guns, she's got roughly the same rate of fire as a modern 20 MM. electric gattling gun! Point that at ANY aircraft in WWII and what you get from 1 second burst on target is hard to argue with. The gun camaras from the P47 during WWII confirm targets (including bombers)shredding in the air. Great book called "Thunderbolt!" by P47 ace that recounts his experience with this fantastic aircraft. What do you all think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Lee, I quite agree comparing the Spitfire and Mustang is an emotive call and will only end in an argument. 
The Spitfire has a special place in our hearts here for reasons I have gone on about in earlier threads and my admiration is well known.
However, trying to be rational (for once lol) I have to be subjective and see each plane for its worth and contribution to the allied efforts in WW2.
P47 ? Big brutal and tough as old boots. The plane for the job at the right time.
Cheers
John


----------



## GriffonSpit (Nov 16, 2012)

Hello Glider, 
Well to an extent this is true but having said that the early spitfire was uniquely suited to the BoB (A large percent of dog fighting happened right over British soil) Not so far to travel so advantage R.A.F. as much as I don't like to admit it the Hurricane did the majority of Luftwaffe downing at this critical time. So of the two planes, the Hurricane was the most pivotal in the actual outcome (of The BoB). The stats are far inferior to the Spit so what in the world? Well one of the things that I love about the Spit was also a great handicap. It is arguably the most astatically pleasing aircraft ever made. I see it as equal parts function and high art. But those multitude of compound lines come at a high price during wartime. The Spitfire requires far more hand shaping and fitting (read time) to manufacture than most of its contemporaries. Which of course means less Spitfires and more easier to assemble <other> aircraft. The thing that <mostly> made up for the somewhat limited range even more than home field advantage was the British Chain Home system. I think more than any other factor that was what sealed the fate of the Luftwaffe in the BoB. So distance makes the difference in fighter aggressor or defender? Well what if I fly my Spit to liberated France, land and refuel? I know what you are saying though it's the difference between a B17 and a B29 (Distance wise that is) 
Anyway thats' me taking the long way to my point which is really just this: In a dog fight which plane is not of as great a consequence as which pilot. Am I saying the plane you fly makes no difference? Not at all. What I am saying is WHO is flying has much more impact on the outcome than what is being flown. I know of many examples of a superior pilot flying a decidedly inferior aircraft and consistently making the kill. When he does get a superior aircraft it is just icing. I am sure you all know of examples of this as well.
John...yes I like it, big brutish and tough as old boots!
Drgondog..I wish he had as well, it would be great to hear of that comparison from a WWII pilot <as a side note I read an account of P47 driver who switched planes with a Spitfire pilot during the war. They both got some great insights from the <illegal> experience!!>
So anyone think a Spitfire with an official variant to modify wing spars to carry beer during WWII is the ULTIMATE warbird? I mean really how can you possibly even come close to that!! 
Cheers!!
Lee


----------



## Readie (Nov 16, 2012)

Lee, 
Quite right about the Hurricane in the BoB. The Spitfire was the ultimate interceptor /defence fighter and did what she was designed to do (and some).
The Spitfire also became a symbol for the British at a rather trying time. 
Here legend and fact get intertwined (rather like King Arthur) and how much you subscribe to the legends is an personal thing. All I would say ( before I get carried away) is that a Spitfire is one of the very few historic aircraft that all ages point at and crane their necks to watch when one flies over and, if you are lucky performs a display over your home town. The thunder of of a Merlin is quite something.
Cheers
John


----------



## Balljoint (Nov 16, 2012)

Readie said:


> The thunder of of a Merlin is quite something.
> John



I may be prejudiced since I grew up with navy planes –Glenview Navel Air Station- in Chicago during and after the war, but the Merlin sounds a bit like a dozen really big, loud synchronized mower engines with the individual stack exhausts. The prop and other aero sounds are usually great though. And the thunder for sure, particularly with the old hydroplanes.

The engines with a manifold and collector for multiple cylinders just sound better to my ear.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> I may be prejudiced since I grew up with navy planes –Glenview Navel Air Station- in Chicago during and after the war, but the Merlin sounds a bit like a dozen really big, loud synchronized mower engines with the individual stack exhausts. The prop and other aero sounds are usually great though. And the thunder for sure, particularly with the old hydroplanes.
> 
> The engines with a manifold and collector for multiple cylinders just sound better to my ear.



Your mother must have dropped you accidentally on your head as an infant. If there is a better engine sound than a merlin 65 or 1650-7 at 3000 rpm - I haven't found it in 67 years of high intensity exposure to the fighters. The only one that comes close to me is the drone of a SAC B-36's six 4360's during the 50's. That was a security blanket sound.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 16, 2012)

GriffonSpit said:


> Hello Glider,
> Well to an extent this is true but having said that the early spitfire was uniquely suited to the BoB (A large percent of dog fighting happened right over British soil) Not so far to travel so advantage R.A.F. as much as I don't like to admit it the Hurricane did the majority of Luftwaffe downing at this critical time.


An oft-repeated mistaken use of statistics, since the difference was actually quite small. Latest figures show that 19 Spitfire squadrons shot down 530 aircraft (average 28,) while 30 Hurricane squadrons shot down 655 (average 22.5.) Also, of the Spitfire victories 282 were 109s, while 222 109s went down to the Hurricane. Of course, the old saying that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" holds as good as ever, so each proponent of each aircraft will use them his/her own way.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 16, 2012)

A Griffon sounds better than a Merlin.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 17, 2012)

Milosh said:


> A Griffon sounds better than a Merlin.



I have heard both engines running on ground stands and all I can say is 

the Merlin is a classy dame you would take home to meet your Mother

whilst the Griffon is a head banging rock chick who would do naughty things to you


----------



## drgondog (Nov 17, 2012)

The head banging rock chicks are way past my prime but the classy ladies I brought home to mother fit the head bamging chick as described.. its all a matter of packaging.


----------



## Glider (Nov 17, 2012)

GriffonSpit said:


> Hello Glider,
> What I am saying is WHO is flying has much more impact on the outcome than what is being flown. I know of many examples of a superior pilot flying a decidedly inferior aircraft and consistently making the kill. When he does get a superior aircraft it is just icing. I am sure you all know of examples of this as well.


No one would deny that the pilot is the biggest variable but for this one vs another we have to assume equal skill. I think I said this earlier in the thread but one quote I remember reading was:- 
_if you were the pilot flying into a combat you would take the Spitfire, if you were the commander in charge of a campaign you would want the P51_. I wish I could find that quote as it sums it up for me

The P51's range gave you strategic options a Spitfire could never give, but in a straight fight its the Spitfire



> So anyone think a Spitfire with an official variant to modify wing spars to carry beer during WWII is the ULTIMATE warbird? I mean really how can you possibly even come close to that!!



There was the UAAF cook in the Pacific who put all the ingrediants into an (unused) drop tank, told the pilot to fly high and throw the aircraft around, When he landed it was ice creams all round.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2012)

Soviet pilots were said to pack the 'Spam' cans in the P-39's ammo boxes and fly them via ALSIB route. Guess the 'Spam' tasted the Soviet soldiers even better than ice cream tasted to the US soldiers.


----------



## Readie (Nov 17, 2012)

Milosh said:


> A Griffon sounds better than a Merlin.




_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZAfXta7ww_

I rest my case 

Cheers

John


----------



## Balljoint (Nov 17, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Your mother must have dropped you accidentally on your head as an infant. If there is a better engine sound than a merlin 65 or 1650-7 at 3000 rpm - I haven't found it in 67 years of high intensity exposure to the fighters. The only one that comes close to me is the drone of a SAC B-36's six 4360's during the 50's. That was a security blanket sound.


 
According to my chamber-music-loving friends, I’m a philistine of high rank and long standing. For multiple engines, I’d go with a compounded Connie just overhead while taking off from a short runway.
Of course my hearing isn’t it once was. Probably those darn kids and their loud music.


----------



## GriffonSpit (Nov 17, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> An oft-repeated mistaken use of statistics, since the difference was actually quite small. Latest figures show that 19 Spitfire squadrons shot down 530 aircraft (average 28,) while 30 Hurricane squadrons shot down 655 (average 22.5.) Also, of the Spitfire victories 282 were 109s, while 222 109s went down to the Hurricane. Of course, the old saying that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" holds as good as ever, so each proponent of each aircraft will use them his/her own way.


 I think that most pilots given a choice between a Spitfire and a Hurricane to fly in combat would choose the Spit for some rather obvious reasons and your stats bare out that fact, also using your stats: 530 vs 655 means that the <fabric covered> Hurricane, of which there were more of downed more enemy aircraft <total> than the superior but less produced Spitfire. I am actually quite surprised to hear that the Hurricane came as close in average kills as it did. In reflection I believe this was in no small part due to the Chain Home system. What do you think?

As far as the sound of a Merlin, it always makes the blood stir (At least mine) and a Griffon..well there is a degree of excitement that is ...hard to contain. It is the sound of a raptor straining to leap into air and hunt. There is the smell of high octane petrol and the feel of the wind created by 2k H.P. spinning a five blade prop. It is vitriol and as close as anyone will come to pure distilled testosterone. The controls have to be set hard over to counter the centrifugal force of the engine during takeoff! ..O.K.. I have to go take a pill now... 

Whew...anyway I will just say I love the sound of just about any Warbird but if its a Rolls Royce its just special! 

I hope someday I can take the ultimate destination vacation and tour all the British WWII airfields, those that you can still get to anyway. What ghosts reside there and what memories still linger on I wonder. I will never fly a Spitfire unless you count my in my mind or the R/C Models..I do love touring the air museums here in the states and actually getting on-board some of the B17's, B24's and BPY and getting pictures. I have spent a lot of time at the museum in Palm Springs and countless photo's of the MK XIV there. My greatest dream would be to sit at the controls just once. So if you all could have your most cherished warbird dream..what would it be???

Cheers!!
Lee


----------



## Readie (Nov 17, 2012)

Have a look at this site Lee...The Grace Spitfire ML407 Website
You may be able to fly in a Spitfire....
Good luck 
And, yes Rolls Royce made /makes very special engines.
John


----------



## GriffonSpit (Nov 17, 2012)

John,
Yes I remember reading about this some time back, the resurrection of an very rare variant as I recall. I remember at the time I was very interested because it might help me scratch that itch as it were but as I remember there was an issue to do with insurance or some such the plane is so rare and blah, blah. You would think there are mot many airworthy examples left! I would gladly put my 1/8 scale "foamie" up for collateral! Makes me want to load my backpack with a shovel and metal detector and head to Burma!! You think if I dig one up and I get some petrol I could find refueling spots between there and the states? I know there may be "some assembly required" but after the R/C Model I feel more than up to the task! I read they are encased in cosmoline and the wood crates were designed to withstand 70 years in monsoon soil so all I need to do is complete my flight plan...
Thanks John!
Cheers!
Lee


----------



## Readie (Nov 18, 2012)

Lee, No need to dig one up lol.
The 'Grace Spitfire' is a twin seat trainer...very occasionally people are offered a ride in the back seat.
Have a look on 'you tube' with Tony Robinson having a flight over the white Cliffs.
Cheers
John


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 18, 2012)

ML407 was converted to a two-seater by Nick Grace; it was, originally a standard single-seat IX, which saw action on D-day. A few years ago, Carolyn Grace came to our local airfield, offering flights for £1200, but I doubt that it would be that cheap  now.


----------



## Readie (Nov 18, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> ML407 was converted to a two-seater by Nick Grace; it was, originally a standard single-seat IX, which saw action on D-day. A few years ago, Carolyn Grace came to our local airfield, offering flights for £1200, but I doubt that it would be that cheap  now.



The Grace Spitfire was at Exeter Airport too. I asked about a flight and was told that 'costs needed to be covered'. Taking everything into account I shudder to think how much a flight would cost now....mind you, it would be an experience of a life time !!
Cheers
John


----------



## Airframes (Nov 18, 2012)

The 'Grace' Spit is a beautiful restoration and conversion, maintaining the lines of the original whilst incorporating the rear cockpit. The code letters are those of 485 Sqn., RNZAF, when flown by Johhnie Houlton who, on a visit to the UK about 20 years ago, was able to fly his old 'mount' again.
A little tale about it's Insurance - when a representative from the management of the insurance company was taken for a flight, on approach to landing he was asked to keep his feet and hands clear of the controls. Whilst moving his legs, his right knee hooked under the undercarriage lever, causing the down locks to free. When the aircraft touched down, it slowly settled onto its belly as the gear retracted!
A safety guard has since been fitted!


----------



## GriffonSpit (Nov 18, 2012)

Readie said:


> Lee, No need to dig one up lol.
> The 'Grace Spitfire' is a twin seat trainer...very occasionally people are offered a ride in the back seat.
> Have a look on 'you tube' with Tony Robinson having a flight over the white Cliffs.
> Cheers
> John


I am buying a mega-millions lotto ticket tonight! With the winnings I plan on taking my destination vacation to GB and then getting a go at Grace! I am a man and I have needs...er well you know what I mean..but with mega-millions I can purchase a MK XIV for me!! <my precious>...now I have to figure out how to afford maintenance and operating costs and oh yeah some flight lessons but I hear they are super easy to learn to fly....I will just have to take care not to flip the switch and trigger the guns by accident!..oh no, I mustn't do that!...sigh I have needs.... 
Cheers! 
Lee


----------



## Readie (Nov 19, 2012)

GriffonSpit said:


> I am buying a mega-millions lotto ticket tonight! With the winnings I plan on taking my destination vacation to GB and then getting a go at Grace! I am a man and I have needs...er well you know what I mean..but with mega-millions I can purchase a MK XIV for me!! <my precious>...now I have to figure out how to afford maintenance and operating costs and oh yeah some flight lessons but I hear they are super easy to learn to fly....I will just have to take care not to flip the switch and trigger the guns by accident!..oh no, I mustn't do that!...sigh I have needs....
> Cheers!
> Lee



Good luck with your lottery ticket Lee 
I thought I had cracked the recent Euromillions lottery here...alas not. 
Dream garages had been mentally purchased plus, of course, a Merlin Spitfire.
Oh well...there is always next time.8)
Cheers
John


----------



## Caracoid (Mar 21, 2013)

Not sure if people are still around on this forum, but I was in another last year that was closed eventually. Seemed too many people were getting steamed. However, where we left off in comparing the Spit to the Mustang was the construction/durability/survivability of the two aircraft. I argued that the Mustang was more durable simply on the grounds that it weighed significantly more (tanks empty) than the Spit. 

Anybody have any information on this? I can't seem to find anything online.


----------



## Readie (Mar 21, 2013)

I would say that having a forward fuel tank ( in front of the pilot ) would not help survivability in a Spitfire.
Cheers
John


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2013)

I don't knonw about the Spit but it couldn't help the survivability of the pilot


----------



## Caracoid (Mar 21, 2013)

Uh . . . er, still trying to get my head around those two answers. But thanks for your prompt input.


----------



## GregP (Mar 21, 2013)

In don't like planes wioth fuel behind the engine. Seems if one is hit , the other is pretty much destroyed. I like the fuel out in the wings for survivability or behind the cockpit, which isn't very good for CG.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> In don't like planes wioth fuel behind the engine. Seems if one is hit , the other is pretty much destroyed. I like the fuel out in the wings for survivability or behind the cockpit, which isn't very good for CG.



Easier to armour tank in fuselage between pilot and engine than in wings.


----------



## GregP (Mar 22, 2013)

Go fly one in combat. You may change your mind.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> Go fly one in combat. You may change your mind.



That it is easier to put armour plate around a central fuel system than a wing fuel system?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> In don't like planes with fuel behind the engine. Seems if one is hit , the other is pretty much destroyed. I like the fuel out in the wings for survivability or behind the cockpit, which isn't very good for CG.


 
The battle experience of the RAF during the Battle of Britain showed that the wing fuel tanks in the Hurricane were much more in danger of catching fire and more of a danger to the pilot than the forward fuel tanks on the Spitfire.

Of course, the Hurricane had the worst of both worlds: almost unprotected wing fuel tanks and an (initially) unprotected reserve tank forward of the pilot without a proper firewall or armour to separate the pilot from the tank. Even when the linatex covering was fitted, the tanks were still very vulnerable. Eventually, they got more armour, certainly from the Mk II.

On the other hand, the Spitfire's forward fuel tanks were both better protected and sealed away behind a firewall and an armour plate. Initially, only one of the tanks (top, I think) was covered in linatex, but eventually both top and bottom tanks were covered. There was also a light alloy deflection plate (4 mm only) over the top of the upper tank to protect it.

When Hawker built the Tempest with wing tanks, they corrected the mistake, making sure the wing tanks were self sealing and protected by armour (6.5 mm if I recall correctly).


----------



## Caracoid (Mar 22, 2013)

All interesting, and I can tell you guys have done your homework. But has anybody looked into the actual construction of the two planes, ie the distance between struts, the thickness or aluminum spars, the gauge of aircraft skin, etc.?

Would be interesting to determine if the Mustang was stronger because of its weight or if the Spitfire had engineered around the weight requirement for a combat-worthy frame.


----------



## Juha (Mar 22, 2013)

Wing tanks had larger target area than same capacity fuselage tanks.

Juha


----------



## stona (Mar 22, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> On the other hand, the Spitfire's forward fuel tanks were both better protected and sealed away behind a firewall and an armour plate. Initially, only one of the tanks (top, I think) was covered in linatex, but eventually both top and bottom tanks were covered. There was also a light alloy deflection plate (4 mm only) over the top of the upper tank to protect it.



Spitfire Mod #223 25/4/40 Linatex covered_ lower _fuel tank.
Spitfire Mod #227 27/7/40 Self sealing _lower_ fuel tank.

This is self sealing in the sense of a lining which might work when punctured by a rifle calibre bullet.

I know initially there was no room to retro fit Linatex to the upper tank,hence the aluminium deflection armour. I'd have to dig to see when or if this was eventually done.

I'm not sure that the Spitfire was any more vulnerable than the P-51 or vice versa. Both had fuel tanks vulnerable to cannon fire and both used liquid cooled engines with vulnearable coolant systems and radiators. Puncture the coolant system and you're not flying with power for any length of time.
Whether the skin of one or the other was a few thousands thicker is not going to make a great deal of difference to a 20mm mine shell.

Reading accounts of RAF pilots from the BoB they considered the unarmoured wing tanks of the Ju 87 to be very vulnerable. When fighting with very limited supplies of ammunition anything which bursts into flames as soon as it is hit,ensuring the demise of the target,is a good thing for the attacker.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Mar 22, 2013)

I'd much rather have the wing on fire and bail out than a fire right in front, below, or behind me. The worst has to be Bf 109 with the pilot sitting on the fuel tank. No thanks. 

Great plane, but I would not want to fly one that was being shot at in combat. Probably the real best location is behind the engine, but if the tank gets hit and catches on fire, you are probably toast.


----------



## stona (Mar 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'd much rather have the wing on fire and bail out than a fire right in front, below, or behind me.



Me too,but wing tanks tend to offer a larger target area,by the very nature of their design and where they have to fit,than others and are therefore statistically more likely to be hit.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Readie (Mar 22, 2013)

Don't forget 'Ethylene Glycol', very flammable.
Being in a flammer is the stuff of nightmares.


----------



## Juha (Mar 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'd much rather have the wing on fire and bail out than a fire right in front, below, or behind me. The worst has to be Bf 109 with the pilot sitting on the fuel tank. No thanks...



I'm not sure that the placement of the fuel tank in 109 was anyway more dangerous than the placement of the fuel tanks in Spit if they were hit. If the tank blow up, end of the story in both cases if the tank was holed and the outflowing fuel caught fire, in Spit the torch would be blowing towards the pilot, in 109 away the pilot.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Mar 22, 2013)

Each to his own, I suppose. I've removed a 109 gas tank and I'd NOT want to be there sitting on it but, everyone has his preferences.

Except for the gas tank location, it is a very neat aircraft with many good qualities to it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 22, 2013)

Getting burnt from the backside up or the head down. Its not going to be a good day either way.


----------



## Readie (Mar 22, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Getting burnt from the backside up or the head down. Its not going to be a good day either way.



That is one of your better understatements...I would be VERY interested in which fighter was easier to bale out of should the worse happen.
Cheers
John


----------



## GregP (Mar 22, 2013)

My guess is the Bachem Natter since the entire front fuselage simply fell away and parachuted to the ground. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work all that well for the few pilots that tried it ... I believe they all died despite the "easy" bail out. So, perhaps a bit of work to get out wasn't all that bad in the long run ...


----------



## timmy (Mar 22, 2013)

Caracoid said:


> All interesting, and I can tell you guys have done your homework. *But has anybody looked into the actual construction of the two planes, ie the distance between struts, the thickness or aluminum spars, the gauge of aircraft skin, etc.?*Would be interesting to determine if the Mustang was stronger because of its weight or if the Spitfire had engineered around the weight requirement for a combat-worthy frame.



I have always been interested in the the construction of both these planes. Its always amazed me how great a climber the Packard Merlin Spitfire 16 was
campared to the Heavier Packard Merlin P51D Mustang. 

Anyway this information about NAA designer Edgar Schmued discusssion on the P51H development shares some light on this subject

British fighters were lighter than U.S. fighters. Schmued ask for detailed weight statements from Supermarine on the Spitfire. Schmued wanted to know why the Spitfires were so much lighter than the P-51. Supermairne did not have such data on the Spitfire, so they started weighing all the parts they could get a hold of and made a report for Schmued. The Brittish had design standards that were not at strict in some areas of design as the U.S. Landing gear, angle of attack and side engine design loads were higher in the U.S.

When Schmued returned, they began a new design of the P-51 Mustang that used Brittish design loads. They shaved weight on any part that could yield. They were able to reduce the empty weight of the P-51 by 600 pounds. This would translate into more performance.

The P-51 Mustang Variants: P-51H -MustangsMustangs


----------



## Balljoint (Mar 22, 2013)

Caracoid said:


> Not sure if people are still around on this forum, but I was in another last year that was closed eventually. Seemed too many people were getting steamed. However, where we left off in comparing the Spit to the Mustang was the construction/durability/survivability of the two aircraft. I argued that the Mustang was more durable simply on the grounds that it weighed significantly more (tanks empty) than the Spit.
> 
> 
> Anybody have any information on this? I can't seem to find anything online.



The built like a Buick nature of the P-51 probably helped with hard points and perhaps some marginal ability to absorb punishment. But similar hits would have largely similar results on both planes. Reasonable criteria for objective data would be difficult. Even the tough nuts like the P-47 and B-17 had many, many losses for each plane that limped home with grievous damage.


----------



## Aozora (Mar 22, 2013)

stona said:


> Me too,but wing tanks tend to offer a larger target area,by the very nature of their design and where they have to fit,than others and are therefore statistically more likely to be hit.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


 
However, if they are properly separated from the cockpit and well protected they are less likely to cause serious injury to the pilot. I have seen a photo of a 2 TAF Typhoon which had been hit by flak in the port, leading edge wing tank while flying at low altitude: the tank burnt out completely, but the pilot, AFAIK wasn't touched. 

Are there any reports of P-51 pilots being burned by the wing fuel tanks?


----------



## Aozora (Mar 22, 2013)

Readie said:


> Don't forget 'Ethylene Glycol', very flammable.
> Being in a flammer is the stuff of nightmares.



Fortunately for the pilots and aircrew, after the initial series of Merlin I - III, which used 100% Glycol, Rolls-Royce developed the Merlin to use a 70-30% water-Glycol mix.


----------



## stona (Mar 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Fortunately for the pilots and aircrew, after the initial series of Merlin I - III, which used 100% Glycol, Rolls-Royce developed the Merlin to use a 70-30% water-Glycol mix.



And Mod 247 of 6/6/40,in time for the BoB,was to armour the glycol tank. It was a problem that the RAF/Air Ministry were aware of.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Mar 23, 2013)

Readie said:


> That is one of your better understatements...I would be VERY interested in which fighter was easier to bale out of should the worse happen.
> Cheers
> John



The Spitfire didn't get the Martin Baker hood jetisson gear until November 1940 so during the BoB I reckon a Bf 109 pilot,whose jetisson system lost everything except the windscreen,had a better chance.
To abandon an early Spitfire involved wresting the hood open.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Mar 23, 2013)

GregP said:


> My guess is the Bachem Natter since the entire front fuselage simply fell away and parachuted to the ground. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work all that well for the few pilots that tried it ... I believe they all died despite the "easy" bail out. So, perhaps a bit of work to get out wasn't all that bad in the long run ...



It was never tried for real. It was the rear fuselage and rocket motor which parachuted down for re-use. The cockpit fell to earth and the pilot abandoned that.

Great in theory







Hans Zubert tested the system from a towed Natter. It wasn't a perfect system. Zubert remembers having problems seperating the cockpit from the fuselage,losing important altitude. To abandon the cockpit he had to release the windscreen which also became jammed. He finally released the windscreen and abandoned the aircraft in the nick of time. He reckoned another two or three seconds and he would not have made it.






That's Zubert,bottom left.

Lothar Sieber was the only person to attempt a powered launch in the Natter and he was killed in the attempt. He made no effort to save himself and the official report concluded that 

"Since the hood and attached head cushion fell off,the pilot struck his head against the back wall at high acceleration and probably became unconscious,so that he lost control over the missile temporarily.It is even possible that the pilot broke his neck at that moment since his head was thrown back with such violence and since he slipped partly out of the missile,as far as the safety belt would allow".

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Aozora (Mar 23, 2013)

stona said:


> The Spitfire didn't get the Martin Baker hood jetisson gear until November 1940 so during the BoB I reckon a Bf 109 pilot,whose jetisson system lost everything except the windscreen,had a better chance.
> To abandon an early Spitfire involved wresting the hood open.
> 
> Cheers
> ...



How easy was it to use the crowbar clipped to the pilot's door? I cannot remember seeing any mention of a pilot using the thing.


----------



## stona (Mar 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> How easy was it to use the crowbar clipped to the pilot's door? I cannot remember seeing any mention of a pilot using the thing.



Me neither. I suspect that like the door itself and the kick out panel on the Hurricane it was intended to help the pilot get out after a crash landing,possibly ending up inverted.

Later versions also had problems. Crosley ("They Gave Me A Seafire") makes the point that the positive weight and spring system fitted to the controls of his Seafire III made bailing out from the recommended inverted flight impossible,any attempt would be fatal. The positive weight acted in the reverse sense when flying the aircraft inverted with negative g. 

"...in a real life situation they would have throttled back to reduce airspeed,so making it easier to fall out without risk of blowing back into the tail in the propeller slipstream.At this low speed and with the engine failed and windmilling,the nose trimmer was nowhere near powerful enough to hold the aircraft in level,inverted flight. Directly the pilot had pulled back or jetissoned the hood,trimmed fully forward,inverted the aircraft and then released his harness,he could no longer reach the stick. Whereupon,the aircraft nosed down in the second half of a loop,with the pilot half in and half out of the cockpit,and held there by g and increasing wind pressure until he crashed."

Crosley attributes the deaths of several of his comrades to this phenomena.

Bailing out of any aircraft is not usually as simple as it seems.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Readie (Mar 24, 2013)

stona said:


> Bailing out of any aircraft is not usually as simple as it seems.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Print Page - Spitfire Bail Out Procedure.

Cheers
John


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2013)

Nice post Steve. Yeah, the Natter killed no Allied pilots and 100% of the pilots who attempted a launch from the bround. Not exactly a sparking record, is it? We have a 100% full scale wood replica at the Planes of Fame, painted accurately ... none of the real ones were available at the time so we made one. We also have a 100% full scale wood replica of the Heinkel He 100D.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2013)

The Deutsches Museum in Munich has a replica that is made from original parts. None of the parts are from the same example however, and they also reproduced other parts in order to complete it. 

There is also an incomplete original one at the Sinsheim Museum in Germany. It is basically just the fuselage though.

In my opinion a waste of resources.


----------



## GregP (Mar 24, 2013)

It just doesn't look like you could maneuver in it very well, even under power. The wings scream of inertia coupling and the sighting mechanism is the crudest thing imaginable mounted on a most advanced airframe. I really wonder what they were thinking with unguided weapons being ired from a 500+ mph interceptor tahth flew in straight lines. 

Seems doomed to failure even as a last-ditch effort ... and it was almost that. At least the Japanese suicide rocket had enough wing area to be able to be flown ...

Maybe they should have tried an air drop from some safe altitude ... maybe not.


----------



## vinnye (Mar 25, 2013)

How would the later Spitfires have rated for bailing out/ Some of the later Mk xiv's had the Malcolm hood fitted - which I presume would have been easier to release?
In my opinion the Spitfire XIV was a better fighter for interception and air supremacy, but the Mustang was THE long range fighter escort par excellence! Two different and outstanding warbirds in their own right and their own fields.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 25, 2013)

vinnye said:


> How would the later Spitfires have rated for bailing out/ Some of the later Mk xiv's had the Malcolm hood fitted - which I presume would have been easier to release?
> In my opinion the Spitfire XIV was a better fighter for interception and air supremacy, but the Mustang was THE long range fighter escort par excellence! Two different and outstanding warbirds in their own right and their own fields.



Didnt most Spitfires apart from some later marks with the bubble canopy have the Malcom hood.


----------



## vinnye (Mar 25, 2013)

I have seen some photos of Mk XIV Spitfires with the cut down rear fuselage and Malcolm hood and some with the bubble canopy and the normal raised rear section.
When you add in the different variations of wing types and armament variations and engine changes it can be quite confusing just looking at a Mk number alone!


----------



## GregP (Mar 25, 2013)

All the canopies on Spitfires were easy to Jettison. Release it and air pressure takes it away if you are airborne and not stalled.

Then all you have to do is not hit anything when you jump. To me, that means jumping from the right side since the airflow from the prop is moving in a downward spiral on the right side and in an upward spiral on the left side. That is for a Merlin and would reverse for a Griffon.

The 109 is a horse of a different color. The canopy might or might not jettison easily, and I'd roll it over and jump up and to the left to clear the horizontal above the tail rather than risk hitting the strut sticking down from the bottom. I'd change that if the strut was gone.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 28, 2013)

Just to clear up any possible confusion. 
First pic is a Malcolm hood, second pic is a bubble canopy.  











Photos are from IPMSStockholm.org - Webzine about plastic scale models, model building, modelling news, techniques and reference maintained by IPMS Stockholm of Sweden and Jerry Billing Home


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2013)

> I have seen some photos of Mk XIV Spitfires with the cut down rear fuselage and Malcolm hood and some with the bubble canopy and the normal raised rear section.



Here's a comparison of Spit XIVs with the different canopies;











Note that MV268 preceeds RN201 serially and construction wise; the former was ordered as a Mk.VIII but completed as a 'XIV and rolled out in January 1945. Although a high back Spit, RN201 was rolled out a month after MV268. There was no designation difference between the high and low back Spit XIVs.

Spitfire XIVs were the first production aircraft to be fitted with the cut down rear fuselage and bubble canopy, although this mod was trialed on Mk.VIII JF299 first in mid 1943. This aircraft and XIV RM784, the first XIV with a bubble canopy were used for canopy jettison trials. Apparently the hood struck the rear fuse and tailplane and broke in two.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 29, 2013)

Thanks for posting those photos of both types of Mk XIV, and the notes which explain why both appeared when you would normally expect the aircraft of one Mark Numbers to be fairly uniform in design!


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 29, 2013)

No worries Vinnye, I've recently been researching the 'XIV for an article and managed to get my grubby hands all over one that's under restoration recently! I remembered I had these pictures in my collection taken at Duxford from years back. In his book _Spitfire a test pilot's story_, Jeffrey Quill comments that he had a small role in the introduction of the blown canopy; in the Battle of Britain he was seconded to 65 Sqn and complained about the lack of rearward visibility. He and other service pilots met and talked with Joe Smith, who was eventually convinced and introduced the change. The first production low back Spits appeared in late '44/early '45, so were relatively late in the war.


----------



## grampi (Aug 30, 2013)

I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...


----------



## Kryten (Aug 30, 2013)

grampi said:


> I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...



Pointless comparing an aircraft that did not see combat in ww2 with one that was there from the start, it's a different generation!

Fact is a plane is only as good as what you use it for, your not going to send a Spit to Berlin for obvious reasons, but as an air supremacy fighter and defensive interceptor it was superb, just as the Mustang was as an escort fighter!

apples n pears!


----------



## grampi (Aug 30, 2013)

Kryten said:


> Pointless comparing an aircraft that did not see combat in ww2 with one that was there from the start, it's a different generation!



It's no more pointless comparing the Bearcat to the Spit than it is to compare the Mustang to it...at least the Bearcat was designed to do the same thing the Spit was...and THIS Spit was hardley there from the beginning of the war, it's vastly different and superior to the Spit I...I'm guessing people don't want to compare it to the Bearcat because it wouldn't come out on top....


----------



## drgondog (Aug 30, 2013)

grampi said:


> I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...



Grampi - The 51 was a marvelous airplane but when a 51 flew for 7+ hours (8 max unless with Ferry tanks) it was in actual escort mode maybe 1-2 hours max. The didn't R/V with bombers over the North Sea for Berlin or Stettin, they would fast cruise to Brunswick or the Rugen Islands, perform the escort and break escort on the way back long before reaching the Channel.


----------



## grampi (Aug 30, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Grampi - The 51 was a marvelous airplane but when a 51 flew for 7+ hours (8 max unless with Ferry tanks) it was in actual escort mode maybe 1-2 hours max. The didn't R/V with bombers over the North Sea for Berlin or Stettin, they would fast cruise to Brunswick or the Rugen Islands, perform the escort and break escort on the way back long before reaching the Channel.



Thanks for pointing that out...I just noticed I overclaimed some time there...point is, there was no other plane at the time that could fly the distances the Mustang flew and still outfight the enemy...


----------



## vinnye (Aug 30, 2013)

The P51 was a coincidence of good fortunes - it was an excellent airframe that would not have achieved what it did without the addition of an excellent engine. It may have served as a ground attack aircraft but not have achieved its full potential without the Merlin, which made it into the ultimate long range escort fighter. As posted in previous reply your time line is off by some way! The P51 also had the advantage that the LW was being destroyed on the ground and in the air by other aircraft as well - P47 for example.
Comparing a Spitfire with a Bearcat is even more of a stretch than a P51 to a MK XIV !
Yes the later Spitfires benefited from development throughout the War, but its design was pre-War and that design showed its versatility in the number of Marks that it spawned - usually very successful at that.
A Bearcat might be compared more closely with a Sea Fury as neither saw action in WW2.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 30, 2013)

If your comparing a Bearcat and Spit, the Spit that should be put up against the Bearcat would be the Spitfire Mk 24 (or the carrier version Seafire Mk 47). I doubt the Bearcat would find either model of Spit easymeat. Probably end up as the pilot with the height and surprise would win.


----------



## grampi (Aug 31, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> If your comparing a Bearcat and Spit, the Spit that should be put up against the Bearcat would be the Spitfire Mk 24 (or the carrier version Seafire Mk 47). I doubt the Bearcat would find either model of Spit easymeat. Probably end up as the pilot with the height and surprise would win.



I agree, no easy meat with the Spit. However, I do believe the F8F-2 would outperform any Spit in every performance category, with the exception of turning radius, which would still be close...I also think it would outperform the Sea Fury as well...no doubt the Spit and Sea Fury were outstanding performers, but the Bearcat was just a beast! It was designed to outperform anything in the sky, and it did! Good thing for the enemy it never saw any action....


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 31, 2013)

Care to bring out some numbers to back up the claims?Further, just how much is a fair comparison between 1945 and 1948 fighters?


----------



## grampi (Aug 31, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to bring out some numbers to back up the claims?Further, just how much is a fair comparison between 1945 and 1948 fighters?



F8F-2 performance figures:
Max speed: 455
Service ceiling: 40,800
Range: 2,200 miles
Climb: 6,300 fpm

I don't know which plane you're referring to as the 1948 fighter, but the Bearcat was in service by 1944...and as I said earlier the Bearcat/Spit comparison is a more relevant one than the Mustang/Spit comparison...since when does it make sense to compare two planes that had completely different design philosophies?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 31, 2013)

I dont think that climb rate is right even for an F8F-2 which came along in 1948 well after anyone else had stopped developing piston engine fighters. Wikipedia gives these figures for an F8F-2

Maximum speed: 455 mph (405 kn, 730 km/h)
Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)
Service ceiling: 40,800 ft (12,436 m)
Rate of climb: 4,465 ft/min (23.2 m/s)

I cant find any figures for a Mk24 but wikipedia gives these figures for a Spiteful which is similar to a Mk24 and the nearest in timescale to an F8F-2 show the Bearcat is not going to walk anything. 

Maximum speed: 483 mph (420 knots, 778 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Range: 564 mi (490 nmi, 908 km)
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,800 m)
Rate of climb: 4,890 ft/min (24.8 m/s)

The Bearcat was a fantastic aircraft but it was no better or worse than an equivalent fighter. Quoting figures on this forum can be a dangerous sport as there are guys on here who have forgotten more about WWII aircraft than I will ever know and if you are going to quote something you really need to back it up with a reference. Random figures pulled from google mean nothing especially if you are comparing different nations figures, climbing figures particulary are measured in different ways by different air forces. One force might measure climb at a steady throttle slightly below maximum power another might measure it as say 5 mins at max then 75% throttle for the rest of the climb.


----------



## grampi (Aug 31, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I dont think that climb rate is right even for an F8F-2 which came along in 1948 well after anyone else had stopped developing piston engine fighters. Wikipedia gives these figures for an F8F-2
> 
> Maximum speed: 455 mph (405 kn, 730 km/h)
> Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)
> ...



The book I have that lists the Bearcat's performance specs is called "Bearcat in Action" which was published by Squadron...it doesn't say how the climb rate was determined...it lists the identical climb rate of 6300 fpm for the F8F-1 as well. I would say this climb rate is closer to the Cat's actual climb performance as the Navy set some time to climb record back in the 40s (which is documented somewhere) with one climbing to 10000 ft from a dead stop in a little over 90 seconds....that's actually over 6600 fpm....I didn't believe it to be true, but it's hard to disregard the all of the official documentation of the event....


----------



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2013)

grampi said:


> The book I have that lists the Bearcat's performance specs is called "Bearcat in Action" which was published by Squadron...it doesn't say how the climb rate was determined...it lists the identical climb rate of 6300 fpm for the F8F-1 as well. I would say this climb rate is closer to the Cat's actual climb performance as the Navy set some time to climb record back in the 40s (which is documented somewhere) with one climbing to 10000 ft from a dead stop in a little over 90 seconds....that's actually over 6600 fpm....I didn't believe it to be true, but it's hard to disregard the all of the official documentation of the event....



The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).

Initial climb rates aren't always the best gauge. And don't always correspond to good climb at altitude.

I believe the F8F-1 beats the Spitfire XIV to 10,000ft, but the XIV wins to 20,000ft and 30,000ft. That is with a maximum of +18psi boost, though running at +21psi or +25psi boost with the PN150 fuel would improve the Spitfire's low down climb. Not sure what the F8F-1 was running.

The Spitfire 21-24 were slightly faster than the XIV (454mph vs 448mph), had roughly the same climb performance (it was slightly heavier), had the same turn performance but much improved rate of roll. Spitfire 21s went into squadron service in early 1945, around the same time that the F8F-1 did.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 1, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).
> 
> Initial climb rates aren't always the best gauge. And don't always correspond to good climb at altitude.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the DH Hornet, it climbed even faster than a Spit.


----------



## grampi (Sep 1, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).



Yes, by another Bearcat.....


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

This is a very long thread and I only read the first page or two of posts but didn't understand the replies on it being about which you like better.

Wouldn't it depend on the job to be done on which you like better. 

I would think when you want an interceptor you like the Spitfire better, when you want to be able to go long distance and start the fight with altitude as in an escort role you pick the Mustang. Different animals.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 2, 2013)

That's pretty much the gist, it's a realistic appraisal, but there seems to be a train of thought that you compare two aircraft by who wins in a dogfight, a one on one same speed, altitude, pilot skill, fuel weight and aircraft condition fight at that!

I always ask, can plane A be used for the same tasks as plane B, and in that I have to conclude the P51 was the better aircraft as you can do the same jobs the Spit does but the Spit can't do the same jobs the P51 does, the N'th degree performance details don't really matter that much in reality!


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 2, 2013)

Not to belabour this point unduely, but a non-clipped wing, Malcolm hooded Spitfire Mk.XIV is, in my humble opinion, the best looking airplane in history. Certainly better than any Mustang or Bearcat. Does this opinion have any bearing on this discusion? Of course not. I suppose we can all just be happy with the fact that both of these superlative fighters were on the Allied side.


----------



## grampi (Sep 4, 2013)

This thread reminds me a bit of one year while I was at Oshkosh for the airshow....there were some people standing around talking to these two pilots who flew up a Bearcat and a Mustang with the Confederate Air Force...one of the guys asked the Bearcat pilot if he ever razzed the Mustang guys about the difference in climb performance of two planes...he said he did, but only once...they were preparing to fly together one day and the Bearcat pilot asked the Mustang pilot what altitude he was going to fly at...the Mustang pilot said "about 8 thousand feet"....the Bearcat guy said I'll be waiting for you when you get there. Then the Mustang guy asked the Bearcat pilot what speed he cruises at...the Bearcat guy said I need to keep it below 220 or it sucks too much fuel...the Mustang guy said "my economy cruise is 350, so I'll be waiting for you when you get there!"


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

grampi said:


> This thread reminds me a bit of one year while I was at Oshkosh for the airshow....there were some people standing around talking to these two pilots who flew up a Bearcat and a Mustang with the Confederate Air Force...one of the guys asked the Bearcat pilot if he ever razzed the Mustang guys about the difference in climb performance of two planes...he said he did, but only once...they were preparing to fly together one day and the Bearcat pilot asked the Mustang pilot what altitude he was going to fly at...the Mustang pilot said "about 8 thousand feet"....the Bearcat guy said I'll be waiting for you when you get there. Then the Mustang guy asked the Bearcat pilot what speed he cruises at...the Bearcat guy said I need to keep it below 220 or it sucks too much fuel...the Mustang guy said "my economy cruise is 350, so I'll be waiting for you when you get there!"



Seems like the fact the Allies had such a large variety of planes they could often find the right one for the job.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Sep 4, 2013)

Clayton Magnet said:


> ...but a non-clipped wing, Malcolm hooded Spitfire Mk.XIV is, in my humble opinion, the best looking airplane in history.


Agreed.


Clayton Magnet said:


> Certainly better than any Mustang or Bearcat.


This is being cruel. 
Agreed.


Clayton Magnet said:


> Does this opinion have any bearing on this discusion?


In fact for me the truely killing late mark Spitfires are the brand twenties or smthg... With the total bubble canopy and the enlarged tail and boby. The XIV is certainly a historical king, though.
Of course this relevant ; the .21 and etc. are the next generation, the next step, so a comparison is telling. It is good to compare those two, to show the 6-12 months progress of those times. Not that the P-51D would be ridiculous in any case... Spit .22 should be then compared with Bearcat and Ta-152 and A7M Reppu and Lag-9 and MB-5 and XP-72 etc.

The mark XIV is a bit 'nitted together' ("bricolé") to my eye, while the later marks really fit the _connaisseur_'s comfort. But of course it is the XIV that told the story.

So, I would really choose the P-51D as my 1944 classic, and no Hayate nor Spitfire XII-XIV nor Lag-7, Yak-3 nor even a 1944 Corsair to steal the show.


----------



## silence (Sep 4, 2013)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Not to belabour this point unduely, but a non-clipped wing, Malcolm hooded Spitfire Mk.XIV is, in my humble opinion, the best looking airplane in history. Certainly better than any Mustang or Bearcat. Does this opinion have any bearing on this discusion? Of course not. I suppose we can all just be happy with the fact that both of these superlative fighters were on the Allied side.



A Griffon Spit over a Merlin Spit? For shame!!!! (Agree on the 'Stang and 'Cat, though)


----------



## spicmart (Sep 4, 2013)

silence said:


> A Griffon Spit over a Merlin Spit? For shame!!!! (Agree on the 'Stang and 'Cat, though)



The Griffon Spits with normal wings (and preferably Malcolm hood) are the most beautiful allied AC of the war imho. It looked so sleek, powerful, mean. 
The vertical fin should be that of the XIV and Mk. 21, not that larger but uglier one introduced in the Mk. 22.
It comes easily second after the late-war Focke Wulfs and 109s in my preference on looks.
Never considered the Merlin Spits pretty.
With its shorter nose it reminds me of a heron, not the most beautiful of birds. The small rudder is not attractive either.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

This is a beauty contest?

How about the MC-205 if we want looks?

I think I will be the only one that think this but I think the P-63 is attractive in a weird sort of way.

I couple of the Soviet planes were nice looking.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 4, 2013)

WAY off topic, but what the hell...
MC.205 and FIAT G.55 are almost good looking, but I find their canopies just ruin the whole effect.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 4, 2013)

WAY off topic, but what the hell...
MC.205 and FIAT G.55 are almost good looking, but I find their canopies just ruin the whole effect.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2013)

Clayton Magnet said:


> WAY off topic, but what the hell...
> MC.205 and FIAT G.55 are almost good looking, but I find their canopies just ruin the whole effect.



Could look better with bubble canopies.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 5, 2013)

> This is a beauty contest?



Of course, this is about the Spitfire after all.

Oh, which to choose...












Although the Griffon Spits are beautiful aircraft, they do agressive quite well, too. What always seems puzzling is why they went back to a high back with the Mk.21; at the time there were XIVs on the production line with low backs; the XIV was the first production variant with a low back.
















(This is me recycling the same photos over and over again!)


----------



## silence (Sep 5, 2013)

spicmart said:


> The Griffon Spits with normal wings are the most beautiful allied AC of the war imho. It looked so sleek, powerful, mean.
> The vertical fin should be that of the XIV and Mk. 21, not that larger but uglier one introduced in the Mk. 22.
> It comes easily second after the late-war Focke Wulfs and 109s in my preference on looks.
> Never considered the Merlin Spits pretty.
> With its shorter nose it reminds me of a heron, not the most beautiful of birds. The small rudder is not attractive either.



But the Griffon Spits have those ugly carbuncles right above the exhaust! I don't mind a girl being a little short, but facial bumps like that are a total turnoff!

Gotta agree on the late FWs, though; IMO the D-13 is about as hot as they come (radiators hanging off the fuselage and/or wings just detract, IMO. Best-looking 109? The F-2 with the shallower (than the F-4) nose inlet, none of the extra nose scoops of the Gs nor the bulges for the bigger wheels and MGs.


----------



## silence (Sep 5, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Of course, this is about the Spitfire after all.
> 
> Oh, which to choose...
> 
> ...



Yeah... to my opinionated eye, along with what I said in post #333 the bubble canopy, five-blade prop, and 4x20mm just don't look as good. Give me a Spit IX with the classic wing (and a beer keg hanging under each wing!).


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 5, 2013)

Oh go on then as we are doing Spitfire p0rn


----------



## grampi (Sep 5, 2013)

spicmart said:


> The Griffon Spits with normal wings (and preferably Malcolm hood) are the most beautiful allied AC of the war imho. It looked so sleek, powerful, mean.
> The vertical fin should be that of the XIV and Mk. 21, not that larger but uglier one introduced in the Mk. 22.
> It comes easily second after the late-war Focke Wulfs and 109s in my preference on looks.
> Never considered the Merlin Spits pretty.
> With its shorter nose it reminds me of a heron, not the most beautiful of birds. The small rudder is not attractive either.



Nah, the Mustang is by far the prettiest plane ever built...


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2013)

grampi said:


> Nah, the Mustang is by far the prettiest plane ever built *by North American Aviation between 1940 and 1945*...



There, fixed that for you!


----------



## spicmart (Sep 5, 2013)

silence said:


> But the Griffon Spits have those ugly carbuncles right above the exhaust! I don't mind a girl being a little short, but facial bumps like that are a total turnoff!
> 
> Gotta agree on the late FWs, though; IMO the D-13 is about as hot as they come (radiators hanging off the fuselage and/or wings just detract, IMO. Best-looking 109? The F-2 with the shallower (than the F-4) nose inlet, none of the extra nose scoops of the Gs nor the bulges for the bigger wheels and MGs.



The carbuncles of the Spit are are ok for me. It looks stronger that way.
I prefer the weapon configuration of the D-9 with the MG bulges making it more meanlooking than the later Fw/Ta fighters.
About the 109 the K-version with its bigger yet streamlined front fuselage (without the ugly blisters of the G-versions) and the thickened wing part to house the bigger wheels
one gets the impression of hardly tamed power underneath.
It had all the bulges in the right place while still looking sleek.
This plane meant business. This also applies to the 190s/152s and the later Spits.
The Italian fighters never struck to me as more or less attractive than the ones of other countries yet some people say that they owe their "special"(?) beauty to their famous Italian design heritage.


----------



## Gixxerman (Sep 5, 2013)

grampi said:


> Nah, the Mustang is by far the prettiest plane ever built...





wuzak said:


> There, fixed that for you!



Nah, that would be the XB 70.
Like Concorde one of the most amazing iconic aircraft ever made, imo.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2013)

Gixxerman said:


> Nah, that would be the XB 70.
> Like Concorde one of the most amazing iconic aircraft ever made, imo.



"between 1940 and 1945"?


----------



## silence (Sep 5, 2013)

spicmart said:


> The carbuncles of the Spit are are ok for me. It looks stronger that way.
> I prefer the weapon configuration of the D-9 with the MG bulges making it more meanlooking than the later Fw/Ta fighters.
> About the 109 the K-version with its bigger yet streamlined front fuselage (without the ugly blisters of the G-versions) and the thickened wing part to house the bigger wheels
> one gets the impression of hardly tamed power underneath.
> ...



Sounds like you're a warhorse kind of guy. Me, I like racing horses.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 5, 2013)

silence said:


> Sounds like you're a warhorse kind of guy. Me, I like racing horses.



Nope, I actually prefer race horses, too, thoroughbreds, pure fighters.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 5, 2013)

Anyone knows how much the roll rate of the Spitfire improved with the advent of the Mk 21+? It could house four 20 mm Hispanos.
Where there other notable changes? I've read that it didn't fly "like a Spitfire".


----------



## Juha (Sep 5, 2013)

spicmart said:


> Anyone knows how much the roll rate of the Spitfire improved with the advent of the Mk 21+? .


The graph of Mk 21 moved right, so it rolled better at speeds above 250mph EAS, and worse below that speed than e.g. Mk V. Also its max rate of roll was higher, it peaked a bit under 120deg/sec at 300mph EAS.




spicmart said:


> It could house four 20 mm Hispanos.


So could already Spit Mk VC, all C wing Spits had the option of 4 20mm but it was used only a short while in some Mk VCs, the armament really was too heavy for Merlin Spits.

Juha


----------



## spicmart (Sep 5, 2013)

So did it roll as fast as or faster than the Doras and Tanks in the higher speed envelopes?


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 5, 2013)

> Oh go on then as we are doing Spitfire p0rn



There's something about the PR Spits; unarmed, unafraid. Those guys who flew them were true legends. I also like their colour schemes.


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2013)

spicmart said:


> So did it roll as fast as or faster than the Doras and Tanks in the higher speed envelopes?



I don't have those roll rates but Mk 21 still seems to roll a bit worse than than 190A at 300+mph EAS if we look the 190 info in NACA 868, EAS is not same than IAS but not far off so only it seems. I can't convert EAS to IAS but the difference between IAS and EAS at 10,000ft. should be very small. And definitely worse under 290mph EAS.

Juha


----------



## grampi (Jun 23, 2017)

A more fair comparison would be to compare the Mk XIV to the P-51H model, which was designed to be more of a dogfighter...I would think the H would hang with, or better the Spit in almost every category...


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 23, 2017)

I apologize to everyone ahead of time. I am pretty sure I have read
this entire thread a few years ago. Well, I have done a lot of researching
since. As soon as I get a chance (tomorrow) I will straighten out Sorens
original performance and statistics figures.
I know, I'm a little booger, Jeff


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2017)

grampi said:


> A more fair comparison would be to compare the Mk XIV to the P-51H model, which was designed to be more of a dogfighter...I would think the H would hang with, or better the Spit in almost every category...



Maybe...but the P-51H didn't fly until 3 Feb 45 whereas the Spit XIV entered squadron service in Dec 43. The Spit 21 was in squadron use in Jan 45 so even that's not a true counterpart of the P-51H. The Mk22 was probably the closest from a timescale perspective...so how about that comparison?


----------



## grampi (Jun 23, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> Maybe...but the P-51H didn't fly until 3 Feb 45 whereas the Spit XIV entered squadron service in Dec 43. The Spit 21 was in squadron use in Jan 45 so even that's not a true counterpart of the P-51H. The Mk22 was probably the closest from a timescale perspective...so how about that comparison?



There probably isn't a fair comparison if you're going by being in service at the same time, not because the Mustang lacked good design, but rather because it was designed for a different purpose. None of the Mustangs prior to the H model compare well to the Spits simply because the Spits were designed purely as a dogfighter, and the Mustang was not. That's why I said to compare the H to the XIV because it was designed to be a better dogfighter...and it was...or I guess I should say it would've been had it seen service...


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 23, 2017)

grampi said:


> There probably isn't a fair comparison if you're going by being in service at the same time, not because the Mustang lacked good design, but rather because it was designed for a different purpose. None of the Mustangs prior to the H model compare well to the Spits simply because the Spits were designed purely as a dogfighter, and the Mustang was not. That's why I said to compare the H to the XIV because it was designed to be a better dogfighter...and it was...



But comparing aircraft from different time periods isn't particularly valid. You may as well compare a Spitfire MkI to a Fw190, which is hardly a fair fight. The pace of change in aeronautical development makes it really hard to do valid comparisons other than by evaluating close contemporaries, which the Spit XIV and P-51H were far from being.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2017)

Was the Spitfire designed as a dogfighter? I believe it was designed as an interceptor. To give it speed and climb a thin elliptical wing was chosen. To compensate for a thin wings stall problems it was given a small wash out. Turn and climb are similar properties which resulted in the Spitfire being good in a dogfight but that wasnt its design brief, it never had a great roll rate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 24, 2017)

ok, I told this story before...maybe in this thread...but there is alcohol involved and I am not in the position to research. my father was coming back from a mission over Europe....he was in a 51 ( and I don't know if he was already an ace when this happened) . he didn't fly too many B/Cs so....I will assume he was in his D. as approached the English coast he saw a lone spitfire on patrol. he's 19, thinks he has the world by the ass because he is in the "best plane ever made". he thinks he is going to show this brit who's the boss. so he is feeling his oats and decides to jumps the spit. long story short...he gets his ass kicked! besides the initial jump that was the only thing he had going for him. in all his fights he never had an EA on his tail but this guy was able to get there no problem despite anything he could do...any trick he could pull out of his @$$. he came away from that very humble and respectful. the real "take away..to coin the phrase" from this is...compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. the 51 was a 1 of a kind fruit. none of the other allied or enemy planes were designed as long range escorts. the 47 coulda, woulda, shoulda, but was late to the dance. to get a certain performance you will have to sacrifice other performance issues. the spit vs a 109 or 190 is a better match because they were both in the same performance envelope....fuel on board, weight of armament, range, alt, etc.. absolutely NONETHING the germans had was in the same perimeter as the mustang. so to draw comparisons is fruitless. I will, however, throw in that when most fights over germany initiated....the 51s dumped their drop tanks and had all of their inboard wing fuel and 25-35ish gallons in the fuse tank...and they STILL were par with whatever variants of 109s/190s they encountered. for what the spitfire was designed for....it and the hurricane saved the uk from the BoB and the blitz. no small accomplishment...f'n indeed. but for the battle of mainland Europe the pony won that equestrienne event....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 24, 2017)

Great post Dale


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 24, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Was the Spitfire designed as a dogfighter? I believe it was designed as an interceptor. To give it speed and climb a thin elliptical wing was chosen. To compensate for a thin wings stall problems it was given a small wash out. Turn and climb are similar properties which resulted in the Spitfire being good in a dogfight but that wasnt its design brief,* it never had a great roll rate*.


*Where did you ever get that idea??? The 'A'-'C' wing Spitfire was able to out roll an early Tomohawk up
to speeds past 240 mph. It could out roll the P-51B up to 260 mph. It could even out roll the P-63 up to
220 mph. And just for the Proverbial record, the clipped wing versions could out roll the fabled Fw-190A 
up past 215 mph and most everything else up to around 295 mph.
Once again, whatever made you think the Spitfire couldn't roll well?
Jeff???*


----------



## drgondog (Jun 24, 2017)

To the above questions re: P-51H vs Spit XIV (or 21). The H was about on par with a B/D but definitely not improved. The H had larger ailerons but only 10 degrees deflection vs +/-15 for earlier P-51.

At full WEP it would easily climb with anything discussed here and out run all at FTH. I don't know of any US fighter pilot (in any operational US fighter) with credibility that claimed he could whip an equivalent pilot in a Spit IX or XIV. I recall a formidable P-47 ace that did so claim, but doubt very seriously that he knew what he was talking about - unless he was talking about 30,000 feet plus (which he wasn't).


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 24, 2017)

Very nice post there Mr. bobbysocks.
You know last night before I went to bed I had no idea exactly what to comment to post
to put these two aircraft into perspective.  Dale pretty much summed up every idea
I didn't put together, nicely done sir. The absolute truth is no Mustang was the dogfighter
that any Spitfire was. If cards were played right, it did not have to be. Dive and Zoom
climb were the Mustangs forte in this area. As a zone defense interceptor the Spitfire
was without peer in the ETO (IMO). Moral: the Mustang was no Spitfire.

Now with that said, there is the other side of the coin; 500 miles from home the only
fighter the bomber pilots want to see is the Mustang. Moral: the Spitfire was no
Mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 24, 2017)

Bill,
All I know is what I read. I have never flown a Mustang and I have never
flown a Spitfire. I have read that the P-51H was much lighter on its toes
than the 'D' model, being able to turn inside it and outroll it easily. Do you
have any information in this area sir?
Jeff


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> *Where did you ever get that idea??? The 'A'-'C' wing Spitfire was able to out roll an early Tomohawk up
> to speeds past 240 mph. It could out roll the P-51B up to 260 mph. It could even out roll the P-63 up to
> 220 mph. And just for the Proverbial record, the clipped wing versions could out roll the fabled Fw-190A
> up past 215 mph and most everything else up to around 295 mph.
> ...


Jeff perhaps because it needed clipped wings to compete with Fw 190. Your figures are all "up to", presumably the Spitfire suffered above those speeds. Also the last version in the Supermarine line the Spiteful was specifically designed to have a much better roll rate.

I didnt say it couldnt roll well I said it wasnt great, as in better than its opponent.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 24, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> Maybe...but the P-51H didn't fly until 3 Feb 45 whereas *the Spit XIV entered squadron service in Dec 43*. The Spit 21 was in squadron use in Jan 45 so even that's not a true counterpart of the P-51H. The Mk22 was probably the closest from a timescale perspective...so how about that comparison?


*Just to keep the record straight, the Spitfire 14 became operational with No.610 sqdn. on 8 January 1944
and the P-51B-1 became combat operational and flew its first sortie on 1 December 1943.*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2017)

As far as being designed as a "dog fighter" goes it was actually more a by-product of a different part of the requirement. 

At least by the time of the F.10/35 requirement which had 5 entries under performance. none mention maneuverability. The last one (e) which states "take-off and landing. The aircraft to be capable of taking off and landing over a 50ft barrier in a distance of of 500yds"

This calls for a rather low wing loading, especially considering the fixed pitch prop the British were using. Section (c) also called for ceiling of at least 30,000ft being desirable. Prototype Merlin engines were showing ????? power at high altitude in 1934/35? 

I would note that early production MK I Spitfires with fixed pitch props failed to meet the 500yd take off requirement by a large margin.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> *Just to keep the record straight, the Spitfire 14 became operational with No.610 sqdn. on 8 January 1944
> and the P-51B-1 became combat operational and flew its first sortie on 1 December 1943.*



There is often a difference of several weeks between a squadron getting it's first few aircraft of a certain model/mark and being declared "operational" and then actually flying a combat mission. Could be 3 different dates 
I don't get too bothered by a few weeks difference. It can also take a few more months for the 2nd or 3rd squadron to become operational or enough planes to actually have a significant impact on operations but it sure looks like the Spit 14 and P-51B were close to each other in timing (P-51 production may have been higher leading to faster deployment of additional units)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 24, 2017)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usqV_zUpGCs_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 24, 2017)

Great video Michael. Them boys need to change the title to (NA-73,
Mustang I).... I am just saying. Them babies are 8-gun versions in the
video.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 24, 2017)

OH, OK....I see where this is all going. Ok, ...Ok, a few years ago with some
help from Neil, Bill and several others I was able to do a chronological posting of
the Vought F4U Corsair vs North America P-51 Mustang. This isn't going to hurt
all that much but it would be very time consuming and probably great fun for me.

Did I happen to mention that I just finished an in-depth study of the P-47 timeline
with a great amount of help from Francis Dean? And that I was planning to add
that information to the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section on a certain site
this weekend?....crap!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ykickamoocow (May 27, 2018)

I hope bringing back such an old thread is not against the rules but I was wondering why people say these aircraft are not comparable as I would have thought they were very comparable. Sure they are not the same because the Mustang was a long range escort/fighter and the Spitfire was an interceptor but the Spitfire is exactly the sort of aircraft the Germans would have sent to attack the Mustangs and the B-17's had they been in possession of them.

With that in mind how do you all think the Spitfire MK XIV would have gone against the Mustang with the Spitfire attacking large formations of bombers and P-51D's?


----------



## CORSNING (May 27, 2018)

ykickamoocow said:


> I hope bringing back such an old thread is not against the rules but I was wondering why people say these aircraft are not comparable as I would have thought they were very comparable. Sure they are not the same because the Mustang was a long range escort/fighter and the Spitfire was an interceptor but the Spitfire is exactly the sort of aircraft the Germans would have sent to attack the Mustangs and the B-17's had they been in possession of them.
> 
> With that in mind how do you all think the Spitfire MK XIV would have gone against the Mustang with the Spitfire attacking large formations of bombers and P-51D's?



*I personally believe the Spitfire 14 was quite capable of making a good show of itself wherever
it was stationed. I believe this model of Spitfire set the standard for performance by which
all last generation WW2 interceptors were measured. However even with maximum external
fuel its range was only 850 ml. So while the Merlin engine Mustangs could be stripped and
engine boosted to be a close second in the interceptor roll, The Spitfire Mk.XIV was hopelessly
outclassed by the Merlin Mustangs as a long range escort fighter.

I would not want to be in a P-51D protecting B-24s and watch as Spitfire 14s were attacking.
Damn, I'm glad our English friends were on our side.

APPLES & ORANGES!*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2018)

ykickamoocow said:


> I hope bringing back such an old thread is not against the rules


 There's no issues with bringing old threads back to life, however we may point out to a poster that they are trying to get a response from an individual who hasn't been on here in years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 27, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *
> I would not want to be in a P-51D protecting B-24s and watch as Spitfire 14s were attacking.
> Damn, I'm glad our English friends were on our side.
> 
> !*


And same from UK. The only scenario I can think of that happening is if the B-24s were attacking the UK. However in that scenario the P-51 probably wouldn't exist and certainly needed a different engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (May 27, 2018)

Its probably been said many many times in this thread and others. Defending the homeland against attacking bombers it has to be the Spitfire XIV nothing else comes close. Flying 750 miles escorting those attacking bombers the P51D nothing else comes close. Its like trying to compare a Sword to a Bow and Arrow both great but different.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 27, 2018)

The XIV reduced or eliminated the deficits, excluding range, the IX had to the P-51, while maintaining or improving the strengths.

If the XIV was defending Germany against B-17s and B-24s escorted by P-51s, the P-51s would have their hands full.

I would think that in that situation there would be two types of XIV - 4 cannon models for bomber destroying duties and 2 canon/4 lmg or 2 hmg versions for duesl with the escorts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (May 28, 2018)

Gents,

I think if the Germans had something with the performance of a Spit 14 the Allies would unleash the fighters from the heavies, attack with superior numbers, and seek out the enemy on the ground.

Doolittle was a genius.

My point being in a one on one the better performing fighter has the advantage. When outnumbered that performance edge can be neutralized and defeated. If my enemy is strong in one place, the air, then attack him where he is weak, the ground.

Which of course is what happened.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 28, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I would think that in that situation there would be two types of XIV - 4 cannon models for bomber destroying duties and 2 canon/4 lmg or 2 hmg versions for duesl with the escorts.


If a Mk.VC Spitfire could haul 4 Hispano II's aloft, what would have prevented the fitment of 4 Hispano V's to a Mk.XIV? Was the short barreled Hispano THAT MUCH heavier than the M2 that would normally occupy the inboard gun position?


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> If a Mk.VC Spitfire could haul 4 Hispano II's aloft, what would have prevented the fitment of 4 Hispano V's to a Mk.XIV? Was the short barreled Hispano THAT MUCH heavier than the M2 that would normally occupy the inboard gun position?



The XIV had the Mk II Hispano.

Theoretically the inner bays of the E-wing could take the Hispano, but apparently could not. 

At least, that's what I recall from a conversation with the late Edgar Brooks.


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2018)

Guys,
I need just a wee bit of help here. It has been a while since I started a new topic,
and, well, I can't remember how. There is a new thread I would like to start.
I'm not kidding, Jeff


----------



## fastmongrel (May 30, 2018)

Go to forum you want to post in and click Post New Thread at the right above where the list of posts is
Aviation


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Go to forum you want to post in and click Post New Thread at the right above where the list of posts is
> Aviation
> View attachment 495554


That is exactly the problem. If I scroll up from this very point, I do not have the POST NEW THREAD
option. The thread I would like to start at this time would fall under WW2 aviation. I have tried jumping
to other areas of this forum but the POST NEW THREAD does not appear at the top of my screen...???
,Jeff


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> That is exactly the problem. If I scroll up from this very point, I do not have the POST NEW THREAD
> option. The thread I would like to start at this time would fall under WW2 aviation. I have tried jumping
> to other areas of this forum but the POST NEW THREAD does not appear at the top of my screen...???
> ,Jeff



The option is not there when you are inside a thread.

You have to go to the forum page - Aviation, in this case - to get that option.


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2018)

Thank you Wayne, but I have tried that. I click on the AVIATION at the top of
the page, but when I arrive at that section I still do not have the post new
thread option...?
Now the truth is, I am pretty sure the problem is my fault. I just haven't been
able to figure out why.


----------



## Milosh (May 30, 2018)

It is there for me CORSNING.


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2018)

May God bless you Milosh and all the rest of you guys as well.
I have notice that when I click on AVIATION that the right 1/3 of
the page seems to bring up some of my profile. I have not figured
out how to get my profile off the page.


----------



## grampi (May 30, 2018)

Some of you act like the Mustang would've had no chance against the Spit, which is ridiculous. Yes, the Spit was a better dog fighter, but it wasn't like it had as much of an edge over the Mustang as the Me-262 did...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2018)

Dammit,
I was just doing great sitting outside with my wife under the awning out back.
I had spent the morning studying TAIC 152A dated May 1945. I put together
all the information that would give the Ki 43-II's performance and characteristics.
I was actually feeling that I had managed an awesome day off from work.
And then grampi comes along with the truth.
OK, I get the message. Yes, I have a lot of performance information for both the
Spitfire and the Mustang. I believe it is time that I put together a side by side
chronology of the two. I will start putting that together tomorrow. Right now I
have just one problem, I haven't been able to figure out how to post a new
thread on this site since it was updated.
True Story, Jeff


----------



## fastmongrel (May 30, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> I haven't been able to figure out how to post a new
> thread on this site since it was updated.



Try logging out then clear the cache on your computer, then log back in you will have to enter your password. Also the server for this forum doesnt like Hotmail addresses I had to create a Gmail acount to get back in.


----------



## CORSNING (May 31, 2018)

Thank you for the information.


----------



## CORSNING (May 31, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Try logging out then clear the cache on your computer, then log back in you will have to enter your password. Also the server for this forum doesnt like Hotmail addresses I had to create a Gmail acount to get back in.


Excuse my ignorance, what is a cache? I can post on any thread, I just can't open a new thread...???


----------



## wuzak (May 31, 2018)

> In computing, a cache /kæʃ/ KASH, is a hardware or software component that stores data so future requests for that data can be served faster; the data stored in a cache might be the result of an earlier computation, or the duplicate of data stored elsewhere.



Cache (computing) - Wikipedia


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 1, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Excuse my ignorance, what is a cache? I can post on any thread, I just can't open a new thread...???



The Cache well its a thingymajig that stores your whatsists ready to light up when you build up steam pressure in your computers boiler and log onto a website. There is a slight possibility I dont actually know what the Cache does  I just know its the first thing to clear when your having website problems.
*This is for Chrome every operating system is different *

On your computer, open Chrome.
At the top right, click More .
Click More tools Clear browsing data.
At the top, choose a time range. To delete everything, select All time.
Next to "Cookies and other site data" and "Cached images and files," check the boxes.
Click Clear data.
restart the computer and try to post new thread.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 2, 2018)

I never cared for chrome. It messed up the payroll for our department at work.
But then, I don't do payroll anymore.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 2, 2018)

Did the P-51 have a faster cache than the spitfire?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jun 2, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Did the P-51 have a faster cache than the spitfire?


No, I would say that they had the same CPU, the P-51 had a bigger hard disk but the Spitfire had a more responsive graphics engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 2, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> No, I would say that they had the same CPU, the P-51 had a bigger hard disk but the Spitfire had a more responsive graphics engine.


I believe the performance of the graphics engine was critical in 1939/40


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jun 3, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I believe the performance of the graphics engine was critical in 1939/40


And in the end you can always slap on a bigger hard disk if you really need one.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 3, 2018)

It's more like accessible memory than a hard disk. The P-47 operating system could address more and more memory until by the P-47N it could reach places even the P-51 couldn't. The Spitfire operating system was more limited. Long long ago, I worked with a computer called a PDP-8 which could only address 4K because an instruction used 12 bits and the first three said what king of instruction such as 5 for jump and the last nine said where to jump. A variety called the PDP-8E sort of doubled that by having a mode instruction, one of the instructions starting with 7, that said now use the other 4K. Similarly, the Spitfire could only access significantly more memory with a mode switch from combat to ferry.

Edit: PDP-8 - Wikipedia has a better description of how addressing worked.


----------



## GregP (Jun 6, 2018)

If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
and the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
and the address of the memory makes your wing cannons abort,
then the trigger finger pocket has an error to report.


If your Merlin finds a petrol item followed by a dash,
and the double-clicking fuel pump puts your petrol in the _trash_,
and your ammo is corrupted 'cause the belt feed doesn't hash,
then your situation's hopeless and your fighter's gonna crash!


If the label on the cable on the button on your stick,
says the network’s not connected to the trigger that your pick,
but your packets want to tunnel on another protocol,
that's repeatedly rejected by the MG firing pin pall,


If your screen is all distorted by the side effects of Kraut,
so your targets in the bullseye are as wavy as a souse,
then you may as well bail out and go out with a bang,
'cause as sure as I'm a poet, that sucker's gonna prang!


When the copy of your floppy's getting sloppy on the disk,
and the ACM instructions cause unnecessary risk,
then you have to flash your pecker and you'll want to RAM your ROM.
Quickly shut down the engine and be sure to drop your bomb ...

Sorry ... maybe ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 11, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I would think that in that situation there would be two types of XIV - 4 cannon models for bomber destroying duties and 2 canon/4 lmg or 2 hmg versions for duesl with the escorts.


Was there an instance where the Hispano was used against bombers on any sort of large scale? besides the jam-o-matic experiments in 1940. The Mg151 proved to be quite effective, so I wonder how the Mk.II or V Hispano would have fared


----------



## Greyman (Jul 11, 2018)

The Siege of Malta and Operation Steinbock come to mind.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Was there an instance where the Hispano was used against bombers on any sort of large scale? besides the jam-o-matic experiments in 1940. The Mg151 proved to be quite effective, so I wonder how the Mk.II or V Hispano would have fared


Granted they were grouped in the fuselage but Beaufighters and Mosquitos used Four 20mms MK IIs with a fair degree of success.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jul 20, 2018)

deleted


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2018)

IdahoRenegade said:


> deleted



Since I read your post before you deleted it, I figured I would answer you anyhow...

You asked what good was the Spitfire when it didn’t have the range to get to the enemy. You do realize there is a difference between long range escort, and an interceptor right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 20, 2018)

OK, here we go again. Hi altitude interceptor: Spit 14
Medium altitude interceptor: Spit 14 with some possible contenders.
Low altitude interceptor: P-51A, P-51B and Tempest V.
Long range escort or interceptor: P-38L, P-51 (Merlin), P-47N

Now this one vs. one crap between these two has to end.
They were built for two different reasons that they both fully filled
exceptionally. I am growing very tired of input from those that cannot understand
this concept.
The Spitfire and Mustang were two very different types of aircraft.
They compared very well to each other from their conception.

In my personal opinion they cannot be compared in the standard
sense of apples vs. apples. That is not what they were.

OK, let me leave you with this.... Let's just say they decided to
drop a Griffin in the Mustang. With its cleaner design, what kind
of speed do you think it would have produced?

Jeff,......................................................................

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Jul 23, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> OK, here we go again. Hi altitude interceptor: Spit 14
> Medium altitude interceptor: Spit 14 with some possible contenders.
> Low altitude interceptor: P-51A, P-51B and Tempest V.
> Long range escort or interceptor: P-38L, P-51 (Merlin), P-47N
> ...


I don't know, I would say the P-51H was pretty much on par with the highest performing versions of the Spit in every performance category...people seem to forget about the H model as it didn't see any action, but it was a real hot rod...


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2018)

grampi said:


> I don't know, I would say the P-51H was pretty much on par with the highest performing versions of the Spit in every performance category...people seem to forget about the H model as it didn't see any action, but it was a real hot rod...



There were a number of 'Hot Rods' that missed the war, Hornet, Tempest II, MB 5, Sea Fury, Bearcat, Do 335 which in time line order should also include P80, Meteor IV, Vampire, He162, .just to name a few and I am sure others could be added to the list. I suggest you stick with what saw action and always remember that in combat the 162 and 262 had significant advantages over all the piston engine types


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> There were a number of 'Hot Rods' that missed the war,
> *I agree.*
> . I suggest you stick with what saw action
> *Once again I agree.*
> and always remember that in combat the 162 and 262 had significant advantages over all the piston engine types


*I also agree to a point. Right up until maneuverability, laterally or horizontally 
over a period of time (when zoom climb begins to wear off) comes into play.
I am going to guess when that time arrived the Spits, Stangs, Jugs and Tempests
could have had their way. That is just an opinion though and should be only
kicked into high gear wherever prohibited by law.*


----------



## grampi (Jul 24, 2018)

Glider said:


> There were a number of 'Hot Rods' that missed the war, Hornet, Tempest II, MB 5, Sea Fury, Bearcat, Do 335 which in time line order should also include P80, Meteor IV, Vampire, He162, .just to name a few and I am sure others could be added to the list. I suggest you stick with what saw action and always remember that in combat the 162 and 262 had significant advantages over all the piston engine types


My reply was more in reference to the notion that the P-51 shouldn't be compared to the Spit because the two planes were built for two completely different roles. However, the P-51H was actually designed to be more of an air superiority fighter, much like the Spit was. Earlier versions of the Mustang were not designed as air superiority fighters and I agree, should not be compared to the Spit...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2018)

grampi said:


> My reply was more in reference to the notion that the P-51 shouldn't be compared to the Spit because the two planes were built for two completely different roles. However, the P-51H was actually designed to be more of an air superiority fighter, much like the Spit was. Earlier versions of the Mustang were not designed as air superiority fighters and I agree, should not be compared to the Spit...




Ok I will bite, what were the Early versions of the Mustang designed as?
They were ordered just after the first production P-40 (no letter) flew, 3 months before the BoB, 3-4 months before the P-40D/Warhawk was ordered and over a year before the first P-40D was built. 
They had the _BEST_ high altitude V-12 engine Allison could offer without a turbo (granted it wasn't good enough).

The problem is they were delivered (and faster than most planes) almost two years after initial design was signed off on. Combat conditions and other peoples engines/aircraft had gained quite a bit in altitude capability in the meantime.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok I will bite, what were the Early versions of the Mustang designed as?
> They were ordered just after the first production P-40 (no letter) flew, 3 months before the BoB, 3-4 months before the P-40D/Warhawk was ordered and over a year before the first P-40D was built.
> They had the _BEST_ high altitude V-12 engine Allison could offer without a turbo (granted it wasn't good enough).
> 
> The problem is they were delivered (and faster than most planes) almost two years after initial design was signed off on. Combat conditions and other peoples engines/aircraft had gained quite a bit in altitude capability in the meantime.


Amazing how an event on 3rd September 1939 changed things a tad.


----------



## grampi (Jul 25, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok I will bite, what were the Early versions of the Mustang designed as?
> They were ordered just after the first production P-40 (no letter) flew, 3 months before the BoB, 3-4 months before the P-40D/Warhawk was ordered and over a year before the first P-40D was built.
> They had the _BEST_ high altitude V-12 engine Allison could offer without a turbo (granted it wasn't good enough).
> 
> The problem is they were delivered (and faster than most planes) almost two years after initial design was signed off on. Combat conditions and other peoples engines/aircraft had gained quite a bit in altitude capability in the meantime.



You'd have to ask corsing that question. All I know for sure is that the P-51H was specifically designed to have better performance over previous Mustang versions, and it did...


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 25, 2018)

I hear that a lot, that the Mustang was designed to be a long range escort, and the Spitfire was built to be an interceptor, so comparisons are moot. The Mustang was NOT designed to be a long range escort, it was designed to be a "better P-40". The escort role came much later, and after much retrofitting. I would say that a direct comparison between the P-51A/Mustang I and the Spitfire Mk.V/IX is as apt a comparison as any other. Same for the Mk.XIV and P-51D. IMHO anyway


----------



## grampi (Jul 25, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I hear that a lot, that the Mustang was designed to be a long range escort, and the Spitfire was built to be an interceptor, so comparisons are moot. The Mustang was NOT designed to be a long range escort, it was designed to be a "better P-40". The escort role came much later, and after much retrofitting. I would say that a direct comparison between the P-51A/Mustang I and the Spitfire Mk.V/IX is as apt a comparison as any other. Same for the Mk.XIV and P-51D. IMHO anyway


The Spitfire was designed to climb as quickly as possible to intercept and fight off the Germans and then return to base. The Mustang was never designed to fill that role. The Spitfire was never designed or retrofitted to be a long range escort. Neither plane could've swapped roles and still have been as effective as they were, therefore comparing the two is an invalid comparison...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> OK, let me leave you with this.... Let's just say they decided to
> drop a Griffin in the Mustang. With its cleaner design, what kind
> of speed do you think it would have produced?
> 
> Jeff,......................................................................


A Griffon Mustang would have been awesome in every respect, except perhaps range.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

we are back to the rather circular argument.

The Mustang was NOT designed to be long range fighter. 






This is page 7 of the Proposal. Please note the date of April 24th 1940. Please note the times to altitude. 
The British may have been _planning _better versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane to come into service in another 4-6 months but the _planned _performance of the Mustang was certainly close to the Spitfire I or Hurricane I.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 25, 2018)

grampi said:


> The Spitfire was designed to climb as quickly as possible to intercept and fight off the Germans


The Spitfire was designed to an air ministry specification for a modern fighter capable of 250mph. Its role as an interceptor came later, long after the design stage.
And Spitfires were absolutely retrofitted to be escorts, but the small airframe just couldn't carry enough fuel to be particularly effective at it


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

We may be getting into two different Spitfires.

I could well be wrong on this but you had the Supermarine 224 and the Supermarine 300.
The 224 was the fixed gear, gull winged four gun aircraft. Aside from being a monoplane with a V-12 engine in the nose it shared nest to nothing with Supermarine 300.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 25, 2018)

Wasn't the Supermarine 300 submitted to the same specification? I may be wrong. My main point being that the Spitfire wasn't specifically built to be an interceptor.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

I don't know, some British specifications get rather confused and this is one of them.

from wiki so......
Specification F.7/30, which was formally issued to the aircraft industry in October 1931, this lead to the Supermaine 224

or 
F.7/30..................... Fighter capable of at least 250 mph and armed with four machine guns................
Blackburn F.3, Bristol Type 123, Bristol Type 133, Gloster Gladiator, Gloster SS.19, Hawker P.V.3, Supermarine Type 224, Westland F.7/30

replaced (?) by 
F.5/34...... OR.15......Single-seat fighter[35] (although contracts were placed for prototypes with three companies none were ordered into production)[35]
Bristol Type 146, Martin-Baker M.B.2, Vickers Type 279 Venom, Gloster F.5/34

then
F.36/34........OR.16....... High Speed Monoplane Single Seater Fighter (based on the Hawker submission to F.5/34)[35]
Hawker Hurricane

then
F.37/34..........High Speed Monoplane Single Seater Fighter (based on the private venture Supermarine Type 300 submission)[35] 
Supermarine Spitfire

followed by 
F.10/35..................Drawn up for the Spitfire prototype.....................
Supermarine Spitfire

and
F.15/36..................Written for Hurricane redesigned for Merlin II...................
Hawker Hurricane I

Perhaps some of our British friends can sort this out (and I believe some of the changes between a few of the specifications were minor) but too me although the Spitfire (and Hurricane) had their roots in the F.7/30 requirement niether plane was really designed to meet it. Instead they were designed to meet a modified version of the requirement (and I don't know what modifications were) _OR _they were private ventures that while not meeting the full requirements of the specification, exceeded them so well in some areas that a new specification was written to cover them? 

Saying the Spitfire 300 evolved from the Supermarine 224 is a bit like saying the P-40 evolved from this. 




Yes it is a Curtiss.
yes it uses a V-12
yes it is a low wing monoplane.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 25, 2018)

well I guess the Hurricane quite literally evolved from this...


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 25, 2018)

This is interesting about the Specifications possibly being adjusted to fit the prototype. Seems backwards


----------



## grampi (Jul 25, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Wasn't the Supermarine 300 submitted to the same specification? I may be wrong. My main point being that the Spitfire wasn't specifically built to be an interceptor.


 Maybe not initially, but that's what it was developed into, the Mustang was never developed into that role...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> This is interesting about the Specifications possibly being adjusted to fit the prototype. Seems backwards


Actually happens often in oil field engineering. All specifications are written in cooperation with manufacturers, otherwise you specify what cannot be done, then you issue a new spec for what can be done, if you catch my drift.


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Wasn't the Supermarine 300 submitted to the same specification? I may be wrong. My main point being that the Spitfire wasn't specifically built to be an interceptor.


The Spitfire and Hurricane were designed for speed and climb which in my view is the basis of an interceptor. Clearly the Spitfire was far ahead but remember that when the Hurricane first entered service, there was nothing anywhere to touch it.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 25, 2018)

Also from wiki...
" On 3 January 1935, they formalised the contract with a new specification, F10/35, _written around the aircraft_. "


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 25, 2018)

Glider said:


> The Spitfire and Hurricane were designed for speed and climb which in my view is the basis of an interceptor


It would be interesting to see if time to altitude requirements were incorporated into the specification.
Anyway, would you still consider the Hurricane to be an interceptor? Certainly not by 1942, but again, I may be wrong.
As far as I remember, both aircraft (Hurricane and Spitfire) were designed to be fast monoplanes, with retractable gear, and able to destroy an enemy aircraft in one pass.
EDIT:
With eight .303 Brownings being almost unheard of firepower in 1935


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

grampi said:


> Maybe not initially, but that's what it was developed into, the Mustang was never developed into that role...




Ah, did it need to be?
P-51Bs without drop tanks could go from sea level to 20,000ft in under 7 minutes (one test 5.9 minutes) which if not quite as fast as a contemporary Spitfire is several minutes faster than the Spitfires of 1940. 
How fast did a 1943 "interceptor" need to get to 20,000ft in given the improvement in radar warning in 1943 vs 1940? 

If, in 1943, the difference between on fighter making it to 20,000ft 5 minutes and another making it 6 minutes actually affected the success of the intercept then something was wrong with radar warning or the vectoring from fighter control.


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> It would be interesting to see if time to altitude requirements were incorporated into the specification.
> Anyway, would you still consider the Hurricane to be an interceptor? Certainly not by 1942, but again, I may be wrong.
> As far as I remember, both aircraft (Hurricane and Spitfire) were designed to be fast monoplanes, with retractable gear, and able to destroy an enemy aircraft in one pass.
> EDIT:
> With eight .303 Brownings being almost unheard of firepower in 1935



The specs for the Hurricane and Spit were designed around the aircraft. Re the question on the Hurricane remember we were discussing the design and I have no doubt that both were designed as interceptors.
A personal view is that the Hurricanes time as an effective interceptor was mid / late 1940, by 1942 it was well past its best when compared to other nations, but when it entered service, it didn't have to apologise to anyone. It just shows how technology was speeding up.

My brother often points out that Gloster went from the Gladiator to the Meteor. They did other designs in betwee,n but none that I can think of entered serious production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

Glider said:


> The specs for the Hurricane and Spit were designed around the aircraft. Re the question on the Hurricane remember we were discussing the design and I have no doubt that both were designed as interceptors.
> A personal view is that the Hurricanes time as an effective interceptor was mid / late 1940, by 1942 it was well past its best when compared to other nations, but when it entered service, it didn't have to apologise to anyone. It just shows how technology was speeding up.
> 
> My brother often points out that Gloster went from the Gladiator to the Meteor. They did other designs in betwee,n but none that I can think of entered serious production.


 By the fall of 1940 the Hurricane was in trouble and they knew it, which is why the Hurricane got the Merlin XX engine. It was an attempt to keep the Hurricane competitive while newer fighters (Typhoon?) were built. Since the Spitfire was faster and climbed better it could make do with a 2nd best engine a bit longer.
The plan went to pot when the Germans didn't just stick a more powerful engine in the 109E but developed the F with much lower drag and then the Germans frosted the cake with the FW 190. The Hurricane, useful as it was in other roles or other theaters was toast as an interceptor/air superiority fighter over NW Europe by the end of 1941.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2018)

Glider said:


> My brother often points out that Gloster went from the Gladiator to the Meteor. They did other designs in betwee,n but none that I can think of entered serious production.


From 1934 Gloster was part of Hawker Aviation They produced Hurricanes and Typhoons as a sub contractor and developed the Gloster "Whittle" and Meteor Jets.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 26, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> It would be interesting to see if time to altitude requirements were incorporated into the specification.
> Anyway, would you still consider the Hurricane to be an interceptor? Certainly not by 1942, but again, I may be wrong.
> *The Hawker Hurricane Mk.I in early 1940 using 100 octane fuel and engine
> boost of +12 lb. was calculated at an initial climb of 3,445 fpm. at a combat
> ...


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ah, did it need to be?
> P-51Bs without drop tanks could go from sea level to 20,000ft in under 7 minutes (one test 5.9 minutes) which if not quite as fast as a contemporary Spitfire is several minutes faster than the Spitfires of 1940.
> How fast did a 1943 "interceptor" need to get to 20,000ft in given the improvement in radar warning in 1943 vs 1940?
> 
> ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 26, 2018)

Are there any reports on the climb rates with the Griffon 65 boosted to 21 or 25"?
EDIT:
I mean PSI, not in/Hg


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 26, 2018)

This doesn't really count because we are not talking about
the P-51H. Which from what I have read actually flew a few
sorties during WW2, no actual firing its guns though.
Sandard Aircraft Characteristics 22 March 1949.
Interceptor Mode (8,740 lb.): 473 mph./22,700 ft.
Initial rate of climb: 5,480 fpm.
At 9,585 lb. climb to 25,000 ft./6.7 minutes.
At 8,740 lb.: ?, Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 26, 2018)

This graph has been graciously given to the public by Mr. Mike Williams.

Clayton, I have not seen any climb graph of the Spit 14 being tested at +21 lb.
The Spitfire MK.XIV was never cleared for +25 lb. boost.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 26, 2018)

fair enough, thank you. I asked because of this chart, but perhaps the 25psi boost is a typo for the Mk.XIV?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 26, 2018)

This is the famous K-4 climb curve with Gondalas?

talking of Corsning post


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 26, 2018)

Clayton,
No sir, it is not a typo. The Griffon 65 was tested at +25 lb.
It just was never cleared for combat at that level of boost.
It was an engine failure vs.performance gain kind of thing.

I can tell you this. If Mr. Edgar Brooks was still here, that
good old boy could have explained the reasons why way
better than I will ever be able to.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 26, 2018)

Vincenzo said:


> This is the famous K-4 climb curve with Gondalas?
> 
> talking of Corsning post


WHAT?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 26, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> WHAT?


Kurfürst - Articles - Notes for "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 26, 2018)

Wing gondalas: Bf.109K-6


----------



## Glider (Jul 26, 2018)

a blast from the past


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 26, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Wing gondalas: Bf.109K-6



you've not read the article
the K-6 have not gun gondolas, it (would) have the gun in the wings


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2018)

Vincenzo said:


> Kurfürst - Articles - Notes for "Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K A Performance Comparison"



Oh please Vincenzo. I have rebuttal for that pile of cow manure but have been asked to never post it.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 27, 2018)

Can you give a brief explanation as to why it is incorrect? I am genuinely curious, there seems to be some history there


----------



## Milosh (Jul 27, 2018)

OK. 1.98ata was only tested and not cleared for use til late March 1945 (an original document has never been shown). There has been no proof provided that it was actually used by the 4 Gruppes authorized to do so.

You are correct, there is a history. Mike Williams tried to work with Kurfurst but was he damned if he did and damned if he didn't as Kurfurst was never satisfied.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2018)

Now we are drifting off topic here. I love the direction we are going
but that is another thread waiting to be opened. I do not know enough
about what actually took place with the Bf.109Ks in combat to make
a decisive statement. I do have a fair quantity of Bf.109K-4 and K-6
performance graphs that would allow it to exceed the graph displayed
on wwiiaircraftperformance.org. The graphs I have are both test flights
and calculations. What I do not know for certain is which DB605 engines
were actually used in combat. If anyone knows a publication that gives
that information I would be greatly appreciative for that information.
I am not writing a book. I just crave the information so that I can share
it with all.
Hi, how you doing, Jeff


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 27, 2018)

A K-4 running at 1.98ata with the addition of MW-50 must have been an impressive machine, no doubt fully the equal (perhaps more?) of the Mk.XIV. Pretty good for a couple designs that were 10 years old at the time.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 27, 2018)

The first Spitfire F.21s reached squadrons in Jan '45.


----------



## David Fred (Jul 27, 2018)

There was an “e” wing variant as well

Two .50 Browning BMG and two 20mm Hispano II.

Source:
Fighter Aircraft Performance Of WW2

Erik Pilawskii




Soren said:


> *Spitfire Mk.XIV*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## David Fred (Jul 27, 2018)

The Mark XII had less HP then the XIV, 1730 vs. 2035, 

Source: 

FighterAircaft Performance Of WW2
Erik Pilawskii.

It’s a great book.


Iskandar Taib said:


> The Mustang has it on range, and roll rate. It also has better ground handling (wide gear) and the ability to carry stores outboard of the landing gear (a Spitfire would tip over or stress the wing). Other than that the XIV comes out ahead.
> 
> I wonder how the range of the XVIII (essentially a XIV with added internal tankage) compares to the P-51.


----------

