# P-51D vs. Spitfire IX



## NevadaK (Sep 7, 2020)

Ok, I'm in a kick the hornet's nest, touch the third rail, throw kerosene on the fire kind of mood this morning. No college football, California is still burning so no photography, hotter than blazes. You get the idea. So here goes.

It's often stated here that the Spitfire is more maneuverable than the Mustang, but I've also come across the opinion that the Mustang was "better faster" So, the question for the esteemed membership of this forum is this: is the myth of the Sptifire being all superior factual? To illustrate my question I am attaching this diagram. (Yes, I know it was generated from a sim profile but its the best I got)







For equity purposes lets keep it with the P-51D/Spitfire Mk IX comparison. If you want to go Spitfire Mk XIV then you need to go with the comparable generating Mustang the P-51H.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 7, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Ok, I'm in a kick the hornet's nest, touch the third rail, throw kerosene on the fire kind of mood this morning. No college football, California is still burning so no photography, hotter than blazes. You get the idea. So here goes.
> 
> It's often stated here that the Spitfire is more maneuverable than the Mustang, but I've also come across the opinion that the Mustang was "better faster" So, the question for the esteemed membership of this forum is this: is the myth of the Sptifire being all superior factual? To illustrate my question I am attaching this diagram. (Yes, I know it was generated from a sim profile but its the best I got)
> 
> ...


I believe you may have pried apart the portals of pandemonium.

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


----------



## Snowygrouch (Sep 7, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> It's often stated here that the Spitfire is more maneuverable than the Mustang, but I've also come across the opinion that the Mustang was "better faster"
> 
> For equity purposes lets keep it with the P-51D/Spitfire Mk IX comparison.



I do not know the answer, but I can contribute a 1944 AFDU report on Mustang III vs IX. Perhaps it may be at least useful, although its a Mustang C, not a D.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 7, 2020)

Was there a significant weight difference between the P-51C and the P-51D?


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 7, 2020)

I'm thinking this should be a thread of its own...it has the feel of a topic that could run to many pages.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 7, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Ok, I'm in a kick the hornet's nest, touch the third rail, throw kerosene on the fire kind of mood this morning. No college football, California is still burning so no photography, hotter than blazes. You get the idea. So here goes.
> 
> It's often stated here that the Spitfire is more maneuverable than the Mustang, but I've also come across the opinion that the Mustang was "better faster" So, the question for the esteemed membership of this forum is this: is the myth of the Sptifire being all superior factual? To illustrate my question I am attaching this diagram. (Yes, I know it was generated from a sim profile but its the best I got)
> 
> ...


Oh my God !
What have you done, are you out of your frikken mind !!!!!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 7, 2020)

rochie said:


> Oh my God !
> What have you done, are you out of your frikken mind !!!!!!!!


Just when we thought we'd "buried the hatchet", someone's gotta toss their powder horn in the fire!
Listen...it's the Voice...!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Sep 7, 2020)

OMG they are talking about the flimsy Spitfires again..... TERRY!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 7, 2020)

The Spitfire could beat a Mustang in a fair fight most of the time. However if you're in a fair fight your doing it wrong and a Mustang did it's fighting beyond the range of any Spitfire with guns.

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


----------



## Marcel (Sep 7, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> The Spitfire could beat a Mustang in a fair fight most of the time. However if you're in a fair fight your doing it wrong and a Mustang did it's fighting beyond the range of any Spitfire with guns.


You’re sure? Try that fight over Berlin and try again


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 7, 2020)

Marcel said:


> You’re sure? Try that fight over Berlin and try again



I did say 
_Mustang did it's fighting beyond the range of any Spitfire with guns.
😉_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 7, 2020)

NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

From what I read, P-51 pilots found the Spitfire a real handful in mock combats coming back from escort missions, but they weren't actually trying to kill each other, turning climbing and rolling is probably more fun than boom and zoom. For the sake of comparison the Mk IX had the same engine as the P-51D but the Mk XIV spitfire was in service before the P-51D The first production Spitfire Mk XIV was flown by Quill in Oct 1943 and it was in service in December with 610 squadron.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 7, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...
> 
> View attachment 594134


The markings increase speed by at least 20%. RAF roundels are so heavy and draggy

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Sep 7, 2020)

And the Luftwaffe camouflage paint makes the airframe much less flimsy, and increases speed and range ......................

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> The markings increase speed by at least 20%. RAF roundels are so heavy and draggy


Almost as much as an England football shirt, which seems to weigh about 150KG.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 7, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> RAF roundels are so heavy and draggy





pbehn said:


> Almost as much as an England football shirt, which seems to weigh about 150KG.


"Ah rolled inta Nazareth,
feelin bout half past dead..."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 7, 2020)

Airframes said:


> And the Luftwaffe camouflage paint makes the airframe much less flimsy, and increases speed and range ......................



They also increase weapons accuracy. The highest scoring German aces had their guns modified to single shot configuration to make their hunts more sporting.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 7, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Almost as much as an England football shirt, which seems to weigh about 150KG.



They make the goal shrink as well, especially during a penalty shoot out.

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


----------



## rochie (Sep 7, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...
> 
> View attachment 594134


Absolutely the greatest spitfire that ever flew


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 7, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...
> 
> View attachment 594134


Aw geez, bringing out the alien tech...


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 7, 2020)

well it could go to Berlin but this one stayed. So it is all square again.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 7, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> The Spitfire could beat a Mustang in a fair fight most of the time. However if you're in a fair fight your doing it wrong and a Mustang did it's fighting beyond the range of any Spitfire with guns.


If you’re fighting fair you’re doing it wrong.


----------



## rochie (Sep 7, 2020)

I hate these kind of discussions, they bring out the worst in us.

I post the below quote from Bobbysocks, not to prove the Spitfire was better but to show trying to compare aircraft that excelled at different things is pointless.

The Spitfire could be considered one of the very best single engine propeller driven fighters ever, all through its service life.

And so could the P-51

The P-51 was the biggest game changer in the airwar over europe and was almost as good as a Spitfire at doing Spitfire stuff yet was capable of doing what it did at least 5 times as far away and still fly back !

From Bobbysocks, who's Dad was Dale E Karger a 357th FS Ace



bobbysocks said:


> 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:
6 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Was there a significant weight difference between the P-51C and the P-51D?


This page gives empty weights of P-51B 6,985lb and P-51D 7,635lb P-51 Mustang Variants - P-51K - MustangsMustangs.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> well it could go to Berlin but this one stayed. So it is all square again.
> 
> View attachment 594159


Why did they put Spitfire markings on a Mustang?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 7, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Why did they put Spitfire markings on a Mustang?


RAF sqn obviously !

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 7, 2020)

rochie said:


> I hate these kind of discussions, they bring out the worst in us.
> 
> I post the below quote from Bobbysocks, not to prove the Spitfire was better but to show trying to compare aircraft that excelled at different things is pointless.
> 
> ...


Greetings Rochie,

Thank you for this. It’s a great point to make. I hope the members were aware that there was a bit of lightheartedness in my post earlier. The only pertinent point was about the EM chart showing where the P-51 seems to be at an advantage. The rest is, if you will, barbershop talk. Just like debating who is the greatest basketball player. For me, it’s Wilt #1, Kareem #2, and LBJ #3. Let the debate begin.

Again, thanks for your post and viewpoint.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings Rochie,
> 
> Thank you for this. It’s a great point to make. I hope the members were aware that there was a bit of lightheartedness in my post earlier. The only pertinent point was about the EM chart showing where the P-51 seems to be at an advantage. The rest is, if you will, barbershop talk. Just like debating who is the greatest basketball player. For me, it’s Wilt #1, Kareem #2, and LBJ #4. Let the debate begin.
> 
> Again, thanks for your post and viewpoint.


There are a couple of things to add to Rochie and Bobbysocks post. The Spitfire and especially the Hurricane were game changers in 1940, without them it is possible there would be no place for any P-51s to fly from. The real game changer was US industry producing 4 engine bombers, without the bombers what threat is a P-51 to German industry and infrastructure? In the action described by Bobbysocks of his father, the Spitfire was doing what it did throughout the war, protecting the UK with all its bases which included USAAF bases. In these discussions "time is of the essence". In 1940 the P-51 didn't exist, but even if it did it would not be a better interceptor than a Hurricane or Spitfire with a 1940 Merlin engine. It may have been faster than both when it got off the ground and up to altitude, but it weighed a ton more and with only 1000BHP that is a massive extra weight to haul up to 25,000ft you cannot zoom climb until you have first climbed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2020)

I too think this is better suited for its own discussion.

Carry on ladies and gents.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I too think this is better suited for its own discussion.
> 
> Carry on ladies and gents.


We iz doin serious myth bustin here.

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


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> I do not know the answer, but I can contribute a 1944 AFDU report on Mustang III vs IX. Perhaps it may be at least useful, although its a Mustang C, not a D.
> 
> View attachment 594118
> 
> ...


I am surprised they found no advantage to using some flap to improve the Mustang III turning circle I thought that was an evaluated and proven truth. I have certainly read about pilots using it.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 7, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...
> 
> View attachment 594134




Except the one fitted with the DB 601.






MesserSpit

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 7, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> For equity purposes lets keep it with the P-51D/Spitfire Mk IX comparison. If you want to go Spitfire Mk XIV then you need to go with the comparable generating Mustang the P-51H.



As mentioned above, the Spitfire XIV entered service more than a year before the P-51H did, months before the P-51D did and at a similar time to the P-51B.


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 7, 2020)

wuzak said:


> As mentioned above, the Spitfire XIV entered service more than a year before the P-51H did, months before the P-51D did and at a similar time to the P-51B.


I do stand corrected. For some reason I had the XIV later in the war.


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2020)

The Spitfire has it's own ale.






The Bf 109 has its own Schnapps.


The Mustang has it own IPA.






So, all in all, they seem fairly evenly matched ... at least until the supplies run out.

Well, it seems the image for Messerschmitt Schnapps won't post, for some reason (I tried 3 times!), so maybe the Messerschmitt needs a few improvements and a new variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Except the one fitted with the DB 601.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Damn...I forgot about this one.

Well, there we have it, folks. The ultimate Spitfire world beater.

Case closed - now on to the great debate of which was better: the P-47 or the Typhoon


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Damn...I forgot about this one.
> 
> Well, there we have it, folks. The ultimate Spitfire world beater.
> 
> Case closed - now on to the great debate of which was better: the P-47 or the Typhoon


Rocket firing Hurricanes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...



STILL not as good as the Ta 152H tho...


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2020)

By the way 

 GregP
there is a Stuka Schnapps, too!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 8, 2020)

wuzak said:


> As mentioned above, the Spitfire XIV entered service more than a year before the P-51H did, months before the P-51D did and at a similar time to the P-51B.





fastmongrel said:


> Mustang did it's fighting beyond the range of any Spitfire with guns.



The MkXIV could take on the Me109 and FW190 with the 90G drop tank fitted so it could in fact fly as far as a P51 and still fight.


----------



## rochie (Sep 8, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The MkXIV could take on the Me109 and FW190 with the 90G drop tank fitted so it could in fact fly as far as a P51 and still fight.


As much as i would love that to be true, it simply isn't.

from tactical trials

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.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 8, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The MkXIV could take on the Me109 and FW190 with the 90G drop tank fitted so it could in fact fly as far as a P51 and still fight.


Greetings Pat303,

There is a difference between Range and Combat Radius. Summarizing from documents over on World War II Aircraft Performance, Range is the farthest an aircraft can fly in a given configuration. In the footnotes for calculating range it is noted that when calculating range no fuel is used for warm up, taxi, take-off, and climb to altitude. The best range I can find for a Spit Mk XIV is 861 miles. Combat Radius of Action is calculated with factors for warm up, taxi, take-off, climb to altitude, and a factor for combat action (duration at WEP). Since I have the calculations for the P-51H handy, this can be demonstrated with the P-51H range being 2514 miles and combat radius for the same configuration is 1024 miles. If you want to do a simple ratio to get a rough idea of the Spitfire's combat radius we can use 40% based on P-51H numbers. The Combat radius for the Spit XIV calculates as 861 x 40% = 344 miles. My guess is that this number is a little high as the percentage of fuel used for WEP goes up with the shorter the range of the fighter. 

Going back to my original post, my question really wasn't about which fighter was better, but was questioning a myth that the Spitfire was always more maneuverable or better. This came from references to the Mustang's best combat performance being at higher speeds and the energy maneuvering chart I had come across that showed the Mustang had an advantage at higher speeds. To illustrate, here is a similar chart comparing the F-18 and F-16. 







and the chart from my original post with a similar shading showing the envelope where the Spit Mk IX has a definitive advantage and where the Mustang has an advantage.






Aircraft behave differently at different speeds and altitudes and while one aircraft might be "better' in one situation another might outperform it in a different situation. To me, the discussion should be a more nuanced comparison. As Rochie has stated, they are both great aircraft and should be appreciated as such.

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


----------



## rochie (Sep 8, 2020)

Yep for us Brits it too easy to think the spitfire is always the most manouverable until you try and out turn an A6m at less than 200 mph !

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 8, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings Pat303,
> 
> There is a difference between Range and Combat Radius. Summarizing from documents over on World War II Aircraft Performance, Range is the farthest an aircraft can fly in a given configuration. In the footnotes for calculating range it is noted that when calculating range no fuel is used for warm up, taxi, take-off, and climb to altitude. The best range I can find for a Spit Mk XIV is 861 miles. Combat Radius of Action is calculated with factors for warm up, taxi, take-off, climb to altitude, and a factor for combat action (duration at WEP). Since I have the calculations for the P-51H handy, this can be demonstrated with the P-51H range being 2514 miles and combat radius for the same configuration is 1024 miles. If you want to do a simple ratio to get a rough idea of the Spitfire's combat radius we can use 40% based on P-51H numbers. The Combat radius for the Spit XIV calculates as 861 x 40% = 344 miles. My guess is that this number is a little high as the percentage of fuel used for WEP goes up with the shorter the range of the fighter.
> 
> ...


The thing is your argument is based on a sim chart. Where is the actual data to support the information on high g turns at low and high speed at sea level? AFAIK WW2 piston engines struggled to maintain a turn over 3 G and collecting that type of data at sea level gets people killed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 8, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The thing is your argument is based on a sim chart. Where is the actual data to support the information on high g turns at low and high speed at sea level? AFAIK WW2 piston engines struggled to maintain a turn over 3 G and collecting that type of data at sea level gets people killed.



Agreed pbehn,

I acknowledged that it was a sim chart at the very start. Then again, my understanding is that many EM calculations are generated as calculations. I will do what I can to track down such information. 

Regards,

Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 8, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Agreed pbehn,
> 
> I acknowledged that it was a sim chart at the very start. Then again, my understanding is that many EM calculations are generated as calculations. I will do what I can to track down such information.
> 
> ...


There are all sorts of factors like aeroelasticity, feel and balance of controls. The Spitfire gave more notice of stall so was easier to hold near the limit, for example. At extreme speeds in a dive the Spitfire was faster but that is in "wing and propeller falling off" territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 8, 2020)

Greetings All,

Here is a link to the tactical report that Rochie cited earlier. It is a good read.

Mustang Tactical Trials

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2020)

Hey Graugeist,

We could meet at a pub and drink the Battle of Britain all over again sometime with some SPitfire, Messerschmitt, Stuka, and Mustang. If we were to look, I get we could find some Typhoon and Kamakaze, too.

I would not put too much faith in an energy maneuverability diagram from a gaming website. Energy maneuverability diagrams didn't even begin to be seen until 1966 when John Boyd proposed them. By then, there weren't many, if any, WWII aircraft in regular military service and the civilians who owned the ones flying weren't usually up for beating up their engines and airframes to create documentation they didn't need for civil flying. Any energy diagrams for WWII aircraft are very likely fabricated by someone for games and very likely have little to do with real airplanes other than being vaguely in the correct shape.

Most warbird pilots can pull their fighters around pretty tightly and they can feel the beginnings of a stall nibble as well as anyone. But, I don't know any who have made a diagram for it. The guys who do air combat with lasers in Beech Mentors and SIAI-Marchetti SF.260s may have such a diagram for those airplanes, but they didn't when I looked into it many years ago (back in the 1980s).

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


----------



## Marcel (Sep 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Damn...I forgot about this one.
> 
> Well, there we have it, folks. The ultimate Spitfire world beater.
> 
> Case closed - now on to the great debate of which was better: the P-47 or the Typhoon


A typhoon is way bigger than a single thunderbolt

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


----------



## pbehn (Sep 8, 2020)

Marcel said:


> A typhoon is way bigger than a single thunderbolt


By how many gills (Imperial)?


----------



## rochie (Sep 8, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> Here is a link to the tactical report that Rochie cited earlier. It is a good read.
> 
> Mustang Tactical Trials


Sorry i thought I'd linked that as well !


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 8, 2020)

rochie said:


> As much as i would love that to be true, it simply isn't.



The Mustang can't fight with full tanks and drop tanks the MkXIV could so what I said is true to a degree. Likewise the range thing has been done to death, a Spitfire could never match a P51 but could still go a very long way with aux and drop tanks fitted.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2020)

Marcel said:


> A typhoon is way bigger than a single thunderbolt


*technically* a Typhoon *is* a Thunderstorm.

Soooooo...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 8, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> Here is a link to the tactical report that Rochie cited earlier. It is a good read.
> 
> Mustang Tactical Trials


It details the performance of a Mustang MkIII (P51C) against the Spitfire Mk IX, Mk XIV and the Tempest V which were its contemporaries. The P-51D was heavier had slightly more drag and at altitude slightly less power but it was optimised as an escort fighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2020)

The Tempest was actually heavier than the P-51, at 9,000 pounds clean compared to the P-51 clean:
B/C at 6,985 pounds
D/K at 7,635 pounds.


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 8, 2020)

Hi Everyone,

What was the phrase, those who forget history...here is a quote from a similar thread a while back:



Mike Williams said:


> Hi guys:
> 
> The Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) based at Wittering and Duxford was under the control of Fighter Command and the Air Ministry where it conducted comparative trials and developed and promulgated tactics effective against the enemy. Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, wrote that the "Air Fighting Development Unit represented Fighter Command and […]did a most useful job in relating the various British fighters to those of the enemy and in developing tactics on behalf of the command."
> 
> ...



from this thread: P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

It's time for me to go find a good Mustang/Spitfire beer. Cheers.

Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 8, 2020)

GregP said:


> Hey Graugeist,
> 
> We could meet at a pub and drink the Battle of Britain all over again sometime with some SPitfire, Messerschmitt, Stuka, and Mustang. If we were to look, I get we could find some Typhoon and Kamakaze, too.
> 
> ...



Greetings GregP,

I get what you are saying with a gaming sim. I would be curious to know what parameters and engines they are built on. I suspect that there is more horsepower going into some of the gaming calculators than we give them credit for. I find the EM diagrams really fascinating and how they came to be used as design tools. The F-15, 16, and 18 were all designed using EM performance envelopes as design goals and had a significant impact on the evolution of the fighter jet. As a generalization, I think they can be useful and well, are good for starting a conversation. We do building design modeling that incorporates fluid dynamics and thermal modeling for fairly large complex structures on lesser systems than these gaming platforms.

Regards,

Kk


----------



## Marcel (Sep 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> *technically* a Typhoon *is* a Thunderstorm.
> 
> Soooooo...


So a thunderbolt is part of a typhoon. Hmmm, okay, as the Thunderbold have wings as well, does that make the Typhoon a biplane?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 9, 2020)

Marcel said:


> So a thunderbolt is part of a typhoon. Hmmm, okay, as the Thunderbold have wings as well, does that make the Typhoon a biplane?


I don't know to be honest, but I do know that where there's Thunder, there's a P-38.

But would that be the result of a Tempest?


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 9, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings Pat303,
> 
> There is a difference between Range and Combat Radius. Summarizing from documents over on World War II Aircraft Performance, Range is the farthest an aircraft can fly in a given configuration. In the footnotes for calculating range it is noted that when calculating range no fuel is used for warm up, taxi, take-off, and climb to altitude. The best range I can find for a Spit Mk XIV is 861 miles. Combat Radius of Action is calculated with factors for warm up, taxi, take-off, climb to altitude, and a factor for combat action (duration at WEP). Since I have the calculations for the P-51H handy, this can be demonstrated with the P-51H range being 2514 miles and combat radius for the same configuration is 1024 miles. If you want to do a simple ratio to get a rough idea of the Spitfire's combat radius we can use 40% based on P-51H numbers. The Combat radius for the Spit XIV calculates as 861 x 40% = 344 miles. My guess is that this number is a little high as the percentage of fuel used for WEP goes up with the shorter the range of the fighter.
> 
> ...



NevadaK,

Your EM charts are a bit different from what I’ve looked at before. However, looking at the F18 F16 chart it appears that the Hornet has limit of 9Gs same as the F16. In reality the Hornet is a 7.3G jet. No exceptions that I’m aware of other than the occasional over G. The F16 has a unique chart as well due to its FBW and slats.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 9, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> For equity purposes lets keep it with the P-51D/Spitfire Mk IX comparison. If you want to go Spitfire Mk XIV then you need to go with the comparable generating Mustang the P-51H.



A comparable Mustang to the Spitfire Mk.IX would be the Mustang Mk.I, or Mk.II (P-51A), as they both entered service in early 1942. 
The P-51H is comparable to the 20 series Spitfires, or even the Spiteful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 9, 2020)

Hi PAT 303,

I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on unless they get jumped and get off a few shots before or as they drop tanks. It isn't from thinking the tanks might break off in maneuvering as much as from the effect on flight characteristics with the extra weight and the effect on performance.

If we have a full 150-U.S. gallon drop tank that weighs 25 pounds, and if it is held on by four 1/4" - 28 bolts, we have a theoretical limit of 11 g's or so if we use yield strength rather than tensile strength, but most WWII pilots didn't spend the time to calculate the reserve strength, the effect on stall speed, or on rolling ability. They'd drop tanks because they were going into combat with an enemy who might not have drop tanks installed and didn't want to lose performance while in combat. It was dangerous enough without unnecessarily giving away performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 9, 2020)

GregP said:


> Hi PAT 303,
> 
> I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on unless they get jumped and get off a few shots before or as they drop tanks. It isn't from thinking the tanks might break off in maneuvering as much as from the effect on flight characteristics with the extra weight and the effect on performance.
> 
> If we have a full 150-U.S. gallon drop tank that weighs 25 pounds, and if it is held on by four 1/4" - 28 bolts, we have a theoretical limit of 11 g's or so if we use yield strength rather than tensile strength, but most WWII pilots didn't spend the time to calculate the reserve strength, the effect on stall speed, or on rolling ability. They'd drop tanks because they were going into combat with an enemy who might not have drop tanks installed and didn't want to lose performance while in combat. It was dangerous enough without unnecessarily giving away performance.


Someone here did recall a P51 fighting with one tank on, simply because it refused to drop off.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 9, 2020)

GregP said:


> I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on



Spitfires did fight with the slipper tank in place possibly because dropping it would mean getting out and pushing the last few miles home.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 9, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Spitfires did fight with the slipper tank in place possibly because dropping it would mean getting out and pushing the last few miles home.


P-51s just have to fly further to run out of fuel, waste of effort.


----------



## GregP (Sep 9, 2020)

There are always extenuating circumstances. I'd much rather fight with tanks than walk home and I'd fight rather than get shot down if the tanks wouldn't drop.

I was talking about normal circumstances where it was pilot's choice, which is usually when you are a section leader or flight leader. Usually, then pilot in charge of the two to six airplanes would call for tank drop, and it would be pilot's choice if that's YOU. I'd assume everyone in the flight knew where the point of no return without tanks was and wouldn't drop if they were going to walk home or take a swim.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 10, 2020)

GregP said:


> I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on unless they get jumped and get off a few shots before or as they drop tanks. It isn't from thinking the tanks might break off in maneuvering as much as from the effect on flight characteristics with the extra weight and the effect on performance.



And while I agree with you it's performance with the tank fitted still made it effective against the opposition.

57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 10, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Spitfires did fight with the slipper tank in place possibly because dropping it would mean getting out and pushing the last few miles home.



Spitfires had plenty of range if fitted out for long range work http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg


----------



## Milosh (Sep 10, 2020)

What was the combat radius? A ballpark number is 1/3 of range.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 10, 2020)

GregP said:


> There are always extenuating circumstances. I'd much rather fight with tanks than walk home and I'd fight rather than get shot down if the tanks wouldn't drop.
> 
> I was talking about normal circumstances where it was pilot's choice, which is usually when you are a section leader or flight leader. Usually, then pilot in charge of the two to six airplanes would call for tank drop, and it would be pilot's choice if that's YOU. I'd assume everyone in the flight knew where the point of no return without tanks was and wouldn't drop if they were going to walk home or take a swim.


I agree, but interestingly enough (or maybe not) I remember reading some encounter reports I think from a 4th FG jock where they engaged without dropping tanks, it's here ( Mustang Encounter Reports ) somewhere but I'll wager it was a once in a hundred happenstance.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 10, 2020)

Great link! Thanks for that.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 10, 2020)

The 20 series Spitfires had a new sturdier wing which rectified its elasticity problems at very high speeds and made the Spit one of the best rollers in that realm. 
After solving its handling issues it might well have been the best dogfighter in the class of the latest super props. It was not among the fastest though. 
Only the F8F could compete with it in terms of agility and climb. 
What do yo guys think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

spicmart said:


> The 20 series Spitfires had a new sturdier wing which rectified its elasticity problems at very high speeds and made the Spit one of the best rollers in that realm.
> After solving its handling issues it might well have been the best dogfighter in the class of the latest super props. It was not among the fastest though.


The Spitfires roll rate problem was purely relative. It had a good rate of roll compared to most but one plane noticeably better was the one it met most across the Channel, the Fw 190. This put it second in a two horse race.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> I agree, but interestingly enough (or maybe not) I remember reading some encounter reports I think from a 4th FG jock where they engaged without dropping tanks, it's here ( Mustang Encounter Reports ) somewhere but I'll wager it was a once in a hundred happenstance.


I believe the LW did try engaging escorts early to try to get them to drop tanks, not a success, probably because as you said, they didn't actually have to to be at least partially effective.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 10, 2020)

There are times when you can get away with it and times when you can't. When you can comes with high situational awareness, the element of surprise, and or a big enough advantage. 

If offensive, and need the gas to get home then you are hamstrung a bit and better commence the attack, if necessary, with a clearly defined stop (how bad will I let things possibly get before I leave). 

Or if you get bounced, and need the gas to get home, (then you probably shouldn't be there to begin with) then you jettison now, fight, and only walk / swim a little bit of the way home. Or you keep the tank on and fight. This requires you to be good or in a position that can be won because if you lose your walk is much longer. 

There are also times you can get away with it but don't because you make an execution error. Think Tommy McGuire. He had a position of both advantage and numbers. Or so he thought. He was an outstanding leader and pilot who paid full price for one small mistake.

Thomas McGuire - America's 2nd Highest-Scoring Ace, Medal of Honor Recipient

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 10, 2020)

When I look at Pilot Operating Handbooks, most if not all say that with drop tanks, no aerobatics are permitted. In the P-51 POH, for instance, it says: "When the airplane is carrying droppable fuel tanks, only normal flying attitudes are permitted. Don't try anything but normal climbing turns and let-downs when you're carrying extra wing tanks." It also cautions against any aerobatics with more than 25 gallons in the fuselage tank. Most other POH have similar cautions against hard maneuvering with drop tanks on.

The Spitfire XVI manual states that the airplane becomes very difficult to fly with 90-gallon (or 170-gallon) drop tanks and is restricted to straight flying and gentle maneuvers. Aerobatics are not permitted when carry any external stores or when the read fuselage tank contains any fuel. Other Spitfire marks are similar so far as I have looked. As such, I am tending to doubt intentional combat with drop tanks installed.

Combat maneuvers when you can't drop them or don't have a choice for some reason is another story. It's ALWAYS better to fight than to get shot down.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Someone here did recall a P51 fighting with one tank on, simply because it refused to drop off.


My father had trouble losing both tanks and engaged with 1 108 gal tank hung halfway into the fight...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

drgondog said:


> My father had trouble losing both tanks and engaged with 1 108 gal tank hung halfway into the fight...


Yes Bill you (or rather your father) were that someone, I just couldn't find it in a search to get the exact details.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Tempest was actually heavier than the P-51, at 9,000 pounds clean compared to the P-51 clean:
> B/C at 6,985 pounds
> D/K at 7,635 pounds.


Dave - by 'clean' weren't you targeting Empty (with empty 85 gal fus tank and GFE only)? P-51A = 6433, P-5B/C = 6988, P-51D = 7150 or Basic Wt (with guns, bomb racks - no fuel/oil or ammo or pilot) A=6806, B/C=7422, D= 7,728

As good a job as Dean did, he probably didn't have access to the NAA 'P-51A, B and D Airplane Specifications'

Source - NAA P-51A, B and D Specifications. I did extract from the Specs to put in the Appendices of the new book. Hope I did the math right.


----------



## GregP (Sep 10, 2020)

Hi Bill!

Put me down for a copy of your new book ... and all future books, too.

Best regards, - Greg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tommayer (Sep 10, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Ok, I'm in a kick the hornet's nest, touch the third rail, throw kerosene on the fire kind of mood this morning. No college football, California is still burning so no photography, hotter than blazes. You get the idea. So here goes.
> 
> It's often stated here that the Spitfire is more maneuverable than the Mustang, but I've also come across the opinion that the Mustang was "better faster" So, the question for the esteemed membership of this forum is this: is the myth of the Sptifire being all superior factual? To illustrate my question I am attaching this diagram. (Yes, I know it was generated from a sim profile but its the best I got)
> 
> ...


suggest you read a real life comparison to be found in Robin Higham's Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII. My copy is 1053NM away from me, so this is from memory and I make no claim for the accuracy of the details. A US outfit operating in Italy had been flying Spits, loved them, and was reequipped with 51 dogs. They were extremely interested in your question. Their interest was more than academic. They thought their health and longevity, not to mention their chances for victories, were directly at stake. They staged a trial between two of their best pilots, both highly experienced combat vets. The results of several ersatz furballs favored the Spit in almost every category. The one and only area in which the 51 had a clear advantage was range, but that, in their estimation, trumped (that word has such an ugly connotation these days, but I can't think of a synonym that is as good) all the Spit's advantages, because the 51 was almost as good as the Spit in most areas, was better than the FWs and 109s they were fighting, and the 51's range advantage was necessary to get them to where they had German a/c to fight.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 10, 2020)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't NAA engineers inspect a Spitfire and incorporate some of the features into the new P-51H? 
My understanding it was more of a weight cutting exercise, trying to incorporate some Supermarine structural specs to trim some fat off the Mustang. And what they produced seemed to be the best of both aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't NAA engineers inspect a Spitfire and incorporate some of the features into the new P-51H?
> My understanding it was more of a weight cutting exercise, trying to incorporate some Supermarine structural specs to trim some fat off the Mustang. And what they produced seemed to be the best of both aircraft.


I just read that recently, I will try to find it. But as I read it it was a question to Supermarine about the weights and application of engineering standards. It was Supermarine who weighed all sorts of components and showed how they calculated loads. There is some fiddle factor and wiggle room about weights and load calculations.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2020)

Neither the 31st FG or 52nd FG, equipped with Spitfires, were given a 'vote'. Those same pilots that sobbed when they lost their Spits were elated when they were engaging and shooting down 109s over Ploesti and Vienna and Munich while their short range Spits that they traded in, were escorting B-25s and A-20s over Italy.

Sandy McCorkle was one of those reluctant warriors - who scored 5 in Spits (seven months combat) and 6 (2 months combat) in 51s - was my father's last boss in USAF. He LOVED the 51. He also stated that nothing beat 'pure flying' a Spit in his AAF/USAF career - but very clear that the 51 was the best that the USAAF had for air superiority in WWII. Additional note - he scored 5 of his six in seven days after 31st FG converted to the P-51B in April 1944.

To the Spitfire influence? - yes, to the XP-51F/G and H. A detailed study was made by NAA to compare the P-51B to the Spit IX, piece by piece, and reported in November 1942 (NA-5567 dated 11-23-42). The result led to a proposal and contract and charge number NA-105 for the XP-51F. The AAF was close to negotiating a contract or the P-51G with new 1650-9 in November 1943, built to RAF stress standards of 11G ultimate, 7.5G Limit but the lack of internal fuel tank and no possible way to increase internal fuel over 205 gal killed it. Had the AAF had the same Interceptor mission that spawned the F8F, the P-51G would have been perhaps the best performing (when comparing all aspects of performance) piston engined fighter ever built. The P-51H was the airframe decided upon, which had the same wing fuel and a 50 gal fuse tank as well as designed to 7.5G Limit at full (internal) Gross Wt of 9600 pounds whereas the P-51D was limited to 6.7G Limit. The H had to stretch the length 13" and re-design critical airframe sections like wing and fuselage to take the increased loads.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Neither the 31st FG or 52nd FG, equipped with Spitfires, were given a 'vote'. Those same pilots that sobbed when they lost their Spits were elated when they were engaging and shooting down 109s over Ploesti and Vienna and Munich while their short range Spits that they traded in, were escorting B-25s and A-20s over Italy.
> 
> Sandy McCorkle was one of those reluctant warriors - who scored 5 in Spits (seven months combat) and 6 (2 months combat) in 51s - was my father's last boss in USAF. He LOVED the 51. He also stated that nothing beat 'pure flying' a Spit in his AAF/USAF career - but very clear that the 51 was the best that the USAAF had for air superiority in WWII. Additional note - he scored 5 of his six in seven days after 31st FG converted to the P-51B in April 1944.
> 
> To the Spitfire influence? - yes, to the XP-51F/G and H. A detailed study was made by NAA to compare the P-51B to the Spit IX, piece by piece, and reported in November 1942 (NA-5567 dated 11-23-42). The result led to a proposal and contract and charge number NA-105 for the XP-51F. The AAF was close to negotiating a contract or the P-51G with new 1650-9 in November 1943, built to RAF stress standards of 11G ultimate, 7.5G Limit but the lack of internal fuel tank and no possible way to increase internal fuel over 205 gal killed it. Had the AAF had the same Interceptor mission that spawned the F8F, the P-51G would have been perhaps the best performing (when comparing all aspects of performance) piston engined fighter ever built. The P-51H was the airframe decided upon, which had the same wing fuel and a 50 gal fuse tank as well as designed to 7.5G Limit at full (internal) Gross Wt of 9600 pounds whereas the P-51D was limited to 6.7G Limit. The H had to stretch the length 13" and re-design critical airframe sections like wing and fuselage to take the increased loads.


I knew I would find a definition of fiddle factor and wiggle room somewhere.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Neither the 31st FG or 52nd FG, equipped with Spitfires, were given a 'vote'. Those same pilots that sobbed when they lost their Spits were elated when they were engaging and shooting down 109s over Ploesti and Vienna and Munich while their short range Spits that they traded in, were escorting B-25s and A-20s over Italy.
> 
> Sandy McCorkle was one of those reluctant warriors - who scored 5 in Spits (seven months combat) and 6 (2 months combat) in 51s - was my father's last boss in USAF. He LOVED the 51. He also stated that nothing beat 'pure flying' a Spit in his AAF/USAF career - but very clear that the 51 was the best that the USAAF had for air superiority in WWII. Additional note - he scored 5 of his six in seven days after 31st FG converted to the P-51B in April 1944.
> 
> To the Spitfire influence? - yes, to the XP-51F/G and H. A detailed study was made by NAA to compare the P-51B to the Spit IX, piece by piece, and reported in November 1942 (NA-5567 dated 11-23-42). The result led to a proposal and contract and charge number NA-105 for the XP-51F. The AAF was close to negotiating a contract or the P-51G with new 1650-9 in November 1943, built to RAF stress standards of 11G ultimate, 7.5G Limit but the lack of internal fuel tank and no possible way to increase internal fuel over 205 gal killed it. Had the AAF had the same Interceptor mission that spawned the F8F, the P-51G would have been perhaps the best performing (when comparing all aspects of performance) piston engined fighter ever built. The P-51H was the airframe decided upon, which had the same wing fuel and a 50 gal fuse tank as well as designed to 7.5G Limit at full (internal) Gross Wt of 9600 pounds whereas the P-51D was limited to 6.7G Limit. The H had to stretch the length 13" and re-design critical airframe sections like wing and fuselage to take the increased loads.


Joking apart Bill, as I read it recently NAA and Supermarine compared data, so it was the average weight of components for aircraft under construction and then a discussion of how those fitted the standards in UK. Cheaper and quicker than actually destroying an aircraft just to weigh various parts of it?


----------



## soaringtractor (Sep 10, 2020)

pbehn said:


> From what I read, P-51 pilots found the Spitfire a real handful in mock combats coming back from escort missions, but they weren't actually trying to kill each other, turning climbing and rolling is probably more fun than boom and zoom. For the sake of comparison the Mk IX had the same engine as the P-51D but the Mk XIV spitfire was in service before the P-51D The first production Spitfire Mk XIV was flown by Quill in Oct 1943 and it was in service in December with 610 squadron.


BUT......... there were only about 1700 shitfires with the Griffon engine !!!!! 5656 Merlin 60 shitfires and 10,000 P51D's and around 3,000 B/C Mustangs !!! Them numbers....again !!!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2020)

IMO -- comparing the Spit IX with Merlin 65 with P-51B-15 (without Reverse Rudder Boost tab) equipped with 1650-7 is the best pair to compare and make judgments.

First, the Spit IX with much lower wing loading will always outclimb and out turn the P-51B at all altitudes given equal pilot skills. The power curves are nearly identical. Additionally, the Spit had a higher CL which should also give it the ability to pull slightly more G in a level turn. Advantage Spit IX

The Mustang with much less drag will always be faster at all altitudes except perhaps 40K+, With 12 and 15 degree rigging for the B ailerons the P-51B should out roll the Spit IX, negating some of the turn advantage.

The Spit will initially out accelerate the P-51B in both level speed and a dive but the 51 will rapidly catch up and outpace the Spit IX until the high Mach no >0.8

The Mustang will out zoom the Spit to recover lost altitude faster.

The Mustang tactical footprint is at least 2x in context of penetration and combat over targets. This is much more important than just range. There was virtually no place the LW could plan to attack (unhindered) a long range daylight bombing attack when escorted by P-51B/D. Versus the Spit IX, there was very litle continental area where a Spit IX Could oppose a LW attack. So the operational question 'Paris' or 'Posnan' for strategic defense planning.

The Mustang was quicker to adopt to 25# boost so for that interval or that condition in which the Merlin 65 was at 18# and the P-51B was capable of 72-75", there were multiple altitudes at which the P-51B was close to the Spit IX in climb, and initially faster in acceleration, and improved in turn - but the Spit should still have the advantages noted above.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> BUT......... there were only about 1700 shitfires with the Griffon engine !!!!! 5656 Merlin 60 shitfires and 10,000 P51D's and around 3,000 B/C Mustangs !!! Them numbers....again !!!


I go from discussing the subject on a respectful and humorous level with a man whos father was an ace and is in himself an expert on the subject, inside out, to a post like this from a jerk like you. If you dislike those Merlin and Griffon shitfires so much stick with your Allisons sweety.

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


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> BUT......... there were only about 1700 shitfires with the Griffon engine !!!!! 5656 Merlin 60 shitfires and 10,000 P51D's and around 3,000 B/C Mustangs !!! Them numbers....again !!!


What is Your point? In the context of RAF vs LW there were a Lot more Spits in ETO and MTO than Mustangs until mid 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

drgondog said:


> IMO -- comparing the Spit IX with Merlin 65 with P-51B-15 (without Reverse Rudder Boost tab) equipped with 1650-7 is the best pair to compare and make judgments.
> 
> First, the Spit IX with much lower wing loading will always outclimb and out turn the P-51B at all altitudes given equal pilot skills. The power curves are nearly identical. Additionally, the Spit had a higher CL which should also give it the ability to pull slightly more G in a level turn. Advantage Spit IX
> 
> ...


Bill, what is the story with using some flap on a P-51 to improve turn performance. The official tests by the British with a Mustang MkIII against Spitfires and a Tempest found no improvement but I have read various US pilots swore by it? If its in the book dont answer, its on order for christmas.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2020)

The comparisons were by weight group (wing/empennage/engine mounts, etc) first, with detailed examination of individual key components like Spars, Landing gear, Longerons, etc. In addition to different standard for AoA Ultimate Stress (12G vs 11G) The RAF designed for lesser applied loads for landing and side loads 9for example0, leading Schmued to re-think AAC pre-war Structural Standards that NAA designed all their aircraft to - until NA-105

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Bill, what is the story with using some flap on a P-51 to improve turn performance. The official tests by the British with a Mustang MkIII against Spitfires and a Tempest found no improvement but I have read various US pilots swore by it? If its in the book dont answer, its on order for christmas.


It gave a higher CL accompanied by increased drag. Good for an instantaneous pivot to get inside the circle for a shot, but not a very good idea to stay in that condition. It had other uses. In my fathers Aug 6 Encounter report, the 109 he was chasing split-ess from 2K, dad pulled a little flap, followed him through the turn - but the 109 augered into the ground.. I have seen several encounter reports (including a May 8 J.C Meyer vs 109) in which no advantage was gained in a medium speed turning fight with a 109. Meyer noted that it was time to go play somewhere else and he 'Extended' leaving the 109 to fight another day.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

soaringtractor said:


> BUT......... there were only about 1700 shitfires with the Griffon engine !!!!! 5656 Merlin 60 shitfires and 10,000 P51D's and around 3,000 B/C Mustangs !!! Them numbers....again !!!


Could I respectfully point out that in mid 1944 the top fighters for the RAF were the Meteor, the Tempest and the Spitfire MkXIV. Their primary function was to defend the UK, if you can find any report by any person in the US airforces, based in UK complaining that these aircraft were complete POS then I am all eyes and ears. Could I also respectfully point out that it was the British who ordered the plane as the Mustang MkI, the USA was happy with its P-40s werent they? Or am I wrong?

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Sep 10, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Could I respectfully point out that in mid 1944 the top fighters for the RAF were the Meteor, the Tempest and the Spitfire MkXIV. Their primary function was to defend the UK, if you can find any report by any person in the US airforces, based in UK complaining that these aircraft were complete POS then I am all eyes and ears. Could I also respectfully point out that it was the British who ordered the plane as the Mustang MkI, the USA was happy with its P-40s werent they? Or am I wrong?


 I might suggest that if someone is being a knuckleheaded troll, to just ignore him. They seldom do anything but stir fecal matter, with no enlightenment to anyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 10, 2020)

glennasher said:


> I might suggest that if someone is being a knuckleheaded troll, to just ignore him. They seldom do anything but stir fecal matter, with no enlightenment to anyone.


But so far he has been quite funny.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2020)

Just ignore them.

The upside is they aren't carrying about luftwaffe this and luftwaffe that and it won't be long before Chris or Joe will be along to take care it.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2020)

glennasher said:


> I might suggest that if someone is being a knuckleheaded troll, to just ignore him. They seldom do anything but stir fecal matter, with no enlightenment to anyone.



Great advice!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Just ignore them.
> 
> The upside is they aren't carrying about luftwaffe this and luftwaffe that and it won't be long before Chris or Joe will be along to take care it.



On it...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> On it...


Excellent!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2020)

By the way when a moderator (or any member of this forum as a matter of fact) reminds you that you can get your point across and still be respectful; telling the moderator that you are American and therefor have the right to talk to people however you wish, and then telling the moderator that they can leave...

...is not the way to go about things.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 10, 2020)

Probably some kid that has spent way too much time on the war Thunder forums and decided to venture out and share his expertise with the less informed...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 10, 2020)

Hey PAT303,

Possibly I am misunderstanding what you were saying in your post#68, re: "57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb."

As far as I can find, all of the Spitfire/Seafire variants were restricted to "straight flying and only gentle manœuvers" when carrying the 90 Impgal slipper tanks. Aerobatics were prohibited.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 11, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Hey PAT303,
> 
> Possibly I am misunderstanding what you were saying in your post#68, re: "57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb."
> 
> As far as I can find, all of the Spitfire/Seafire variants were restricted to "straight flying and only gentle manœuvers" when carrying the 90 Impgal slipper tanks. Aerobatics were prohibited.



ThomasP, both the Spit and 'Stang had performance restrictions put on them when carrying internal aux fuel and external tanks, from what I understand it's the rear aux tanks moving the center of gravity to the rear that effects them the most, it's advised in both aircraft to burn off the rear aux fuel until approx 30G remains before any combat takes place. In regards to the MkXIV it was trialed with the 90G tank fitted against the 109 and 190 and still equaled both, wwe have discussed this before and I remember someone posting up that the tank was G rated so it could be retained if required, with the 170G ferry tank because of it's weight I would no doubt believe the quote that the pilots should fly straight and level when fitted.


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 11, 2020)

Hey PAT303,

Thanks for the info. I just read the Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials and found the data you were referring to. I was aware that the 30 and 45 Impgal slipper tanks were combatable, but I had not run across anything saying the same about the 90 Impgal slipper tank.

But that makes me wonder why all the Pilot's Notes say "straight flying and only gentle manœuvers" when carrying the 90 Impgal slipper tank, even post-war. Interesting.


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 12, 2020)

drgondog said:


> IMO -- comparing the Spit IX with Merlin 65 with P-51B-15 (without Reverse Rudder Boost tab) equipped with 1650-7 is the best pair to compare and make judgments.
> 
> First, the Spit IX with much lower wing loading will always outclimb and out turn the P-51B at all altitudes given equal pilot skills. The power curves are nearly identical. Additionally, the Spit had a higher CL which should also give it the ability to pull slightly more G in a level turn. Advantage Spit IX
> 
> ...


Thank you, drgondog,

Your summary is quite helpful and helps me have a better understanding of the relative strengths of each aircraft. I appreciate your depth of knowledge and willingness to share.

Regards,

Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 12, 2020)

With regards to the Spitfires Mk IX & XIV, it is unclear to me the impetus for the relatively low production numbers on the MK XIV vs the MK IX. Setting aside the MK IX being in production for over a year sooner than the MK XIV, purchase records show that the two were in concurrent production and the MK IX was ordered in greater numbers. For example:

First large order for the MK XIV was in October 1943 - 406 Aircraft
Last order for the FR MK XIV was March 1945 - 460 Aircraft
Last order for the LF MK IX was July 1944 - 400 Aircraft

Looking at the overall production history, more Mk IX's were ordered after the first large Mk XIV order than the total number of MK XIV's ordered. Was this related to the lack of production for the Griffon engine, or to the MK IX being a more versatile platform? Or, something else?

Source: production charts

Thanks.


----------



## rochie (Sep 12, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Probably some kid that has spent way too much time on the war Thunder forums and decided to venture out and share his expertise with the less informed...


from Sid 327 in the Spit V vs P-40 E thread
Not very biased are you...
I see you have found your way onto this forum after poisoning thousands of Youtube videos which showed anything British with your foul mouthed remarks and not only bitter but childish attitude. I wouldn't be surprised if you were the most unpopular person on Youtube and that includes your other alias usernames too.
Hopefully the administration on here are wise to what you are really like.

[Note: search Youtube 'soaringtractor']. 

i looked him up on youtube, after Sid327 warned us about him, all his videos deleted but a long list of comments questioning his parentage remains

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 12, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Neither the 31st FG or 52nd FG, equipped with Spitfires, were given a 'vote'. Those same pilots that sobbed when they lost their Spits were elated when they were engaging and shooting down 109s over Ploesti and Vienna and Munich while their short range Spits that they traded in, were escorting B-25s and A-20s over Italy.
> 
> Sandy McCorkle was one of those reluctant warriors - who scored 5 in Spits (seven months combat) and 6 (2 months combat) in 51s - was my father's last boss in USAF. He LOVED the 51. He also stated that nothing beat 'pure flying' a Spit in his AAF/USAF career - but very clear that the 51 was the best that the USAAF had for air superiority in WWII. Additional note - he scored 5 of his six in seven days after 31st FG converted to the P-51B in April 1944.
> 
> To the Spitfire influence? - yes, to the XP-51F/G and H. A detailed study was made by NAA to compare the P-51B to the Spit IX, piece by piece, and reported in November 1942 (NA-5567 dated 11-23-42). The result led to a proposal and contract and charge number NA-105 for the XP-51F. The AAF was close to negotiating a contract or the P-51G with new 1650-9 in November 1943, built to RAF stress standards of 11G ultimate, 7.5G Limit but the lack of internal fuel tank and no possible way to increase internal fuel over 205 gal killed it. Had the AAF had the same Interceptor mission that spawned the F8F, the P-51G would have been perhaps the best performing (when comparing all aspects of performance) piston engined fighter ever built. The P-51H was the airframe decided upon, which had the same wing fuel and a 50 gal fuse tank as well as designed to 7.5G Limit at full (internal) Gross Wt of 9600 pounds whereas the P-51D was limited to 6.7G Limit. The H had to stretch the length 13" and re-design critical airframe sections like wing and fuselage to take the increased loads.



Thanks, drgondog

As a follow up to the potential performance of this aircraft, here is a link to the P-51H Performance Data. Impressive indeed:

P-51H Performance

Kk

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 12, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Thanks, drgondog
> 
> As a follow up to the potential performance of this aircraft, here is a link to the P-51H Performance Data. Impressive indeed:
> 
> ...


The P-51H data you looked at is NAA Calculated Performance. The initial 1650-9 testing in 1945 was short of projected but further flight testing with the 1650-9 issues fixed actually closely aligned - and those figures @90" are for wing pylons mounted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 12, 2020)

drgondog said:


> The P-51H data you looked at is NAA Calculated Performance. The initial 1650-9 testing in 1945 was short of projected but further flight testing with the 1650-9 issues fixed actually closely aligned - and those figures @90" are for wing pylons mounted.


Thanks!


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 12, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't NAA engineers inspect a Spitfire and incorporate some of the features into the new P-51H?
> My understanding it was more of a weight cutting exercise, trying to incorporate some Supermarine structural specs to trim some fat off the Mustang. And what they produced seemed to be the best of both aircraft.



Having worked on both Spitfires and P-51s (though not the H model) I can say that structurally there is nothing in common and systems wise there is almost nothing (both use hydraulics and electrics but the way these are constructed and laid out is very different). I would doubt there are any Spitfire features in the 51H as the structures are so totally different that incorporating Spitfire technology would be extremely difficult.

Fuselage wise the Mustang uses heavy load bearing skins with a small number of long stringers passing through pressed frames like the vast majority of metal aircraft. The Spitfire fuselage is much lighter skinned with hundreds of short intercostals tying the pressed frames together via gussets carrying far more of the load.

Wing wise the Mustang has one piece pressed metal ribs, like the vast majority of metal aircraft, and the Spitfire has a rib made of dozens of pieces of metal riveted together using the same construction as the WW 1 Sopwiths and includes wood in many locations so that access panels can be held on with wood screws. See the examples below - and yes the red arrows do point to a *wooden *primary structural member.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Orzel (Sep 12, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...
> 
> View attachment 594134


Yes


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 12, 2020)

This appears to be the best example of the P-51H performance that
I have come across.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/F-51H_Mustang_SAC_-_22_March_1949.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sid327 (Sep 13, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> *technically* a Typhoon *is* a Thunderstorm.
> 
> Soooooo...



Excuse the polite disagreement  .....a typhoon is the Asian version of a hurricane. Unless you are using a different dictionary (?)

TYPHOON | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2020)

*technically*, a Typhoon, Hurricane and Cyclone are all the one and the same - just different names in different regions.

However, the fighters tended to be a bit different

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> *technically*, a Typhoon, Hurricane and Cyclone are all the one and the same - just different names in different regions.
> 
> However, the fighters tended to be a bit different


Would that mean that typhoons are license built hurricanes?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2020)

You can't put a Tempest in a Teapot ...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sid327 (Sep 13, 2020)

Information only. Off topic post.
When I was in Nigeria (okay swing the lantern)

At the start of each rainy season (July. We were operating out of an airstrip right on the coast) you would often see water spouts forming (''baby'' hurricanes) in a neat line about 5nm offshore and head off in a westerly direction.
Some years later I saw details on a documentary of all the hurricane tracks and they all seemed to originate from the same place, the Gulf Of Guinea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Orzel (Sep 13, 2020)

The spitfire would win due to its better maneuverability.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 13, 2020)

Orzel said:


> The spitfire would win due to its better maneuverability.


Despite all that is written on 120 posts?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 14, 2020)

GregP said:


> Hi PAT 303,
> 
> I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on unless they get jumped and get off a few shots before or as they drop tanks. It isn't from thinking the tanks might break off in maneuvering as much as from the effect on flight characteristics with the extra weight and the effect on performance.
> 
> If we have a full 150-U.S. gallon drop tank that weighs 25 pounds, and if it is held on by four 1/4" - 28 bolts, we have a theoretical limit of 11 g's or so if we use yield strength rather than tensile strength, but most WWII pilots didn't spend the time to calculate the reserve strength, the effect on stall speed, or on rolling ability. They'd drop tanks because they were going into combat with an enemy who might not have drop tanks installed and didn't want to lose performance while in combat. It was dangerous enough without unnecessarily giving away performance.



Add to that the Spitfire tanks are an inverted aerofoil so they not only produce drag but are also cancelling some of the lift the aircraft wing is producing. This would definitely reduce aerobatic performance and that is what you need in most combat situations.

This is why the flight manual says the aircraft is difficult to fly with external tanks - the reduction in total lift means you are flying much closer to the aircrafts stall speed at all times those tanks are fitted.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Joking apart Bill, as I read it recently NAA and Supermarine compared data, so it was the average weight of components for aircraft under construction and then a discussion of how those fitted the standards in UK. Cheaper and quicker than actually destroying an aircraft just to weigh various parts of it?


NAA were recording the ACTUAL weight of components on their Technical Drawings as far back as 1937 on the BC-1 so _destroying an aircraft just to weigh various parts _ was never necessary on NAA aircraft.






Although the weight of each component was not recorded on individual Spitfire Technical Drawings I would expect they were recorded elsewhere so that weight and balance calculations could be performed for any modifications.

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


----------



## Sid327 (Sep 14, 2020)

Orzel said:


> The spitfire would win due to its better maneuverability.




I'll go with the better pilot 'should' always win and blow the statistics.


----------



## PAT303 (Sep 14, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> Add to that the Spitfire tanks are an inverted aerofoil so they not only produce drag but are also cancelling some of the lift the aircraft wing is producing. This would definitely reduce aerobatic performance and that is what you need in most combat situations.
> 
> This is why the flight manual says the aircraft is difficult to fly with external tanks - the reduction in total lift means you are flying much closer to the aircrafts stall speed at all times those tanks are fitted.
> 
> View attachment 594849



It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.


Although the Spit was pressed into service for some CAS and other roles, only the Recon versions were tasked for longer range. The Spit primary role was air superiority. Typhoon/Tempest (or Mustang III/IV) better suited for intermediate to long range multi-tasking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sid327 (Sep 14, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.




Keeping the C of G within reasonable limits?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 14, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.





Sid327 said:


> Keeping the C of G within reasonable limits?



Doctrine left over from 1920s/30s.
Fighters were supposed to have enough of range to cover UK. Any combat beyond UK by aircraft located in the UK was to be done by Bomber Command.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Doctrine left over from 1920s/*30*s.
> Fighters were supposed to have enough of range to cover UK. Any combat beyond UK by aircraft located in the UK was to be done by Bomber Command.



Depends on when in the 1930s. At the Beginning of 1935 the RAF didn't have a single bomber that could take-off from England, fly to Germany (any part of Germany, even two kilometers over the border) drop a 500lb bomb and return to England.


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 15, 2020)

Orzel said:


> The spitfire would win due to its better maneuverability.


Greetings Orzel 

I think that if these aircraft were opponents, the actuality of such a combat would have more variability. If I understand what has been posted here and on other threads correctly, the outcome would depend a great deal on the speed at which the engagement is fought and how much of the combat is speed related versus turning and climbing. If the speed of engagement is lower than yes, the Spitfire has a definitive advantage but if its speed (boom & zoom) then I think the advantage shifts to the Mustang. One area where the Mustang has an absolute advantage is endurance. In longer fights the Mustang can simply outlast the Spitfire. A couple of the Mustang pilots I knew growing up mentioned several times how their opponents would run out of gas in the middle of combat and need to quit. 

It is often pointed out on this thread that the pilot is the difference between closely matched planes and whichever pilot is able to use their advantages most successfully would determine the outcome between these two.

Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 15, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings Orzel
> 
> I think that if these aircraft were opponents, the actuality of such a combat would have more variability. If I understand what has been posted here and on other threads correctly, the outcome would depend a great deal on the speed at which the engagement is fought and how much of the combat is speed related versus turning and climbing. If the speed of engagement is lower than yes, the Spitfire has a definitive advantage but if its speed (boom & zoom) then I think the advantage shifts to the Mustang. One area where the Mustang has an absolute advantage is endurance. In longer fights the Mustang can simply outlast the Spitfire. A couple of the Mustang pilots I knew growing up mentioned several times how their opponents would run out of gas in the middle of combat and need to quit.
> 
> ...


The engines would recognise a brother or cousin and refuse to fight, forcing the pilots to dance the skies on laughter silvered wings and join the tumbling mirth of sun split clouds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 15, 2020)

MiTasol said:


> Add to that the Spitfire tanks are an inverted aerofoil so they not only produce drag but are also cancelling some of the lift the aircraft wing is producing. This would definitely reduce aerobatic performance and that is what you need in most combat situations.
> 
> This is why the flight manual says the aircraft is difficult to fly with external tanks - the reduction in total lift means you are flying much closer to the aircrafts stall speed at all times those tanks are fitted.
> 
> View attachment 594849



In 1944-45 at least in ETO at least Spit IXs/XVIs usually used one cigar-shaped underfuselage 44 ImpGal drop tank, it was originally designed for Hurricane (which carried one under each wing). Could it be carried through hard combat maneuvers, I don't know.


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The engines would recognise a brother or cousin and refuse to fight, forcing the pilots to dance the skies on laughter silvered wings and join the tumbling mirth of sun split clouds.


Nailed It!


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 16, 2020)

Pbehn's "P-51D vs Spitfire IX" thread isn't really a contestable statement - Both of these Aircraft were built for entirely different purposes - The only thing barely in common was the Mark(s) of RR Merlin they had installed, which was constantly being developed during the War with an average of around 400 modifications a month being generated by both Rolls-Royce and Packard at the peak of it's refinement - 150,000 were built by RR & Ford in the United Kingdom as well as 57,000 licence built engines from Packard in the US - Around 5660+ Spifire IX's were built with Merlin 61, 63 or 63A, and Bendix Stromberg injection type carbs used instead of the normal gravity-feed ones were used in the Merlin 66 and 70's - So it ended up that there were MK.IX FIX, LFIX, LFIXE, HFIX and HFXE Spitfire Mk.IX models -
The Spitfire XVI was of course a new-built Mk. IX (instead of from a Mk.VC airframe) with a Packard-built Merlin 66 known as the '266',with a few other changes and weighed in at 7900lb's to the Mk. IX's 7500lb's -

- I don't know WHAT a Spitfire XIV has to do with this thread - GrauGeist's pic appears to be a captured PRXI, only maybe possibly could be caught by Me 163's or 262's, or _exceptional_ flak.

The Mustang's history is not unlike the Spitfire's, in that until it got the Merlin 60 - 70 series in them, they then became really awesome aircraft - For the Spitfire Mk.IX, it was a progressive interim model to overcome the advent of the new German Focke Wulf FW-190 which was decimating the then workhorse Spitfire Mk.V's -
- The Spitfire was 'born' to be a 'defensive' fighter, over it's own territory essentially, it's wing profile gave it exceptional manouevrability, 'like a leaf falling' shall we say, whereas the Mustang D was built to have 'longer-legs' and was made to 'protect' the bombers which it did with supreme ability -

They were both fine aircraft whose time when they arrived on the scene became history and they developed on further to become even more historical classics, both Spitfire & Mustang were but halfway through their developing lives at that time - Clearly, with it's laminar-flow wing design, the Mustang's ability at real high speed as in a dive was it's real special thing, so I find trying to 'compare' these two icons rather pointless, they were indeed our unique War-winning GEMS ~

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2020)

My photo of the KG200 Spitfire was in jest, because it was emblazoned with Balkan crosses.

There is a rather under-educated group of people that exists out there that think that just because the machine was German, it was vastly superior to anything Anglo-American.

So a Spitfire with Balkan Crosses has to be the eppitamy of superior badassness...right?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 16, 2020)

Merlins used a gallon of gas a minute unless they were in combat, then the consumption went up...


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> The Mustang's history is not unlike the Spitfire's, in that until it got the Merlin 60 - 70 series in them, they then became really awesome aircraft - For the Spitfire Mk.IX, it was a progressive interim model to overcome the advent of the new German Focke Wulf FW-190 which was decimating the then workhorse Spitfire Mk.V's -
> - The Spitfire was 'born' to be a 'defensive' fighter, over it's own territory essentially, it's wing profile gave it exceptional manouevrability, 'like a leaf falling' shall we say, whereas the Mustang D was built to have 'longer-legs' and was made to 'protect' the bombers which it did with supreme ability -



Can't say I entirely agree, to be honest. There are few similarities between the two types in terms of development that led to that point in each type's evolution. The Spit was an excellent aircraft right off the bat on entry into service and fulfilled its interceptor role as it was designed to do, but in reality with the advent of the Bf 109F first, the interim Spit V was outclassed, as it was with the Fw 190. The IX came about from fitting a 60 Series Merlin to Mk.V airframes as a knee jerk reaction to the appearance of the Fw 190, as you point out, Gemhorse, despite the fact that Bf 109Fs accounted for a greater number of Fighter Command aircraft in combat between mid 1941 and mid 1942. Bear in mind that the Air Ministry's long term plan saw the HF.VII and F.VIII fitted with the 'High Altitude Merlin' as it was known, the F.VIII intended as the next major production variant, while the IX was an interim.

The P-51D/Mustang IV and similarly P-51C/Mustang III were a result of research by Rolls-Royce and NAA in fitting a Merlin to the Mustang airframe to improve its altitude performance, bearing in mind that the first Mustangs fitted with Merlins were converted in Britain (Mustang Mk.X, which was essentially a Mk.I with a Merlin 65), not the USA, rather than an outstanding requirement for an escort fighter (although the Americans also had the idea, the Brits put it into practise first - there was much communication between the USA and the UK over this). It's interesting to note that initially when first proposed, the British Air Ministry had misgivings because of the supply of two-speed-two-stage Merlins was allocated for Spitfires, not taking into consideration at the time that perhaps the Americans could licence build them.

To begin with, the Mustang was designed to a British requirement for P-40s through the British Purchasing Commission and that the type's long legs was a benefit of exceptional design, not the primary factor behind its existence. Even the Allison engined Mustang Is and IIs had excellent range (and could out-perform the Spitfire V and Fw 190 for that matter, with the exception of altitude); the A&AEE reports on the type comments highly about this. That the USAAF needed more long range escort fighters was definitely a requirement; it already had aircraft serving in that role, that the Mustang had long range already inevitably meant it was suited for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 16, 2020)

I'm fully aware of the British Purchasing mission and the fact the Mustang came about from a British request based on the AT-6 Harvard etc - I really was trying to draw attention to the whole ''Mustang D vs Spitfire IX'' as being rather moot - I haven't got time to sit here all night putting out the history of these two fine aircraft, I don't pop into Google like some folk, I've spent years reading & researching from factual accounts of the War, particuarly what ''Our Chaps'' did etc - I just noticed it in the email from the website and thought ''Good grief, is this what they're down to discussing now ?!''- 

- If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc; despite some of them initially being tested with them - The Allison worked okay with turbosuperchargers later on with the USAAF on the P-38, but not back then for the RAF. - Not having them in the Mustang I cost us lives, being reduced to doing low-level work - Their first mission was on 10 May 1942 in the area of Berck-sur-Mer by RAF 26 Sqn. During further forays along the French coast in July, it cost us our first, AG 415, flown by P/O H. Taylor -

Maybe we should start a thread about that perhaps ~

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> I don't pop into Google like some folk, I've spent years reading & researching from factual accounts of the War,



Yeah, me neither. You'll find that there are many guys on this forum who have professional backgrounds in aviation and are not just internet warriors, myself included. I was illustrating that the Spit IX and P-51D had very different backgrounds and reasons for their evolution - you mentioned the P-51D was designed as a long range escort - it was used as one but the reason for fitting the Merlin was to improve its ceiling, not its range.

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


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> I'm fully aware of the British Purchasing mission and the fact the Mustang came about from a British request based on the AT-6 Harvard etc - I really was trying to draw attention to the whole ''Mustang D vs Spitfire IX'' as being rather moot - I haven't got time to sit here all night putting out the history of these two fine aircraft, I don't pop into Google like some folk, I've spent years reading & researching from factual accounts of the War, particuarly what ''Our Chaps'' did etc - I just noticed it in the email from the website and thought ''Good grief, is this what they're down to discussing now ?!''-
> 
> - If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc; despite some of them initially being tested with them - The Allison worked okay with turbosuperchargers later on with the USAAF on the P-38, but not back then for the RAF. - Not having them in the Mustang I cost us lives, being reduced to doing low-level work - Their first mission was on 10 May 1942 in the area of Berck-sur-Mer by RAF 26 Sqn. During further forays along the French coast in July, it cost us our first, AG 415, flown by P/O H. Taylor -
> 
> Maybe we should start a thread about that perhaps ~



All those planes offered to the GB had superchargers but not turbosuperchargers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2020)

A lot of folks do not realize that the Mark I had much more range than the P-51B based on internal fuel. Each Mark I was delivered with auxiliary fuel cell kits (not self sealing initially but Firestone developed them by end of 1942) which replaced the wing ammo and gun bay - leaving 2x 50 cal in cowl. Straight line range was ~ 1700 miles. Three cells each wing for total increase of 54 Galls to 220+ gal total. I was not able to get specific operational details but obviously had the potential to recon Berlin (or Oslo) in 1942.

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


----------



## pbehn (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> Pbehn's "P-51D vs Spitfire IX" thread isn't really a contestable statement - Both of these Aircraft were built for entirely different purposes - The only thing barely in common was the Mark(s) of RR Merlin they had installed, which was constantly being developed during the War with an average of around 400 modifications a month being generated by both Rolls-Royce and Packard at the peak of it's refinement - 150,000 were built by RR & Ford in the United Kingdom as well as 57,000 licence built engines from Packard in the US - Around 5660+ Spifire IX's were built with Merlin 61, 63 or 63A, and Bendix Stromberg injection type carbs used instead of the normal gravity-feed ones were used in the Merlin 66 and 70's - So it ended up that there were MK.IX FIX, LFIX, LFIXE, HFIX and HFXE Spitfire Mk.IX models -
> The Spitfire XVI was of course a new-built Mk. IX (instead of from a Mk.VC airframe) with a Packard-built Merlin 66 known as the '266',with a few other changes and weighed in at 7900lb's to the Mk. IX's 7500lb's -
> 
> - I don't know WHAT a Spitfire XIV has to do with this thread - GrauGeist's pic appears to be a captured PRXI, only maybe possibly could be caught by Me 163's or 262's, or _exceptional_ flak.
> ...


I didn't post the thread but it is a discussion forum and since they both had nominally the same engine it is a fair discussion of airframe performance. However the mistake in the OP is to think that because they had the same engines they were contemporary aircraft. The Spitfire Mk IX and the Mustang Mk I made their operational debut in numbers at Dieppe, the Mk IX escorting US bombers and the Mustang as a fighter / armed recon. That was Aug 1942 when the Mk IX was the RAFs best front line fighter. Griffon engine Spitfires were contemporary with the P-51B the first with single stage engines in squadron service in Dec 1943 and the two stage in mid 1944, before the P-51D appeared in UK. Though it does take time to ship from USA that is the truth of it. By 1944 the UK was starting to ship Mk IX to Russia on lend lease, it wasn't the RAFs top fighter anymore.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> I'm fully aware of the British Purchasing mission and the fact the Mustang came about from a British request based on the AT-6 Harvard etc - I really was trying to draw attention to the whole ''Mustang D vs Spitfire IX'' as being rather moot - I haven't got time to sit here all night putting out the history of these two fine aircraft, I don't pop into Google like some folk, I've spent years reading & researching from factual accounts of the War, particuarly what ''Our Chaps'' did etc - I just noticed it in the email from the website and thought ''Good grief, is this what they're down to discussing now ?!''-
> 
> - If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc; despite some of them initially being tested with them - The Allison worked okay with turbosuperchargers later on with the USAAF on the P-38, but not back then for the RAF. - Not having them in the Mustang I cost us lives, being reduced to doing low-level work - Their first mission was on 10 May 1942 in the area of Berck-sur-Mer by RAF 26 Sqn. During further forays along the French coast in July, it cost us our first, AG 415, flown by P/O H. Taylor -
> 
> Maybe we should start a thread about that perhaps ~


Are you saying that the Allison engine in P-39 P-40 and Mustang MkI had no supercharger? There were still two squadrons on Mk Is in service at the end of the war and the RAF would have taken more, at what they did they were very good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 16, 2020)

Is that a cooling fan Gemhorse?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 16, 2020)

drgondog said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> To the Spitfire influence? - yes, to the XP-51F/G and H. A detailed study was made by NAA to compare the P-51B to the Spit IX, piece by piece, and reported in November 1942 (NA-5567 dated 11-23-42). The result led to a proposal and contract and charge number NA-105 for the XP-51F. The AAF was close to negotiating a contract or the P-51G with new 1650-9 in November 1943, built to RAF stress standards of 11G ultimate, 7.5G Limit but the lack of internal fuel tank and no possible way to increase internal fuel over 205 gal killed it. Had the AAF had the same Interceptor mission that spawned the F8F, the P-51G would have been perhaps the best performing (when comparing all aspects of performance) piston engined fighter ever built. The P-51H was the airframe decided upon, which had the same wing fuel and a 50 gal fuse tank as well as designed to 7.5G Limit at full (internal) Gross Wt of 9600 pounds whereas the P-51D was limited to 6.7G Limit. The H had to stretch the length 13" and re-design critical airframe sections like wing and fuselage to take the increased loads.


BIll, I know I've asked this before but remember, closed head injuries.

I know you gave numbers for the XP-51F/G but can't remember and well, frankly can't find the thread either. Nothing specific, just off the top of your head will do. The G is the interesting one if I'm not mistaken.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I didn't post the thread but it is a discussion forum and since they both had nominally the same engine it is a fair discussion of airframe performance. However the mistake in the OP is to think that because they had the same engines they were contemporary aircraft. The Spitfire Mk IX and the Mustang Mk I made their operational debut in numbers at Dieppe, the Mk IX escorting US bombers and the Mustang as a fighter / armed recon. That was Aug 1942 when the Mk IX was the RAFs best front line fighter. Griffon engine Spitfires were contemporary with the P-51B the first with single stage engines in squadron service in Dec 1943 and the two stage in mid 1944, before the P-51D appeared in UK. Though it does take time to ship from USA that is the truth of it. By 1944 the UK was starting to ship Mk IX to Russia on lend lease, it wasn't the RAFs top fighter anymore.


Greetings All,

As the "OP" of this thread, it would be worth reminding all that this wasn't initially posted as an original thread, but in response to the *Greatest Myths Debunked on this Site Thread*. In all transparency, the post was pretty narrowly focused on whether the _Spitfire was always more maneuverable than the Mustang_ and was largely prompted by an energy maneuvering chart that I have had in my downloads folder for a while that I had come across on the web. The post acknowledged that the resource was a bit sketchy and was started buy me as a kind of "Tastes Great - Less Filling" debate starter on a day when smoke and Covid restrictions had me feeling pretty feisty. While having grown up in a family with a professional and military aviation background, I make no claims that I am an aviation expert. I respect and value the knowledge of the Forum membership and when posting try to help maintain the standard established here. For the majority of my life I was dual careered as an academic (31 years) and professional in the field of architecture. As an academic, I had three principal areas of research: theories of design, evidence based design of education facilities, and most relevant to this forum, the cultural history of design and production in the United States from 1939 to the present.

From my perspective, the Mustang and Spitfire are two of the great cultural icons of the war and have attained such status that they resist pragmatic comparisons. This is part of why my original post, in the context it was first posted, was intended to continue a lively discourse within an existing thread that had developed a lively and good natured dialogue about the ultimate Spitfire and Mustang due to the presence of Luftwaffe markings. 

In response to pbehn's post above. The question I would ask is whether the Spitfire IX (and related marks) was truly superseded as the principal RAF fighter when it continued to be produced in greater numbers almost to the end of the war? I posted earlier the comparative orders for the IX vs XIV and it seems that there was commitment to both Marks and had hoped that someone could shed some light on that decision.

Regards,

Kk

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> - If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time _*came with no superchargers*_ - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc; despite some of them initially being tested with them -
> 
> *SNIP*


Uh... What?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 16, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> The G is the interesting one if I'm not mistaken.



I like to see the numbers as well. From what I understand, the P-51G was an absolute rocketship

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 16, 2020)

North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 16, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang


It would have been nice had there been just one photo.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 16, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> It would have been nice had there been just one photo.


Scroll to the bottom


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 16, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> It would have been nice had there been just one photo.


Well, I did find this:

Helping bring the only XP-51/G Mustang back to the skies

Looks kind of like a mid evolution of a D and an H. and this, with a picture:

Project Xp-51g Mustang

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 16, 2020)

XP-51F: Based on P-51B flight tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/xp-51f-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51F-performance_chart.jpg

XP-51G: Calculated
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/xp-51g-chart.jpg

May God bless Mike & Neil for their contributions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 16, 2020)

For some reason the link didn't show up in Post #152, again, scroll to the bottom...MUSTANG VARIANTS OF THE RAF AND RAAF - Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc;



Horse pukky

Every single Allison V-1710 aeroplane engine ever built had a supercharger.

No if's

No but's

*No exceptions.*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 16, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is just a guess and I don't claim any knowledge but there is some logic to the argument that as a fighter the MIX/XVI were superseded by the MkXIV as the XIV was deployed to fighter squadrons and used primarily as a fighter. 

By the later stages of the war in Europe the Luftwaffe was significantly less dangerous as a fighting force and most of the Mk IX's were mainly used as GA aircraft. That said the Mk IX was still a very effective fighter equal to the 109G and Fw190A series of fighters which overwhelmingly were the mounts of the Luftwaffe fighter units. 

So why disrupt the production lines to produce more Mk XIV's when the Mk IX is easily good enough?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 16, 2020)

So why disrupt the production lines to produce more Mk XIV's when the Mk IX is easily good enough?[/QUOTE]

That statement could almost define the Spitfire's entire combat career. It seems like almost every major operational Mark was an interim of some sort. The Mk.III wasn't developed, so we got inferior Mk.V's and Hurricane Mk.II's instead. 
Followed by the Mk.IX, which was a hasty interim for the Superior Mk.VIII. 
Followed again by the Mk.XIV, which was (correct me if I am wrong) an interim model for the Superior Mk.XVIII (More fuel anyway).
Wartime realities obviously dictated the aforementioned actions, but It is a shame none the less. The P-51 had the good fortune of being developed in the US, where the manufacturers had the space and resources available to finish and refine the product before throwing it into combat.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 16, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> For some reason the link didn't show up in Post #152, again, scroll to the bottom...MUSTANG VARIANTS OF THE RAF AND RAAF - Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air


Why am I reminded of the thread “When is a Spitfire not a Spitfire?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 16, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> As the "OP" of this thread, it would be worth reminding all that this wasn't initially posted as an original thread, but in response to the *Greatest Myths Debunked on this Site Thread*. In all transparency, the post was pretty narrowly focused on whether the _Spitfire was always more maneuverable than the Mustang_ and was largely prompted by an energy maneuvering chart that I have had in my downloads folder for a while that I had come across on the web. The post acknowledged that the resource was a bit sketchy and was started buy me as a kind of "Tastes Great - Less Filling" debate starter on a day when smoke and Covid restrictions had me feeling pretty feisty. While having grown up in a family with a professional and military aviation background, I make no claims that I am an aviation expert. I respect and value the knowledge of the Forum membership and when posting try to help maintain the standard established here. For the majority of my life I was dual careered as an academic (31 years) and professional in the field of architecture. As an academic, I had three principal areas of research: theories of design, evidence based design of education facilities, and most relevant to this forum, the cultural history of design and production in the United States from 1939 to the present.
> 
> ...


I was just pointing out that it is sensible from most points of view to compare the Mk IX and the P-51D because they had pretty much the same engine. But in terms of being contemporaries the Mk XIV was in service before the P-51D although probably started being produced at the same time.

Just watching a programme last night produced for the 80th anniversary of the BoB and one comment was that at the time in WW2 the Spitfire wasn't the icon it is now, by 1944 people were fascinated by jets. Also as far as I can see and read there was much less partisan flag waving. US pilots had flown in RAF squadrons, US squadrons had been formed using Spitfires. RAF squadrons had escorted US bombers and from 1940 the RAF had been flying all sorts of US planes. Did any US pilots lose sleep because their P-51B had a Malcolm hood and license built Merlin engine? I doubt it. Did any RAF pilots curse that their Mustang IV was made in USA I doubt that too. It is stuff for jokes in bars.

The Spitfire Mk IX and MK XVI were produced in such numbers for many reasons. First it was in service from 1942 and as soon as you start using them you lose them. After years they were upgraded improved modified to replace those lost damaged and worn out. There were lots more Merlin /Packard engines being produced than Griffons. Towards the end of the war Mk IX and Mk XVIs were given away to Russia on lend lease, but also towards the end of the war planes were produced simply because they were ordered and airframes produced and for the British as soon as the war ended "Lend Lease" aircraft were to be returned, in fact they were usually scrapped. I believe the same happened with the P-51D many were produced that never went abroad or into service because they were ordered but N/A still produced the later versions that did go into service. The "Spitfire" sometimes superseded itself as top performing fighter sometimes others appeared like the Typhoon and Tempest and Meteor. But by the time the Mk XIV had appeared the whole conflict had changed. Almost half Mk XIVs were fitted with cameras, if you are taking pictures at low level you need something fast and if you are alone and get jumped you need something very fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 16, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Is that a cooling fan Gemhorse?
> View attachment 595232


Classic art nouveau decoration, in the style of Matisse I believe.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Classic art nouveau decoration, in the style of Matisse I believe.


One learns so much here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 16, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> One learns so much here.


If people believe front line combat planes in WW2 didn't have superchargers they can also believe they were given artistic decoration, the French used Lalique glass on theirs.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 16, 2020)

Could license built Tiffany engine components have been used?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Classic art nouveau decoration, in the style of Matisse I believe.


And here I thought that was a grill from a Buick...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> I don't know WHAT a Spitfire XIV has to do with this thread - GrauGeist's pic appears to be a captured PRXI, only maybe possibly could be caught by Me 163's or 262's, or _exceptional_ flak.





pbehn said:


> I didn't post the thread but it is a discussion forum and since they both had nominally the same engine it is a fair discussion of airframe performance. However the mistake in the OP is to think that because they had the same engines they were contemporary aircraft. The Spitfire Mk IX and the Mustang Mk I made their operational debut in numbers at Dieppe, the Mk IX escorting US bombers and the Mustang as a fighter / armed recon. That was Aug 1942 when the Mk IX was the RAFs best front line fighter. Griffon engine Spitfires were contemporary with the P-51B the first with single stage engines in squadron service in Dec 1943 and the two stage in mid 1944, before the P-51D appeared in UK. Though it does take time to ship from USA that is the truth of it. By 1944 the UK was starting to ship Mk IX to Russia on lend lease, it wasn't the RAFs top fighter anymore.



The Mk XIV was entering service in December 1943, about the same time as the P-51B.

Mk XII production began in October 1942, began equipping squadrons in February 1943 and had their first combat in April 1943.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 16, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> > So why disrupt the production lines to produce more Mk XIV's when the Mk IX is easily good enough?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe the Mk XIV was an interim for the Spitfire 21, with its new wing. The XVIII was a development of the XIV.

Why they continued to produce IXs and XVIs instead of XIVs is most likely because of the state of production of the engines - two stage Merlins were being churned out by the thousands, two stage Griffons, not so much.

The XIV was the VIII frame with the Griffon engine, essentially.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 16, 2020)

Gemhorse said:


> The Spitfire XVI was of course a new-built Mk. IX (instead of from a Mk.VC airframe) with a Packard-built Merlin 66 known as the '266',with a few other changes and weighed in at 7900lb's to the Mk. IX's 7500lb's



The XVI was almost identical to the IX, sharing the airframe - including the non-retractable tail wheel.

Apart from a few early production versions, I'm sure that the Mk IXs were new built and intended as IXs from the start. Some of the early IXs may have started being built as Vs, but completed as IXs. Not sure that any were converted from existing airframes, apart from prototypes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Are you saying that the Allison engine in P-39 P-40 and Mustang MkI had no supercharger? There were still two squadrons on Mk Is in service at the end of the war and the RAF would have taken more, at what they did they were very good.



Yup, a total of 16 RAF squadrons operated the Allison engined Mustang in the tac recon role. The majority of those pretty post bombing raid recon images, as well as those really clear low altitude images of the Normandy invasion beaches that you see were taken by RAF Mustang Is and IIs.



Glider said:


> So why disrupt the production lines to produce more Mk XIV's when the Mk IX is easily good enough?



You don't need to. Based on the Mk.VIII, the XIV was built on different production lines. Both types were built simultaneously.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Sep 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> despite the fact that Bf 109Fs accounted for a greater number of Fighter Command aircraft in combat between mid 1941 and mid 1942.



Hardly surprising, II/Jg26 was the only gruppe that flew Fw 190's in combat in the autumn of '41. I & III/Jg26 converted to Fw 190's during the winter, where there was not a lot of action going on until Feb 12,iirc. Jg2 converted to Fw 190's during the spring of '42.
Edit:
I misremembered, III/Jg26 began conversion late September, but it was apparently a lengthy, gradual process and they flew 109's in combat while doing it. They flew some missions in Antons late in the year. Otoh, I./Jg26, had not fully converted at the time of the Channel Dash, and flew 109's on that operation.


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 17, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The XVI was almost identical to the IX, sharing the airframe - including the non-retractable tail wheel.
> 
> Apart from a few early production versions, I'm sure that the Mk IXs were new built and intended as IXs from the start. Some of the early IXs may have started being built as Vs, but completed as IXs. Not sure that any were converted from existing airframes, apart from prototypes.



From memory the reason the exact number of new built Spitfires is unknown is because many damaged airframes were converted to later marks during repair and thus given a new serial. 
Modern research may have thrown more light on the subject - it is not an aircraft that I have kept up with in the last 30 years


----------



## drgondog (Sep 17, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> BIll, I know I've asked this before but remember, closed head injuries.
> 
> I know you gave numbers for the XP-51F/G but can't remember and well, frankly can't find the thread either. Nothing specific, just off the top of your head will do. The G is the interesting one if I'm not mistaken.



Here is one such presentation. The XP-51F vs P-51B plots are my work sheets for the book after 'normalizing' to Fighter weight for apple to apple comparisons.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 17, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Here is one such presentation. The XP-51F vs P-51B plots are my work sheets for the book after 'normalizing' to Fighter weight for apple to apple comparisons.


Many thanks Bill, I D/L'd those so I won't be asking that dumb question again. 

Also... Jumpin' Jehosephat but the G was fast, yowza.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 17, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Nailed It!


 Twas John Gillespie Magee who nailed it John Gillespie Magee Jr. - Wikipedia


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> You don't need to. Based on the Mk.VIII, the XIV was built on different production lines. Both types were built simultaneously.


True but if you wanted to switch all the production to XIV there would have been an interuption


----------



## Milosh (Sep 17, 2020)

Spitfire production, home


----------



## bada (Sep 21, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The Mk XIV was entering service in December 1943, about the same time as the P-51B.
> 
> Mk XII production began in October 1942, began equipping squadrons in February 1943 and had their first combat in April 1943.



There is no MkXIV airframe assigned to any squadron in Dec43.
There are 7 airframes assigned to SQ610 recorded on the 10Jan44.
The biggest number of assigned MkXIV airframes to operationnal squadrons at the same moment was 148. (*)
Compared to the numbers of operational MkIX's or the Mustang's, the number of operational MkXIV's is anecdotal.
Production numbers are one thing, operational numbers are better suited to see the importance of each model.
KR

(*) Statistics based on the list from the link provided by Milosh.

PS: No spit could ever roll with the 190, the stang was actually better in the roll at high speed than the 190.
As a spit pilot i would never go into a rolling scissor fight with a Wurger (with a good pilot in the cockpit , not a 19years old with 8hours of flight time) whatever the speed, but as a 190 pilot i would never go into a rolling high speed fight with a Poney, i would do everything to break his speed to keep the advantage of my flight enveloppe.
I don't get someone could say the spit was more maneverable than the poney, at low speed and in the turn yes, but that's all.
In this case you may consider the Meteor that had an even better turn rate than the spit, but it needed 4seconds to bank to initiate the turn (like 15°/sec, maybe exagerating , slightly...) so was the meteor more maneuverable than the Poney in a real combat situation?

Drgndog wrote his father story a long time ago (tried to find it but couldn't) explaining the mock combat between a captured D9 flown by a german pilot and a P51D flown by his father, from memory, there was a lot in good info about manevrability in this story. If someone could link it...thanks.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 22, 2020)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 22, 2020)

bada said:


> Compared to the numbers of operational MkIX's or the Mustang's, the number of operational MkXIV's is anecdotal.


Its still a contemporary of the P-51B, the total numbers are somewhat irrelevant



bada said:


> PS: No spit could ever roll with the 190, the stang was actually better in the roll at high speed than the 190.


See the roll chart provided by Corsning above



bada said:


> I don't get someone could say the spit was more maneverable than the poney, at low speed and in the turn yes, but that's all.


So, the Spitfire was more maneuverable than the P-51 in every measurable way, including roll, up to about 260mph (350mph for clipped wing). But you don't get how someone could say that it was more maneuverable? ok



bada said:


> In this case you may consider the Meteor that had an even better turn rate than the spit


You have a source for this?


----------



## bada (Sep 22, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Its still a contemporary of the P-51B, the total numbers are somewhat irrelevant



the P51B was operational in 43, the mk-xiv Not
Ther were between 12 and 15 times more MK-Ix operational at the same time as at the peak of flying mk-xiv .
So, yes, production numbers are irrelevant but operational numbers aren't.



Clayton Magnet said:


> See the roll chart provided by Corsning above



If i remember the story behind this chart correctly, this chart is the result of calculated roll rate and not the result of tests (especially as the wurger was more 180/185°sec at the peak than 160...)



Clayton Magnet said:


> So, the Spitfire was more maneuverable than the P-51 in every measurable way, including roll, up to about 260mph (350mph for clipped wing). But you don't get how someone could say that it was more maneuverable? ok



To move the ailerons in the poney and the wurger you needed one hand whatever the speed. in the spit, from 130mph, you needed 2hands..and the elbows on the cockpit's sides.
So yes, therotically, on paper and on the Naca tabels maybe the spitty was more maneuvrable than the Stang, but in reality with muscular pilot's resistance accounted, the Poney was above the spitty as the plane do not fly itself, having always a crazy guy holding the stick , pushing the buttons and moving the levers that got tired if he has to do more workout in the cockpit than the guy he's flying against...Mustang was almost a hotas plane, the wurger was a hotas plane, the spitty was like a flying gym, with the heavy machinery inside the cockpit for the body building



Clayton Magnet said:


> You have a source for this?



It's called sarcasm, totally exagerating one caracteristic to make your point


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 23, 2020)

Some numbers you might find interesting.

_____________P-51B____________________P-51D______________________NOTE
15,000 ft_______________________________90°/sec at 210 knots IAS_____ no wing guns, ballast in fuselage for CG limit
10,000 ft_____98°/sec at 260 knots IAS____71°/sec at 200 knots IAS_____ both AC with normal fuel and military load, post-war tests

re P-51D Stick Forces

from a post-war test done by flight test pilots:

__In the course of conducting an analytical comparison of the Mustang, Hellcat, Thunderbolt and Corsair ". . . test pilots measured the [P-51D] Mustang stick force at 70 pounds for a 4G turn and about 90 for a 5G turn at maximum level-flight speed, about 240 kias for their test. Those are estimates, since their force gauge went to only 60 pounds."

__The unanimous view of the test pilots was ". . . the [P-51D] Mustang was a two-handed airplane in which prolonged hard maneuvering was extremely tiring"

from Jeff Ethell, air show pilot with thousands of hours flight in different aircraft and a lot of them in the P-51:

__When flying the P-51A "I could move the stick at high speed without using two hands as I normally would in the D."


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Some numbers you might find interesting.
> 
> _____________P-51B____________________P-51D______________________NOTE
> 15,000 ft_______________________________90°/sec at 210 knots IAS_____ no wing guns, ballast in fuselage for CG limit
> ...




As in every conversation about Mustang Roll performance - 'it depends'. The P-51A had no DFF and no Reverse Rudder boost, but did have only 10 degrees +/- aileron travel. The P-51B had 15 +/-, often rigged for 12+/-, had DFF and Reverse Rudder Boost installed in the field after D-Day. The early D configuration was same as P-51B/C.

For no DFF and no Reverse Rudder Boost configuration, both the B and D (and A) were incredibly responsive in Roll. After installation of both features high speed rolls required more force.

John Muszala II, Pacific Fighters, is the Only pilot I know of that has flown the NA-73, NA-99 (P-51A), NA-104 (P-51B) and NA-109 (P-51D) (and Spit and Tempest and Bf 109). He states unequivocally that the B w/o Reverse Rudder Boost and 15 degrees ailerons is the most responsive in roll of all the warbirds he has flown except the Yak 3.

The XP-51 41-038 (NA-7) was extensively tested in roll and in act NACA used several ailerons (Wedge, Cusped) and several aileron throws (up to 20 degrees) and extracted optimum results with 12-16 degrees. NAA was also testing roll mods in NA-83 which confirmed NACA results. Those results were first installed in NA-102 P-51B-1-NA, and improved upon in NA-103/104 and also NA-109.

The P-51H discarded the Reverse Rudder Boost, retained a smaller DFF, and went back to 10 degrees with a larger aileron area to improve slightly over the P-51B/D w/o Reverse Rudder Boost and 12 degrees aileron throw.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 24, 2020)

Hey drgondog,

The roll rate chart in the NACA TR No.868 report from 1947 is a gathering of actual measurements of the various aircraft's roll rates. It says that in the report text, plus I found the following RAE(?) chart from late-1943 (you can just barely make out the year in the upper left corner) from which the Spitfire, Fw190, Mustang, and Typhoon roll rates were taken. The Mustang was the Mustang Mk I NA-73 model (aka XP-51/P-51).

The NACA report also shows the P-51B-1-NA roll rate. The curve indicates that the aileron deflection has been increased (presumably to the 15° you mentioned, hence the hump in the curve and the significantly higher roll rate at slower speeds).

Do you know which of the mods you mention above would give that curve?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2020)

ThomasP said:


> Hey drangondog,
> 
> The roll rate chart in the NACA TR No.868 report from 1947 is a gathering of actual measurements of the various aircraft's roll rates. It says that in the report text, plus I found the following RAE(?) chart from late-1943 (you can just barely make out the year in the upper left corner) from which the Spitfire, Fw190, Mustang, and Typhoon roll rates were taken. The Mustang was the Mustang Mk I NA-73 model (aka XP-51/P-51).
> 
> ...


Several comments, Thomas - but first an answer. 'Deflection for B-51B-1 as tested - unknown'. ALL P-51B-1 left the factory rigged for 12 degrees.

Comments, The wind tunnel examinations discussed also highlighted several variables hard to properly quantify, including torsional stiffness of the wing.

That said a.) P-51B-1 was the first +/- 15degree deflection rigging. The P-51B-1 wing and aileron/wing attach were improved from two hinged sealed/balanced aileron to stiffer wing (from earlier P-51A which was stiffer than A-36 and all preceding Mustangs). When both the aileron changed to improved seal/3 position attach hinges (P-51B-5/C and the load carrying ability was upgraded to 1000 per rack (P-51D) the wing was at peak until P-51H.

I'm unclear regarding the XP-51 Roll Rate figures presented - think they were from cusped ailerons. From March 1942 through May 1942, the XP-51 was extensively dive tested and roll tested including examination of wedge vs cusped and roll rates developed for 10, 15, 17 and 20 degrees. NAA was conducting similar tests and concluded the optimal rigging required at least 12 degrees for optimal combination of low speed roll authority combing with improved high speed rates.

I've read the report in the past - but for first time did not notice that the NAA/NACA 45-100 airfoil was Not shown in the tables. I could have overlooked it, but..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 25, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Several comments, Thomas - but first an answer. 'Deflection for B-51B-1 as tested - unknown'. ALL P-51B-1 left the factory rigged for 12 degrees.
> 
> Comments, The wind tunnel examinations discussed also highlighted several variables hard to properly quantify, including torsional stiffness of the wing.
> 
> ...



Bill,

Do you have any pictures of the "cusped / wedged" ailerons, or the improved seal/3 position attachment hinges?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Mike Williams (Sep 25, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Do you have any pictures of the "cusped / wedged" ailerons, or the improved seal/3 position attachment hinges?
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/naca-l-550.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 25, 2020)

Mike Williams said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/naca-l-550.pdf



Excellent and thanks Mike! Very detailed report!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Bill,
> 
> Do you have any pictures of the "cusped / wedged" ailerons, or the improved seal/3 position attachment hinges?
> 
> ...


Biff - download the report, it has examples of both the wedge and the cusped ailerons in the front 1/3 of the report. Ditto on balanced/sealed (last 1/3?) but I didn't see reference to 3 hinge P-51B-5 (&Subs) modification.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 25, 2020)

drgondog said:


> Biff - download the report, it has examples of both the wedge and the cusped ailerons in the front 1/3 of the report. Ditto on balanced/sealed (last 1/3?) but I didn't see reference to 3 hinge P-51B-5 (&Subs) modification.



Thanks and I do have it open, currently about half way through the text. Do you know where the combat units netted out (which setting they used) and was there deviation from that?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## ThomasP (Sep 25, 2020)

Hey drgondog,

Thank you for the info.

Hey Mike,

Thank you for the link.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 26, 2020)

Biff - rigging from Factory was +/- 12 degrees

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 8, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey drgondog,
> 
> The roll rate chart in the NACA TR No.868 report from 1947 is a gathering of actual measurements of the various aircraft's roll rates. It says that in the report text, plus I found the following RAE(?) chart from late-1943 (you can just barely make out the year in the upper left corner) from which the Spitfire, Fw190, Mustang, and Typhoon roll rates were taken. The Mustang was the Mustang Mk I NA-73 model (aka XP-51/P-51).
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how to answer your question. The NACA report (By memory) is based on calculations - not flight tests, but I will pull it.

I devote a couple of pages (124/125) in my book on this specific subject (evolution of NAA and NACA testing in summer 1942 to perform design improvements for roll rate).

First note - the XP-51 Roll rate was for +/- 10 degrees. The P-51B-1 would be for the two hinge design and (I suspect 12 degrees) prior to stiffening the aft spar and having the same hanger/seal as the P-51A. The P-51A and B-1 aft spar/hinge/seal was improved on the B-5/C-1 and D/K with better aileron seal and three aileron hinges. John Muszala II (Pacific Fighters (who has flown all the different Mustangs except the G/J) states that the P-51B-5 with 15 degrees and without Reverse Rudder Boost and DF is the most responsive of all the Merlin Mustangs.

If you have the report handy, perhaps you can validate 'data vs actual test' recollection I posed.

FYI I do know that ALL Mustang warbird operators that I discussed this with, current and past (except Muszala) rigged their B/C/D/K with 10 degrees. Many that I discussed this topic with did not even know of the 10/12/15 rigging. My father had his rigged at both 12 and 15 (12 for P-51C-10 and 15 for P-51D's -all because the installation of the DF and Reverse Rudder Boost reduced roll rates.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 9, 2021)

Thanks for the answer drgondog,

I will check the report.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jul 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There are a couple of things to add to Rochie and Bobbysocks post. The Spitfire and especially the Hurricane were game changers in 1940, without them it is possible there would be no place for any P-51s to fly from. The real game changer was US industry producing 4 engine bombers, without the bombers what threat is a P-51 to German industry and infrastructure? In the action described by Bobbysocks of his father, the Spitfire was doing what it did throughout the war, protecting the UK with all its bases which included USAAF bases. In these discussions "time is of the essence". In 1940 the P-51 didn't exist, but even if it did it would not be a better interceptor than a Hurricane or Spitfire with a 1940 Merlin engine. It may have been faster than both when it got off the ground and up to altitude, but it weighed a ton more and with only 1000BHP that is a massive extra weight to haul up to 25,000ft you cannot zoom climb until you have first climbed.


All true, but, had there been a P-51 equipped with an equivalent Merlin to the Spit-the Battle of Britain could have ended much sooner with much less damage to England-if any at all. The Mustang had the range to hit any airfield the BF-109s could fly from, with a long loiter time as necessary over occupied France or Belgium. The losses on the ground may well have forced Germany to pull their fighters back too far to have the range to even reach England. Coulda-woulda, since there was no such animal. 

In the point defense roll, the Spit is likely the better aircraft, especially with it's rate of climb. But-the Mustang could do the job. Perhaps not as well with it's limitations, or perhaps better since the range and endurance meant it could hit attacking aircraft further away, and stay in the fight a lot longer (though ammo load would likely be the limiting factor). But it could do the job of a point defense fighter. The Spit could not do the job of a long-range escort fighter.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 18, 2021)

Let's not forget that what was available to the RAF in 1940 was very different to what was available two years later when the Mustang I and Spitfire IX entered service. Much has to happen between the two time periods.

Let's also not forget that the Mustang wasn't designed as an escort fighter. When it first entered service in January 1942 it was powered by the Allison V-1710, equipping RAF squadrons as a tactical reconnaissance aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2021)

IdahoRenegade said:


> All true, but, had there been a P-51 equipped with an equivalent Merlin to the Spit-the Battle of Britain could have ended much sooner with much less damage to England-if any at all.



Not really, A BoB Spit used a Merlin that was allowed 880hp for take-off. It was allowed 2600rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost for climb. 
The Merlin XII in the Spit MK II was somewhat better. 
The Allison in the first British Mustangs was allowed 1150hp for take-off. It was also good for around 1040hp at just over 14,000ft? 
Merlin III was good for 1030hp at 16,250ft (both are without RAM)

Sorry, A Merlin III in an 8,000lb aircraft is not going to give sparkling performance.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2021)

IdahoRenegade said:


> All true, but, had there been a P-51 equipped with an equivalent Merlin to the Spit-the Battle of Britain could have ended much sooner with much less damage to England-if any at all.



May as well say that had the Spitfire XIV been available for the BoB it would have ended much sooner.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2021)

Why not really spin the wheel of fantasy and suggest that if the Atomic armed B-29s were available in 1940, WWII would have lasted a year at best and Japan would have strongly reconsidered their position with the US...


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 19, 2021)

.....and throw in some P-39s as B-29 escorts; should only need a handful to cover the bomber stream

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jul 19, 2021)

The best is the USN _Nimitz_ being transported back in time to just hours before Pearl Harbor.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Jul 19, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Not really, A BoB Spit used a Merlin that was allowed 880hp for take-off. It was allowed 2600rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost for climb.
> The Merlin XII in the Spit MK II was somewhat better.
> The Allison in the first British Mustangs was allowed 1150hp for take-off. It was also good for around 1040hp at just over 14,000ft?
> Merlin III was good for 1030hp at 16,250ft (both are without RAM)
> ...


My point wasn't that the performance would be that great-simply that it had the range to engage the enemy over occupied France, making airbases there untenable for the Luftwaffe,


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The best is the USN _Nimitz_ being transported back in time to just hours before Pearl Harbor.



I’m actually watching that movie again tonight. 

Being at Pearl Harbor - Hickam the last 5 weeks and driving past the buildings still riddled with bullet holes and shrapnel damage every day has got me in the mood for that movie. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 19, 2021)

IdahoRenegade said:


> My point wasn't that the performance would be that great-simply that it had the range to engage the enemy over occupied France, making airbases there untenable for the Luftwaffe,


The Luftwaffe tried that over England. Let me know how that went.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2021)

IdahoRenegade said:


> My point wasn't that the performance would be that great-simply that it had the range to engage the enemy over occupied France, making airbases there untenable for the Luftwaffe,



You don't think the Spitfire I could fly the same distance as a Bf 109E?


----------



## Ovod (Jul 19, 2021)

The P-38 would have been a better choice than an Allison powered P-51 for the RAF in the BoB surely (if somehow aircraft not put into service until 1942 were available in 1940)?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Jul 19, 2021)

wuzak said:


> You don't think the Spitfire I could fly the same distance as a Bf 109E?



Spitfires over Dunkirk during Operation Dynamo had a maximum loiter time of around 20 minutes, if I recall? The Bf 109E wouldn''t have had much more time over England I'd say?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2021)

A fighter cant do much damage on its own, Bf 109 fighter sweeps over Kent were ignored, if they start shooting up airfields they lose pilots and planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The Luftwaffe tried that over England. Let me know how that went.


Well, it was a great idea on paper, at least...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

