1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters' (2 Viewers)

Admiral Beez said:

Some more than others. What did the P-51D compromise?

Click to expand...

Rate of climb. The Spitfire was much better. Rate of climb is extremely important in the interceptor role.

Reluctant Poster said:

Rate of climb. The Spitfire was much better. Rate of climb is extremely important in the interceptor role.

Click to expand...

Isn't that like saying my dishwasher is a terrible oven.

Admiral Beez said:

Isn't that like saying my dishwasher is a terrible oven.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense

The Spit was great as a bomber-interceptor - its prime role in late 1940.

The Spit was also great as a dog-fighter over & moderately near its immediate airbase, but not for operations very far away.

The P-51 was a substitute for the requested low-altitude fighter-bomber (P-40).

The P-51 was modified into a very good dogfighter and high-altitude long-range escort fighter.

Two rather different design criteria and operational use sets make for different designs.

So yes - one was NOT like the other.