I think you mean eventually the Mustang as the Spitfire was always powered by a Merlin. I agree with you it was a good engine which is proved by the number of successful types that were powered by Merlins.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Mustang, eventually the Spitfire. Quite a few. Considering it was a very good engine, makes sense.
While the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-47. The P-51 was not th greatest thing since bread and butter. Was it a great plane? Absolutely yes, one of the best ever built. But what really was the only thing that it had in advantage over other aircraft. Its range. There were other American, British, and German aircraft were faster and more manueverable.
Once the P-51 got over the target, you can take its range out of the equation because now it is just fighter vs. fighter over Germany and the P-51 no longer has to get to the target, it is there.
Why did the P-51 do so well in my honest opinion, because of its large number. It had numerical superiority. 5 Bf-109G's or Fw-190A's getting jumped by 25 to 30 P-51s is a pretty one sided fight.
The P-51s lay to fame was that it had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Take that away and it was no differnent than any other fighter over the skies of Europe.
The reason that I like the P-47 over the P-51 is because of its ruggedness. It was also better adapted to the close air support role than the P-51.
The P-51B would only climb at +4,000 ft/min with a seriously boosted engine and low weight.
And even at this climb rate it doesn't reach 20,000 ft as fast as the Bf-109G-2 or Dora-9 for example
- and the 109G-10 14 dominate it completely in the climb.
The Dora-9 could out-run the P-51 from SL up to 6km, and maneuverability was way better than that of the P-51.
And about the P-51's turn rate, it was low, and the laminar flow airfoil bares much of the blame. - A clean A-8 could match it for sure.
The P-51 was great only because of its range and numbers, and while its speed was good in 1943 it wasn't anything special by mid 1944 where most German fighters were either faster or as fast.
Btw, the Fw-190 A-8 has a climb rate of 18 m/s (3,543 ft/min) and a SL speed of 578 km/h (359 mph) at 1.65 ata.
I think you mean eventually the Mustang as the Spitfire was always powered by a Merlin. I agree with you it was a good engine which is proved by the number of successful types that were powered by Merlins.
Okay, I know that this is the designated "bash the P-51 Website"
davparlr said:1944 was the year of the Mustang. So was 1945, but only because of quantity. Other planes participated in earlier years and some dominated for a period (Fw-190A comes to mind), but, I think none did it as long as the P-51B/D. I could be wrong, make an argument.
This should stimulate some people.
I am sorry if it seems that way, but I think a lot of people get caught up in the myth that there was nothing else that won the war other than the P-51D and that British and Germans could come up with nothing that was better than the P-51.
I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.
And why did it dominate....superior numbers.
I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.
And why did it dominate....superior numbers.
Well, you are right about that. BUT! Some things are pretty impressive about it, if you ask me. But hey, I'm just a Mustang fan.
I would agree that "dominate" is a word caused by the numbers of P-51s, but the P-51 performance in itself, while not superior enough to dominate, was enough to make things sporty for German defenders.
davparlr said:All in all, a German pilot in a Fw-190 or Bf-109 would not feel overly confident in tangling with a competent P-51 pilot, nor vice versa. But, because of the P-51, the fight was over Berlin.
The Spitfire IX was significantly slower than the P-51B/D at all altitudes. The Spitfire IX could climb significantly better than the P-51D at almost all altitudes.
The P-51B climb was better than, and less than, the Spitfire over various altitudes, the Spitfire was consistently better in climb above 20k.
The Spitfire and P-51B were roughly equivalent in climb up to 20k ft. The P-51 did not perform as well.
A lot of it comes down to luck, in my opinion. You make a wrong move, you are done. And if not luck, surprise, and that is on both sides.
The Spitfire IX climbed significantly better than the P-51D at all altitudes.
Maximum climb
The Spitfire XIV is very much better.
Dav,
I don't want to argue, but I would take this data with extreme care.
We know that measurement conditions are rarely the same when we compare performance data from different sources, and some of your data seems too favorable to P51.
For instance let's compare P51D and Spit IX who roughly share the same engine, and use some basic common sense.
Even for base measures like weight data are never exactly the same, but more easily controllable.
Taking wikipedia (just as example) the weight difference is huge.
In lbs we have
Spit IX empty 5090 loaded 6622 max 6770
P51D empty 7040 loaded 9200 max 12100
Having the birds the same engine, having the P51 the famous laminar flow wing that optimize speed at expense of lift, i.e. it seems not credible that the rate of climb to 20k is 2930ft/s for the spit and 3000 for the P51D
Even more difficult to assess if the data of the German crafts are comparable with the US and British data, I think that the best we have is the (in)famous RAF test between Spit IX and Faber's 190A3 (even with all the arguments about the 190 having a derated or faulty engine, there is people in this forum who knows a lot more than I can say...)
Values are flight test data, so I guess the airplane was capable of this performance. Test was made at 9860 lbs, 120 lbs below gross. I don't think you can consider that low weight.
True, but not significantly off the pace of the seriously boosted P-51B. My data shows 5.2 min for the 109, 5.8 for the Dora, and 5.8 for the P-51B. At 15 and 25k the performance is almost awash. I should note here that the P-51D is not as good a performer.
I don't have much data on the G-10 and none on the 14. I do have a time to 20k ft for the G-10 at 6 minutes, which is roughly the same as the P-51B at 5.8 min. I also have a top speed of the G-10 at 353 mph at SL, 413 mph at 16.4 ft, and 390 at 21.6k ft. All, except 16.4k ft, well below the P-51B/D by 20 to 30 mph, at 16.4k ft, the P-51D is equal.
I don't have a lot of data on turn rate. I have seen a document from spitfireperformance, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg, that indicates the P-51 could outturn both the Fw-190 and Bf-109, but I know you have arguments here and it is not well defined in altitude and airspeed, so I would not use it to support any argument. I do have some test data performed in 1990 on roll rates, between the P-51, P-47, F6F and FG1 (F4U-1 without folding wings). These were performed without stressing the aircraft but does show a comparison. Test was done at 10k ft, 220kts. The P-51 rolled right at 53 degrees/sec, left at 55, the P-47 was 61 and 66, the F6F at 26 and 48, and the FG1 at 49 and 58. This indicates that the P-51 was in midst of some noted performers. It did not out roll a Fw-190 for sure, which was exceptional.
It was great because of range, numbers and because that it was no less than a formidable fighter after flying for four hours. I don't think you can find an operational German fighter on the front line that is faster from SL to 35k than a P-51B/D (maybe a D at 20k which seems at a low point in power but still make 420 mph) in mid 44. I can be convinced otherwise with data.
Like I said, I don't think the P-51 is the greatest fighter. I don't think any aircraft can claim that title. There were others that did better in different environments. Certainly in the air-to-ground roles. But, overall it was an exceptional machine and did great in some areas and was acceptable in many others. In my mind it is like the T-34 tank. When it appeared, it dominated the battlefield and caused a scurry to counter and by the time the Germans could conteract it, they were appearing in hordes.
I do think too much is made of the P-51 at the expense of the other great WWII aircraft (kind of like the common thought here that the U.S. won the war by itself) and service is provided to educate others on these aircraft. Sometimes, on the other hand, I think the P-51 is belittled because of that, and that is when I tend to jump to its defense.
I have corrected my data base, thanks. My 59 year old eyes have large plus-or-minus error on reading graphs.
I know of the test and it was achieved using 44-1 fuel, another test done 5 days later at 75" HG gave a max climb rate of 4,380 ft/min at a 9,300 lbs weight - max SL speed was 360 mph.
A test made in June 1944 shows a time to climb 20k of just over 6min at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-climb.jpg
And a top SL speed of 374 mph at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-level.jpg
Correct, however the Dora-9 would actually reach 20k in just 5min if the ETC-504 rack wasn't attached.
The G-10 -14 will both do 585 km/h (363 mph) at SL and 685 km/h (426 mph) at full throttle height. Climb rate is in the 4,800 ft/min area.
First of all the British hardly dared flying the 109, secondly the 190 to which they compared their own fighters was a Jabo, and even this Jabo managed to turn with the Tempest. The 109 gave a bad impression simply because as soon as the slats came out the british test pilot was sure the a/c was about to depart, aborting the maneuver completely - in truth it wasn't even close.
Even after flying 4 hours it was at a disadvantage in anything but speed against the dedicated fighter aircraft of the LW - the laminar flow wing which did help speed sadly also meant stalls at rather low AoA's. However what did all this matter when the enemy was lower than you and climbing to engage the bombers, they were rather easy pickings, and only the dedicated LW fighters gave up a truly hard fight - if they weren't shot down by stangs while still trying to gain alt ofcourse.
I can agree with that.
The P-51 does get belittled sometimes, however nowhere near as much as it naively gets admired !
The P-51's success is in large part due to its numbers, and theres no getting around that, however at the time of its appearence speed was good and it remained decent until the end - and like they say, speed is life.
Hehe, no problem, have the same problem sometimes when relying on memory alone