...
The Mustang's better speed on the same engine power was 66%-75% radiator and 25%-33% better detail efforts and quality control.
The Mustang needed 300bhp for the same speed, NA's own figures showed they radiator gave them, at least,. 200bhp of that.
The Spit III's better radiator was mostly a better position, further forward into less turbulent air and hence more efficient, the photos show that very clearly, bit deeper too.
Spit III, being a prototype, probably received more attention to the fit & finish than a series produced Spit II or V, that could amount to some gain in speed; most of the gain was probably due to fully covered undercarriage, plus some speed gain due to the clipped wing (that came with a price in RoC).
The radiator placement and layout was probably the thing that gave Mustang some advantage in Cd0, but there were also other things where Mustang was in advantage. Comparing 2-stage Merlin outfitted examples of both designs:
-fully retractable & covered U/C (5+ mph difference?)
-absence of rear wiev mirror (3.5 up to almost 7 mph difference)
-no protruding cannon barrel and bulges (7 up to 10 mph)
Just those 3 things amount to 15-25 mph of difference. The Spitfire with 2-stage engines got better in many regards than Spit V, than main offender, receiving better fit & fininsh, better carb and exhaust.
What Allison Mustang had over Spitfire V was:
-better carb, ram air intake, and exhausts (up to 16 mph combined)
-better fit & finish (up to 11 mph)
-fully covered U/C (5+ mph?)
-absence of external BP glass (almost 8 mph)
-no rear wiev mirror
Some 40+ mph of difference, before we even start cosidering the angle of windscreed or U/C drag.
The P-51A/Mustang II also dispensed with fuselage HMGs, gaining few mph there.
My point is that even if we, in our great wisdom (
), retain the radiatort placement and basic shape of the wing, the slightly modified and carefully fitted Spitfire will be just a tad slower than the Mustang on similar power.