wuzak
Captain
Then it would be underrated.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Then it would be underrated.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
It was worse , a pilot that flew I believe 2 tours on it called it a Rube Goldberg device
Apples to oranges.
Two different roles. The Spitfire was an interceptor, the P-51 an escort fighter.
Both had their advantages and disadvantages compared to the other.
To make a claim the Spitfire did nothing post 1940 is just absurd.
I would venture to say you put two equal pilots in a one on one fight against each other, the Spitfire would have the advantage over the 51.
I agree, if both are fighting near home plate. I don't agree if they fought after having been airborne for 3 hours, then fought, then flew three more hours home...
Cheers,
Biff
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
lmao...Biff, it looks like you're being schooled on fighter tactics! 
parsifal
Colonel
Spits did well, but not as well as the post war hype suggests, in 1940. Still according to many, including fighter ace Johnie Johnson it was the best conventional defensive fighter of the war. In 1941, faced with an intractable enemy over France, it did a lot less well but still competitive. its range was improved and in 1942 it began to have some effect in foreign TOs. later marks improved the range, which incidentally was also the case for the 109. both the 109 and the spitfires were remarkable at the time of their introduction, and retained that reputation because they were a design that just kept on giving. There were good reasons why the Spitfire remained in front line aservice for more than 20 years
by 1943 when the long range escort versions of the P-51 began to enter service, the Spitfire had been in squadron service since august 1938. The spitfire was a pensioner by then but still was giving the upstart Us design (and others) a good run for the money. Lets not also forget the british connection for the p-51. what was its powerplant again?
by 1943 when the long range escort versions of the P-51 began to enter service, the Spitfire had been in squadron service since august 1938. The spitfire was a pensioner by then but still was giving the upstart Us design (and others) a good run for the money. Lets not also forget the british connection for the p-51. what was its powerplant again?
An explanation of the concepts behind the development of the Spitfire and other fighters designed for home defence from Colin Sinnott, author of "The Royal Air Force and Aircraft Design- 1923-1939".
"Since 1923 the RAF had pursued the concept of two classes of single seat fighter. The standard zone class was required to operate by day or night, and to have an endurance sufficient for patrol until the route and height of an attack was fully identified. The interception class was at first to be optimised for a pursuit climb from airfields on the coast. When the pursuit climb role had been found unfeasible the class was retained as a high performance, low endurance, day only fighter. The two classes began to merge as the introduction of flaps broke the link between maximum speed and landing speed, and night flying and radio equipment reduced in weight. But the most important factor was the reduction in endurance specified for day and night zone fighters.
In going from F.7/30 to F.10/35 the Air Staff had accepted the advice of the Fighting Area and reduced the required endurance (at maximum normal rpm) from 2 1/2 hours to 1 hour, and reserves from 1/2 to 1/4 hour. This startling change underlay Sorley's proposal that the Supermarine F.37/34 experimental fighter could meet F.10/35. He noted that the latter required only two thirds of the fuel load of the former as a result of a halving of the required endurance and reserves. This saving in fuel weight would more than offset that of four additional guns. It also explains how Hawker's experimental fighter, which Camm had based upon the Fury low endurance concept, could be deemed to meet the new zone fighter requirement F.10/35.
Merging of the two classes was completed when the Bristol and Gloster prototypes to the Fury replacement day fighter specification F.5/34 were brought into line with F.10/35. The first step concerned endurance. That specified for the zone fighter F.10/35 was actually less than that of F.5/34 - one hour as compared with one and a quarter hours. The Air Staff proposed to reduce F.5/34 to one hour , and this was agreed by the Fighting Area and put into effect."
This makes it clear why the home defence fighters had the endurance that they did. It was what was deemed necessary at the time, reflected in the requirements and specifications issued.. They were not designed as offensive fighters and the certainly weren't designed as bomber escorts. The latter role did not exist at the time, bombers were supposed to be self defending not requiring escort, a concept only disproved after the outbreak of hostilities.
Criticising the lack of endurance of fighters that were specifically designed to meet specifications that did not require it, as it was not required for the intended role, is hardly fair.
Cheers
Steve
"Since 1923 the RAF had pursued the concept of two classes of single seat fighter. The standard zone class was required to operate by day or night, and to have an endurance sufficient for patrol until the route and height of an attack was fully identified. The interception class was at first to be optimised for a pursuit climb from airfields on the coast. When the pursuit climb role had been found unfeasible the class was retained as a high performance, low endurance, day only fighter. The two classes began to merge as the introduction of flaps broke the link between maximum speed and landing speed, and night flying and radio equipment reduced in weight. But the most important factor was the reduction in endurance specified for day and night zone fighters.
In going from F.7/30 to F.10/35 the Air Staff had accepted the advice of the Fighting Area and reduced the required endurance (at maximum normal rpm) from 2 1/2 hours to 1 hour, and reserves from 1/2 to 1/4 hour. This startling change underlay Sorley's proposal that the Supermarine F.37/34 experimental fighter could meet F.10/35. He noted that the latter required only two thirds of the fuel load of the former as a result of a halving of the required endurance and reserves. This saving in fuel weight would more than offset that of four additional guns. It also explains how Hawker's experimental fighter, which Camm had based upon the Fury low endurance concept, could be deemed to meet the new zone fighter requirement F.10/35.
Merging of the two classes was completed when the Bristol and Gloster prototypes to the Fury replacement day fighter specification F.5/34 were brought into line with F.10/35. The first step concerned endurance. That specified for the zone fighter F.10/35 was actually less than that of F.5/34 - one hour as compared with one and a quarter hours. The Air Staff proposed to reduce F.5/34 to one hour , and this was agreed by the Fighting Area and put into effect."
This makes it clear why the home defence fighters had the endurance that they did. It was what was deemed necessary at the time, reflected in the requirements and specifications issued.. They were not designed as offensive fighters and the certainly weren't designed as bomber escorts. The latter role did not exist at the time, bombers were supposed to be self defending not requiring escort, a concept only disproved after the outbreak of hostilities.
Criticising the lack of endurance of fighters that were specifically designed to meet specifications that did not require it, as it was not required for the intended role, is hardly fair.
Cheers
Steve
drgondog
Major
The 31st FG (Spit), which started in ETO along with 1st FG (P-38) then moved to MTO for Torch were the two longest serving AAF units . The 31st did end up with highest air victory credits (more in P-51) at 582. The 82nd flew P-38s and ended up with 553. The 82nd was in the lead until approximately February, 1945.
Interestingly the P-38 groups were in the lead until the 31st, 52nd, 325th, 332nd converted from Spitfire and P-47 to P-51. Even the 332nd outscored each of the P-38 FG's after June 1944.
It should be remembered that the 325th and 332nd flew mostly P-40's until late 1943 so they were at a distinct disadvantage in performance vs the Spit. The P-47 helped close the gap but the P-51 was the dominant air superiority fighter in both the MTO and ETO.
drgondog
Major
To make a finer point. Both were excellent fighters, both were operational as fighter bombers, escort fighters, air superiority, photo recon. Both were fast and each very maneuverable. The edge goes to the Spit for climb and turn, to the Mustang which was faster, much longer range and greater external load/range combined.
The P-51B/D became the premier escort fighter as a result of matching performance envelope to a.) the range of the B-17/B-24, b.) maneuverability envelope to the Bf 109 and FW 190 from SL to 20,000 feet, c.) achievement of max performance at bomber altitudes from 20,000 up at which point the P-51 was gradually superior to the Bf 109 and FW 190.
Net - the Spit was a superior interceptor and dog fighter, handicapped from 'all purpose air superiority' by short legs. The P-51B/D was an excellent knife fighter using higher speed, better zoom, faster close but handicapped slightly by higher Gross weight and smaller wing for turn and climb -but was 'good enough' to defeat the LW fighting over its own airspace - which the Spit never did until the European bases enabled coverage over mid and east Germany.
IMO using the term Fighter rather than escort fighter is the right place to start comparisons and operational suitability versus the array of opponents. The first question to ask a military planner, given a choice of assets, is which fighter of the two do you select if your Prime Objective is to wrest air superiority from the enemy Fighter Arm.
If your entire reason for deployment of airpower is support ground forces and deny the enemy access to your airspace to project their strategic bombers, then you have to give the nod to the Spit series because range and load capability is not crucial (same reasoning for Bf 109 or YaK 9). Otherwise, the P-51B/D/H
Behind all the technical specifications for performance, range and fire power that produced the Spitfire was the requirement to protect London, not even the industrial cities of the Midlands and the North or our ports, aircraft industry and airfields which might seem more obvious targets to us today. This can only be understood by trying to appreciate the mindset of those tasked with Britain's air defence in the 1920s and 1930s and the attitude held by people all over Europe to the prospect of large scale and unrestricted aerial bombardment.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
You need to read my post above to understand why the Spitfire had the endurance it did. You should really try to learn some of the history behind these various aircraft and the reasons for the decisions taken, and the specifications to which they were built, before giving vent to ill informed opinions. You would certainly earn some respect that way.
After September 1940 the Spitfire remained the RAF's primary fighter, serving with distinction all over the world, but you know this already.
It also proved very successful in some roles for which it was not designed. It became one of the two best photo reconnaissance aircraft operated in any number by the Allies (along with the Mosquito).
Range was not such an issue when operating from airfields close to the fronts on mainland Europe after the invasion, as any number of Luftwaffe pilots would testify, at least those who survived their encounter with a Spitfire.
Cheers
Steve
The most directly equivalent Spitfire to the Mustang was the Mk 8 which was a 6 hour aircraft:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_LF_VIII_Trop_Aircraft_Data_Performance.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_LF_VIII_Trop_Aircraft_Data_Performance.jpg
Well yeah...
Gents,
I owe an apology to you! I did not convey my point well and apologize for that! My point regarding the Spit vs Mustang was meant to point out:
1. That the Spit / 109 / 190 were designed as close to base fighters and enjoyed an advantage best summed up by the late Colin Chapman in regards to the Lotus, and that is to increase performance just add lightness.
2. That a direct performance comparison between a Merlin Mustang and any of the aircraft mentioned in bullet 1 requires some serious caveats. History has shown us how they were used, books / charts / tests show us what they were capable of.
Cheers,
Biff
Shortround6
Major General
And here we really get into the History and development of the aircraft. The Spitfire was designed 4-5 years before the Mustang.
It was designed to give the max performance possible while carrying the heaviest gun armament used at that time while being handicapped by using a fixed pitch propeller (which also limited max rpm for take-off to well below the power the engine was capable of) and taking off from small grass airfields.
The Mustang was designed around an engine offering 30% more power for take-off while using a constant speed propeller and the field restrictions were being relaxed (fields being made larger). By the time the prototype NA-73X was rolled out the factory door the Spitfire was being fitted (at least a few) with 20mm guns and four .303 maching guns.
Underwing loads for the P-51 would NOT show up until after hundreds were built and the 1000lb load under each wing didn't show up until the D model at the Spring of 1944. That is "Official" what units did in the field often varied (A few P-40 Units in Italy carried a pair of 1000lb bombs under P-40s).
Please try to compare like to like. Quoting endurance for a Spitfire either carrying a a small or no drop tank to a Mustang carrying drop tanks gives a rather distorted picture. A Mustang with a rear fuselage tank and no drop tanks was much closer to a 4 1/2 to 5 hour aircraft and that doesn't include any fuel allowance for combat, in fact it doesn't allow for much of anything except warm up, take-off and climb to low altitude and then a low, slow straight flight. Slow being relative, around 260mph true at 10,000ft according to manual.
The Mustang was a truly great aircraft, it doesn't need other aircraft to be put down or misrepresented in order to look good.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Yes what did the Spit do after Sept 1940. The RAF should have bulldozed its Spits off a cliff and used P51s instead. Oops that means using Hurricanes until Mustang MkIs get into service in Jan 1942 and then hoping the Axis is kind enough not to fly combat missions over 20,000ft.
Shortround6
Major General
Actually the Mustang Is didn't go into service (combat) until May of 1942 and only 4 squadrons are equipped with them at the time of Deippe in August. In August of 1942 4 squadrons had received Spitfire MK IXs although they may not have been operational at that time. Anybody want to argue that the Mustang I was better than the Spitfire IX
The Mustang I's had no provision for external stores, either bombs or drop tanks. They would go on to equip a total of 21 RAF squadrons with Allison powered Mustangs, it just took a while.
BTW MK V Spits in Malta were modified to carry a 250lb bomb under each wing and used in combat 9-10 months before any Mustang version drops a bomb in anger.
The Mustang was a truly great aircraft, it doesn't need other aircraft to be put down or misrepresented in order to look good.[/QUOTE]
I'm not putting the Spitfire down to support the Mustang. I agree that they are both two of the greatest aircraft ever made. I'm just responding to the poll question. I believe that both of these aircraft are overrated as the results of the poll seem to indicate. Its just easy to compare these two aircraft because the Spitfire's weakness is the Mustang's strength.
I'm not putting the Spitfire down to support the Mustang. I agree that they are both two of the greatest aircraft ever made. I'm just responding to the poll question. I believe that both of these aircraft are overrated as the results of the poll seem to indicate. Its just easy to compare these two aircraft because the Spitfire's weakness is the Mustang's strength.
