Approximately 50% of Spitfire Mk XIVs had cameras, it was certainly not designed for P/R. Tactical recon and P/R is not glamourous but demands a high performance aircraft to go in, take a picture and get out again, until the picture is developed the mission is a failure. A number of P-51s were used for P/R for the very good reason that they were good at it.
P-38 vs P-47
- Thread starter daveT
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Kevin J
Banned
Usually the RAF assigned fighter recce to planes that weren't that good as fighters.
No they didn't, a PR plane isn't a fighter, PR spitfires were unarmed, partly because of range but also because if you are alone the last thing you want to do is duke it out over enemy territory. As previously stated 50% of Spitfire Mk XIVs had a camera, in what area of performance were they lacking?
Kevin J
Banned
No idea mate, its a mystery, but I'm just about to read a book about Griffon aces. I've got a little way in so far. So far it sounds like the XIV was a bit of a beast to fly. The PR Spitfires were Merlin powered, the FR versions primarily Griffon powered. Correct me if I'm wrong. Lots of good stuff to read on mxdoc.com.
Last edited:
Spitfires in general were Merlin powered. To take a picture over enemy territory you need performance to get in and get out. The Mk XIV had the highest performance certainly better than the merlin variants and it had 50% fitted out to take pictures because pictures were vital and you need top planes to do it. At low lever cannon are useful for defence and strafing, at high level 10MPH is more useful than guns, a single plane cant fight its way from Berlin, it can fight its way back to its own lines which were only a few miles away after D Day.
wuzak
Captain
The best recon Spitfire was the PR.XIX, which had a Griffon.
There were FR versions of the Mk IX as well.
That depends on the mission, the XIX was a dedicated P?R aircraft, "fighter or tactical recon" is where you are down at lower level hitting targets of opportunity and taking pictures of what is there. My point is that the XIV was the RAFs best all altitude fighter and half of them were fitted with cameras, it was not a plane that wasn't good as a fighter as Kevin claimed.
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
What I wrote was that the RAF has a history of fitting cameras to fighters that don't quite make the grade, that's not to say that it was no good as a fighter. In the UK, the army co-operation squadrons got the Tomahawk and Allison powered Mustangs, although in the Western Desert fighting they got the Tomahawk instead of the Spitfire Vb Trop initially as it was superior to it below 15000 feet.
What was inferior about the Mustang MkI below 15,000 ft? It was used up to the end of the war and the RAF would have taken more of them.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
With hindsight, given the choice between the two the P-47 appears more surviveable in combat in Europe. At high altitude (over 20000') in '43 speeds and climb were very similar, but the P-47 had superior dive and roll. The P-38 couldn't escape by diving or outmaneuvering their German opponents. And the Thunderbolt's lack of range kept it out of a lot of trouble.
Neither were the ultimate solution.
Neither were the ultimate solution.
wuzak
Captain
Kevin claimed that the PR Spitfires were all Merlin powered and all FR Spitfires
I was just showing him that he was wrong.
Kevin J
Banned
There's nothing inferior about a Mustang below 15000 feet. What I said was that the Spitfire Vb was inferior to the Tomahawk below 15000 feet. I've got the bit about why we needed the Spitfire FR XIV. It was needed to replace our time expired Mustang I's.
Just noticed and edited Wuzak.
Kevin J
Banned
Mainly, mostly, not totally. I think I may have made a typo.
fubar57
General
No mention of reconnaissance here https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...18345790/The+P-51's+turbulent+Development.pdf
Shortround6
Major General
The requirement didn't exist at the time the Mustang was first being designed or ordered, which was before the Battle for France, let alone the BoB. Lysanders were being pumped out at 5-7 per week to handle tactical reconnaissance, and longer range reconnaissance was the province of fast bombers (Blenheims and Hudsons), Granted all those plans or uses for the aircraft involved fell in the crapper when faced with harsh realities of modern air combat. But note even in the Spring of 1941 the British were using Martin Marylanders for reconnaissance.
fubar57
General
.....or here Blog - The Birth to the P-51 Mustang - Osprey Publishing
from "Allison Engineered P-51 Mustang" Osprey Publishing
from "Allison Engineered P-51 Mustang" Osprey Publishing
Todd Secrest
Airman
- 35
- Jan 16, 2016
I'm willing to guess the P-40 could turn tighter then the P-51, but from what I've heard, in dogfights, most kills were from sneaking up on someone and blasting them with your guns, before they (the victim) had a chance to react. I'm also guessing that during the later half of WW2 in Europe, American pilots got more training, before going to combat, then the German pilots, I'm sure by 1943-1945, German limited fuel supply, did not allow a German pilot at lot of training time, before going into combat. The Tuskegee fighter pilots did well in WW2, flying the P-51 and one factor was that as they were at first held back from combat, allowing them to train more, before getting into the fight.
Last edited:
fubar57
General
Shortround6
Major General
I am not sure they ever used a P-47 for Photo recon, at least they made no "conversions" that required taking out guns or fitting different fuel tanks.
P-38s actually had the photo recon version as the first version to fly over enemy territory.
P-38s actually had the photo recon version as the first version to fly over enemy territory.
