P-51D vs. Spitfire IX

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

well it could go to Berlin but this one stayed. So it is all square again.

1599512235949.png
 
I hate these kind of discussions, they bring out the worst in us.

I post the below quote from Bobbysocks, not to prove the Spitfire was better but to show trying to compare aircraft that excelled at different things is pointless.

The Spitfire could be considered one of the very best single engine propeller driven fighters ever, all through its service life.

And so could the P-51

The P-51 was the biggest game changer in the airwar over europe and was almost as good as a Spitfire at doing Spitfire stuff yet was capable of doing what it did at least 5 times as far away and still fly back !

From Bobbysocks, who's Dad was Dale E Karger a 357th FS Ace

bobbysocks said:
ok, I told this story before...maybe in this thread...but there is alcohol involved and I am not in the position to research. my father was coming back from a mission over Europe....he was in a 51 ( and I don't know if he was already an ace when this happened) . he didn't fly too many B/Cs so....I will assume he was in his D. as approached the English coast he saw a lone spitfire on patrol. he's 19, thinks he has the world by the ass because he is in the "best plane ever made". he thinks he is going to show this brit who's the boss. so he is feeling his oats and decides to jumps the spit. long story short...he gets his ass kicked! besides the initial jump that was the only thing he had going for him. in all his fights he never had an EA on his tail but this guy was able to get there no problem despite anything he could do...any trick he could pull out of his @$$. he came away from that very humble and respectful. the real "take away..to coin the phrase" from this is...compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. the 51 was a 1 of a kind fruit. none of the other allied or enemy planes were designed as long range escorts. the 47 coulda, woulda, shoulda, but was late to the dance. to get a certain performance you will have to sacrifice other performance issues. the spit vs a 109 or 190 is a better match because they were both in the same performance envelope....fuel on board, weight of armament, range, alt, etc.. absolutely NONETHING the germans had was in the same perimeter as the mustang. so to draw comparisons is fruitless. I will, however, throw in that when most fights over germany initiated....the 51s dumped their drop tanks and had all of their inboard wing fuel and 25-35ish gallons in the fuse tank...and they STILL were par with whatever variants of 109s/190s they encountered. for what the spitfire was designed for....it and the hurricane saved the uk from the BoB and the blitz. no small accomplishment...f'n indeed. but for the battle of mainland Europe the pony won that equestrienne event....
Click to expand...
 
rochie said:
I hate these kind of discussions, they bring out the worst in us.

I post the below quote from Bobbysocks, not to prove the Spitfire was better but to show trying to compare aircraft that excelled at different things is pointless.

The Spitfire could be considered one of the very best single engine propeller driven fighters ever, all through its service life.

And so could the P-51

The P-51 was the biggest game changer in the airwar over europe and was almost as good as a Spitfire at doing Spitfire stuff yet was capable of doing what it did at least 5 times as far away and still fly back !

From Bobbysocks, who's Dad was Dale E Karger a 357th FS Ace
Click to expand...
Greetings Rochie,

Thank you for this. It's a great point to make. I hope the members were aware that there was a bit of lightheartedness in my post earlier. The only pertinent point was about the EM chart showing where the P-51 seems to be at an advantage. The rest is, if you will, barbershop talk. Just like debating who is the greatest basketball player. For me, it's Wilt #1, Kareem #2, and LBJ #3. Let the debate begin.

Again, thanks for your post and viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
NevadaK said:
Greetings Rochie,

Thank you for this. It's a great point to make. I hope the members were aware that there was a bit of lightheartedness in my post earlier. The only pertinent point was about the EM chart showing where the P-51 seems to be at an advantage. The rest is, if you will, barbershop talk. Just like debating who is the greatest basketball player. For me, it's Wilt #1, Kareem #2, and LBJ #4. Let the debate begin.

Again, thanks for your post and viewpoint.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of things to add to Rochie and Bobbysocks post. The Spitfire and especially the Hurricane were game changers in 1940, without them it is possible there would be no place for any P-51s to fly from. The real game changer was US industry producing 4 engine bombers, without the bombers what threat is a P-51 to German industry and infrastructure? In the action described by Bobbysocks of his father, the Spitfire was doing what it did throughout the war, protecting the UK with all its bases which included USAAF bases. In these discussions "time is of the essence". In 1940 the P-51 didn't exist, but even if it did it would not be a better interceptor than a Hurricane or Spitfire with a 1940 Merlin engine. It may have been faster than both when it got off the ground and up to altitude, but it weighed a ton more and with only 1000BHP that is a massive extra weight to haul up to 25,000ft you cannot zoom climb until you have first climbed.
 
Last edited:
Snowygrouch said:
I do not know the answer, but I can contribute a 1944 AFDU report on Mustang III vs IX. Perhaps it may be at least useful, although its a Mustang C, not a D.

View attachment 594118

View attachment 594119
Click to expand...
I am surprised they found no advantage to using some flap to improve the Mustang III turning circle I thought that was an evaluated and proven truth. I have certainly read about pilots using it.
 
NevadaK said:
For equity purposes lets keep it with the P-51D/Spitfire Mk IX comparison. If you want to go Spitfire Mk XIV then you need to go with the comparable generating Mustang the P-51H.
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, the Spitfire XIV entered service more than a year before the P-51H did, months before the P-51D did and at a similar time to the P-51B.
 
wuzak said:
As mentioned above, the Spitfire XIV entered service more than a year before the P-51H did, months before the P-51D did and at a similar time to the P-51B.
Click to expand...
I do stand corrected. For some reason I had the XIV later in the war.
 
The Spitfire has it's own ale.

images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQbEZo8VAxLPr4nrHxPlFGphLaDVxm8pUlszQ&usqp=CAU.jpg


The Bf 109 has its own Schnapps.


The Mustang has it own IPA.

Beer-Can-Glass-16oz-IPA.png


So, all in all, they seem fairly evenly matched ... at least until the supplies run out.

Well, it seems the image for Messerschmitt Schnapps won't post, for some reason (I tried 3 times!), so maybe the Messerschmitt needs a few improvements and a new variant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Domobran42
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
755
PAT303
P
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
10
Views
688
Shortround6
S
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
Replies
13
Views
2K
CHen10
CHen10
BarnOwlLover
P-51D vs F/G vs H: how good was good enough/how good was actually great?
Replies
18
Views
2K
BarnOwlLover
BarnOwlLover
Back