Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Greetings Pat303,
There is a difference between Range and Combat Radius. Summarizing from documents over on World War II Aircraft Performance, Range is the farthest an aircraft can fly in a given configuration. In the footnotes for calculating range it is noted that when calculating range no fuel is used for warm up, taxi, take-off, and climb to altitude. The best range I can find for a Spit Mk XIV is 861 miles. Combat Radius of Action is calculated with factors for warm up, taxi, take-off, climb to altitude, and a factor for combat action (duration at WEP). Since I have the calculations for the P-51H handy, this can be demonstrated with the P-51H range being 2514 miles and combat radius for the same configuration is 1024 miles. If you want to do a simple ratio to get a rough idea of the Spitfire's combat radius we can use 40% based on P-51H numbers. The Combat radius for the Spit XIV calculates as 861 x 40% = 344 miles. My guess is that this number is a little high as the percentage of fuel used for WEP goes up with the shorter the range of the fighter.
Going back to my original post, my question really wasn't about which fighter was better, but was questioning a myth that the Spitfire was always more maneuverable or better. This came from references to the Mustang's best combat performance being at higher speeds and the energy maneuvering chart I had come across that showed the Mustang had an advantage at higher speeds. To illustrate, here is a similar chart comparing the F-18 and F-16.
View attachment 594277
and the chart from my original post with a similar shading showing the envelope where the Spit Mk IX has a definitive advantage and where the Mustang has an advantage.
View attachment 594279
Aircraft behave differently at different speeds and altitudes and while one aircraft might be "better' in one situation another might outperform it in a different situation. To me, the discussion should be a more nuanced comparison. As Rochie has stated, they are both great aircraft and should be appreciated as such.
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.
Someone here did recall a P51 fighting with one tank on, simply because it refused to drop off.Hi PAT 303,
I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on unless they get jumped and get off a few shots before or as they drop tanks. It isn't from thinking the tanks might break off in maneuvering as much as from the effect on flight characteristics with the extra weight and the effect on performance.
If we have a full 150-U.S. gallon drop tank that weighs 25 pounds, and if it is held on by four 1/4" - 28 bolts, we have a theoretical limit of 11 g's or so if we use yield strength rather than tensile strength, but most WWII pilots didn't spend the time to calculate the reserve strength, the effect on stall speed, or on rolling ability. They'd drop tanks because they were going into combat with an enemy who might not have drop tanks installed and didn't want to lose performance while in combat. It was dangerous enough without unnecessarily giving away performance.
I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on
P-51s just have to fly further to run out of fuel, waste of effort.Spitfires did fight with the slipper tank in place possibly because dropping it would mean getting out and pushing the last few miles home.
I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on unless they get jumped and get off a few shots before or as they drop tanks. It isn't from thinking the tanks might break off in maneuvering as much as from the effect on flight characteristics with the extra weight and the effect on performance.
Spitfires did fight with the slipper tank in place possibly because dropping it would mean getting out and pushing the last few miles home.
I agree, but interestingly enough (or maybe not) I remember reading some encounter reports I think from a 4th FG jock where they engaged without dropping tanks, it's here ( Mustang Encounter Reports ) somewhere but I'll wager it was a once in a hundred happenstance.There are always extenuating circumstances. I'd much rather fight with tanks than walk home and I'd fight rather than get shot down if the tanks wouldn't drop.
I was talking about normal circumstances where it was pilot's choice, which is usually when you are a section leader or flight leader. Usually, then pilot in charge of the two to six airplanes would call for tank drop, and it would be pilot's choice if that's YOU. I'd assume everyone in the flight knew where the point of no return without tanks was and wouldn't drop if they were going to walk home or take a swim.
The Spitfires roll rate problem was purely relative. It had a good rate of roll compared to most but one plane noticeably better was the one it met most across the Channel, the Fw 190. This put it second in a two horse race.The 20 series Spitfires had a new sturdier wing which rectified its elasticity problems at very high speeds and made the Spit one of the best rollers in that realm.
After solving its handling issues it might well have been the best dogfighter in the class of the latest super props. It was not among the fastest though.
I believe the LW did try engaging escorts early to try to get them to drop tanks, not a success, probably because as you said, they didn't actually have to to be at least partially effective.I agree, but interestingly enough (or maybe not) I remember reading some encounter reports I think from a 4th FG jock where they engaged without dropping tanks, it's here ( Mustang Encounter Reports ) somewhere but I'll wager it was a once in a hundred happenstance.
My father had trouble losing both tanks and engaged with 1 108 gal tank hung halfway into the fight...Someone here did recall a P51 fighting with one tank on, simply because it refused to drop off.
Yes Bill you (or rather your father) were that someone, I just couldn't find it in a search to get the exact details.My father had trouble losing both tanks and engaged with 1 108 gal tank hung halfway into the fight...
Dave - by 'clean' weren't you targeting Empty (with empty 85 gal fus tank and GFE only)? P-51A = 6433, P-5B/C = 6988, P-51D = 7150 or Basic Wt (with guns, bomb racks - no fuel/oil or ammo or pilot) A=6806, B/C=7422, D= 7,728The Tempest was actually heavier than the P-51, at 9,000 pounds clean compared to the P-51 clean:
B/C at 6,985 pounds
D/K at 7,635 pounds.