GregP
Major
Hi Bill!
Put me down for a copy of your new book ... and all future books, too.
Best regards, - Greg
Put me down for a copy of your new book ... and all future books, too.
Best regards, - Greg
P-51D vs. Spitfire IX
- Thread starter NevadaK
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
tommayer
Airman
suggest you read a real life comparison to be found in Robin Higham's Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII. My copy is 1053NM away from me, so this is from memory and I make no claim for the accuracy of the details. A US outfit operating in Italy had been flying Spits, loved them, and was reequipped with 51 dogs. They were extremely interested in your question. Their interest was more than academic. They thought their health and longevity, not to mention their chances for victories, were directly at stake. They staged a trial between two of their best pilots, both highly experienced combat vets. The results of several ersatz furballs favored the Spit in almost every category. The one and only area in which the 51 had a clear advantage was range, but that, in their estimation, trumped (that word has such an ugly connotation these days, but I can't think of a synonym that is as good) all the Spit's advantages, because the 51 was almost as good as the Spit in most areas, was better than the FWs and 109s they were fighting, and the 51's range advantage was necessary to get them to where they had German a/c to fight.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 868
- Feb 16, 2013
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't NAA engineers inspect a Spitfire and incorporate some of the features into the new P-51H?
My understanding it was more of a weight cutting exercise, trying to incorporate some Supermarine structural specs to trim some fat off the Mustang. And what they produced seemed to be the best of both aircraft.
My understanding it was more of a weight cutting exercise, trying to incorporate some Supermarine structural specs to trim some fat off the Mustang. And what they produced seemed to be the best of both aircraft.
I just read that recently, I will try to find it. But as I read it it was a question to Supermarine about the weights and application of engineering standards. It was Supermarine who weighed all sorts of components and showed how they calculated loads. There is some fiddle factor and wiggle room about weights and load calculations.
drgondog
Major
Neither the 31st FG or 52nd FG, equipped with Spitfires, were given a 'vote'. Those same pilots that sobbed when they lost their Spits were elated when they were engaging and shooting down 109s over Ploesti and Vienna and Munich while their short range Spits that they traded in, were escorting B-25s and A-20s over Italy.
Sandy McCorkle was one of those reluctant warriors - who scored 5 in Spits (seven months combat) and 6 (2 months combat) in 51s - was my father's last boss in USAF. He LOVED the 51. He also stated that nothing beat 'pure flying' a Spit in his AAF/USAF career - but very clear that the 51 was the best that the USAAF had for air superiority in WWII. Additional note - he scored 5 of his six in seven days after 31st FG converted to the P-51B in April 1944.
To the Spitfire influence? - yes, to the XP-51F/G and H. A detailed study was made by NAA to compare the P-51B to the Spit IX, piece by piece, and reported in November 1942 (NA-5567 dated 11-23-42). The result led to a proposal and contract and charge number NA-105 for the XP-51F. The AAF was close to negotiating a contract or the P-51G with new 1650-9 in November 1943, built to RAF stress standards of 11G ultimate, 7.5G Limit but the lack of internal fuel tank and no possible way to increase internal fuel over 205 gal killed it. Had the AAF had the same Interceptor mission that spawned the F8F, the P-51G would have been perhaps the best performing (when comparing all aspects of performance) piston engined fighter ever built. The P-51H was the airframe decided upon, which had the same wing fuel and a 50 gal fuse tank as well as designed to 7.5G Limit at full (internal) Gross Wt of 9600 pounds whereas the P-51D was limited to 6.7G Limit. The H had to stretch the length 13" and re-design critical airframe sections like wing and fuselage to take the increased loads.
Sandy McCorkle was one of those reluctant warriors - who scored 5 in Spits (seven months combat) and 6 (2 months combat) in 51s - was my father's last boss in USAF. He LOVED the 51. He also stated that nothing beat 'pure flying' a Spit in his AAF/USAF career - but very clear that the 51 was the best that the USAAF had for air superiority in WWII. Additional note - he scored 5 of his six in seven days after 31st FG converted to the P-51B in April 1944.
To the Spitfire influence? - yes, to the XP-51F/G and H. A detailed study was made by NAA to compare the P-51B to the Spit IX, piece by piece, and reported in November 1942 (NA-5567 dated 11-23-42). The result led to a proposal and contract and charge number NA-105 for the XP-51F. The AAF was close to negotiating a contract or the P-51G with new 1650-9 in November 1943, built to RAF stress standards of 11G ultimate, 7.5G Limit but the lack of internal fuel tank and no possible way to increase internal fuel over 205 gal killed it. Had the AAF had the same Interceptor mission that spawned the F8F, the P-51G would have been perhaps the best performing (when comparing all aspects of performance) piston engined fighter ever built. The P-51H was the airframe decided upon, which had the same wing fuel and a 50 gal fuse tank as well as designed to 7.5G Limit at full (internal) Gross Wt of 9600 pounds whereas the P-51D was limited to 6.7G Limit. The H had to stretch the length 13" and re-design critical airframe sections like wing and fuselage to take the increased loads.
I knew I would find a definition of fiddle factor and wiggle room somewhere.
Joking apart Bill, as I read it recently NAA and Supermarine compared data, so it was the average weight of components for aircraft under construction and then a discussion of how those fitted the standards in UK. Cheaper and quicker than actually destroying an aircraft just to weigh various parts of it?
soaringtractor
Banned
- 33
- May 8, 2014
BUT......... there were only about 1700 shitfires with the Griffon engine !!!!! 5656 Merlin 60 shitfires and 10,000 P51D's and around 3,000 B/C Mustangs !!! Them numbers....again !!!
drgondog
Major
IMO -- comparing the Spit IX with Merlin 65 with P-51B-15 (without Reverse Rudder Boost tab) equipped with 1650-7 is the best pair to compare and make judgments.
First, the Spit IX with much lower wing loading will always outclimb and out turn the P-51B at all altitudes given equal pilot skills. The power curves are nearly identical. Additionally, the Spit had a higher CL which should also give it the ability to pull slightly more G in a level turn. Advantage Spit IX
The Mustang with much less drag will always be faster at all altitudes except perhaps 40K+, With 12 and 15 degree rigging for the B ailerons the P-51B should out roll the Spit IX, negating some of the turn advantage.
The Spit will initially out accelerate the P-51B in both level speed and a dive but the 51 will rapidly catch up and outpace the Spit IX until the high Mach no >0.8
The Mustang will out zoom the Spit to recover lost altitude faster.
The Mustang tactical footprint is at least 2x in context of penetration and combat over targets. This is much more important than just range. There was virtually no place the LW could plan to attack (unhindered) a long range daylight bombing attack when escorted by P-51B/D. Versus the Spit IX, there was very litle continental area where a Spit IX Could oppose a LW attack. So the operational question 'Paris' or 'Posnan' for strategic defense planning.
The Mustang was quicker to adopt to 25# boost so for that interval or that condition in which the Merlin 65 was at 18# and the P-51B was capable of 72-75", there were multiple altitudes at which the P-51B was close to the Spit IX in climb, and initially faster in acceleration, and improved in turn - but the Spit should still have the advantages noted above.
First, the Spit IX with much lower wing loading will always outclimb and out turn the P-51B at all altitudes given equal pilot skills. The power curves are nearly identical. Additionally, the Spit had a higher CL which should also give it the ability to pull slightly more G in a level turn. Advantage Spit IX
The Mustang with much less drag will always be faster at all altitudes except perhaps 40K+, With 12 and 15 degree rigging for the B ailerons the P-51B should out roll the Spit IX, negating some of the turn advantage.
The Spit will initially out accelerate the P-51B in both level speed and a dive but the 51 will rapidly catch up and outpace the Spit IX until the high Mach no >0.8
The Mustang will out zoom the Spit to recover lost altitude faster.
The Mustang tactical footprint is at least 2x in context of penetration and combat over targets. This is much more important than just range. There was virtually no place the LW could plan to attack (unhindered) a long range daylight bombing attack when escorted by P-51B/D. Versus the Spit IX, there was very litle continental area where a Spit IX Could oppose a LW attack. So the operational question 'Paris' or 'Posnan' for strategic defense planning.
The Mustang was quicker to adopt to 25# boost so for that interval or that condition in which the Merlin 65 was at 18# and the P-51B was capable of 72-75", there were multiple altitudes at which the P-51B was close to the Spit IX in climb, and initially faster in acceleration, and improved in turn - but the Spit should still have the advantages noted above.
Last edited:
I go from discussing the subject on a respectful and humorous level with a man whos father was an ace and is in himself an expert on the subject, inside out, to a post like this from a jerk like you. If you dislike those Merlin and Griffon shitfires so much stick with your Allisons sweety.
drgondog
Major
What is Your point? In the context of RAF vs LW there were a Lot more Spits in ETO and MTO than Mustangs until mid 1944.
Bill, what is the story with using some flap on a P-51 to improve turn performance. The official tests by the British with a Mustang MkIII against Spitfires and a Tempest found no improvement but I have read various US pilots swore by it? If its in the book dont answer, its on order for christmas.
drgondog
Major
The comparisons were by weight group (wing/empennage/engine mounts, etc) first, with detailed examination of individual key components like Spars, Landing gear, Longerons, etc. In addition to different standard for AoA Ultimate Stress (12G vs 11G) The RAF designed for lesser applied loads for landing and side loads 9for example0, leading Schmued to re-think AAC pre-war Structural Standards that NAA designed all their aircraft to - until NA-105
drgondog
Major
It gave a higher CL accompanied by increased drag. Good for an instantaneous pivot to get inside the circle for a shot, but not a very good idea to stay in that condition. It had other uses. In my fathers Aug 6 Encounter report, the 109 he was chasing split-ess from 2K, dad pulled a little flap, followed him through the turn - but the 109 augered into the ground.. I have seen several encounter reports (including a May 8 J.C Meyer vs 109) in which no advantage was gained in a medium speed turning fight with a 109. Meyer noted that it was time to go play somewhere else and he 'Extended' leaving the 109 to fight another day.
Could I respectfully point out that in mid 1944 the top fighters for the RAF were the Meteor, the Tempest and the Spitfire MkXIV. Their primary function was to defend the UK, if you can find any report by any person in the US airforces, based in UK complaining that these aircraft were complete POS then I am all eyes and ears. Could I also respectfully point out that it was the British who ordered the plane as the Mustang MkI, the USA was happy with its P-40s werent they? Or am I wrong?
glennasher
Senior Airman
I might suggest that if someone is being a knuckleheaded troll, to just ignore him. They seldom do anything but stir fecal matter, with no enlightenment to anyone.
But so far he has been quite funny.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Just ignore them.
The upside is they aren't carrying about luftwaffe this and luftwaffe that and it won't be long before Chris or Joe will be along to take care it.
The upside is they aren't carrying about luftwaffe this and luftwaffe that and it won't be long before Chris or Joe will be along to take care it.
Great advice!
