P-51D vs. Spitfire IX

[GrauGeist]

On it...

Excellent!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

By the way when a moderator (or any member of this forum as a matter of fact) reminds you that you can get your point across and still be respectful; telling the moderator that you are American and therefor have the right to talk to people however you wish, and then telling the moderator that they can leave...

...is not the way to go about things.

 

[GrauGeist]

Probably some kid that has spent way too much time on the war Thunder forums and decided to venture out and share his expertise with the less informed...

 

[ThomasP]

Hey PAT303,

Possibly I am misunderstanding what you were saying in your post#68, re: "57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb."

As far as I can find, all of the Spitfire/Seafire variants were restricted to "straight flying and only gentle manœuvers" when carrying the 90 Impgal slipper tanks. Aerobatics were prohibited.

 

[PAT303]

Hey PAT303,

Possibly I am misunderstanding what you were saying in your post#68, re: "57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb."

As far as I can find, all of the Spitfire/Seafire variants were restricted to "straight flying and only gentle manœuvers" when carrying the 90 Impgal slipper tanks. Aerobatics were prohibited.

ThomasP, both the Spit and 'Stang had performance restrictions put on them when carrying internal aux fuel and external tanks, from what I understand it's the rear aux tanks moving the center of gravity to the rear that effects them the most, it's advised in both aircraft to burn off the rear aux fuel until approx 30G remains before any combat takes place. In regards to the MkXIV it was trialed with the 90G tank fitted against the 109 and 190 and still equaled both, wwe have discussed this before and I remember someone posting up that the tank was G rated so it could be retained if required, with the 170G ferry tank because of it's weight I would no doubt believe the quote that the pilots should fly straight and level when fitted.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey PAT303,

Thanks for the info. I just read the Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials and found the data you were referring to. I was aware that the 30 and 45 Impgal slipper tanks were combatable, but I had not run across anything saying the same about the 90 Impgal slipper tank.

But that makes me wonder why all the Pilot's Notes say "straight flying and only gentle manœuvers" when carrying the 90 Impgal slipper tank, even post-war. Interesting.

 

[NevadaK]

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.

Thank you, drgondog,

Your summary is quite helpful and helps me have a better understanding of the relative strengths of each aircraft. I appreciate your depth of knowledge and willingness to share.

Regards,

Kk

 

[NevadaK]

With regards to the Spitfires Mk IX & XIV, it is unclear to me the impetus for the relatively low production numbers on the MK XIV vs the MK IX. Setting aside the MK IX being in production for over a year sooner than the MK XIV, purchase records show that the two were in concurrent production and the MK IX was ordered in greater numbers. For example:

First large order for the MK XIV was in October 1943 - 406 Aircraft
Last order for the FR MK XIV was March 1945 - 460 Aircraft
Last order for the LF MK IX was July 1944 - 400 Aircraft

Looking at the overall production history, more Mk IX's were ordered after the first large Mk XIV order than the total number of MK XIV's ordered. Was this related to the lack of production for the Griffon engine, or to the MK IX being a more versatile platform? Or, something else?

Source: production charts

Thanks.

 

[rochie]

Probably some kid that has spent way too much time on the war Thunder forums and decided to venture out and share his expertise with the less informed...

from Sid 327 in the Spit V vs P-40 E thread
Not very biased are you...
I see you have found your way onto this forum after poisoning thousands of Youtube videos which showed anything British with your foul mouthed remarks and not only bitter but childish attitude. I wouldn't be surprised if you were the most unpopular person on Youtube and that includes your other alias usernames too.
Hopefully the administration on here are wise to what you are really like.

[Note: search Youtube 'soaringtractor'].

i looked him up on youtube, after Sid327 warned us about him, all his videos deleted but a long list of comments questioning his parentage remains

 

[NevadaK]

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.

Thanks, drgondog

As a follow up to the potential performance of this aircraft, here is a link to the P-51H Performance Data. Impressive indeed:

P-51H Performance

Kk

 

[drgondog]

Thanks, drgondog

As a follow up to the potential performance of this aircraft, here is a link to the P-51H Performance Data. Impressive indeed:

P-51H Performance

Kk

The P-51H data you looked at is NAA Calculated Performance. The initial 1650-9 testing in 1945 was short of projected but further flight testing with the 1650-9 issues fixed actually closely aligned - and those figures @90" are for wing pylons mounted.

 

[NevadaK]

The P-51H data you looked at is NAA Calculated Performance. The initial 1650-9 testing in 1945 was short of projected but further flight testing with the 1650-9 issues fixed actually closely aligned - and those figures @90" are for wing pylons mounted.

Thanks!

 

[MiTasol]

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.

Having worked on both Spitfires and P-51s (though not the H model) I can say that structurally there is nothing in common and systems wise there is almost nothing (both use hydraulics and electrics but the way these are constructed and laid out is very different). I would doubt there are any Spitfire features in the 51H as the structures are so totally different that incorporating Spitfire technology would be extremely difficult.

Fuselage wise the Mustang uses heavy load bearing skins with a small number of long stringers passing through pressed frames like the vast majority of metal aircraft. The Spitfire fuselage is much lighter skinned with hundreds of short intercostals tying the pressed frames together via gussets carrying far more of the load.

Wing wise the Mustang has one piece pressed metal ribs, like the vast majority of metal aircraft, and the Spitfire has a rib made of dozens of pieces of metal riveted together using the same construction as the WW 1 Sopwiths and includes wood in many locations so that access panels can be held on with wood screws. See the examples below - and yes the red arrows do point to a wooden primary structural member.

 

[Orzel]

NOTHING could beat this Spitfire...

View attachment 594134

Yes

 

[CORSNING]

This appears to be the best example of the P-51H performance that
I have come across.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/F-51H_Mustang_SAC_-_22_March_1949.pdf

 

[Sid327]

*technically* a Typhoon is a Thunderstorm.

Soooooo...

Excuse the polite disagreement .....a typhoon is the Asian version of a hurricane. Unless you are using a different dictionary (?)

TYPHOON | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[GrauGeist]

*technically*, a Typhoon, Hurricane and Cyclone are all the one and the same - just different names in different regions.

However, the fighters tended to be a bit different

 

[SaparotRob]

*technically*, a Typhoon, Hurricane and Cyclone are all the one and the same - just different names in different regions.

However, the fighters tended to be a bit different

Would that mean that typhoons are license built hurricanes?

 

[GregP]

You can't put a Tempest in a Teapot ...

 

[Sid327]

Information only. Off topic post.
When I was in Nigeria (okay swing the lantern)

At the start of each rainy season (July. We were operating out of an airstrip right on the coast) you would often see water spouts forming (''baby'' hurricanes) in a neat line about 5nm offshore and head off in a westerly direction.
Some years later I saw details on a documentary of all the hurricane tracks and they all seemed to originate from the same place, the Gulf Of Guinea.