Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Excellent!On it...
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.
Thank you, drgondog,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.
from Sid 327 in the Spit V vs P-40 E threadProbably 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...
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.
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, 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
Thanks!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.
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.
Yes
*technically* a Typhoon is a Thunderstorm.
Soooooo...
Would that mean that typhoons are license built hurricanes?*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