P-51D vs. Spitfire IX

[Juha3]

I'm fully aware of the British Purchasing mission and the fact the Mustang came about from a British request based on the AT-6 Harvard etc - I really was trying to draw attention to the whole ''Mustang D vs Spitfire IX'' as being rather moot - I haven't got time to sit here all night putting out the history of these two fine aircraft, I don't pop into Google like some folk, I've spent years reading & researching from factual accounts of the War, particuarly what ''Our Chaps'' did etc - I just noticed it in the email from the website and thought ''Good grief, is this what they're down to discussing now ?!''-

- If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc; despite some of them initially being tested with them - The Allison worked okay with turbosuperchargers later on with the USAAF on the P-38, but not back then for the RAF. - Not having them in the Mustang I cost us lives, being reduced to doing low-level work - Their first mission was on 10 May 1942 in the area of Berck-sur-Mer by RAF 26 Sqn. During further forays along the French coast in July, it cost us our first, AG 415, flown by P/O H. Taylor -

Maybe we should start a thread about that perhaps ~

All those planes offered to the GB had superchargers but not turbosuperchargers.

 

[drgondog]

A lot of folks do not realize that the Mark I had much more range than the P-51B based on internal fuel. Each Mark I was delivered with auxiliary fuel cell kits (not self sealing initially but Firestone developed them by end of 1942) which replaced the wing ammo and gun bay - leaving 2x 50 cal in cowl. Straight line range was ~ 1700 miles. Three cells each wing for total increase of 54 Galls to 220+ gal total. I was not able to get specific operational details but obviously had the potential to recon Berlin (or Oslo) in 1942.

 

[pbehn]

Pbehn's "P-51D vs Spitfire IX" thread isn't really a contestable statement - Both of these Aircraft were built for entirely different purposes - The only thing barely in common was the Mark(s) of RR Merlin they had installed, which was constantly being developed during the War with an average of around 400 modifications a month being generated by both Rolls-Royce and Packard at the peak of it's refinement - 150,000 were built by RR & Ford in the United Kingdom as well as 57,000 licence built engines from Packard in the US - Around 5660+ Spifire IX's were built with Merlin 61, 63 or 63A, and Bendix Stromberg injection type carbs used instead of the normal gravity-feed ones were used in the Merlin 66 and 70's - So it ended up that there were MK.IX FIX, LFIX, LFIXE, HFIX and HFXE Spitfire Mk.IX models -
The Spitfire XVI was of course a new-built Mk. IX (instead of from a Mk.VC airframe) with a Packard-built Merlin 66 known as the '266',with a few other changes and weighed in at 7900lb's to the Mk. IX's 7500lb's -

- I don't know WHAT a Spitfire XIV has to do with this thread - GrauGeist's pic appears to be a captured PRXI, only maybe possibly could be caught by Me 163's or 262's, or exceptional flak.

The Mustang's history is not unlike the Spitfire's, in that until it got the Merlin 60 - 70 series in them, they then became really awesome aircraft - For the Spitfire Mk.IX, it was a progressive interim model to overcome the advent of the new German Focke Wulf FW-190 which was decimating the then workhorse Spitfire Mk.V's -
- The Spitfire was 'born' to be a 'defensive' fighter, over it's own territory essentially, it's wing profile gave it exceptional manouevrability, 'like a leaf falling' shall we say, whereas the Mustang D was built to have 'longer-legs' and was made to 'protect' the bombers which it did with supreme ability -

They were both fine aircraft whose time when they arrived on the scene became history and they developed on further to become even more historical classics, both Spitfire & Mustang were but halfway through their developing lives at that time - Clearly, with it's laminar-flow wing design, the Mustang's ability at real high speed as in a dive was it's real special thing, so I find trying to 'compare' these two icons rather pointless, they were indeed our unique War-winning GEMS ~

I didn't post the thread but it is a discussion forum and since they both had nominally the same engine it is a fair discussion of airframe performance. However the mistake in the OP is to think that because they had the same engines they were contemporary aircraft. The Spitfire Mk IX and the Mustang Mk I made their operational debut in numbers at Dieppe, the Mk IX escorting US bombers and the Mustang as a fighter / armed recon. That was Aug 1942 when the Mk IX was the RAFs best front line fighter. Griffon engine Spitfires were contemporary with the P-51B the first with single stage engines in squadron service in Dec 1943 and the two stage in mid 1944, before the P-51D appeared in UK. Though it does take time to ship from USA that is the truth of it. By 1944 the UK was starting to ship Mk IX to Russia on lend lease, it wasn't the RAFs top fighter anymore.

 

[pbehn]

I'm fully aware of the British Purchasing mission and the fact the Mustang came about from a British request based on the AT-6 Harvard etc - I really was trying to draw attention to the whole ''Mustang D vs Spitfire IX'' as being rather moot - I haven't got time to sit here all night putting out the history of these two fine aircraft, I don't pop into Google like some folk, I've spent years reading & researching from factual accounts of the War, particuarly what ''Our Chaps'' did etc - I just noticed it in the email from the website and thought ''Good grief, is this what they're down to discussing now ?!''-

- If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc; despite some of them initially being tested with them - The Allison worked okay with turbosuperchargers later on with the USAAF on the P-38, but not back then for the RAF. - Not having them in the Mustang I cost us lives, being reduced to doing low-level work - Their first mission was on 10 May 1942 in the area of Berck-sur-Mer by RAF 26 Sqn. During further forays along the French coast in July, it cost us our first, AG 415, flown by P/O H. Taylor -

Maybe we should start a thread about that perhaps ~

Are you saying that the Allison engine in P-39 P-40 and Mustang MkI had no supercharger? There were still two squadrons on Mk Is in service at the end of the war and the RAF would have taken more, at what they did they were very good.

 

[Milosh]

Is that a cooling fan Gemhorse?

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

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.

BIll, I know I've asked this before but remember, closed head injuries.

I know you gave numbers for the XP-51F/G but can't remember and well, frankly can't find the thread either. Nothing specific, just off the top of your head will do. The G is the interesting one if I'm not mistaken.

 

[NevadaK]

I didn't post the thread but it is a discussion forum and since they both had nominally the same engine it is a fair discussion of airframe performance. However the mistake in the OP is to think that because they had the same engines they were contemporary aircraft. The Spitfire Mk IX and the Mustang Mk I made their operational debut in numbers at Dieppe, the Mk IX escorting US bombers and the Mustang as a fighter / armed recon. That was Aug 1942 when the Mk IX was the RAFs best front line fighter. Griffon engine Spitfires were contemporary with the P-51B the first with single stage engines in squadron service in Dec 1943 and the two stage in mid 1944, before the P-51D appeared in UK. Though it does take time to ship from USA that is the truth of it. By 1944 the UK was starting to ship Mk IX to Russia on lend lease, it wasn't the RAFs top fighter anymore.

Greetings All,

As the "OP" of this thread, it would be worth reminding all that this wasn't initially posted as an original thread, but in response to the Greatest Myths Debunked on this Site Thread. In all transparency, the post was pretty narrowly focused on whether the Spitfire was always more maneuverable than the Mustang and was largely prompted by an energy maneuvering chart that I have had in my downloads folder for a while that I had come across on the web. The post acknowledged that the resource was a bit sketchy and was started buy me as a kind of "Tastes Great - Less Filling" debate starter on a day when smoke and Covid restrictions had me feeling pretty feisty. While having grown up in a family with a professional and military aviation background, I make no claims that I am an aviation expert. I respect and value the knowledge of the Forum membership and when posting try to help maintain the standard established here. For the majority of my life I was dual careered as an academic (31 years) and professional in the field of architecture. As an academic, I had three principal areas of research: theories of design, evidence based design of education facilities, and most relevant to this forum, the cultural history of design and production in the United States from 1939 to the present.

From my perspective, the Mustang and Spitfire are two of the great cultural icons of the war and have attained such status that they resist pragmatic comparisons. This is part of why my original post, in the context it was first posted, was intended to continue a lively discourse within an existing thread that had developed a lively and good natured dialogue about the ultimate Spitfire and Mustang due to the presence of Luftwaffe markings.

In response to pbehn's post above. The question I would ask is whether the Spitfire IX (and related marks) was truly superseded as the principal RAF fighter when it continued to be produced in greater numbers almost to the end of the war? I posted earlier the comparative orders for the IX vs XIV and it seems that there was commitment to both Marks and had hoped that someone could shed some light on that decision.

Regards,

Kk

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

- If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc; despite some of them initially being tested with them -

*SNIP*

Uh... What?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The G is the interesting one if I'm not mistaken.

I like to see the numbers as well. From what I understand, the P-51G was an absolute rocketship

 

[fubar57]

North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang

 

[SaparotRob]

North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang

It would have been nice had there been just one photo.

 

[fubar57]

It would have been nice had there been just one photo.

Scroll to the bottom

 

[NevadaK]

It would have been nice had there been just one photo.

Well, I did find this:

Helping bring the only XP-51/G Mustang back to the skies

Looks kind of like a mid evolution of a D and an H. and this, with a picture:

Project Xp-51g Mustang

 

[CORSNING]

XP-51F: Based on P-51B flight tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/xp-51f-chart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51F-performance_chart.jpg

XP-51G: Calculated
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/xp-51g-chart.jpg

May God bless Mike & Neil for their contributions.

 

[fubar57]

For some reason the link didn't show up in Post #152, again, scroll to the bottom...MUSTANG VARIANTS OF THE RAF AND RAAF - Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air

 

[MiTasol]

If there is one thing that does pip me it was the fact that every aircraft offered to Britain at that time came with no superchargers - the Mustang, the P-38, P-39, P-40 etc;

Horse pukky

Every single Allison V-1710 aeroplane engine ever built had a supercharger.

No if's

No but's

No exceptions.

 

[Glider]

Greetings All,



In response to pbehn's post above. The question I would ask is whether the Spitfire IX (and related marks) was truly superseded as the principal RAF fighter when it continued to be produced in greater numbers almost to the end of the war? I posted earlier the comparative orders for the IX vs XIV and it seems that there was commitment to both Marks and had hoped that someone could shed some light on that decision.

Regards,

Kk

This is just a guess and I don't claim any knowledge but there is some logic to the argument that as a fighter the MIX/XVI were superseded by the MkXIV as the XIV was deployed to fighter squadrons and used primarily as a fighter.

By the later stages of the war in Europe the Luftwaffe was significantly less dangerous as a fighting force and most of the Mk IX's were mainly used as GA aircraft. That said the Mk IX was still a very effective fighter equal to the 109G and Fw190A series of fighters which overwhelmingly were the mounts of the Luftwaffe fighter units.

So why disrupt the production lines to produce more Mk XIV's when the Mk IX is easily good enough?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

So why disrupt the production lines to produce more Mk XIV's when the Mk IX is easily good enough?[/QUOTE]

That statement could almost define the Spitfire's entire combat career. It seems like almost every major operational Mark was an interim of some sort. The Mk.III wasn't developed, so we got inferior Mk.V's and Hurricane Mk.II's instead.
Followed by the Mk.IX, which was a hasty interim for the Superior Mk.VIII.
Followed again by the Mk.XIV, which was (correct me if I am wrong) an interim model for the Superior Mk.XVIII (More fuel anyway).
Wartime realities obviously dictated the aforementioned actions, but It is a shame none the less. The P-51 had the good fortune of being developed in the US, where the manufacturers had the space and resources available to finish and refine the product before throwing it into combat.

 

[SaparotRob]

For some reason the link didn't show up in Post #152, again, scroll to the bottom...MUSTANG VARIANTS OF THE RAF AND RAAF - Mustang: Thoroughbred Stallion of the Air

Why am I reminded of the thread "When is a Spitfire not a Spitfire?

 

[pbehn]

Greetings All,

As the "OP" of this thread, it would be worth reminding all that this wasn't initially posted as an original thread, but in response to the Greatest Myths Debunked on this Site Thread. In all transparency, the post was pretty narrowly focused on whether the Spitfire was always more maneuverable than the Mustang and was largely prompted by an energy maneuvering chart that I have had in my downloads folder for a while that I had come across on the web. The post acknowledged that the resource was a bit sketchy and was started buy me as a kind of "Tastes Great - Less Filling" debate starter on a day when smoke and Covid restrictions had me feeling pretty feisty. While having grown up in a family with a professional and military aviation background, I make no claims that I am an aviation expert. I respect and value the knowledge of the Forum membership and when posting try to help maintain the standard established here. For the majority of my life I was dual careered as an academic (31 years) and professional in the field of architecture. As an academic, I had three principal areas of research: theories of design, evidence based design of education facilities, and most relevant to this forum, the cultural history of design and production in the United States from 1939 to the present.

From my perspective, the Mustang and Spitfire are two of the great cultural icons of the war and have attained such status that they resist pragmatic comparisons. This is part of why my original post, in the context it was first posted, was intended to continue a lively discourse within an existing thread that had developed a lively and good natured dialogue about the ultimate Spitfire and Mustang due to the presence of Luftwaffe markings.

In response to pbehn's post above. The question I would ask is whether the Spitfire IX (and related marks) was truly superseded as the principal RAF fighter when it continued to be produced in greater numbers almost to the end of the war? I posted earlier the comparative orders for the IX vs XIV and it seems that there was commitment to both Marks and had hoped that someone could shed some light on that decision.

I was just pointing out that it is sensible from most points of view to compare the Mk IX and the P-51D because they had pretty much the same engine. But in terms of being contemporaries the Mk XIV was in service before the P-51D although probably started being produced at the same time.

Just watching a programme last night produced for the 80th anniversary of the BoB and one comment was that at the time in WW2 the Spitfire wasn't the icon it is now, by 1944 people were fascinated by jets. Also as far as I can see and read there was much less partisan flag waving. US pilots had flown in RAF squadrons, US squadrons had been formed using Spitfires. RAF squadrons had escorted US bombers and from 1940 the RAF had been flying all sorts of US planes. Did any US pilots lose sleep because their P-51B had a Malcolm hood and license built Merlin engine? I doubt it. Did any RAF pilots curse that their Mustang IV was made in USA I doubt that too. It is stuff for jokes in bars.

The Spitfire Mk IX and MK XVI were produced in such numbers for many reasons. First it was in service from 1942 and as soon as you start using them you lose them. After years they were upgraded improved modified to replace those lost damaged and worn out. There were lots more Merlin /Packard engines being produced than Griffons. Towards the end of the war Mk IX and Mk XVIs were given away to Russia on lend lease, but also towards the end of the war planes were produced simply because they were ordered and airframes produced and for the British as soon as the war ended "Lend Lease" aircraft were to be returned, in fact they were usually scrapped. I believe the same happened with the P-51D many were produced that never went abroad or into service because they were ordered but N/A still produced the later versions that did go into service. The "Spitfire" sometimes superseded itself as top performing fighter sometimes others appeared like the Typhoon and Tempest and Meteor. But by the time the Mk XIV had appeared the whole conflict had changed. Almost half Mk XIVs were fitted with cameras, if you are taking pictures at low level you need something fast and if you are alone and get jumped you need something very fast.