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
Despite all that is written on 120 posts?
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
Add to that the Spitfire tanks are an inverted aerofoil so they not only produce drag but are also cancelling some of the lift the aircraft wing is producing. This would definitely reduce aerobatic performance and that is what you need in most combat situations.
This is why the flight manual says the aircraft is difficult to fly with external tanks - the reduction in total lift means you are flying much closer to the aircrafts stall speed at all times those tanks are fitted.
Last edited:
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
NAA were recording the ACTUAL weight of components on their Technical Drawings as far back as 1937 on the BC-1 so destroying an aircraft just to weigh various parts was never necessary on NAA aircraft.
Although the weight of each component was not recorded on individual Spitfire Technical Drawings I would expect they were recorded elsewhere so that weight and balance calculations could be performed for any modifications.
It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.
drgondog
Major
Although the Spit was pressed into service for some CAS and other roles, only the Recon versions were tasked for longer range. The Spit primary role was air superiority. Typhoon/Tempest (or Mustang III/IV) better suited for intermediate to long range multi-tasking.
Last edited:
Doctrine left over from 1920s/30s.
Fighters were supposed to have enough of range to cover UK. Any combat beyond UK by aircraft located in the UK was to be done by Bomber Command.
Shortround6
Major General
Depends on when in the 1930s. At the Beginning of 1935 the RAF didn't have a single bomber that could take-off from England, fly to Germany (any part of Germany, even two kilometers over the border) drop a 500lb bomb and return to England.
- Thread starter
- #131
Greetings Orzel
I think that if these aircraft were opponents, the actuality of such a combat would have more variability. If I understand what has been posted here and on other threads correctly, the outcome would depend a great deal on the speed at which the engagement is fought and how much of the combat is speed related versus turning and climbing. If the speed of engagement is lower than yes, the Spitfire has a definitive advantage but if its speed (boom & zoom) then I think the advantage shifts to the Mustang. One area where the Mustang has an absolute advantage is endurance. In longer fights the Mustang can simply outlast the Spitfire. A couple of the Mustang pilots I knew growing up mentioned several times how their opponents would run out of gas in the middle of combat and need to quit.
It is often pointed out on this thread that the pilot is the difference between closely matched planes and whichever pilot is able to use their advantages most successfully would determine the outcome between these two.
Kk
The engines would recognise a brother or cousin and refuse to fight, forcing the pilots to dance the skies on laughter silvered wings and join the tumbling mirth of sun split clouds.
Last edited:
In 1944-45 at least in ETO at least Spit IXs/XVIs usually used one cigar-shaped underfuselage 44 ImpGal drop tank, it was originally designed for Hurricane (which carried one under each wing). Could it be carried through hard combat maneuvers, I don't know.
- Thread starter
- #134
Nailed It!
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
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 ~
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 ~
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
My photo of the KG200 Spitfire was in jest, because it was emblazoned with Balkan crosses.
There is a rather under-educated group of people that exists out there that think that just because the machine was German, it was vastly superior to anything Anglo-American.
So a Spitfire with Balkan Crosses has to be the eppitamy of superior badassness...right?
There is a rather under-educated group of people that exists out there that think that just because the machine was German, it was vastly superior to anything Anglo-American.
So a Spitfire with Balkan Crosses has to be the eppitamy of superior badassness...right?
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Merlins used a gallon of gas a minute unless they were in combat, then the consumption went up...
Can't say I entirely agree, to be honest. There are few similarities between the two types in terms of development that led to that point in each type's evolution. The Spit was an excellent aircraft right off the bat on entry into service and fulfilled its interceptor role as it was designed to do, but in reality with the advent of the Bf 109F first, the interim Spit V was outclassed, as it was with the Fw 190. The IX came about from fitting a 60 Series Merlin to Mk.V airframes as a knee jerk reaction to the appearance of the Fw 190, as you point out, Gemhorse, despite the fact that Bf 109Fs accounted for a greater number of Fighter Command aircraft in combat between mid 1941 and mid 1942. Bear in mind that the Air Ministry's long term plan saw the HF.VII and F.VIII fitted with the 'High Altitude Merlin' as it was known, the F.VIII intended as the next major production variant, while the IX was an interim.
The P-51D/Mustang IV and similarly P-51C/Mustang III were a result of research by Rolls-Royce and NAA in fitting a Merlin to the Mustang airframe to improve its altitude performance, bearing in mind that the first Mustangs fitted with Merlins were converted in Britain (Mustang Mk.X, which was essentially a Mk.I with a Merlin 65), not the USA, rather than an outstanding requirement for an escort fighter (although the Americans also had the idea, the Brits put it into practise first - there was much communication between the USA and the UK over this). It's interesting to note that initially when first proposed, the British Air Ministry had misgivings because of the supply of two-speed-two-stage Merlins was allocated for Spitfires, not taking into consideration at the time that perhaps the Americans could licence build them.
To begin with, the Mustang was designed to a British requirement for P-40s through the British Purchasing Commission and that the type's long legs was a benefit of exceptional design, not the primary factor behind its existence. Even the Allison engined Mustang Is and IIs had excellent range (and could out-perform the Spitfire V and Fw 190 for that matter, with the exception of altitude); the A&AEE reports on the type comments highly about this. That the USAAF needed more long range escort fighters was definitely a requirement; it already had aircraft serving in that role, that the Mustang had long range already inevitably meant it was suited for it.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
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 ~
- 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 ~
Yeah, me neither. You'll find that there are many guys on this forum who have professional backgrounds in aviation and are not just internet warriors, myself included. I was illustrating that the Spit IX and P-51D had very different backgrounds and reasons for their evolution - you mentioned the P-51D was designed as a long range escort - it was used as one but the reason for fitting the Merlin was to improve its ceiling, not its range.
