Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang

wuzak said:

I thought he ranked them Spit XIV, Fw 190 D-9, P-51D in that order.

Click to expand...

Actually on page 208 (Duels in the Sky) he lists the the greatest single-seat fighters in the order;

1. Spitfire and Fw190
2. F6F Hellcat
3. Mustang IV (P51D)
4. A6M5 Zeke
5. Tempest V
6. N1K2-J George

Since he has flown all of them who are we to question the pick.

However, I think he may have a bias against the P-51D for I quote from page 208; " Next one must look at the American fighters, and here is it easier to make a judgement. In the Far East the Hellcat almost single-handedly turned defeat into victory. The Mustang IV, though technically superior, never made an impact on any war theater." OMG......Ooops!!!! I can see how a naval pilot could have that thought.

krieghund said:

Actually on page 208 (Duels in the Sky) he lists the the greatest single-seat fighters in the order;

1. Spitfire and Fw190
2. F6F Hellcat
3. Mustang IV (P51D)
4. A6M5 Zeke
5. Tempest V
6. N1K2-J George

Since he has flown all of them who are we to question the pick.

However, I think he may have a bias against the P-51D for I quote from page 208; " Next one must look at the American fighters, and here is it easier to make a judgement. In the Far East the Hellcat almost single-handedly turned defeat into victory. The Mustang IV, though technically superior, never made an impact on any war theater." OMG......Ooops!!!! I can see how a naval pilot could have that thought.

Click to expand...

I had a long running debate with the Wing Captain Brown on this very specific quote. I pointed out that a.) the IJN was rapidly being pushed back before the F6F entered combat ops, b.) the Mustang IV can Not be separated from the Mustang III/P-51B and C, and c.) that the Merlin Mustang made a huge impact on Western Luftwaffe operations.

I also pointed out that the P-51D per se had a much bigger impact than either the Spit IX, or Spit XIV if he chose to differentiate Spitfires based on completely different engines - whilst the Mustang IV had only the canopy/turtleback mod with no change otherwise. I also pointed out that the quality and quantity of the German fighter pilots remained higher than the Japanese in 1944 s that the Mustang III and IV were still flying against tougher opponents

I then asked him whether the F4U was equally capable of doing what the F6F accomplished in 1944, then asked him to compare the 51 versus Spitfire in the defeat of LW in the west prior to and after D-Day.

It was a good discussion and I continue to respect his point of view - I just disagree.

I disagree as well. How can he say The 51 did not have an impact in any theater?

drgondog said:

I had a long running debate with the Wing Captain Brown on this very specific quote.

Click to expand...

Would you mind leting us know what his side of this was?
It seems an incredible thing for a man of his experience aviation knowledge to have said.

wuzak said:

I thought he ranked them Spit XIV, Fw 190 D-9, P-51D in that order.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's what I meant – my post was ambiguous.
Krieghund – must have been a different text. The one I was reading was referring to the virtues of the aircraft as dogfighters only. Yours sounds more like they are being ranked according to historical significance, or some combination of the two. Still, how could anyone say the P51 was lacking in historical significance?
FlyboyJ – 'Winkle' was arrogant?! How dare you! Next you'll be bad-mouthing Montgomery. Just because Eric said the P-38 was useless and the Wildcat was the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war doesn't mean we should question his judgement.

CobberKane said:

FlyboyJ – 'Winkle' was arrogant?! How dare you! Next you'll be bad-mouthing Montgomery. Just because Eric said the P-38 was useless and the Wildcat was the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war doesn't mean we should question his judgement.

Click to expand...

Chill out, it his opinion. One that many people share. He is not discrediting the man one little bit. It his an opinion of his character, nothing else.

While the man was a great pilot, his views are skewed because of his bias. That does not mean he does not know what he is talking about.

MrJolly said:

Lol its pretty obvious where the guest 'Lunatic' comes from

S!

Click to expand...

Welcome MrJolly - just for the record, Lunatic was one of, if not the biggest idiot(s) to ever come on this forum. He made a promise to do a "climb" over my house as this moron claimed he was a pilot. That was several years ago and I had yet to see that happen.
There are many enthusiasts here, some of us have been fortunate enough to actually work on some of these aircraft we love, but at the same time we are quick to call out "wanna-bees" who throw egotistical BS around for their own self-satisfaction.

Peace…

CobberKane said:

FlyboyJ – 'Winkle' was arrogant?! How dare you! Next you'll be bad-mouthing Montgomery. Just because Eric said the P-38 was useless and the Wildcat was the outstanding carrier fighter of the early war doesn't mean we should question his judgement.

Click to expand...

He was biased and arrogant and it has nothing to do with his opinions about the P-38, Wildcat or any other aircraft. He is and was one of the greatest test pilots who ever lived so cut the "How dare you" crap!!!

FLYBOYJ said:

He was biased and arrogant and it has nothing to do with his opinions about the P-38, Wildcat or any other aircraft. He is and was one of the greatest test pilots who ever lived so cut the "How dare you" crap!!!

Click to expand...

Hmm, apparently 'tongue in cheek' doesn't transcribe to well into text. I was actually agreeing with you that Brown's undoubted status as a pilot does not necessarily mean he is above a little hyperbole and self aggrandisement, just like the notoriously stuffy Montgomery. I mentioned his comments about the P-38 and Wildcat as examples; unfair in the first case and highly debatable in the second.
Now nobody loves me anymore (sob!)

Sometimes written words don't come across very well. Thanks for clarifying.

CobberKane said:

Hmm, apparently 'tongue in cheek' doesn't transcribe to well into text. I was actually agreeing with you that Brown's undoubted status as a pilot does not necessarily mean he is above a little hyperbole and self aggrandisement, just like the notoriously stuffy Montgomery. I mentioned his comments about the P-38 and Wildcat as examples; unfair in the first case and highly debatable in the second.
Now nobody loves me anymore (sob!)

Click to expand...

My apologies - no worries!

Here is one case when there was a match up between a P51 and a Spitfire IX:

21 March 31FG
For the 31 FG, March would be the last month flying Spitfires. On the 11th, Colonel Charles Milton McCorkle, born 29 Jan 1915, (McCorkle had his initials " CM-M " on his 31FG Spits and Mustangs, and the name "Betty Jane") and Lieutenant Meador brought in the first two P-51B aircraft. During a mock dogfight over the field on the 14th, Colonel McCorkel in a P-51 paired up against Lieutenant Williams in a Spitfire IX. The Spitfire completely outmanoeuvred the new Mustang. On 21 March, Lieutenant Richard F. Hurd of the 308 FS destroyed two ME-109s to become the last Spitfire ace before the 31 FG was taken off operational status to transition to the P-51. Colonel McCorkle did get permission for a farewell 36-ship fighter sweep over Rome on the 29th. For the most part uneventful, 20 FW-190s were intercepted by one 4-ship of Spits, forcing the enemy to Jettison their bombs. Lieutenant Emery destroyed one of the FWs, the last enemy aircraft downed by a 31FG Spitfire.

Sometimes written words don't come across very well. Thanks for clarifying.

Click to expand...

Don't beat yourself up there Cobber, they are Americans and everyone knows Americans don't get irony!

Sometimes written words don't come across very well. Thanks for clarifying.

Click to expand...

Don't beat yourself up there Cobber, they are Americans and everyone knows Americans don't get irony!

nuuumannn said:

Don't beat yourself up there Cobber, they are Americans and everyone knows Americans don't get irony!

Click to expand...

Yes, all Americans are without exception pedantic stuffed shirts - Mark Twain and Tom Wolfe were kiwi ex-pats, LOL

Hello!
I have read this thread with some amusement you are all making some good points, but I would hope to clarify a few things. First we are talking about spitfire MK XIV. (Yea!! One of my favorite subjects!!) But which one? There were many variants. Was it the regular wing? The high altitude variant? or perhaps the clipped wing? Once we settle that, which engine?..(Yes I know we are talking Griffon..but which one?) Type 61 or 65? Single stage turbo or two stage? I won't even get into armament (I prefer the .50 and 20mm personally). I wonder if the P51D has as much trouble holding classification? (you know the early XIV's were not really XIV's at all!!--they were earlier Marks that were ahem.. Frankenstein-ed!) The MK XIV was like a lot of models... a "work in progress" and constantly evolved for mission and technology specific updates. before being morphed into the next Mark or perhaps 2. The Mark IX actually superseded some earlier marks! Now that I have stirred up that mud pie. Let's move on which is really better the mustang or the spitfire? Well you can see by my moniker which way I lean but let me clarify. When the spitfire was developed it was a multi trophy winning racing thoroughbred. When the mustang was developed it was..well to call it trash is an insult...to trash. It was a monumental failure and would have died in the ground support role it had been dumped into, because it sure was not a fighter had not the British ordered some and insisted they be fitted with the venerable Merlin engine. At that point the mustang came into its own. The coupling of the Rolls Royce engine with the laminar air-flow wing of the mustang was "lightning in a bottle" and now we had the stuff of legends - prior, not so much. The Spitfire design to me at least, culminated in the XIV. The original concept had always intended to affix the Griffon but development was postponed for a few years while the bugs were ironed out. When it did happen well...can lightning strike twice? I am of the opinion that it not only can but the second hit was by far the fiercest. The main difference between the two planes? I believe it is wing design. The P51 has phenomenal wing loading thus the vastly extended range. The wing concept of the Spitfire is somewhat different but very suited to the loading of dog fighting. So all things being equal which is better? It depends. In reality all things are NEVER equal. Each plane has its niche and a good pilot knows the "sweet spots" and will exploit them to the fullest against each adversary. (i.e. which direction did your spit "snap-roll" and which did you have to "haul it over" - based on the centrifugal force of the engine rotation..yes it was different for a Merlin and a Griffon) The difference between hunter and prey in combat is knowing your plane and the enemies plane and aggressively exploiting them, the strengths and corresponding weakness, to their fullest. I have a personal weakness for a spit but I certainly don't hate a Mustang (with a R.R. engine that is)
Just my two cents!!!!
P.S. make mine a 14 please! (rounded wingtip, Type 65 with 2 stage turbo and as many .50's as will fit!! also a XXX variant would be cake!!...look it up for a real mind blow!)
Lee

Oh boy

Well...
The Spitfire and the Mustang were the aircraft that were needed at a point in history.
I'm not sure that you could really say 'which one is best'....
Cheers
John

Readie said:

Well...
The Spitfire and the Mustang were the aircraft that were needed at a point in history.
I'm not sure that you could really say 'which one is best'....
Cheers
John

Click to expand...

I have to agree, it becomes personal prefrence at some point and I have had a thing for the spit from the time I was a wee lad and my Mom would read me to sleep from a book on the BoB. It had drawings of the Spitfire Mk 1 and my dreams were filled with daring do over the channel at the controls of a spit. I am an old man today but I still have dreams...but I digress, what about throwing the P47 into the mix? I know she's not real pretty but with a 2K HP + engine and 8!!! .50 cal guns, she's got roughly the same rate of fire as a modern 20 MM. electric gattling gun! Point that at ANY aircraft in WWII and what you get from 1 second burst on target is hard to argue with. The gun camaras from the P47 during WWII confirm targets (including bombers)shredding in the air. Great book called "Thunderbolt!" by P47 ace that recounts his experience with this fantastic aircraft. What do you all think?

Cheers!
Lee

If your defending then the SPit is the best, if your attacking the P51 is the best, its all about range