Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The 'Grace' Spit is a beautiful restoration and conversion, maintaining the lines of the original whilst incorporating the rear cockpit. The code letters are those of 485 Sqn., RNZAF, when flown by Johhnie Houlton who, on a visit to the UK about 20 years ago, was able to fly his old 'mount' again.
A little tale about it's Insurance - when a representative from the management of the insurance company was taken for a flight, on approach to landing he was asked to keep his feet and hands clear of the controls. Whilst moving his legs, his right knee hooked under the undercarriage lever, causing the down locks to free. When the aircraft touched down, it slowly settled onto its belly as the gear retracted!
A safety guard has since been fitted!
 
Readie said:
Lee, No need to dig one up lol.
The 'Grace Spitfire' is a twin seat trainer...very occasionally people are offered a ride in the back seat.
Have a look on 'you tube' with Tony Robinson having a flight over the white Cliffs.
Cheers
John
Click to expand...
I am buying a mega-millions lotto ticket tonight! With the winnings I plan on taking my destination vacation to GB and then getting a go at Grace! I am a man and I have needs...er well you know what I mean..but with mega-millions I can purchase a MK XIV for me!! <my precious>...now I have to figure out how to afford maintenance and operating costs and oh yeah some flight lessons but I hear they are super easy to learn to fly....I will just have to take care not to flip the switch and trigger the guns by accident!..oh no, I mustn't do that!...sigh I have needs....
Cheers!
Lee
 

Good luck with your lottery ticket Lee
I thought I had cracked the recent Euromillions lottery here...alas not.
Dream garages had been mentally purchased plus, of course, a Merlin Spitfire.
Oh well...there is always next time.8)
Cheers
John
 
Not sure if people are still around on this forum, but I was in another last year that was closed eventually. Seemed too many people were getting steamed. However, where we left off in comparing the Spit to the Mustang was the construction/durability/survivability of the two aircraft. I argued that the Mustang was more durable simply on the grounds that it weighed significantly more (tanks empty) than the Spit.

Anybody have any information on this? I can't seem to find anything online.
 
In don't like planes wioth fuel behind the engine. Seems if one is hit , the other is pretty much destroyed. I like the fuel out in the wings for survivability or behind the cockpit, which isn't very good for CG.
 
GregP said:
In don't like planes wioth fuel behind the engine. Seems if one is hit , the other is pretty much destroyed. I like the fuel out in the wings for survivability or behind the cockpit, which isn't very good for CG.
Click to expand...

Easier to armour tank in fuselage between pilot and engine than in wings.
 
GregP said:
In don't like planes with fuel behind the engine. Seems if one is hit , the other is pretty much destroyed. I like the fuel out in the wings for survivability or behind the cockpit, which isn't very good for CG.
Click to expand...

The battle experience of the RAF during the Battle of Britain showed that the wing fuel tanks in the Hurricane were much more in danger of catching fire and more of a danger to the pilot than the forward fuel tanks on the Spitfire.

Of course, the Hurricane had the worst of both worlds: almost unprotected wing fuel tanks and an (initially) unprotected reserve tank forward of the pilot without a proper firewall or armour to separate the pilot from the tank. Even when the linatex covering was fitted, the tanks were still very vulnerable. Eventually, they got more armour, certainly from the Mk II.

On the other hand, the Spitfire's forward fuel tanks were both better protected and sealed away behind a firewall and an armour plate. Initially, only one of the tanks (top, I think) was covered in linatex, but eventually both top and bottom tanks were covered. There was also a light alloy deflection plate (4 mm only) over the top of the upper tank to protect it.

When Hawker built the Tempest with wing tanks, they corrected the mistake, making sure the wing tanks were self sealing and protected by armour (6.5 mm if I recall correctly).
 
All interesting, and I can tell you guys have done your homework. But has anybody looked into the actual construction of the two planes, ie the distance between struts, the thickness or aluminum spars, the gauge of aircraft skin, etc.?

Would be interesting to determine if the Mustang was stronger because of its weight or if the Spitfire had engineered around the weight requirement for a combat-worthy frame.
 

Spitfire Mod #223 25/4/40 Linatex covered lower fuel tank.
Spitfire Mod #227 27/7/40 Self sealing lower fuel tank.

This is self sealing in the sense of a lining which might work when punctured by a rifle calibre bullet.

I know initially there was no room to retro fit Linatex to the upper tank,hence the aluminium deflection armour. I'd have to dig to see when or if this was eventually done.

I'm not sure that the Spitfire was any more vulnerable than the P-51 or vice versa. Both had fuel tanks vulnerable to cannon fire and both used liquid cooled engines with vulnearable coolant systems and radiators. Puncture the coolant system and you're not flying with power for any length of time.
Whether the skin of one or the other was a few thousands thicker is not going to make a great deal of difference to a 20mm mine shell.

Reading accounts of RAF pilots from the BoB they considered the unarmoured wing tanks of the Ju 87 to be very vulnerable. When fighting with very limited supplies of ammunition anything which bursts into flames as soon as it is hit,ensuring the demise of the target,is a good thing for the attacker.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
I'd much rather have the wing on fire and bail out than a fire right in front, below, or behind me. The worst has to be Bf 109 with the pilot sitting on the fuel tank. No thanks.

Great plane, but I would not want to fly one that was being shot at in combat. Probably the real best location is behind the engine, but if the tank gets hit and catches on fire, you are probably toast.
 
GregP said:
I'd much rather have the wing on fire and bail out than a fire right in front, below, or behind me.
Click to expand...

Me too,but wing tanks tend to offer a larger target area,by the very nature of their design and where they have to fit,than others and are therefore statistically more likely to be hit.

Cheers

Steve
 
GregP said:
I'd much rather have the wing on fire and bail out than a fire right in front, below, or behind me. The worst has to be Bf 109 with the pilot sitting on the fuel tank. No thanks...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the placement of the fuel tank in 109 was anyway more dangerous than the placement of the fuel tanks in Spit if they were hit. If the tank blow up, end of the story in both cases if the tank was holed and the outflowing fuel caught fire, in Spit the torch would be blowing towards the pilot, in 109 away the pilot.

Juha
 
Each to his own, I suppose. I've removed a 109 gas tank and I'd NOT want to be there sitting on it but, everyone has his preferences.

Except for the gas tank location, it is a very neat aircraft with many good qualities to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Mustang & Spitfire drag doc
Replies
3
Views
1K
drgondog
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register