Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang (1 Viewer)

[claidemore]

Just to clear up any possible confusion.
First pic is a Malcolm hood, second pic is a bubble canopy.

Photos are from IPMSStockholm.org - Webzine about plastic scale models, model building, modelling news, techniques and reference maintained by IPMS Stockholm of Sweden and Jerry Billing Home

 

[nuuumannn]

I have seen some photos of Mk XIV Spitfires with the cut down rear fuselage and Malcolm hood and some with the bubble canopy and the normal raised rear section.

Here's a comparison of Spit XIVs with the different canopies;

Note that MV268 preceeds RN201 serially and construction wise; the former was ordered as a Mk.VIII but completed as a 'XIV and rolled out in January 1945. Although a high back Spit, RN201 was rolled out a month after MV268. There was no designation difference between the high and low back Spit XIVs.

Spitfire XIVs were the first production aircraft to be fitted with the cut down rear fuselage and bubble canopy, although this mod was trialed on Mk.VIII JF299 first in mid 1943. This aircraft and XIV RM784, the first XIV with a bubble canopy were used for canopy jettison trials. Apparently the hood struck the rear fuse and tailplane and broke in two.

 

[vinnye]

Thanks for posting those photos of both types of Mk XIV, and the notes which explain why both appeared when you would normally expect the aircraft of one Mark Numbers to be fairly uniform in design!

 

[nuuumannn]

No worries Vinnye, I've recently been researching the 'XIV for an article and managed to get my grubby hands all over one that's under restoration recently! I remembered I had these pictures in my collection taken at Duxford from years back. In his book Spitfire a test pilot's story, Jeffrey Quill comments that he had a small role in the introduction of the blown canopy; in the Battle of Britain he was seconded to 65 Sqn and complained about the lack of rearward visibility. He and other service pilots met and talked with Joe Smith, who was eventually convinced and introduced the change. The first production low back Spits appeared in late '44/early '45, so were relatively late in the war.

 

[grampi]

I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...

 

[Kryten]

I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...

Pointless comparing an aircraft that did not see combat in ww2 with one that was there from the start, it's a different generation!

Fact is a plane is only as good as what you use it for, your not going to send a Spit to Berlin for obvious reasons, but as an air supremacy fighter and defensive interceptor it was superb, just as the Mustang was as an escort fighter!

apples n pears!

 

[grampi]

Pointless comparing an aircraft that did not see combat in ww2 with one that was there from the start, it's a different generation!

It's no more pointless comparing the Bearcat to the Spit than it is to compare the Mustang to it...at least the Bearcat was designed to do the same thing the Spit was...and THIS Spit was hardley there from the beginning of the war, it's vastly different and superior to the Spit I...I'm guessing people don't want to compare it to the Bearcat because it wouldn't come out on top....

 

[drgondog]

I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...

Grampi - The 51 was a marvelous airplane but when a 51 flew for 7+ hours (8 max unless with Ferry tanks) it was in actual escort mode maybe 1-2 hours max. The didn't R/V with bombers over the North Sea for Berlin or Stettin, they would fast cruise to Brunswick or the Rugen Islands, perform the escort and break escort on the way back long before reaching the Channel.

 

[grampi]

Grampi - The 51 was a marvelous airplane but when a 51 flew for 7+ hours (8 max unless with Ferry tanks) it was in actual escort mode maybe 1-2 hours max. The didn't R/V with bombers over the North Sea for Berlin or Stettin, they would fast cruise to Brunswick or the Rugen Islands, perform the escort and break escort on the way back long before reaching the Channel.

Thanks for pointing that out...I just noticed I overclaimed some time there...point is, there was no other plane at the time that could fly the distances the Mustang flew and still outfight the enemy...

 

[vinnye]

The P51 was a coincidence of good fortunes - it was an excellent airframe that would not have achieved what it did without the addition of an excellent engine. It may have served as a ground attack aircraft but not have achieved its full potential without the Merlin, which made it into the ultimate long range escort fighter. As posted in previous reply your time line is off by some way! The P51 also had the advantage that the LW was being destroyed on the ground and in the air by other aircraft as well - P47 for example.
Comparing a Spitfire with a Bearcat is even more of a stretch than a P51 to a MK XIV !
Yes the later Spitfires benefited from development throughout the War, but its design was pre-War and that design showed its versatility in the number of Marks that it spawned - usually very successful at that.
A Bearcat might be compared more closely with a Sea Fury as neither saw action in WW2.

 

[fastmongrel]

If your comparing a Bearcat and Spit, the Spit that should be put up against the Bearcat would be the Spitfire Mk 24 (or the carrier version Seafire Mk 47). I doubt the Bearcat would find either model of Spit easymeat. Probably end up as the pilot with the height and surprise would win.

 

[grampi]

If your comparing a Bearcat and Spit, the Spit that should be put up against the Bearcat would be the Spitfire Mk 24 (or the carrier version Seafire Mk 47). I doubt the Bearcat would find either model of Spit easymeat. Probably end up as the pilot with the height and surprise would win.

I agree, no easy meat with the Spit. However, I do believe the F8F-2 would outperform any Spit in every performance category, with the exception of turning radius, which would still be close...I also think it would outperform the Sea Fury as well...no doubt the Spit and Sea Fury were outstanding performers, but the Bearcat was just a beast! It was designed to outperform anything in the sky, and it did! Good thing for the enemy it never saw any action....

 

[tomo pauk]

Care to bring out some numbers to back up the claims?Further, just how much is a fair comparison between 1945 and 1948 fighters?

 

[grampi]

Care to bring out some numbers to back up the claims?Further, just how much is a fair comparison between 1945 and 1948 fighters?

F8F-2 performance figures:
Max speed: 455
Service ceiling: 40,800
Range: 2,200 miles
Climb: 6,300 fpm

I don't know which plane you're referring to as the 1948 fighter, but the Bearcat was in service by 1944...and as I said earlier the Bearcat/Spit comparison is a more relevant one than the Mustang/Spit comparison...since when does it make sense to compare two planes that had completely different design philosophies?

 

[fastmongrel]

I dont think that climb rate is right even for an F8F-2 which came along in 1948 well after anyone else had stopped developing piston engine fighters. Wikipedia gives these figures for an F8F-2

Maximum speed: 455 mph (405 kn, 730 km/h)
Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)
Service ceiling: 40,800 ft (12,436 m)
Rate of climb: 4,465 ft/min (23.2 m/s)

I cant find any figures for a Mk24 but wikipedia gives these figures for a Spiteful which is similar to a Mk24 and the nearest in timescale to an F8F-2 show the Bearcat is not going to walk anything.

Maximum speed: 483 mph (420 knots, 778 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Range: 564 mi (490 nmi, 908 km)
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,800 m)
Rate of climb: 4,890 ft/min (24.8 m/s)

The Bearcat was a fantastic aircraft but it was no better or worse than an equivalent fighter. Quoting figures on this forum can be a dangerous sport as there are guys on here who have forgotten more about WWII aircraft than I will ever know and if you are going to quote something you really need to back it up with a reference. Random figures pulled from google mean nothing especially if you are comparing different nations figures, climbing figures particulary are measured in different ways by different air forces. One force might measure climb at a steady throttle slightly below maximum power another might measure it as say 5 mins at max then 75% throttle for the rest of the climb.

 

[grampi]

I dont think that climb rate is right even for an F8F-2 which came along in 1948 well after anyone else had stopped developing piston engine fighters. Wikipedia gives these figures for an F8F-2

Maximum speed: 455 mph (405 kn, 730 km/h)
Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)
Service ceiling: 40,800 ft (12,436 m)
Rate of climb: 4,465 ft/min (23.2 m/s)

I cant find any figures for a Mk24 but wikipedia gives these figures for a Spiteful which is similar to a Mk24 and the nearest in timescale to an F8F-2 show the Bearcat is not going to walk anything.

Maximum speed: 483 mph (420 knots, 778 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Range: 564 mi (490 nmi, 908 km)
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,800 m)
Rate of climb: 4,890 ft/min (24.8 m/s)

The Bearcat was a fantastic aircraft but it was no better or worse than an equivalent fighter. Quoting figures on this forum can be a dangerous sport as there are guys on here who have forgotten more about WWII aircraft than I will ever know and if you are going to quote something you really need to back it up with a reference. Random figures pulled from google mean nothing especially if you are comparing different nations figures, climbing figures particulary are measured in different ways by different air forces. One force might measure climb at a steady throttle slightly below maximum power another might measure it as say 5 mins at max then 75% throttle for the rest of the climb.

The book I have that lists the Bearcat's performance specs is called "Bearcat in Action" which was published by Squadron...it doesn't say how the climb rate was determined...it lists the identical climb rate of 6300 fpm for the F8F-1 as well. I would say this climb rate is closer to the Cat's actual climb performance as the Navy set some time to climb record back in the 40s (which is documented somewhere) with one climbing to 10000 ft from a dead stop in a little over 90 seconds....that's actually over 6600 fpm....I didn't believe it to be true, but it's hard to disregard the all of the official documentation of the event....

 

[wuzak]

The book I have that lists the Bearcat's performance specs is called "Bearcat in Action" which was published by Squadron...it doesn't say how the climb rate was determined...it lists the identical climb rate of 6300 fpm for the F8F-1 as well. I would say this climb rate is closer to the Cat's actual climb performance as the Navy set some time to climb record back in the 40s (which is documented somewhere) with one climbing to 10000 ft from a dead stop in a little over 90 seconds....that's actually over 6600 fpm....I didn't believe it to be true, but it's hard to disregard the all of the official documentation of the event....

The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).

Initial climb rates aren't always the best gauge. And don't always correspond to good climb at altitude.

I believe the F8F-1 beats the Spitfire XIV to 10,000ft, but the XIV wins to 20,000ft and 30,000ft. That is with a maximum of +18psi boost, though running at +21psi or +25psi boost with the PN150 fuel would improve the Spitfire's low down climb. Not sure what the F8F-1 was running.

The Spitfire 21-24 were slightly faster than the XIV (454mph vs 448mph), had roughly the same climb performance (it was slightly heavier), had the same turn performance but much improved rate of roll. Spitfire 21s went into squadron service in early 1945, around the same time that the F8F-1 did.

 

[OldSkeptic]

The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).

Initial climb rates aren't always the best gauge. And don't always correspond to good climb at altitude.

I believe the F8F-1 beats the Spitfire XIV to 10,000ft, but the XIV wins to 20,000ft and 30,000ft. That is with a maximum of +18psi boost, though running at +21psi or +25psi boost with the PN150 fuel would improve the Spitfire's low down climb. Not sure what the F8F-1 was running.

The Spitfire 21-24 were slightly faster than the XIV (454mph vs 448mph), had roughly the same climb performance (it was slightly heavier), had the same turn performance but much improved rate of roll. Spitfire 21s went into squadron service in early 1945, around the same time that the F8F-1 did.

Don't forget the DH Hornet, it climbed even faster than a Spit.

 

[grampi]

The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).

Yes, by another Bearcat.....

 

[Rufus123]

This is a very long thread and I only read the first page or two of posts but didn't understand the replies on it being about which you like better.

Wouldn't it depend on the job to be done on which you like better.

I would think when you want an interceptor you like the Spitfire better, when you want to be able to go long distance and start the fight with altitude as in an escort role you pick the Mustang. Different animals.