Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A
Anonymous
Guest
The Spit IXe and the Spit XIVe both were armed with 2 x 20mm Hispano II's + 2 x .50 M2 Brownings. I don't think any of the Spit XIV's were armed with .303's, but maybe there was an early version that was so armed. Some of the early test planes had that armament.
=S=
Lunatic
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
As for the Spitfire roll rate and the clipped wings, tests with the Spit IX (I believe it was the IX) showed that some production units rolled very well with full wings, and clipping the wings on these planes did not appreciably increase the rate of roll. Other production units rolled poorly with the full wings, and on these, clipping the wings did improve the roll rate substantially.
=====================
From about 355 mph IAS on up, the P-51 rolled better than the Spitfire, below that, the Spit rolled better than the P-51. The P-51 was easier to roll at moderate speeds and above, as it took less aileron deflection to achieve the same roll. The P-51 roll rate curve is also very flat, where the Sptifire curve is decending sharply from its peak at about 200 mph, making it more difficult for the Spitfire pilot to execute precise rolling manuvers if speeds are changing drastically through a fight.
Again, what I have to wonder is who wins the expected engagement. The P-51 and Spitfire are cruising at 30,000 feet. The P-51 is making 400 mph, and has pleanty of fuel to do so. The Spitfire is making 300 mph, and is pushing his fuel supply to do so. Can the Spitfire make up a 100 mph speed deficit?
=S=
Lunatic
=====================
From about 355 mph IAS on up, the P-51 rolled better than the Spitfire, below that, the Spit rolled better than the P-51. The P-51 was easier to roll at moderate speeds and above, as it took less aileron deflection to achieve the same roll. The P-51 roll rate curve is also very flat, where the Sptifire curve is decending sharply from its peak at about 200 mph, making it more difficult for the Spitfire pilot to execute precise rolling manuvers if speeds are changing drastically through a fight.
Again, what I have to wonder is who wins the expected engagement. The P-51 and Spitfire are cruising at 30,000 feet. The P-51 is making 400 mph, and has pleanty of fuel to do so. The Spitfire is making 300 mph, and is pushing his fuel supply to do so. Can the Spitfire make up a 100 mph speed deficit?
=S=
Lunatic
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
where did you get that the P-51 would be doin 400 and the spit be doing 300?? we're talking about a dogfight so the spit would be at full-ish power, and be doni more than 300mph...........
- Thread starter
- #25
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soren said:
Notice the "e".
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
the lancaster kicks ass said:
But that is not how a dogfight starts. The pilots of each side do not radio to each other asking "are you ready?". Both planes would be cruising at altitude. The Spitfire cruise is around 280 mph, the P-51 cruise is 400 mph. So when they first spot one another, the P-51 would typically have a 100+ mph advantage.
If the Spitfire were to cruise at 400 mph, it would be out of fuel when the engagement began. So in order to be at an equal energy state the Spitfire MUST spot the P-51 first, otherwise, when the fight ensue's, it would have to make up the difference in cruise speeds.
=S=
Lunatic
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
firstly the P-51 doesn't cruise at 400mph, it's closer too 350mph, and i believe the spit could accelerate faster than the 'stang anyway........
A
Anonymous
Guest
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Look at the chart for yourself:
Collumn IV shows a 390 mph cruise at 30,000 feet with a fuel consumption of 76 gph. Collumn I shows a 425 mph cruise at 30,000 feet with a fuel consumption of 97 gph. A 400 mph cruise was certianly possible, though in fact I rounded the numbers a little bit for simplicity. The actual comparison should probably be the P-51 at 390 mph and the Spit-14 at 280 mph.
Yes the Spit-14 could accelerate faster than the P-51, but it would still take it a good minute to wind up another 100 mph at 30,000 feet. That's forever in a dogfight.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to knock the Spit-14. I'm just trying to point out that the P-51 had advantages that are not visible by comparing maximum speeds or climb rates or other stats.
=S=
Lunatic
- Thread starter
- #30
RG_Lunatic said:
Notice what you said:
The Spit IX and XIV had either four .303's or two .50's along with the two Hispano's. Either configuration was available, until the XVIII.
This applies both for the 'e' wing and 'c' wing types.
Here's an IX.e (Notice the four .303's
): 
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soren said:Here's an IX.e (Notice the four .303's
Umm, does that plane have any guns fitted? I think this is an unarmed air-show plane, with fake .50's AND the .303 slots marked in red.
Can you show me an actual picture of a Wartime Spit IXe or Spit XIVe with .303's?
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
DAVIDICUS said:
The reason would be that 20mm cannon are too prone to jamming to rely on just two of them. If the one jams, the other is pretty much useless. You don't want to be totally toothless, and even 4 x .303's is better than nothing.
But I really think most if not all Spit XIV's mounted .50's, not .303's. As for Spit IX's, I believe from the IXe and on, they were also mounting .50's.
=S=
Lunatic
- Thread starter
- #34
I think we can all agree that the .303 machine gun was employed on British aircraft in later stages of the war.
Now, I can see why earlier produced aircraft that were still used later in the war retained their .303 armament. You fight with the weapons you have. That's not what I'm talking about. Why would any aircraft built from, say July of 1942 on, be outfitted with .303's?
Were there manufacturing/supply or installation issues related to outfitting aircraft with the .50 BMG?
Two .50's are far more effective than four .303's. So, why install a .303 armament under any circumstances?
Now, I can see why earlier produced aircraft that were still used later in the war retained their .303 armament. You fight with the weapons you have. That's not what I'm talking about. Why would any aircraft built from, say July of 1942 on, be outfitted with .303's?
Were there manufacturing/supply or installation issues related to outfitting aircraft with the .50 BMG?
Two .50's are far more effective than four .303's. So, why install a .303 armament under any circumstances?
- Thread starter
- #36
Your making it sound like the .303's were useless, but they werent. And the .50's werent the most effective Fighter vs Fighter round either.
The advantage of the four .303's was that they had a much higher ROF, and at 30-120m they were more than enough to put down a fighter.
Against Bombers the .303's would be in-sufficient though, but so would the .50's.
The advantage of the four .303's was that they had a much higher ROF, and at 30-120m they were more than enough to put down a fighter.
Against Bombers the .303's would be in-sufficient though, but so would the .50's.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
this is true..........
A
Anonymous
Guest
Soren said:
Umm... a .50 hit is at least 6-10 times more damaging than a .303 hit. .50's had good range, .303's had poor range.
I disagree, the .50 was a decent fighter vs. fighter round. Perhaps not as good as the Hispano, but two .50's were about the equivalent of one Hispano, all factors considered. And they were almost 3 times more reliable.
=S=
Lunatic
- Thread starter
- #39
RG_Lunatic said:
Yes the .50 is more powerful, but the ROF is low, and at 30-120m the 4x.303's are just as good as the 2x.50's.
Anyway the Spit IX and XIV both had the "B", "C" armament, and it was sufficient.
The "A" armament (8x.303's) during BoB was sufficient for shooting down fighters, so why shouldnt the much better "B" and "C" be so to ?
I realize that I'm just basing this on my opinion but still see four .303's as inferior to two .50's. Insufficient ability to penetrate armor or inflict damage on the engine or penetrate structural members, too small of a diameter to poke good holes in the fuel system, etc.
Below are relevant excerpts (for what they're worth) from "The WWII Fightet Gun Debate"
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html
Concerning the Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IA:
The RAF was quick to understand that heavy firepower was needed, but its initial choice was an unfortunate one. The .303 was chosen over the .50 because of its higher rate of fire and better reliability, but the .303 round lacked the power to penetrate armour, and was far too light to do structural damage. Pilots preferred to use incendiary rounds, also because they could see them hit the target. Although some pilots had their guns "synchronized" to converge at a point, it was more common to have some spreading, to simplify aiming
...
In the first phase (of fighter armament employment) the rifle-calibre machinegun was still important. Fighters either carried a homogenous armament of such guns, or they used a mixture of rifle-calibre guns with cannon or heavy machineguns. Examples of the first approach are the eight Browning .303s in the Spitfire and the four MG17s in the early Fw 190. Examples of the second approach are the MG FF and MG 17 weapons of the Bf 109E, the two .50 and four .303 Brownings of the early P-51, or the two 20mm cannon and two 7.7mm guns in the A6M2. The first phase ended when it was generally understood that the light machinegun was ineffective against modern combat aircraft.
In the second phase there were still two options. Either a homogenous armament of heavy machineguns was used, or a mixture of more modern 20mm cannon with machineguns. The first approach was chosen almost exclusively by the USAAF, which equipped its fighters with six or eight .50 Browning guns. The second approach was far more common, and used by fighters such the Spitfire, the Bf 109, or Ki.84. The cannon were now in general belt-fed, high-velocity weapons with a satisfactory rate of fire. The disadvantage of cannon was that their weight and recoil precluded the use of more than one or two. Hence they had to be mixed with machineguns, with different ballistic characteristics, different ammunition and different maintenance requirements. The disadvantage of an armament of heavy machineguns only was that it lacked the destructive power to be effective against anything but small fighters or lightly constructed bombers.
The third phase, which lasted well beyond WWII, was characterized by a switch to a homogeneous armament of 20mm cannon. Examples of such armament are the last Spitfire models, the Typhoon and Tempest, the Soviet La-7, and the Japanese N1K-2J. Usually four 20mm cannon were carried. This was also the standard armament for most post-war fighters, except those of the USAAF. Again, there was a second option: That of heavy "bomber killer" armament. Here the German MK 108 cannon must be mentioned, as installed in the Me 262. Such cannon were either low- velocity, low-rpm weapons, or they were extremely heavy; in either case they reduced the suitability of the fighter for combat against other fighters. Because of this and the introduction of spin-stabilized and folding-fin rockets, such armament was installed in few post-war fighters, but one that must be mentioned is the MiG-15
Below are relevant excerpts (for what they're worth) from "The WWII Fightet Gun Debate"
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html
Concerning the Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IA:
The RAF was quick to understand that heavy firepower was needed, but its initial choice was an unfortunate one. The .303 was chosen over the .50 because of its higher rate of fire and better reliability, but the .303 round lacked the power to penetrate armour, and was far too light to do structural damage. Pilots preferred to use incendiary rounds, also because they could see them hit the target. Although some pilots had their guns "synchronized" to converge at a point, it was more common to have some spreading, to simplify aiming
...
In the first phase (of fighter armament employment) the rifle-calibre machinegun was still important. Fighters either carried a homogenous armament of such guns, or they used a mixture of rifle-calibre guns with cannon or heavy machineguns. Examples of the first approach are the eight Browning .303s in the Spitfire and the four MG17s in the early Fw 190. Examples of the second approach are the MG FF and MG 17 weapons of the Bf 109E, the two .50 and four .303 Brownings of the early P-51, or the two 20mm cannon and two 7.7mm guns in the A6M2. The first phase ended when it was generally understood that the light machinegun was ineffective against modern combat aircraft.
In the second phase there were still two options. Either a homogenous armament of heavy machineguns was used, or a mixture of more modern 20mm cannon with machineguns. The first approach was chosen almost exclusively by the USAAF, which equipped its fighters with six or eight .50 Browning guns. The second approach was far more common, and used by fighters such the Spitfire, the Bf 109, or Ki.84. The cannon were now in general belt-fed, high-velocity weapons with a satisfactory rate of fire. The disadvantage of cannon was that their weight and recoil precluded the use of more than one or two. Hence they had to be mixed with machineguns, with different ballistic characteristics, different ammunition and different maintenance requirements. The disadvantage of an armament of heavy machineguns only was that it lacked the destructive power to be effective against anything but small fighters or lightly constructed bombers.
The third phase, which lasted well beyond WWII, was characterized by a switch to a homogeneous armament of 20mm cannon. Examples of such armament are the last Spitfire models, the Typhoon and Tempest, the Soviet La-7, and the Japanese N1K-2J. Usually four 20mm cannon were carried. This was also the standard armament for most post-war fighters, except those of the USAAF. Again, there was a second option: That of heavy "bomber killer" armament. Here the German MK 108 cannon must be mentioned, as installed in the Me 262. Such cannon were either low- velocity, low-rpm weapons, or they were extremely heavy; in either case they reduced the suitability of the fighter for combat against other fighters. Because of this and the introduction of spin-stabilized and folding-fin rockets, such armament was installed in few post-war fighters, but one that must be mentioned is the MiG-15
