Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

deleted

Since I read your post before you deleted it, I figured I would answer you anyhow...

You asked what good was the Spitfire when it didn't have the range to get to the enemy. You do realize there is a difference between long range escort, and an interceptor right?

 

[CORSNING]

OK, here we go again. Hi altitude interceptor: Spit 14
Medium altitude interceptor: Spit 14 with some possible contenders.
Low altitude interceptor: P-51A, P-51B and Tempest V.
Long range escort or interceptor: P-38L, P-51 (Merlin), P-47N

Now this one vs. one crap between these two has to end.
They were built for two different reasons that they both fully filled
exceptionally. I am growing very tired of input from those that cannot understand
this concept.
The Spitfire and Mustang were two very different types of aircraft.
They compared very well to each other from their conception.

In my personal opinion they cannot be compared in the standard
sense of apples vs. apples. That is not what they were.

OK, let me leave you with this.... Let's just say they decided to
drop a Griffin in the Mustang. With its cleaner design, what kind
of speed do you think it would have produced?

Jeff,......................................................................

 

[grampi]

OK, here we go again. Hi altitude interceptor: Spit 14
Medium altitude interceptor: Spit 14 with some possible contenders.
Low altitude interceptor: P-51A, P-51B and Tempest V.
Long range escort or interceptor: P-38L, P-51 (Merlin), P-47N

Now this one vs. one crap between these two has to end.
They were built for two different reasons that they both fully filled
exceptionally. I am growing very tired of input from those that cannot understand
this concept.
The Spitfire and Mustang were two very different types of aircraft.
They compared very well to each other from their conception.

In my personal opinion they cannot be compared in the standard
sense of apples vs. apples. That is not what they were.

OK, let me leave you with this.... Let's just say they decided to
drop a Griffin in the Mustang. With its cleaner design, what kind
of speed do you think it would have produced?

Jeff,......................................................................

I don't know, I would say the P-51H was pretty much on par with the highest performing versions of the Spit in every performance category...people seem to forget about the H model as it didn't see any action, but it was a real hot rod...

 

[Glider]

I don't know, I would say the P-51H was pretty much on par with the highest performing versions of the Spit in every performance category...people seem to forget about the H model as it didn't see any action, but it was a real hot rod...

There were a number of 'Hot Rods' that missed the war, Hornet, Tempest II, MB 5, Sea Fury, Bearcat, Do 335 which in time line order should also include P80, Meteor IV, Vampire, He162, .just to name a few and I am sure others could be added to the list. I suggest you stick with what saw action and always remember that in combat the 162 and 262 had significant advantages over all the piston engine types

 

[CORSNING]

There were a number of 'Hot Rods' that missed the war,
I agree.
. I suggest you stick with what saw action
Once again I agree.
and always remember that in combat the 162 and 262 had significant advantages over all the piston engine types

I also agree to a point. Right up until maneuverability, laterally or horizontally
over a period of time (when zoom climb begins to wear off) comes into play.
I am going to guess when that time arrived the Spits, Stangs, Jugs and Tempests
could have had their way. That is just an opinion though and should be only
kicked into high gear wherever prohibited by law.

 

[grampi]

There were a number of 'Hot Rods' that missed the war, Hornet, Tempest II, MB 5, Sea Fury, Bearcat, Do 335 which in time line order should also include P80, Meteor IV, Vampire, He162, .just to name a few and I am sure others could be added to the list. I suggest you stick with what saw action and always remember that in combat the 162 and 262 had significant advantages over all the piston engine types

My reply was more in reference to the notion that the P-51 shouldn't be compared to the Spit because the two planes were built for two completely different roles. However, the P-51H was actually designed to be more of an air superiority fighter, much like the Spit was. Earlier versions of the Mustang were not designed as air superiority fighters and I agree, should not be compared to the Spit...

 

[Shortround6]

My reply was more in reference to the notion that the P-51 shouldn't be compared to the Spit because the two planes were built for two completely different roles. However, the P-51H was actually designed to be more of an air superiority fighter, much like the Spit was. Earlier versions of the Mustang were not designed as air superiority fighters and I agree, should not be compared to the Spit...

Ok I will bite, what were the Early versions of the Mustang designed as?
They were ordered just after the first production P-40 (no letter) flew, 3 months before the BoB, 3-4 months before the P-40D/Warhawk was ordered and over a year before the first P-40D was built.
They had the BEST high altitude V-12 engine Allison could offer without a turbo (granted it wasn't good enough).

The problem is they were delivered (and faster than most planes) almost two years after initial design was signed off on. Combat conditions and other peoples engines/aircraft had gained quite a bit in altitude capability in the meantime.

 

[pbehn]

Ok I will bite, what were the Early versions of the Mustang designed as?
They were ordered just after the first production P-40 (no letter) flew, 3 months before the BoB, 3-4 months before the P-40D/Warhawk was ordered and over a year before the first P-40D was built.
They had the BEST high altitude V-12 engine Allison could offer without a turbo (granted it wasn't good enough).

The problem is they were delivered (and faster than most planes) almost two years after initial design was signed off on. Combat conditions and other peoples engines/aircraft had gained quite a bit in altitude capability in the meantime.

Amazing how an event on 3rd September 1939 changed things a tad.

 

[grampi]

Ok I will bite, what were the Early versions of the Mustang designed as?
They were ordered just after the first production P-40 (no letter) flew, 3 months before the BoB, 3-4 months before the P-40D/Warhawk was ordered and over a year before the first P-40D was built.
They had the BEST high altitude V-12 engine Allison could offer without a turbo (granted it wasn't good enough).

The problem is they were delivered (and faster than most planes) almost two years after initial design was signed off on. Combat conditions and other peoples engines/aircraft had gained quite a bit in altitude capability in the meantime.

You'd have to ask corsing that question. All I know for sure is that the P-51H was specifically designed to have better performance over previous Mustang versions, and it did...

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I hear that a lot, that the Mustang was designed to be a long range escort, and the Spitfire was built to be an interceptor, so comparisons are moot. The Mustang was NOT designed to be a long range escort, it was designed to be a "better P-40". The escort role came much later, and after much retrofitting. I would say that a direct comparison between the P-51A/Mustang I and the Spitfire Mk.V/IX is as apt a comparison as any other. Same for the Mk.XIV and P-51D. IMHO anyway

 

[grampi]

I hear that a lot, that the Mustang was designed to be a long range escort, and the Spitfire was built to be an interceptor, so comparisons are moot. The Mustang was NOT designed to be a long range escort, it was designed to be a "better P-40". The escort role came much later, and after much retrofitting. I would say that a direct comparison between the P-51A/Mustang I and the Spitfire Mk.V/IX is as apt a comparison as any other. Same for the Mk.XIV and P-51D. IMHO anyway

The Spitfire was designed to climb as quickly as possible to intercept and fight off the Germans and then return to base. The Mustang was never designed to fill that role. The Spitfire was never designed or retrofitted to be a long range escort. Neither plane could've swapped roles and still have been as effective as they were, therefore comparing the two is an invalid comparison...

 

[pbehn]

OK, let me leave you with this.... Let's just say they decided to
drop a Griffin in the Mustang. With its cleaner design, what kind
of speed do you think it would have produced?

Jeff,......................................................................

A Griffon Mustang would have been awesome in every respect, except perhaps range.

 

[Shortround6]

we are back to the rather circular argument.

The Mustang was NOT designed to be long range fighter.

This is page 7 of the Proposal. Please note the date of April 24th 1940. Please note the times to altitude.
The British may have been planning better versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane to come into service in another 4-6 months but the planned performance of the Mustang was certainly close to the Spitfire I or Hurricane I.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Spitfire was designed to climb as quickly as possible to intercept and fight off the Germans

The Spitfire was designed to an air ministry specification for a modern fighter capable of 250mph. Its role as an interceptor came later, long after the design stage.
And Spitfires were absolutely retrofitted to be escorts, but the small airframe just couldn't carry enough fuel to be particularly effective at it

 

[Shortround6]

We may be getting into two different Spitfires.

I could well be wrong on this but you had the Supermarine 224 and the Supermarine 300.
The 224 was the fixed gear, gull winged four gun aircraft. Aside from being a monoplane with a V-12 engine in the nose it shared nest to nothing with Supermarine 300.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Wasn't the Supermarine 300 submitted to the same specification? I may be wrong. My main point being that the Spitfire wasn't specifically built to be an interceptor.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know, some British specifications get rather confused and this is one of them.

from wiki so......
Specification F.7/30, which was formally issued to the aircraft industry in October 1931, this lead to the Supermaine 224

or
F.7/30..................... Fighter capable of at least 250 mph and armed with four machine guns................
Blackburn F.3, Bristol Type 123, Bristol Type 133, Gloster Gladiator, Gloster SS.19, Hawker P.V.3, Supermarine Type 224, Westland F.7/30

replaced (?) by
F.5/34...... OR.15......Single-seat fighter[35] (although contracts were placed for prototypes with three companies none were ordered into production)[35]
Bristol Type 146, Martin-Baker M.B.2, Vickers Type 279 Venom, Gloster F.5/34

then
F.36/34........OR.16....... High Speed Monoplane Single Seater Fighter (based on the Hawker submission to F.5/34)[35]
Hawker Hurricane

then
F.37/34..........High Speed Monoplane Single Seater Fighter (based on the private venture Supermarine Type 300 submission)[35]
Supermarine Spitfire

followed by
F.10/35..................Drawn up for the Spitfire prototype.....................
Supermarine Spitfire

and
F.15/36..................Written for Hurricane redesigned for Merlin II...................
Hawker Hurricane I

Perhaps some of our British friends can sort this out (and I believe some of the changes between a few of the specifications were minor) but too me although the Spitfire (and Hurricane) had their roots in the F.7/30 requirement niether plane was really designed to meet it. Instead they were designed to meet a modified version of the requirement (and I don't know what modifications were) OR they were private ventures that while not meeting the full requirements of the specification, exceeded them so well in some areas that a new specification was written to cover them?

Saying the Spitfire 300 evolved from the Supermarine 224 is a bit like saying the P-40 evolved from this.

Yes it is a Curtiss.
yes it uses a V-12
yes it is a low wing monoplane.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

well I guess the Hurricane quite literally evolved from this...

 

[Clayton Magnet]

This is interesting about the Specifications possibly being adjusted to fit the prototype. Seems backwards

 

[grampi]

Wasn't the Supermarine 300 submitted to the same specification? I may be wrong. My main point being that the Spitfire wasn't specifically built to be an interceptor.

Maybe not initially, but that's what it was developed into, the Mustang was never developed into that role...