Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
deleted
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...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...
I also agree to a point. Right up until maneuverability, laterally or horizontallyThere 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
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...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...
Amazing how an event on 3rd September 1939 changed things a tad.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.
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.
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...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
A Griffon Mustang would have been awesome in every respect, except perhaps range.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,......................................................................
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.The Spitfire was designed to climb as quickly as possible to intercept and fight off the Germans
Maybe not initially, but that's what it was developed into, the Mustang was never developed into that role...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.