Spitfire vs Mustang

[cimmex]

If the P-51 pilots will use the same tactic as the FW190 did before against the Spitfire Mk5s the result would be the same and Spitfire
would loose.
Regards
cimmex

 

[stona]

Not really Steve - the question, while rheorical, was about the best dogfighter if both had to fly from UK to Berlin.. escort was a role/mission, and included dogfighting, killing from ambush, strafing, etc. The Mustang wasn't designed as an 'escort' fighter, it was designed as a fighter and evolved to suit a variety of missions including interceptor, long range escort, close air support. Its exceptional range enabled it to do those roles far away.

The Mustang,as you say,was a fighter first and foremost and capable of many roles.Some it did very well,some less well. Overall it was a more capable (to use modern terminology) aircraft than any Spitfire. I think we agree on that.
However if I had to dogfight any other aircraft in the European theatre in late '44/early '45 I'd choose a late mark Spitfire over a P-51 to do it in every time.
Cheers
Steve

 

[renrich]

I think there needs to be a clarification. Dogfighting is one tactic or style of ACM. All ACM is not dogfighting. In modern terms ( I think) dogfighting is a form of angles tactics as opposed to energy tactics. The US Navy instructed their pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs not to dogfight the Zeke. That did not mean that they were not to engage the Zeke. It meant do not go around tail chasing the Zeke. Using the strengths of the Hellcats and the Corsairs and team tactics the Navy and Marine pilots began to build up big numbers against the Zeke. Bob Johnson, in a P47 against Spitfires in mock ACM at moderate altitudes developed tactics aginst the Spit which enabled him to wax the Spits. He did not dogfight them. The P47 was no Mustang.

 

[drgondog]

By lethality are you referring to firepower Bill?

Nah - the Spit had firepower all over the Mustang B/C/D/H/K.. but Peglar's comment about lethality was that it didn't matter what you had if you couldn't get to the fight. When he was flying Spits, the 8th and 9th AF were flyin P-38s and P-51s hundreds of miles deeper into Germany - and engaging.

 

[drgondog]

I think there needs to be a clarification. Dogfighting is one tactic or style of ACM. All ACM is not dogfighting. In modern terms ( I think) dogfighting is a form of angles tactics as opposed to energy tactics. The US Navy instructed their pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs not to dogfight the Zeke. That did not mean that they were not to engage the Zeke. It meant do not go around tail chasing the Zeke. Using the strengths of the Hellcats and the Corsairs and team tactics the Navy and Marine pilots began to build up big numbers against the Zeke. Bob Johnson, in a P47 against Spitfires in mock ACM at moderate altitudes developed tactics aginst the Spit which enabled him to wax the Spits. He did not dogfight them. The P47 was no Mustang.

I agree, and I voted for the Spit in this poll - but as you say, tactics, skill, tactical position and judgement are all very important factors in winning a 'dogfight'.

 

[drgondog]

The Mustang,as you say,was a fighter first and foremost and capable of many roles.Some it did very well,some less well. Overall it was a more capable (to use modern terminology) aircraft than any Spitfire. I think we agree on that.
However if I had to dogfight any other aircraft in the European theatre in late '44/early '45 I'd choose a late mark Spitfire over a P-51 to do it in every time.
Cheers
Steve

Steve - my vote was for the Spit in the Poll..

 

[Messy1]

Thanks for the explanation Bill. I understand your post now.

 

[Readie]

Kind of like comparing a quarter horse and a thoroughbred. They were meant for different tasks. However, the Mustang (plane) was very credible in ACM. The Spitfire could not be a long range escort.

The 'thoroughbred' being the Spitfire of course
To continue the equine thing would the Mustang be a Plains pony? A little bit of everything that worked very well in practice and could run forever?

I'm not convinced that you can really compare the two planes as they were designed for different roles.

John

 

[Messy1]

The 'thoroughbred' being the Spitfire of course
To continue the equine thing would the Mustang be a Plains pony? A little bit of everything that worked very well in practice and could run forever?

I'm not convinced that you can really compare the two planes as they were designed for different roles.

John

I'd break in down like this Mustang=Hidalgo/ Spitfire=Secretariat or Seabiscuit

 

[stona]

I'm not convinced that you can really compare the two planes as they were designed for different roles.
John

They were both designed as fighters,primarily. They evolved into different roles. The P-51D was as far away from its Allison engined forbear as the Spitfire XIV was from the Spitfire I.
The Mustang was more modern and this may well have enabled its more comprehensive capabilities. It is hard to argue against the best OVERALL single seat fighter of WWII,in Europe, being the Mustang. I'll still take a Spitfire but then I'm British and to me it's more than just an aeroplane.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Readie]

I'd break in down like this Mustang=Hidalgo/ Spitfire=Secretariat or Seabiscuit

Normal horse heart= 8.5lbs. Secretariat's heart= approximately 22lbs.
Apparently a 'big heart' is something passed down the female side of the genetics pool.

The Spitfires 'Big Heart' being the Merlin.

Hidalgo Hopkins is a good analogy for the Mustang.

Two great planes and true horses for courses.

John

 

[renrich]

Unfortunately since I am a quarter horse guy, the Spit was the quarter horse, docile, quick acceleration, easy to ride, turn on a nickel and give you some change. The Mustang was the long distance runner, with great endurance, fast but not a great turner.

 

[Readie]

I'll still take a Spitfire but then I'm British and to me it's more than just an aeroplane.
Cheers
Steve

Spot on Steve. Our Spitfire is our nation treasure.
John

 

[davparlr]

Difficult to believe and British comparation trials gave to Spitfire Mk IX and XIV better climb performance than to Mustang III (P-51B/C). Soviets seemed to agree. And because of Spitfires had smaller empty weights (also smaller t/o weights but in empty weights the bigger fuel load of P-51 doesn't have influence), lighter wing loadings and Spit IXs and VIIIs more or less same power and XIV more power, so its easy to believe those tests.

The test I saw compared the P-51B at 61 inches boost vs 67 inches for the spit. In May, '44, P-51Bs and Ds were approved for 75" boost. At this boost the P-51B gains a significant amount of climb. I do not know when the spit got approval for 80" (25 lbs) but I did see a meno indicating approval to use 21 lbs (72"?) in March, '45. At this boost, the spit should easily out climb the P-51B/D at 75" boost.

I suspect the Russian test were also at lower boost.

 

[davparlr]

oops I accidentally voted for the Mustang, but meant to vote for the spit. I am so used to voting for the mustang it comes naturally. I do think the spit was the better dogfighter.

 

[marshall]

Bob Johnson, in a P47 against Spitfires in mock ACM at moderate altitudes developed tactics aginst the Spit which enabled him to wax the Spits. He did not dogfight them.

Where can I find more info about this?

 

[vikingBerserker]

It seems to me that the Spirtfire went through a lot more incantations then the Mustang. Was the Spitfire frame just that good or was it more out of a product of necessity?

 

[Jabberwocky]

It seems to me that the Spirtfire went through a lot more incantations then the Mustang. Was the Spitfire frame just that good or was it more out of a product of necessity?

I think it was more a combination of necessity and capability, as well as the longer development timeframe of the Spitfire and the very rapid pace of engine development in the 1938-1942 period. Also, the Air Ministry could never make up its mind about exactly which direction Spitfire development should go, so there was quite a bit of fiddling about.

Also the Mustang was designed with many of the early lessons of the European air war already learned, so North American could incorporate advanced concepts straight into the design, whereas Supermarine kept updating existing types.

Looking at the Spitfire, there were 14 major sub-types, including four carrier-based sub-types. Looking at the Mustang there were just six subtypes.

The Spitfire went through two major engine types (Merlin, Griffon), as well as three major 'families' of the Merlin and two of the Griffon.

The P-51 also went through two major engines (V-1710 and V-1650), but just a single family of the Allison and two of the V-1650.

 

[Readie]

It seems to me that the Spirtfire went through a lot more incantations then the Mustang. Was the Spitfire frame just that good or was it more out of a product of necessity?

The Spitfire was the 'Woodmans favourite axe' ....5 new heads, 12 new handles buit, still the best axe he had ever owned.
I did a thread on this a while ago.
Cheers
John

 

[drgondog]

The Spitfire went through two major engine types (Merlin, Griffon), as well as three major 'families' of the Merlin and two of the Griffon.

The P-51 also went through two major engines (V-1710 and V-1650), but just a single family of the Allison and two of the V-1650.

The P-51H had the 1650-9 which had essentially the same gearing as the -3 but a different carb system so you could say three variations on the Merlin