oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
exactly!
Spitfire vs Mustang
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
exactly!
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
In that event, I think the world, and not just Britain, would have then been in deep doodoo.
SamPZLP.7
Airman
That's true but it also the pilot...
Why, is one pilot going to fly a Spit further than another? 
Wow 2018 !
This is what is unique about the Mustang over much of its competitors.
It was more versatile! Used as a fighter and fighter bomber. Stable landing gear.
Cost less and easier to manufacture and repair.
Was the most cost effective aircraft in WW2 to operate.
It was a great Escort Fighter yet lightened was a good interceptor.
Maybe not as light as the Spitfire but close and a good bit faster!
You could not add enough fuel to a Spitfire to be an effective long range escort!
It could have been adopted for carrier use! One of the reasons for the H tail on P51H.
What made the Mustang great it was designed from the ground up for an in-line engine.
It was not a upgrade or adoption of an earlier design like the P40 and P47.
Though their reliability vastly improved because the design was sorted out unlike,the P38.
P38 was an expensive pita to build and took a long time to sort out.
Took twice the maintenance and resources and pilot training to compete on an even playing field.
The P39 was a great short range low medium fighter.
Worked great on the Eastern front.
Yet because of its poor range other aircraft took its place for offensive combat.
Then it twitchy flight performance when the nose weaponry was used up.
Lot of bent fuselages from surviving a spin.
Mustang was purpose built like the Wildcat and Hellcat. All smart useful designs.
Unlike the Corsair basically the same airframe as the P66.
Adopted for a larger engine and prop with bent wings.
Know as Ensign Eliminator for losing so many Navy Pilots.
The F4U4 is always reported better performance than the Mustang.
Yet never compare the performance when the Mustang used 44-1 fuel.
Despite that the Mustangs cruise performance was 75mmph faster.
The other false claim the P47 would have been better off in Korea.
No, it would have suffered just as bad as the Corsair and the Mustang.
The P47 had a huge oil tank, cooler and turbo system that could catch fire from AA.
It was the Corsairs Achilles heal and the Japanese pilots knew that.
And were successful shooting them down knowing that fact.
The Corsair had another issue physically wearing out from landing on carriers.
The fuselage and Wing would become bent and performance sufffered with an out of spec airframe.
The Wildcat and Hellcat did not suffer bent frames as much.
The P51 was the only new plane we built and fought with in WW2.
The US was late bringing in new designs quickly.
Almost for the same reason the Mustang got a late start in the war.
We were not desperate but the Brits were!
Ok here come the opinions!
Dan
This is what is unique about the Mustang over much of its competitors.
It was more versatile! Used as a fighter and fighter bomber. Stable landing gear.
Cost less and easier to manufacture and repair.
Was the most cost effective aircraft in WW2 to operate.
It was a great Escort Fighter yet lightened was a good interceptor.
Maybe not as light as the Spitfire but close and a good bit faster!
You could not add enough fuel to a Spitfire to be an effective long range escort!
It could have been adopted for carrier use! One of the reasons for the H tail on P51H.
What made the Mustang great it was designed from the ground up for an in-line engine.
It was not a upgrade or adoption of an earlier design like the P40 and P47.
Though their reliability vastly improved because the design was sorted out unlike,the P38.
P38 was an expensive pita to build and took a long time to sort out.
Took twice the maintenance and resources and pilot training to compete on an even playing field.
The P39 was a great short range low medium fighter.
Worked great on the Eastern front.
Yet because of its poor range other aircraft took its place for offensive combat.
Then it twitchy flight performance when the nose weaponry was used up.
Lot of bent fuselages from surviving a spin.
Mustang was purpose built like the Wildcat and Hellcat. All smart useful designs.
Unlike the Corsair basically the same airframe as the P66.
Adopted for a larger engine and prop with bent wings.
Know as Ensign Eliminator for losing so many Navy Pilots.
The F4U4 is always reported better performance than the Mustang.
Yet never compare the performance when the Mustang used 44-1 fuel.
Despite that the Mustangs cruise performance was 75mmph faster.
The other false claim the P47 would have been better off in Korea.
No, it would have suffered just as bad as the Corsair and the Mustang.
The P47 had a huge oil tank, cooler and turbo system that could catch fire from AA.
It was the Corsairs Achilles heal and the Japanese pilots knew that.
And were successful shooting them down knowing that fact.
The Corsair had another issue physically wearing out from landing on carriers.
The fuselage and Wing would become bent and performance sufffered with an out of spec airframe.
The Wildcat and Hellcat did not suffer bent frames as much.
The P51 was the only new plane we built and fought with in WW2.
The US was late bringing in new designs quickly.
Almost for the same reason the Mustang got a late start in the war.
We were not desperate but the Brits were!
Ok here come the opinions!
Dan
Night Fighter Nut
Master Sergeant
I'm not sure I would agree with that statement. The P61 was also designed, built, and fought with in WW2. Not in the same class as the mustang of course.
Shortround6
Major General
Not to mention a few non fighters. A-26 and B-29 for starters.
buffnut453
Captain
Wow...heck of a lot of generalizations in there.
Not sure how you quantify that the Mustang was easier to repair than its contemporaries, particularly the radial-engined fighters that were less complex due to fewer supporting systems. Also not sure the Mustang was any more versatile as many fighters could be re-roled for ground attack, notably the P-47 and P-40. Also, what about other missions like photo recce? Yes, the P-51 was used early on in the low-level fighter-recce role but it was nowhere near as capable as other platforms for the broad spectrum of PR missions.
It's also a "blinding glimpse of the obvious" that an aircraft which started development years after most of the others listed in the post should be better than those other airframes. It incorporated almost 5 years' benefit of both technical AND operational knowledge that the Spitfire simply didn't have...and those 5 years represented a period of rapid and drastic advances in both fields.
How the P51 and many were designed with a bird cage canopy years after the Spitfire with Malcolm hood was in service is a mystery to me. The fact that it could be retro fitted shows how easy it was to do.
