"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (1 Viewer)

[SaparotRob]

What a great set of posts. Never knew it was Vickers Supermarine. I never knew NAA was approached to build Spitfires. I had always "known" it was P-40s that the BPC wanted built for England. American built Spitfires would have been really cool.
Is the Mustang a British plane? Might not have been built without a prod from our "Cousins", or would it?
Not even bringing up the Rolls Royce contribution.

 

[Shortround6]

I stated, with reference to camera installation etc, that the P-51 could not undertake strategic, high-altitude, long-range reconnaissance. I don't really care what other nations were doing. Simple fact is that the Spitfire met or exceeded all the criteria I set out. If there's another aircraft that could do similar, that's fine...but it wasn't the P-51.

Maybe you are right and maybe you are not.
So far they didn't really try. Which is different than couldn't do it at all.
The British made a crap load of photo recon Spitfires. Maybe more than the combined P-38 & P-51 Mustangs. And maybe the PR XI almost equaled the number of Merlin Mustang F-6s and Late model F-5s put together.
Most of the F-6D & Es went to the Pacific. Their altitude capability wasn't used as much. Since the Spitfires were doing a good job over Europe maybe the Allies sent them to where they needed long range photo recon aircraft in other theaters. I man not saying that no F6Ds made it to Europe but their first deployment may have been in the SWPA in Nov 1944. Since they were replacing P-40s with P-51s it makes sense from logistics. CBI had a little of everything.
At least one F-6C built in 1943 was still flying in Europe in May of 1945 (claimed last Victory of the war?) But they only built 91(?) of them. Not sure if any went to CBI or to the SWPA.
Using F-6Ds over Europe may have been seen as a duplication of effort. If the British can supply enough recon photos with the Spitfires why should the US (in the spring of 1944) take away escort fighters for the 8th air force to use as photo recon planes unless they weren't getting enough photos.

Maybe as I said earlier they couldn't fit the cameras in where they wanted. The radiator set up took up a lot of belly real-estate. There was only a small area for the cameras and you had the control cables and other things going though the area. So maybe it couldn't be done. But didn't do it and couldn't could do it are not the same thing.

The US also had the F-5 Lightnings for the high altitude role. Yes not P-51s but again, if you had them and they were working why spend time modifying the Mustang during the war for bragging rights after the war?

The Mustangs kept their guns and may have done similar roles/missions to FR Spitfires.

 

[GrauGeist]

Is the Mustang a British plane? Might not have been built without a prod from our "Cousins", or would it?

Well, in a way, yes, the Mustang was British.

NAA designed the Mustang for the British and even the name "Mustang" was given to the aircraft by the British (because of a popular song at the time).

If I'm not mistaken, the popular song in England at the time, was "March of the Mustangs".


View: https://youtu.be/q7t4q_Cf0KQ

 

[buffnut453]

Maybe you are right and maybe you are not.
So far they didn't really try. Which is different than couldn't do it at all.

Well, that's exactly the same point we reached in prior discussions about adapting the Spitfire to take on the long-range escort role. Taking design elements from the D and E wings, and adding an extra fuel tank behind the cockpit, should have given the Spit a much more substantial range. After all, the MkXI exceeded 1200 miles while the MkXIX hit 1500, both without drop tanks...and the latter is comparable to the P-51. However, in those discussions the response from P-51 fans was always "couldda, wouldda, shouldda," usually followed by "If it could be done, why wasn't it done?"

In this case, it should be pretty easy to prove. Surely someone on this forum has the fuselage station depths for the P-51D? On the plus side, the aft fuselage of the P-51D is quite boxy, which makes it easier to fit bulky items like a large-format camera. That said, I remain hugely skeptical that it could accommodate a lens more than 24ins focal length...and even that may have been a squeeze.

Anyone got a tape measure and a P-51 fuselage handy?

The US also had the F-5 Lightnings for the high altitude role. Yes not P-51s but again, if you had them and they were working why spend time modifying the Mustang during the war for bragging rights after the war?

Well, the RAF (and the USAAF) also used PR Mossies. Both platforms had advantages and disadvantages. This isn't a bragging rights issue. I'm simply trying to show an operational mission profile that the Spitfire could do which the P-51 couldn't. Again, the P-51 was a truly GREAT aeroplane. However, let's not overstate its capabilities....and, let's be honest, it doesn't need any embellishment. It's operational record stands plenty tall enough as it is.

 

[SaparotRob]

Considering the talent here, perhaps someone could cobble up a model of this PR Mustang? See if scaled components/components would fit within the plumbing of a Mustang fuselage?
A "what-if build"? Either way it would be a fun build to follow.

 

[SaparotRob]

Anyone got a tape measure and a P-51 fuselage handy?

This is the one place I know where there is more than one person who can answer YES.

 

[PAT303]

I tend to agree. Let's call it evens...although I will say that the Spitfire (and the Hurricane were the most important fighters in the world in 1940!

The original argument was which was the best, it's still a joint win for the Spitfire and 109 for me, but you have to look at the P40 also, yeah it wasn't glamorous and doesn't get anywhere near the respect in deserves but you can't argue its history, it fought everywhere.

 

[PAT303]

The R-2800 completed the type test and ran extremely well for a LONG time.

Well apparently it was going to use it's speed and power above 30,000ft to wipe the floor with the MkXIV and TA152 which may be true until the engine has to then be reduced back to normal power to keep the temps under control or it fails, yes the R2800 was a solid engine but when used at high power at high altitude I'd say not so much.

 

[PAT303]

Of course the bomber offensive was joint effort - as every other major endeavor. That said, Your comment was that Mustangs could not have performed escort without P-47 plus combined actions by 2nd TAF/9th AF - not true.

All I will say is look at the combat reports on Spitfire performance, there's plenty of them written about fighter sweeps in support of the bomber offensive, there is two reports, one of 8th AF P47's and one of 2nd TAF MkXIV's that in the process of patrolling airfields caught squadrons of 109's taking off and all but wiping them out which was exactly how those groups stopped escorting P51's from being attacked allowing them to hold onto their tanks for as long as possible.

 

[GregP]

Well apparently it was going to use it's speed and power above 30,000ft to wipe the floor with the MkXIV and TA152 which may be true until the engine has to then be reduced back to normal power to keep the temps under control or it fails, yes the R2800 was a solid engine but when used at high power at high altitude I'd say not so much.

I don't think so. The R-2800 could be run at high power a LONG time compared with most other engines, IF you had the fuel. Go look up the definition of "reliable radial," and you'll likely find P&W R-2800 in there. They're STILL dead reliable, even after 70+ years. AND, can be overboosted without failure, unlike most sleeve valve engines, which are reliable at strock rpm and boost, but aren't very good at handling overboost OR oversepeed. Take a Centaurus and it'll break with as little as 200 rpm above stock rated rpm (which is generally 2,700 rpm).

 

[SaparotRob]

Was I the only one to look up "reliable radial engine"?
Every site I checked turned into WW2aircraft.net style debate.

 

[EwenS]

Maybe you are right and maybe you are not.
So far they didn't really try. Which is different than couldn't do it at all.
The British made a crap load of photo recon Spitfires. Maybe more than the combined P-38 & P-51 Mustangs. And maybe the PR XI almost equaled the number of Merlin Mustang F-6s and Late model F-5s put together.
Most of the F-6D & Es went to the Pacific. Their altitude capability wasn't used as much. Since the Spitfires were doing a good job over Europe maybe the Allies sent them to where they needed long range photo recon aircraft in other theaters. I man not saying that no F6Ds made it to Europe but their first deployment may have been in the SWPA in Nov 1944. Since they were replacing P-40s with P-51s it makes sense from logistics. CBI had a little of everything.
At least one F-6C built in 1943 was still flying in Europe in May of 1945 (claimed last Victory of the war?) But they only built 91(?) of them. Not sure if any went to CBI or to the SWPA.
Using F-6Ds over Europe may have been seen as a duplication of effort. If the British can supply enough recon photos with the Spitfires why should the US (in the spring of 1944) take away escort fighters for the 8th air force to use as photo recon planes unless they weren't getting enough photos.

Maybe as I said earlier they couldn't fit the cameras in where they wanted. The radiator set up took up a lot of belly real-estate. There was only a small area for the cameras and you had the control cables and other things going though the area. So maybe it couldn't be done. But didn't do it and couldn't could do it are not the same thing.

The US also had the F-5 Lightnings for the high altitude role. Yes not P-51s but again, if you had them and they were working why spend time modifying the Mustang during the war for bragging rights after the war?

The Mustangs kept their guns and may have done similar roles/missions to FR Spitfires.

The 363rd FG arrived in Britain in 1944 to join the 9th AF and became, IIRC, the second P-51B/C unit in the ETO. After moving to the Continent at the end of June 1944 it was retitled the 363rd Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Sept 1944 and then the 363rd Reconnaissance Group in June 1945 before returning to the USA for inactivation in Dec 1945.

From Sept 1944 it used both the F-5 and the F-6 as here (note the aft fuselage camera port). This photo was taken at Airfield A-89 Le Culot, Belgium in Nov 1944 of a 161st TRS (formerly the 381st FS) aircraft.

This is an unusual aircraft as it is a conversion from a P-51D-10-NA airframe. AIUI most of the F-6D came from later blocks. Perhaps an ETO modification to get the 363rd TRS up and running.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

not necessarily Most Important.

After about Dec 1943 the Spitfire could have vanished and the outcome (and indeed the date) of the end of the war would have been very unlikely to be altered.

The P-47 and P-51 could have never existed in the European war before mid-1943 and the war to that date would have been remarkably unaltered in passage.

However if the Spitfire didn't exist for a period of about a year at the start of the war, its not at all difficult to imagine the possible consequences.

So its all rather dependant on the timing of our definitions I`d say.

 

[drgondog]

After about Dec 1943 the Spitfire could have vanished and the outcome (and indeed the date) of the end of the war would have been very unlikely to be altered.

The P-47 and P-51 could have never existed in the European war before mid-1943 and the war to that date would have been remarkably unaltered in passage.

However if the Spitfire didn't exist for a period of about a year at the start of the war, its not at all difficult to imagine the possible consequences.

So its all rather dependant on the timing of our definitions I`d say.

Absolutely agree... but equally, had the Hurricane not existed for the first year - and numbers not replaced by Spitfire, the same comment might apply,

 

[drgondog]

The 363rd FG arrived in Britain in 1944 to join the 9th AF and became, IIRC, the second P-51B/C unit in the ETO. After moving to the Continent at the end of June 1944 it was retitled the 363rd Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Sept 1944 and then the 363rd Reconnaissance Group in June 1945 before returning to the USA for inactivation in Dec 1945.

From Sept 1944 it used both the F-5 and the F-6 as here (note the aft fuselage camera port). This photo was taken at Airfield A-89 Le Culot, Belgium in Nov 1944 of a 161st TRS (formerly the 381st FS) aircraft.

View attachment 714931

This is an unusual aircraft as it is a conversion from a P-51D-10-NA airframe. AIUI most of the F-6D came from later blocks. Perhaps an ETO modification to get the 363rd TRS up and running.

The 357FG arrived 29 November, 1943 - combat ops Feb 11, 1944. 363rd arrived December 20th and flew first op on Feb 24.

The 363rd TRG flew F-6C and F-6D. Never assigned F-5. All Mustang from Day 1 - January 23, 1944. They left training P-39s in US.

That particular F-6D was a depot mod, probably UK - but I don't have my finger on the serial number yet. Most factory/US depot mods were P-51C-10 to F-6C and then F-6K and F-6D-NT from Dallas.

 

[drgondog]

All I will say is look at the combat reports on Spitfire performance, there's plenty of them written about fighter sweeps in support of the bomber offensive, there is two reports, one of 8th AF P47's and one of 2nd TAF MkXIV's that in the process of patrolling airfields caught squadrons of 109's taking off and all but wiping them out which was exactly how those groups stopped escorting P51's from being attacked allowing them to hold onto their tanks for as long as possible.

Fighter Sweeps were useless after 1943 except in rarest of cases in whch JG 26 or JG 2 decided to go after bombers over France/Netherland. P-47 Fighter Sweeps were equally useless - whch is why General Monk Hunter was fired as CO of VIII FC.

Let it go - Spitfires Were essential to the fledgling VIII BC ops in 1942 and early 1943 to provide cover for VIII BC penetrations, until the few P-47 FG increased in strength to 5 in September 1943. That said, they were non factors for Bomber Offensive from mid to late 1943 through EOW.

 

[drgondog]

My point was that you claimed the P-51 could undertake any role that the Spitfire could. I stated, with reference to camera installation etc, that the P-51 could not undertake strategic, high-altitude, long-range reconnaissance. I don't really care what other nations were doing. Simple fact is that the Spitfire met or exceeded all the criteria I set out. If there's another aircraft that could do similar, that's fine...but it wasn't the P-51.

BTW, I picked 1943 to give the P-51 a fighting chance because it didn't even exist in 1940.

Generous, but the first Mustang Is and P-51-NA were modified for F24 and operational in 1942. They were dispatched by RAF to perform image gathering missions of important German assets far beyond range of Spitfires, some strategic, some tactical.

To your points - as a refresher. The Spitfire XIV was superior as a platform than any P-51 system I can contemplate, absent requested and delivered optic system installable aft of exit scoop. Even then a vertical installation would be subject to heated exhaust distortion - hence side mount. I did not argue that point - I argued the mission requirement and definition of strategic recon - namely a platform to gather images of important enemy assets at long range and return. You have been arguing that even an F-6B/C/D/K with verically or oblique mounted cameras could not be a platform to gather precision images of strategic assets suitable for interpretation.

Absent the disqualifier of 'can't capture a plant location, a radar array, an assembly or staging of assets in Rail center deep n German territory, bomb damage assessment' at medium altitudes with K-24', then your only discussion points have to be 'not the same quality' - which case even the Mustang I and then F-6 series Mustangs were already gathering strategic and tactical images from 1942 forward. The choice of high altitude is all about risk management not mission capability. A stripped down F-6B/C/D/K is equal in general performance at 25-40,000 feet, save lack of pressurization.

By all means, come up with another definition of strategic reconnaissance. However, even in the 1980s and early 1990s, strategic reconnaissance meant high-altitude and long range (SR-71, U-2) while tactical reconnaissance meant low-level and, relatively, shorter range (RF-4).

Hmm, you are reaching into the threat world of SAMs which dictated conditions the Mk XIV could not survive.

I suggest that strategic reconnaissance mission includes but not limited to: ground based intelligence gathering, low level photo recon, high level recon and SIGINT of opponent's important asset details. I suggest that B-17s, Ju 88s, Bf 109, Mosquito, P-38/F-5 are examples of platforms from which strategic recon missions were performed.

The Mission profile and vehicle in case of airframes are dictated by the objective of a.) gathering reliable and informative images for interpretation, b. availability of a suitable airframe equipped with quality camera, and c.) returning to base with said images.

Do you disagree?

Again, I never said there was anything wrong with NAA's build quality or processes. Not once have I attacked them or claimed they weren't a great manufacturer. I have said, repeatedly, that the P-51 was an amazing design that was translated from drawing board to operational airframe exceptionally quickly. I also haven't criticized centralized production methods which, obviously, make sense if space and conditions permit.

You did not, nor was there a reason to do so in the face of results achieved?

Well, it rather depends what you mean by "so many" wing variations. There were 6 total variations but they were spread out in time and, by 1942 most wing production was standardized to one of two types. The various wings comprised:

• The A wing was the original with 4x303 machine guns as per the Battle of Britain. The B wing carried 1x20mm cannon and 2x303 machine guns. The A and B wings were not used after the Spitfire MkV.
• The C, or "universal" wing appeared in October 1941. It could accommodate multiple armament configurations comprising 4x303s, 2x 20mm cannon or 1x20mm cannon and 2x303s...all using the same wing design.
• The D wing was the PR "bowser" wing with no guns but lots of extra fuel tankage to get the required operating range.
• The E wing was a development of the C wing to provide 2x20mm cannon or 1x20mm cannon and 2x50cal machine guns, and to carry bombs as well.
• Finally, there was the Spitfire Mk21 wing which was an entirely new shape and only came in very late in WW2

My arguments lack substance if a.) the wing with mods were not built separately from the plant assembling the airframe, and b) did not materially change the jigs and tooling from one design to the next.

In the comparison to the Mustang using the NA-97 A-36 as an example of the most prolific and substantive change until P-51H. 1.) Modified from NA-83 Wing in which all lines and dimensions remained intact but
Pitot tube and plumbing changed internally
Bomb rack and internal fuel plumbing introduced.
Gun bay dimensions and local rib placement (slight jig change issue)
Dive brakes installed w/controls and strengthened main spar (cap sizing) plus sheet thickness in several wing panels increased, primarily for bomb load.
Various design for both 20mm cannon (including slanted mounts) and 50 caliber mount and feed chutes. Same bay dimensions and gun mount design as NA-91 (Mustang IA)

No change except pitot tube, removal dive brakes, and landing light arrangement (LE mod - local) for P-51A

Strenghen aileron hinge/spar for P-51B/C-1 (no dimensional change) for 15 degree throw.

Change from 2 hing to 3hinge aileron on P-51B-5, C-5

Change LE from WS 30 to 65 to accomodate wheel bay door change, Change LE locally to provide for three gun battery, change gun bay mount scheme to 3 un upright, change ammo chute and ejection port.

In February, at Inglewod, three individual lines were supported - A-36, P-51A, P-51B-1 along with B-25 and AT-6 production. The contributions for improvement to Production by GM consultants in 1942 can not be overestimated.

When the D wing design began, the B Lines and jigs and tooling were modified to co-reside with B-5 wing assy, to implement production immediately with no prototype. It was installed on the two B-1 airframe spares set aside for the Cockpit enclosure, sliding" modifications as P-51D-NA. The tooliing and jigs remained unchangedfor the remainder of the P-51D production save for rocket mount scheme. The D wing could have been retrofitted to the B/C airframes. The B/C wing could have been installed on the D-K.

The sole major departure from Mustangwing of 1941 was the XP-51F/G/J leading to P-51H. Completely Different in all respects and not retro capable to any previous Mustang.

If the many changes to Spitfire wing were of similar complexity and impact to production, I stand corrected for the comparisons to production and field maintenance.

From your "I don't care" comment, it seems you're only interested in proving American superiority. The US had about three times the population of the UK in 1941. It clearly has far more land mass available for industrial use. It also wasn't under threat of attack. You are free to ignore those factors but they drive decision-making for all forms of industrial production. Comparing the most productive Spitfire factory to Dallas or Inglewood is neither a useful nor a fair comparison because of differing constraints and opportunities. Dallas and Inglewood were massive factories that could bring in a critical mass of people into centralized locations to accelerate production. That doesn't mean that Spitfire production was excessively inefficient given the circumstances under which it was operating.

Nope. Only that the reasons for plant dispersal - and NAA choice of separate plants 1200 miles apart - are irrelevant. The comparison of poulation is irrelevant, the land mass available is irrelevant. What is relevant is the unit of production comparisons based on a.) the strategic choice for dispersal, and b.) the resulting design to production cycles based on matching training labor pool, Tooling, Jigs, assembly and plant layouts - built around several existing airframes of different complexity.

Comparing the most productive Spitfire factory, given the very high war board piorities to each airframe by respective authorities, to NAA Factory is precisely what the comparisons should be. Given that no material disruption to Spitfire production by LW from late 1942 through EOW, particulary at Castle Bromwich

I tend to agree. Let's call it evens...although I will say that the Spitfire (and the Hurricane were the most important fighters in the world in 1940!

I agree to call it even despite my comments above.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Am I? NAA built 550 A-36, 310 P-51A, 2078 P-51B, 8300 P-51D from November 1942 through Aug 1945 plus 1400+ B-25G/H and a 'bunch of AT-6/SNJ' - haven't looked up either the B-25C or the AT-6 production at Inglewood.

Inglewood AT-6 Includes 36 Navy Trainers in 1940, most of "others" are earlier design trainers. Workers as of end December

Model	Factory	1940​	1941​	1942​	1943​	1944​	1945​	Total
B-24	Dallas	0​	0​	0​	61​	905​	0​	966​
P-51	Dallas	0​	0​	0​	177​	2,540​	1,835​	4,552​
F-6	Dallas	0​	0​	0​	0​	74​	225​	299​
AT-6	Dallas	0​	711​	3,697​	4,024​	3,298​	1,237​	12,967​
Total	Dallas	0​	711​	3,697​	4,262​	6,817​	3,297​	18,784​
B-25	Inglewood	0​	171​	1,119​	1,253​	665​	0​	3,208​
A-36	Inglewood	0​	0​	142​	358​	0​	0​	500​
P-51	Inglewood	0​	138​	634​	1,533​	4,368​	3,276​	9,949​
AT-6	Inglewood	631​	1,524​	8​	0​	0​	0​	2,163​
Others	Inglewood	614​	10​	1​	1​	0​	1​	627​
Total	Inglewood	1,245​	1,843​	1,904​	3,145​	5,033​	3,277​	16,447​
B-25	Kansas City	0​	0​	435​	1,701​	3,012​	1,460​	6,608​
Workers	Dallas	185​	7,386​	20,345​	35,910​	18,473​	1,089​
Workers	Inglewood	8,244​	15,637​	24,352​	24,471​	17,651​	5,311​
Workers	Kansas City	0​	1,186​	12,960​	21,924​	16,794​	0​

Workers at Supermarine and Castle Bromwich, 7-Mar-42 5,388 and 10,691, 5-Dec-42 6,436 and 10,062, 25-Dec-43 8,151 and 11,494, 23-Dec-44 9,148 and 13,670. Castle Bromwich produced 2 Lancasters in 1943, 162 in 1944 and 136 in 1945. Supermarine produced 42 Walrus in 1940, otherwise it was effectively all Spitfires and Seafires.

Overall the British seem to have concluded the US aircraft production system was more efficient. Add the comments about the Spitfire not being as well designed for mass production as the Mustang. Any comparisons have to assume consistent definitions and at least a similar amount of subcontracting. The USAAF had modification centres, the RAF did not. Looking at the early P-51B-5 they were emerging from modification centres about 2 months after acceptance, then reducing to 1 month. P-51C-1 about 1 month. Back to around 2 months for P-51C-10. All the P-51D have blank modification centre entries but generally entered pre modification a couple of days after acceptance.

That particular F-6D was a depot mod, probably UK - but I don't have my finger on the serial number yet. Most factory/US depot mods were P-51C-10 to F-6C and then F-6K and F-6D-NT from Dallas.

(44-14200)

The F-6A conversions were from P-51, F-6B conversions from P-51A, F-6C conversions from P-51B and C, by the looks of things all after entering USAAF service. This changed in August 1944, the conversions began to be done before delivery, the USAAF Delivery Logs report 146 P-51D accepted from Inglewood were delivered as F-6D, by block numbers 98 F-6D-10 and 48 F-6D-15, deliveries were 84 in August, 28 in September, 30 in October and 4 in November 1944. French means transferred to French Air Force.

53 Delivered as F-6D-10, 44-14196, 14200, 14233, 14306, 14318, 14323, 14335, 14340, 14352, 14357, 14369, 14375, 14386, 14392 (French), 14403, 14408, 14420, 14425, 14455, 14473, 14494 (French), 14508, 14512 (French), 14526, 14530, 14547, 14550, 14562, 14565, 14568, 14576, 14582, 14585, 14597, 14599, 14602, 14605 (French), 14608, 14615, 14617, 14619, 14621, 14623, 14635, 14637, 14639, 14641, 14643, everything to here delivered in Aug

15 Delivered as F-6D-10, 44-14655, 14657, 14659, 14661, 14663, 14675, 14677, 14679, 14681, 14683 (French), 14695 (French), 14697, 14699, 14701, 14703 (14679 in Sep, rest in Aug)
10 Delivered as F-6D-10, 44-14715, 14717 (French), 14719, 14721, 14723, 14735, 14737, 14739, 14741, 14743 (French) (14743 in Sep, rest in Aug)
10 Delivered as F-6D-10, 44-14755, 14757, 14759, 14761, 14763, 14775, 14777, 14779, 14795, 14797 (14761, 14777 in Sep, 14797 in Oct, rest in Aug)
10 Delivered as F-6D-10, 44-14817, 14821, 14832, 14833, 41834, 14837, 14839, 14841, 14845, 14847 (14833 in Aug, rest in Sep)
15 Delivered as F-6D-15, 44-14855, 14861, 14863, 14865, 14867, 14869, 14871, 14872, 14873, 14874, 14878, 14879, 14883, 14905, 149520 (Sep)
16 Delivered as F-6D-15, 44-15232, 15297, 15362, 15416, 15417, 15448, 15453, 15456, 15463, 15464, 15465, 15468, 15473, 15475, 15481, 15501 (Oct)
10 Delivered as F-6D-15, 44-15503, 15507, 15508, 15511, 15523, 15525, 15535, 15546, 15548, 15549 (15508, 15523 in Nov, rest in Oct)
7 Delivered as F-6D-15, 44-15554, 15565, 15566, 15572, 15581, 15582, 15583 (15572, 15581 in Nov, rest in Oct)

Note the production reports have an additional F-6D in September, serial so far not traced.

F-6 production switched to Dallas P-51K/F-6K in November 1944, using the same accepted as P-51K, delivered as F-6K convention. Around February/March 1945 the convention was changed, AND production figures for previous months adjusted so all F-6K were officially accepted as such, but NO changes to the Inglewood figures, only those for Dallas. So if you look at a January 1945 production report there is no such thing as an F-6K acceptance, but end March there are a total of 163 starting in November 1944.. F-6K production ended in March 1945 and F-6D production at Dallas began, all officially accepted as F-6D. Dallas, Remembering K-1 = D-5, through to K-15 = D-20, apart from the propeller.

57 F-6K-5 44-11554, 44-11897 to 44-11952
63 F-6K-10 44-11993 to 44-12008, 44-12216 to 44-12237, 44-12459 to 44-12471, 44-12523 to 44-12534
43 F-6K-15 44-12810 to 44-12852

November 1944, 56 F-6K accepted, 1 delivered, December 1944, 18 accepted, 71 delivered, January 1945, 35 accepted, 27 delivered, February 1945 17 accepted, 11 delivered, March 1945 37 accepted, 43 delivered. The 136 F-6D acceptances were 7 in March, 24 in April, 33 in May, 37 in June, 33 In July and 2 in August, the month P-51 production ended at Dallas.

31 F-6D-20, 44-13020 to 44-13039, 44-13131 to 44-13140, 44-13181
70 F-6D-25, 44-84509 to 44-84540, 44-84566, 44-84773 to 44-84788, 44-84835 to 44-84855
35 F-6D-30, 45-11655 to 45-11689

Effort in man hours, Spitfire production, mark / design / jigging and tooling, I think from the official history which gives numbers, instead of a graph.

I / 339,400 / 800,000
II / 9,267 / unknown
III / 91,120 / 75,000
V / 90,000 / 105,000
VI 14,340 / 50,000
IX 43,830 / 30,000
XII / 27,210 / 16,000
VII / 86,150 / 150,000
VIII / 24,970 / 250,000
XIV / 26,120 / 17,000
21 / 168,500 / unknown
PR XI / 12,415 / unknown
Seafire I / 10,130 / 18,000
Seafire II / 3,685 / 40,000
Seafire III / 8,938 / 9,000
Seafire XV / 9,150 / unknown
Spitfire on floats 22,260 / 35,000

 

[SaparotRob]

I think if anyone here would have this information at his fingertips, it would be Drgondog.

 

[Dimlee]

I love Spitfire v. Mustang debates. It's like the two prettiest girls in school having a cat fight.

A catfight is over when a Thunder girl comes out of the bathroom and towers over those pretty girls.