Jan 9, 2013 - 2 min - Uploaded by Mi ChaOMVL Dream XXI software. Some paramenters from my 1.8l petrol engine. Not working OK but. UniProg USB-PRO Programming Tuning Diagnostic Interface Kits for = Lpg, Cng, Gpl, Methane, Autogas Systems: Lpg Autogas Programming Interface Kit for.

All my reading leads me to believe that the best all-around fighter aircraft of WW II was likely the P-47. While the Spitfire and P-51 both look beautiful in their own way and had their strengths, I’m guessing the P-47’s 8.50 caliber machine guns, rugged build and Wasp engine made it superb at both dog fighting and ground support. I’d pick the F4U Corsair next, as it too had stellar success in the air-to-air and ground support roles.

The ME-262 might even be better than the P-47 and F4U, but questions of reliability leave it off my list for now. There need not be a “better” in this comparison as the two aircraft are vastly different in their approach to combat issues. The Spitfire developed out of a racing aircraft and was thus inherently fast. Additionally, it’s elliptical-shaped wings made it VERY maneuverable. This combination made it a true pilot’s aircraft and increased the probability that it’s pilot could shoot down an enemy aircraft before that enemy could shoot him down. It’s an advantage that worked well for the first half of the war for the Japanese Zero (Mitsubishi A6-M2) but they started paying for their light armament and armor as Allied aircraft became faster.

The P-47 “Thunderbolt” took the approach that incurring damage in battle was “the cost of doing business” and was heavily armored in anticipation of this. Additionally, the P-47 had a radial engine (like most bombers) which, meant it could carry a lot of ordinance. I do think the Spitfire would be more fun to fly but in battle, the P-47 did more to protect the pilot. One role that the Spitfire did excel at was that of reconnaissance–where the ability to outrun an enemy patrol is more crucial than the ability to outfight one. II SPitfire was armed with two 20mm cannon and four.303 m/guns, while later versions sported four cannon. While the.5 machine guns used on US fighters was a powerful weapon, the cannon fired explosive shells that caused much greater damage.

One 20mm in the right place would bring down a fighter, while half a dozen would destroy any bomber. In addition, armor-piercing cannon shells would destroy many armored vehicles that the.5 m/g bullets would bounce off. The P-47 was no dogfighter, and a well-handled Me-109 or Fw-190 would be on its tail in an instant in a turning match. Its greatest virtue, other than riggesness, was its weigh, so that it dived like a grand piano. The best tactic for a P-47 was to dive, fire and keep diving, the same tactics used by P-40s and P-38s against the Jap Zero.

Shortly after the end of WW II the U S military tested many different fighter aircraft, flying captured fighters against Army and Navy fighters. The fighter that performed best was the F4U Corsair. There were faster fighters (P-51) and more robust fighters (P-47). The F4U was not rated as the top fighter in any single catetory. What made the F4U the outstanding fighter was the fact it was highly rated in many different categories. The US military flew F4Usand P-51s well into the 1950s.

When I went through the Navy Aviation orientation course at Norman, OK, in 1958, we were trained how to start and run up an F4U. Have to go with the P-51 over the skies of europe; many acft matched the P-519 ala the griffon engine powered spitfires, the BF109Ks, the FW190Ds) BUT one had the overall performance of speed( P-51B/C 440mph,P-51D,437mph@ 30K ft), range and suitable firepower.

Also the fact that the P-51, though outmatched knocked down at least a dozen Me-262 jets- name a P-47 jock or spitfire driver that did that:?!!!) The only other piston powered ACFT to match for late WWII and post war was the F4U corsair, with even a record of taking down a MiG 15 in Korea( not to be repeated until the vietnam war with a prop driven navy bomber did this) corsairs could run up to 430 to 445 mph had range and tougher armor than the more lightweight Mustang. Bottom line, each fighter has its pluses or minuses- many British, UK Commonwealth and allied pilots who flew the P-47, spitfire, and mustang liked each acft for its particular characteristics. If i were to fly a point defens, shortrange fight?

Long range high altitude high speed fight? Ground/pound and possible mix up with enemy fighters?

Don’t know if the F4U corsair would have faired very well in the high altitude fighting of europe, but in the mid altitude sea battles over the pacific it did its job. What next, are folks here gonna claim how tough the F6F hellcat would be against a BF109? Or how the Russian LAVs could have handled the zeroes???? The P 51 had approx double the range of the Spitfire Mk XIV, only about 50% more than a Mk IX. Most Me 262`s shot down were taking off or landing, which happened with US pilots patrolling near the airfields to catch them when taking off or landing, while RAF pilots did the same, many of both Spitfire Mk XIV and Tempest Mk V pilots took them on in combat and the Me 262 was no match for either except at high speed, if the Me 262 tried to get a shot at either they could turn tight and fast which the Me 262 couldn`t follow and if the 262 pilot made the mistake of slowing down he was as good as dead.

Folmer in a F4 Corsair shot down a Mig 15 and was promptly shot down by other MIG`s, however Hawker Sea Furies when attacked on two occasions, shot down one and maybe two MIG 15`s and chased the rest away for no loss •. In my opinion the Spitfire is the best fighter of WWII.

I understand that the Mustang had a longer range, but it still had to use drop-tanks. The spitfire also had drop-tanks, but these were only used on PR-versions. And the Spit didn’t even have to fly to germany, because the germans went to england! Also the only reason to send fighters to germany, was as bomberescort, and the british frankly didn’t have very good bombers. But even I must say that they’re two different fighters based on different purposes. It’s very hard to compare them. I am quite partial to the Spitfire — and nothing was better looking — but the P51 was a better all around fighter.

The P51 was a much newer design and took advantage of what had been learned. Given similar engines, it was much faster due to its laminar wing design and had much better range due to greater efficiency, larger gas tanks and drop tanks. Without the drop tanks, the P51 had twice the range of the Spitfire. It is astounding that you would say that the British lacked good bombers. The Lancaster was the best heavy bomber of the war even though the B17 has more visual appeal and fans. The Lancaster could carry a much large bomb load than either the B17 or B24 — and it was powered by four merlin engines so it has to be better:-) And no need to send fighters into Germany??? The whole point of the air campaign between mid Jan’44 and late Apr’44 was to use the bombers to lure the Luftwafffe into the air so P51s could shoot them down.

That way air superiority over the channel during Overlord was assured. The Mosquito (two RR Merlins) was never escorted, by P-51s or any other fighter! For the first two years of its existence it was faster than any German fighter, and the only way the Luftwaffe could shoot them down was by having standing patrols waiting at 40,000 ft ready to dive, and they only got a handful this way. I agree that the Mossie was the most outstanding airplane of the war, being built in bomber, photorecce, fighter, night fighter and anti-shipping versions (one of them, armed with an experimental 47mm cannon, caught a German light cruiser in the Skaggerak and, flying out of antiaircraft range, drilled the ship and stopped its engines until torpedo Beauforts sank it.) They were the best night-fighter of the war, and carried out the most spectacular raids, including Operation Jehrico – attacking a prison where French Resistance men were being tortured and killed, freeing many of them. The bomber version could carry the 4,000lb “Cookie” all the way to Berlin. The B-17, B-24 and even B-29 could not fit the Cookie.

The Mossie could carry more bombs, faster and farther than the ’17 and ’24, and their speed was such that they had one of the lowest loss ratios of all. The bombers that bitain used in world war 2 where covered by p51 mustangs becouse the spitfire was adapted to be best at dog fights over england so thay did not need the fual for long range becouse it would wigh them down and there base’s where close to where thay where fighting. Another reason the spitfire had a low range was that the british, americans and russians had never planed of bombing germany when the spitfire was created so there was no need of a bigger fuel tank. The p51 on over hands was created for the idear that thay would protect the bombers in world war 2 so its has a longer range to get to berlin, but the usaf needed air base’s in britain to reach over to germany so if it wasint for the spitfire and the hurracane britain would of lost the battle of britain and the p51 would be rended useless. The RAF had very effective bombers, but the RAF flew at night.

The Lancaster was a deadly weapon it dropped not only a normal bomb load but also the famous bouncing bomb and the 6 ton and 10 ton super bunker busters. The Tirpitz was sunk using these bombs, the U-boat pens were smashed using these bombs and the German underground factories were also destroyed. The US didn’t have a proper heavy bomber until the B-29 came into service. The B-17 had a pathetic bomb load for such a big aircraft. As for fighters, the Mustang was a poor aircraft when it was originally designed.

Had the Mustang stuck with the original (Alison) engine it was fitted with it would have been crap, it was only when it got the Merlin that it could deliver great performance. The RAF also had the Tempest which was a development of the Typhoon. The Tempest shot down lots of ME 262’s (the German 262 pilots feared the Tempest) and it also shot down lots of flying bombs. Far too many people take the crap Hollywood throw out as fact. Sorry Mike, Mossies had the best survival rate of any Allied aircraft. It carried more bombs into the heart of Germany at a far higher speed than a B17.

It was making unescorted daylight raids all the way to Berlin. 20 mm Hispano Cannons were fairly standard in RAF fighters after mid 1941. They were supplimented in Spits with 4 x.303. Spits from the VB, had selective fire buttons so MG’s could be used for fast moving deflection shots and Cannon for more deliberate attacks. That was the theory anyway! The SpitI XIV that outclassed the Mustang in every way, except range was introduced to Squadron service at the same time as the P51B.

The RAF did not have a requirement for a long range fighter. If it needed one it would have devolped one, the bombers that needed escorting were American not RAF. Here is a couple of interesting facts for you from Tumult in the Skies. The eagle squadrons of the USAAF started life as expat Americians flying for the British BEFORE AMERICA ENTERED THE WAR. They were forced out of their spitfires into P47s and their kill ratios fell below their less experienced country men also flying P47s.

This was because of the way these pilots fought, ie you didn’t let the other guy draw a bead on you, this is not the way to fight in a P47, as you’ll never draw a bead on the other guy either. When the P51 turned up the eagle squadrons changed over to them with only a 24 hour window for each pilot as the powers that be couldn’t spare them any more time, but the eagle squadron pilots still wanted to take them even under those conditions, why, they were much more like the spit which these pilots held as the benchmark than the P47. And guess what, the kill ratio’s again left the other USAAF fighter units standing. And after all that, they still wanted their spits back.

Oh, and if you want to know who the krauts were more scared of, ask them if you want an unbiased view, not some P47 pilot who didn’t know the way to get home was to not let the other guy put holes in you at all, even if you were putting holes in one of him. All of you are wet towels!

In the bottom analysis if you are talking pure fighter/ air superiority? Spitfire is great in short term engagements( once it got a high HP rating, and 20mm guns) P-47 great as it actually has higher altitude and ground attack capability, but is NOT a great dogfighter!!! The F4U NEVER flew against A FW 90 A/D at 25-30K “in the blue”( would have gotten a true lesson against a TOUGHER,Better armed/armored opponent),BUT the Mustang did fly and BEAT the the Zero, and the Oscar, and WON in the pacific! When the U.S. And allies set up for the battles over okinawa,B-29 bombing raids over tokyo,and the potential invasion of Japan-The U.S.

REACHED for their “best” all around fighter- the P-51Mustang And the F4U corsair? The “ensign eliminator?? Good fighter/ ground attacker, good speed( from 422mph to max,446mph)-BUT the NAVY had the “better killer”( the F6F Hellcat.@ 380mph max, Had a higher Kill to loss ratio than the F4U Corsair). For all around fighting ability-The Mustang had the speed,the altitude,adequate enough ground attack,,the range( the FASTER American fighter was NOT the F4U corsair, BUT the P-51K @ 480mph and between 1,600- 1,800 mile range).To add to the old addage”, the Mustang can’t do what a spit, a jug, a Bent wing bird can do,BUT IT CAN DO IT ALL OVER NAZI GERMANY, and IMPERIAL JAPAN •.

There were some P51s shot down by KI43 Oscar such as flown by Japan aces Yohei Hinoki (one legged aces). KI43 is 1940-41 plane. P51 can’t out turn Japanese plane such as KI-43 Oscar and Zero.

P51s also suffer some losses against newer Japanese plane like KI-84 Frank and KI100.Some Mitsubishi J2m3 kill P51. Actually 200 P51 loss in Japan. P51s only can rely on boom and zoom tactics. It cannot dog fight. Spitfire had no problem with the Japaness planes. Conclusion, P51 win because its mass production, good pilot.

Not good plane. Speaking of one-legged aces, did you know that Britain had TWO Spitfire pilots with NO legs? Douglas Bader, an ace with 23 kills (in 16 months) was a wing leader (shot down over France, and still escaped twice). The other legless guy was Colin Hodgkinson. Unfortunately, you are wrong about the Spit having no problem with the Japanes planes. The RAF, just like the Americans, was slow to believe that the Zero could out-turn any other plane in the theater,and flown by some of the best pilots in WWII.

Both Britain and the US believed their own propaganda (the Japs are lousy pilots, can’t see in the dark, their planes are made from bamboo and paper like their houses, etc.) These Battle of Britain veterans ignored the advice of the pilots who had already tangled with the Zero (those that survived!) and tried to out-turn them, and got shot down. It took several painful lessons to teach, once more, that the only way to attack a Zero was dive, fire and continue diving. I think people forget that the Mustang came at the last year of the war.

My dad’s groupthe 4thdidn’t get Mustangs until the end of Feb. 1944, whereas the Spit was a design of the 30’s and was in combat 4 years prior to the Mustang’s debut. The Spit was also made in a vast number of configurations from the Spit Mark 1 to the Spit Mark 24 with Griffon powered Rolls Royce at over 2300 horsepower. From a purely pilot’s point of view, the Spit was a delight to fly, far more sensitive at the controls than a Mustangjust a beautiful planebut unfortunately no range. Dad’s favorite was the Spit 9 with the Merlin 61.

James- The mustang (P-51A) and earlier Apache(A36 variant) were in action in ’42 as dive bombers, high speed recon planes( avg 380+ mph could run against many axis acft) and med alt interceptors. There are recorded ME109/FW190A KILLS MADE BY ALLIED PILOTS IN EARLY mustangs! In fact the A-36 / A models were used up to the closing part of the war in the China-Burma theater tangling with zeroes, with moderate success, and in som squadrons during the invasion of sicily and italy! The P-51B models, sporting packard built merlin engines, hit europe in late ’43 and went to work as escorting bombers! Plain and simple, it took the FIGHT to the enemies “front door”, cause fighting the enemy in your own “front yard” isn’t how you win a war. Goodson- I also love the Spitfire fighters( although their “uglier” brother in the stable, the Hawker Hurricane actually GOT MORE Kills in air combat,ala the Battle of Britian and the ETO), but the reality is that the P-51 had less upgrades and did a superiror job.

Alot of people will tout that the P-51 wasn’t readily available in combat like the Spitfire,or the P-38,or the P-47 in the early part of the war in Europe, and from aerial combat against the Luftwaffe- it SHOWS. In the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire had “home field” advantage- shot down and surviving pilots could return to duty faster, emergency landed Spits could be repaired and put back into action, and there was less pilot fatigue compared to german attacking pilots who were constantly in enemy territory.At the end of the Battle of Britain, it was obvious that the Spitfire was OUTCLASSED by the FW 190s and the BF109s,hence the constant upgrades that never gave the Spitfires superiority( they were still just trying to “match” German fighters by the waning days of the war). While skilled pilots could hold their own, even prove dangerous in the acft they were assigned( i.e.Johnny Johnson of the RAF in his Spitfire and Gabby Gabresky of the 8th USAAF in a P-47), the reality is that when pilots transititioned to the P-51 airframe, they were actually in a BETTER fighter plane- air to air combat resulted in less pilot losses. When The Los Angeles Airport had a ceremony some yrs back to celebrate the achievements of the Tuskegee airmen( including a dedication ceremony of a static P-51 D mustang replica of “lucifer Jr” at the Proud bird restuarant) I got a chance to meet Lt. Col.Lee Archer, and asked what he thought about the P-51.”Simply the “Best” he said, and thats from flying the sturdier P-47, the “journeyman” P-39 aircobra, and the obsolete P-40 Warhawk.U.S. And other Allied Pilots who transitioned to the P-51 were simply made better by their skills, and with the benefit of a superior plane •.

Without in any way trying to diminish the gallantry of USAAF aces, it must be remembered that by 1943 many, and by 1944 most, of the Luftwaffe “Expertien” had been killed. The RAF in 1939-41 were facing these aces, who had already experienced combat in the Spanish Civil War and had refined their tactics, while the RAF were novices.

Many RAF fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain had only a few hours on the Spit, and were preoccupied with trying to fly the plane, so many were easy meat – rather like the LUftwaffe pilots in late ’44 and 45. Maro, Royal Air Force stats for aerial victories are not easily sourced. This is mainly due to the tendency for understatement in that service – try interviewing an RAF veteran (any nationality) and you will see what I mean. However that said I have conducted research in this area. The total number of victories achieved in aerial combat amongst RAF ‘aces’, those that achieved 5 or more confimred victories is 8,192. In addition there was a further 163 pilots who achieved 4 kills.

However these are aerial victories only and does not represent aircraft destroyed on the ground, they are also confirmed according to stringent RAF requirements. The total number I have not been able to establish, however the larger figure mentioned above is thought to be 50-60% of the total.

I was further able to break down the numbers into nationalities, which is interesting and turned up some suprises. Aircraft type will be investigated next! In the Battle of Britain the Spitfire Mk I was better than the Me 109 except at high altitude, the Mk II was better at any altitude and in 1941 the Spitfire Mk V was never outclassed untill late in the year when the Fw 190 A came into service, and the Spitfire was still better in a turn. In July 1942 the Spitfire Mk IX was more than capable of matching the Fw190 or the Me 109, faster than either better climb and tighter turn and a better rate of roll than the Me 109, Fw had excellent rate of roll. The Mk IX spitfire was not as fast as a Mustang but would out climb and turn inside it and accelerate faster.

By the time the Fw 190 D or P 51 D came into service both the Tempest V and Spitfire Mk XIV had been in service for around six month`s, and both outclassed either P 51`s or Fw 190 D`s. Hi Barrie, concerning the Spit Mk VB versus the Fw190. It was superior in the turn as you correctly state. I was very lucky to speak to a veteran about the 41-42 period when the Fw190 first appeared, he stated that the main problem was that pilots were coming out of training schools where fuel economy was being encouraged. Hence low throttle settings and low cruising speeds were the norm. This caused Spits to be at a disadvantage when ‘bounced’, however at Squadron level pilots found by increasing cruising speed when in an area where combat was possible and ignoring the economy edict, most of the advantages held by the Fw190 were negated. This was also written about by W.

Duncan-Smith who accounted for his fair share of Fw190’s! At the end of the War Britain was BROKE, Europe was a trash heap of crumbling cities and war debris, and the DEFACTO superpower for the next 70 yrs was seriously in DEBT( America went through a serious recession from 46 to 49)- thousands of Spits and mustangs were sold off as scrap metal. Britian went with what it had and could AFFORD in the post war yrs, cause NO way could a Spitfire match a F-86 sabre, a Mig 15 or a Vampyre or Gnat in an air duel! Th US couldn’t afford to replace the F4U corsair until the mid ’50s on acft carriers( the F9F panther couldn’t go as far or carry as much ordinance). But to the point, GO read real stats( try www. Spitfireperformance.com ) before you mouth of with a bunch of FLAWED crap- IF the Spitfire was the SUPREME fighter of the war, it would have been purpose built by all the allies to save war costs, would have been bult to fly 8 hour long range missions, would have had a 2,000 lb bomb load, and would have tangled in high altitude over germany from late ’43 to ealry ’45 in large numbers like- dare I say it- the supposely “inferior” mustang! When the Allies moved over the Rhine, they threw everything at the german- P-51 B/C/Ds, Lanc and B-17s,Spit XIVs, Tempests and P-4zs- everything in the inventory that worked and flew!

Be thankful for american resolve and industry and for Hitlers stupidity and ego- or else even the mighty RAF wouldn’t have saved old england! I’ve actually rode as a passenger in a vintage mustang- I can tell you that the men who flew those acft and similar( on all sides) are to be credited with being brave and CRAZY SOBs-the spit or mustang is little more than a soup can thick flying hotrod,full of gas, and bullets. Pezza, are totally clueless?

First off the Sptifire could barely out turn the P-51, and the even the mark IX to XI models couldn’t keep up with a P-51 B/C models in terms of speed,dive ability ( the spitfires would simply stall in a steep dive,leaving the Mustang to “walk away” from the fight) The Brits were still using their “feeble” 8 gun.303 configuration,despite having 20mm hispano guns( which often jammed). In equal 1:1 fight, a better gunned( 6).50 cal mgs and,with 60 mph faster, P-51 ( with pilots of like training) would OWN a spitfire. Folks here keep confusing the early war record of the SPIT IV and V models as somehow meaning that the Spitfire was somehow able to dominate BETTER, more advanced fighter models.

After the appearance of THE BEST German fighter of the war- the FW 190, Supermarine spent its time basically trying to “catch up” to the performance of the Focke Wulf equipped luftwaffe, and ME 109E-K models. All you need to do is look at HOW MANY UPGRADES were done to the spitfire,just to see that it was an obsolete airframe that quicklky lagged behind other allied and axis acft.The P-51,from B -D models was the “real deal” in high altitude, air superiority,long range fighters.Still the Spitfire looks pretty, and has a decent service record •. That is a collection of uninformed rubbish. IV was an unarmed photo-recce plane with extra range, not a fighter. The later marks of Spitfire could bat along at over 450mph, about the same as the P-51. And the Spit could dive at speeds that would pull those wings off a ’51.

Twice test pilots dove Spits to Mach 0.9 – over 600mph – without any problem with the wings; in fact, the Spitfire wing was superior in trans-sonic speeds than those of early jets. The Hispano cannon’s early problems (it was originally an antiaircraft ground weapon adapted to air use) were fixed by the time of the Mk. V Spitfire, and later ones used four 20mm cannons, much heavier armament than the P-51s. IX Spit, with the two-stage supecharged Merlin 60 was superior to the Fw-190, and the later, Griffon-engine, ones were far superior to any mark of 109 or 190. And the Me-109K is irrelevant; it came right at the end of the war, was made in only a handful of numbers, and had no effect.

“Obsolete airframe”? I repeat, uninformed and ignorant rubbish. The airframe was so sound and rugged that it was able to take engines more than double the original horsepower (2,200 vs 950), and was still being manufactured in 1949 and in front-line service in 1957. There was a carrier version (the Seafire), float versions, extreme altitude versions (54,000 ft.) of the Spitfire – no such P-51 variants ever existed. As for range, the ’51s great virtue, in 1945 Supermarine were testing a 1400-mile range version of the Spitfire, but it was discontinued as the war was winding down. Here here, well said. Another issue frequently forgotten by Spit bashers is that the top speeds quoted between the Spit IX and the P51 was not as important as it appears as the SpitIX could beat the Mustangs rather pedestrian acceleration.

This would be made worse depending upon fuel load carried together with overall handling. In addition rate of climb for the P51 was not much better than a P47, and was never improved across the marks. The Spitfires rate of climb doubled and forever eclipsed all US fighters. The Spitfire IX would not stall in a steep dive, easily turned inside a P 51B or C and climbed much faster, from 1941 on Spitfires were using 2×20 mm cannon and 4x.303, later 2 x.5 and the P 51 certainly wasn`t 60 mph faster than Mk IX, maybe the special P 51 H was, but it was too late for the war and no longer had the range of earlier P 51`s, with drop tanks it had no advantage in range over the Spitfire, also the Mk X and Mk XI were unarmed PR aircraft, the Mk X adapted for high altitude •. Also, hate to beat a dead horse, BUT, the P-51 was in the ETO in 1943( not at the end of the War,as James Goodson posted) before that, the early version- the A-36 was in action and apparently well liked by British and U.S.

Forces for it low to med. Low flight abilities( fast recon, fighter -bomber) as well as in the China-India -Burma theater, where it got decent combat kill ratios against the Japanese.The A-36″invader”( proto Mustang) served during the invasion of sicily and Italy and took on the Macchi Italian fighters as well as the BF109s. The only reason the “A-36” didn’t replace SPITS were because of the weakness of the allison engine( no supercharger for high altitude work), and despite shortages, the British didn’t want to solely depend on U.S. Assets for its fighters,plus the Spitfire was already tooled up for in British factories! I love how people try to diminish the P-51 as an “air superiority” fighter for its time.

Each fighter design was capable for its particular use, and “Yes” the P-51 is moderate in some categories( ground attack is one),but for ALL around fighter-Altitude,Speed,firepower,range, ability to be tasked at strike and tacticial bombing? NONE have it all like the P-51 •. Most german aces didn’t FEAR the spit like they did the Mustang! The spit stalled in high G turns and its trans soniic dives were in purpose built test spits! The myth that it could outdive and outturn the BF109 has been LONG debunked by German AND British pilots- had the lufwaffe had the range in their fighters like the P-51s, the battle of britain would have been LOST by England!

Even in successuve fighting after the BoB the FW190 was superior to the Spit and pilots knew it- again Spits didn’t face the deadly FW190 D or the Me262- the P-51 DID. As far as the “faster” Spit IX???? Try again,ala the 480 mph P-51K actually used in Combat over japan! Just a few thoughts on the above discussion. All the aircraft mentioned were great each in their own way. However one needs to look at the context as well as the achievements of the aircraft themselves.

Firstly, the Spitfire and Hurricane flew against overwhelming odds in the Battle of Britain and yet prevailed. Thus, both were superior to the Bf 109. The P47, P51 and F4U flew much later in the war when the numerical odds were in their favour. Thus it is very difficult to say on the basis of “kill” ratio which aircraft was superior. However, I am persuaded by the comment above, that the Spitfire was the best pilots plane and this perhaps tilts the verdict. As a Vietnam fighter pilot I found that few aircraft behaved the way the books said they would, or could.

So simply reading published stats does not always apply. All fighter aircraft suffer the ills of the high speed stall. The trick is to avoid them. That takes good pilot technique and is not predicated upon which aircraft one is flying. (It does help, however to be flying the better fighter aircraft.) Most important in a fight is where you are relative to the OP when you engage. We found that it was always better to avoid “dogfights”. In VN the enemy always (except for early on when we still had the F-8) flew a better fighter, but we still won the fight (but not by much!) Therefore the debate whether or not the Spit or the 51 was better has little relevance when trying to figger which one would win the fight.

Pilot skill and tactics were at least as important as the flight charactics of the aircraft. $ir, that is something a lot of us “arm chair warrior”/ history buffs are forgetting.

I have read that the only acceptible higly agile american fighter was the F86 sabre of the 50s and the modern acft our nation flies today( acft like the F-16, F-/A-18, F-15,etc) -n WW2 it seems firepower and speed were more important, and many of our acft tended to be rahter heavy in comparidon to what they went up against! YET you said what many here are forgetting- acft performance, coupled with pilot skill made the difference in violent air to air clashes •. Why don’t we just ask the Luftwaffe pilots?

I bet the old aces would say the Spitfire after getting bounced over England, but the younger pilots would say the Mustang after getting swarmed from take-off to landing over the continent. Therefore, I would assume that the opinion of the older aces who flew against the allies in both scenarios would have to trump the younger ones and leave us with an answer. With comparable speed and maneuverability, they both do well, but the Spitfire had the first laminar flow airfoil allowing for high speed combat. It would have been the most dangerous opponent to the Luftwaffe for almost 4 years regardless of range or armament. The Mustang only had serious impacts for the last year of the war in the ETO and had to prove itself after the allies had already won the war logistically through aircraft production and pilot training.

The Spitfire survived from the beginning. Thereforethe Spitfire gets my vote. The Mustang not the Spitfire had the first laminar flow wing. It really does not matter when either plane flew; the question is which was better.

The war was far from over when the Mustang appeared; in fact, without the Mustang, the air war would not have ended as it did. Without the Mustang, the bomber raids into Germany would have failed (as they did before the Mustang appeared).

No allied aircraft with or without drop tanks had the range to escort bombers into the heart of Germany except the P51. That is what won the air war. The war was over for the Axis powers as early as 1943, once there was victory in North Africa, they had been stopped in Russia, the U-Boat threat was under control in the North Atlantic, and the Japanese were in retreat in the South Pacific. The P-51 didn’t appear until ’44!

The Spit came in 24 different Mk classes, and stopped the Axis on every front from the start until the end. The Spit was the best allied fighter in 1939, and the best Allied fighter in 1945, just a different class grade. It also won the most important battle of the war The Battle of Britain.

Many say that the F4U-4 was the best fighter of WWII, but this post looks at the Spit vs P51. Facts are as follows. Comparable aircraft were the MkXIV and P51D. Top sppeds were 721 and 703km/h respectively, whilst initial climb rates were 5,200 ft/min and 3,475ft/min. Post war trials were conducted todetermine the best “dogfighter” and the Spitfire of course won this contest. It was the best! The P51 dived better and had the higher service ceiling.

German ace pilots and allied pilots I believe are the ones that know best and they agree that the Spitfire was the more difficult oponent. It must be remembered that the Spitfire suceeded against incredible odds whereas the P51 suceeded when the odds were in its favour. Thus I believe that the Spitfire was the best fighter aircraft of WWII. It was faster, climbed faster, turned and rolled better and was considered by pilots on both sides to be the best. The point that there were so many variants and that it was in “catch up mode” are not accurate. There were many Bf 109 upgrades as well and this is called progress. The Spitfire airframe was excellent and accomodated the many chages over the war years.

This is not a disadvantage or a negative, but a very significant positive factor. Late model Spitfires flew at 475mph which is 125mph faster than the Mk1s of 1939. No ordinary airframe could assimilate such large increments of power, torque, force and friction. Thus all in all the Spitfire was the premier fighter of WWII. No questions and no doubts.

P51D Mustang was the all around best of the best premier fighter of WWII. Just for the rememberance; the famous Luftwaffe General Goering sided that when he first saw Mustang over Germany, he knew that war was over. And he seriously warned his pilot not to engage direct dogfight with Mustangs. I still can remember that a lone Mustang in a bomber escort mission while waiting for his other squadron mates to join up, shot down 4 109s and a possible ME-262 after sent him off with black smoke.

The pilot accomplished this in single handed and he said that he had the faith in God and Mustang. P51 Mustang was the greatest. This is quite a hard choice,but it does come down to the spitfire and mustang as to which was best,the spitfire was more maneuverable and the better dog fighter,but the mustang had the better range with or without drop tanks and was a lot easier to mass produce and was better suited to grass makeshift runways. I think the allies should had standardized aircraft production with the mustang as the single engine fighter and the mosquito as the other type, as both had the same engine they could produce more of each for any use they wanted. Let’s see, the Mustang used the Spitfire engine and the final Spitfire varients used a Mustang type wing.

The 10,000 ’51s fought 1,500 fighters while the “pre quantity war” Spit’s fought on a roughly 1 to 1 basis with the krauts. You dont fight the “quantity war” without first getting through the “quality war”. Also, attempts to make a carrier version of the ’51 failed whereas the Spit spawned the Seafire. Seems the Spit was more adaptabled. In the end though, the “Stang was nothing but a ground attack aircraft till it got the Merlin whilst the Griffin engined Spit was by far a superior fighter verses the the P-51h which is the ultimate war development of eachtype. Goerings statement carries little weight as the Spitfire wasn’t over Berlin for lack of range, yet (along with the Hurricane) decimated the Luftwaffe over Britain.

The point is, Bader would’ve blown any Mustang jockey out of the sky. Winner: Spitfire!!! I love the Corsair, the low dipped wing allowed for quick turns. This is the ONLY advantage it had on the P51. The spitfire had so many fuel problems, it doesn’t even fit into the reliability class, plus one shot to the inner wing with a.50 and the whole wing would come off. (that’s why they changed the design). The P51, routinely, flew at over 500mph, routinely.

I don’t think the Corsair EVER broke the 500mph barrier, unless it was in a fall, not a dive. The Corsair didn’t have great dive capability either, it wanted to “topple over” as most pilots HAD to initiate flaps to prevent that. Low speed maneuverability goes to the Corsair the low wing attachment allowed for a quick “body over” roll. Speed, endurance, ceiling, bomb payload, distance all go to the Mustang. The Corsair’s inverted gull wing was designed so that the propeller could be kept clear of the deck without making the undercarriage too long, and had no effect on turning radius. What Spitfire fuel problems? What on earth are you talking about?

It used the same engine as many other planes, initially with a carburetor and later with Bendix or Rolls Royce fuel injection, and was utterly reliable. One.5 in the wing would take the wing off? The Spitfire wing was constructed of hollow sections interlocking inside each other like the leaf springs of a car, and immensely strong. Twice test pilots dove Spits to Mach.9 – over 600 mph. And the P-51 never flew “routinely” at over 500 mph. The P-51D maxed out at around 470 – the same as the Griffon-engined Spits.

Your last sentence is nonsense. There were ultra high altitude Spits that had 8-9,000ft altitude advantage over the 51. The 4-cannon Spits were much better armed. No version of the Mustang ever climbed at 8000′ per minute, in fact they were quite pedestrian, even the Spit VB, operated from 1941 to 1942, climbed faster than any Mustang, operated from 1944.

When a Mustang was flown by the highly trained pilots the allies fielded at in the last year – eighteen months, the performance was adaquate for combat with aircraft types and pilots available to the Luftwaffe at that time. The Spitfire was taking on the best of the Luftwaffe when they were at their peak of strength and technical abilities. I presume you mean the Tempest II as the Sea Fury, which was post-war anyway. The Fleet Air Arm always went with their own design specifications which invariably ended up with such *camels* (committee-designed horses) as the Fairey and Blackburn aircraft (the Skua and Fulmar were supposed to be fighters!). Fighters on carriers were a bit of a novelty for too long in the RN. When the FAA/RN eventually relented and wanted British single-seat fighters from carrier decks (having already used Grumman aircraft) what could Britain produce enough of easily?

Spitfire airframes. Why was there never a Sea Mustang???

I was just at Camarillo airport and met a WWII pilot that trained in the P-39 then flew 40 combat missions in Italy in a Mark V then 40 more in a P-51b. I asked him “The Question” and he looked me in the eye and laughed.

The Mustang, hands down. He loved his Spit and actually liked the P-39 “once you got used to it” in fact he had to bail out of a flat spin in training. He said that anyone that picked any plane over a P-51 never flew one. I think that answers the question pretty well. Again, the war in europe was FAR from over when the P-51 entered the fray full time as a high alt fighter! The eastern front was raging in a bloody slug fest, and Germany had dealt the allies several set backs ( Market garden, and the hurtgen forest campaign to name a few) after the successful D-Day landings- southern italy was a blood bath for allied forces as well.

Spits were NOT taking the fight to the germans, high alt p-38s and p-47s were, with limited success. The bombing campaign was the key and British bomber command knew this as well as the begrudging 8th airforce!

If the day light bombing campaign failed we’d have fought a jet powered luftwaffe in ’46. Too many people here malign the p-51 as “second rate” to the spitfire, but it was in many ways Equal and in some, superior to the spitfire! Match for match the p-51b proprerly tuned matched a properly tuned Spitfire IX and the p-51D matched the spitfire XIV; look up the testing charts done in 1944 on both planes-( available on the internet) the pluses for the spit are turning radius( slight edge), altitude of 2k higher,and guns( once the spit got improved 20mms) the P-51 pluses are range, speed( marginal 20-25 mph more) and bomb load- both a near EQUAL in climb rates, dive rates, and engine performance- and the mustang was 2000 lbs heavier!!! Both are great fighters but the Mustang closed the ETO war on top because it did what the spitfire couldn’t- take the fight to the german homeland and protect the bombers. If the Brits had to fight the BoB with only P-51s they’d have gotten the SAME outcome, a defacto victory- ditto if The 8th and 15th USAAF had longer ranged Spit IXs for escort duty over germany!

The spit is great BUT it isn’t superior to the mustang •. You folks need to understand that both of the planes were COMPLETELY different in the concept of their use. Spitfire was a front line fighter, a pure air superiority machine. It had not much range, didn’t carry much air to ground ordinance. This machine was made to kill other planes over the immediate battlefield or over its own cities.

It was the same class as Me-109. P-51 was a LONG range fighter. Remember, that Brits used Mustang Fighters too. Mustang 3 – they called them, with a distinct style capory, but same Merlin Engine and Same 12.7mm guns.

However, they used the Mustang 3 as an escort fighter and a fighter bomber. Remember that Soviets were supplied with many types of Land Lease planes. They declined P-51 as it was not maneuverable enough at medium and low altitudes and was too heavy for them. Same was as with ANY weapons. The question that you need to ask is “WHAT IS THE MISSION?” If your mission is intercept, or battlefield air superiority, the superior maneuverability and climb rate of Spitfire will be needed here.

If your mission is a long range escort and sweep away enemy fighters over long range – P-51 will be a better choice. Spitfire also has an edge in firepower, having 2x20mm and 2×12.7mm over 6×12.7mm. Both fighters have the disadvantage of having guns in the wings, rather then centrally mounted above engine and in the engine. As far as Germans “not willing to engage”. There is famous order that Luftwaffe is to “Avoid Engagement with any Yakovlev fighters lacking oil cooler under the engine” (This is spoken about Yak-3). Now, it is easy to win air war when most of Luftwaffe was engaged in eastern front and the rest took a beating in Battle of Britain.

When you have 10:1 air superiority, you will easily win any war. Quantity is a quality of its own. Mustang was NOT a bad plane. However, for it the battlefield air superiority – dogfighting was a SECONDARY mission. For Spitfire and Yaks it was PRIMARY mission. Also, remember something as Heavy as P-51 or especially P47, due to sheer inertial forces and higher wing loading then Spit or Yak will NEVER be able to compete with them in Turn/Roll rate. Power to weight ratios also count.

Empty Spit IX weighted in at 2400kg, With wing loading of 142 kg/m². Empty P51D was 3400 with Wing loading: 192 kg/m² Lower the wing loading – higher the turn and climb rate, especially since both planes had the same engine. Both planes could be made better with a centrally mounted armament, but with Merlin it was impossible.

P47 is a ground attacker, it has good speed, but crap for turn and roll rate, climb rate is also not too spectacular. Yes, it could take a beating, but that doesn’t make it a good fighter.

IL-2 also could take a beating, however it isn’t a fighter. P-47 should be compared to a fighter in its own class – Single Engine, high speed fighter bomber – Hawker Tempest, which outgunned, outmaneuvered and outclimbed it. Therefore, my vote goes to SPITFIRE IX •. The P-47 actually had a very good roll rate! The 56th FG had a kill rate against the luftwaffe of 8 to 1, most FW190 anf M109, and that was while the luftwaffe still had their most experienced aces flying. The P47 had very good high altitude perfomance and was faster in a dive than any other fighter.

Also later on with the newer paddle blades the climb rate was acceptable. It had 33% more fire power than the P51 (8 instead of 6 0,5 caliber guns) and could also absorbe damage while a single bullet in the radiater of a P51 would mean the end of it. This is also the reason why the P47 was used as a ground attacker. The P47 broke the back of the luftwaffe, when the P51 came into action the luftwaffe was already in decline. So to say the p51 was the best fighter is very arguable.

It depends on many factors. Wrong about “air to ground armament.” The Mk.

II Spitfire was armed with two 20mm cannon and four.303 m/guns, while later versions sported four cannon. While the.5 machine gun used on US fighters was a powerful weapon, the cannon fired explosive shells that caused much greater damage. One 20mm in the right place would bring down a fighter, while half a dozen would destroy any bomber. In addition, armor-piercing cannon shells would destroy many armored vehicles that the.5 m/g bullets would bounce off. Yaks were dogmeat and the germans racked up MAJOR scores against the lame yaks (the lavochkin was a better turn and burn fighter) Russians simpled threw MORE target in the air and wore the german ranks down as well as #s. The BoB is another “myth” in reality it was a stalemate and that is what Britain needed to SURVIVE! Any REAL military leader( which Hitler was NOT) would have never turned to attack Russia.

The Luftwaffe was poised to wipe the Spitfire forces of Britain off the map in 1940-41. Again Mustangs were in action since ’43 and getting kills more rapidly due to the superior performance of the acft design. And as far as performance,spitfire had far more deficiencies in service,maintenance, speed,and range. American acft with the exception of the F6F hellcat were not turn and burn fighters- they relied on Speed and Speed kills slower acft(ask any FW190 pilot who hunted Spits- couldn’t do that as well against a mustang!) Also the Brits used F6F and F4Fs ( brit navy pilot actually scored an aerial victory in an F4F against a ME109)on their navy carriers and only switched to seafires LATER in the war to PROTECT their fighter industry and lessen costs and dependence on US manufactured acft!

As an av id airwar historian, I would question the statement “the P51 always had a 10-1 quantitive advantage. This ws definetly not true in most localized airbattles. The Germans had a great knack for concentrating their fighters locally for mass attacks on allied bombers and fighters. It was often the case where a squadran of 24 Mustangs ended up taking on a whole gruppen of ME109’s and FW190’s.

Even still, over 600 miles from base P51’s wracked up an average of 7 to 1 kill ratios over the best german aircraft (including FW190D-9). By 1944 most “dogfights” did not consist of indavidual aircraft turning hard into each other at slow speeds. The vertical fight was more prevelant than the horizontal fight and no aircraft could fight as well as the P51 at any altitude over 300MPH.That being said, If I was any pilot flying 4+ hour missions I know what aircraft I’d want to be in. Once again, Doug M, we are talking about DIFFERENT MISSIONS.

Escort vs Air Superiority. Still, with fuel tanks, Spit had long range, doubt it was as long as P-51. You do not send SPitfire for long range escorts.

IT WAS NOT BUILT FOR THAT. Yeah “If I was pilot flying 4+ hour missions I would choose P-51”, DUH!!! Yeah, and if I was pilot flying close air support or a torpedo attack, I would not choose Spitfire either. Question is this: Altitude 6500m one on one, head on approach, distance 5 km, what do you choose: SPIT or P-51? The usual emotional opinion vs. Fact it seems.

P-51 was the better all-rounder. The Merlin did not “rescue” the Mustang from mediocre performance as is often claimed at Duxford Airshows. Early Allison Mustangs and Apaches had phenomenal low level performance and claimed some of the earliest FW190 kills, when the Spitfire V was struggling. Using similar late model Merlins, the P-51Bs, Cs, and Ds were quicker (despite being heavier) than the Spitfire Mk IX. This speaks to better aerodynamic efficiency.

Spitfires had poor roll performance at high speeds, but weight was more concentrated on the C of G (fuel between engine and cockpit) vs. In the wings and behind the cockpit in the P-51. As any aerobatic pilot will know, mass concentrated on or close to the C of G vs. Distributed makes for a reduced mass moment of inertia (better maneuverability), but this is also dependent on control effectiveness. As stated, the Spitfire (especially earlier models with fabric covered ailerons) had reduced roll rates at high speeds. Don’t disrespect the 109 either.

Erich Hartmann got 352 kills in the 109 in just two years. The best Spitfire or Mustang guys got around ten percent of that. It’s tempting to point out that he scored his kills on the Eastern Front, but the best Luftwaffe Battle of Britain individual scores also blew the RAF best away. It is often stated that the Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF 2:1 in the Battle of Britain.

Only true for total (bombers plus fighters) vs. Fighter Command.

Fighters were even Stevens. And the Luftwaffe was fighting at the limit of their fighters’ range, over enemy territory. You need to check your history! The Spitfire came in 24 MK classes. The versatility of the design made it outstanding throughout the war from beginning to end. It’s performance has been objectively tested versus other fighters, by the USAF, and for the period it has finished on top consistently. As for scores of German fighter pilots, this is the subject of much debate, especially on the Russian Front.

The one thing that can be said of German fighter pilots who survived is that they flew far more combat missions then allied pilots. Hartmann for example flew over 600 missions in two years and saw the enemy every flight. The average allied pilot flew a tour of 50 missions and only saw the enemy occasionally. Accept in Russia of course! The Russians flew like the Germans.

If a German fighter pilot survived the war from beginning till the end he would have flown in combat from 1939 until 1945. Thus, by 1944 most of their best were dead. The rest of their best were in Russia dealing with the numerical on slot! As you might guess fatigue and poor moral were problems for both sides on the Russian Front. Kurst in Russia in 1943 for example was the largest tank battle in history involving 2 million men and 4000 tanks, and a similar number of aircraft all within a relatively small area. At Stalingrad in Russia things were so bad German soldiers resorted to cannibalism. The entire 6th Army was lost, again in 1943.

Thus the conditions and experience of German pilots was much different then those of the Allies. Back to the issue at hand. The P-51 was a great long range fighter, but the Spitfire was a great dog fighter, however the Spitfire was there from start to finish!

Mike- once again your opinion is slanted toward your favoring of the spitfire. True there were up to 24 marks( variants) but the TRUTH is the Spitfire mark -IX and XIV are the only ones you can compare to the Mustang B/C/D and K models- turn rate and altitude wise the Spit has the slight edge. Fire power-even with 20 mm, slight edge, other than that? Mustang is faster has better roll rates, longer range and heavier ordinnce load. You and other pro spit guys can tout the later High mark spits against the D model but in all fairness those HEAVIER, faster griffon engined Spits can only be compared to the Mustang H model( Brit Mustang IV), which matches the high mark spits in climb rate, still has faster speed ( 480 mph max vs griffon spits 460 mph); the high mark spits still have “short” legs even with drop tanks! The war evolved and the Mustang became the BETTER all purpose fighter, while the high mark spits became the BETTER interceptors- from ’44 to ’45 they were used for V-1/2 intercept along with the Hawker Tempest and Typhoon, while the Mustang D/III was on bomber escort/ and ground attack missons/ enemy fighter intercept.

The spit IX/XIV were closer to the action with the Mustang doing fighter bomber details. ONLY The IX, and XIV retained the “original” Spit characteristics that the BoB I/IIs had( fast response, turn and burn attributes). Boh planes had them- the mustang less so because it got to enjoy the “lessons learned” from the earlier deployed Spits and other 30s designed fighters like the P-40, and even the later P-38s, P-47s, et al. As for the notion that 8th,15th USAAF pilots were up against chumps? In The BoB UK pilots were less experienced than the luftwaffe and held their OWN. Germans had home field advantage, intense flak, radar early warning, and JETS plus the latest higher performing 109s and FW 190s, and still got OWNED by the ranging P-51s! Guys like Preddy, Blakesly, Bud Anderson, and Yeager wouldn’t survived if the Mustang was a “second rate” acft and Brit/ Commonwealth pilots would have demanded the Spits if they were so “superior” to the Mustang- several also made ACE in the P-51.

If I had the choice? Mustang cause its a damn good all around acft wit performance similar to your Spits, more speed and better endurance( plus better armor- the “guinea pig club can attest to one of the LESS talked about vices of the spitfire!) •. Hi Mike Gee, nice to see you are still contributing, I think we will always disagree about these two great aircraft. Incidently it was the Hurricane that had issues and not the Spit with regard to catching fire. My understanding is that fuel tanks in the Hurricane, near the wing root, when struck by 20mm cannon fire, tended to leak directly into the cockpit.

Allowing the pilot only seconds to escape. This has been discussed in documentries in the UK. I beleive Geoffrey Page was a victim of this. During my recent holiday to East Anglia I thought I would try and conclude this ongoing discourse. I decided to visit Duxford and ask advice from the one person I knew who would give informed and meaningful advice. We ambled over the airfield together and approached a P51D model, this was parked next to a very famous Spit, MH434. I explained the issue at hand and waited paitently for the response.

‘Dad I just hate the silver one it looks all gaudy, just like a boy racers car, the best one is the dark one with the black and white stripey things on it’ Well there you have it Mike! Now it’s tea time, now where did I put that tin of Spam! Mike Gee, keep plugging.

It’s nice to read you.I notice different definitions of terms. ‘Best fighter of WWII?’ is the question. If you take ‘of’ as meaning from the era your argument about types and comparisons works. But others like the other Mike in 28.1 take ‘of’ as meaning duriing the whole period in all theatres and roles. There may be other uses of ‘of’. Both arguments could be true and valid. Sorry to be the philosophy student but definitions change conclusions.

I hate to see guys arguing and getting heated when agreement seems possible. A very good story J. Your consultant is clearly working at my level. I’ve not made further efforts yet (work etc) but will conclude as previously promised and briefly sometime soon. The Allison-engined Mustangs gave good low-altitude performance (not “phenominal”), which was pointless as the action wa all at high altitude for the first 3/4 of the war. No Allison-engined Mustang ever even encountered a 190, far less shot one down.

By the time the 190 appeared, all Mustangs were Merlin-powered. My dad, a WWII RAF vet, said that when the first versions of the Mustang (a name, incidentally, given to it by the British) were evaluated, the comment from Spitfire pilots was “good at low, slow turns.” It was relegated to photo-recce work. The Spit V was certainly outclassed by the 190, but within a couple of weeks was replaced by the Mk. IX with a 2-stage supercharged Merlin 60-series, and outperformed the 190 easily, especially at altitude. As successive marks of Merlin appeared, the 190 never regained superiority. The 70-series Merlin gave over 1,700hp when the 190’s BMW (at 60% greater capacity) was pushed to deliver 1,600 (and that only at low altitude) and the 109s also lagged in the hp race, despite having 150-grade fuel.

The last Merlin gave 2,240hp continuous, with 2,470 available for short bursts, and the Germans never came even close to matching this with their BMW and D-Benz engines. The rear fuselage fuel tank in the ’51, although (with the drop tanks) giving phenomenal range, were a control liability, due to the aft weight load upsetting balance and trim. Only when their fuel was burned off was control and manoeuverability regained. I am not an expert and certainly not qualified to say which is “best” yet am sensible enough to pick out the common thread that you must be very specific when you ask the question and state “Which type of mission”.

Termanology Mixtape Free Download Mp3. The much maligned Hurricane destroyed more aircraft during The Battle of Britain. Tempest pilots dismissed Spitfire pilots with a ” our landing speed is ppractically your top speed”.

P51s were deadly and long range, P47s bought you home safely. I din’t know that there is one answer and as even pilots are biased I would not take their views for granted. Answer possibly; they were both the best in their own rights •. The later marks of spitfires did have performance advantages over the mustang, The goal of both is to destroy the enemy. The mustang could go to the enemys field and compete evenly. In so many posts I hear the mustang getting clobbered because of it falling a little short in performance. The spitfire is not being hammered for its short range.

We need to realize without the mustang ranging over Euroupe, the war would have been more costly and lasted longer. For differnt reasons, both should be considered legends. I can’t believe some of the ridiculous replies left on here in regard to this. Even US pilots who had flown both remark that the late model Spitfires from the Mark IV onwards were superior to the P-51D as dogfighters. Even the early models could turn inside just about anything. However, the answer mentioning apples and oranges is pretty accurate: The Spitfire was the supreme allied interceptor of WWII, but didn’t have the range to take the fight to Germany, which the P-51 did.

It’s worth mentioning in this debate too that the P-51 was designed by North American to RAF specifications, but was a dud over 20,000ft and restricted to PR and ground-attack duties until a bright spark in the RAF thought it might go better with a Rolls Royce Merlin engine. It did, and how. Quite possibly, the P-51 wouldn’t have existed in the form we know it had it not been for our cousins on the European side of the pond. Here are the facts: German pilots – read the bio of JG54 – feared dogfighting Spitfires right to the end of the war, but were less wary of Mustangs unless they were met in greater numbers (which they inevitably were, whether Spitfires, Mustangs or anything else in 1944). The Germans considered the Spitfire the best, and the Mustang the second best – but only as dogfighters. The Spitfire late marks which best compare to the P51D had a better rate of climb and could turn inside the Mustang every time.

Speed was about equal but the Spitfire had better armement (including two 20mm cannon). They were about equal in the dive, at first, but the Spitfire ran away on the Mustang eventually. The Spitfire Mark XIV had a similar rate of roll, which was the Mustang’s only advantage prior to that. In all these cases, the pilots – as was true at the time of highly trained RAF and USAAF pilots – were expected to be of equal ability. These findings were all borne out by USAAF tests, and backed up by the opinions of their opponents. The tight turn of the Spitfire was what most worried the Germans. In combats with them, they found the late marks of Spitfire could initiate and break off the dogfight at the will of the British pilots.

That was also found to be the case in the USAAF comparison tests. However, and it’s a very big however, the Germans also found the Mustang a handful, if not quite as manoeuvrable, and were unable to compete with the large formations escorting daylight raids over Germany. They considered the Mustang about equal to the late model 109s and 190s but by then, stocks of experienced German pilots were just about out, and the USAAF fighter pilots, mostly veterans by then, had a big edge unless they came up against one of the few still-breathi German aces in the west. Both aircraft had beautiful airframes that could be adapted through different marks over a long period of time, which is the sign of a great aircraft. But In a one-on-one dogfight, most pilots – and yes, including Americans who’d flown Spitfires – thought the Spitfire better.

Its major flaw: the Spitfire didn’t have the range for long escort duties. It was the best dogfighter in the ETO, and probably the best interceptor right from the outset in 1939, when the first Mark 1s and IIs gave the Germans a huge shock over Dunkirk and then England.

And it was still the best in 1945. But given the range of the Mustang, and the fact that the performance of the Spitfire and the Mustang were very close, you would have to say that overall – OVERALL – the Mustang was the better of the two aircraft. Just not in a dogfight from about 1943 onwards. The later Spitfires had no peers in that respect. But as has been pointed out, they were unable to take their fight long-distance – which was where the Mustang was superlative. Both deserve to be remembered and immortalised for different reasons all of them good.

The Mustang comes out tops overall, especially in terms of usefulness. But it really IS apples and oranges. Aside from a little actual knowledge of the subject scattered here and there, this exchange mostly appears as uninformed as it is opinionated. Are there any actual pilots in this group? Anybody here flown (or at least flown in) a Mustang or Spitfire?

Nope, again, I’d wager. Any aeronautical engineers to be found? Truth be told, those who see the argument as moot because of its”apples and oranges” nature are probably nudging closest to reality. Engineering of any kind is a sea of compromises; Thepoor engneer is forever giving up something in order to get something else he/she wants. Thus, speed and maneuverability tend to be mutually exclusive; stability as a gun platform often gets sacrificed for maeuverability; rate of climb and diving speed fight each other; heavy armament obviates agility, etc.

So one has to ask the simple question: which airplane did the best job at fulfilling the expectations of those who crafted it? When that question is put to the Mustang v.

Spitfire comparison, the answer comes out a wash. Yes, the Spitfire was more maneuverable and could probably win a “knife fight in a phone booth” type of dogfight against a Mustang, given co-equal pilots and similar luck. No, the Spitfire didn’t have the legs of the Mustang, although you can bet that every RAF pilot in the business longed for one that did. Yes, the Spitfire easily outclimbed the Mustang. But then why not?

The Mustang was an elephant if ever there were. What with an empty weight of 7,635 pounds, it came in just slightly north of the higher mark Spits’ absolute gross weights!

The Mustang was always, always faster than any Spitfire, even the last marks to appear after the war. The B and C ‘Stangs, while officially rated at 440 mph, were easily capable of hitting the mid-450s at 25,000 feet without breaking a sweat. And if you count the very last production edition, the H model with its approximately 490 mph top end, the Mustang simply galloped away from any Spitfire — to the eternal consternation of Brits young and old. An old, late acquaintence of mine, Gunther Rall, put it very succinctly when he decared that, if you run across a P-51 you’ve got a fighting chance; Just stay sharp and try not to engage in a game of chase. But if you encounter a high-mark Spitfire, get the hell out of there!

The good news was, the chances of running afoul of a Spitfire over the conntinent in mid-war were just about nil. They simply couldn’t reach the front very often due to their limited range, and until post-Normandy times when Allied airbases began to appear on the continent bringing Spitfires closer to the conflict, they became almost irrelevant over the scenes of battle. Finally, in small defense of the Mustang: With the introduction of the Griffon engine, the Spitfire remained such in name only.

Truly, the Mk IX was the last true Spitfire of the original design. After that, it was a new airframe and, generally, a whole new engineering ballgame in the basrgain By comparison, one might just as well have called the P47 Thunderbolt the P-43B Lancer! Of course, one might also argue that the Mustang evolved considerably as well. (Never try to fit a P-51B or C wing to a P-51D! I can tell you from first-hand experience, it don’t work!) At the end of the day, though. The Mustang was still true to its original design, whereas the Spitfire had gone through such extraordinarily extensive modifications that there were virtually no structural parts from the Spit IX that would interchange with anything on a Mk. 24, for example.

I suspect (although can’t prove it) that the Spitfire name was carried on through successive changes primarily for nationalistic, patriotic and morale purposes as much as anything else. One wonders if Supermarine’s last piston-engined fighter effort, the laminar-flow winged “Spiteful,” had appeared in, say, 1944 rather than just after the war, it might not have been christened the Spitfire 25 PS Just a couple of quick notes to contributers here: Contrary to one contributer’s remarks, The P-47 Thunderbolt was, arguably, the fastest rolling fighter plane in any theater of action! Throughout the war, arguments and wagers flew thick and fast over which could complete a 360 degree aileron roll the fastest, the P-47 or the BMW-powered FW 190. Fly in one sometime if you get a chance; its roll-rate definitely tends to separate skull from atlas vertabra! And finally, for the semi-literate in the crowd: there’s no such word as “alot.” •.

During The Second World War there were dramatic technical improvements made in all types of military equipment including of course aircraft. The most advanced of the war being, of course the ME 262, which was a jet. The most advanced bomber by the end of the war was the B-29. But during the crucial period of 1939 until 1943, when the Germans were in a position where victory was still possible, it was the Spitfire that held the line in the air.

Once the German war machine had been stopped in North Africa, and in Russia, and the Allies were able to fully retool, it was the beginning of the end for the Axis. Even with the technical advances of German engineers they could not deal with the industrial might of the USA, as well as that of Russia, Canada, Britain, and alike. A F-16 was a much superior aircraft to a Spitfire Mk V, or Mk IX, but they weren’t available at the time, neither was the Mustang or Corsair, it was up to the Hurricane, the P-40, and the Spitfire. The key battles were The Battle of Britain, and at Malta, aka for North Africa.

In the Pacific there was The Battle of Midway, and in Russia, we had Stalingrad, Moscow, and Leningrad. Once these battles had been won Germany, although still very powerful was all but spent and in retreat.

Italy after North Africa was finished. Japan was still a threat in the East but never really could compete technically. The Zero, although a great dog fighter was to lightly armored and to slow a fighter as compared to those of the Allies. They needed an up grade which never really developed. The Zero could not even defend against the B-29 bombing campaign since it few to high, and to fast. The Japanese also had inferior infantry weapons such as tanks which were greatly inferior to the American Sherman.

Although, the Japanese fighting man was inferior to nobody!!! Squadron Leader T.S. Wade of the Air Fighter Development Unit had some interesting figures at the end of the war regarding comparitive performances. Although they are RAF figures, since they were flying all the types tested operationally, I can’t see why they’d be making any of it up. As with the US military, it’s really not their style, even though many of our Brit and American cousins – generally the ones not armed with any facts, nor even much half-right empirical data, and usually in about equal numbers (which makes for some great circular arguments) – are want to brag up their own side depending on who invented what.

Most of the Mustang-Spitfire comparisons that come out in favour of the British machine in the fighter development tests do, however, seem to listed be Spitfire 14s. My understanding is the really major engineering changes came from the 14 on, not the 9 but I’ll give a nod to someone who might know better on that score and defer to Mr McCrath. These comparisons are now available on the internet (do your own homework, though, guys, it’s not that hard) and contain graphs and drawings as well that give a pretty good breakdown between the performances of a number of allied fighter aircraft. While they don’t completely support Mr McCrath’s view on the speed difference between the Mustang and the Spirfire, they don’t completely shoot it down, either. They do a range comparison too, and of course the Mustang comes out way ahead of everything, with performances in every other aspect so close it does lend weight to the view that it was the best AND most useful allied fighter of WWII, if not the best dogfighter.

The RAF studies were not done as mock combats but as comparisons, similar to the documented comparisons done by the USAAF with other allied and captured enemy aircraft. The speed difference between the two – Mustang and Spitfire – looks marginal and varies, mostly in favour of the P-51, especially at heights you’d expect most combats to have taken place. And would it have made that much difference at 30,000ft? As for the P 47, it might have runaway bragging rights regarding rate of roll. Unlike Mr McCrath I can’t tell you personally because I haven’t been lucky enough to try it – but according to the comparisons, the P-47 also does pretty well – exceptionally well in fact – in a dive. Straight down like a stone, you’d expect, and at uncatchable, breakneck speed.

Well said STM The first real departure ferom the original Spitfire design came with the Spitfire IV (type 337) in late 1940. The Brits wanted to take advantaqge of the available single-stage R-R Griffon II engine with all its additional power, but the trouble was the engine was simply too big and too heavy to incorporate within the design limits of the original Spitfire airframe, So, enter the reconfigured and quite different Mk IV. It was at this point in the Sptfire series that things begin to get a bit strange, because before the prototype Griffon-powered IV could get into the air, the Spitfire P.R. IV, a development of the “original” Spitfire design, had already entered production. Thus, the Griffon model was redesignated Spitfire XX.

This shift has resulted in mass confusion in type designations aqnd has resulted in numerous repeated errors in subsequent articles and books about the Spitfire series. Indeed, tryijg to follow the convoluted twists and turns of Spitfire development is a task best avoided by the squeamish or faint of heart! All told, it’s been said there were over 100 variants of the machine, and a research project I was once involved with as Associate Curator of Seattle’s Museum of Flight persasded me that such was merely the tip of the iceberg! The Spitfire IX, the last model of the original Spitfire design to see extensive production and service, was pushed into the fight as an interim solution to the Fw 190 problem. Among other things, it introduced the so-called “E” wing that retained the 20 mm cannon in the outer gun bay, but replaced the two.303 Brownings of the inner bay with a single.50 cal M2.

Onee might declare this machine to be the capstone of the Spitfire era and the last real, R.J. Mitchell Spitfire, to fly.

Goup Captain Johnnie Johnson declared it the “bvest Spitfire of them all,” The Mk XIV (type 372), which seemed to receive a lot of noteriety in this forum, was originally produced as a standad Mk VIII, but strengthened and redesigned to take the two-stage Griffon 65 with a five-bladed Rotol prop. Of note, Mk XIV from 401 Squadron was the first fighter to draw blood against the Me 262. This plane was margainally faster than the P-51D at 30,000 feet, but couldn’t quite stay with the earlier -51B.

(I got bounced out of my previous entry before I could finish.) About absolute speed at a qualitative indicator of a fighter’s worth: As the war proceeded, it became clear to aircraft manufacturers and designers of all nations that sheer maneuverability was not the be-all, end-all of fighter excellence. In fact, the vast majority of kills were made from ambush, with few aerial acrobatics involved. You simply snuck up behind some unwary opponent who had failed to heed his instructor’s advice about checking his six frequently. You then line up, pull the trigger, and watch the poor fellow melt to slag.

As the Brits would say “Bob’s your uncle.” What did seem to count most was sheer speed. If you had that, you could engage or disengage at will and thus control the process of battle. However, even that can’t be pushed too far. A speed differential between two planes of, say, 5, 10, or even 20 mph made little difference. Bf 109G pilots flying their 389 – 415 mph mounts against 437 mph Mustang Ds considered their speed to be quite adequate. Most air combat of the day was being done at speeds between 200 and 300 mph anyway, so the only time absolute top speed entered the equation was in pursuit of, or in flight from, the enemy. But even then you’d need a speed differential in excess of 30 mph to have a telling effect.

If someone is in range and he firewalls it and manages a speed 30 mph in excess of yours, he’ll be a smoking hole in the ground long before he clears your guns. Conversely, if he’s two miles away from you and you have a 30 mph speed advantage, it’ll take you four minutes at full throttle to reach him. Four minutes at full throttle with an Allison, a Merlin, A Griffon or a Diamler Benz, is pretty much sufficient to cook your engine.

Besides, your opponent’s probably leading you back deep into his own territory anyway, so even if you get him you end with a wrung-out engine and probably a dwindling fuel supply, and all that deep in enemy territory. Not a good situation.

In sum, even the vaunted and all-important speed advantage seems to disappear occasionally. I’ve gone up against 200 mph RV4s in mock combat with a little 130 mph Mooney Mite and come out on top in the majority of encounters. A good friend of mine, Mike Edwards, blew a MiG-15 out of the sky during the Hungarian revolt using a Bf 109 (the previously-mentioned Jumo-powered Avia variant.), an F4U-5 Cosair knocked down a Mig in Korea, and Hawker Sea Furies got a couple in the same conflict.

P-51s claimed any number of Mig probables, and had they been equipped with anything more potent than their sextette of ma-duces, there likely would have been a few Mig aces among P-51 jockies in korea. Finally, as a response to “geemoney’s earlier post: The P-51K did not have a 480 mph top speed. The K model was simply a P-51D with a canopy that bulged out a bit more in the back for better rearward visibility, a General Motors Aeroproducts prop in place of the Hamilton-Standard model, and slightly different pressure relief grills up front in the cheek positions. Its performance was otherwise idential to that of the P-51D. “Eemoney” might be thinking of the P-51H, which, by the way, reached the front in the Pacific literally a couple of days too late to see combat.

Again, who’s the best, the Spitfire or the Mustang? The best answer has to be: it depends.

Your (or Bader’s) evaluation of the Hurricane was spot-on. It was a slower machine by a significant amount — the 2c model barely reaching 300 mph — but it was a perfect bomber-getter, and that’s exactly how the Brits used it. They sent their Spits after the 109s while the Hurricanes polished off the bombers. A perfect one-two punch!

However, it fell short in performance when compared to the 109E. If there were no Spitfires and the Hurricane had been obliged to go it alone, Lord Haw-Haw might have become Britain;s new Prime Minister! I once in the early 80s had an opportunity to meet Dolphy Galland through a mutual friend, and I questioned him about his famous tribute to the Spitifre. (When asked by Goering what, as General of Fighters, he needed to defeat the RAF, he replied “Spitfires.”) Galland told me that by no means did he mean to praise the Spitfire per se; he was only trying to goad Goering into pressuring Herr Messerschmitt to jack up the performance of the 109 at his earliest convenience, which he subsequently did with the 109F.

As to the P-40: an extraodinarily underated aircraft in its later iterations! The earlier Tomahawks were unquestionably sub-par, and their designer, Don Berlin, knew it. The P-40E, however, was another matter. While it was held back by its single-stage, single-speed blower Allison, the airframe did have possibilities (note the too-lilttle, too-late P-40Q). However, once equipped with the Spit V’s Merline 21 engine in the “F model, it became quite the little performer. Unfortunately, that variant was short-lived, due to the scacity of Merlins at the time. In that configuration, though, it had a top speed nearing 380; a rate of climb just over 3,000 fpm with half-a-tank of gas; a lively roll rate of about 200 degrees per second, could cut a turning radius equal to that of the Spit IX, and of course could dive like a rock..All-in-all, contrary to your statement above, it was every bit the equivalent of the Bf 109F, and in some areas superior, and it proved so over and over again in the African campaign.

I can tell you for sure that no Spitfire IX pilot in his right jmind would try to stay with any P-0 in a Split-S or Immelman! The original Spitfires were horrific in the aileron roll department, and in fact, the Martin B-26 marauder could actually outroll a Spitfrire IX! That’s something you never hear about, though, which brings up another matter. “Great” planes are made so by a number of factors, not the least of which is publicity. Thus, a superb machine that rarely sees combat will not be hailed as a “great” plane, and the Macchi 202-205 series Italian fighters stand as a perfect example of that. Technically and performance-wise, they were among the best in the war in nearly every category. But, they appeared in such small numbers, and made so little impact on the outcome of the conflict, that they are now relegated to no more than an interesting footnote in history.

One hangs in the Smithsonian air museum in Wash D.C. A curator there once told me that their visitors’ typical response to its presence is, “what’s that?” You don’t get that around the Thunderbolt, Spitfire,and Mustang exhibits! And once the publicity train gets rolling, it’s pretty hard to stop. The P-40’s reputation was built on the premist that it was an inferior machine that was being made to do the impossible via good old Yankee Inginuity plus a dollup of clever and talented leadership in the person of Claire Chennault. It made a great story at the beginning of the war, and was, all-in-all, a terrific morale-builder. Just imagine, implied the stories, what we’ll soon be able to do with really great equipment if we’re able to smack em around so badly with the inferior stuff!

Sadly, that became the P-40’s legacy, and its lot in life, so that its later accomplishments, such as those in the hands of such luminaries as Klller Caldwell, tended to get overlooked. I also had the great privilege of meeting Bader during my RAF career, when he visited our mess at RAF Biggin Hill, a station very familiar to him from WWII. Did you know that Bader was not the only legless Spitfire/Seafire pilot? The other was Fleet Air Arm pilot Colin Hodgkinson. As he flew mostly over water, he was concerned that his aluminum legs would pull him down in the event of a ditching, so he filled them with table tennis balls. When testing a new mark of Seafire with the 60-series two-stage Merlin, climbing rapidly, he suddenly heard loud explosions and threw the plane into violent manoeuvers to escape the “cannon shells.” Then he realized that the explosions were the balls were exploding in the rarified altitude.

Nice one that, mate!! Love the paint job too.

That is a beautiful-looking aircraft. I was sceptical too, regarding the RAF reports, but they look like they’re properly done. Like I say, I got the feeling from reading Stainforth’s evaluation that they were all, well, a bit surprised.

It was sent off to someone in the Air Ministry by Halahan in expanded form, where it did appear to have been jazzed up a tad. The other end of the spectrum is Pete Brothers, who said he was quite fearful of 109s as you would be.

One of the more fascinating aspects of doing research as a curator for Seattle’s Museum of Flight was in the myriad of ways various cultures deal with their conclusions about enemy equipment. The Americans seem to get very defensive about it all, insisting that, while differences exist between their stuff and that of the foes, those differences always add up to: advantage U.S. The Germans, on the other hand, seem almost self-effacing in their conclusions, assuming that any dfferences in equipment were to their ultimate detriment.

Edgar Shmued, who had been project manager on the original Bf.109 and later emigtrated to the U.S. And worked for North American Aviation to help design the P. 51, contacted some of his old German colleagues after the war.

After a long chat, it was deteremined that the German engineers had actually wind tunnel tested captured P. 51s for even more hours than did North American during its original design phase of the aircraft!

They wer determined to find out how the damn thing went so fast and assumed from the get-go that the Americans were right and they were wrong. That was the Germans. Thje Japanese quietly learned from enemy equipment, took its designs, revamped them, and turned out superior products. (And they’re still at it!) When Admiral Perry hove his Black Shiips into Tokyo Bay in 1 •. As for the Spitfire-Hurricane one-two punch, that is part myth, part reality. It’s part reality because individuals engaged in the battle realised it might be the best way to do things and might do it wherever it was possible, and part myth because it wasn’t official policy and there was very little time to organise anything like a split attack except to get squadrons up when a raid was coming in. In reality, the controllers on the ground put up whatever was available at the time; whatever got there first, Spitfires or Hurricanes, played, to use a popular rugby coaching term, whatever was in front of them bombers, fighters or combinations of both.

As a result, Hurricanes shot down an awful lot of 109s and 110s during the battle, and Spitfires shot down a lot of bombers. Ideally, it was recognised the one-two punch you describe would work best, but in practice it generally didn’t work out that way.

Nice, but full of data that is just flat-out wrong. First, the P-51 smoked the Spitfire in a dive, both in acceleration and top end. The Mustang stayed controllable up to mach.80, faster than any other plane mentioned in the above discussion. Just remove any idea the Spit could even compete with it in a dive, it couldn’t. The Mustang was probably the best airplane in a dive in the entire war. The Mustang owned the Spitfire in a zoom climb.

The thing that bedeviled it in sustained climb (the fact it was the typical fat piggish and heavy US design) gave it an inertia that the Spit couldn’t hope to compete with. Roll rate was a wash. If you were puttering around at low speeds, the Spit was better. At high speeds, the Mustang was better, and in fact was the best rolling platform at high speeds in the entire war.

You can look it up. Turn radius, once indicated airspeed dropped, favored the Spitfire. At higher speeds, the Mustang could pull 9 G’s, the models were stressed for that. It is one reason they were so freaking heavy.

The Spitfire could pull more G’s at slower speeds, as we all know. One way the H shed weight was the decision to stress it for lower G’s. Please don’t even pretend.

You can’t hang but so much fuel on a bird, you know. You are risking sending the plane out farther than it can return if the range in externals exceeds the range on internal. The Pony wins this in a landslide.

Sustained climb favored the Spitfire. Not as much as you might think, however. It all depended on boost or inches of mercury the plane was capable of. A Mustang could be a B or C or D model, pulling 67, 70, 72, 75, 80, or even 81 inches of manifold pressure.

Climb rates went up accordingly. The Spitfire did not out-accelerate the Mustang. The Pony was the best accelerating allied bird in the ETO.

At higher boosts, it wasn’t even close. This includes the P-38, unless you use the fastest Lightnings versus the heaviest and lowest powered Mustangs (P-38L vs early P-51D). 4 x 20 mm beats 6 x 50, no question.

Anything else is either a wash, or favors the Mustang. Ground attack?

Pony was, despite its detractors, a superb ground attack bird. It carried a big load a long way at a high cruise speed, got in, hit the target and got out. More E/A were destroyed on the ground in the ETO by Mustangs than any other type. You can look it up. The top speeds for the Spit 14 were extrapolated for a boost the Griffon was never cleared for. The B and C models were tested at over 450 mph BY THE BRITS. The classic 437 listed for the D is at the bottom end.with a full load of fuel.

Don Gentile tested a D model with drop tank racks at 445 mph, 67 inches HG. This would be the condition a Mustang would be in for many, many of its combats. This brings up another point, by summer of 1944 Mustangs, many US and nearly all British Mustangs, were flying with higher boost settings.

British Mustang 3’s could exceede 400 mph on the deck at 25 pounds/67 inches hg. This gave the bird 2000 horsepower, and MUCH better climb and speed performance up to 22-24K.

You do not see comparisons using anything other than 67 inches of mercury, the 72, 75, 80 and 81 inches Mustangs routinely pulled with 145 or 150 octane fuel are ignored, as far as performance.the “stock” 67 inches is always used, even when comparing Mustangs to late marks of other types. And, over half the Mustangs in the ETO at VE day were other than D models.the B, C and even Allison Mustangs served in numbers until the end of the war in Europe. The 67 inch D models performance, easily the worst of the Mustang family, is nevertheless used routinely for comparisons, and it is not really representative of what a huge number of P-51s were capable of at War’s end. 80 percent of all aerial kills, from the beginning of aerial combat to the present day, are of the unobserved “bounce” type. Hard turning dogfights are the exception, not the norm. The Mustang was perhaps the best plane ever built, comparatively, for that. Combine great visibility, range, great high altitude performance and superb diving with a superb zoom back up to altitude, AND good to great performance at all altitudes, deck to 35,000 feet, and you had a tremendous boom and zoom platform.

And, the numbers bear this out. If you outdive and outrun the other guy, nothing says you have to turn with him. So, I guess if you artificially constrain a combat to a one on one head on approach at moderate speed, basically forcing a slower and slower turning fight, the Spit had an advantage. HoweverNO airforce built planes to do that by wars end.the powers that be knew what the winning combination was.performance and speed.

The Mustang was just absolutely superb at thattaking the fight to the enemy. Just as the Spit had the advantage at low speeds, the Pony was fantastic at high speeds.

BTW, the Mustang was cleared for aircraft carrier landings. It just was never needed. US pilots flew Spitfires rather extensively in the Med. In Group after Group, as soon as the switch was made to the Mustang, the kills exploded. Losses went up too. All to be expected once range lets you go look for the other guy, WAY out there, rather than fly orbits around the airfield for 45 minutes.

For every German you can find that feared the Spitfire, I’ll find you one that feared the Pony. Hartmann talks about the great respect he had for the p-51, as they were faster and newer than his G model 109. I’ll tell you this, a lot more Pilots didn’t come home after not seeing a P-51 than any other type in the ETO, regardless of which they feared more. I could go on and on.there was a Joint Fighter Conference, staffed by pilots from the Army, navy, civilian.they picked the Mustang as the best plane overall below 25,000 feet. The P-47 was chosen over 25,000 feet. For every pilot youcan find that like plane “X” best, I’ll name you one that like plane “Y” better.

Mustangs were outnumbered routinely in the decisive air battles of Jan-Apr 1944. As has been noted, one Group would guard an entire bomber stream, 16 planes in front and 16 on each side. The Germans easily focused more planes in an attack than there were Mustangs to defend. Looking at stats that say 400 allied planes escorted the bombers.sure, and all but a Group had turned back by the time the Germans attacked. My Dad flew both types extensively.

He loved his P-47N, and went to war in it. When pressed, however, he readily admitted the Mustang did everything better except top end at about 27000 feet, with a couple of exceptions. The Jug had more firepower, and was tougher. It got pilots back home when other types would have given up the ghost long ago. No wonder its pilots loved it. Like whatever plane you wish, but lets keep the facts straight.

I’m all for keeping the facts straight. The Spitfire wing was one of the outstanding ones in aviation history, being both light, strong and able to house massive firepower, while maintaining both relatively low landing speed and mild stall characteritics, a combination that the P-51 could never match, and neither could the brilliant Kurt Tank (Fw-190) or Willy Messerschmitt (Bf/Me-109.) Your statement on diving speeds is nonsense. Twice, Supermarine test pilots dived Spitfires to Mach.9 – over 600mph – without problems (the propeller and reduction gear on one departed the aircraft, which was landed safely, but that had nothing to do with the wings.) In fact, the Spitfire wing was superior in transsonic speeds than those of early jets. Just diving fast itself is not enough. The ability to manoeuver during, and pull out of, high-speed dives is also paramount. The 109’s controls froze in fast dives, and the notoriously weak wing was apt to come off if a pilot was too forceful in recovering from a dive by means of elevator trim. As for climb rate, once the 60-series double-supercharged, intercooled and aftercooled engines were installed (Mk.

IX et seq) the Spit could outclimb virtually any contemporary. There are several accounts of pilots climbing past 190s and telling about the astonished look on their pilots’ faces as the Spits blasted past.

The later marks of Spit could out-dive, out-climb and out-turn the ’51. In the end, the most telling factors are these: 1) Most Luftwaffe pilots feared the Spit more than the ’51; 2) Most USAAF fighter pilots (those not biased by patriotic loyalty) preferred the Spit to the ’51. If you would like to read about the Merlin engine, try to get a back-issue of the Sept. 2009 Aviation History and read my article “The Magnificent Merlin” in it. I give due credit to both Spit and P-51.

Glad you stood up for the mustang, Snorts- these “spit” lovers will have you believing their on mythology that the Spitfire even had a small kitchen in it, serving hot tea and muffins,if you let them! Tests by the Brits and Americans at Bascombe Downs and Wright Airfield bare out what you posted. The Brits were more conservative and wouldn’t have tweaked their acft to higher boost performance UNLESS it was mission specific- I remember an air show in Riverside,CA where a former P-51 mechanic admitted he’d ramp up the output on the already taxed engines for his pilots because they wanted that speed- teast showed you can get the heavier D model to climb several hundred feet/min faster and at 450 mph routinely.the spit could outdive and out turn the Mustang but not by as much as fan boy posters claim- and stats by Both Brit testing and American testing prove this!

And the 20mms? Hispamo cannons were terribly unreliable in the early part of the war- but Spit lovers never admit this! Neither will they admit that even with the API.303 rounds, a spitfire could “run dry” trying to take out a single enemy acft! Both the Spitfire and mustang were susceptible to cooling system hits, but the P-51 was a better attack fighter with heavier payload carrying ability!( A Mustang SANK an enemy destroyer with “weaker”.50 cal guns alone!!!

Hmmmm) And even though the Spit IX and XIV were available in ’42, the Brit pilots still could impose their will over Northern France airspace, until ’44- mainly cause they had to worry more about running out of gas like the Luftwaffe did over England in ’40 and ’41. Even top ace Doug Bader got shot down by the luftwaffe, while flying a “superior Spitfire”. Pilots love the acft they felt at home in- very few P-47 drivers wanted Mustangs, and vice versa. Soviet pilots prefered the lowly P-39 air cobra to the lend lease Spitfires they got, and I’m sure its the same for Spit drivers- that does not mean an acft is superior to any others unless you look at their mission capabilities- mustangs did every thing a spit could do, and did it farther! Snorts- I read your reply about the superior performance aspects of the P-51 mustang in combat.

It was a great plane, but you have to remember that most of the posters here are probably Brits or “former commonwealth” folks who see the Spitfire as the WW2 savior of “empire”. The Spitfire, from the Mark IX to XIV was comparable to the P-51 B/C/D in many ways and perfromed better in some aspects, but lagged in others. Many will harp on the Spitfires ability to climb( but never show actual war time figures, and only rely on “pilots bias” or maximum performance in TESTS- “ever NOTICE” they don’t show maximum performance tests of the mustang???).

And the ” it out turns the mustang! BIG friggin whoop- when you can’t out run, outclimb, or out dive your enemy, you run around in circles ’til you puke or the other guy quits chasing!) The pro Spit folks also refuse to admit that the mustang intercepted and FOUGHT axis fighters as WELL as the Spitfire, BOMB trucked BETTER than the Spitfire, was a BETTER escort acft, and had the range advantage over the spitfire in all variants up and including the mark XIV!

(Want to intercept and shoot down enemy acft? Call the Spitfire. Want to intercept, fly to the FAR AWAY terroritory of, and deny airspace of enemy acft by shooting them down- CALL THE MUSTANG) Its amazing that the “superior” spitfire I- XIV was counted many times over on the kill records Luftwaffe, fascist Italian, and even Imperial Japanese aces, and that the “inferior” mustang( and according to some posters here) the “inferior” pilots – like Gentile, Preddy, Blakesley, and Preddy, actually were able to beat better pilots, especially the Luftwaffe flying acft like the ME 109 and FW 190 that deviled the brits so much they had to keep creating. A dozen combat variants to handle them while only five mustang variants were needed in all theaters of combat. But whatever- to me the mustang is the best overall fighter of WW2.

Other acft including the Spitfire can also lay claim to that title based on what their admirers feel. Which spitfire and which Mustang? At what altitude and performing what task? The most numerous and histically significant P-51 was the D model, which would have been contemporaneous with the Griffin powered Spitfire IXV.

The Spit IXV outclimed, out-turned and, to a lesser extent, outran the P-51D. So it should have – it had several hundred more ponies on tap. The Spit two cannon and two.50 cal machine-guns against the 51s six fifties – the USAAF calculated the one 20 mm cannon was worth three.50 cal mgs so the Spit gets the nod for firepower too. And while its pilots praised the P-51s handling it is doubtful it could match the Spitfires reputation as an intuitive, almost viceless aircraft. But, and it is a huge but, the P51 was within a whisker of being as good as a Spit, and it was incomporable as an escort fighter.

Here was a plane that could fly hallf way across Europe and compete with the best when it got there. I read an article by one of the RAFs top test pilots (sorry can’t remember his name) who got to fly just about every allied and axis aircraft after the war. His pick as best dogfighter?

Spit IVX, followed by FW190D and then the P51D, with the proviso that you could throw a postage stamp over the three of them. His American couterpart, one of Grummans top pilots described the Hellcat and Corsair as plodding workhorses to the Seafires dashing Arabian stallion (he flew the P51 at the same meeting). And one of the Luftwaffe guys in charge of evaluating captured aicraft said the Spitfire V was “.a dreammy real babyI had never flown an aircraft like this” So, best dogfighter?

Download Free Edison Glass Time Is Fiction Raritan on this page. Spit by a long nose. Best escort fighter?

P51 by about a thousand miles. Geoff, sorry, the test pilot I believe was Captain Eric Brown, not Alex Henshaw. I always get them mixed up as they were involved in similar work. His well-known quote is he’d preferred to have been fighting the Luftwaffe in a Spitfire, just not over Berlin as he’d never have got home.

He thought the two aircraft, all things considered, about equal – but, as many of us have all said on here, quite different relative to their advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps that’s why this argument is ultimately moot. Geoff: The test pilot was Alex Henshaw, who liked all three you mentioned, but preferred the Spitfire. He flew just about every fighter aircraft used in WWII, minus some of the Japanese ones.

During the Battle of Britain, he crash-landed a Spitfire in a row of backyards in London and somehow survived with a few bumps and scratches. He also tested captured German jets. And come on Snorts, don’t just present a whole bunch of empirical data and dodgy hearsay evidence and present it as fact.

Sweeping statements are great but they mean diddly-squat unless they’re sourced and attributed and based on evidence that actually exists. You’ve only atttributed a small amount of this to any sources, and they don’t tally with info I have that does carry attributions. Perhaps you are confusing Spit marks, perhaps not, but 90 per cent of what you’ve written regarding performance is not backed up by comparative data: the Air Fighting Development Unit comparative tests conducted at the end of the war. The Mustang wasn’t the best diving platform either the Thunderbolt was. The roll rate and firepower of the P47 was one of the best of any fighter of WWII too. It just couldn’t climb. This is not only fascinating stuff, but illuminating.

I discount any nationalistic bias too because a) In my experience, the RAF is a highly professional orgainsation and b) the RAF loved the Mustang III and the comparisons made their own British Hawker Tempest look pretty ordinary in many ways. But the way you’ve presented your case, with respect, you just sound like one of those Americans who can’t stand to come second at anything – and of the if we didn’t invent it, then it can’t be any good school. The Spit 19 and 21, according to the AFDU and Air Ministry data, pulled away from the Mustang III in initial acceleration, and it was only marginally faster than the 9. The 21 looked to open a considerable gap. By the late marks, the rate of roll was about the same and not just at lower speeds. The Mustang pulled away markedly from the 9 in a dive, but could be caught in the climb if that was how it panned out.

It also pulled away from the 14 and 21 but not as much and the advantage was negated after the dive, especially against the 21. The truth is, the later marks of Spitfire were superior to the Mustang III, according to the data, in almost EVERY respect. However, they were close enough (as Geoff, says, you could throw a postage stamp over them) to make the Mustang still the best fighter of WWII, overall, especially given its usefulness. However, that fact still doesn’t alter the truths of this argument. In the period between late 1943 and the liberation of the low countries in 1944 (when the Spitfire for the first time had the range to get over Germany), the Mustang’s value as a force multiplier is undoubted. It’s doubtful the USAAF without it would have been able to continue the daylight raids that helped smash German capacity to wage war in that period. I give it the nod purely for that usefulness.

Force projection and multiplication are key in strategic terms and given how good it was overall, that was where it was superlative and had no peer. As for your contention regarding Mustangs being outnumbered over Europe, it’s a nonsense. But when they might have been, the US pilots had the edge anyway.

Most were veterans by then, and were ranged largely against inexperienced pilots. Very few German experten were still warm and vertical in 1944. But in any argument as to which was the better dogfighter and which was the most feard of the two opponents, their actual opponents – the abovementioned German aces – are unequivocal (read JG54): The Spitfire wins hands down. They’d really be the guys who’d know, too, having faced them both, rather than a bunch of folk like us pontificating about it 65 years down the track or arguing that we knew guys who flew Spitfires, or Mustangs, or dreamt about them. I disagree with your view too about bounce attacks. Certainly it was true in the Pacific, where no American fighter could keep turning with some of the better-known and more manoeuvrable Japanese fighters, so they (cleverly) used their advantages in other areas such as dive, speed and firepower in slashing attacks.

That was less the case in Europe. While eveyone got bounced, veterans of the air battles over south-east England and the channel in 1940 will tell you the other side of the story.

Even slashing attacks turned into hectic, turning melees. So it was bounce, frantic turning fight, then clear air.

US pilots who swapped Spits for P51s in the Med would have been handing in Mark Vs, which had been consigned mainly to that theatre and were really obsolete in 1941 and well past their use-by date in 1942 and 1943 – in 1941, they were just holding their own against the 109F and were outclassed by the 190. And whatever you say, no Mustang could turn with a Spitfire. It couldn’t even turn with a Mark I, even if it could leave it for dead in a chase. But don’t take my word for it. Very little comparitive data seems to exist, but what little remains is now easily found on the internet. The ADFU stuff is a godsend, because it appears to shoot down any of these let’s believe our own nationalistic bullsh.t arguments (on both sides of the big pond, that is) about performance, and once and for all. It was probably under lock and key for decades, but can now be viewed.

The analysis is accompanied by charts and graphs and is quite telling. The truth is, based on real information gleaned the hard way at the time and through genuine, against-each-other testing, with most aspects of the late-mark Spitfire and later Mustang performance so close one way or the other, given pilots of equal ability and the unlikely event they’d ever have met in combat, the Spitfire’s turn and firepower gave it a siginificant edge. That most of the allies’ opponents, if their own documented accounts are to be believed and I can see no reason why that’s not the case, also believe the same thing is telling too. For the record, I’m not British, nor do I have a great love for them, although they’re mostly decent folk in my experience and I think it’s fair to respect them as a great people. On the other hand, I’m a lover of most things American and especially of the American people, who’ve mostly show me great hospitality on my visits to the US. So, I don’t have a dog in this fight, nor an axe to grind. In fact I couldn’t care less one way or the other.

If the Americans had invented the Spitfire and the British the Mustang, I’d still be of the same view, although I’m certain many of the commentators here would be expressing opinions diametrically opposite to those they’ve expressed on this thread if that were the case. I AM, however, a great lover of truth, as opposed to a believer in myth, as entertaining as it is to believe, as comfortable as it is to believe, or as much we’d often love it to be so. So, please, at least go away and have a look at the figures and documented accounts, or any other genuine set of comparative figures you can find, sourced and attributed, then come back armed with the REAL facts if you want to have a second pass. Allied and Axis fighters had roughly equal performance. The difference came down to pilot skill.

What made the Mustang so dangerous was its range and numbers. By early 1944 the Germans had started pulling their fighter bases deeper into Germany to avoid the increased range of the P-47’s due to drop tanks. New tactics freed the P-47’s from close bomber support allowing them to follow German fighters away from the bomber formations and run them to ground. The Mustang’s range robbed the Germans of any safe haven, keeping them under threat of attack from take-off to landing. I’ll add my two cents. In my opinion the Spitfire was the most important allied fighter of the war for one simple reason.

The Battle of Britain! Although Hurricanes actually shot down more German aircraft during that summer in 1940, the Spitfire allowed The RAF to maintain air superiority thus defeating the German operation -Sea Lion, the invasion of the UK, before it began.

At that time the British were completely unprepared to stop or defend against invasion. If the Germans would have gained air superiority over Britain they would have invaded and Britain would have fallen. If Britain had fallen the British forces would have been taken out of the war. Thus, North Africa and its resources would have fallen to the Germans and Italians, China and Asia, including India to the Japanese, and there would not have been an allied air campaign against Germany in 1943-45. Without the bombing of German industry by both the RAF and Eighth Air Force in 1943-45, as well as all the other operations conducted though Britain in that period the Germans would have been overwhelming on land and in the air and could have won the war. They were the first nation with cruise missiles, the V-2, the first with ballistic missiles, the V-1, they had the best tanks, the King Tiger II, and the Panther. They also were ahead in nuclear weapons technology, and were the first nation to develop jet aircraft.

Without the use of Britain as a massive aircraft carrier, or forward operating base from which to bomb and harass German industry, and lets not forget all the British airmen, sailors, and soldiers, and their contributions, Germany could have certainly won the war. The Spitfire was the right aircraft, at the right place, at the right time to change history for the better!

Thus: The Spitfire was the most important aircraft of WW2. NO QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think the Royal Navy operating close to eastern coast would have made Sea Lion very difficult even with a different result in the Battle of Britain. There would still be some RAF planes being built and even if few in number would have helped defend the RN. The RN was an excellent fighting force and I think could have survived in spite of what happened to force Z if it was operating very close to shore with the support of small numbers of the RAF.

The RN was simply too good for Sea Lion to be easy. Germany simply didn’t have the sea lift ability nor the ability to protect a large landing on the Isles. The Battle of Britain was THE crucial campaign of WWII. With Britain occupied there would have been no D-Day because there would have been nowhere to launch it from.

The forced capitulation of all British air, land and sea forces across the globe would have meant that the AFrika Corps would have continued its advance eastward, taking the Suez canal and occupying the Middle East oil fields (removing the Axis’ great Achilles Heel) and linking up with the southern part of the German advance into Russia. Although the Pacific war was 95% American, stopping the Jap advance toward India (and linking with the Germans) was a British affair, with their army, plus the gallant Indian army with mainly British commanders, stopping the Japs, who had raced through Malaya and Burma, at the gateway to India. The pivotal battle, on the Imphal-Kohima road, was the Japs’ farthest advance, from which they began a retreat that never reversed. With Britain out of the war, all its armament and aircraft factories would have been producing for Germany, the same as the French and other European ones (like Skoda, e.g.) did, there would have been no D-Day or convoys to Russia, the entire German army – other than a token garrison force in Britain – would have been freed up to attack Russia, and Operation Barbarossa would probably have succeeded. America would have signed an armistice with germany and concentrated on the only country to have attacked it or that posed any threat of a future attack, Japan.

If the Russians had prevailed, which is highly unlikely, they, instead, would have occupied all of Europe up to the Atlantic and Channel coasts. And the “Channel Dash,” where a fleet of two battle cruisers (Scharnhorst and Gneisnau ), plus several destroyers, were able to transit the entire length of the channel – at one point being just 14 miles from England – disproved the revisionist theory that the Royal Navy, most of its heavy units scattered around the globe or in its anchorage in far-away Rosyth and northern Scotland, could have prevented an invasion. I’m not so sure that the British Navy would have capitulated even if Britain had been occupied.

My guess is that in a best case scenario they would have made a hasty run to Canada or the USMaybe even Austrailaworst case, they would have been scuttled to prevent Germany from being able to use themThat’s the mistake the French navy made, not scuttling their fleet, which resulted in the British having to sink much of the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir, a port near Oran in Algeria, to prevent their possible use by the Germans. As difficult as that must have beenit had to be done.

I also think that the British factories would not have been all that effective producing for the Germanssomething tells me the Brits would not have been all that co-operative in that regardI’d suspect that most of those factories would have been blown up to prevent Germany from using them. Even so, had Britain been occupieddefeating Germany would have been very costly and much more difficultand we all can thank two things for thatThe English Channel and the RAF I’d suppect that the US would have allied more heavily with Russia had Britain been occupied and been able to transport men and material thru the vastness of the Russian interior and take on Germany from the East. I am going to throw my “two-cents” behind Ess-Tee-Emm My favorite aircraft is the Spitfire they look great they are wonderful to fly, etc. But lets compare apples to apples. Mk1 to IX were easy to fly beautiful aircraft MKIV and onwards lost that beautiful to fly label The large engine and heavier airframe changed the fly characteristics drastically.

The Germans had great respect for the Spitfire and the pilots who flew it no doubt. The Germans preferred to Split-S and dive away they new the Spitfire would out turn them and they could out dive the Spitfires. The American Pilots who flew the 109 after the war said it was an excellent aircraft its weak point was “heavy elevators at high speed” So it was not a good fighter in a turning battle. IT was meant for speed, dive and zoom. The German Aces called the FW-190 the “Down stairs maid” It’s performance fell off rapidly above 20K feet The D-9 was not well liked by the pilots who flew it. It was an stop gap design and it had issues.

IT was superior to the standard 190 at high altitude but the experienced German still preferred the 109. From 30K to the deck the mustang had them all beat with range to boot. Dave Schilling ex commander of the 56th Fighter group flew both and rates the P-51 head and shoulders above the P-47.

The 4th Fighter group personnel who started with the Spitfire have nothing bad to say about it, however they prefer the P-51. Mission has allot to do with success, I had a P-47 Pilot who flew with the 9th Air Force in WWII and later flew ground support in Korea with the P-51 tell me hands down the Mustang was the better of the two however for close air support “Give me a P-47” I had an 8th Air Force Pilot that flew escort missions in both tell me he missed the ruggedness of the Thunderbolt but the superior performance of the P-51 allowed them to engage or avoid combat at will. I asked him the big question which is the better He said whats my mission? What were the factors that would make the P-51 performance superior to the Spitfire the MK IX and the P-51 had the same engine. It comes down to 10 years of Aerodynamic progress. The Laminar flow wing, the P-51 was a very low drag Aircraft and that Airframe mated with the best liquid cooled engine of the war and you have the best piston engine fighter of WWII. The canon Vs.

Machine gun battle has been going on since WWII. Machine guns have more ammo fire faster with a higher muzzle velocity which gives better range. Canon has less rounds and a slower rate of fire but one round of a 20mm will down or seriously damage your foe. I know in the Pacific.50 Cal fire would sink a destroyer and the P-47 destroyed many targets in the ETO with 8.50 cals. The Spit IX had two 20mm and two.50 Cals. This comes down to allot of opinion the Mustang had a few vices and they tend to be overlooked due to it’s success.

But all things being equal success is the factor so I would rate the P-51 # 1 and the Spifire # 2 That being said the Spitfire the more famous of the two and we are debating this 75 years after it’s first flight. I give credit where it’s due that proves what a outstanding aircraft it was.

Muzzle velocity and firing rate are not as important as projectile weight and kinetic energy, where the cannon wins very time. Add the ability of cannon fire to destroy by exploding, rather than bashing away until something breaks. Late in the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe bombers carried armor to protect the engines and flight crew, and m/gs were useless.

As one BoB pilot remarked, on being congratulated on downing a Ju-88 with his Spit 1 (8.303 m/gs), albeit by using his entire ammunitioon: “I just kept sawing away at it until it more or less gave up.” Later Spits had four 20mm cannon. And your account of sinking a destroyer with.5 cal m/gs is pure fantasy. Number of rounds is also unimportant. It was found that, on average, two 20mm cannon hits would down any fighter, and five any medium bomber (which is all the Germans had.) In attacking heavy bombers, like the B-17 and -24, the Germans found that m/gs were close to useless, and used 20mm and 30mm cannon. As for fire power, the fighter version of the DeHavilland Mosquito had four 20mm cannon and four.303 m/gs, and one, with a 47mm cannon, riddled a light cruiser in the Skaggerack until, turbines destroyed, it wallowed until sunk by torpedo Beauforts (“Torbeaus.”). But for the ultimate, look to the Bristol Beaufighter, with four cannon and six m/gs.

Not a plane you would turn into. The Hurricane was inferior to the BF-109. Bombers were less maneuverable and slower then fighters. Whether the Brits used Spits or Hurricanes to shoot at bombers was irrelevant. Both could do the job just fine. The major concern was the fighters and air superiority.

That is why the Spitfire was assigned to deal with the fighters. Spitfires were superior to BF-109. German pilots were by the way superior to all Allied pilots due to experience. The fact that the Spitfire could, while out numbered, and with much less experienced pilots maintain air superiority so Hurricanes could shoot at the bombers says allot about the Spitfire!

PS The Hurricane is also a British built and designed aircraft! GO READ A BOOK!!! P51 spit fire fw190 me109 all very good, a slight disadvantage or advantage could be used to good results. Me109 was usually the best climb or dive, fw 190 and even p40 best high speed roll, high speed roll you can evade,, maybe not turn great but evade, spitfire and mustang best all around. Me109 lost out on good roll at high speed, but climb like crazy, allways upgrading the spit fire to catch me109 so to up grade these aircraft was on going. Me 109 had a rather small engine in 1939 but was a very adaptable design. Often commented was., spitfire had trouble against with the fw190, but was there a very clear advantage, not much, the 190 was a good all around performer, zoom and boom became so important and what made me109 so deadly, not so manuverable at new high speed but catch me if you can,if tight turns were so important you would still fly hurricanes and zeros.

Some of these new models didnt have much better climb then some of the older slower aircraft, usually hurricane climb rate refers to mk 1 or 2 with small engine, mk5 with 1600 hp extra armour, over 3000 fpm, slow to me109, hurricane could not zoom climb well as could not maintain good momentum. So all interesting spitfire wieght up 2000 lbs by 1945 not the same aircraft •. Ignoring the weird staccato language and lack of punctuation and upper-case letters (is it that hard to press the SHIFT key?) and strange things like “spit fire,” much of this is nonsense. The Fw-190 had the fastest roll rate of any WWII monoplane fighter, but that didn’t stop its being shot down in great numbers by the Spit. And the later Typhoons and Tempests. And when the Spit.

IX, with the 60-series two-stage supercharged Merlin appeared, the 190’s initial speed and climb advantage over the Spit. V was reversed. The Bf/Me-109 did not have a “small engine.” It started WWII with a 35-liter one (compared with the Spit’s 27-liter.) And the Hurricane Mks. I and II used the same 27-liter Merlin. The Merlin output was steadily increased – without changing its size – from 950 at the beginning of WWII to 2,250 (with 2,650 available for short periods) at the end. Unlike the Spitfire, the Hurricane was never fitted with the 35-liter R-R Griffon.

What “3000 fpm”? The Mustang engineers benefited from all the research (and mistakes) and combat of other fighters/nations. It’s high speed was more related to aerodynamics of the scoop and the British invention – “Meredith effect” with it’s buried radiator than to the laminar wings, which rendered it susceptible to high speed stalls. The USAF pilots also benefited from lengthy trg programs, giving them the edge over the enemy pilots who were increasingly inexperienced thanks to the commonwealth pilots. In the end, comparing machines only from 1944, flying from forward airbases in Europe, the Spit X & XIV was more maneuverable and deadly. The 1940 Battle of Britain Spitfire was inferior to the 1944 P51 Mustang. Later models closed that gap, but the P51 was the best overall fighter in the war due to its combination of range, maneuverability, and fire power.

The original Spitfire was a product of 1930’s technology where as the P51 benefited from advancements in aircraft and engine design. Comparing the two based on the impact they had at the time they were usedthen you get a dead heatboth proved vital to the task at handone being no less important than the other. The Spitfire along with the Hurricane won the Battle of Britain when Britain was all but on their kneeshad Germany occupied BritainWinning the war would have become extremely complex and more difficult above and beyond what it already was. The P51 on the other hand provided fighter cover for the bomber mission deep into Germany. Without that fighter coverthe bombing campaign would have been all but too costly to continueand the war would have been prolonged for several years. As a result, Germany would probably have felt the impact of the Atomic Bomb as that would have been the only real effective way to bring them to their knees.

Your statement that the 51 “benefited from advancements in aircraft and engine design” is erroneous. The later Spitfires not only “closed that gap,” in many respects they were superior to the P-51. Hey Nickyou make some good points, thanx for responding, but please read my original post carefullyI said the “1940 Battle of Britian” Spit was inferior to the “1944 P51” and that later models closed that gap. I also said that “overall” the P51 was the best fighter of the warCertainly the Spit was a great fighter plane, personally one of my all time favorites, and later models in many ways, on certain performance criteria, did surpass what the P51 was able to doeven so, in my opinion and I do believe most historians agree, the P51 was able to accomplish what the Spit was unable to do, and that was to primarily protect the bombers on deep pentration missions into Germany, and the 1944 P51’s ( basically the P51D ) overall performance was second to none.

Of course the P51D would never have been the fighter plane that it was without that great British engine Fans of that era’s history have their favorites and opinionsit’s an ongoing discussion that really has no right or wrong answersmostly just personal preferances based on an educated understanding of the capabilities of the aircraft involved. Of course they used the same enginewhat i was implying was that by the time the P51D came on line, the engine designs had advanced well beyond what the 1940 Battle of Britain engine design offered and because of that, it benefited from those advancements. The whole point of the post was to put into perspective how much technology advanced in the few short years from the Battle of Britain until 1945. My overall comparison of the two aircraft were favorable(Comparing the two based on the impact they had at the time they were usedthen you get a dead heatboth proved vital to the task at handone being no less important than the other) I could talk about this stuff all day longbut some of you guys take it way too seriouslyit’s a great subjectand everyone has opinions and preferencesmost of them based on historical precidents and informed knowledgebut they are after allsimply opinionsso chill out guys and enjoy this forum and don’t get so wrapped up in putting someone else’s opinion down •. Having said all thatI’d like to address one of the most unsung aircraft of WWIIthe P40. For some reason historians have relgated the P40 to the trash heap of one of the worst aircraft of WWII, and the Zero as one of the all time greatswhy I have no idea. Let’s look at the facts.

It was faster than its principle opponent the Japanese Zero, it could dive faster, it’s roll rate was quicker, it had excellant firepower, it was more durable, and ended the war with a superior kill to loss ratio over the Zero. Where it fell short was rate of climb, and in a slow speed dogfight where the Zero excelled, it could be out performed. Keep the speed above 250 mph, and the P40 could and often did defeat the Zero. It was actually more maneuverable than many later fighter planes that came along. Also keep in mind the Zero was the most maneuverable aircraft of the War in slow speed dogfight situationsno other fighter could stay with. Where its performance began to fall off is when the fight occurred above 250 MPHthe Zero had problems turning and maneuvering at high speeds, and its skin would buckle in a high speed dive above 350 mph that could cause its wings to fall off. The P40 could dive at close to 500mph.

Once the Allies figured that outthe curtain came down on the Zero. The Zero gained its reputation early in the war when the allies were still using outdated dogfighting techniques that played into the strengths of the Zero. The one stupid thing that the allies did, especially the British when they went up against the Zero is that they would court martial a pilot caught diving away from a fight. That single thing cost a lot of pilots their lives. The FlyingTigers proved just how effective the P40 could be when fighting it using its strengths such as superior straight line and diving speed, and maintaining their airspeed during combat. The P40 in my opinion should be raised tothe level of one of the greates fighters of the war.

As an RAF vet, and son of an RAF WWII (Burma, Malaya) vetI can find no evidence at all that any RAF pilots were court-martialled for “diving away from a fight” in any war theater. That is nonsense. In fact, after a few painfully-learned lessons where Battle of Britain veterans, who would not listen to the experience of survivors of fights with Zeros, were shot down when they tried to dogfight with them, OFFICIAL RAF fighter directions were to dive, shoot and continue diving, then zoom back to the fight. I’m trying to remember the resource I used in reference to the RAF pilots being court martialedIt was an article I read about the P40I’m sorry i do not remember the authors namethat spoke of some of the early encounters the RAF had against the Zero. His remarks indicated that those early encounters often resulted in some good pilots being shot down because it was incorrectly consideredlet me say ‘Bad Taste’ for a combat pilot to do so.

He did indicate the court martial thing was part of the problem. As you indicatedI seriously doubt that ever happened, and I’m not sure where he came up with that idea. I do believe that once the RAF pilots learned about the capabilities of the Zero, and other aircraft, they used to great advantage their own planes strengths. I do appoligize if I mis-spoke and suggested anything other than the greatest respect for the RAF.

Hey NickI found the article that referenced the court martial thing. It is reference to the air war against the Japanese in the China/Burma theater where the Flying Tigers tactics of diving from altitude and thru a swarm of bombers / fighters then diving away seemed to be very effective. StillI doubt that any court martials ever happened Here is the specific paragraph from the article The P-40 Warhawk and the A6M Zero By Patrick Masell This method of fighting did not go over well with the Chinese and British flyers in the area, either. Initially, British pilots seen diving away from combat would be court-martialed; Chinese pilots seen doing the same would be shot. However, as the Flying Tigers’ success mounted other units adopted their tactics.

One of the top-scoring aces of WWII, Clive Caldwell of the Royal Australian Air Force, racked up his score on P40s (Kittyhaws) in the middle-east battles against the Germans and Italians. He added to his tally flying Spitfires against the Japanese in the South-West Pacific and northern Australia from – yet despite this, his campaign in the mid-east saw him remain the top-scoring P40 ace of any air force during WWII.

In one lone engagement, he was attacked by German ace Werner Schroer and his wingman in 109Es. Caldwell shot down the wingman and heavily damaged Schroer’s aircat. Caldwell liked his P40s, claiming the aircraft had few vices. In the desert (and south-west Pacific), where engagements more often than not tended to take place lower down, it proved to be a good aircaft. For someone of Caldwell’s calibre to sing its praises meant that it really was good, and as has been pointed out here, hugely underrated.

Interesting bit of nonsense all round from KRB. Give yourself an upper cut, man! He does realise the Spitfire and the P51 were powered by the same engine eventually, and that this engine was a Rolls-Royce (British)?? Here’s the real story of the P51 KRB: It was designed to British specifications at the request of the Royal Air Force before US entry to the war, and steadfastly ignored by the USAAC/F, which had put its best eggs in other baskets – mainly the P47 – for a single-seater interceptor. The British purchasing commission asked North American Aviation in 1941 to design them a single-seat interceptor that could be manufactured in the US, thus boosting British output, which was mainly centred on the Spitfire. The design for the Mustang was done in 114 days, and the prototype flew about six weeks later, from memory.

The RAF ordered some 650 of the early Mustangs (their original name for the P51). North American engineers had used the laminar flow wing design and also gave it huge fuel capacity for a single-set fighter, thus much greater range than the Spitfire. It was faster at lower altitude than the corresponding Spitfires of that era (Mark II and later V) but less manoeuvrable at most heights, and performance tailed right off at altitude over 15,000ft the Mustang’s powerplant lost power and the aircraft couldn’t fight on equal terms with the two deadly German machines encountered at the time: the 109F and the FW 190. However, the British used their early Mustang Is in a ground attack role, sending them over to occupied France to hit and strafe German airfields at low level, where they had an advantage if any German fighters made it into the air. Generally, if that were the case, they would leave them eating dust as they did their business and went back across the channel. The British also used them for high-speed low-level recon flights, often to recce locations for bomber attacks or commando raids on the coast of occupied Europe.

No German machines could catch them at low level, even though they were still powered by the Allison. The US, up to that point, showed no interest in the Mustang. But In 1943, a RAF officer decided to stick a Merlin engine (the Spitfire engine) into a Mustang and see what happened.

The rest is history. It was the immediate solution to an American dilemma: how do we escort our bombers all the way into Germany at a time when daylight raids were proving too costly to continue unaccompanied. It was ONLY at that point that the USAAF picked up the Mustang (which they renamed the P51). Yes, it was a US design, but not a US design asked for by the USAAF.

It was designed to requested British specs, and later given a British engine that eventually was made in the US under licence by Packard (and somewhat improved in some areas, mainly parts quality). It was only the marriage of the US airframe and the British engine that put it on a par with the Spitfire. Indeed, had the British not ordered the aircaft initially from North Ameerican Aviation, the Mustang might not have existed at all in the way we know it. However, in my view (for what it’s worth), it was still the best allied fighter of WWII, despite not being able to match the equivalent marlks of Spitfire in a digfight, simply because it was the most useful.

They were very close, though, in performance stats so having lots of ’em and having them go so far on a single mission wins the Mustang the gold medal. But NOT as a dogfighter/interceptor. The two weren’t that close in that respect the Spitfire wiped the dial of the Mustang after the Mark IX. These are the facts, they are well documented and well known by those who’ve done their homework, not simply a bit of patriotic nonsense we might have heard from a guy who knew a guy who knew Uncle Don’s friend who was a WWII fighter ace and might have lived in Des Moines (that’s if he existed at all) about four streets away from someone my mother also met at contrapuntal flower arranging classes. Let’s get real with this stuff if we’re going to have a proper debate about history.

Arming yourself with at least some of the facts might be helpful at the outset. “British specifications” were what? I was under the impression that the BPC wanted Curtiss to build them a new fighter but they couldn’t deliver soon enough so they approached North American (NAA) with the request that they build for them the P-40 under Curtiss license. NAA told them they could design and build a whole new fighter in the time it would take them to tool up for the “dated” P-40. Also, when directed by NAA pres, Dutch Kindelberger to design the new fighter, Edgar Schmued was told to “design a plane that is as fast as you can and build around a man that is 5 foot 10 inches tall and weighs 140 pounds. It should have two 20 mm cannons on each wing and should meet all the design requirements of the United States Air Force.” And I am sure you meant that the BPC and NAA agreed in the spring of 1940 get the p-51 design started, because it first flew on Oct 26th, 1940.

Also, fwiw, someone mentioned that an Allison p-51 never faced an FW-190. An Allison Mustang shot down an FW-190 (the 1st recorded kill by a Mustang in Europe) on August 19th, 1942 over Dieppe. Ironically it as an American pilot (Hollis Hills) in the RCAF who got the kill. REX: Yeah, OK, I got the year of the order wrong. It entered RAF service in 1941, before the US entered the war. I’m working from memory. But the story is right.

Yes, you are right about the initial P40 connection and Kindelburger’s response, although it’s not that relevant really. Fact is, they designed a new airacraft. However, nothing changes the fact that it was designed for the British, to their specifications, not the US military, which didn’t order it at that time. NAA told the purchasing commission they could design the RAF a new fighter, but it was the PC that issued the specifications to NAA outlining exactly what they needed.

The NAA design was superlative, really. It is well documented that the US military was largely uninterested in the Mustang as a pure fighter virtually until the time the RAF whacked a Merlin into it to see what it would do. I do believe I’m right about how that came about.

NICK: Ronnie Harker, a New Zealander test flying for Rolls Royce, had been flying the Mustang as well. He was impressed with the aircraft but not the Allison engine and was convinced it would go better with a Merlin. In the face of a good deal of reluctance from the RAF, he got his way.

Performance was dramatically improved (top speed immediately leapt by around 50mph) and it was only at that point that the USAAF ordered the Mustang into large-scale production to counter the 8th air force bomber losses. I stick by my original points: 1) Had the BPC not ordered the new fighter from NAA, it’s more than likely it would never have been built as the US military had no interest. 2) If the US somehow HAD ordered the Mustang and NAA had somehow built it for them without being asked, had it not been in British service and through that connection eventually given a Merlin, it might never have fulfilled its true potential. I don’t see how that notion can be argued with. ESS TEE EMM, you’ve been doing yeoman’s work here.

I have been looking for some time now for just what the specifications were. Did the BPC dictate the length, wingspan, weight limit, cockpit layout etc.

The closest specs I’ve found, which is what I quoted, came from Ray Wagner’s biography of Edgar Schmued- “Mustang Designer, Edgar Schmued and the P-51”. Edgar may have meant “RAF requirements”, but it is there word for word. Kindelberger is quoted by Schmued as saying USAF req’s. I believe the quote from Schmued was taken when he was getting on in years.

I think he passed before it was published. But I would just like to get to the bottom of the whole “specs” and thought you might be able to help me more as to what they were.

So thanks in advance. I personally couldn’t/wouldn’t choose which is better. So many great planes were working in different parts of the globe to destroy the Axis powers back then. From a historical perspective there is nothing better than Reggie’s Spit. It (and the Hurricane) were the ounce of prevention.

As I said “I am sure you meant 1940”. Not trying to nitpick, but a year is a big difference. Even before the Battle for France, some Brits were on the ball and procuring as many available fighters as possible. I would however like to determine how much credit should go to this German immigrant that first came to America in 1929 (before the 109 was even a spark in Willy Messerschmitt’s mind) and who designed this plane that shortened the war in Europe enough so that we didn’t have to “demonstrate” to Japan a new weapon the Allies had. REX, from memory, the RAF only ordered about 650 Mustangs from NAA hardly enought to keep the company in the black (they got more later of course).

I suspect Dutch was a great businessman who had an eye to the future and hoped that the US military would eventually work out how good the design was and put in its own orders. The specifications at that time for single-seat fighters wouldn’t have been that different, but the British wanted inline engines and a certain level of performance. Good aeronautical engineers in the US also had an understanding at that time that the British and Germans might have a better idea of what was needed because they’d been going hammer and tongs at each other for a while. The fact remains, at the time the Mustang was designed and built, it was done so as a result of an order from the RAFand would not have been built at that time unless that were the case, and that the US military studiously ignored its qualities and placed no mass production order for it as a fighter until the moment it got a Merlin. RAF pilots who got to fly it in their squadrons even with the Allison actually loved it and considered themselves lucky. They’d be even luckier later.

One thing it always was was fast. I suspect Dutch was a bit like Reginald Mitchell (fittingly) and really had a belief in his company’s aircraft, which was as ground-breaking as the Spitfire (which is probably why we’re arguing the toss here). Both men turned out to be more right on that score than anyone originally gave them credit for.

Lucky for all of us, I reckon. Imagine the German defeat of Britain in 1940, or if that somehow hadn’t been the case, the war against Nazi Germany continuing on for another year or so at least because the 8th air force couldn’t bomb German factories because of the unacceptable losses.

History is a wonderful thing, especially when you start to consider the what ifs and alternative scenarios. But what happened, happened. REX, also mate, for once Wikipedia has a decent history of how the Mustang design came about, detailing the British specifications. It quite clearly details too that the original design was done by NAA at the instigation of the British. However, Dutch Kindelberger approached them first through the US-based British purchasing commission, and after they asked if he could give them licence-built P40s, he told them he could have a better fighter than the P40, using the same engine, in less time than the tooling up would take to make the Tomahawk (the Brit name for early P40s) under licence from Curtiss.

I’m surprised the book you read, if it bills itself as a definitive history of the Mustang, doesn’t detail any of this stuff. STM, that wiki page doesn’t give much more as to the precise specifications. And it mentions that Kindelberger was shopping B-25 Mitchell’s, not fighters to BPC. My hunch is he had them half sold on a new fighter and they followed up for more details perhaps out in California. I think we all, even Germans, should be most grateful to the Brits for contracting with NAA for the new fighter and the Merlin swap.

And yes, the US for the most part treated the Mustang as a Brit fighter, held deeper interest in its own a/c. Neglected the Mustang to its own detriment. (Failed to detect attacking waves of Japanese planes, etc etc.) But this whole “British specifications” line is ambiguous as hell. You can understand how it can become a blanket statement concerning all aspects of the fighter’s development? Anyways, the author is Ray Wagner. He is an archivist at the San Diego Aerospace Museum, a history teacher and has also written two or three other a/c books. Edgar Schmued lived in Oceanside CA, not far from S.D.

In 1985 Schmued’s widow handed the personal papers of the late Edgar to the museum. An Air Force grant was offered to make a book, some of Schmued’s co-workers were also contributors. Smithsonian Books is publisher.

Not a super thick book but it does have a factual timeline. Most of the drawings which Edgar made as well as the wind tunnel tests of models based on those drawings were done around the end of the Battle for France or at least prior to the start of the Battle of Britain. Also acknowledges some of the Brits who contributed to the design, including Beverly Shenstone. The Air Ministry sent him over to help improve the Radiator design in Feb 1941. Nick writes: “But this whole “British specifications” line is ambiguous as hell.” What is ambiguous about it, mate? The USAAF never ordered it, the British did. And they told NAA what they wanted.

Since it was designed by NAA specially for them, and they were the ones doing the ordering and paying for it, you wouldn’t need to be a rocket surgeon to work out that the specifications for the new aircraft would have been theirs, would ya? Do you go into a store and order custom furniture, pay for it, only to be told that what you’re paying for isn’t for you at all but for the guy down the street. Seriously, I can’t for the life of me understand why we are even arguing the toss on this.

It’s all pretty well documented. It’s a ground-breaking hot American aircraft designed for the British, which became an American icon when it got a hot new engine from the British. A perfect marriage of skill and know-how at both ends.

What’s the problem with that scenario, especially since it’s the accurate one. From the introduction, Schmued’s own words: “Many stories about the P-51 Mustang have been told, most of them out-and-out fabrications, or not really reflecting the actual history. This has prompted me to tell the real story as it happened, and here it is.” So, he died before he could ever complete it. Look, the design didn’t start with the BPC. A lot of other nations were looking for good fighter a/c at that time.

Dutch and NAA weren’t ignorant of that fact. It wasn’t good business sense not to be. France had also been looking for fighters and Schmued had always been contemplating and drawing what he thought would be the best designs. He’d been hoping to get the chance and thank God the Brits gave it to him. But again the British “specifications” can lead one to think that NAA were merely like a police sketch artist clued in solely by this body of “hammer and tong” information based on what was happening in the skies already in Europe- before the US entered the war. Nothing significant had happened yet.

Kindelberger had been asked as early as February 25, 1940 to build P-40s. On April 11, the agreement as made that launched the Mustang. Preliminary drawings accepted by the BPC in May, around the time Battle for France starts. Before Battle of Britain is over, the finished airframe, minus engine, rolls out on September 9th. I have recognized Britain’s great Merlin and the RAF adaptation.

The BPC also liked NAA’s quality and it is to their credit they gave them the chance and took great risk on this young company which hadn’t designed a high performance fighter yet. But this engineer who should be ranked with Reggie Mitchell is about heralded as Joe Smith it appears. Rex, with respect, I am starting to wonder whether there is something seriously flawed with your thought process and why you can’t accept this as fact when it is extremely well documented. It’s not based on half truths or myths, either.

Is it that bizarre American thing of not wanting to come second at anything, or at least appearing to come second, or not wanting to acknowledge that sometimes people have better ideas than others? It’s just weird to the rest of us, most of whom couldn’t give a rat’s one way or the other when it comes to this stuff. The Mustang design DID start with the BPC in terms of a whole aircraft coming together, although I’d think you’d be right to suggest that the NAA might have been working on various aspects of it prior to that (getting the laminar flow wing to work as desired being the main one because beyond that, it was only as cutting edge as the fighters flying in Europe at the time then its engine let it down).

I think it’s fair to say that nothing being built in the US FOR the US military at that time matched the German or British fighters. But the Mustang did break new ground. Only problem was, the USAAF didn’t want it until 1943.

After coming into the war, they bought even less of the early models than the British, in similar roles, and then only as an afterthought. They even tried a few out as dive-bombers.

I honestly find it bizarre that Americans need to argue the toss on this for what seems almost a matter of national pride, a desire for a national icon to be all-American from go to whoa which it plainly wasn’t. What is all-American anyway??? Is there even such a thing, and if there is, should anyone really care?

In this case, no amount of attempted American-style myth-making or twisting of obvious truths will change that. I’m not American (or British, or Canadian) so I really couldn’t care less one way or the other but I CAN see very obviously the timeline of truth as to how the Mustang came about.

I’m genuinely curious about this: Why is it that some Americans seem unable to accept that? Truly bizarre and circular arguments can be frustrating. I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me Rex, if we were arguing about politics, say. I’m up for healthy and robust differences of opinion any time on any subject, including this one just not when its main function seems to be about changing the historical facts, or making suggestions about myths from somone who died before he told his story, to suit some weird patriotic agenda.

The thing about history: If it’s not documented and confirmed by many sources, it’s myth, not fact. All those may-or-may-not apocryphal stories really count for diddly squat. You seem to need me in this debate for some reason to acknowledge the great contribution of NAA’s two main designers on the Mustang. I do, and have. I also believe their boss was a man of great vision, as you’d expect of a clever American businessman. The big problem they have in the retelling of history is that story isn’t quite so romantic as Reginald Mitchell’s you know, an inspired ground-breaking design by a dying man that saved freedom by staved off the filthy Nazi horde and in the process giving them a damn good thrashing. The NAA guys just don’t have that on their side, I guess.

But there’s no doubt they designed a brilliant aircraft. There’s also no doubt that it’s an American design with much input by the British, especially in its later iteration. Why don’t we just agree to disagree, champ, and leave it at that?

STM, sir, I’ve given you a more accurate timeline, and one that calls into question your post at 63.1.3, than you have given me even a reference/lynk to the “British specifications” that often get bandied about. Yeah, it is getting stale, now we’ve both documented that fact. Whether I’m American, British, Irish, French, German, Native American or all the above, how is it an American trait to assert recognition of a foreign designer like Mr Schmued whose name you can’t even bring yourself to mention in any of the last few posts?

Funny you can put Kindelberger’s name on par with Mr. Mitchell’s though. That book was never finished. But his notes and American friends that knew him help to tell his story. I’ve pointed to one of the myths already that it discusses: that Edgar had been on the Messerschmitt Bf109 design team. It traces that to a Ronnie Harker ill-conceived statement and the Brit press more importantly for generating that one.

My British specifications are leading me onward. Wellfirst of all I do appreciate your feedback about my Spit / P51 commentshoweverwhat I wrote was not non-sense as you put itIt was a complimentary generalization about two great fighter aircraft and the men who flew themI am well aware of the history of the P51 and Spitfiremany factors went into the design of both. If you read the post carefully I did qualify it by saying the “1940” Battle of Britain Spitfire was a product of 1930’s technologywhich it was.

It was a great aircraft for the time it was used and the impact it had on the battle in which it fought. The designers of the P51 took full advantage of what was learned from previous designs to create a tremendous airframe, as did other later designs. The original Allison engine used in the P51 did lack in high altitude performance, anyone who knows anything about fighter aircraft in WWII knows thatand yes the marraige of the Merlin with the airframe created what most would consider the greatest fighter of the war. My point beingmy post was a complimentary remark about the merits of both aircraft based on many years of reading history and other various video documentaries about the subject. It was never intended to be a definitive disertation about WWII fighter design. So take it for what it’s worthand maybe next time reconsider making comments that really do not contribute to the discussion •. Slight correction.

It was not “an RAF officer” who decided to retrofit a P-51 with the Merlin, it was a joint decision between RAF Fighter Command, the British government any Rolls-Royce. Five 51s were fitted with Merlins at the R-R experimental airfield at Hucknall (the same place Luftwaffe pilot von Werra, shot down in the Battle of Britain, almost escaped captivity by flying a new Hurricane Mk. II back to Germany, only being stopped at the last moment as he was starting the engine.

He did eventually esxcape from a train taking him to a POW camp in Canada, made it to the then neutral US and back to fly with the Luftwaffe again. Great book and movie: The One That Got Away.) •. Something never mentioned is the misplaced patriotism and commercial pressure that prevented the Merlin’s being used in other US aircraft. The Brits obtained a couple of Lockheed P-38s and were about to do the same retrofit by replacing the Allisons with Merlins, promising a 50mph speed and 5,000ft altitude improvement. When word of this leaked back to the US, all hell broke loose, and the British government immediately ordered the borrowed 38s to be returned at once! Late in WWII the RAF wanted to try the 2,400hp R-R Griffon in the Mustang, promising the same performance gain as in later Spitfire versions, but nothing came of it.

THAT would have settled, once and for all, the endless “which was faster” dispute. It was estimated tha the Griffon Mustang would have easily topped 500mph. The P-38 was a revolutionary design and, I believe, the first production fighter to exceed 400mph (the prototype of the Hawker Tempest did it some months earlier, but was in production later than the 38), and the turbocharged Allison performed well. But one dreams of what it could have done with one of the later Merlin 70 that produced 1700hp, or a couple of Griffons!

Another instance was the P-82 “Twin Mustang,” the first of which were also Merlin-powered. Political/commercial pressure forced a reluctant USAF to replace these with Allisons in the P-82s that flew in the Korean war, while the training versions retained their Merlins, with the bizarre and unique result of a war plane where the combat aircraft were slower than the training ones. My article, The Magnificent Merlin, in the September 2009 issue of Aviation History covers a lot of the subject. Nick, I have a slightly different understanding of the P38 issue. I saw a great doco recently that quoted a former USAAF Lightning pilot who said there was some consternation among American pilots when they learned the British had knocked back the P38. His quote was: “They’d been doing this for a while now (flying fighters in combat) and they didn’t want the P38 because they didn’t think it was good enough.

That bothered us”. In truth, probably just wasn’t the right aircraft for the job the RAF wanted it for. It had very mixed results with the USAAF in the ETO (although it served its purpose early in the piece), but of course excelled in the Pacific where it entered and broke off combat at will against the slower Japanese. The truth is, the British DID want the Lightning but the US government wouldn’t let them have the superchargers that made the American version a good aircraft because they thought the Germans might get their hands on the tecnology. A moot point, because at that stage, Germany and Britain both had supercharger tecnology. So for the P38, no superchargher, no RAF service.

I didn’t know about the Merlins, though. I would have liked to have seen a Griffon in a Mustang.