Who can beat the Mustang ?

I think, somewhat like Erich, that the 152 was vasty overrated. For whatever Kurt Tank might have accomplished with it it was still heavily dependent on its MW 50 and GM systems to get that incredible performance. Given its history of being notoriously unreliable in many small ways that often crippled its performance I think on the whole it should not be a straight comparison.
Having to change the wooden flaps after every flight due to warping is not a good thing. The aileron design was such that it took several test flights to get them half way aligned right and even then they might not be where they needed to.....this when the Luftwaffe could not afford any test flying due to fuel shortages. Or, the inability of the factory to get the pressurization to work right in the cockpit, the list is long on minor deficenices that simply drug the aircraft's performance down.

The Mustang certainly had its deficiencies as well but these were far less crippling than anything the Germans faced. On the other hand, as an offensive aircraft I really doubt it could be matched by anything in the war except maybe the A6M Zero early on. And, it is offensive aircraft and offensive operations that win wars, not defensive ones.
This was the major failing of the Me 109 and for that matter the Luftwaffe as a whole throughout the war....lack of range on their aircraft.

 

Mustang is was great fighter, If i had to fly anything ww2 it would be my choice. Aircharts and what if aside. Pilots make the plane. Look at the Koren war China had better aircraft with the 1st migs but as soon as the U.S. came up with something close we pretty much ruled the skys with the ww2 pilots because of their skill level. the omega

 

Well, I have to admit that my source was a long conversation with Peter Wykeham DSO* DFC* ( and now sadly deceased ) who flew both types in combat. His actual words were :

'In a fight, if you weren't quite up to scratch, the Spitfire could bite you in the backside if you weren't careful. The Mustang was far more forgiving.....'

I remember being quite disappointed at the time ( me being much younger then ) that he wasn't more 'patriotic'......

But bear in mind that we are comparing, here. I'm not saying - and neither was Sir P - that the Spitfire was 'a load of rubbish'. But the P-51D was easier to fly. I've also read many accounts and spoken to other combat veterans - but not usually men who had combat experience of both types.

It's a little bit like comparing a Porsche 911 and Ferrari 355. No-one's going to deny that both are superb cars. But more tyro yuppies kill themselves in Porsches because the configuration of the Porsche requires a higher level of skill to get the best out of the car.

 

Hello folks !

Looks like this thread finaly came alive !

As an overall observation, I want to put in that it was not intended to be a what if [insert country] had been using the [insert wunderplane] since 1932 ?

That's why I think it would be more fair to compare such very late war airplanes, which saw usage for a very short timespan and in limited numbers, like the Ta-152 or Spitfire XXI, to very late Mustang versions (can't remember the version letter – P51-H ?), or planes like the P-47 N, and not the mainstream P51 C or D.

As per Me 262, my first post was restraining the subject on piston engines, but it's always interesting to broaden the subject

@Uksubs

IMHO, we might have a winner with the Spit XIV, although I really lack extensive reference on this one (I mean detailed reference, not a top speed at a single/unknown altitude), I'd like to see a chart with top speed at different powers according to altitude, as long as climbrate at different altitudes, and turnrate at different speeds.

However, I'l take for granted that the Spit XIV was faster (to my surprise) and climbed better (no surprise here lol !) than the P51-C or D.

About maneuverability, I've got no reference on the subject – more precisely Spit XIV turnrate at given speeds, but given the better rate of climb and (most probably) the better rollrate of the Spit, I'll agree with you on the overall better maneuverability of the Spitfire.

About weapons, I also agree with you, even if the 12.7's were enough against fighters.

But still, I'd be gratefull if someone can provide detailed performances charts of the Spit XIV

 

Just this link out on the Spitfire XIV
Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

Spitfire Mk XIV Performance
I still think the P51C/D was the best fighter of the war

 

The spitfire Mk21 was flying with 91sq in jan 1945
Spitfire Mk 21 Performance Testing

 

Check this link out !
It let you pick the planes you want to compare
Aces High Fighter Comparison

 

Just to reinterate the offensive fighter idea, look at the Spitfire's operations in the Pacific. For virtually the entire war the units using various Marks of Spitfire sat out the war largely unused.
The aircraft simply did not have the range to engage the enemy on most occasions. It was also often too delicate and aircraft to use from iffy frontline airfields that were unimproved. In the Pacific range was of critical importance. The Spitfire with its short range for use in Europe proved of little value in the Pacific.

 

That why i think the P51C/D was the best fighter of the war - it took the war to the Germans in there back yard

 

besides driving home to the UK, it had the range, the lightness, speed and the 6 .50's could grind any LW a/c to meat..........

my sig says it all, ace S. Wickers mount of the 364th, if you think I am pro Ta 152H I am not, it was not given the time or the energies to have the bugs worked out for obvious reasons, it was not an escort fighter like the P-51D/K, it was soley a short range high altitude romp of which it did not excel as it only flew 2-3 high missions the rest were at mid-alt range just where needed to face off any of the Soviet types which it ruled.........

had the craft been somewhat perfected then just possibly we would of read about the actions with P-51's but all we have are performance charts and some guy from England that copped my name who flew test flight comparisons but we also have some very interesting pilot accts used on the Ost/West fronts, but what could of been never was really

the P51D/K had it hands down

 

Even if the Ta152 was made in numbers the problem would of still been lack of top pilots
Don't you think the time & money would of been better of spent making more Fw 190D ?

 

friend in the testing stages even the Ta 152H would of been the LW a/c o beat. II./JG 301 had the Dora 9 and it was suitable but III.ruppe had the Tank and that is what everyone wanted. And believe it or not there were enough pilots many experienced, but the LW was overwhelmed by late 44-45.

Surprisingly a number of pilots in III. gruppe with only a few missions under their belt took the Tank up for test ops and said it could blow anything away in the LW arsenal. that is what was needed but ... ~

 

@ uksubs : thanks for the charts, I'll study them carefully now. The website looks pretty well done also.

 

Your welcome

 

yes the Stang was a hot rod...........friend Steve A.'s mount of the 339th fg. he shot down 1 262 confirmed and damaged 1-2 others

 

I find this statement a little odd, considering that the Spitfire operated from grass airfields during the BoB, desert airfields during the North African Campaign, and improvised front line airfields during the Normandy and Italian Campaigns.

ps It should also be noted that the Mustang was in fact a more delicate aircraft than the Spitfire, with it being prone to unexplained structural failures.

 

Ach, the Ta152H... In airmodelling circles we call it the Power Glider From Hell

 

Well,the TA-152 had a significant better performance over his LW counterpart only above 8000 – 9000 m, below this the difference with late FW 190D and Bf 109 K4 was not worth putting a new design in production. (ok more firepower than the 190 D also).

But anyways, it has to be compared with the latest P-51 versions, not the P-51C or D

Back to the subject, I've looked at the datas provided by uksubs, there are some differences between them, but my concluson is :

The Spit MkXIV is somewhat better than the P-51C/D in combat, when the P-51C/D allowed much more strategic options thanks to its range.

The performance and firepower advantage of the Spitfire over the Mustang is very theorical and would never means more than pilot skill, initial situation and of course numbers involved, when the range of the Mustang would make the difference between a green light and a no no for a given task.

So I put them in the very same league

 

Sorry, wrong post and I can't delete the thing

 

Even if it's not directly linked to the plane, I would add that the K14 gyroscopic gunsight, is accounted being a real marvel and a leap forward in gunsight technology.

It equipped the Mustang from almost the start of the D version, was a very valuable asset and much better than its German counterparts.