P-51 Mustang, best Allied fighter or not ?

just to stir the pot;

Some quotes:

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."

Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death."

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book "JG 54": "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front: "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."

 

ya aint stirring the pot with me, my RAF grandad (aux) , John E Dunne was one of the Spitfire designers, then he worked on the U2 at the Lockheed Skunkworks - near were I was born..

My great grandfather John W Dunne, patented the 'swept' wings.


The word was the Spitfire was better, but the Mustang did it over Berlin.

But with the same engine the 'Stang was faster and could carry more bombs, fuel whatever.. The Spit was more maneuverable.. But the wings, so thin, were known to simply tear off, during high speed maneuvers.. overly large ailerons were to blame... and it was difficult to build.. like the P38

Think of it as 'special'

and many don't know, the P40 Warhawk, while slower, with the same engine, was even more maneuverable

Think of the Spit as being the middle ground.. a nice balance..


and if you are really interested, read about the improvements made to the beautiful Merlin by Packard

over


just to 'stir ' the pot :bang:


I believe, like the FW190, you have to give the Mustang credit for being more of a utility workhose, second only to the P47 in the ground attack mode.. as far as allied aircraft.

Ya, the P38 was good at ground attack, but not as a 'dive bomber' ,

The P38 had 'dive compression " problems and was later fitted with dive brakes and other fittings to compensate..

(I don't know about the Typoon/ Tempest as a dive bomber.. which is a ground attack function)

The Mustang is described as "second best" at everything, except range.

 

As for range, a few (I think 2 - one by the RAF and one by the USAAF)Spitfires were modified to hold a similar internal fuel load to the P-51, and came out with a similar range. And similar handling problems with a full centreline tank.

BNut it was never put into production.

 

A book I read about Blenheim bombers out of Malta; (The Shiphunters by R.E. Gillman ) it mentioned that engine fires weren't that unusual. The procedure to deal with them, was for the nearest member of ground crew to rush over and stuff his hat into the air intake to smooth the flames. It was a sign of how experence for a member of ground crew to have a battered hat.

 

I have read about the Spit with external fuel, better, but just not as good.

The Mustang wing was designed for it, like I said, with the same engine the faster, just not quite as maneuverable..

Many aircraft had their performance decline as speed increased, the Mustang actually improved.. ditto for altitude.. It was designed for higher speed and altitude.

Late variants of the Spit were modified to improve high altitude performance, with a larger engine, and different wings but they never handled as well the Mk V & IX. They were heavier etc.

>trade offs, some pilots complained and preferred the V & IX

They became more "Mustang" like..


Mustang ACTUAL fighter reports, fun if you love A2A combat..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... ports.html

 

Specifications (Spitfire Mk Vb)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[13] and Jane’s Fighting Aircraft of World War II[14]

General characteristics
Crew: one pilot
Length: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)
Wing area: 242.1 ft² (22.48 m²)
Empty weight: 5,090 lb (2,309 kg)
Loaded weight: 6,622 lb (3,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 6,770 lb (3,071 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 supercharged V12 engine, 1,470 hp at 9,250 ft (1,096 kW at 2,820 m)
Performance
Maximum speed: 330 knots (378 mph, 605 km/h)
Combat radius: 410 nm (470 mi, 760 km)
Ferry range: 991 nm (1,140 mi, 1,840 km)
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,300 m)
Rate of climb: 2,665 ft/min (13.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 24.56 lb/ft² (119.91 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.22 hp/lb (360 W/kg)



P-51D Mustang

P-51D on runway.Data from The Great Book of Fighters,[19] and Quest for Performance[20]

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
Height: 13 ft 8 in (4.17 m)
Wing area: 235 ft² (21.83 m²)
Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg)
Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 12,100 lb (5,490 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Packard Merlin V-1650-7 liquid-cooled supercharged V-12, 1,695 hp (1,265 kW)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0163
Drag area: 3.80 ft² (0.35 m²)
Aspect ratio: 5.83
Performance
Maximum speed: 437 mph (703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Cruise speed: 362 mph (580 km/h)
Stall speed: 100 mph (160 km/h)
Range: 1,650 mi (2,655 km) with external tanks
Service ceiling: 41,900 ft (12,770 m)
Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s)
Wing loading: 39 lb/ft² (192 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6



see link for MK IX performance

Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

Notice Sea Level speed

I can get a link form the same site showing Mustang 388 mph at S/L

Wrght Patterson A/ C evaluation center-May 1944


Optimized for different roles, to a certain extent..

 

Comparable era Mustangs -faster at low and high altitude

The Spitfire was faster at mid altitude..


The Mig3 was considered mediocre on the Eastern Front, as it was optimized for high altitude, most Eastern Front air combat was at low and mid altitudes.. See Yak 9 for that.

The Eastern front did not include as much high altitude bombing.

The L/W needed to build the TA152 as the FW 190 & most versions of the ME 109 were not optimized for high altitude. The ME 109 K-4 (1500 of 35000 '109's ) was an attempt to rectify that.

Of course the FW190 Dora-9 was an improvement, but was unable to get anywhere near a P-38 @44,000 feet, or the F5 (P38 recon) at 48.000 feet.


Like a chess game, Bishops, Knights and Rooks (castles) were all needed..


These are general observations - IMHO

 

If you are going to compare Spitfire and Mustang you should really compare marks that became operational at around the same time, not the Spitfire Mk V of 1941 against the P-51D of 1944.
If you are to compare, it should be a P-51D against a Spitfire XIV, the Mk XIV becoming operational 2 months before the D model Mustang.

Also you mentioned about some structual weakness with the Spitfire. This may be of interest

"The Mustang had been dogged by instances of structural failure, particularly since the marriage to the Merlin. Flight restrictions on dives and other manoeuvres were imposed, but in the course of combat, these sometimes had to be ignored. The puzzling thing about Mustang airframe failure was that it could not be pinpointed to any one area and was sometimes encountered in brand-new aircraft that had not undergone any known flight strain. Engines tore loose from fuselages, wings were shed, and empennages crumpled and while most of these incidents happened during a sharp manoevre it was a fact that other Mustangs would engage in the same manoevre time and again without any sign of failure. Some components were strengthened - notably the fin and undercarriage door locks (which had a nasty habit of breaking open) - but a few cases of airframe failure were regularly reported to the end of hostilities and beyond." - Roger Freeman, Mustang at War.

"Most serious of all [problems] was structural failure. Occasionally the wings came off Mustangs in a high-speed dive. There were two main causes for this. At very high speeds, the large doors of the ammunition bays began to bulge outwards. This distorted the wing to the stage where stresses imposed were too great, and it parted company with the fuselage. The second cause was a tendency for the undercarriage to extend in flight, causing abnormal loads on the wing." - Mike Spick, Great Aircraft of WWII

 

Which might be attributual to manufacturing problems, rather than fundlmental design flaws. When you have fighter planes being churned out of factories that a year or two earlier were making something completely different, there is no way quality control is going to spot 100% of mistake. Which suck if you happen to get the duff plane. Plus of course there is no plane that can't be pushed too hard.

On the whole I don't think comparing the Spit to the mustang really means much. They didn't really belong to the same generation of aircraft. When the spit was being designed there were many people claiming that the biplane was the way to go. What aircombat would look like was the subject of debate rather than experence. So although the Mustang is only a few years younger it effectively gained indirectly from the Spits experence.

So therefore I think the Spit is the better aircraft, on grounds that despite being an older design, the basic features remained competitive for the duration.

 

Oh I could have used the much faster P51B/C as a comparison..

But the 'D' was the most produced variant..


The B/C models had the structural problems you mention, 900 pounds later the 'D' model had fixed the weakness associated with the Merlin addition etc. You could have also talked about the tail section coming loose.


I hope that clears things up. :smok:


I will be happy to follow up about the Spitfire wings coming off and the tendency at high speed for the wings to distort under extreme aileron position, causing the aircraft to react completely opposite to the controls, this happened before the wings came flying off.

This is why large wing tanks were impractical for the Spit, but later models had added strengthening.


This is what my grandfather a Vickers engineer at the time worked on at "Speke" outside Liverpool, 611 Aux Squadron, I believe.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... wings.html

 

The Mustang designers bought P40 Warhawk test data, the P40 was more manuverable than the Spitfire. :bang: but not as fast with the same engine.

Some called the P51 a super P40

The Mk XIV release only 2 months before the 'D' is irrelevant, IMHO.

Packard developed the supercharger in the Merlin 61 (?) used in the Mk XIV, using the "Curtiss" 2 stage blower.

 

http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flohttp ... htmlw.html

I could have commented the huge (Merlin equipped) radiator scoop on the bottom of the Mustang was done differently than the Spits radiator in the wings

 

In performance tests, the P-51B reached 441 mph

early data..., but still faster than the "D"

 

Today, 08:00 PM #11
Jabberwocky
Senior Member


Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 439



Spitfire XIV service entry: January 1944
First combat: March, 1944


Spitfire XIV service entry: January 1944
First combat: March, 1944

The Mk XIV was introduced reasonably slowly, by the time the FW190D9 began service, there were 8 operational Mk XIV squadrons (out of a total of 56 RAF Spitfire squadrons in the ETO).

Another four Mk XIV squadrons became operational before the end of the war, as well as some squadrons half converting to FR Mk XIVEs, which had bubble canopy, a 33 imp gal rear fuselage tank and a removable oblique camera in the rear fuselage. They were used in co-operation with Mustang II or Mustang IIIs, depending on the squadron, for tactical reconnisance, which essentially meant low level recon, ground straffing, jumping anything in the sky that hadn't seen you first and running away from anything that had.
Another four Mk XIV squadrons became operational before the end of the war, as well as some squadrons half converting to FR Mk XIVEs, which had bubble canopy, a 33 imp gal rear fuselage tank and a removable oblique camera in the rear fuselage. They were used in co-operation with Mustang II or Mustang IIIs, depending on the squadron, for tactical reconnisance, which essentially meant low level recon, ground straffing, jumping anything in the sky that hadn't seen you first and running away from anything that had.

warbirds forum



P51B @ 443 mph?

The first Merlin-engine versions appeared in 1943 with the P-51B, of which 1,988 were built in Inglewood, California, and the P-51C, of which 1,750 were built in Dallas, Texas. Both new versions had strengthened fuselages and four wing-mounted 12.7-mm machine guns. Many of these new Mustangs were delivered to the UK as Mustang Mk IIIs, and others went to the USAAF as F-6Cs. The Merlin-powered Mustangs were exactly what the Allied bombers in Europe desperately needed, and they became famous for their long range and potent high-altitude escort capability.



The first P-51B flew on May 5, 1943

 

Specification of P-51B-1-NA:

One 1620 hp Packard Merlin V-1650-3 twelve cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine. Maximum speed was 388 mph at 5000 feet, 406 mph at 10,000 feet, 427 mph at 20,000 feet, 430 mph at 25,000 feet, 440 mph at 30,000 feet. Range on internal fuel was 550 miles at 343 mph at 25,000 feet, 810 miles at 253 mph at 10,000 feet. With maximum external fuel, maximum range was 2200 miles at 244 mph. An altitude of 5000 feet could be attained in 1.8 minutes, 10,000 feet in 3.6 minutes, 20,000 feet in 7 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 6840 lbs empty, 9200 lbs normal loaded, 11,200 lbs maximum loaded. Wingspan was 37 feet 0 1/4 inches, length was 32 feet 3 inches, height 8 feet 8 inches, and wing area was 233 square feet.


In late 1942, a deal was worked out between Britain and the USA in which Spitfire VBs would be transferred to the 8th Air Force in England, mainly for use as fighter-trainers. This cleared the way for Lend-Lease supplies to continue of the new Mustang model to the RAF. The RAF equivalent to the USAAF P-51B/C was the Mustang III. The RAF ultimately received 274 P-51Bs and 626 P-51Cs.






Pure Dogfight? the compoarble engined Spitfire..

In real world, the Mustang entered the fight 75 mph faster and probably higher..

Boom and Zoom

each had its own job..

 

Stonewall, I'm starting to lose track of what points you are making, as they are scattered through a number of posts with no apparent links being made or conclusions put forward.

Oh, and:

I was discussing the handful of models refitted with extra Internal fuel, in the same way as the P-51...

 

Hey Ricky, this was a dead thread..


I am not trying to make any point..


I could read about Spitfires and Mustangs till the cows com home..


and I will bet I am not the only one..


If it is OK I may just load it up with some Spitfire stuff..

Links, OK,

It is all good..


If you want me to delete it all I will..


OK,

Spits & Stangs...yum

 

Oh yeah, points

like strategy..

you know

First you put your Spits up to protect the airfields while the long range Mustangs loaded with fuel and rockets join up with he the B-17's and B-24's and some Blenheim's, add some Mosquito pathfinders down on the deck, moving past Calais..loaded with flares..of course

Oh yeah and a bunch of P47's to hit the coast while the 'Stangs groove along to the 40K altitude

Later that night you hit them with Lanc's

point's?



K?

 

8 pages of.....I dont get u guys what u try here.Bouth crafts r close to performances,and when is situation like this,pilot is real walue and not minor advantages and disadvantages.For exsample,Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin scored nearly 20 oficial kills with,a bit obsolete Mig-3,in the early ages of WW II :bang:

And just to add my point:
Apart from these 62 victories, Ivan Kozhedub also was forced to shoot down two U.S. P-51 Mustangs that mistakenly attacked his La-7 on one occasion. Both these P-51 losses have been verified by USAAF sources.

Pilot r Craft?

 

This is from Wiki but perhaps you can provide a source where this was allegedly confirmed by the USAAF, since you claim that it was?