After checking again some datas, I believe the Mustang (P-51) had no piston engined match in the role of anti-fighter plane, at the medium and high altitude range.

It also had a great overall visibility, which is important in fighting. It's weaponery was not the most efficient, but the Mustang main role was not interception, its main targets were most often fighters, and the Mustang's weapon were just fine against fighter targets.

It has been said that he had a vulnerable nose, but no more than most of the inline engined planes, like the Bf-109 for example.

Its range was amazing and perfectly suited to the long range escort duty.

Its slow speed flying characteritics were bad, OK, but it was the same for all the planes designed around high speed operations.

Some late Bf-109 versions could compete in speed, but none could get close to the P-51 incredible maneuverability (elevator response) at high speed.

The Fw-190, even the latest versions, were very good, but not as performant as the Mustang at med-high altitudes.

The Ki-84 could match the P-51 but in a very narrow altitude range. At al other altitudes, the Mustang was better, often significantly better.

On the allied side : the USSR fighters were not designed to shine at these kind of altitudes, the late Spitfires, along with the Hawker Tempest were slower, and the late P-47 versions were faster but often only at extreme altitudes were nothing much occured during WWII.

So I reach the conclusion that the P-51 was the place to be if you had to engage enemy fighters between 6.500 and 9.000 m alt.

Do you peole agree ?

__________________
Police cars carry three agents. The first one can read, the second one can write and the third one keeps watch on those dangerous intellectuals.
Unknown subversive activist - 20th century.