Why I think the P-51 is better.

The Spitfire can turn faster no question here but the P-51 was not far behind, and was better than the Me109 or FW190.

Until the Mark 21 the P51 could fly faster and climb higher, note that the Mk21 was produced in late 44 and only 100 by the end of the war.

The 51 carried 6x.50 cal machine guns (400 rounds ea) compared to the 2x20 mm cannons (60 rounds ea) and the 4x.303 (350 rounds ea). While the 20mm cannons would be more powerful you can not shoot them as fast and you have to be more accurate the first shot. The .303 can not compare to the .50. Not to mention the nearly 1000 rounds more the mustang carried.

The P-51 was made of aluminum compared to the fabric and wood of the Spitfire, meaning that the P-51 could withstand a hit better.

Now for the kicker. Imagine you have an awesome plane but you cant get it to the fight, then you would have yourself a spitfire. With a maximum armed range of 800 miles, excluding combat time you would barely have time to get to Europe and turn around. The P-51 did the bulk of air-to-air combat in Europe after 42 simply because it could get to the fight. Somebody mentioned that the RAF didn’t need fighter support for its bombers. If it had tried to hit something more then a city it would have had to fly in daylight, and with out fighter support there would have been no Bomber Command after a month of that.

In the end the Spitfire did what it was supposed to do, defend England. The P-51 did what it was supposed to do destroy enemy fighters so that the bombers can destroy their targets. Both did well but I think the P-51 was a better combat plane. We could also start to look at the number of planes available of all combat variants (some 4000 of the Spitfires compared to 9000 Mustangs).

__________________