Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bull
I'm just musing out loud, here, TA - so I'm fully prepared to be shot down in flames.... 
I think the problem with the Spitfire stems from the original specification ie a defensive fighter to protect the British Isles from attack.
Internal fuel capacity of the original Spitfire was 85 gallons, whereas even the early P-51s had an equivalent tankage of 150 gallons. So the Spitfire had a large deficit to make up even when drop-tanks were fitted.....the Bf109, from the same era as the Spitfire, also suffered from poor range.
I assume - although I don't know....that the P-51 was originally designed with operational use over the Pacific Ocean in mind ? In which case, it was a different horse for a different course ( excuse sickening pun  ) |
Actually, the P-51 was proposed (and designed) by North American Aviation in response to a request by the British Purchasing Commission that they build P-40s under license from Curtiss. Dutch Kindelberger of NAA said the P-40 was a dated design (which it was), and they could design and build an entirely new airframe that would outperform the P-40 while still utilising the same Allison engine that was in the current P-40. The Commision said 'Fine, but we need it in 120 days.' Kindelberger gulped and said 'OK', and the airframe was ready to go in something like 117 days.
An interesting side note - NAA went to the USAAC to see if they wanted some of these new fighters, but they were already fully committed with existing 'Pursuit' plane contracts, but did order a limited amount as 'Attack' aircraft - the A-36 Dive Bomber. This was all prior to when some British (genius) mechanic said "I wonder what would happen if we stuck a Merlin in there?"
-whatever
-Lou
EDIT: Here is a much more accurate, in depth history of the 'Mustang' - interesting reading.
The North American P-51 Mustang