Who can beat the Mustang ? - Page 3

uksubs · #51 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erich

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 ?

Erich · #52 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2007, 05:29 PM

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 ... ~

chocapic · #53 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2007, 06:17 PM

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

uksubs · #54 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chocapic

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

Your welcome

Erich · #55 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2007, 07:26 PM

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

redcoat · #56 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

It was also often too delicate and aircraft to use from iffy frontline airfields that were unimproved. .

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.

Za Rodinu · #57 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2007, 11:51 PM

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

chocapic · #58 (**permalink**) August 30th, 2007, 09:15 AM

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

Za Rodinu · #59 (**permalink**) August 30th, 2007, 11:16 AM

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

chocapic · #60 (**permalink**) September 24th, 2007, 08:47 PM

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.

mikegb · #61 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 01:01 AM

>>While you may have preference towards English planes, try to look at others with similar affection, you will find that merit can be found outside of ones own nation.

As to the Spitfire being better than the P-51D... no... no...<<

The Mustang was originally based on an air frame designed to fill a British Spec built by US engineers it failed until fitted with a British engine it was slower and less maneuverable than final mark spitfires it was a great peice of technology but it was British enginetechnology licence built. The Spitfire had the same engine as the 51D, a lighter air frame and a heavier armarment.

It was a world beating escort fighter but it was not superior to the final mark Spitfires. That has nothing to do with patriotic partiality. It had a heavier frame capable of carrying drop tanks and more fuel.

Lippert · #62 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 03:05 AM

You guys ever heard of energy-maneuverability diagrams?

uksubs · #63 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chocapic

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

The topic is about the planes & not about the skill of pilots
By doing that kill the hole point of the topic because as you stated the skill of the pilot make the big telling difference in who get shot down

Your saying the Spitfire fire power would make no difference but in the Battle of Britain the lack of cannons on the Spitfire was a big disadvantage , so the cannons on a Spitfire Mk 14 would make a difference as it got more hitting power in a single bust then the P51

uksubs · #64 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegb

>>While you may have preference towards English planes, try to look at others with similar affection, you will find that merit can be found outside of ones own nation.

As to the Spitfire being better than the P-51D... no... no...<<

The Mustang was originally based on an air frame designed to fill a British Spec built by US engineers it failed until fitted with a British engine it was slower and less maneuverable than final mark spitfires it was a great peice of technology but it was British enginetechnology licence built. The Spitfire had the same engine as the 51D, a lighter air frame and a heavier armarment.

It was a world beating escort fighter but it was not superior to the final mark Spitfires. That has nothing to do with patriotic partiality. It had a heavier frame capable of carrying drop tanks and more fuel.

Problem is when the Mustang was full of fuel it was very unstable to fly & that why the Supermarine did not go a head with fitting extra fuel in side the late Spitfires

JCFalkenbergIII · #65 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 07:03 AM

'To have enough fuel for the flight the armor plate was removed and replaced with a 95-gallon fuel tank. That made the Mustang very unstable until about 20 gallons were used."

P-51 Mustang by Gardner N. Hatch, Winter Frank H. Page# 179

Kruska · #66 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 07:44 AM

IMO the Mustang was top of the top in regards to piston engines. The Ta152 or the Spit Mk.XIV came close or possibly to even terms, but none could actually outclass the Mustang, especially not on the mass production part.

German and British engineers could foresee the limitations of piston engines by early 1940/41 and as such engaged into the development of jet a/c rather then pushing the limits for pistons to the point of collapse or mere even terms with other piston a/c’s.
(Talking about engineers not the industry or governments)

If England would have been in Germany’s position, I am sure that they would have placed the whole bet just on the 262 along with improving the existing Fw190D and Me-109K, instead of wasting time and resources to come up with a Mustang even matched piston a/c.

Regards
Kruska

pebblemonkey · #67 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 11:05 AM

At the end of the day, mustang and Spitfire used the same engine- a supercharged V12 Merlin engine.
The Mustang was nothing without this British engine!

Matt

4th wilts · #68 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 11:58 AM

did the r.a.f not stick 4-20mm cannons on a number of mustangs.these sqns were i believe used by the a.a.c ?.does anyone have any info?.
i for one would have prefrred a mustang with 4-20mm cannons.yours,lee.

mac_bolan00 · #69 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 01:19 PM

the nakajima shiden at middle altitude.

the zero in a low altitude dogfight.

chocapic · #70 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uksubs

The topic is about the planes & not about the skill of pilots
By doing that kill the hole point of the topic because as you stated the skill of the pilot make the big telling difference in who get shot down

Your saying the Spitfire fire power would make no difference but in the Battle of Britain the lack of cannons on the Spitfire was a big disadvantage , so the cannons on a Spitfire Mk 14 would make a difference as it got more hitting power in a single bust then the P51

The point of the topic was the anti fighter role ("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.") and I think that the Mustang's MGs was good enough for fighter targets, and probably even better than cannons for lead / high deflection passes, while their firepower was quite enough for targets as fighters.

I bleieve the lack of cannons on Spits during BoB was really an issue because many targets were LW medium bombers, which could soak many rifle caliber bullets.

mac_bolan00 · #71 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 01:27 PM

the .30 caliber machingun was ineffectual as an air-to-air weapon only when used singly or doubly to defend one's bomber whereas a fighter can stand you off with either a .50 or a cannon.

but 8 of those converging at 200 meters can destroy anything in flight.

Tomcat · #72 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chocapic

I bleieve the lack of cannons on Spits during BoB was really an issue because many targets were LW medium bombers, which could soak many rifle caliber bullets.

I have a picture in a book of a Do17 during the BoB, and the blurb says "This Do17 was found crash landed in france after a successful bombing of England. It was found with no less then 800 .303 rounds in the left wing"

Thats one sturdy plane.

uksubs · #73 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 04:33 PM

[quote=chocapic;313416]The point of the topic was the anti fighter role ("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.") and I think that the Mustang's MGs was good enough for fighter targets, and probably even better than cannons for lead / high deflection passes, while their firepower was quite enough for targets as fighters.

The Spitfire Mk 14 was tested against a 51 & was found to be a even match , the Spitfire mk21 was even more faster than the Mk14 & had four 20mm cannons
A Luftwaffe test pilot said that the Tempest Mk V was the best allied plane

texson66 · #74 (**permalink**) August 26th, 2008, 05:54 PM

Well, the facts as stated regarding the Merlin are correct. The RAF took early delivery of the P-51 before the bubble canopy and found the cannon they installed to make the P-51 a good solid air to ground interdiction platform (except that problem of pesky ground fire hitting the coolant system).

Regardless, here's a tribute to the P-51 through simulation: Enjoy...wait for the end of the clip too

Reduced: 80% of original size [ 800 x 487 ] - Click to view full image

Version: X-plane 9.00
Starring: P-51 Mustang by Heinz Dziurowitz

CoStarring: A6M2 Zero, B-17 Fortress by Jacques Brault
Scenery: Global Scenery
Plugins: Xwing and X-traffic by Sandy Barbour, DynamicCamera by GoodWayTeam.
Edition: Sony Vegas 7
Music: Suo Gan of soundtrack "Empire of the Sun"

Hi Res: 1400x900 (88 Mb):
http://www.hdwebtown.com/community/dl.php?...eoP51_final.wmv

Low Res:
YouTube - X-plane & P-51 Mustang

Lippert · #75 (**permalink**) August 27th, 2008, 07:05 PM

Still... no one has heard of energy maneuverability?