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

Originally Posted by chocapic

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

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

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

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

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.

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

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.