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 ?

__________________

Join the C-cube now !

I still wonder about the Hawker Tempest, and also the Fw 190D-9. It would be interesting to know what would happen if all three met in the air...real pilots and real aircraft, not performance charts etc....

But to me the P-51D is the greater aircraft because it was available in the right place at the right time and in the right numbers to be a decisive weapon.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Yes Martin, I agree you can't downsize everything to flying tests charts, the pilot is the most important part of the equation, and the circumstances also : when a plane started the fight unspotted, with an energy advantage, the charts meant nothing.

But on the other hand, you hardly can measure pilots skills and circumstances.

About the FW-190D9, contrary to some beliefs, it was not an high altitude fighter. It reached it's peak speed at 6.000 m. Above this, the Mustang was faster unless WEP injection was used. As an example, without WEP injection, the P-51D was about 60 kph faster than the Dora at 8.000m

The Tempest was as fast as the FW-190D up to 3-4000 m, and slower above this.

__________________

Join the C-cube now !

The Spitfire Mk 14 was faster then a P51 & it had a better armement of two 20mm cannons & two 0.5 machine guns
The Spitfire could easily out turn a mustang & out climb
The Spitfire mk 21 had four 20 mm cannons & was faster than the mk 14
What made the Mustange great was the range

"I still wonder about the Hawker Tempest, and also the Fw 190D-9. It would be interesting to know what would happen if all three met in the air...real pilots and real aircraft, not performance charts etc....

But to me the P-51D is the greater aircraft because it was available in the right place at the right time and in the right numbers to be a decisive weapon....."
-Martin Bull


This is why the history channel made "Dogfights".

__________________
"Better a pint of sweat than a gallon of blood."
-Gen. George S. Patton

Thanks to swfan for my sig

Mustang was only good because of the Merlin engine under the cowling,
Spitfire and Tempest were superior!!!

Matt

What 'bout Me 262

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

As an anti-fighter 'plane, the Me262 was hampered by its' twin-engined layout. It simply wasn't manoueverable enough ; it was very much a 'hit-and-run' weapon ideally suited to the destruction of enemy bombers.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

C'mon, Matt, just statements won't do, you have to provide arguments supporting your case. As such we can't judge if your case has merit or not

__________________

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...

__________________

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

Which mark of spitfire the mk1 or the mk 16 or the mk21???

As i`ve not flown either aircraft, i can only presume you have and can make a comparison like that??

Its got nothing to do with National pride, as far i as i know no RAF sqn used Mustang D`s, only PAF and RCAF used Mk3s.

I thought the question was , who can beat the mustang??
In Korea the F-51 Mustang was the most shot down aircraft, normally by accurate rifle fire.

With any mid to late war aspect, it would not just be down to aircraft, but down to pilot skill, training and fatigue.
After all it was the RAF Regt and not a pilot that shot down the first ME 262.

I`ve seen the pilot logs of Finnish Me109 pilots verses Soviet Hurricane pilots, would be interested to know if any Postwar Spitfire (Israeli etc) pilot shot down a foriegn supplied P51d.

Matt

The RAF used P51D in Italy
The Spitfire Mk 14 was tested against the P51D and was a even match
It was the range of the Mustang that made it great

What about these? 112 Sqn.
Photos6
Camouflage & Markings of No. 112 Squadron RAF (Part 2)

19th Sqn.
No.19 Squadron RAF

65th Sqn.
No. 65 (East India) Squadron RAF

Also:
Modeller's Guide to Late P-51 Mustang Variants
"The Royal Air Force received 281 Ds and 594 Ks, designating them Mustang IV and Mustang IVA respectively. The type did not enter RAF service until September 1944, with the earlier Mustang III still remaining in active service.

At the end of the war in Europe, the RAF took delivery of 600 Mustang IVs in India for use against the Japanese in Burma and beyond. However, Japan surrendered before these could be put to use, and most of these aircraft were scrapped.

After the war, a large number of the RAF's Mustangs were returned to the USA, but a few continued to serve with the RAF as late as May of 1947 when they were replaced by British-built equipment."

__________________

At the end of the war in Europe, the RAF took delivery of 600 Mustang IVs in India for use against the Japanese in Burma and beyond. However, Japan surrendered before these could be put to use, and most of these aircraft were scrapped.
Shame they must be still out there in Burma.

Most of the Pictures and text explain about mustang mk3s or B/C versions.
Only three RAF sqns got D/K Mk4s and by the look from the tables where they were based only for training (Aberdeenshire ) or evaluation possibly against V1 Missles (Essex).

Italy May 1945 i thought there was no fighting there by then????

All i was suggesting that the RAF/PAF/RCAF were equipped with the earlier MkIIIs or B/C version and not the later MK D.

Its a fair comment i`ll agree that the P-51 Had the range to beat the Spitfire, But then again the RAF Bombers didn`t need escorting to Berlin and Back, so increasing the Range on the Spitfire wasn`t needed.

By the look of it the RAF got the Mk4 just in time for them to be replaced by the Jets such as the Meteor etc.
Saves the USAAF flying them back to the USA to be scrapped.

Anyway i`ll stick with my Spitfire arguement.


Matt

What about the MK 14 /21 Spitfires
Just as good , but faster & more firepower

How about the Spitfire Mk XIV

Speed - 448 mph
Ceiling - 44,500 ft
Rate of Climb - 5,110 ft/min
Armament - Two 20mm cannon and either four .303 MGs or two .50 MGs

If you compare the performance of the P-51D and Spitfire XIV, the Spitfire comes out ahead in speed, rate of climb, ceiling, turning circle, and handling; the P-51D has the edge only in range and rate of roll.

While many P-51D pilots certainly would defend their aircraft over any other, many who either flew or fought both have stated quite clearly that they think the Spitfire was a better fighter:

Some quotes:



William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."

Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death."

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book "JG 54": "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front: "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

ok UKSubs,

Spitfire mk14 and mk21s are the best.
Your average Fighter pilot always choises to mk8 or 9 though!!!
1st feb (22).jpg

matspit1.jpg

Bon appetite

Matt

Only because of the engine, no other aspect of the plane made it successful? By that logic, could we have mounted the Merlin in a Brewster Buffalo or a Bouton-Paul Defiant and made them a winner?

Just interested in clarity.

I realize and understand that the Allison engine was not a good match for the P-51 and that the mating of the Merlin engine substantially improved it's performance.

In this case, then, was it being used a fighter aircraft or in a ground support role?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Hey Fellas,

What made the Mustang so good? Remember its "the man, not the machine." The pilots that flew the P-51 Mustang is what made it truly great. Quite a few of your P-51 aces aswell as countless others had flown in other aircraft and utilized what they learned in those aircraft over to the P-51 Mustang when they flew into combat with it.

The Merlin was a contributing factor inwhich made the AIRCRAFT good, but, the design of the aircraft, its sleek lines is what REALLY helped.

My $0.02

Kind Regards,
MARNE

__________________

"ROCK OF THE MARNE"
Sgt. James Dunigan III
Able Co., U.S. 30th Infantry Regiment
U.S. 3rd Infantry Division(Reenacted)

Marne has a good point.

It's arguing/discussing the better Chess piece, Bishop or Knight. Both worth 3 points, you need them both, and the player wins...not the pieces.

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

we`re not arguing, we`re discussing.
thats one of the things forums are for!!!

I mentioned that about 10 messages ago!!

Just People getting a bit nationalised, no one yet has mentioned either a Russian or Italian Aircraft!!

Hey Marnes, i forgot the Spitfire was as rough as a badger`s armpit.
My 2p.

Matt

An additional factor for the P-51 ( particularly the 'D' variant ) was that it was relatively easy to fly ; certainly easier than the Spitfire. Relatively novice pilots could get on with the business of fighting other aircraft without having to pay undue attention to actually flying - this was not the case with the Spitfire.

That's not my book-earned opinion ; it's a statement made to me by a veteran pilot who had 60 different aircraft types in his logbook......

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Actually it would depend on what mark of Spitfire you flew
From the Mk I to the Mk 9 I would disagree totally, every account I've ever read states that the Spitfire was a dream to fly, and had no vices in these marks.
However the Marks XIV and above were, due to the far greater power from the engine, did require some care.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

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).

__________________

hi mate,
thinking your getting confused with the hurricane.only a fraction of the spitfire was material, seatbelts etc.
The vickers .303" machine guns fired at 1200rds per minute.

the spitfires didn`t need the range as they were being operated in France post D-day!!!

Bomber command flew at night, so the risk was lessend. they used the Pathfinder sqns to locate and illuminate a city or other target.

Matt