Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

UK marine spitfire V us p51 mustang

Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by krieg, Mar 5, 2008.

  1. Klive

    Klive Member

    Dec 9, 2007
    Likes Received:
    This is an "apples & oranges" comparison. The Brits have always designed superb interceptors: defending a small island nation, the Hurricane & Spitfire did the same job as the English Electric Lightning years later. But when trying to sell these designs overseas, their range limitations were a severe handicap. For a long-range, potentially offensive fighter, the Americans had the right idea: forget super-fast scrambles - just concentrate on good all-round performance and staying power. That's what you got with the P-47 & P-51. The Spitfire & Mustang were used in totally different roles.

  2. Prospero Quevedo

    Prospero Quevedo Well-Known Member

    Mar 26, 2021
    Likes Received:
    In some documentary on the battle of Britain that was fortunate enough to be made while many air vets were still alive. Most spitfire pilots started in the hurricane but even they said the 109s were a problem, a good pilot could shake them off but they were hard to make a fight with most talked about just trying to break away. But when they got to spits they said but was something different, faster more maneuverable. I'm surprised they took so long to get the bubble type out, the Malcolm canopy was already so close. I really like the 51s with the Malcolm canopy gives them a interesting look. The fact that hawker kept trying to improve the hurricane but gave up and developed an all new airframe shows the basic airframe had reached it peak and could go no farther. Just look at all the marks of spitfires and years of service after the war. Hell during the early Arab Israeli wars both sides loved them, the Israeli's first spits were from salvaged wrecks. They were elated to get a bunch of spitfires from Czechoslovakia, for free, many joked that it was an apology for the a via s-199. Read some of the problems the Israeli's had, the mechanical problems were not too bad except for the interrupter mechanism. Pilots got in the habit of test firing the guns to make sure it was working or shoot the propeller offvsnd have to glide in to a landing. I heard part of the reason they gave them the planes the Soviets had demand that all satellite countries had to dispose of all western equipment. The Czechs didn't want to destroy them and gave them to Israel, funny just a few years ago one of those planes was found in the back yard of a farm as part of a garden display still looking pretty good not sure what happened after that as most countries have laws on war goods most considered historical artifacts and property of the state. Some guy was visiting relatives and when e was a boy his father during the war made a spot in the attic that had a small space he hid a small case. He looked for the panel found it and the case. They had to report it by law and a museum took the case they let him keep some items but the rest was put in a display showing items from the war years. I think it amazing how much stuff has been found recently that people had to have known about for years those 109s though I never saw any with a four prop before was that something they were working on late in the war. Those panthers and still working. M4a2 Sherman in Russia, more KVs and 34s. Too bad about that b29 in Alaska, that guy put most of his money and time and they got so close.
  3. Riter

    Riter Active Member

    Feb 12, 2020
    Likes Received:
    I never heard of the early Spitfires as interceptors but as fighters.
  4. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Dec 1, 2010
    Likes Received:
  5. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Jul 31, 2002
    Likes Received:
    I thought the RAF cleverly waited that the Bf 109's had a limited time period over England and once they had to leave the RAF attacked the bombers. Of course there were losses but a lot less if the 109's were around.
  6. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Aug 5, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Now, if you take a late-model Spitfire vs a late-model P-51, the same thing still holds true. A Griffon engine Spitfire, say the Mk XIV or even Mk 21 versus the P-51H, the comparison still holds, only now the Spitfire is getting long in the tooth while P-51H benefited from improved design and a far more careful engineering assessment of the plane's structure.

    The P-51H was still using a Merlin, and it could hit 470 + mph versus about 460 for the Spitfire. With a lighter structure (about 600 lbs. shaved off and over half-a-ton difference loaded) and new wing, it also had nearly the same level of maneuverability and could roll or out roll a Spitfire. So, by 1945 it was on par with even the latest Spitfires and still had more range.

    As for carrier use, the USN did try the P-51 out in trials aboard the USS Shangri-La in late 1944. A modified P-51D was fitted with an arresting hook and catapult hookup points. The plane made a number of landings and take-offs from that carrier. The USN rejected it for carrier use based on several objections:

    The landing speed was such that the pilot had to maintain a 7 mph window, and this was considered too small a range for average pilots to use under a variety of conditions
    The P-51 bounced too much on landing and would have required a landing gear redesign
    The view during takeoff and landing was considered poor and unacceptable

    Unofficially, this variant of the Mustang was sometimes called the "Seahorse."
  7. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Oct 15, 2003
    Likes Received:
    The Old Dominion
    Bob Elder was driving.

Share This Page