Which is better, the American P 51 Mustang or the British Spitfire?

Dr.Bucksnort

the p51 mustang

Leogirl0804

According to the German pilot I knew ( not WWII) he would vote for the Mustang. Being American, I agree.

Farty Valentino

The Corsair

briang731/ bvincent

The Mustang came along later in the war, and was the beneficiary to many new innovations that were not available when the pre- war spitfire was made. So, naturally the mustang could out perform most anything in the air, when it was first introduced.

gregpasq

Frank J,

How can the Spitfire be better than the Mustang just becuase it was designed after it? Isn't that like saying that heart surgery in 1880 is better than today just because they were doing it first?

Let me do some math
Supermarine Spitfire F Mk. XIV
Power Plant: one Rolls-Royce Griffon 65
Max Speed: 448mph
Operational Ceiling: 43,000ft
Range: 460 miles
Armament
8 X .30 Cal MG A Type
2 X 20mm Cannons and 4 X .30 Cal MG B type
4 X 20mm Cannons C Type
2 X 20mm Cannons and 4 X .50 Cal MG E type

North American P-51D Mustang
Power Plant: Packard- build Merlin V Engine
Max Speed: 437mph (Slower)
Operational Ceiling: 40,000ft (Lower)
Range: 1,650miles ( longer range)
Armament: 6 X .50 Cal MG ( good for fighter combat)

My answer: the SPITFIRE MK XIV for good stats in everything but range. Also this version of the Spits chased down V1 BUZZ BOMBS DURING THE WAR that the mustang could not. A lower wing load means a better turner. Lets face it the Spits was the oldest british fighter still in production during the second world war ( The Hurricane was out of production before the war ended), but all the upgrades and lots of experenced Spitfire pilots made the plane the better fighter. the Mustang is only a good long-range fighter.

Frank J

the P-51 was designed after the Spitfire, so i would have to say the British

suspendor

The Spitfire was pretty good, but it couldn't take the fight to the Germans. The P51 was able to carry out bomber escort all the way in to Germany, and carry out strafing attacks on the way home. Clearly, its range made it the superior fighter.

PaulHolloway1973

I gotta go with ValentinoFly, the F4U-4 Corsair was superior to the latter versions of the Spitfire or Mustang.

I'd probably take a P-51D over the Spitfire Mk XIV, if anything because I've got far greater visibility to the rear than the Spitfire, and I've got a lot more fuel to burn.

Then again, it depends on the parameters of engagement.

sci

Time to Climb- P-51
Firepower- P-51
Range- P-51
Maneuverability- Tie
Speed- P-51

Comparing the Mark 8 Spit to a P-51D, note: Both used the American GE Turbo/Super Charger which was at the time a very classified item.

Note the Mark 8 had an uprated Merlin superior to the P-51D Packard Merlin. by about 300 HP!

The Mustang was the pre-eminent fighter in all theaters and it was able to take the fight to Tokoyo and Berlin, something the Spit would never do.

Ret USAF SNCO, Aircraft Maintenance

money man

depends on which ones faster.

AreWeThereYet?

the P-51, it did use the British Merlin Engine

jjayferg

51!

mindworms

spitfire has a lower wing load ratio, and should be easier to handle. 20mm hispano cannons are heavier punishment than .5 machineguns. Mustang was faster, especially in higher alititudes and MUCH longer range.

dont know whatfor the minus came, but try studying history and not just patriotism lessons.
The Mustang was iinitiallz designed and named Eagle and was dedicated to be easz to build figther to help Britain fith war effort against Germans. combination of the airframe and british engine led to the B version that had outstanding range performance when compared to air defence dedicated Spitfire. But I guess the Mustang would not outturn the Spitfire

matt

mustang ofcourse ! I just love it.

brian L

The spitfire is the better looking but the Mustang holds all the performance. The faster speed,much longer range and can out manuever the spitfire. It was also easier to build. All the accounting is in the Mustangs favor.

Biggles

The two aircraft are a little different for direct comparison. The Spitfire was designed from the outset as an interceptor, the smallest airframe wrapped tightly around the the most potent powerplant available. This gave the Spitfire its attributes and it was one of the supreme dogfighters of the war. The trade-off for this range of abilities is that in a tightly-wrapped airframe, you don't have room for any spare fuel. Though not initially designed as such, the Mustang became the premier long-range escort fighter of the war (though range was a consideration of the British Purchasing Commission when shopping for aircraft in the US). This enabled the 8th AF to put a first-rate, single-engined, single-seater fighter anywhere over the Reich flying out of airfields in Cambs UK to escort the daylight bombing campaign. The trade-off for THIS range of abilities is that in having the fuel capacity to haul to Berlin and back, you lose some of the sharpness of a true interceptor. Sat side by side, you would note that the Mustang is a noticeably bigger crate than the Spitfire. Some errors in the previous posts, neither the Spitfire nor the Mustang were powered by turbochargers (ie exhaust-driven forced induction), both aircraft were supercharged (ie mechanically-driven forced induction) utilising the same two-stage, two-speed device. They certainly weren't powered by GE devices which weren't, not to put too fine a point on it, much good. Turbochargers would have added significantly to the size of either aircraft; eating into the internal 'fuel room' on the Mustang and I seriously doubt such a device would have even fitted into the dainty frame of the Spitfire. The Spitfire Mk VIII had the same 60-series Merlin as the Spitfire Mk IX and it was the Merlin concurrent with the Mk IX that was fitted to what became known as the Mustang X. It was as a result of trials with the Mustang X that the P-51B was given the nod for series production, Merlin production for the Dallas and Inglewood Mustang plants being taken on eventually by the Packard Motor Company. So, there was no 300hp advantage for the Spitfire Mk VIII over the Mustang. The Spitfire Mk XIV had something like that figure but that was fitted with the Griffon engine (36 litres displacement), a bigger, more powerful powerplant than the Merlin (27 litres displacement). As well as the Mustang's superb range was the added advantage that most of the combat in the ETO took place at the Mustang's best altitude (25,000ft); this combined with numbers, pilot training and sound tactics negated any lack of sharpness the Mustang might have over the Luftwaffe's interceptor reception committee. The Mustang enjoyed design refinements that were never employed by the Spitfire. The laminar-flow wing saved even more fuel, the overall manufacturing quality eliminated uneven, pitted or grooved surfaces to a previously unparalleled degree. The ventral radiator airscoop recovered almost all of the thrust lost to 'cooling drag'; it is worthing noting that the Spitfire IX and Mustang had the same engine but the Spitfire required 200hp more than the Mustang to attain 400mph. I would summarise the strengths and weaknesses of both fighters by saying: If you want to beat the enemy on your doorstep, the Spitfire. If you want to beat the enemy on his doorstep, the Mustang.

DougH

Gotta disagree with a lot of opinion on here - being British, perhaps I'm biased, but I gotta say the spitfire, as an overall type of aircraft, came out of the war having accomplished more. Let's put it this way - it first flew in 1937, and yet as a case in point, when the Fw-190 came along in 1943, all they had to do was stick a slightly more powerful engine in the spitfire airframe and the 190 was outclassed again. Direct comparison is indeed hard - the two were designed for different things. Taking the most capable version of the 'stang, the P-51D, and comparing it against the spitfire that was contemporary with it, is telling. The mark XIV spitfire, powered by a griffon engine, antered service in early january 1944 - actually before the P-51D - but the Mark XIV has superior performance to the mustang in every category - including roll rate, top speed, climb rate, etc - except range. That's the most telling one, and it's the reason the P-51 was so widely used in escort. It was bigger, more robust and more muscular, and thus more capable of punishing combat far from home, but it was not as good a dogfighter as a spitfire XIV. The argument for the spitfire being the best all round fighter of the two must take into account the entire lifespan of the respective aircraft. The P-51 had a troubled birth and was far inferior to the contemporary spitfires of the time - the Mk V and the Mk IX - as it had very poor high-altitude performance. By 1942, when the first P-51s were entering service, the Spitfire had fought in the Battle of Britain and had been extremely well-blooded. In that battle it had outclassed what had previously been considered the best fighter in the world - the Bf109 - and subsequently, the Mk V had been roaming all over the place, from Italy and Sicily to Norway.

Biggles

That would depend on your definition of 'accomplished more' and I would wager is going to vary from person to person. I would also call for your opinion of 'troubled birth'; the Allison-engined P-51A was some 40mph faster than the Spitfire V at low level. Allison-engined P-51s, far from being overshadowed by their Merlin-engined successors, went on to enjoy a stellar career with 2TAF, practically writing the rule book for armed low-level reconnaissance. There was a little more to re-balancing the status quo that was upset by the arrival of the Fw190 than merely 'sticking a slightly more powerful engine in'; installing the Merlin 61 into the Spitfire airframe gave the RAF a clear altitude advantage but descending, a thousand feet at a time, saw the advantage swing one way and then the other between the two fighters - neither fighter 'outclassed' the other at most of the altitudes where the two were likely to meet. It's contentious to argue that the Spitfire outclassed the Bf109. Most historians would give the bout to the German fighter on paper, though again not decisively. Look at any mark of Spitfire and you will find an equivalent mark of Bf109 that generally matched it for performance; later in the war, as the tide turned, it did become increasingly difficult for the Bf109's performance to match promise. What defeated the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain was radar, the effective vectoring of fighters to the right place, at the right time.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: