P51 Mustang vs Supermarine Spitfire

[fred cook]

If these two got into a dogfight, which one would win? Both use the supercharged Merlin V12 engine w/water cooling. The wings on the Spitfire are a long chord design and elliptical in shape while the wings on the Mustang are a short chord and angular design. The Mustang is probably a bit faster but the Spitfire's wings gave it incredible maneuvering capabilities. The Mustang was armed with 50 caliber machine guns and the Spitfire with 303 caliber guns. The Mustang had a self sealing fuel tank, not sure about the Spit. So, with all that said, which one would win a dogfight? Both are excellent machines so would it come down to the abilities of the pilot? What say ye?

[masraum]

Neither, they'd kick the messerschmidt's azz. They were on the same side.

Interesting question. I'm curious to see what the brain trust comes up with. I just know that as a kid I thought they were the COOLEST! (Oh, and the P38 Lightning)

[id10t]

Dunno how real these numbers are

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.asp?form=form&aircraft1=77&aircraft2=218&Submit=COMPARE

For us non-flyers some descriptions of wing geometry, etc. using both the P51 and SMS in examples, may be of some help - https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19475/what-are-the-different-wing-planforms-what-are-eachs-advantages-where-are-the/19477#19477

[MRM]

They are different machines for different missions. The Spitfire was developed in the 1930s to be a defensive fighter with minimal range. The Mustangs was a cheap to build long range escort/fighter that was developed later in the war. Apples to oranges. Different tools for different jobs. But one on one the Mustang and its newer technology would probably win in a dogfight.

[Mark Henry]

Pilot, also depends on the model, early spit would't have a chance against a late mustang or late spit.

Originally Posted by masraum

Neither, they'd kick the messerschmidt's azz. They were on the same side.

Interesting question. I'm curious to see what the brain trust comes up with. I just know that as a kid I thought they were the COOLEST! (Oh, and the P38 Lightning)

Mosquito was cooler...both were cool.

[aap1966]

Originally Posted by masraum

Neither, they'd kick the messerschmidt's azz. They were on the same side.

First aircraft shot down by a Spitfire in action?

Hawker Hurricane

True. Blue on blue incident. (Obviously) not discussed at the time, and discussed surprisingly little since. Certainly not part of general Spitfire folklore.

[drcoastline]

If my memory is correct the mustang wasn't originally powered by the Merlin and was an under performer. It wasn't until it was in theater that the Merlin was installed and the Mustang came to life. I think after that the Mustang was a better performer all around.

Mustang v. Spitfire I think the mustang wins more often than it looses. As I recall it won more often than it lost in real battle. Granted it over whelmed it's opponents by numbers but think it was still superior to it's adversaries in many ways.

[Alan A]

I’ve been upside down in the back of a P51-D. It certainly seemed maneuverable enough imo.
If a spitfire genuinely outperforms it then my hats off to the pilots.

[fred cook]

R.J. Mitchell was the lead designer at Supermarine and worked on the Spitfire's development until his death in 1937. He had traveled extensively in Germany in the mid 1930's and saw what the Germans were doing to develop an overwhelming air force. He knew that England would need a state of the art fighter plane if it was to survive a war with Germany. After Mitchell's death, his colleague (Joseph Smith) took over the development of the Spitfire. The Spit was adopted into the Royal Air Force in 1938. There were a number of different models of the Spitfire developed during the war, each being better in some way than those that came before.

The Mustang was originally designed to use an Allison V12 engine but it's performance was lacking especially at high altitudes. Since the Allison engine was very much like the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, putting the supercharged Merlin into the Mustang frame was fairly easy. The addition of the compressor cured the problems being experienced at high altitudes. I suspect that it was American assembly lines that made the P51 less expensive to build than the Spit. Both the P51 and the Spitfire had very good kill ratios.

[sc_rufctr]

With all things considered, head to head the Mustang would win. They're built like a tank compared to a Spitfire so their survivability is higher.

[fred cook]

Originally Posted by Mark Henry

Pilot, also depends on the model, early spit would't have a chance against a late mustang or late spit.



Mosquito was cooler...both were cool.

The most interesting thing (to me) about the Mosquito is that it was made mostly of wood! I think it carried a crew of 3, was equipped with two of the supercharged Rolls Royce Merlin engines and was quite fast (400mph). It generally was equipped with either 2 or 4 20mm rapid fire cannon in the nose.

[john70t]

I think the P-51 was vulnerable to spin at lower speeds and more suited to boom-n-zoom fighting.
(but not quite the deathtrap as the P-39 Aircobra)

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/40999/does-it-really-take-9000-feet-to-recover-from-a-spin-in-a-p-51-mustang
US Army Air Force spin tests found here resulted in an average of 3000-6000 ft alt loss.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by masraum

Neither, they'd kick the messerschmidt's azz. They were on the same side.

Interesting question. I'm curious to see what the brain trust comes up with. I just know that as a kid I thought they were the COOLEST! (Oh, and the P38 Lightning)

Put either up against a FW190. You might be surprised.

The main thing the Mustang had was range and good high altitude performance.

[Cajundaddy]

Different aircraft for different roles. On paper the Spit has a better climb rate, faster, better turning radius. The Mustang had better range, better high altitude performance, and better pilot protection. In a head to head dogfight I'll give the nod to the pilot best able to exploit his attributes in battle. The pilot is about 80% of the equation with the aircraft 20%.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

If my memory is correct the mustang wasn't originally powered by the Merlin and was an under performer. It wasn't until it was in theater that the Merlin was installed and the Mustang came to life. I think after that the Mustang was a better performer all around.

Mustang v. Spitfire I think the mustang wins more often than it looses. As I recall it won more often than it lost in real battle. Granted it over whelmed it's opponents by numbers but think it was still superior to it's adversaries in many ways.

The real issue was not the engine, but the engine and turbocharger. The Allison had a single stage turbo which caused performance to fall off above 15,000 feet. The Merlin had a 2 stage turbo.

The Allison was the same engine in the P-40. By the end of the war, the Allison engine actually exceeded the performance of the Merlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710

I don't know how much time I spent as a 12-yo pondering these exact same types of questions. I think of each in terms of how one might think of cars from their respective countries of origin. Thus Spitfire is to Jaguar as Mustang is to, uh, Mustang.

[sc_rufctr]

[MFAFF]

All depends on which mark of Spit and which model of Mustang.

A Mk1 Spit would have eaten a P-51A for breakfast and not hesitated; the same apples for all of the early non-Merlin Mustangs. They simply did not have the all round performance of the equivalent Spits in the close turn battle arena, at low level or high level. Hence the installation of the Merlin engine.

The use of the Merlin (and the bubble canopy) in the Mustang changed everything. The additional power at all levels, but especially high level ensured the more advanced aeronautical design of the Mustang's wing was exploitable more of the time. In comparison the later Mk Merlin engined Spits were beginning to reach the far right of the wing's performance envelope and the comparison is different.

As mentioned by others the pilot's training and experience was massively influential as to the outcome moreso than the abstract performance of the aircraft. At low level the Spit was possibly better, however the advantage was insufficient to ensure consistent results. At high level the Mustang in theory was better, again slim margins.

A Mk 1 Spit is a very different beast to a Mk V or Mk IX, let alone a Mk 24. Similarly a P-51A/B is not the same as a P-51D or H.

The Spit changed from 8 x .303 Brownings to heavier cannon armament depending on the Mk so the weapons side of things balances out over time. 'A' to 'E' wings and different mixes of .303, .50 and 20mm cannon depending on the role and Mk.

In addition we could consider the Griffon engined Spits (later Mks, with the XII the first) which had a longer fuselage and different wings) and were contemporary of the Mustangs. The larger and more powerful engine did add significant performance across the envelope... and these 'big' Spits may be viewed as one of the ultimate piston engined fighters (along with the Bearcat and Corsair).

In contrast further development of the Mustang was halted as the initial view was the XP-75 Eagle was the next thing; however piston- engined a/c development was curtailed by the realisation that jets were always going to be faster.

PS. The Merlin had a two stage supercharger (low and high level ) whilst the Allison only had a single stage s'charger. A bolt-on second high level charger was added later, however it lacked other features of the Merlin's installation. The final development of the Allison was to add a turbine to the lot, creating a turbo- compound engine (primarily for the XP-75) however it was not developed fully, shame as it would have been a beast. By then these high power V engines were on the way out.... radial for transports were far more reliable (!) and powerful and gas turbines were the future for fighters.

[tabs]

By 43 the 109 was basically obsolete. The FW 190 was getting obsolete..the later variants tried to make up for it.

You fight your battles using the attributes of your weapon system and not the attributes of your enemies system.

If I had to fly a fighter plane in ww2. The Jug or Thunderbolt would be it. You could shoot the he11 out of it and it would get you home. The p51 being water cooled was susceptible to hits in the engine. The Bolt was good when you bounced your enemy from on high diving through them blazing away with 8 50 cals..the speed it picked up in a dive was unmatched. It was also good right on down to the deck..as a ground attack fighter it was better than the 51 because of the punishment it could take..

[mepstein]

My cousin Billy (William "Tiger" Lyons) said his Mustang was the king of the sky. He even shot at and damaged a German jet. 63 missions. He's 94 and can still describe every mission in precise detail. Last year he went up in a restored Mustang and said it was terrific.