Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

[cheddar cheese]

Good account RG...

[plan_D]

-47N's were better than D's...quite a bit better.

[cheddar cheese]

I agree...Statistically they may have be close but stats dont show the whole story...

[Lightning Guy]

Plan_D the being a good gun platform has nothing to do with the numbers and types of guns. It refers more to how stable the aircraft was when firing and the covergence of the weapons. Granted, I am not certain which aircraft (P-51 or Spit) would be considered superior in this catergory

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

That is not true. The P-51 was, in most meaningful respects, faster than the Spitfire. It was more manuverable at very high speeds than the Spitfire. It had a better zoom climb than the Spitfire. It was (a little) tougher than the Spitfire. It was a better gunplatform than the Spitfire. And it had better visability than the Spitfire.

What marks are you comparing, if its the P-51D and the Mk XIV Spitfire,( both of which entered service at around the same time) my understanding is that the only advantages (with these two marks) that the P-51 had over the Spitfire was in inital dive speed, and range.
As for being tougher, wasn't the P-51 banned from making certain manuvers due to its tendancy to break apart

[plan_D]

No, my point was that Spitfire was stable with so many different gun types. It was tested so much, with so many different lay outs...how could it be one of the best dogfights (if not the best) if its was unstable.

And, again, only person ever that has said a P-51 was a better dogfighter than a Spitfire. Even pilot reports all say the Spitfire outclassed the 'Tang in a dogfight.

Originally Posted by plan_D

Better gun platform? How do you figure that one out then? Two 20mm and two .50 cal is just as good and more diverse than six .50s.

"gun platform", not armament. The P-51 was a more stable shooting platform (as was the Hurricane). The P-47 was more stable than the P-51. Has nothing to do with the specific armament.

On top of that, the nature of the Hispano is that it relies on the structure of its mount for support. In its aircraft form, it is not workable w/o the mount, it would collapse and break upon firing. The Spitfire wings were really not rigid enough to support the Hispano and as a result twisted while firing, reducing its accuracy even more. Four Hispano's in the wings was tried and abandon for this reason - Spit IXc pilots almost always had two of the four Hispano's removed.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by plan_D

-47N's were better than D's...quite a bit better.

At factory performance levels yes. However, by late 1944, most P-47D's in service were RE20 or later models. Most of these had been hopped up by the aircrews to yeild over 2600 HP, in Robert Johnson's case, more like 2700 HP. Performance figures we typically see have to do with the earlier models, sometimes with and sometimes w/o the paddle prop. The laminar flow wing of the P-47D was better for range and very high speed, but not as good for turn and climb as the more conventional wing on the earlier models. The P-47N had 2800 HP but weighed a good 1500 lbs more than the D models, and ground crews in the PTO had little time to gain experiance with hopping up the engine (and its new C5 turbosupercharger), where P-47D ground crews in the ETO had had years of experiance with the R-2800(B) and its supercharger. Late model P-47D performance was, aside from top speeds, probably as good and in some respects better than that of the N.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by plan_D

No, my point was that Spitfire was stable with so many different gun types. It was tested so much, with so many different lay outs...how could it be one of the best dogfights (if not the best) if its was unstable.

And, again, only person ever that has said a P-51 was a better dogfighter than a Spitfire. Even pilot reports all say the Spitfire outclassed the 'Tang in a dogfight.

Some planes were better gun platforms than others. This is far from the only factor involved in a planes quality as a fighter. The Hurricane was considered a much better gun platform than the Spitfire - that doesn't make the Hurricane a better "dogfighter".

Where did I say the Stang was a better "dogfighter" than the Spitfire? What I responded to was your statement:

Originally Posted by plan_D

No it wasn't. The Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. The Mustang had a range advantage over the Spitfire, that's all.

Which is not true. I was simply pointing out that the P-51 did have other advantages over the Spitfire, not saying that these advantages added up to its being a superior "dogfighter".

The term "dogfighter" really is undefined. If what we mean by this is turnfighting until one plane is on the six of the other, the Spitfire XIV wins hands down. If what we mean is which one will win in a fight with equal quality pilots, it depends tremendously on the conditions of the fight.

The P-51 could do diving spirals the Spitfire could not follow. It zoom climbed better than the Spitfire, and it could do a high speed turn with less energy loss as long as it didn't turn too tightly (ie: stayed within the "laminer-flow bucket"). It had better pilot visiability, and was a superior gunnery platform, had 70% greater volume of fire, and its gun setup was effective to a longer range. The P-51 is faster in a mild-moderate dive than the Spitfire. The P-51 pilot is wearing the Berger G-Suit, and can sustain higher G forces w/o blacking out (especially advantagous in very high speed combat). Finally, the P-51 cruises much faster than the Spit XIV, so in a realistic contest, it starts with a 70-100 mph speed advantage.

Does this mean the P-51 wins in a fight? No! It means it has a good chance. If it can take advantage of its assets early, it can win. The P-51 can run away if it has sufficient altitude and the pilot has not let the Spitfire gain the energy advantage before he decides to exit combat.

The Spitfire probably wins a protracted fight fairly easily.

=S=

Lunatic

[plan_D]

You're marking the P-47N down because of lack of pilot experience on them, that doesn't negate the design of the aircraft.
And I've already said dogfighting isn't turning fight, although it can go into one. It is well recognised the Spitfire Mk. XIV is superior dogfighter than the Mustang. Alright, the 'tang has a few minor advantages over the Spitfire but on a whole the Spit is better. Pilots who flew both all mark it higher in combat.

Originally Posted by plan_D

You're marking the P-47N down because of lack of pilot experience on them, that doesn't negate the design of the aircraft.
And I've already said dogfighting isn't turning fight, although it can go into one. It is well recognised the Spitfire Mk. XIV is superior dogfighter than the Mustang. Alright, the 'tang has a few minor advantages over the Spitfire but on a whole the Spit is better. Pilots who flew both all mark it higher in combat.

I assume your replying to me. I was talking about the mechanic's lack of experiance with the R-2800 and C5 turbosupercharger combo. They were not able to tweak this configuration much, where the mechanics in the ETO were very familiar with the R-2800 and turbosupercharger on the D model, and were able to tweak an extra 100-200 HP out of it over factory specs.

Pilots who flew both? Just what pilots flew both the P-51 and the Spitfire XIV? If you check, I think you will generally find that pilots say they enjoyed flying the Spitfire (early models) more, and make few if any comparisons for combat.

=S=

Lunatic

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Pilots who flew both? Just what pilots flew both the P-51 and the Spitfire XIV? If you check, I think you will generally find that pilots say they enjoyed flying the Spitfire (early models) more, and make few if any comparisons for combat.

=S=

Lunatic

This is from the 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."

[plan_D]

I have read reports of Spitfires and Mustangs being tested against one another, and both pilots in the dogfight stating the Spitfire was better.
Not all pilots who flew earlier Spitfires enjoyed them, there were those that enjoyed the speed advantage on the Griffon Spitfires.

Originally Posted by plan_D

I have read reports of Spitfires and Mustangs being tested against one another, and both pilots in the dogfight stating the Spitfire was better.
Not all pilots who flew earlier Spitfires enjoyed them, there were those that enjoyed the speed advantage on the Griffon Spitfires.

Sure... but all moch dogfights end in tail chases.

The AD Skyraider consistantly beat the F4U-4 and F4U-5 in such contests. Does that mean it was a better fighter?

I'm not saying the P-51 was better, just that in the high energy combat of the late war, it was competitive with any prop plane flying. What it could not do was stick around and duke it out in an extended engagement, all its assets required the pilot maintain very high speed at all times (except at the peak of a zoom-climb).

=S=

Lunatic

[lesofprimus]

Saying a plane is Competitive is one thing.. To go and say that it was a "Match" is something completely different..... Seems like u changed ur opinion....