Best Fighter III

[Gnomey]

The Mustang, eventually the Spitfire. Quite a few. Considering it was a very good engine, makes sense.

I think you mean eventually the Mustang as the Spitfire was always powered by a Merlin. I agree with you it was a good engine which is proved by the number of successful types that were powered by Merlins.

 

[davparlr]

While the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-47. The P-51 was not th greatest thing since bread and butter. Was it a great plane? Absolutely yes, one of the best ever built. But what really was the only thing that it had in advantage over other aircraft. Its range. There were other American, British, and German aircraft were faster and more manueverable.

Once the P-51 got over the target, you can take its range out of the equation because now it is just fighter vs. fighter over Germany and the P-51 no longer has to get to the target, it is there.

Why did the P-51 do so well in my honest opinion, because of its large number. It had numerical superiority. 5 Bf-109G's or Fw-190A's getting jumped by 25 to 30 P-51s is a pretty one sided fight.

The P-51s lay to fame was that it had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Take that away and it was no differnent than any other fighter over the skies of Europe.

The reason that I like the P-47 over the P-51 is because of its ruggedness. It was also better adapted to the close air support role than the P-51.

Okay, I know that this is the designated "bash the P-51 Website", but I have to defend the P-51 here. While I do not believe it is the greatest fighter of WWII (I do not believe there is any aircraft that could claim this title, I liked the best nine plane air force thread), if one could be crowned, I think that it has a legitimate claim. This is my argument for the P-51.

The P-51 is probably the cleanest propeller driven aircraft used (reasonably) in the war. As for rationale, the P-51B, in 1944, had a top speed of 386 mph (tested) using somewhat around 1650 hp. This is faster than any other aircraft in my data base (except the P-51H) which includes the P-47M and N, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190D-9, Ta-152H-1, Spitfire Mk XIV, and Spitfire Mk 21. The Fw-190D-9 is very close with roughly the same top speed but with a 100 more hp (1750 hp). The P-51D is slower by 10 mph at about the same hp as the B (probably in the same drag class as the Dora). While this in itself is not a requirement for a great fighter, it does mean that it is fast. And speed is a big factor.

When the P-51B entered into combat at the end of 1943 till basically the end of 1944, Germany did not have an effective answer for the P-51 over the skies of Germany, from ground level to 35,000 feet. Not until the end of 1944 did Germany start to introduce aircraft that could threaten the P-51s flying overhead, the Fw-190D, Bf-109K, and the Ta-152H. Of these, the Fw-190D could only dominate below 25,000 ft, and the Ta-152 easily dominated over 25,000 ft. but only the Bf-109K was superior from sea level to 35,000 ft (although the P-51B could give it a run for the money).

Of course, most of the data is airspeed and climbing ability so roll rate (I don't think is a P-51 strong point) and turn rates aren't included (although I think the P-51 had a pretty good turn rate). Neither is dive speed, which the P-51 also probably did well in. Also, fire power and armor in not included (too many variables). Here are some comparisons to the contemporary German aircraft of 1944. The data below reflects the best I could find in flight test and/or engineering analysis and some from this site's participants. My objective always is to have the best data. So, if these are wrong, please let me know, including if I have not included a significant aircraft or model. Also, Russian and Italian aircraft are not included because I don't know anything about them and have no data. I am sure there are a lot of limited use aircraft that performed better during this period but I wanted to keep it to the most participating aircraft.

Speed
SL: P-51D(B)-375(386) mph, Bf-109G-326 mph, Fw-190A-8 351 mph
10k ft: P-51D(B)-416(420) mph, Bf-109G-362 mph, Fw-190A-8 360 mph
20k ft: P-51D(B)-420(442) mph, Bf-109G-399 mph, Fw-190A-8 405 mph
30k ft: P-51D(B)-440(434) mph, Bf-109G-400 mph, Fw-190A-8 386 mph
Max speed: P-51D(B)-442(445), Bf-109G-420, Fw-190A-8 416

Climb
SL: P-51D(B)-3600(4320) ft/sec, Bf-109G-4113 ft/sec, Fw-190A-8 3300 ft/sec
10k ft: P-51D(B)-2800(3750) ft/sec, Bf-109G-3780 ft/sec, Fw-190A-8 2400 ft/sec
20k ft: P-51D(B)-3000(3350) ft/sec, Bf-109G-3097 ft/sec, Fw-190A-8 2400 ft/sec
30k ft: P-51D(B)-1700(1600) ft/sec, Bf-109G-1625 ft/sec, Fw-190A-8 1080 ft/sec

Here are some allied aircraft of the same period. Question marks indicate that I do not have data.

Speed mph
SL: F4U-1-365, P-47D-25-333, Spit Mk IX-329, Spit Mk XIV-363
10k: F4U-1-377, P-47D-25-376, Spit Mk IX-374, Spit Mk XIV-387
20k: F4U-1-430, P-47D-25-406, Spit Mk IX-390, Spit Mk XIV-423
30k: F4U-1-?, P-47D-25-433, Spit Mk IX-413, Spit Mk XIV-443

Climb in ft/min
SL: F4U-1-3200, P-47D-25-2870, Spit Mk IX-?, Spit Mk XIV-4580
10k: F4U-1-3020, P-47D-25-?, Spit Mk IX-3820, Spit Mk XIV-3600
20k: F4U-1-2200, P-47D-25-2180, Spit Mk IX-2930, Spit Mk XIV-3600
30k: F4U-1-1150, P-47D-25-1400, Spit Mk IX-2280, Spit Mk XIV-2390

Some comments on aircraft.

Sorry about not including the P-38, but all the data I had was for the F, which didn't stack up too well to the P-51.

The Bf-109G was comparable in climb, but was significantly slower at all altitudes.

The Fw-190A-8 was slower than the P-51B/D at all altitudes and had slower climb at all altitudes to the P-51B. The P-51D also had better climb performance at all altitudes than the Fw-190 except at 25k ft.

The F4U-1 had some speed and climb advantage over the P-51D only between 15 and 20k ft. The P-51B was superior in speed and climb to the F4U-1 over all altitudes.

The P-47D-25 was faster than the P-51B/D above 30k. It appears that the P-51B/D had a better climb except at very high altitudes (the P-47D had a higher ceiling)

The Spitfire IX was significantly slower than the P-51B/D at all altitudes. The Spitfire IX could climb significantly better than the P-51D at almost all altitudes. The P-51B climb was better than, and less than, the Spitfire over various altitudes, the Spitfire was consistently better in climb above 20k.

The Spitfire XIV was significantly slower than the P-51B/D below 20k ft, The D was equal at 20k. The Spitfire was faster than the P-51B/D above 30k ft. The Spitfire and P-51B were roughly equivalent in climb up to 20k ft. The P-51 did not perform as well. Above 20k ft, the Spitfire was significantly better than the P-51B/D in climb. Overall, the Spitfire Mk XIV was superior to the P-51B/D above 20k ft.


As seen above, in 1944, the P-51B/D had performance advantages in speed and/or climb over enemy and allied aircraft over a majority of the airspace. Only the Spitfire Mk XIV had a significant advantage over a significant amount of airspace.

As far as air-to-ground, the P-51 does not come close to the P-47, F4U, and I am sure several German and British designs in capability.

By itself, this performance is impressive but tied with the real greatness of the P-51, and the part that the Spitfire Mk XIV could not do, was that it could fly from England to Germany, deal with the enemy with the above advantages, and then fly home to England.

1944 was the year of the Mustang. So was 1945, but only because of quantity. Other planes participated in earlier years and some dominated for a period (Fw-190A comes to mind), but, I think none did it as long as the P-51B/D. I could be wrong, make an argument.

This should stimulate some people.

 

[Soren]

The P-51B would only climb at +4,000 ft/min with a seriously boosted engine and low weight. And even at this climb rate it doesn't reach 20,000 ft as fast as the Bf-109G-2 or Dora-9 for example - and the 109G-10 14 dominate it completely in the climb.

The Dora-9 could out-run the P-51 from SL up to 6km, and maneuverability was way better than that of the P-51.

And about the P-51's turn rate, it was low, and the laminar flow airfoil bares much of the blame. - A clean A-8 could match it for sure.

The P-51 was great only because of its range and numbers, and while its speed was good in 1943 it wasn't anything special by mid 1944 where most German fighters were either faster or as fast. However it must be said that at the altitudes where the bombers flew the P-51 did have good performance, and a Fw-190A would definitely be at a disadvantage at these heights.

Btw, the Fw-190 A-8 has a climb rate of 18 m/s (3,543 ft/min) and a SL speed of 578 km/h (359 mph) at 1.65 ata.

 

[davparlr]

The P-51B would only climb at +4,000 ft/min with a seriously boosted engine and low weight.

Values are flight test data, so I guess the airplane was capable of this performance. Test was made at 9860 lbs, 120 lbs below gross. I don't think you can consider that low weight.

And even at this climb rate it doesn't reach 20,000 ft as fast as the Bf-109G-2 or Dora-9 for example

True, but not significantly off the pace of the seriously boosted P-51B. My data shows 5.2 min for the 109, 5.8 for the Dora, and 5.8 for the P-51B. At 15 and 25k the performance is almost awash. I should note here that the P-51D is not as good a performer.

- and the 109G-10 14 dominate it completely in the climb.

I don't have much data on the G-10 and none on the 14. I do have a time to 20k ft for the G-10 at 6 minutes, which is roughly the same as the P-51B at 5.8 min. I also have a top speed of the G-10 at 353 mph at SL, 413 mph at 16.4 ft, and 390 at 21.6k ft. All, except 16.4k ft, well below the P-51B/D by 20 to 30 mph, at 16.4k ft, the P-51D is equal.

The Dora-9 could out-run the P-51 from SL up to 6km, and maneuverability was way better than that of the P-51.

No argument, The Dora-9 was a great aircraft under 20k. It came out very late in 44.

And about the P-51's turn rate, it was low, and the laminar flow airfoil bares much of the blame. - A clean A-8 could match it for sure.

I don't have a lot of data on turn rate. I have seen a document from spitfireperformance, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg, that indicates the P-51 could outturn both the Fw-190 and Bf-109, but I know you have arguments here and it is not well defined in altitude and airspeed, so I would not use it to support any argument. I do have some test data performed in 1990 on roll rates, between the P-51, P-47, F6F and FG1 (F4U-1 without folding wings). These were performed without stressing the aircraft but does show a comparison. Test was done at 10k ft, 220kts. The P-51 rolled right at 53 degrees/sec, left at 55, the P-47 was 61 and 66, the F6F at 26 and 48, and the FG1 at 49 and 58. This indicates that the P-51 was in midst of some noted performers. It did not out roll a Fw-190 for sure, which was exceptional.

The P-51 was great only because of its range and numbers, and while its speed was good in 1943 it wasn't anything special by mid 1944 where most German fighters were either faster or as fast.

It was great because of range, numbers and because that it was no less than a formidable fighter after flying for four hours. I don't think you can find an operational German fighter on the front line that is faster from SL to 35k than a P-51B/D (maybe a D at 20k which seems at a low point in power but still make 420 mph) in mid 44. I can be convinced otherwise with data.

Like I said, I don't think the P-51 is the greatest fighter. I don't think any aircraft can claim that title. There were others that did better in different environments. Certainly in the air-to-ground roles. But, overall it was an exceptional machine and did great in some areas and was acceptable in many others. In my mind it is like the T-34 tank. When it appeared, it dominated the battlefield and caused a scurry to counter and by the time the Germans could conteract it, they were appearing in hordes.

I do think too much is made of the P-51 at the expense of the other great WWII aircraft (kind of like the common thought here that the U.S. won the war by itself) and service is provided to educate others on these aircraft. Sometimes, on the other hand, I think the P-51 is belittled because of that, and that is when I tend to jump to its defense.

Btw, the Fw-190 A-8 has a climb rate of 18 m/s (3,543 ft/min) and a SL speed of 578 km/h (359 mph) at 1.65 ata.

I have corrected my data base, thanks. My 59 year old eyes have large plus-or-minus error on reading graphs.

 

[SpitfireKing]

I think you mean eventually the Mustang as the Spitfire was always powered by a Merlin. I agree with you it was a good engine which is proved by the number of successful types that were powered by Merlins.

Oh yes, thanks gnomey.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay, I know that this is the designated "bash the P-51 Website"

I am sorry if it seems that way, but I think a lot of people get caught up in the myth that there was nothing else that won the war other than the P-51D and that British and Germans could come up with nothing that was better than the P-51.

I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.

1944 was the year of the Mustang. So was 1945, but only because of quantity. Other planes participated in earlier years and some dominated for a period (Fw-190A comes to mind), but, I think none did it as long as the P-51B/D. I could be wrong, make an argument.

This should stimulate some people.

And why did it dominate....superior numbers.

 

[Parmigiano]

Dav,

I don't want to argue, but I would take this data with extreme care.
We know that measurement conditions are rarely the same when we compare performance data from different sources, and some of your data seems too favorable to P51.

For instance let's compare P51D and Spit IX who roughly share the same engine, and use some basic common sense.

Even for base measures like weight data are never exactly the same, but more easily controllable.
Taking wikipedia (just as example) the weight difference is huge.

In lbs we have

Spit IX empty 5090 loaded 6622 max 6770
P51D empty 7040 loaded 9200 max 12100

Having the birds the same engine, having the P51 the famous laminar flow wing that optimize speed at expense of lift, i.e. it seems not credible that the rate of climb to 20k is 2930ft/s for the spit and 3000 for the P51D

Even more difficult to assess if the data of the German crafts are comparable with the US and British data, I think that the best we have is the (in)famous RAF test between Spit IX and Faber's 190A3 (even with all the arguments about the 190 having a derated or faulty engine, there is people in this forum who knows a lot more than I can say...)

 

[SpitfireKing]

I am sorry if it seems that way, but I think a lot of people get caught up in the myth that there was nothing else that won the war other than the P-51D and that British and Germans could come up with nothing that was better than the P-51.

I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.



And why did it dominate....superior numbers.

Well, you are right about that. BUT! Some things are pretty impressive about it, if you ask me. But hey, I'm just a Mustang fan.

 

[davparlr]

I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.

We agree

And why did it dominate....superior numbers.

True for 1945, not for 1944. My hypothesis here is that the P-51B/D had performance qualities that allowed it to be more than competitive with 1944 German aircraft mainstay. These qualities included airspeed at all altitudes, competitive or better climb rates (Bf 109 was equivalent (some models maybe better) and equvialent service ceiling, but was slower) and, I suspect, dive speed.

I would agree that "dominate" is a word caused by the numbers of P-51s, but the P-51 performance in itself, while not superior enough to dominate, was enough to make things sporty for German defenders.

All in all, a German pilot in a Fw-190 or Bf-109 would not feel overly confident in tangling with a competent P-51 pilot, nor vice versa. But, because of the P-51, the fight was over Berlin.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well, you are right about that. BUT! Some things are pretty impressive about it, if you ask me. But hey, I'm just a Mustang fan.

The only thing impressive about it was its range. Nothing else.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would agree that "dominate" is a word caused by the numbers of P-51s, but the P-51 performance in itself, while not superior enough to dominate, was enough to make things sporty for German defenders.

Completely agree with you.

All in all, a German pilot in a Fw-190 or Bf-109 would not feel overly confident in tangling with a competent P-51 pilot, nor vice versa. But, because of the P-51, the fight was over Berlin.

That I agree with and is undisputable. The P-51 was an excellent aircraft and was atleast equal to everything else out there. Even aircraft that were superior to it were not going to beat a P-51 just because of its characteristics or what not.

A lot of it comes down to luck, in my opinion. You make a wrong move, you are done. And if not luck, surprise, and that is on both sides.

 

[Hop]

The Spitfire IX was significantly slower than the P-51B/D at all altitudes. The Spitfire IX could climb significantly better than the P-51D at almost all altitudes.

The Spitfire IX climbed significantly better than the P-51D at all altitudes.

The P-51D ROC at combat power:

0ft - 3600ft/min
4,800ft - 3600 ft/min
16,000ft - 3200 ft/min
20,000ft - 3050 ft/min
30,000ft - 1700 ft/min


Spitfire LF IX at combat power

0ft - 4600 ft/min
4,800ft - 4670 ft/min
16,000ft - 3860 ft/min
20,000ft - 3560 ft/min
30,000ft - 2,120 ft/min

The P-51B climb was better than, and less than, the Spitfire over various altitudes, the Spitfire was consistently better in climb above 20k.

Again, the Spitfire had a better rate of climb at all altitudes.

The only problem with comparing P-51B and Spitfire IX variants is that both came with different engines. The P-51B had either the low alt V-1670-7 or high alt -7 engine, the Spitfire either the low alt Merlin 66, the medium alt Merlin 61 or 63, or the high alt Merlin 70.

To compare similar versions, the P-51B with -7 engine, direct competitor to the Spitfire above:

0ft - 3750 ft/min
4,800ft - 3920 ft/min
16,000ft - 3150 ft/min
20,000ft - 3100 ft/min
30,000ft - 1600 ft/min

The high alt engines in both planes reduced climb rate at lower altitude, increased it at higher altitude.

The Spitfire and P-51B were roughly equivalent in climb up to 20k ft. The P-51 did not perform as well.

Climb rate figures for the Spitfire XIV

0ft - 4700 ft/min
4,800ft - 4650 ft/min
16,000ft - 3700 ft/min
20,000ft - 3650 ft/min
30,000ft - 2350 ft/min

As you can see, the Spitfire XIV had a considerably better rate of climb at all altitudes.

To sum up, the findings of the AFDU on the P-51B vs the Spitfire IX:

The Mustang III has a considerably lower rate of climb at full power at all heights. (In a formation take off, Spitfire IX maintains formation with 5lbs less boost)

And P-51B vs Spitfire XIV:

Maximum climb
The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

 

[davparlr]

A lot of it comes down to luck, in my opinion. You make a wrong move, you are done. And if not luck, surprise, and that is on both sides.

I had a self defense instructor who said, answering a question about who would win, a boxer, a judo expert, or karate expert, that it would be the one who knew his sport the best. I think that is generally true with fighters. The best ones were shrewed and knew their aircraft weaknesses and strengths and the one that use those most effectively, won. Of course, luck certainly helps. Also, surprise is the best victor.

 

[davparlr]

The Spitfire IX climbed significantly better than the P-51D at all altitudes.

I don't really have much to say. I knew the data I was using was a basic IX and that the LF versions had bigger engines and had better performance. I didn't have too good of data on them. Your info is reasonable. I think the LF IX was still a bit slower than the P-51B/D

Maximum climb
The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

No argument here on climb. The XIV does appear to be slower under 20k ft (especially compared to the P-51B), but it is clearly superior to the P-51B/D above 20k in both speed and climb.

The only thing the IX and XIV lacked compared to the P-51 was range.

All the engine changes and nomenclature differences between the Spitfire and Mustang gives me a headache.

 

[davparlr]

Dav,

I don't want to argue, but I would take this data with extreme care.
We know that measurement conditions are rarely the same when we compare performance data from different sources, and some of your data seems too favorable to P51.

For instance let's compare P51D and Spit IX who roughly share the same engine, and use some basic common sense.

Even for base measures like weight data are never exactly the same, but more easily controllable.
Taking wikipedia (just as example) the weight difference is huge.

In lbs we have

Spit IX empty 5090 loaded 6622 max 6770
P51D empty 7040 loaded 9200 max 12100

Having the birds the same engine, having the P51 the famous laminar flow wing that optimize speed at expense of lift, i.e. it seems not credible that the rate of climb to 20k is 2930ft/s for the spit and 3000 for the P51D

The P-51 data I think is pretty good and based on flight test data. The Spit IX data if probably not appropriate as it is based on a lower performing IX than may had been available, see post above. Also, the P-51 engine may be different than the Spit. In general, though, I think you can pretty well assume the IX and XIV Spitfire models had a better climb rate than the Mustang (and better turn rate).

Even more difficult to assess if the data of the German crafts are comparable with the US and British data, I think that the best we have is the (in)famous RAF test between Spit IX and Faber's 190A3 (even with all the arguments about the 190 having a derated or faulty engine, there is people in this forum who knows a lot more than I can say...)

I try to take information on German aircraft from Soren if I can. He seems to have the best German test information. I perfer this over some of the Allied test of German aircraft.

 

[Soren]

Values are flight test data, so I guess the airplane was capable of this performance. Test was made at 9860 lbs, 120 lbs below gross. I don't think you can consider that low weight.

I know of the test and it was achieved using 44-1 fuel, another test done 5 days later at 75" HG gave a max climb rate of 4,380 ft/min at a 9,300 lbs weight - max SL speed was 360 mph.

A test made in June 1944 shows a time to climb 20k of just over 6min at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-climb.jpg

And a top SL speed of 374 mph at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-level.jpg

True, but not significantly off the pace of the seriously boosted P-51B. My data shows 5.2 min for the 109, 5.8 for the Dora, and 5.8 for the P-51B. At 15 and 25k the performance is almost awash. I should note here that the P-51D is not as good a performer.

Correct, however the Dora-9 would actually reach 20k in just 5min if the ETC-504 rack wasn't attached.

I don't have much data on the G-10 and none on the 14. I do have a time to 20k ft for the G-10 at 6 minutes, which is roughly the same as the P-51B at 5.8 min. I also have a top speed of the G-10 at 353 mph at SL, 413 mph at 16.4 ft, and 390 at 21.6k ft. All, except 16.4k ft, well below the P-51B/D by 20 to 30 mph, at 16.4k ft, the P-51D is equal.

The G-10 -14 will both do 585 km/h (363 mph) at SL and 685 km/h (426 mph) at full throttle height. Climb rate is in the 4,800 ft/min area.

I don't have a lot of data on turn rate. I have seen a document from spitfireperformance, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg, that indicates the P-51 could outturn both the Fw-190 and Bf-109, but I know you have arguments here and it is not well defined in altitude and airspeed, so I would not use it to support any argument. I do have some test data performed in 1990 on roll rates, between the P-51, P-47, F6F and FG1 (F4U-1 without folding wings). These were performed without stressing the aircraft but does show a comparison. Test was done at 10k ft, 220kts. The P-51 rolled right at 53 degrees/sec, left at 55, the P-47 was 61 and 66, the F6F at 26 and 48, and the FG1 at 49 and 58. This indicates that the P-51 was in midst of some noted performers. It did not out roll a Fw-190 for sure, which was exceptional.

First of all the British hardly dared flying the 109, secondly the 190 to which they compared their own fighters was a Jabo, and even this Jabo managed to turn with the Tempest. The 109 gave a bad impression simply because as soon as the slats came out the british test pilot was sure the a/c was about to depart, aborting the maneuver completely - in truth it wasn't even close.

It was great because of range, numbers and because that it was no less than a formidable fighter after flying for four hours. I don't think you can find an operational German fighter on the front line that is faster from SL to 35k than a P-51B/D (maybe a D at 20k which seems at a low point in power but still make 420 mph) in mid 44. I can be convinced otherwise with data.

Even after flying 4 hours it was at a disadvantage in anything but speed against the dedicated fighter aircraft of the LW - the laminar flow wing which did help speed sadly also meant stalls at rather low AoA's. However what did all this matter when the enemy was lower than you and climbing to engage the bombers, they were rather easy pickings, and only the dedicated LW fighters gave up a truly hard fight - if they weren't shot down by stangs while still trying to gain alt ofcourse.

Like I said, I don't think the P-51 is the greatest fighter. I don't think any aircraft can claim that title. There were others that did better in different environments. Certainly in the air-to-ground roles. But, overall it was an exceptional machine and did great in some areas and was acceptable in many others. In my mind it is like the T-34 tank. When it appeared, it dominated the battlefield and caused a scurry to counter and by the time the Germans could conteract it, they were appearing in hordes.

I can agree with that.

I do think too much is made of the P-51 at the expense of the other great WWII aircraft (kind of like the common thought here that the U.S. won the war by itself) and service is provided to educate others on these aircraft. Sometimes, on the other hand, I think the P-51 is belittled because of that, and that is when I tend to jump to its defense.

The P-51 does get belittled sometimes, however nowhere near as much as it naively gets admired !

The P-51's success is in large part due to its numbers, and theres no getting around that, however at the time of its appearence speed was good and it remained decent until the end - and like they say, speed is life.

I have corrected my data base, thanks. My 59 year old eyes have large plus-or-minus error on reading graphs.

Hehe, no problem, have the same problem sometimes when relying on memory alone

 

[SpitfireKing]

Okay! *Raises white flag* I'm done, I'm done!

 

[davparlr]

I know of the test and it was achieved using 44-1 fuel, another test done 5 days later at 75" HG gave a max climb rate of 4,380 ft/min at a 9,300 lbs weight - max SL speed was 360 mph.

A test made in June 1944 shows a time to climb 20k of just over 6min at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-climb.jpg

And a top SL speed of 374 mph at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-level.jpg




Correct, however the Dora-9 would actually reach 20k in just 5min if the ETC-504 rack wasn't attached.



The G-10 -14 will both do 585 km/h (363 mph) at SL and 685 km/h (426 mph) at full throttle height. Climb rate is in the 4,800 ft/min area.



First of all the British hardly dared flying the 109, secondly the 190 to which they compared their own fighters was a Jabo, and even this Jabo managed to turn with the Tempest. The 109 gave a bad impression simply because as soon as the slats came out the british test pilot was sure the a/c was about to depart, aborting the maneuver completely - in truth it wasn't even close.



Even after flying 4 hours it was at a disadvantage in anything but speed against the dedicated fighter aircraft of the LW - the laminar flow wing which did help speed sadly also meant stalls at rather low AoA's. However what did all this matter when the enemy was lower than you and climbing to engage the bombers, they were rather easy pickings, and only the dedicated LW fighters gave up a truly hard fight - if they weren't shot down by stangs while still trying to gain alt ofcourse.



I can agree with that.



The P-51 does get belittled sometimes, however nowhere near as much as it naively gets admired !

The P-51's success is in large part due to its numbers, and theres no getting around that, however at the time of its appearence speed was good and it remained decent until the end - and like they say, speed is life.



Hehe, no problem, have the same problem sometimes when relying on memory alone

I don't have any problems with what you have stated here. The P-51 is a great aircraft that should be admired for what did but not worshiped for what it did not do.

Classic Military Warning

"A slipping trigger gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit." Army's Magazine of Preventive Maintenance.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are you getting all thes Classic military warnings from the PM magazine? They are hilariously written.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

any more examples 'cos that was pretty funny....