Was the P-51 really that good?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#106

Post by redcoat » 17 Oct 2016, 00:46

Sheldrake wrote:
A further good point about the P51 was its safety record compared to other US Fighters .
At one point it was estimated that the 8th Air force was losing 2 P-51D's a week through unexplained structural failures.
The 8th took measures to deal with this, but unexplained structural failures remained a problem throughout its employment in the 8th Air force.

Source: The Mighty Eighth, War Manual. by Roger A. Freeman.

Dupplin Muir
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 18 Jun 2010, 14:13

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#107

Post by Dupplin Muir » 17 Oct 2016, 11:10

aghart wrote:
The Mustang was produced to British specifications, as a fighter with the Spitfire's strength's and it's weakness's eradicated. Increased pilot visibility, increased fire power, improved range, it did what it was supposed to do. Was the P51 really that good? yes it was.
Very little of this is true. The visibility from the Mustang's cockpit was pretty poor, which led to the adoption of a modified Spitfire canopy (the Malcolm hood) on the P51B and P51C, and a modified Typhoon canopy on the P51D. Also, the Spitfire's firepower was significantly superior to the Mustang. The Spitfire's armament was roughly equivalent to eight 50-calibre Brownings, so twice the firepower of a P51B or C, and 30% superior to the P51D.

In terms of performance, the Spitfire was superior in climb, turn and roll, especially above 30,000 feet, where its low wing-loading and high power/weight ratio gave it a huge edge over all its contemporaries. The Mustang was faster in the dive, but (as noted above) it had an unpleasant tendency to shed its wings in the process. The Mustang also had a greater range, but its advantage has been overstated; in 1944, Spitfire XIV's based near Bristol were carrying out sweeps as far as the Swiss border - a distance of over 540 miles according to Google Earth.

Lastly, whenever German fighter pilots were asked to rank the Allied fighters, the Spitfire was always rated as the most-feared, with the P38 as the least-feared.


User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#108

Post by Sheldrake » 18 Oct 2016, 02:00

Dupplin Muir wrote:aghart wrote:
The Mustang was produced to British specifications, as a fighter with the Spitfire's strength's and it's weakness's eradicated. Increased pilot visibility, increased fire power, improved range, it did what it was supposed to do. Was the P51 really that good? yes it was.
Very little of this is true. The visibility from the Mustang's cockpit was pretty poor, which led to the adoption of a modified Spitfire canopy (the Malcolm hood) on the P51B and P51C, and a modified Typhoon canopy on the P51D. Also, the Spitfire's firepower was significantly superior to the Mustang. The Spitfire's armament was roughly equivalent to eight 50-calibre Brownings, so twice the firepower of a P51B or C, and 30% superior to the P51D.

In terms of performance, the Spitfire was superior in climb, turn and roll, especially above 30,000 feet, where its low wing-loading and high power/weight ratio gave it a huge edge over all its contemporaries. The Mustang was faster in the dive, but (as noted above) it had an unpleasant tendency to shed its wings in the process. The Mustang also had a greater range, but its advantage has been overstated; in 1944, Spitfire XIV's based near Bristol were carrying out sweeps as far as the Swiss border - a distance of over 540 miles according to Google Earth.

Lastly, whenever German fighter pilots were asked to rank the Allied fighters, the Spitfire was always rated as the most-feared, with the P38 as the least-feared.
Which spitfires? MK IX, XII or XIV? These late war spitfire had very different performances. Tghe Mk XIV was good at altitude - less impressive below 20k ft

The Mk XIV, when introduced, had a range of 460 miles - 10 miles lerss than the Merline engined Mk IX. Recce versions had extra fuel tanks in the rear fuselage as had late war fighter dec 1944 - but by then range over the reich didntl matter as fighter could fly from France and Belgium,

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#109

Post by redcoat » 20 Oct 2016, 18:39

Sheldrake wrote:
Which spitfires? MK IX, XII or XIV?
The the first merlin powered P-51 didn't enter operational service with the Eighth Air force until mid Dec 1943, so the closest Spitfire version is the Mk XIV which entered operational service just a month later in January 1944.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#110

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 24 Oct 2016, 21:14

Various era technical reports relevant to the topic. Dig around for funsies.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#111

Post by Stiltzkin » 25 Oct 2016, 04:33

Various era technical reports relevant to the topic. Dig around for funsies.
Has been already posted.

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#112

Post by Nickdfresh » 26 Oct 2016, 14:44

Dupplin Muir wrote:...
Lastly, whenever German fighter pilots were asked to rank the Allied fighters, the Spitfire was always rated as the most-feared, with the P38 as the least-feared.
I think this is pretty meaningless given the Luftwaffe's poor pilot training program coupled with their policy of literally flying their best pilots into the ground. By war's end, few veteran/expertin pilots were still alive. In any case, ranking the P-38 last might also be because when the P-38's were used as a primary mid-war fighter, the Luftwaffe usually outnumbered them in air combat and the Allies had yet to achieve air superiority. So it's really hard to qualify such statements...

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#113

Post by redcoat » 27 Oct 2016, 19:48

Nickdfresh wrote:
Dupplin Muir wrote:...


I think this is pretty meaningless given the Luftwaffe's poor pilot training program coupled with their policy of literally flying their best pilots into the ground. By war's end, few veteran/expertin pilots were still alive. In any case, ranking the P-38 last might also be because when the P-38's were used as a primary mid-war fighter, the Luftwaffe usually outnumbered them in air combat and the Allies had yet to achieve air superiority. So it's really hard to qualify such statements...
In the long range high altitude escort role the P-38 had a number of limitations, cockpit icing and engine failures due to the cold are the most well known, but there was also an issue about the lack of common controls for the two engines, in the event of them being unexpectedly 'bounced' by enemy fighters, the conversion from cruise settings to combat settings needed the pilot to alter the settings for both engines separately, a process which took up vital seconds and cost the lives of a number of pilots who due to inexperience couldn't react quickly enough to the 'bounce'.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#114

Post by redcoat » 27 Oct 2016, 19:57

Nickdfresh wrote: I think this is pretty meaningless given the Luftwaffe's poor pilot training program coupled with their policy of literally flying their best pilots into the ground. By war's end, few veteran/expertin pilots were still alive. In any case, ranking the P-38 last might also be because when the P-38's were used as a primary mid-war fighter, the Luftwaffe usually outnumbered them in air combat and the Allies had yet to achieve air superiority. So it's really hard to qualify such statements...
The Spitfire V and IX used in the same period had a better kill/loss record than the P-38 according to USAAF records

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#115

Post by Nickdfresh » 27 Oct 2016, 23:25

redcoat wrote:In the long range high altitude escort role the P-38 had a number of limitations, cockpit icing and engine failures due to the cold are the most well known, but there was also an issue about the lack of common controls for the two engines, in the event of them being unexpectedly 'bounced' by enemy fighters, the conversion from cruise settings to combat settings needed the pilot to alter the settings for both engines separately, a process which took up vital seconds and cost the lives of a number of pilots who due to inexperience couldn't react quickly enough to the 'bounce'.
Hi Redcoat.

I'm aware of the icing issue, this was addressed in the final to versions of the P-38J/L but by then of course units were reequipping with P-51's instead. The other issue is why the P-38L was the stuff of elite, veteran pilots and the P-51D was a better overall choice since it was cheaper and easier to fly for novice pilots.

And yes, the P-38 had it's drawbacks, but so did liquid cooled Mustangs and Spitfires vulnerable to overheating if they had cooling lines severed. One of the reasons the P-38L should have been retained for post-Jet Age ground attack roles in places like Korea. The twin-boom engine design and redundancy was one of the reasons it was was used in long, over the ocean missions in the PTO...

redcoat wrote:The Spitfire V and IX used in the same period had a better kill/loss record than the P-38 according to USAAF records
That may be, but again it's apples in oranges. The Spits weren't conducting long range escort missions and we also have to look at where, by whom, and when they were operated. According to Wiki, the P-38's overall kill-to-loss ratio was just slightly worse than the Mustang overall despite the fact the P-38 mostly fought a numerically superior enemy...

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#116

Post by redcoat » 28 Oct 2016, 18:34

Nickdfresh wrote: Hi Redcoat.

I'm aware of the icing issue, this was addressed in the final to versions of the P-38J/L but by then of course units were reequipping with P-51's instead. The other issue is why the P-38L was the stuff of elite, veteran pilots and the P-51D was a better overall choice since it was cheaper and easier to fly for novice pilots.
While the ease of flying was a part of the appeal of the P-51 I have never come across any evidence that cost effectiveness played a part of the decision to replace the P-38 in the Eighth with the P-51.
It should be noted that the decision to replace them in the Eighth air force had no effect on the numbers produced, they were just diverted to other theatres and roles.
redcoat wrote:The Spitfire V and IX used in the same period had a better kill/loss record than the P-38 according to USAAF records
That may be, but again it's apples in oranges. The Spits weren't conducting long range escort missions and we also have to look at where, by whom, and when they were operated. According to Wiki, the P-38's overall kill-to-loss ratio was just slightly worse than the Mustang overall despite the fact the P-38 mostly fought a numerically superior enemy...
They were used by the USAAF mostly in the MTO at a time when the Luftwaffe was actively contesting the air space.

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#117

Post by Nickdfresh » 30 Oct 2016, 21:56

Do you have the actual percentages? numbers?

P.S. I've read some unconfirmed stuff on the web that the USAAF operated around 600 Spits...

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#118

Post by Sheldrake » 30 Oct 2016, 22:34

Nickdfresh wrote:Do you have the actual percentages? numbers?

P.S. I've read some unconfirmed stuff on the web that the USAAF operated around 600 Spits...
p.417 of this shows 31 and 52 Fighter Groups equipped with Spitfires in July 1943 http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 05-006.pdf

and of course the 4th FG were already flying Sptifires when transfered from the RAF to the USAAF.

more here http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-s ... fires.html

The 31st and 52 FG were originally to fly the P39 from the UK in 1942 but operated the Spit V instead.

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#119

Post by Nickdfresh » 31 Oct 2016, 16:58

Thanks for that. I recall the USAAF was talked out of the P-39 as an operational fighter due to its low ceiling in the West, and switching to Spitfires instead...

Buck Bradley
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 26 Apr 2019, 22:41
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Was the P-51 really that good?

#120

Post by Buck Bradley » 29 Nov 2019, 06:37

Going back to the original question, the answer is clearly "no." An excellent fighter beyond dought, but easily the most overrated warplane of all time. To read the American accounts (I am an Ami) it won the war single-handedly which is ridiculous--it wasn't even the best piston-engine fighter of the war.

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”