a few weeks ago in another post the performance of US and British planes got to be compared with the poor old poms coming second , in the opinion of most posters .
I just came across some interesting details in Wikipedia that may shed more light on this topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_V-1650

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P51_Mustang
Merlin

The Rolls-Royce Merlin Type Liquid-cooled V-12 piston aero engine National origin United Kingdom Manufacturer Rolls-Royce Limited First run 15 October 1933 Major applications Avro Lancaster
de Havilland Mosquito
Supermarine Spitfire
Hawker Hurricane
Handley Page Halifax [nb 1] Number built 149,659 Unit cost £2,000 (Engine)
£350 (Propeller)[1] Variants Packard V-1650 Developed into Rolls-Royce Meteor


Packard V-1650
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As well as being economical to produce, the Mustang was a fast, well-made, and highly durable aircraft. The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650, a two-stage two-speed supercharged version of the legendary Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, and was armed with six .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns.

This discussion would have to be [at least in part] about variants. The Spit Vb had 20mm cannon, the older .303 being phased out. The greater production and development capacity would give the Septic tanks an edge in developing/enhancing the Merlin and adding superchargers over the Poms, so it is a case of comparing apples and oranges really.

Launion wrote:....As well as being economical to produce, the Mustang was a fast, well-made, and highly durable aircraft. The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650, a two-stage two-speed supercharged version of the legendary Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, and was armed with six .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns.

Yes I know, the mustang was a bit of a clunker until they stuck a Rolls Royce engine in it. It then went on to become probably the best aircraft of the war.

These "debates" always devolve into British vs. American nationalism. The truth is they were very different aircraft, and they were both equally superb in the roles they were given. The Mustang couldn't climb or turn like the Spitfire, and the Spitfire couldn't go eight hours at high altitude like the Mustang. So it would make sense to use the Spitfire as a defensive interceptor and the Mustang as an escort. It worked out quite nicely that way.

Having said that, the P-51 was prettier, and I'm an American, so I pick: 'Stang!!!

The mustang was from a later generation of than the Spitfire. If the British hadn't the good fortune to guess the right design parameters for the forthcoming war with the Germans and so had been so successful there wouldn't have been the opportunity to make Mustangs in the first place. The Mustang was built taking into account what had happened in the war so far and did it's job just as superbly.

If for instance the Luftwaffe had FW 190's during The Battle Of Britain or had decided to build their own long-range single engine fighter in the late '30s. If they had guessed right and made proper plans beforehand to invade Britain. Well that prospect is frightening.

The mustang lasted quite a while here's one of the strangest variants the P82 twin Mustang

From my understanding the Spitfire was a turn and burner and the Mustang more of a Boom 'n zoomer, like the German planes.

Plus the Mustang wasn't that durable.

The best plane of the war was the Bf109.

Rome Existed wrote:The best plane of the war was the Bf109.

No way. The Messerschmitt jet was clearly the best fighter of the war. It wasn't the most important, since it came late to the game obviously; but it easily outclassed everything it went up against.

When the first P51s came into service with the RAF it was a dog, in fact it was used as a low level fighter as it could not compete with the FW190 or the 109G at altitude until they put the Merlin into the airframe. When they married the Merlin engine with the P51 airframe it became the most potent fighter of world two.

Spitfire vs. Mustang?

C) Hellcat.

Spitfire & Mustang

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjciH7WDUaY[/youtube]

I love the sound of Merlins in the morning!

Jörmungandr wrote:Spitfire vs. Mustang?

C) Hellcat.

Excellent post!

Thats possibly my favorite WW2 aircraft. Over 5,000 kills (19:1 kill ratio too) and more than 300 aces flying the type means it has a good case for being one of the greats of air combat. Admittedly it was a solution to a slightly different problem than the Spitfire or Mustang but any plane that successful that also has to endure being whacked into a carrier deck on a regular basis after long range flights has something going for it.

The Bf109 shot down more planes than any other aircraft.

Every ace in history to achieve more than 100 kills did so in a Bf109.

Take that!

Seabass wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:The best plane of the war was the Bf109.

No way. The Messerschmitt jet was clearly the best fighter of the war. It wasn't the most important, since it came late to the game obviously; but it easily outclassed everything it went up against.

You mean that plane with such crap jet engines that if it was caught going slow it was dead?

Rome Existed wrote:The Bf109 shot down more planes than any other aircraft.

Every ace in history to achieve more than 100 kills did so in a Bf109.

Take that!

Thats is partly down to fighting over the eastern front and the target rich environment though. Its no coincidence that the aces who fought on the western front tend to have lower numbers of kills. (Marseille being the notable exception but then again he did have ridiculous talent at deflection shooting and would likely have been a notable ace flying any tin can with a gun on it) They simply had less targets. Allied pilots had fewer targets still which is a major reason why the 100+ kill club is exclusively German. More than a few of the 100+ club switched to the Fw190 during their careers and significant numbers of their kills were in that machine. (Hartman being the obvious exception) Nowotny for example scored about 16 in the Me 262. He got 50 in the bf109 and the rest of his 252 kills were in variants of the FW190. That would mean he got 100+ kills in an aircraft other than a bf109.

The other complication is that the Luftwaffe pilots flew until either the war was over or they were captured or killed. Generally they flew more combat over their careers than allied pilots. Allied pilots would be rotated back to train others which again reduced their kill totals but likely increased their life expectancy.

In addition there were 33,984 bf 109s churned out compared to a shade over 12,000 Hellcats,less than 17,000 Mustangs and 20,500 Spitfires. The bf109 was more numerous so if each bf109 pilot only gained 1 kill they would be well ahead of the rest.

FW-190

Great fighter, and certainly the best looking
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XcHpamXJAU[/youtube]

And if you disagree with me you are wrong

Juvenile, and irrelevant thread, of course but surely the most effective aircraft of WW2 were jack of all trades like the DeHavilland Mosquito and the Ju88.

The best fighter would have been the CAC CA 15 if it had been finished before the war ended.

It was the fastest piston engine fighter ever built and was faster than some first generation jet fighters.

The problem is that each fighter was designed to fight in a particular way.

Get a Bf109 level with a Spitfire and at the same speed and a Spitfire would fly circles around it and blow it to pieces.

Get a Bf109 above a Spitfire and the Spitfire was toast.