spitfire v mustang mpg
Discussion
The P-51 had a very aerodynamic profile with a very low drag wing design, in theory in a wind tunnel it was almost a laminar flow design, but not in practice because of the effect of the prop wash over the inner wings.
The Spit needed the extra 500+hp of the bigger Griffon engine to get anywhere near the speed performance of the P-51, which demonstrates the '51's better airframe aerodynamics.
The Spit needed the extra 500+hp of the bigger Griffon engine to get anywhere near the speed performance of the P-51, which demonstrates the '51's better airframe aerodynamics.
The Mustang was a bigger aircraft overall, with a much larger fuel capacity.
The Mustang was also a slightly younger design. North American only began the design in 1939, three years after the Spitfire prototype had first flown. Although three years doesn't sound much, in the context of the pace of development in the 1930s, it was almost a generation later than the Spitfire.
The Mustang was also a slightly younger design. North American only began the design in 1939, three years after the Spitfire prototype had first flown. Although three years doesn't sound much, in the context of the pace of development in the 1930s, it was almost a generation later than the Spitfire.
Eric Mc said:
The Mustang was a bigger aircraft overall, with a much larger fuel capacity.
The Mustang was also a slightly younger design. North American only began the design in 1939, three years after the Spitfire prototype had first flown. Although three years doesn't sound much, in the context of the pace of development in the 1930s, it was almost a generation later than the Spitfire.
The Mustang was also a slightly younger design. North American only began the design in 1939, three years after the Spitfire prototype had first flown. Although three years doesn't sound much, in the context of the pace of development in the 1930s, it was almost a generation later than the Spitfire.
We were at the Imperial War Museum over the weekend. They have a Spit Mk I and a P51 hanging more or less side by side. The Mustang is noticeably larger, and looks much the more modern of the two aircraft. The Spit is dainty and gossamer like in comparison...
The Mustang had a much more advanced wing than the Spitfire. The US was very advanced when it came to undrstanding airflow around wing sections and had come up with the principle of Laminar Flow - which was applied to the Mustang.
Another advanced wing designed in the US was the Davis Wing - as used on the B-24 Liberator. This gave the B-24 very good range - and was one of the reasons why the RAF uised them for long endurance ocean patrol work.
Ironically, even though the Spitfire's wing was cruder than that of the Mustang, it could, in fact, tolerate a higher Mach number in a dive than the Mustang - although this was more by accident than by design.
Mustangs also used American built Merlins (manufactured by Packard) which may have made a small difference in engine performance.
Another advanced wing designed in the US was the Davis Wing - as used on the B-24 Liberator. This gave the B-24 very good range - and was one of the reasons why the RAF uised them for long endurance ocean patrol work.
Ironically, even though the Spitfire's wing was cruder than that of the Mustang, it could, in fact, tolerate a higher Mach number in a dive than the Mustang - although this was more by accident than by design.
Mustangs also used American built Merlins (manufactured by Packard) which may have made a small difference in engine performance.
Eric Mc said:
Mustangs also used American built Merlins (manufactured by Packard) which may have made a small difference in engine performance.
Actually, it was the other way around with the Packard's. The advantage of the Packard's was consistant performance as the more advanced mass produced production process meant there was very little difference 'out of the crate' between any engine. The individually hand assmebled/hand machined RR engines by this very nature, could vary quite a bit in performance, but at the same it was accepted that a good RR engine was a better performer than a Packard, but it needed the skill of the RAF engine fitter to keep them fettled.aeropilot said:
Eric Mc said:
Mustangs also used American built Merlins (manufactured by Packard) which may have made a small difference in engine performance.
Actually, it was the other way around with the Packard's. The advantage of the Packard's was consistant performance as the more advanced mass produced production process meant there was very little difference 'out of the crate' between any engine. The individually hand assmebled/hand machined RR engines by this very nature, could vary quite a bit in performance, but at the same it was accepted that a good RR engine was a better performer than a Packard, but it needed the skill of the RAF engine fitter to keep them fettled.I actually have a soft spot for the Allison engined Mustangs which, whilst inferior to the Merlin engibed variants, were still handy performers, below 12,000 feet.
tank slapper said:
Although aerodynamics probably made a difference, fuel capacity was a bigger factor. A Mk XIV Spitfire could carry about 500 litres internally, while the P-51D could carry 1000 litres and close on another 1000 litres in drop tanks.
Although smaller internally Spitfires also carried external tanks, from the VB mark they were designed to use "slipper" drop tank of 30, 90 or 170 gal capacity plus others were modified to carry the same tanks as used on the Mustang. On my mobile to pain to search for images clear enough to show but this computer image shows it clearly, on the centreline between the undercarriage.
As the war progressed, the liklehood of encountering meaningful Luftwaffe intereception before reaching the German border grew less and less. It also must be remembered that the P-51D entered service with the USAAF in late 1943 and only began long range escort duties just at the time when the Luftwaffe began to be severely hampered by lack of experienced pilots and fuel shortages.
FourWheelDrift said:
plus others were modified to carry the same tanks as used on the Mustang.
This was an American mod, where several Spit's sent over to the USA, where then trial fitted with US style drop tanks and then ferried non-stop back across the Atlantic.I don't think they were ever seriously used.
Now, in the immediate post war era, the Israeli's clandestine buying up of aircraft through all sorts of 3rd party intermediates saw some interesting features. This included a batch of Spitfires bought from Czechoslovakia in 1948. They were stripped of all mil equipement and fitted with the biggest of the slipper tanks (170 gal) as well as two ex-Luftwaffe aux tanks under each wing
and then flown non-stop direct to Israel from Yugoslavia.
As has been said, most of the British use of the slipper tanks was for ferry flights etc., although they were heavily used in ops out in the far east theatre by the RAF/RAAF Spitfire sqns where longer patrol/combat ranges were required.
Edited by aeropilot on Wednesday 2nd June 13:27
aeropilot said:
Now, in the immediate post war era, the Israeli's clandestine buying up of aircraft through all sorts of 3rd party intermediates saw some interesting features. This included a batch of Spitfires bought from Czechoslovakia in 1948.
I remember reading in the Spitfire Society journal that some Israeli Spitfires were actually used against us. Thankless buggers, Israelis.Simpo Two said:
aeropilot said:
Now, in the immediate post war era, the Israeli's clandestine buying up of aircraft through all sorts of 3rd party intermediates saw some interesting features. This included a batch of Spitfires bought from Czechoslovakia in 1948.
I remember reading in the Spitfire Society journal that some Israeli Spitfires were actually used against us. Thankless buggers, Israelis.Simpo Two said:
aeropilot said:
Now, in the immediate post war era, the Israeli's clandestine buying up of aircraft through all sorts of 3rd party intermediates saw some interesting features. This included a batch of Spitfires bought from Czechoslovakia in 1948.
I remember reading in the Spitfire Society journal that some Israeli Spitfires were actually used against us. Thankless buggers, Israelis.Ayahuasca said:
I wonder why they never felt the need to make Griffon-engined Mustangs?
Eric?
They sort of did, the Australians based the CA-15 Kangaroo on a Mustang and put a Griffon in it. But I think by the time the might have started putting bigger engines into the Mustang jets were already the place to be.Eric?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff