PDA

View Full Version : P-51 Mustang or Supermarine Spitfire??



Sgt.Spec
09-14-2007, 04:59 AM
One of the most famous fighters of World War II, the P-51 Mustang has its roots in both Britain and the USA.http://maxair2air.com/WEB%20MEDIA/gunfighter/newGS/P-51-Mustang-1.jpg

The Supermarine Spitfire was much more than just a highly successful fighter aircraft. It was, and indeed to many people still is, the symbol of victory against overwhelming odds and is probably the only fighter to achieve a truly legendary status.http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_artifacts/Aircraft/WWII/Spitfire_files/image002.jpg

Sgt.Spec
09-14-2007, 04:59 AM
One of the most famous fighters of World War II, the P-51 Mustang has its roots in both Britain and the USA.http://maxair2air.com/WEB%20MEDIA/gunfighter/newGS/P-51-Mustang-1.jpg

The Supermarine Spitfire was much more than just a highly successful fighter aircraft. It was, and indeed to many people still is, the symbol of victory against overwhelming odds and is probably the only fighter to achieve a truly legendary status.http://www.sprucegoose.org/aircraft_artifacts/Aircraft/WWII/Spitfire_files/image002.jpg

DKoor
09-14-2007, 05:00 AM
P-51

Bewolf
09-14-2007, 05:23 AM
Mustang. Fits me much better

F19_Orheim
09-14-2007, 05:30 AM
spit ...MK I.

WOLFMondo
09-14-2007, 06:01 AM
Spitfire...unless your American.

Skunk_438RCAF
09-14-2007, 06:02 AM
Hurricane. **runs away**

Bearcat99
09-14-2007, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sgt.Spec:
The Supermarine Spitfire was much more than just a highly successful fighter aircraft. It was, and indeed to many people still is, the symbol of victory against overwhelming odds and is probably the only fighter to achieve a truly legendary status. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off.. Id always go with a 51.... but thats me.. the Spit is indeed a great plane.. limited ammo load and all... but probably the only fighter to achieve a truly legendary status?

Not hardly.... only in the minds of it's biggest fans. The 109, the Mustang and the p-40 are IMO right up there in the legendary category.... Most people who know absolutely nothing about airplanes or very little will rtecognize a Mustang and the 109 is the "standard" for German planes during the war in the minds of the under informed, and with good reasion on all counts. The P-40? Can you say Flying Tigers?

rafaellorena
09-14-2007, 06:15 AM
4sure spit =D.. better ammo and turning ... dont like .50 blarg %oP

Gumtree
09-14-2007, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:

Not hardly.... only in the minds of it's biggest fans. ... Most people who know absolutely nothing about airplanes or very little will rtecognize a Mustang ............ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst I agree with the main thrust of your comments, I would have to say that I disagree with the statement that most people who know little about the different types of WW2 fighters would recognise a Mustang over a Spitfire.

The Spitfire in the Commonwealth reached a level of superstar status that made it second to none in the recognition stakes.

My old man who watched the Battle Of Britain from the ground in Kent and his generation would name a Spit before any other plane of the era.

I grew up in Australia and would have to say that until I reached my teens the British influence and hence the UK history was much more prevelant than the American one.

The bias that the Australian link to the mother country shared until well into the last generation and strongly influenced by our parents generation meant that the Spitfire still had a status as the one symbol of freedom to be head and shoulders above all others from the war.

I do agree that there was more than just the Spit to reach a legendary status, just not the bit about the Mustang, the Mustang whilst obviously influencing the bomber war over Germany just did not get the kudos in the Commonwealth that it receives in the USA.

This in no way means that the Pony is ill thought of, just that the Spitfire was a Symbol that nothing came close to sharing the limelight with.

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skunk_438RCAF:
Hurricane. **runs away** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Run away not, be proud, for you are a warrior of all that is good.

Back to the question, prefer as what.

Eye candy? Spit (for me national bias being what it is.

Escort fighter? P51

Interceptor? Spit

Any WW2 scenario before sepember 1942? Spit

etc

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2007, 06:53 AM
In America, the P51 has Legendary status.

In Great Britain, the Spitfire has legendary status.


I personally think that taking on the mighty luftwaffe alone with a few Spits (and hurris) in the face of almost certain defeat is rather more legendary than flying P51s against a germany already losing. The Hurri should also have Legedary status but the Spit wins cos it`s better looking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Most americans think the P51 is beautiful.

Most Britains think the Spitfire is beautiful.

Personally and as an artist the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane i`ve ever seen. I say as an artist because it`s also the most difficult plane to draw accurately and keep it`s beauty. Just like a beautiful woman. The fuselage and those wings especially are so well crafted that I sometimes have the same difficulty depicting it as drawing a sexy female. Get that wing even slightly wrong and the whole Spit will suddenly look ugly.

The P51 in contrast is easy to depict. Nothing too difficult to get a hold on. I would call the P51 handsome and the Spifire `beautiful` I guess.

I`m a Brit so I guess i`m biased anyway. and why has Sgt.Spec got a bigger pic of the P51 than spitfire? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But I do like the P51, just no way near as much as the spitfire.

triad773
09-14-2007, 07:04 AM
I like both but chose the P-51: longer range is why.

ViktorViktor
09-14-2007, 07:09 AM
If spitfires could carry ordnance, then I vote for spit, if not then P-51 wins. P-51 more versatile.

By the way do you mean which I prefer in IL2 or which I prefer in real life ?

Brain32
09-14-2007, 07:20 AM
If you want a view from the "outside" planes with "legend status" in no particular order are:
Note that they are known by "names" not alpha-numerical designations:
ME-109 - Messerschmit
P-51 - Mustang
- Spitfire
B-17 - Flying Fortress
A6M - Zero

In my expirience most people when asked to say a few WW2 planes will answer with one or more terms on the right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bearcat99
09-14-2007, 07:29 AM
I am not disputing the "legendary" status of the Spitfire guys so keep your shorts on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif All I am saying is that "the only fighter to achieve a truly legendary status" is ..... well it is what it is.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif I won't debate you guys... I'm not saying which one is "best" I like the P-51.. for my own reasons.. which doesn't mean I DON'T like the Spit... but to say that either one is "legendary" as opposed to the other is silly.

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2007, 07:32 AM
Sure, I understand. There`s nothing wrong in having different opinions about Legenadry WWII aircraft. There are good and bad points for all aircraft. No big deal, they all did their job. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
09-14-2007, 07:40 AM
Mustang for me. Far sleeker lines are winner for my taste, and the plane is equally impressive from the engineering POV. Versatility doesn't hurt either.

ploughman
09-14-2007, 07:43 AM
Too true, lovely engine.

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mustang for me. Far sleeker lines are winner for my taste, and the plane is equally impressive from the engineering POV. Versatility doesn't hurt either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I kid when I drew imaginary planes I never went for slick, I'd stick on weird bits, strange sticky out things and lots of angles resulting in something that looked like a cross between a mig 3 and a late 109G. Which is why I love the look of those now (still a big kid).

carguy_
09-14-2007, 07:57 AM
I prefer Messerschmitt Me 109 Gustav http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mustang for me. Far sleeker lines are winner for my taste, and the plane is equally impressive from the engineering POV. Versatility doesn't hurt either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We all know you wouldn't pick the SPITFiRE. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bremspropeller
09-14-2007, 08:01 AM
I miss the Fw 190 option.


Well, Pee Fifty-One

Jaws2002
09-14-2007, 08:38 AM
Mustang would be my pick any day.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifSpeed is life. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

RK_Achilles
09-14-2007, 08:52 AM
P-51. It just has that mean look that the spit lacks imo. Versatility is good as well. Both planes are quite superb in thier own right.

hotspace
09-14-2007, 09:20 AM
http://www.bredow-web.de/Museum_Duxford/Spitfire/a_Spitfire.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

sgilewicz
09-14-2007, 10:55 AM
Jug, Tempest & Corsair (not necessarily in that order). Maybe not legends but they could:

compete with the best
carry the most
and live the longest!

danjama
09-14-2007, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
In America, the P51 has Legendary status.

In Great Britain, the Spitfire has legendary status.


I personally think that taking on the mighty luftwaffe alone with a few Spits (and hurris) in the face of almost certain defeat is rather more legendary than flying P51s against a germany already losing. The Hurri should also have Legedary status but the Spit wins cos it`s better looking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Most americans think the P51 is beautiful.

Most Britains think the Spitfire is beautiful.

Personally and as an artist the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane i`ve ever seen. I say as an artist because it`s also the most difficult plane to draw accurately and keep it`s beauty. Just like a beautiful woman. The fuselage and those wings especially are so well crafted that I sometimes have the same difficulty depicting it as drawing a sexy female. Get that wing even slightly wrong and the whole Spit will suddenly look ugly.

The P51 in contrast is easy to depict. Nothing too difficult to get a hold on. I would call the P51 handsome and the Spifire `beautiful` I guess.

I`m a Brit so I guess i`m biased anyway. and why has Sgt.Spec got a bigger pic of the P51 than spitfire? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But I do like the P51, just no way near as much as the spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

also in response to bearcat, nobody i know would recognise a mustang

sad but true

TheBandit_76
09-14-2007, 11:29 AM
Hate to spoil the Spitty-Party, but she was just a glamorous spokeswoman. The ugly sister did the heavy lifting.

Ugly, ugly, ugly.

http://www.maam.org/wwii/ww2_images/bob_18.jpg

BrotherVoodoo
09-14-2007, 11:30 AM
P-51 is my choice. I do love the guns in the Spit though even though they are short lived.

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2007, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:


also in response to bearcat, nobody i know would recognise a mustang

sad but true </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. Even the standard girly out on the town would know a Spitfire if you asked what it was... before she told you to `get lost, geek!`

But perhaps it`s probably the same way in the US with the P51.

faustnik
09-14-2007, 11:36 AM
Short range point defense, I'd take the Spit.

Long range escort or freijagd, I'd take the P-51.

fordfan25
09-14-2007, 11:46 AM
fact is it just depends in what part of the world you live in. the brits will scream spit fire the USA will scream
mustang,thunderbolt,lightning,hellcat,corsair,p40, wildcat, in germany thay will scream 109,190,me262, in Japan its zero.

fordfan25
09-14-2007, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:


also in response to bearcat, nobody i know would recognise a mustang

sad but true </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. Even the standard girly out on the town would know a Spitfire if you asked what it was... before she told you to `get lost, geek!`

But perhaps it`s probably the same way in the US with the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>maby in your part of the world. but remember your part of the world in but a small piece and thus does not mean that the spitfire is THE most recognized fighter. And in my town if you asked a girl something like that she would just tell you to get lost. then call her pimp "me" over to toss you :P lol

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2007, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:


Same here. Even the standard girly out on the town would know a Spitfire if you asked what it was... before she told you to `get lost, geek!`

But perhaps it`s probably the same way in the US with the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maby in your part of the world. but remember your part of the world in but a small piece and thus does not mean that the spitfire is THE most recognized fighter. And in my town if you asked a girl something like that she would just tell you to get lost. then call her pimp "me" over to toss you :P lol[/QUOTE]

What part of `But perhaps it`s probably the same way in the US with the P51.`
Did you not understand?

Guess the rest of America is waking up now...

SlickStick
09-14-2007, 12:15 PM
Cool, a poll about my two favorite WW2 planes! However, for sheer beauty, superior dogfighting and as a short range interceptor, my money is on the Spitfire.

The P-51 was the poster child for "Speed is Life" and was quite a bit better dogfighter than the game would lead you to believe, but given the choice, I would have wanted to fly that pretty little Spitfire gal.

P-51, as has been said, was quite adept at long range escort though and protecting our Allied bombers was a very critical mission back in WW2. I built several models of each as a kid. With the Stuka coming in third as one of my favorites. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/5034/spitfiremt928topviewob2.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6890/spitmkxivfi8.jpg

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2695/spitmkxivbacklo6.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7275/spitonyer6jv6.jpg

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8553/funnycatpictures202rv8.jpg

HellToupee
09-14-2007, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
If spitfires could carry ordnance, then I vote for spit, if not then P-51 wins. P-51 more versatile.

By the way do you mean which I prefer in IL2 or which I prefer in real life ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what? they even carry ordnance in il2, some also mounted rockets

Friendly_flyer
09-14-2007, 12:45 PM
If they bout where girls, the Mustang would be a long legged sporty girl. Good looking, but with a slightly androgynous look, more handsome than really beautiful. The Spitfire would be the classic beauty, a Sophia Loren in her prime.

Personally I'd go for a date with the Hurri, she'd be the kind of girl you could take to the pub and have a genuinely good time with.

Divine-Wind
09-14-2007, 12:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Note quite sure I agree with the description of the P-51 (I think it'd be more like the classic American actresses - Garland, Hepburn, Gardner, etc. - Than a handsome leggy gal), but this about comes close to what I think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Personally I'd go for a date with the Hurri, she'd be the kind of girl you could take to the pub and have a genuinely good time with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
About sums it up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bearcat99
09-14-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
fact is it just depends in what part of the world you live in. the brits will scream spit fire the USA will scream
mustang,thunderbolt,lightning,hellcat,corsair,p40, wildcat, in germany thay will scream 109,190,me262, in Japan its zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes... and every plane you mentioned is truly legendary in it's own right.

horseback
09-14-2007, 01:01 PM
I'll endorse the Mustang-as-Kate Hepburn analogy, but I'd question the Spitfire-as-Sophia Loren one. I'm pretty sure that Kate in her prime had a much tighter turning circle, as well as endurance superior to Loren's.

Name an English beauty of the era who meets the Spitfire standard as well as the young Katherine Hepburn does the Mustang's. I'd almost grant you Maureen O'Hara, but she was Irish.

cheers

horseback

PS-How 'bout Kate Beckinsale?

Viper2005_
09-14-2007, 01:24 PM
Spitfire.

The world's first transonic fighter deliberately designed as such, and in this respect at least 2 generations more conceptually advanced than its contemporaries. It is often forgotten that the Spitfire's maximum diving Mach number of 0.92 was only exceeded by the swept-wing F-86 in 1947...

It's a tragedy that Mitchell's career was so cruelly cut short. His creation was capable of Mach 0.85 in Squadron Service 1938 (see the dive limits in the POH). Kelly Johnson's P-38, whose construction commenced in 1938 never managed to exceed Mach 0.68 in controlled flight. Within 25 years, Johnson was capable of designing an aeroplane for Mach 3.2. One may only dream of what Mitchell might have achieved had he only been given a little more time. Had he even lived to see 1940 it is likely that his 360 mph heavy bomber would have dramatically reduced losses in Bomber command...

ultraHun
09-14-2007, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

Name an English beauty of the era who meets the Spitfire standard as well as the young Katherine Hepburn does the Mustang's. I'd almost grant you Maureen O'Hara, but she was Irish.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vivian Leigh, a true spitfire.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 01:24 PM
I think the Spitfire was a great plane damn sexy too but for this sim I prefer the Mustang. Spitfire is little twitchy for me and visibility is not that great and 20mm firing time is rather short. I have not been a turn and burner since original IL2 so it really does not fit my style of fighter as much as the Mustang.

S!

Kurfurst__
09-14-2007, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mustang for me. Far sleeker lines are winner for my taste, and the plane is equally impressive from the engineering POV. Versatility doesn't hurt either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I kid when I drew imaginary planes I never went for slick, I'd stick on weird bits, strange sticky out things and lots of angles resulting in something that looked like a cross between a mig 3 and a late 109G. Which is why I love the look of those now (still a big kid). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soft, curvy lines are attractive.. friendly, almost cute. When I look at the Sherman tank, the first thought about it is that it's a toy tank. I don't know why, but it looks like something that children would really enjoy rolling on floor. Then you go closer and you realize that it's actually not made out of plastic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
When I read read that nickname 'Beule' for the mid-109Gs, I always get the feeling it should be translated rather more something like as 'Bumpy' rather then 'Bulge'. Perhaps because the books written by veterans from around here always refer to the 109G as 'Gustie' rather than a more formal 'Gustav'.. Same mechanism I guess.

I guess if dr. Freud would be here he'd now start telling an alternate explantion, involving boobs and mother-complexes carried over from childhood. IOW, if you like bumpy planes, you're g@y. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bewolf
09-14-2007, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
If they bout where girls, the Mustang would be a long legged sporty girl. Good looking, but with a slightly androgynous look, more handsome than really beautiful. The Spitfire would be the classic beauty, a Sophia Loren in her prime.

Personally I'd go for a date with the Hurri, she'd be the kind of girl you could take to the pub and have a genuinely good time with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Mustang's more like Errol Flynn.

Can't help to think of a wide smilingly said "Hoorray! Coming to save the day! Fear not!"

Then it comes swinging down a rope and a saber in its hand.

RamsteinUSA
09-14-2007, 02:28 PM
since the P51 FM is totally wrong in IL-2 I cannot answer this poll. If the FM were correct I would choose the P51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

MEGILE
09-14-2007, 02:28 PM
hmmm.. I will have to consult my charts

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:29 PM
It all depends what you want for the mission.

DO you want a point defence dogfighter with amazing climb and turn. Great firepower, easy to fly and good top speed?

Or do you want an fighter with exceptionally range, weaker guns but much longer lasting ammunition, very fast with fast dive speed?

If you want to escort bombers long distances, then the Mustang is the superior choice. If you want to fight the enemy at closer ranges, or are primarily defending, then the Spitfire is the superior choice.

Both great planes at different jobs.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
since the P51 FM is totally wrong in IL-2 I cannot answer this poll. If the FM were correct I would choose the P51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From how you are speaking, you MUST have flown the P51 in combat...Only someone with that sort of experience could make such absolute statements.

If this is so then total respect mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

If you really are a P51 veteran, could you tell us what is wrong with the P51 flight model? Because from the books I have read, documents I have studied, the IL2 P51 seems quite close to the real plane. Maybe slightly too unstable sometimes?

Thanks for your opinons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-14-2007, 02:34 PM
If we're talking "truly legendary status", which I think was the original poster's intent, we've been here before (echoing Gumtree's post in this thread):-

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/486...801015104#3801015104 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4861097993?r=3801015104#3801015104)

"Low_Flyer_MkII Posted Sat January 21 2006 10:02

One of the things to take into consideration when discussing the Spitfire is it's place in the British psyche. It normally appears in any top ten list of great things about Britain. Can the same be said for the Bf109 or Fw190 when making a top ten list of great things about Germany? Or of the P-51 when making a list for the U.S.A? They are all very good fighter aeroplanes, but none can even come close to rivalling the Spifire in the affections of her native population. I'm not talking about flight-sim geeks and planespotters here - I'm talking about the entire literate population.

Want to test this theory out? Walk into a British pub wearing a Spitfire lapel pin or carrying a book/magazine with a Spifire on the cover. You will find people of all ages and both sexes willing to instigate conversation with you. Now try it with steam trains or airliners - feeling a little lonely? Attracted a weirdo? I rest my case.

To the British, the Spitfire is much more than a very good fighter aeroplane (which it undoubtedly was), it's a symbol of national identity; a beautifully potent reminder of a glorious past, a cherished memento of a time when - against all the odds - Britain stood up to a dark threat to humanity and played a leading role in making the world a better place. It's a part of British national heritage - you might as well try and belittle Shakespeare or real ale. The Spitfire is up there with a decent cup of tea, fish and chips, curry, Churchill, Nelson and the Beatles - you'll never convince the British otherwise. And quite rightly so."

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:36 PM
I dont think the FW190 or Bf109 would ever be in a list of the top ten things about Germany, since most good Germans would like to forget this period in history.

Maybe once the holocaust/attrocities/warmongering is forgotten in a a few hundred years, the FW190/MG42/STG44/Me109 will be included.

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 02:37 PM
When I see 'Beule' I think of mule, a rather cantagerous and obstitent animal.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:40 PM
MY favourite at the moment for sheer looks :-


http://www.error-net.com/webhost/sts/ftp/privtommy/109g6.jpg

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 03:09 PM
I also love this one :-

http://www.arc-duxford.co.uk/images/spitfire.jpg

R_Target
09-14-2007, 03:29 PM
Never been a huge fan of either.

Bearcat99
09-14-2007, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
From how you are speaking, you MUST have flown the P51 in combat...Only someone with that sort of experience could make such absolute statements.
If this is so then total respect mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
If you really are a P51 veteran, could you tell us what is wrong with the P51 flight model? Because from the books I have read, documents I have studied, the IL2 P51 seems quite close to the real plane. Maybe slightly too unstable sometimes?
Thanks for your opinons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You dont have to fhave flown a P-51 to know that there are some things in this sim aboput the P-51 that are off... it is way too unstable... it seems to go into spins at any speed.. and down low forget it.. even if you are fast.... as a gun platform it is very twitchy.... and it still accelerates a bit too slow and when Zeros can catch you in a dive then ....... but having said all that it is still a decent plane and it's shortcomings don't make it a total dog. But to say that it doesn't have issues... issues that go beyond the issues that many of the other AC in this sim have.. it's greatness (the sim) notwithstanding is to just refuse to see.

Frequent_Flyer
09-14-2007, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
From how you are speaking, you MUST have flown the P51 in combat...Only someone with that sort of experience could make such absolute statements.
If this is so then total respect mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
If you really are a P51 veteran, could you tell us what is wrong with the P51 flight model? Because from the books I have read, documents I have studied, the IL2 P51 seems quite close to the real plane. Maybe slightly too unstable sometimes?
Thanks for your opinons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You dont have to fhave flown a P-51 to know that there are some things in this sim aboput the P-51 that are off... it is way too unstable... it seems to go into spins at any speed.. and down low forget it.. even if you are fast.... as a gun platform it is very twitchy.... and it still accelerates a bit too slow and when Zeros can catch you in a dive then ....... but having said all that it is still a decent plane and it's shortcomings don't make it a total dog. But to say that it doesn't have issues... issues that go beyond the issues that many of the other AC in this sim have.. it's greatness (the sim) notwithstanding is to just refuse to see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bear, your diplomacy when commenting is always a welcome and refreshing change. Especially when it seems to be the same crowd repeating the same worn out unimaginative challenge- "Prove to me Oleg has the P-51 wrong,"

Divine-Wind
09-14-2007, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
MY favourite at the moment for sheer looks :-

[Snippity] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The later 109 models always catch my eye. Everything from the rounded spinner to the small thin tail just looks sleek... At least to me... Though I prefer the types with the smoothed out gun bulges.

MB_Avro_UK
09-14-2007, 04:12 PM
Hi all,

IMHO you can't compare the two. The Mustang had a different job to the Spitfire.

Its almost like saying that the Lancaster was better than the Spitfire because it could carry more bombs further...

But there is something that I've never quite worked out. As regards escorting B-17s before the P-51 appeared, P-47s and sometimes Spitfires were escorts but couldn't of course make the full trip.

Why weren't the P-47s and Spits equipped with drop tanks to enhance their range.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

berg417448
09-14-2007, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:



Why weren't the P-47s and Spits equipped with drop tanks to enhance their range.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were.

dugong
09-14-2007, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

Personally and as an artist the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane i`ve ever seen. I say as an artist because it`s also the most difficult plane to draw accurately and keep it`s beauty. Just like a beautiful woman. The fuselage and those wings especially are so well crafted that I sometimes have the same difficulty depicting it as drawing a sexy female. Get that wing even slightly wrong and the whole Spit will suddenly look ugly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seafire -

Ahhh - a fellow artist. I have a hankering for doing a painting of a Seafire, of which I am currently doing. I am actually using an IL2 screen shot. My last piece was a drawing which was partially destroyed and I turned it into my sig.

As for which I like to draw/paint, I agree, the Spit has an almost perfect aesthetic. Funny though,sometimes I prefer the hard, angular lines of modern jet fighters, especially Migs and such. I guess to keep the women analogy - It it is like the soft, inviting forms of a pinup girl versus the angular body of today's supermodels. They each have their own merits!

As for the P-51 vs. Spit, I like the Spit better but I think the P-51 is more legendary. Many more people around the world would recognize that fighter more than the Spit I would think.

MB_Avro_UK
09-14-2007, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:



Why weren't the P-47s and Spits equipped with drop tanks to enhance their range.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ok http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Were drop tanks used for B-17 escort missions?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Divine-Wind
09-14-2007, 05:14 PM
They were on P-47's, no sure about Spits... Though I'm assuming so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dugong:
My last piece was a drawing which was partially destroyed and I turned it into my sig. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And it looks bloody awesome. You've got talent, pal. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
MY favourite at the moment for sheer looks :-


http://www.error-net.com/webhost/sts/ftp/privtommy/109g6.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats puuuurty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
since the P51 FM is totally wrong in IL-2 I cannot answer this poll. If the FM were correct I would choose the P51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From how you are speaking, you MUST have flown the P51 in combat...Only someone with that sort of experience could make such absolute statements.

If this is so then total respect mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

If you really are a P51 veteran, could you tell us what is wrong with the P51 flight model? Because from the books I have read, documents I have studied, the IL2 P51 seems quite close to the real plane. Maybe slightly too unstable sometimes?

Thanks for your opinons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang is probably closer to its real world FM then any other plane in the sim. The PTO aircraft are pretty close as well. My opinion anyway.

S!

ImpStarDuece
09-14-2007, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:



Why weren't the P-47s and Spits equipped with drop tanks to enhance their range.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ok http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Were drop tanks used for B-17 escort missions?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfires were equipped with 30, 45 and 90 gallon 'slipper' type drop tanks as standard from the Mk V onwards. Thse fit snigly against the lower fuselage of the fighter. The Griffon engined Mk XII flew most of its missions with 45 gal drop tanks fitted, as the bigger engine consumed more fuel than the Merlin, shortening the range.

Some Spitfires, prmarily those based in Malta and North Africa, were also modified to take two of the 44 gallon 'airship' type drop tanks, usually used on the Hurricane.

There was also a 170 gal fixed belly tank, which was used for one way transit flights. Some Mk Vs were also modified with 33 1/2 gal rear fusleage tanks for ferry flights to Malta.

Later Mks, including some Mk XIIs and all Mk VIIs, VIIIs and XIVs got additional internal fuel in the form of two 13 or 18 gallon wing tanks and an enlarged front upper fuel tank with an extra 10 gallons.

Some later production MK IXs and most XVIs also got 66 gallon rear fuel tanks. These had a negative effect on handling, making the Spitfire unstable in aeroobatic manouvers, and were to be burn off first, much like the 85 gal rear fuel tank on the P-51.

In the ETO the four high altitude Mk VII squadrons, which had the extra wing tanks (but no rear fuselage tanks) didn't recieve much trade at 35-40,000 feet, so they were used as medium/long range daytime escorts for RAF heavies and USAAF mediums. Fitted with 90 gal drop tanks, they set the record for range and time for Spitfire escort missions, logging some flights of just over four and a half hours while escorting Lancasters.

Viper2005_
09-14-2007, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
You dont have to fhave flown a P-51 to know that there are some things in this sim aboput the P-51 that are off... it is way too unstable... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Relative to what? Where's your data?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it seems to go into spins at any speed.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems?
This sounds much more like a problem with your control inceptors than with the simulation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and down low forget it.. even if you are fast.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Forget what? Against what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as a gun platform it is very twitchy.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Control inceptors again

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> and it still accelerates a bit too slow </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Relative to what? Where's your data, and what is it based upon?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> and when Zeros can catch you in a dive then ....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then what? If you get slow and then unload:

1) Gravity is the same for everybody
2) Drag is insignificant

Therefore it's all about thrust:weight ratio. Since Zeros are light, I'd expect them to win until you get enough knots on the clock to make drag a factor. If you didn't have enough initial separation to get to that speed before the Zero closed to gunrange then I'm afraid that's not your P-51's fault...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> but having said all that it is still a decent plane and it's shortcomings don't make it a total dog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's more than a decent plane. It's a safe plane to fly, because its speed gives you the option to refuse combat unless the situation is favourable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But to say that it doesn't have issues... issues that go beyond the issues that many of the other AC in this sim have.. it's greatness (the sim) notwithstanding is to just refuse to see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst it certainly isn't perfectly modelled (no aeroplane is or can be), to suggest that it has "issues" which are more severe than those afflicting the other aeroplanes in the sim is to suggest that you have somehow objectively measured the issues afflicting the other aeroplanes in the sim.

I don't think that it is fair or reasonable to make what amount to emotional attacks upon a Flight Model which, right or wrong, we are told has been based upon objective data.

Now, if you complained about the P-51 suffering from excessive rack drag, and excessive cooling drag, I'd be in full agreement, because there's a considerable amount of hard data available to support that position. But imprecise complaints based upon subjective opinion rather than data are counter-productive IMO because they merely serve to fan the flames.

&lt;dons hard hat and awaits incoming&gt;

faustnik
09-14-2007, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
&lt;dons hard hat and awaits incoming&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please pass those out for everybody Viper.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viper2005_
09-14-2007, 05:47 PM
If I had a spare, I'd probably be sitting on it...

faustnik
09-14-2007, 05:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: if you like bumpy planes, you're g@y. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh cripes, nobody tell the woman I'm marrying.

Yeah I like bumpy planes, and I'm proud of it!

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2007, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dugong:

Seafire -

Ahhh - a fellow artist. I have a hankering for doing a painting of a Seafire, of which I am currently doing. I am actually using an IL2 screen shot. My last piece was a drawing which was partially destroyed and I turned it into my sig.

As for which I like to draw/paint, I agree, the Spit has an almost perfect aesthetic. Funny though,sometimes I prefer the hard, angular lines of modern jet fighters, especially Migs and such. I guess to keep the women analogy - It it is like the soft, inviting forms of a pinup girl versus the angular body of today's supermodels. They each have their own merits!

As for the P-51 vs. Spit, I like the Spit better but I think the P-51 is more legendary. Many more people around the world would recognize that fighter more than the Spit I would think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice to meet a fellow artist. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I knew any artist would understand. I get most of my aircraft pics from IL2 screenshots too. In fact it`s IL2 that solely got me interested in doing WWII aircraft and for that I`m grateful to the sim.

But i must disagree about the status thing. I still go for the Spitfire.

Nice sig, btw.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and when Zeros can catch you in a dive then ....... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not met a Zeke yet that I was not able to out dive or out run in a US aircraft. My experience anyway. You have to give your self at least 8500 feet or so from the deck.

S!

Bearcat99
09-14-2007, 11:18 PM
You need a hard hat about as much as I need charts.. which I don't have and wouldn't post if I had them. It is what it is... and I still stand by what I said... I will still fly the P-51 in here of course.. because I like the plane... whether or not I feel it could be better in this sim..

I have done the same maneuver at the same speed.... down low I stall... up high I don't.... in fact it just happened to me tonight... and don't give me that ground effect bit.... why is it that still I can hit better in a P-40 than a P-51 mainly because the P-51 is not as stable.. it has nothing to do with the 50s... ? The P-51 was not that twitchy...... It is what it is.... but it does habve it's warts... and all of it's warts and some of them are ahistorical. I dont expect to be able to fly circles around everyother aircraft in the sim... but there are flaws in the P-51 here... even if it is the best combat sim P-51 to date.... at least that I know of.

Folks talk about it's speed.. and yes it is fast... but I find myself very often trying to catch planes that just continue to pull away... and as soon as I turn to disengage... they turn and catch me.... now maybe that is not an FM thing.. maybe it is an AI thing... because it happens more with AI than live pilots.. but it does happen with live pilots as well... There is a difference between stating issues and whining... hence no charts... because real world charts mean didly in this sim, and I don t have the time or patience to undergo stringent testing... but I know that the plane has flaws...

Waldo.Pepper
09-14-2007, 11:35 PM
I wonder if those of us who find the P-51 laking fly the plane in accordance with these tips originally posted by GH_Klingstroem in this thread ...
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/564...641027835#5641027835 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5641027835?r=5641027835#5641027835)

Ok guys I have seen many posts about the p51 in game. I must say that personally I find it to be one of the safest and nicest plane to fly! NOTHING ingame will keep E as a P51, not even a Dora9 but it comes very very close!!

First, make sure to notice what ur manifold pressure does! In the P51 D-model for example you can see that ur manifold with boost(WEP) enabled will decrease from sealevel from 72 to 62 and when it reaches 62MAP (at around 3300m) disable it! No point to enable WEP if it wont give u extra power! and it wont till you reach 5500-5600m. Between these altitudes it will produce lots of heat but no extra power!

So stay below 3000m or above 5500 if you want to use WEP for extra power!

Lots of people comlain about overheating problems. Believe me, there are NONE!!
Once you go level after a climb, leave rads fully open for say 30 secs and at the same time come back on proppitch to 80% for level flight. Then close rads fully and never open them again and stay at 100% power and she WILL NOT overheat!You can even engage WEP and she wont overheat if prop pitch is low! Try to keep it around 2600-2700 RPM (green arc) and she will be fine and FAST as hell!!! Now, fly with these settings and notice what tremendous speed advantge u get! In dives, come back on proppitch and only in full vertical climb let the proppitch come up to 100%. If she overheats, come back on proppitch and open rads to maybe 2-4 and then close it again!

TRIM!! I cannot say this enough, a well trimmed P51 is very very fast and very very stable!! When speed increase, the ball will go left and the ball is pointing towards the rudder that must be pressed. So ball left - more left rudder trim! Keep the ball centered!

Elevator trim, VERY VERY important for all AC in game! make sure the she is trimmed for te speed you fly at, simple let go of the controls as see what she does on the vertical speed indicator! You can lose 20-50 km/h or more if she is untrimmed and constantly have to push the nose down/up with your stick!

Dogfight, well, dont dogfight unless you see the fuelage behind ur left shoulder below, 50-60 USGAL. When it is, you can outturn most Fw190 and most 109s(but still with the 109s ,dont get too slow with them) and if you decide to gor for TnB, trim the nose up to make tighter turns easierand set 100% prop pitch ( she will eventyualy overheat with these settings tho)! Combat flaps will help very much in the P51! If it doesnt go the way u want it to, point the nose down, come back on prop pitch and give full power and you can leave all but the Dora 9 behind easely. make sure to trim her to every increase in km/h of speed! And watch that speed drop VERY VERY slowly because if she is well trimmed and rads closed she will NOT drop speed fast!! She will keep E 4-ever!

Personally I try NOT to dogfight unless my fuel behind me is below half the gauge indication.
NEVER take more than 50% fuel in the P51! Sometimes, take 25% with droptanks and when u release them, u can fly for 30 mins and u will be very manouverable!!

Belive me if you do all this, you will see how fast she is!! German AC dont have rudder trim and still most people dont even look at the ball so they will lose speed much faster than you when the try to follow you at high speed. (exeption is Dora 9 that can follow u)

Convergence- Ok this is very personal, I have been experimenting with this for along time offline and set up alot of friendly targets and fired at them at the distance I thought came closets to the distances I fire at targets Online. I was suprised to see that most of the time, my targets are inside the 150m arc so I fly with a convergence setting of 120-140m and it does wonders for me now! Especially when sneaking up on someones six from below. Fire when the 190 and 109s wingtips are just on the yellow circle or even outside them and most of ur rounds will hit your target and cripple them!

The best hit % I have had was 57% with these settings, no need to say the target lost both wings and went on fire. and that was 190D9.

Fw190s perform rather bad at 3000m where their first supercharger stage is pretty low on power and the second stage hasent engaged yet so they will be rather low on power, but u still have plenty!

But most important of all these tips are, the TRIM and the CLOSE RADS fully and come back on proppitch!

Try it out and you will notice a whole different plane! Pls report back here! Wink2
cheers!

WOODY01
09-15-2007, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If they bout where girls, the Mustang would be a long legged sporty girl. Good looking, but with a slightly androgynous look, more handsome than really beautiful. The Spitfire would be the classic beauty, a Sophia Loren in her prime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going from P51 to Spitfire all through the thread until I came to that quote, putting it that way Id have to go with the P51 simply down to stamina and versitility.

My guess is most New Zealanders on the street would easially recognise both types.

Friendly_flyer
09-15-2007, 03:55 AM
Legendary status of Spitfire vs. P-51

I am quite sure which of the two are most instantly recognisable to the general populace is depending on what images they have been raised with. In the US and Britain the case is clear-cut. In mainland Europe I think the Spitfire is in the lead, because a lot of pilots fleeing the German invasions ended up flying Spitfires for the RAF rather than Mustangs. At least that is the case in Norway where I come from. In South-East Asia I imagine the Mustang is in the lead, because the area where (and still is) under a lot of American cultural influence.

To see what plane is most legendary, I guess it's a matter of summing up the populations, multiply by the fraction of people able to recognize any aeroplane, and you'd get the answer in hard numbers.

Now, US and South-East Asia has a lot more people than Europe, but the population is younger (especially in Asia) and has lower average education. I think we're fairly close to a draw.

Having said all this, the Spitfire has the advantage over the Mustang in that its shape is more distinct. The mustang, for all its good qualities, looks much like any other WWII aeroplane. The Spitfires lines where never really repeated in any other designs.

JG53Frankyboy
09-15-2007, 04:07 AM
and in game avoid wingracks (for Bombs / Droptanks), both in the P-51s and Spits !
after release of the tanks/bombs the wingracks slow you down ~30km/h (at least at SL).

the fuselage rack of the Spitfire costs "only" ~10km/h.

Xiolablu3
09-15-2007, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
From how you are speaking, you MUST have flown the P51 in combat...Only someone with that sort of experience could make such absolute statements.
If this is so then total respect mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
If you really are a P51 veteran, could you tell us what is wrong with the P51 flight model? Because from the books I have read, documents I have studied, the IL2 P51 seems quite close to the real plane. Maybe slightly too unstable sometimes?
Thanks for your opinons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You dont have to fhave flown a P-51 to know that there are some things in this sim aboput the P-51 that are off... it is way too unstable... it seems to go into spins at any speed.. and down low forget it.. even if you are fast.... as a gun platform it is very twitchy.... and it still accelerates a bit too slow and when Zeros can catch you in a dive then ....... but having said all that it is still a decent plane and it's shortcomings don't make it a total dog. But to say that it doesn't have issues... issues that go beyond the issues that many of the other AC in this sim have.. it's greatness (the sim) notwithstanding is to just refuse to see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bear, your diplomacy when commenting is always a welcome and refreshing change. Especially when it seems to be the same crowd repeating the same worn out unimaginative challenge- "Prove to me Oleg has the P-51 wrong," </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is the correct response to someone who says he 'knows' that the P51 is wrong.

Ask him what are his credentials?
What exactly is 'wrong'?

Should Oleg change the P51 model just because some guy who has read a book, thinks that the P51 is not 'owning' enough?

I am all for getting things closer to reality, but lets wait for the real evidence before changing anything PLEASE.

Xiolablu3
09-15-2007, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
since the P51 FM is totally wrong in IL-2 I cannot answer this poll. If the FM were correct I would choose the P51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From how you are speaking, you MUST have flown the P51 in combat...Only someone with that sort of experience could make such absolute statements.

If this is so then total respect mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

If you really are a P51 veteran, could you tell us what is wrong with the P51 flight model? Because from the books I have read, documents I have studied, the IL2 P51 seems quite close to the real plane. Maybe slightly too unstable sometimes?

Thanks for your opinons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang is probably closer to its real world FM then any other plane in the sim. The PTO aircraft are pretty close as well. My opinion anyway.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest Havok, I dont know for sure if it is close or not - I have never flown one.

But I definitely know Oleg should only listen to people with credentials before he changes the flight model, thats just common sense...

If someone is saying its 'completely wrong' then please tell us how you know this? If you have flown a P51 before then people will surely listen to you.

Bearcat99
09-15-2007, 07:08 AM
How many times in this thread did I say.. It is what it is... I never once asked Oleg to change it on my recommendations. He's the developer not me....

As for Klingstoem's thread.. good info... I don't remember seeing it... perhaps I am flying the plane wrong... but much of what he says in there I do... and I just dont see the P-51 holding E better than any plane in the game.. but again.. maybe it is me.... regardless I will still fly the plane because as I also said in just about each post here.. I like the P-51...

DKoor
09-15-2007, 07:23 AM
IMO the possible fault with the P-51 is insane instability on high speed, dunno if it's normal that several ton heavy ac makes a hummingbird flip over on high speed.

That may have something to do with highly sensitive elevator, but still.

I usually say "I think" when rl stuff is in question. With in game stuff things are different, they can mostly be checked, some of the stuff are now child's play thanks to the great guy LesniHU.

Bearcat99
09-15-2007, 09:21 AM
It is still a good plane but it has a few issues... No show stoppers but it does have issues..

Waldo.Pepper
09-15-2007, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
As for Klingstoem's thread.. good info... I don't remember seeing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Bearcat, I thought we could all use a gentle reminder of Klingstoem's considerable wisdom.

It seems to me that the "Oleg P-51" is an EXTREMELY sensitive plane with very fine tolerances.

It is likely the hardest plane to get the most out of in this game. Don't know why this is so, but I think this is a major explanation as to why there seems to be epic frustration with it.

[By sensitive I mean sensitive (as in picky) to EVERYTHING (player skill, the computer that the player flies on, and other peripheral hardware. It makes the plane very demanding and challenging to get the most out of. If a player doesn't have good equipment (rudder pedals etc.) it will be even harder to do well with the plane.

SeaFireLIV
09-15-2007, 01:04 PM
Curious about english people knowing what a P51 was, i decided to test my daughter on it as she was watching TV. I asked if she knew what a "P51" was, no more details than that.

She says,"Don`t know."

Aha, I thought.

Then a couple of seconds later she says,

"A plane."

"American."



I was impressed.

Or maybe it`s my influence? I`m pretty certain I never mention the P51 around her... or maybe I have...

Friendly_flyer
09-15-2007, 01:53 PM
I have tried to make my wife tell a few basic WWII fighters apart. She can usually pick out the P-38 ("the ugly one") and on a good day she can spot a Hurricane ("because it has a fabric tail and a greenhouse cockpit). The Mustang looks like any other plane to her, the only one she can name with a bit of consistency is the Spitfire, as long as she can see the wing profile.

As to the most famous and recognisable fighter plane to the general populace, I'm afraid it's neither of the two. Rather it's an antiquated design of wood and fabric, usually shown in a red paint-job...

BillyTheKid_22
09-15-2007, 04:29 PM
P-51 Mustang and Supermarine Spitfire!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s37/bkid_01/eelde05_027.jpg?t=1189895884

Whirlin_merlin
09-15-2007, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
P-51 Mustang and Supermarine Spitfire!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo!
Couldn't agree more.

Bearcat99
09-15-2007, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
As for Klingstoem's thread.. good info... I don't remember seeing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Bearcat, I thought we could all use a gentle reminder of Klingstoem's considerable wisdom.

It seems to me that the "Oleg P-51" is an EXTREMELY sensitive plane with very fine tolerances.

It is likely the hardest plane to get the most out of in this game. Don't know why this is so, but I think this is a major explanation as to why there seems to be epic frustration with it.

[By sensitive I mean sensitive (as in picky) to EVERYTHING (player skill, the computer that the player flies on, and other peripheral hardware. It makes the plane very demanding and challenging to get the most out of. If a player doesn't have good equipment (rudder pedals etc.) it will be even harder to do well with the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TRue.. and as for Kling's thread.. I obviously saw it because I posted in it on the fist page.. I just dont remember doing it... but I still feel the way I stated in the post... and I still think the plane has issues.. but the one thing about this sim that I still find refreshing.. even in light of some relatively recent events... it is that the sim is not easily modded... so usually unless I see some outright bizzaro stuff... when I get shot down I know it is usually me.... but the gripes I mentioned with the sim are very real... at least to me. But who am I ... just another flight sim junkie.....

Hey Seafire how old is your daughter?

Korolov1986
09-15-2007, 04:55 PM
I'd chuck the P-51 in favor of P-38 for the "known" category - especially if you're talking to Americans.

To people 'in the know', the Pony is recognizable; but people outside of that influence, I think the Lightning takes the cake. I say this because I recall the P-38's unique shape in lots of cultural items - for example, you can often find the plane being used in cartoons. The shape is almost unmistakable compared to the P-51, which to the untrained eye can be mixed up with the 109, 190, Spit, and many other aircraft.

The P-38's unique shape - whether you like it or hate it - is hard to miss.

SeaFireLIV
09-15-2007, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Hey Seafire how old is your daughter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

15 going on 25. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hoenire
09-15-2007, 05:35 PM
Spitfire

The P51 only started playing at half-time. Sure it did a great job, but as a super sub, not a star player. Ergo, it is an icon but not a plane that is legendary.

(And yes I do like footballing analogies!)

JG6_Oddball
09-15-2007, 06:00 PM
HE100D...errr I mean ARADO 234B...ok ok the spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Bearcat99
09-15-2007, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Hey Seafire how old is your daughter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

15 going on 25. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.. so you went through the werewolf like puberty bit .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif You're like...."Who ARE you...?

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
Spitfire

The P51 only started playing at half-time. Sure it did a great job, but as a super sub, not a star player. Ergo, it is an icon but not a plane that is legendary.

(And yes I do like footballing analogies!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There may be some bomber pilots that tend to disagree a bit. But I think it is clear that the Spitfire was far more important to the British then the Mustang was to the Americans.

S!

Friendly_flyer
09-16-2007, 12:49 AM
I think you're spot on there HaVoK. USA fought very large part of the war in the Pacific, where other planes (P-40, Corsair, the "Cat"-series) where perhaps just as important. But perhaps more important, the US never experienced a blitz or being on the brink of loosing and being occupied.

horseback
09-16-2007, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
As for Klingstoem's thread.. good info... I don't remember seeing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Bearcat, I thought we could all use a gentle reminder of Klingstoem's considerable wisdom.

It seems to me that the "Oleg P-51" is an EXTREMELY sensitive plane with very fine tolerances.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It is likely the hardest plane to get the most out of in this game.</span> Don't know why this is so, but I think this is a major explanation as to why there seems to be epic frustration with it.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">[By sensitive I mean sensitive (as in picky) to EVERYTHING (player skill, the computer that the player flies on, and other peripheral hardware. It makes the plane very demanding and challenging to get the most out of. If a player doesn't have good equipment (rudder pedals etc.) it will be even harder to do well with the plane.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TRue.. and as for Kling's thread.. I obviously saw it because I posted in it on the fist page.. I just dont remember doing it... but I still feel the way I stated in the post... and I still think the plane has issues.. but the one thing about this sim that I still find refreshing.. even in light of some relatively recent events... it is that the sim is not easily modded... so usually unless I see some outright bizzaro stuff... when I get shot down I know it is usually me.... but the gripes I mentioned with the sim are very real... at least to me. But who am I ... just another flight sim junkie... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This is one thing that I agree with Waldo about -- although I'm on my third rig wherein the Mustang just seems almost untrimmable, so much of what Bearcat expresses is similar to my own experience.

This is what is so counterintuitive about the situation, because in actuality, the Mustang was an extremely easy aircraft to get the most out of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">compared to it's contemporaries.</span>

I sometimes wonder if Oleg & Co. took the fairly common simplified description of the P-51 as 'a faster high-alt version of the P-40' to it's logical extreme...including the real life P-40's demands for re-trimming with every 5-8 mph change in speed, which was certainly NOT the actual case with the Mustang. Every comparison of the two by men who flew them both makes it clear that the Mustang was much less demanding of the pilot at all speeds and far more forgiving of mistakes (a matter of degree; ANY late WWII fighter was a demanding mistress. The Mustang was just more of a Debbie Reynolds than a Zsa Zsa Gabor, if you get my drift).

cheers

horseback

PS-you seem to be taking your sig quotes from Battlestar Galactica lately, Bearcat. Excellant choices, too. I love the show, but I wish they'd get the 3.0 DVD set released already.

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 01:54 PM
Yeah.. and silly me.... I thought it was strictly the writing and the action until I heard Starbuck & Apollo on comms in one episode and it was textbook brevity. BSG is basically a carrier in space.

PanzerkwgnIV
09-16-2007, 02:07 PM
I admire the Republic P47 Thunderbolt and the Fw190A as they have durable construction and they can dogfight very well. As long as you dont turn fight that is.

Manu-6S
09-16-2007, 02:33 PM
I choose the P51 and it's not because I hate Spitfire (infact I like that plane since I was a child... I only hate its FM in this game).

The P51 is faster and has a beautiful shape IMO.

Every time I have to fly Red to even teams I take P51 if allowed.

Of course it lacks in fire power compared to FW190s (and nobody will ever change my mind on this)... to be succesful you need to ambush and hit hard or team working.

IMO it retains energy in vertical manouvre better than the most of ingame planes... and if you lose wings in a dive it only a pilot mistake.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IMO it retains energy in vertical manouvre better than the most of ingame planes... and if you lose wings in a dive it only a pilot mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe Tagerts test confirmed this. Correct me if Im wrong.

S!

CUJO_1970
09-16-2007, 02:57 PM
P-51 Mustang for me.

IMO, the Mustang is simply a faster, more modern, more versatile aircraft than the Spitfire.

Manu-6S
09-16-2007, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IMO it retains energy in vertical manouvre better than the most of ingame planes... and if you lose wings in a dive it only a pilot mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe Tagerts test confirmed this. Correct me if Im wrong.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I confirm, better than P51 should be only the "Monster-Mustang" (the British version) IIRC.

However I "feel" (the magic word) his vertical ability directly ingame.

His only problem is the always needed trim change, but it should be hystorically correct.

But I will never believe that it was a superb dogfigher; no way.

Xiolablu3
09-16-2007, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I choose the P51 and it's not because I hate Spitfire (infact I like that plane since I was a child... I only hate its FM in this game).

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still dont understand why... the REAL SPitfire IX has an incredible power to weight ratio, and very low wing loading, coupled with extremely 'easy to fly' characteristics.

It had an excellent turn rate in the European theatre, and was very close in the turn to some of the Japanese fighters.

The Japanese Am63 is an even better fighter in a 1942 scenario, and slightly faster than the SPitfire MkV in the game. WHy dont you hate the Zero flight model too?

The Ki84 is much faster than ANY Japnese report says it is (all Japanese reports state 392mph, ours does close to 430mph), and it handles very VERY nicely in the game. Bascially a Spitfire mkIX but even faster! WHy not 'hate' the Ki84 too?


I dont understand why you hate the Spitfire flight model so much, yet never speak about the Ki84/Zero/Jack/Raiden which are just as nice handling, with very similar flight models/characteristics. High power to weight, very light and very low wingloading.

WHy single out the Spitfire for 'teh hate'?

Vike
09-16-2007, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I still dont understand why... the REAL SPitfire IX has an incredible power to weight ratio, and very low wing loading, coupled with extremely 'easy to fly' characteristics.
(...)WHy single out the Spitfire for 'teh hate'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For me,its FM is right.I think Manu6S was talking about the MkIX over(c)heating behaviour,permitting anyone to fly at max rpm all the time,in combat or not... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Like Manu6S,when i was a child,i loved the Spitfire too.But i precise that i progressively love the Me109 long time before IL2 came-out in 2001.It would be rather long to explain...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

To get back to this thread,i would chose the P51.
I appreciate the P51 lines,i mean the B and C models which are more aerodynamic than the bulged cockpit in the D model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I find it homogeneous,i.e. it has a very long range with a quite long time of fire.
In the perfect opposite,we get the Me109-Late: It has a shorter range and a short time of fire!
Both have homogeneous characteristics to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
-Indeed,what would be the interest having a plane able to fly on 1000km for only 6 seconds of fire?
-In the same way,what would be the interest to have a plane with a range of 500km with more than 30sec of fire?
So the P51 firepower is rather weak,but it has the right characteritics for the purposes that was given to him.

Ok now,i think it's time to show my real beloved plane:

Compact,sounder,fast,agile and powerful armament...the Me109! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/G10K4-2.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/G10K4.jpg

I photoshoped the wheels in order the make it "Kurfurst Like".
This is actually Hans Dittes'Schwarze-Zwei,a Me109-G10.

Enjoy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@+

JG53Frankyboy
09-16-2007, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I dont understand why you hate the Spitfire flight model so much, yet never speak about the Ki84/..../Raiden ................ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you just missed these topics or to read the specific forums......... ZekevsWildcat as example or the old VOW2 ones !

even the Zero, that has some flaws in its FM that its pilot has to care about is sometimes blamed for its "too good high speed manouverability" , or actually that i can manouver at all at higher speeds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-16-2007, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:
.............................

Ok now,i think it's time to show my real beloved plane:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

last weekend here in germany
http://flgkp21.mk-servicenet.de/include.php?path=conten...es.php&contentid=156 (http://flgkp21.mk-servicenet.de/include.php?path=content/articles.php&contentid=156)

Vike
09-16-2007, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:last weekend here in germany
http://flgkp21.mk-servicenet.de/include.php?path=conten...es.php&contentid=156 (http://flgkp21.mk-servicenet.de/include.php?path=content/articles.php&contentid=156) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
09-16-2007, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:
.............................

Ok now,i think it's time to show my real beloved plane:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

last weekend here in germany
http://flgkp21.mk-servicenet.de/include.php?path=conten...es.php&contentid=156 (http://flgkp21.mk-servicenet.de/include.php?path=content/articles.php&contentid=156) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh....my.............god.....

Those photos are AWESOME!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 08:24 PM
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/G10K4-2.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/G10K4.jpg

Terrific pics man. Thanks, they are on my HD now... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

S!

Frequent_Flyer
09-16-2007, 08:38 PM
An interesting and unbiased perspective on this topic from some of the Polish pilots during WWII. Some flew the Spit and the P-51.

They were the best pilots to fight in the battle of Britian.The Polish No. 303 acheiving top score for any RAF fighter unit of the BOB. 126 confirmed kills despite the squadron only participating in the second half on the campaign.
Most Polish pilots prefered the P-51. It had incomparable range, it was much faster than the Spit. They had no trouble turning with either the 109 or 190. They predominately flew the 4 X .50 version. Thier tactics were to close in on top of their victim apparently 4 X .50 were enough. I concurr on all points. As for looks, not a single other fighter from any of the combatants looks more aggressive than the bare metal P-51D. It just screams - Don't run you'll only die tired.

Xiolablu3
09-16-2007, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
An interesting and unbiased perspective on this topic from some of the Polish pilots during WWII. Some flew the Spit and the P-51.

They were the best pilots to fight in the battle of Britian.The Polish No. 303 acheiving top score for any RAF fighter unit of the BOB. 126 confirmed kills despite the squadron only participating in the second half on the campaign.
Most Polish pilots prefered the P-51. It had incomparable range, it was much faster than the Spit. They had no trouble turning with either the 109 or 190. They predominately flew the 4 X .50 version. Thier tactics were to close in on top of their victim apparently 4 X .50 were enough. I concurr on all points. As for looks, not a single other fighter from any of the combatants looks more aggressive than the bare metal P-51D. It just screams - Don't run you'll only die tired. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats very interesting because everytime I have seen anyone comparing the two planes, having flown them both, they always say they prefer the Spitfire....

Could you please get the quote/piece where you read that please Frequent flyer?
I would be very interested to read it becasue its something very new to me...

All the quotes I read about pilots transferring from SPitfires to P47's really hated the transition, and anytime I see anyone comparing the P51 and Spitfire, I have always seen them preffering the Spitfire..

FOr example these Israeli Air Force pilots (American and Canadian Mercenaries flying just after the war) are comparing the Spitfire IX LF with the P51D, Thunderbolt and Avia S199 (he calls it a messerschmitt but its not really).:-

Flying the Types: a Comparison

Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)


During his air combat career, George Lichter spent extensive time in the P-47, the P-51D, the S-199, and the Spitfire LF9. He felt the S-199 flew like ****, saying "You really had to fly it all the time." He loved the Thunderbolt's power and armor and preferred it over the P-51 for combat duty. While he felt the P-51 was perhaps more maneuverable, it had an Achilles heel - its inline engine, which if hit would conk out quickly. The P-51's Merlin engine would give you 30 minutes at the absolute most after being hit. The P-47's radial could take enormous damage and still get you home. Like many other pilots, Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."


Jack Cohen, too, enjoyed the Spitfire.

Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly. (Hyde 2000)



These guys are American and Canadian, so there is no British Bias here.

I would really love to see that quote from those Polish pilots Frequent Flyer - Can you dig it out please?


EDIT : It seems, according to wikipedia, 303 Polish Squadron flew SPitfires right throught he war, right up until the last few days. Swapping their Spits IX's for P51D's on 4th April 1945. All their kills were obtained in the Spitfire. Are you sure you got it right FF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_Polish_Fighter_Squadron

Waldo.Pepper
09-16-2007, 09:40 PM
To my mind the following is rather convincing. And could not be more on topic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Spitfire VIII vs P-51 Mustang

Charles M. McCorMe

Which was the best Allied fighter of World War II? What's your favorite? If you spell it "favourite," it has to be the Spitfire"”no doubt about it. But if you're American, particularly an American fighter pilot, you'll probably be one of a clique of supporters of the P-51, the P-47, the P-38, or possibly some navy fighter. There are other candidates, but their supporters lean on emotion rather than logic.

The Spitfire was the Allied symbol of victory in the Battle of Britain, but it was relatively low in power, service ceiling, and firepower in those critical days of 1940. It had already been tested in the United States before we entered the war but didn't create any sensation. Its speed was only average"”368 miles per hour at 19,000 feet"”and its service ceiling was only about 33,000 feet with a combat load. What the Spit had going for it was its margin of superb maneuverability, and that seems to be what accounted for its earlier successes. Its great disadvantage lay in its meager fuel supply"”sufficient for battling within a hundred or so miles from home but far short of U.S. standards. The Spit carried only eighty-five Imperial gallons (106 U.S. gallons) internally"”far less than contemporary American fighters.

Long range and endurance weren't serious needs for Europe in late 1941, but they soon would be. When our B-17s first arrived in England and Eighth Air Force leaders were planning daylight bombing of Germany, U.S. commanders asked for RAF fighter escort as deep as possible"”even all the way to Berlin. The RAF answer was, "But our fighters haven't the range." So Wright Field's Engineering Division was given the job: "Build enough range into the Spitfire so it can fly to Berlin and back to England."


When in 1940 North American offered the XP-51 to Wright Field, it was a good airplane but not yet great. It was flown and liked by the pilots of the Pursuit Project Office. It was not only faster than the others"”particularly at a low altitude"”but maneuverable and had plenty of range. Its test reports were forwarded to headquarters with favorable comments. Headquarters' reply stated that there was no requirement for an additional fighter; Bell, Curtiss, Lockheed, and Republic as well as navy contractors were all building fighters. Also, we couldn't afford to dilute North American's B-25 effort. The British took on the XP-51 as a low-altitude fighter and photoreconnaissance aircraft because of their serious need for almost any quality aircraft and also because they discerned its talents.

Was it better than the Spitfire at this stage? The British never would have agreed that it was, although it was somewhat faster and had far greater range. The Spit could outturn and outclimb it and thus could defeat it in conventional dogfighting combat. Both airplanes were plagued by low horsepower at high altitude and had lower service ceilings than the Me-109s, which were still diving on the RAF at will. It should be pointed out in comparing these fighters that when the prototype Spitfire flew in 1936, it was an extension of several years' development, while the Mustang wasn't conceived until 1940. Thus in many ways they were of different generations, if we consider the acceleration of technical developments during wartime.

In 1942 came the achievement that brought both the Spit and the P-51 into the truly superior fighter category. This was the Merlin 61, an advanced Rolls-Royce engine with the new big second-stage blower. It was rated at 1,650 horsepower for takeoff; its high blower cut in automatically at about 20,000 feet, providing good performance on through the 30,000s and service ceilings in the 40,000s, outperforming all German engines in the upper regimes.
Spitfire squadrons began looking downward at any Germans they could find, and those became scarcer by the day as Spit VIIIs and IXs took to the air in 1943. Since Vs were not too distinguishable from VIIIs and IXs except at fairly close range, any formation of Spitfires had to be taken very seriously.

The P-51, meanwhile, was popular with RAF pilots. But its performance restricted it to low-altitude work, its additional weight making it inferior to the Spitfire V and many others at altitudes over 20,000 feet. Through the cooperation of its British ties, North American Aviation arranged to get two of the new Merlins to Wright Field for installation in two P-51s. North American agreed to pay for the modifications and the flight test work to be done. A mock-up board met and gave its recommendations, and work began on the new airplanes"”the XP-51Bs. In late 1942 they were completed and testing began, closely monitored by Washington. A series of speed points was flown, and the top speed of the P-51B peaked out at 442 at 24,000 feet, a full 50 miles per hour higher than that of the Allison-powered P-51A. The vastly improved ceiling of the aircraft also was apparent. When the magic number 442 was cabled to Washington in code, North American received an immediate order for 400 airplanes.

In the spring of 1943 the 54th Fighter Group, recalled with its P-39s from the Aleutians, was moved to Bartow, Florida, and reequipped with P-51A Mustangs. We became the first P-51 group in the States and were assigned to the 3rd Air Force as an RTU to train replacement fighter pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly. It was a pilot's airplane"”comfortable and relatively roomy, everything where it was needed, plenty of speed and range, and (to the gratification of former P-39 pilots) a cockpit heater that worked. It had a "laminarflow wing" which reduced drag and allowed the modest Allison horsepower to zip us along at airspeeds we'd hardly ever seen. It was delightful, tractable, easy to fly; and our accident rate was quite low.

In the summer of 1943,1 joined the stream of graduate replacement fighter pilots going overseas. Arriving in Sicily via Trinidad, Natal, Dakar, Marrakech, and Tunis, I was assigned to the 31st Fighter Group, now stationed at Termine. And of all aircraft to have as its equipment"”Spitfires! It had mostly Vs but was beginning to receive IXs and a few VIIIs, these latter with the pointed wings for high-altitude performance. The IXs looked like Vs should, but the Vs were equipped with large, ugly Vokes chin filters, and looked very dowdy compared to the glamorous machines that had defended Britain. But there they were"”the world's best fighters, or so some claimed. I had some doubts but felt highly honored to be given command of the 31st and privileged to try out the Spitfire.
The 31st was preparing for the invasion of Italy, including the landing on the Salerno beaches of the ground elements of one squadron, so I had the opportunity of training in the Spit and worked from the rear ranks forward. Leaving the IXs to the experienced Spit pilots, who could use them to greatest advantage, I started in the Vs. The Spitfire V was no dream fighter, I discovered. It was light, delicate, easy to fly (a P-26"”P-40 combination?) but showed little performance other than beautiful handling and very high maneuverability. The wing loading was about twenty-eight pounds per square foot, compared to about fifty for the P-38s and P-40s and forty or so for the P-51s. This gave the Vs unbounded maneuverability"”the kind the United States no longer produced because it was provided at the expense of speed and range. Although the Spitfire V is claimed to have had a top speed of 369, those we had"”equipped for the desert"”were much slower. The 31st had been fighting superior-performance Luftwaffe fighters with them, and its record over the previous year was good but not impressive. They were truly a delight to fly, however, and great for aerobatics.

By now each squadron had several of the newer aircraft, and replacements of Mils and IXs trickled in slowly but steadily. While almost as maneuverable, they had greatly improved performance. They were powerful"”they seemed to leap from our dirt runways and had starting rates of climb of nearly 6,000 feet per minute. The Spit IX reached 43,000 feet faster than had the P-51, but it really didn't want to climb much higher.

Despite the beautiful performance of these airplanes, their short range was a real headache to us. They carried internally (the V and IX) eighty-five Imperial gallons, equal to about 106 U.S. gallons. We carried for day-to-day missions an external blister tank of thirty Imperial gallons (thirty-seven U.S. gallons) for a total of 143 gallons. At consumptions of sixty gallons per hour and more, this was an appallingly small supply of fuel. It permitted a sweep of 200 miles or more in radius but for covering a beachhead from Sicily allowed us only a few minutes on station. So larger tanks were provided (blister tanks of somewhere near sixty Imperial gallons) so that two-and-a-half-hour missions were feasible, of which a full hour could be on patrol over the beachhead. (Such missions had become customary in the Mediterranean, where beachhead patrol was flown over the beaches of Sicily, then Salerno, Anzio, and so on. Any air action of consequence necessarily converged on the landing beaches, so these were more than just routine missions.)

Even so, the range and duration of the Spit was sadly lacking. One means of making up this deficiency was to station the Spits as near to the front lines as possible. Of course that provided poor living conditions, even with our tents, but the excitement of occasional strafings kept everyone interested. No Spit mechanic had to be told to dig a slit trench beside his sleeping area"”he usually dug it before he pitched his tent. Up there within sight and sound (and sometimes range) of the cannon fire you felt you were part of the war. As late as early 1944 we lost numbers of Spitfires to cannon fire"”a dozen or so at Nettuno on the Anzio beachhead"”a direct result of trying to station the aircraft as near as possible to the action.

The fall and winter of 1943, once the Salerno invasion was concluded, provided dull air action for Italy-based Spits. Now equipped almost entirely with VIIIs and IXs, the 31st had trouble finding a fight. Battle area patrol became usual; occasional sweeps were permitted, and some escort missions with B-25s or A-20s which never were molested from the air. Their direct opposition consisted of FW-190As as either fighters or dive-bombers, protected by Me-109Gs. Victories for Spits were steady but far from numerous. The Luftwaffe tactical air force played its game cautiously and well, considering that it was heavily outnumbered. It chose odd times for hit-and-run dive-bombing attacks in the battle area and struck with litde warning; any lucky defenders who were in position to pursue were likely to be confronted by Messerschmitts following through at a higher altitude. Yet the 31st victory-to-loss ratio moved near three to one"”far better than its record with Spitfire Vs.

With late winter came Anzio, plenty of action, and a flurry of victories, along with orders to move to the Fifteenth Air Force and be reequipped with P-51s. The P-51B already had been introduced into England in the Eighth Air Force, where it was serving as escort fighter. This was to be the role of the 31st in the Fifteenth Air Force. The first two P-51s soon were reported available at Oran in Algiers and were ferried to Italy where the 31st was still located at Castel Volturno, on the beach north of Naples, with one squadron on the Anzio beachhead at Nettuno.
Now we could see which was the better aircraft. Needless to say, the subject had received plenty of attention since the conversion had been announced. During a year-and-a-half of Spit operations both the pilots and the ground crewmen had become extremely partial to the Spitfire. Now came this new bird with great recommendations, but the 31st had believed and proved that the Spit could lick anything it encountered. Although a few weeks of flying a new aircraft nearly always makes it popular, here was a case where a test had to come first. After several pilots had become familiar with it, a Mustang and a Spit took off for scheduled "combat," flown by two top young flight commanders. Their approximate takeoff statistics were: Spit IX"”horsepower 1,650, wing area 242, weight (optional) 7,300, wing loading 30; P-51B"”horsepower 1,650, wing area 233, weight (optional) 10,000 (near), wing loading 43.
When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and oulmaneuver its opponent; the P-51 could outdive and outrun the Spit. That sounds like faint praise for the P-51, but we must remember that our opponents were not Spits but Me-109s and that the P-51's climb and maneuverability actually were quite good"”nearly as good as the Spit's. More important, the fuel capacity of the P-51 was so superior to the Spit's that an entirely different dimension was added to the combat capability comparison range. Range didn't come into play in this particular encounter, though its integration in the P-51 made the aircraft relatively heavy compared with the Spitfire, which thus had better maneuverability and climb. However, it could and did assure the emergence of the P-51 as the best of a new breed"”the direly needed long-range escort fighter.

The former Spit leaders now had to plan a different mode of combat, based on these differences. More Mustangs came, and the 31st and other groups received there as they moved to the Fifteenth Air Force"” the strategic arm of the Mediterranean Allied Air Forces. After a short period of reequipping and training the P-51s were ready to go. The mission was different, the environment changed radically, and even the enemy"”still the German Me-109s and FW-190s"”changed. Instead of the one- or two-hour sorties in the Spits, missions became five, six, and seven hours long"”tied to the bomber stream of the Fifteenth, with one fighter group protecting each bomber wing. It was difficult to do this job well"”a bomber wing usually stretched for many miles"”but that's where the action was. The same pilots who had been unable to find a fight in the tactical war now were sometimes returning out of ammunition. In a fighter group results weren't assessed by survival or losses or munitions expended; they were assessed by victories and, to a degree, by victories versus losses. In both these measures this particular group excelled and went on to become the highest-scoring fighter group in the Mediterranean Theater.

The incorporation of long range into the P-51 gave U.S. forces a fighter escort without peer. It could transport offensive forces so far that most of the enemy defensive units with their limited range could not join the fight that unlimited numbers of U.S. bombers and fighters had brought to a place of our choosing. This example of concentration at maximum range to attack enemy units piecemeal has the ring of classic military history studies.

How did the demands of war affect our fighters? The P-39, an interceptor by design, became a tank-buster. The P-47, a great high-altitude fighter and our strategic escort star, lost its role to the 51 and became a great fighter-bomber. And the P-51, which started as a low-altitude fighter, got the starring role of all. The Spitfire kept its missions the same throughout.

The answer to the basic question of which was the number one fighter of World War II: the Spitfire was best for the interceptor mission, while the P-51 was best for its work as an escort fighter, and each was a real pleasure to fly.
Maj. Gen. Charles M. McCorkle is one of the few pilots who flew both Spitfires and Mustangs; in fact, he became an ace in both.

Xiolablu3
09-16-2007, 09:45 PM
Hmm just been doing more reading..


It seems that the 303 Polish squadron did not encounter any enemy aircraft in their P51D's while escorting Lancasters in the final few days of the war.

All their kills were with Spitfire's.


I have to agree with Waldo's post, both planes have their merits. In fact its rather unfair to compare them both side by side, because if you loaded the SPitfire up with that much fuel, it would be as unstable as hell, and a pig to fly.

The Spitfire VIII did have much longer range than the other Spitfires, and they had a dust filter built in rather than that ugly Volkes filter which slowed the whole plane down.

These were sent to the Med/Malta and overseas where their extra range could be put to the best use. 1650 MkVIII's were built

Most SPitfires however were short range. To be fair they were 'normal' range' when they were built in 1938=39, but by 1942 fuel loads were increasing, and the 'normal' SPitfires short legs were apparant. STill they did some long recon missions all over Germany in specialised planes.

Anyway, back to the point.

The SPitfire was almost certainly a plane with exceptional handling and flying characteristics for close in dogfighting and turn fighting. There are just far too many quotes/comments/interviews where pilots state how beautiful the Spitfire is to fly, how easy the stall is, how she 'talks' to you as you fly her, for us to ignore them all.


'Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly' - Jack Cohen. (Spitfire/P51/Thunderbolt pilot)


The P51 was different. She was built for speed and range, not manouverability or easy handling (although that does not mean she was difficult to handle). SHe was quite heavy compared to the Spitfire, and she had a laminar flow wing, not the best wing for docile handling characteristics. SHe was never going to compete with the Spitfire in the turn or climb (same engine and about 1/3 heavier). But in the dive she could outpace it, and in top speed she was 30mph faster on the same engine. It took a Griffon engine in the SPitfire XIV to keep up with the Merlin engined P51. Then theres that incredible range, the Spitfire just cannot compete with that in any shape or form. However the fuel adds weight, which gives the Spitfire another advanatage.

To summarise. - The designs complement each otehr perfectly. WHile the SPitfire keeps Jerry out of the back yard and goes on roaming missions to destroy targets and planes along the front line and around 200miles into the Reich. So the P51 escorts the heavies right into Germany and hits targets of opportunity far behind the lines.

Maybe the RAF should have concentrated more on incrasing the range of the SPitfire and developed more Spitfire VIII's with their increased range. But the fact is - they didnt need to. They held the front line while the US fighters romaed deep inside.

The perfect team.

S

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 09:48 PM
So many different opinions to choose from and as I mentioned that is what most do. You get to choose the one you prefer and the one that best suits your argument in a particular debate. The same holds true for every nation and in my opinion nobody is immune to this.

And these type of opinions are not limited to WW2 aircraft. You can find similar ones for cars, trucks, motorcycles, ect. This goes on and on.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The answer to the basic question of which was the number one fighter of World War II: the Spitfire was best for the interceptor mission, while the P-51 was best for its work as an escort fighter, and each was a real pleasure to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cant we just leave it at that and be happy? I must admit though, I have been enjoying this thread and Im very pleased to see it has remained respectful and open minded for the most part. There were indeed a few uncalled for remarks but I see far more positives then cons.

S!

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 09:55 PM
I remember reading one pilot account of a Spitfire.. and the guy said it was so responsive it was like it was a part of you... you drop your lighter and you just roll the plane to get it back. (But they all say that to some extent..LOL.. that it is a part of you I mean)

Manu-6S
09-17-2007, 01:53 AM
Xiola http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don't want to turn this thread in my famous "Manu vs Spit": In few word I will explain why IMO Zero and Spitfire are different.

First of all there is the LOD factor: In some maps I find that Spits are invisible, while Zekes have "average" visibility. I usually don't make headons (always the fastest way to die) but the few times I did against Spits I see their entire shape only then it's too late, and sometime I see a black dot with flashes at his side (in few words: I don't see their wings).

The energy retention is so different IMO: Zero turn tight, but really lose energy since it doesn't have the Merlin/Prop package of the Spits. It doesn't regain speed so fast as Spits.

And, above all, Zekes HAVE flaws (high speed controls, structural damage and OVERHEAT): it's not fun to see planes fight with smoking engine for 10 minutes... and I did the same in a Tempest.. smoke and smoke but didn't lose performance.

Ok, now we can return on topic.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-17-2007, 02:10 AM
303 (Polish) Squadron was equipped with Hurricanes from 2 August 1940 when it was formed at Northolt as part of 11 Group, Fighter Command. It was sent north for a rest, having been replaced by 302 (Polish) Squadron on 11 October, seeing little activity until a return to Northolt in the New Year and re-equipping with Spitfires.

The Squadron stayed with Spitfires until April 1945 when it was equipped with Mustangs.

Source: Fighter Squadrons of the R.A.F. and their aircraft. John Rawlings. Macdonald Publishing, 1969.

Friendly_flyer
09-17-2007, 12:59 PM
Thanks for the quote, Waldo Pepper!

Whirlin_merlin
09-17-2007, 01:24 PM
Maybe I'm completly off my rocker but I always thought that the two aircraft complemented each other rather well.

So in the great Mustang OR Spitfire debate I vote for Mustang AND Spitfire!

fordfan25
09-17-2007, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:


Same here. Even the standard girly out on the town would know a Spitfire if you asked what it was... before she told you to `get lost, geek!`

But perhaps it`s probably the same way in the US with the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maby in your part of the world. but remember your part of the world in but a small piece and thus does not mean that the spitfire is THE most recognized fighter. And in my town if you asked a girl something like that she would just tell you to get lost. then call her pimp "me" over to toss you :P lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What part of `But perhaps it`s probably the same way in the US with the P51.`
Did you not understand?

Guess the rest of America is waking up now...[/QUOTE]WTF are you on about. that part had no bareing on anything i said wich was mostly just for laughs. guess the rest of the world is asleep now.

Frequent_Flyer
09-17-2007, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
303 (Polish) Squadron was equipped with Hurricanes from 2 August 1940 when it was formed at Northolt as part of 11 Group, Fighter Command. It was sent north for a rest, having been replaced by 302 (Polish) Squadron on 11 October, seeing little activity until a return to Northolt in the New Year and re-equipping with Spitfires.

The Squadron stayed with Spitfires until April 1945 when it was equipped with Mustangs.

Source: Fighter Squadrons of the R.A.F. and their aircraft. John Rawlings. Macdonald Publishing, 1969. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


306 Polish Flew Spits from 7-12-41 and Mustang III from 3-26-44 till the end

309 Polish -9-1-44 Mustang III

315 Polish- July 1941 Spits till March 1944-Mustang III

316 Polish- 12-13-41 Spits till 4-4-44 Mustang III

The Poles prefered the Mustang. It was faster, better range and as the Germans admitted -Nothing compares to the Mustang at altitude.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-17-2007, 08:46 PM
I was correcting the implication that 303 Squadron attained their Battle of Britain record in Spitfires, not that Polish Mustang squadrons were a rarity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frequent_Flyer
09-17-2007, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
I was correcting the implication that 303 Squadron attained their Battle of Britain record in Spitfires, not that Polish Mustang squadrons were a rarity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not jumping ya, just adding on to your info. Some Polish units flew both the Spit and the P-51 in combat. There unbiased perspective on both planes as a weapon of war is releavant to my previous post.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-18-2007, 04:02 AM
Rgr that, FF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
09-18-2007, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
303 (Polish) Squadron was equipped with Hurricanes from 2 August 1940 when it was formed at Northolt as part of 11 Group, Fighter Command. It was sent north for a rest, having been replaced by 302 (Polish) Squadron on 11 October, seeing little activity until a return to Northolt in the New Year and re-equipping with Spitfires.

The Squadron stayed with Spitfires until April 1945 when it was equipped with Mustangs.

Source: Fighter Squadrons of the R.A.F. and their aircraft. John Rawlings. Macdonald Publishing, 1969. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


306 Polish Flew Spits from 7-12-41 and Mustang III from 3-26-44 till the end

309 Polish -9-1-44 Mustang III

315 Polish- July 1941 Spits till March 1944-Mustang III

316 Polish- 12-13-41 Spits till 4-4-44 Mustang III

The Poles prefered the Mustang. It was faster, better range and as the Germans admitted -Nothing compares to the Mustang at altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still waiting for your source on the fact that 'The Poles Preffered the Mustang to the Spitfire', Frequent FLyer.

I would really like read it if you could find it please!

Frequent_Flyer
09-18-2007, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
303 (Polish) Squadron was equipped with Hurricanes from 2 August 1940 when it was formed at Northolt as part of 11 Group, Fighter Command. It was sent north for a rest, having been replaced by 302 (Polish) Squadron on 11 October, seeing little activity until a return to Northolt in the New Year and re-equipping with Spitfires.

The Squadron stayed with Spitfires until April 1945 when it was equipped with Mustangs.

Source: Fighter Squadrons of the R.A.F. and their aircraft. John Rawlings. Macdonald Publishing, 1969. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


306 Polish Flew Spits from 7-12-41 and Mustang III from 3-26-44 till the end

309 Polish -9-1-44 Mustang III

315 Polish- July 1941 Spits till March 1944-Mustang III

316 Polish- 12-13-41 Spits till 4-4-44 Mustang III

The Poles prefered the Mustang. It was faster, better range and as the Germans admitted -Nothing compares to the Mustang at altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still waiting for your source on the fact that 'The Poles Preffered the Mustang to the Spitfire', Frequent FLyer.

I would really like read it if you could find it please! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can you read Polish? If not here is an RAF pilot,Stan Farmiloe with No. 234 own words comparing the Spit to P-51 : " As a squadron that had flown Spitfires solidly from March 1940 until the arrival of the North American fighters in September 1944,the former type was understandably much loved by the pilots of No. 234 but we soon realized that the Mustang was a much more effective weapon of war. "

Source:Mustang Aces of the Ninth & Fifteenth Air Forces & the RAF-Jerry Scutts 1995

Essentially the Polish and USAAF pilots that flew both came to the same conclusion. As stated by Charles M. McCorme of the 31rst FG ,quoted earlier in this thread.

arthursmedley
09-18-2007, 05:46 PM
Hi guys,
This has been a really enjoyable thread. No-ones gone off the deepend...yet. I know nothing about the comparative performance of Mustangs and Spits except from the books I've read and this sim. However, I do know quite a few Polish commando's and paratroopers, all well into their eighties, most still hard as nails, who have lived in my little town in Devon in the UK since the end of the war and have married and raised families here. I'm married to the daughter of one.
They still hate Germans. Sorry to be so un-PC but its true.I think you'll find that the Poles preferred the Mustang in the latter part of the war as its much greater range gave them more opportunities to engage a shrinking, fuel starved Luftwaffe that by mid 1944 had virtually abandoned french airspace in daylight.
I think you'll find that Polish {and Czech} pilots would have been happy in Sopworth Camels as long as you could put a German plane in their gunsights.
Obviously I apologise for any offence the above might cause to anyone, anywhere, since this is a flight sim forum but its true.

Frequent_Flyer
09-18-2007, 07:23 PM
Xioalblu3 can you read Polish ? You seemed interested enough to research and verify that the 303 Polish Sqn. was in fact the best of all the RAF sqn. in the battle of Britian.

Friendly_flyer
09-19-2007, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
" As a squadron that had flown Spitfires solidly from March 1940 until the arrival of the North American fighters in September 1944,the former type was understandably much loved by the pilots of No. 234 but we soon realized that the Mustang was a much more effective weapon of war. "
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a very balanced statement. It says that the Spitfire was a well loved plane, but that the Mustang was what they needed at the later parts of the war. I think this statement goes in neither the Spitfires or Mustangs favour. It is simply a statement confirming what we already agree on: They are different planes designed to do different things. The Spitfire retained agility and firepower on expense of range, the Mustang sacreficed agility and firepower for range and speed.

On the short range dogfight maps of the sim, I'm in no doubt as to what plane I'd prefer. Had it been a way to force all pilots to fly with a quarter tank, the Mustang would become a much more popular plane online.

ViktorViktor
09-19-2007, 04:00 AM
Hey, this must be a record !

Frequent_Flyer, Low_Flyer and now Friendly_Flyer all on the same topic page !
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Is anybody missing ?

Friendly_flyer
09-19-2007, 08:18 AM
We're all a big, happy family!

Xiolablu3
09-19-2007, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Xioalblu3 can you read Polish ? You seemed interested enough to research and verify that the 303 Polish Sqn. was in fact the best of all the RAF sqn. in the battle of Britian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I found that on Wikipedia about 303 squadron..

I have abosolutely no doubt that some pilots came to the conclusion that the P51 was 'the better weapon of war' because it was a revalation at the time - no fighter could do what it could, Goering simply did not believe a fighter could get to berlin at the times the P51 did.

However, I dont remember a quote of anyone comparing the two where they prefered the p51 to the Spit for flying/fighter characteristics.

As in, if range was not a factor, and it was simply plane vs plane, from what I have gathered, almost all pilots who had flown them both preffered the Spitfire to the P51 in this respect.

But I am ready to be proved wrong.

IFly_1968
09-19-2007, 01:25 PM
Whats not to like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Frequent_Flyer
09-19-2007, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

The following are the words of RAF pilot Stan Farmiloe of Sqn. No. 234:
" As a squadron that had flown Spitfires solidly from March 1940 until the arrival of the North American fighters in September 1944,the former type was understandably much loved by the pilots of No. 234 but we soon realized that the Mustang was a much more effective weapon of war. "
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a very balanced statement. It says that the Spitfire was a well loved plane, but that the Mustang was what they needed at the later parts of the war. I think this statement goes in neither the Spitfires or Mustangs favour. It is simply a statement confirming what we already agree on: They are different planes designed to do different things. The Spitfire retained agility and firepower on expense of range, the Mustang sacreficed agility and firepower for range and speed.

On the short range dogfight maps of the sim, I'm in no doubt as to what plane I'd prefer. Had it been a way to force all pilots to fly with a quarter tank, the Mustang would become a much more popular plane online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really do not need to interpret what the RAF pilot said. It was in plain English.

Here it is said by another pilot who flew the Spit and P-51. Without the concern for bruised egos.

" Regarding the fighters themselves, I flew the P-47,P-38. Bf-109, FW-190, Spitfire and several other lesser known types, and the P-51D was far the best war machine; the Mustang would do for eight hours what the 'Spit' would do for 45 minutes!"
Chuck Yeagar- test pilot, fighter ace
Source: Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force-1994



This again is why the Polish, RAF, USAAF ,the Canadians and the Austrailians, who fought the enemy in both the P-51 and Spit preferred the Mustang.

Frequent_Flyer
09-19-2007, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Xioalblu3 can you read Polish ? You seemed interested enough to research and verify that the 303 Polish Sqn. was in fact the best of all the RAF sqn. in the battle of Britian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I found that on Wikipedia about 303 squadron..

I have abosolutely no doubt that some pilots came to the conclusion that the P51 was 'the better weapon of war' because it was a revalation at the time - no fighter could do what it could, Goering simply did not believe a fighter could get to berlin at the times the P51 did.

However, I dont remember a quote of anyone comparing the two where they prefered the p51 to the Spit for flying/fighter characteristics.

As in, if range was not a factor, and it was simply plane vs plane, from what I have gathered, almost all pilots who had flown them both preffered the Spitfire to the P51 in this respect.

But I am ready to be proved wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



My interest is not to " prove you wrong" or change the way you think. You seemed legitamatly interested in accurate history.

Clipper_51
09-19-2007, 06:08 PM
If you can get a copy of "Victory Roll," a book that details the planes US airmen flew in WWII, there are many first-hand narratives of pilots' impressions of the planes they flew during the war.

The general consensus of US pilots that logged time in both the Mustang and Spitfire was that they loved the Spit for it's flying qualities, climb and manueverability. It definately held an edge over the Mustang, without doubt.

As 22 year-old fighter pilots, full of piss and vinegar, they liked the Mustang more because it was almost as good as a Spit and flew farther, to where the enemy was.

Not many pilots of the nations involved in WWII sat there and did dogfighting. John Meyer is on record as saying he NEVER turned with the Germans, 109, 190, whatever. Why? Because it was too dangerous.

Look online. Even as currently modeled (well IMHO), we have a Mustang that is almost untouchable. It can loiter high over any part of the map for long periods, attack at will, and get away from any (yes, any) German prop plane.

No doubt, the Spit is a much better close-in aircraft. As a total package though, I like the Mustang, just like the majority of the US (and, apparently, Polish) pilots.

Xiolablu3
09-20-2007, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Xioalblu3 can you read Polish ? You seemed interested enough to research and verify that the 303 Polish Sqn. was in fact the best of all the RAF sqn. in the battle of Britian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I found that on Wikipedia about 303 squadron..

I have abosolutely no doubt that some pilots came to the conclusion that the P51 was 'the better weapon of war' because it was a revalation at the time - no fighter could do what it could, Goering simply did not believe a fighter could get to berlin at the times the P51 did.

However, I dont remember a quote of anyone comparing the two where they prefered the p51 to the Spit for flying/fighter characteristics.

As in, if range was not a factor, and it was simply plane vs plane, from what I have gathered, almost all pilots who had flown them both preffered the Spitfire to the P51 in this respect.

But I am ready to be proved wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



My interest is not to " prove you wrong" or change the way you think. You seemed legitamatly interested in accurate history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I meant was 'I will be glad to be proved wrong, if it is in fact correct'. I didnt mean to 'throw down the gauntlet' or anything like that.

faustnik
09-20-2007, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Clipper_51:
The general consensus of US pilots that logged time in both the Mustang and Spitfire was that they loved the Spit for it's flying qualities, climb and manueverability. It definately held an edge over the Mustang, without doubt.

As 22 year-old fighter pilots, full of piss and vinegar, they liked the Mustang more because it was almost as good as a Spit and flew farther, to where the enemy was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post Clipper. I would also add that the US pilots converting to the P-51 appreciated the P-51s greater speed as well as range. People tend to forget how fast the Mustangs where, which was a major advantage in late war combat.

BaronUnderpants
09-20-2007, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
" Regarding the fighters themselves, I flew the P-47,P-38. Bf-109, FW-190, Spitfire and several other lesser known types, and the P-51D was far the best war machine; the Mustang would do for eight hours what the 'Spit' would do for 45 minutes!"
Chuck Yeagar- test pilot, fighter ace
Source: Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force-1994



This again is why the Polish, RAF, USAAF ,the Canadians and the Austrailians, who fought the enemy in both the P-51 and Spit preferred the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Have to agree with Xiolablu3 on this one. The statement above (among others) about Polish, RAF and everybodyelse and his grandma prefering the P-51 over Spit is completly new info to me..and frankly something that looks like it been grasped out of thin air. Sry.

As for Chuck Yeagar....sounds to me like he preferes the P-51 on the sole merrit of having longer range. And thats what it all boils down to when talking about the P-51...its range. Thats all well and good, but thats not all there is to a fighter. sry.

Personaly i think debating wether P-51 was better than the Spit when the P-51 didnt even have to face the same situations as the Spit did throughout the war is a bit arrogant in my oppinion. We know spit lacked range, good thing then it never was intended as a escortfighter.


Its been said several times before, if u wanna escortfighter u choose the P-51 and if u wanna interceptor u choose the Spit. Neither one does both better than the other.

Kurfurst__
09-20-2007, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
The Spitfire retained agility and firepower on expense of range, the Mustang sacreficed agility and firepower for range and speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. 30 years of the war, the Brits disclosed the secret behind the Spitfire immunity to weight increase through the war : anti-grav pods.

Anyway who've seen an Interdictor cruiser graphic from Star Wars would notice those suspicious bulges over the Hispano, and later bulges over the Griffon engine's cowling. That's where the anti-grav wells are that helped cheating Newton.

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/thumb/9/9d/Immobilizer_negvv.jpg/600px-Immobilizer_negvv.jpg

Those Brits were masters of deception, no doubt. They gave the Merlin to the Yanks for the Mustang, but the real secret they held back for themselves.

Fascinating.

Manu-6S
09-20-2007, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Its been said several times before, if u wanna escortfighter u choose the P-51 and if u wanna interceptor u choose the Spit. Neither one does both better than the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Friendly_flyer
09-20-2007, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Anyway who've seen an Interdictor cruiser graphic from Star Wars would notice those suspicious bulges over the Hispano, and later bulges over the Griffon engine's cowling. That's where the anti-grav wells are that helped cheating Newton. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew I had missed something!

luftluuver
09-20-2007, 01:21 PM
Didn't the Germans some how get the plans for the anti-grav units. That is why the G-6 has those bulges in front of the cockpit. There was smaller units in the wing &gt; the bulges about 1/3 out from the fuselage.

Xiolablu3
09-20-2007, 03:33 PM
The Spitfire was much lighter than the P51, the USAAF studied the Spitfire and even asked Supermarine to dismantle a Spitfire and weigh every single part when they were developing the P51H, in the hope that they could get the weight down and increase manouverability and climb rate.

Nothing to do with 'anti gravity pods', just the fact that the Spitfire was a lot lighter than the P51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I knew this thread about the Spitfire couldnt go on in an amicable way for long without Kurfurst or one of the others trying to get a dig in and turn it in to a ****ging match.

'Damn theres a thread in which the Spitfire is getting a good write up, must mess it up quick!!' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Can we just ignore him and carry on with the good info?

P51 and Spitfire were amazing planes, and gave the Allies fantastic capabilities. One fantastic plane like the Spitfire MkIX and XIV to hold the line in France, and striking close to the front lines, whilst protecting the British civilian population from the V1's.

And the P51B/C/D reaching far behind the German lines and shooting up the Bf109's/Fw190's on the ground and also in the air where the Germans were sure they were safe from fighters.

Spitfire and P51 made a fantastic team.

Frequent_Flyer
09-20-2007, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
" Regarding the fighters themselves, I flew the P-47,P-38. Bf-109, FW-190, Spitfire and several other lesser known types, and the P-51D was far the best war machine; the Mustang would do for eight hours what the 'Spit' would do for 45 minutes!"
Chuck Yeagar- test pilot, fighter ace
Source: Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force-1994



This again is why the Polish, RAF, USAAF ,the Canadians and the Austrailians, who fought the enemy in both the P-51 and Spit preferred the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Have to agree with Xiolablu3 on this one. The statement above (among others) about Polish, RAF and everybodyelse and his grandma prefering the P-51 over Spit is completly new info to me..and frankly something that looks like it been grasped out of thin air. Sry.

As for Chuck Yeagar....sounds to me like he preferes the P-51 on the sole merrit of having longer range. And thats what it all boils down to when talking about the P-51...its range. Thats all well and good, but thats not all there is to a fighter. sry.

Personaly i think debating wether P-51 was better than the Spit when the P-51 didnt even have to face the same situations as the Spit did throughout the war is a bit arrogant in my oppinion. We know spit lacked range, good thing then it never was intended as a escortfighter.


Its been said several times before, if u wanna escortfighter u choose the P-51 and if u wanna interceptor u choose the Spit. Neither one does both better than the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The English language is difficult to grasp. It may not be your first language. The three pilots quoted( one was a RAF pilot) in this thread, who flew both the Spit and Mustang in combat. Simply preferred the Mustang, "it was a superior weapon of war "

Translation: The Mustang took the fight to the enemy. It could run him down, destroy him and disengage at will, to fight another day.

If the Spitfire is your Gold Standard. Where does an aircraft with a loaded weight 3000Lbs. greater, that is 30-40 MPH faster and could fly 3 times longer using the same engine rank. With "climb and manuverability nearly as good as the Spit "- the quote is from Maj. Gen Charles McCorkle an Ace in both the Spit and Mustang.

BoCfuss
09-20-2007, 08:12 PM
Frequent_Flyer

Those pilots have never seen the charts that prove that the spitfire was a world beater compared to a weak, bb shooter, that only had big gas tanks. Duh.

96th_Nightshifter
09-20-2007, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

P51 and Spitfire were amazing planes, and gave the Allies fantastic capabilities. One fantastic plane like the Spitfire MkIX and XIV to hold the line in France, and striking close to the front lines, whilst protecting the British civilian population from the V1's.

And the P51B/C/D reaching far behind the German lines and shooting up the Bf109's/Fw190's on the ground and also in the air where the Germans were sure they were safe from fighters.

Spitfire and P51 made a fantastic team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Really, what else needs to be said?

R_Target
09-20-2007, 09:46 PM
My understanding was that Edgar Schmued requested weight figures on Spitfire components while visiting Supermarine and that the parts were weighed and a report was prepared for him. Can anyone clarify?

Gumtree
09-21-2007, 01:08 AM
I think were we are going with this thread is an agreement (trolling aside) that the 2 weapons were excellent in their habitat.
Namely that a task is identified and a weapon developed for that task.
Just like a sniper would use a rifle over a side arm to kill at range. (Right tools for the job!)
The need for a fast climbing interceptor that could use agility to turn the tables on escorts leads the the style of weapon the Spitfire is.

On the other hand the need to 'get at' the enemy leeds to the Mustang.

It has been said before in the thread and I agree, They were a great combination to kill from afar and defend in close!

I believe the original poster wanted our opinions about looks, and for me there is no other machine that comes close to the beauty that is a Spitfire.

Mind you Ducati have built some Gems over the years (916), oh and some of those Italian cars look sweet as well.
Just my thoughts.

Kurfurst__
09-21-2007, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Spitfire was much lighter than the P51, the USAAF studied the Spitfire and even asked Supermarine to dismantle a Spitfire and weigh every single part when they were developing the P51H, in the hope that they could get the weight down and increase manouverability and climb rate.

Nothing to do with 'anti gravity pods', just the fact that the Spitfire was a lot lighter than the P51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I knew this thread about the Spitfire couldnt go on in an amicable way for long without Kurfurst or one of the others trying to get a dig in and turn it in to a ****ging match.

'Damn theres a thread in which the Spitfire is getting a good write up, must mess it up quick!!' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Can we just ignore him and carry on with the good info?

P51 and Spitfire were amazing planes, and gave the Allies fantastic capabilities. One fantastic plane like the Spitfire MkIX and XIV to hold the line in France, and striking close to the front lines, whilst protecting the British civilian population from the V1's.

And the P51B/C/D reaching far behind the German lines and shooting up the Bf109's/Fw190's on the ground and also in the air where the Germans were sure they were safe from fighters.

Spitfire and P51 made a fantastic team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor Xia, he can't bear a single friendly jab! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WOLFMondo
09-21-2007, 01:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
The Spitfire retained agility and firepower on expense of range, the Mustang sacreficed agility and firepower for range and speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. 30 years of the war, the Brits disclosed the secret behind the Spitfire immunity to weight increase through the war : anti-grav pods.

Anyway who've seen an Interdictor cruiser graphic from Star Wars would notice those suspicious bulges over the Hispano, and later bulges over the Griffon engine's cowling. That's where the anti-grav wells are that helped cheating Newton.

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/thumb/9/9d/Immobilizer_negvv.jpg/600px-Immobilizer_negvv.jpg

Those Brits were masters of deception, no doubt. They gave the Merlin to the Yanks for the Mustang, but the real secret they held back for themselves.

Fascinating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are mistaken. They are wheel well bulges.

ViktorViktor
09-21-2007, 03:40 AM
Why don't we just hop over specifics and say that the Spitfire was THE fighter during the first half of the war (where the Allies were often on the defensive) while the P-51 dominated in the latter half of the war (where the Allies took the offensive and fought the enemy over his own homeland) ?

Manu-6S
09-21-2007, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Why don't we just hop over specifics and say that the Spitfire was THE fighter during the first half of the war (where the Allies were often on the defensive) while the P-51 dominated in the latter half of the war (where the Allies took the offensive and fought the enemy over his own homeland) ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you still comparing these 2 planes or are you talk about every ww2 plane? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

carguy_
09-21-2007, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Clipper_51:
If you can get a copy of "Victory Roll," a book
Look online. Even as currently modeled (well IMHO), we have a Mustang that is almost untouchable. It can loiter high over any part of the map for long periods, attack at will, and get away from any (yes, any) German prop plane.

No doubt, the Spit is a much better close-in aircraft. As a total package though, I like the Mustang, just like the majority of the US (and, apparently, Polish) pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang D is untouchable IF operating at the right altitude.To a pilot that is not an ace, it can be boring though.If you don`t excel at T&B fighting, the 109 will eat you.I`m speaking about the D because somehow people moan about the one the most.Even if the C/B and Mustang III models do very well(also down low) the D is not allowed to T&B under 4500m,and people do just that.

So only the D is the problem not because it sux but because it is much more specialized then the other P51.It excels as an escort high alt fighter but it sux as a straffing support down low.If you get caught by someone low,you`re dead because you won`t be able to dive away.The very same problem bug the Messerscmitts and Focke-Wulfs.

However, as I always say, against the G6early and FW190A8 any American plane does very good.

The G6early is a PoS but also the most met German aircraft over France since `43.It takes a true veteran to manage it optimaly.The majority of Luftwaffles do not want to try something realistic in exchange of their egos though.

DKoor
09-21-2007, 04:49 AM
UBi was always good at repeating that this all is about proving that we are prettier, sexier, smarter [insert your fav frustration/complex here], than the rest of the forumites.
This thread is not an exception.

FRIENDLY WARNING

Whoever takes this thread or similar trollaramas seriously, has issues.

ps. it started with simple, rather innocent question and of course it went wrong, because of the Murphy's Law which rule here and is probably at least doubled in favor of the dark side.

BaronUnderpants
09-21-2007, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
UBi was always good at repeating that this all is about proving that we are prettier, sexier, smarter [insert your fav frustration/complex here], than the rest of the forumites.
This thread is not an exception.

FRIENDLY WARNING

Whoever takes this thread or similar trollaramas seriously, has issues.

ps. it started with simple, rather innocent question and of course it went wrong, because of the Murphy's Law which rule here and is probably at least doubled in favor of the dark side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, and on that note i would pick the Spit...not that the Mustang is uggly or anything, just that the Spit has been in my mind from the very first day i started develop an intrest in WWII airplanes...wich is a very looooooooooong time ago.

Hoenire
09-23-2007, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
" Regarding the fighters themselves, I flew the P-47,P-38. Bf-109, FW-190, Spitfire and several other lesser known types, and the P-51D was far the best war machine; the Mustang would do for eight hours what the 'Spit' would do for 45 minutes!"
Chuck Yeagar- test pilot, fighter ace
Source: Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force-1994

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow I never knew that Chuck Yeager flew the 109 and 190 in combat!

Anyway, every single fighter pilot's opinion has to be considered suspect given that they only saw anything from one perspective and under their side's operational conditions. I think it was Gunther Rall that considered the 109 on a par with the allied planes until he flew the Spit, P51 and P47 towards the end of the war - they left him amazed at either the power, visibility or manouevreing capability.

Anyway, the Spit has the most beautiful curves. I've never heard of the P51 being compared to a woman...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
09-23-2007, 05:30 PM
I call bias.

Xiolablu3
09-24-2007, 02:25 AM
I wondered about bias too, so I forgot about US and Brits and checked out the Israeli airforce opinions for a good source.

101 squadron flew the Spitfire IX and the P51D, check out their comments.