Hey, I landed it on the Beast! It took half a dozen tries, but I figured it out...trim about 3/4 of the way down to the first notch, flaps down all the way, 3-5% power, 135 mph...which is right above stall at 130 mph when the jet sinks and rolls uncontrollably and crashes into the fantail. Then aim to put the MLG about 1’ (no more!) from the end of the fantail. Go to idle and brake right before hitting the deck, then hope to stop before rolling off the end of the deck, into the grey, forbidding ocean where you’ll either be crushed by the aircraft carrier crashing over you or drown in ice cold water...nice!
Sorry, I'm just a little wrapped up and wound up about some recent arguments I had on the SP forums regarding the P-51 Mustang's legacy. There's a story out there among quite a few players that: 1. The Mustang wasn't really a good fighter, just a long range escort plane that was useless in a dogfight and 2. The Mustang waltzed into WWII and basically mopped up where other aircraft had already won the war and really wasn't a good fighter or critically needed at the time. Anyway, I was a little wound up with all the stupidly incorrect opinions, I was looking for Mustang builds, saw yours and noticed that ChromeGamer25 had made his moronic comments (below) and figured I'd try and fill you in. I know, I know, I shouldn't get drawn into a fight with a bunch of uninformed kids, I just care about accurate understandings of history.
I have no idea why ChromeGamer25 (and, surprisingly, many other players on these forums) is/are down on the Mustang, but he posted this here, then cut and pasted on your build as well. Anyhow, here was my response to him:
I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
@pavthepilot no...I’m pretty sure we’re empirically correct and his opinion is incorrect. Believe me, I’m pretty much only opinionated about those things I’m certain of.
Both. The very first comment below on this post is an assessment of your build. I like your build and for some reason, there’s a current of misconception against the Mustang in SP. Anyhow, you agreed with ChromeGamer25, but he’s incorrect.
@pavthepilot I’m sorry you got an incorrect view of history and the Mustang’s reputation. In my professional opinion, he’s incorrect in his assessment.
@ChromeGamer25 I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
Ok, I like it. Simple, sure, but that’s part of the charm here. The colors are fantastic, the pitch rate is realistic—no wobble, another plus. It doesn’t roll quite as fast as it should, but it’s not far off. It also isn’t fast enough, but that’s because the SP engine sucks. We have XML drag reduction now, so that might be something we can all fix. I especially like that it’s an A model (actually this is closer to a B or C model, the first two Merlin variants). I encourage you to build a super realistic P-51, but in any event, this should have gotten more upvotes.
The rules state: “Don’t beg for upvotes.” The question is whether or not this constitutes begging for upvotes. If you write a description for the build, then tag that at the end, then, technically it probably wouldn’t be seen as begging. But I’m not a Mod. I do know a few, and they might disagree. It’s up to them, and as much in life, it’s open to interpretation. I can tell you that if you make a separate forum post with that message, then, yes it would definitely be seen as begging. In spite of all that, the SP community, especially the platinum ranked denizens of the SP universe who might Spotlight your creation to their 6,385 followers, generally think it in very poor form to ask for upvotes in any way. The build should sell itself. I’ve been posting builds for over 2 years and it’s a learning process. Some builds I thought would be wildly successful weren’t, while others that I thought would be mildly successful were very well received. Bottom line, though, is if there’s any question in your mind that it might be seen as begging, it would be prudent not to do so. Hope this helps to answer your questions.
Additionally, same page as the citation below also states that the RAF, upon evaluating the Allison-engined Mustang I determined that “Tests soon showed the Mustang I to be superior to the Kittyhawk [P-40], Airacobra [P-39] and Spitfire [has to be the Merlin engined variety] in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes.” And this wasn’t even the Merlin-engines Mustang, clearly superior to the original Allison engined model in nearly every measure.
Interesting. Just found this note in a recent book, “Dogfight” by Tony Holmes (Chartwell Books, 2012). In Part IV, Dueling for the Reich 1943-45, P-51 Mustang vs. Fw 190, the author relates on p. 216 that after the RAF took delivery of their first Allison-powered Mustang Is, “...It’s first operational sortie [with the RAF] was flown on July 27 and in October Allison-powered Mustangs became the first RAF single-engined single-seat fighters to penetrate German airspace from England.”
What @F104Deathtrap said, how did you get the idea that the “bulge” on the bottom of the P-51 was a jet engine. That was where the radiator resided on the airframe.
@Mostly well, I’ll meet you half way on this with a qualification: I’m certainly not a “fanboy”. The term is degrading and frankly, not an accurate description of me personally. I have a B.S. in History from the United States Air Force Academy, plus 24 years flying U-2s, T-38, T-37 and KC-135. So, I know a bit about Airpower and Airpower history (notice how I capped “Airpower”?), because I’ve spent most of my adult life thinking about this subject. I have also graduated from both the Air Command and Staff and Air War College courses. Plus, I’ve worked staff assignments at the numbered Air Force, CAOC and MAJCOM levels, working operational issues. So, I know a bit of what I’m talking about. The Spit was a great dog fighter but much shorter ranged. The Mustang didn’t turn quite as well, but was fast and long ranged and exploited zoom and boom tactics, but could certainly turn if need be. Both were highly successful in their roles. The fact of the matter, though, is we need to understand the history accurately. To do otherwise is to introduce a creeping misreading or revisionism to the truth.
@Mostly the summary page says exactly what I’ve been saying all along. So, no LoL. The first paragraph highlights its Home Defence role, while the second emphasizes its P.R. Role and evolution (in Griff Spit guise) as a more multi-role aircraft. The P-51 lands on MULTIPLE “finest fighter of WWII” lists by many historians. The Spit does as well, but not as many in my perusal of the subject, but I could be incorrect here. Tactically, but he Spit could outturn the Mustang (something you don’t even mention for some reason), while the Stang was superior in speed, but certainly no slouch when in cane to dogfighting (reference Eric Brown’s quote). Strategically, the Mustang’s superior range allowed it to attain the strategic effect of taking the fight to the enemy and into Germany. The Spitfire’s strategic impact was to prevent the Allies from losing the war in the first place. Both significant roles, but your characterization is incorrect. The Spit didn’t single-handedly win the war and just allow the Mustang and 8th Air Force to simply waltz into the Fatherland. There was a lot of bloody combat and mayhem from 1943 and beyond. In fact, the bloodiest day for the Mighty 8th was 14 Oct 43 on the Scheeinfurt mission. Ultimately caused the USAAF to abandon the idea of unescorted daylight bombing. If your assertion of the Spit being an escort is correct, where was the Spit on that day? Couldn’t be there, but the Stang was eventually there and allowed the continuation of 8th AF bombing against the German heartland, where the fighting was more desperate by the Luftwaffe.
@Mostly no LOL. CLEARLY I know what I’m talking about. It’s escort role was highly limited as RAF Bomber Command flew night missions without escort. Sure it flew sweeps and some escort across the Channel over France but this was likited. Plus it’s range was limited.
BTW, I’ve read all three of these primary accounts...and more. The three books are sitting in my library. You have read them, haven’t you? Or are you arguing your points based on knowledge gained by reading secondary and tertiary accounts on the Net? Besides I’m not saying the Spit did nothing. Read my comments carefully...I just disagree with your assertion marganalizing the Mustang’s role as a mop up. Simply incorrect.
@Mostly also how would you explain the fact that the P-51 has the most kills of any USAAF type in WWII? I thought you said, “hey, the P-51 was just mopping up.” The P-38 was withdrawn in favor of the Pacific theater, where it’s twin engines were a better safety margin over water and is cockpit heater was more adequate, leaving (I believe) a single P-38 group in Europe by 1944. The Bolt was readsigned to fly strike missions, better suited due to the P-47’s ability to absorb damage. The Spit didn’t even fly escort missions, it did photoreconnaissance with the longer ranged recce Marks modified to carry fuel in its leading edges. The Spit’s (and Hurri’s) main role in all this was that saved Britain’s butt during the BoB, without which the whole war would have been over. After that, it flew cross Channel missions where it first met the 190s. But the Spit’s role was “increasingly defensive from 1943 on” (Wikipedia quote), Home Defense. I would characterize the Spit’s role like a homeowner with a .38 shooting a home invader. But it really didn’t carry the fight into Western Germany. That was done by the Lancaster, Mossie, Typhoon and Tempest. By the way, another couple of excellent books on this are “Reach for the Sky”, Douglas Bader’s book and “The Big Show” by Pierre Clostermann. The first book by Gp Capt Douglas Bader tells about the earlier phase with the Spit as he was shot down over France in 1941. He lost his legs in a prewar flying accident and flew with articficial legs during the war—incredible story and great read, BTW. Clostermann was a Typhoon/Tempest Pilot during the war and his book tells the story of the latter part of the air war. Those along with the 4th FG’s account should give you a some more historical perspective in your assertions the Mustang did nothing and the Spitfire claimed air superiority over Western Europe.
@Mostly do you’re saying, “hey the air war had already been won, so really the P-51 didn’t really do anything!”??? Really. Please read this book, 1000 Destroyed, it’s the USAAF’s 4th FG’s account of the war Over Europe.
He’s a nut, no one to be taken seriously. Conspiracy theorists want to believe what they believe and will argue anything and everything and will not listen to reason. And to attack you for swearing on the Bible? That drives me nuts...he probably believes in aliens, but not God?
Finally, here’s a quote I pulled straight out of the Wikipedia article on the P-51 by an RAF test pilot who flew both aircraft: Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[57]
But to maintain that the Mustang was not maneuverable because it was a long range escort fighter as compared to the Spitfire’s role as a point defense interceptor, isn’t correct. The Mustang always had great handling. And so did the P-38, for that matter...big wing in spite of the weight of two engines. Perhaps you’re confusing what you hearing about the P-47 with the Mustang.
So consider the Griffin powered Spitfire. The RAF wanted to re-engine the Spit with a much more powerful engine to keep up with the Luftwaffe. The Merlin was always the power plant of the definitive Mustang (having re-engined the original Allison powered A-36 Apache), through 1945 and beyond. It was simply a more advanced design at the time and the equal of the Luftwaffe and Japanese fighters it encountered, even with the Merlin. The Griff Spit, however, was a remarkable machine. An airplane 100 mph faster than the original design, but STILL a light and nimble flyer. The Me-109G and beyond, having undergone the same evolutionary improvements was difficult to handle and did not adapt well to increased power and speed.
@Mostly not true at all. The P-51 attained air superiority over Germany against later model Me-109s and Fw-190s, Ta-152s, etc. The early model Spits attained air superiority, or at least parity against, mainly, the Bf-109E. The later model Spitfire Vb was bested, for the most part, by the Fw-190A, especially at low and medium altitudes. Sure, tactics had something to do with both types’ successes, but to know the history, then say a Mustang was no match for a Spitfire is simply not true.
Getting the 3-views should be the very first step. Trying to re-engineer a build after the fact is sometimes more difficult than a whole new build. Hope the 3 views help. If you need a tester, have a question or need some help, please let me know.
Have you read Saburo Sakai’s biography? Great book.
Wow, nice work, simple and clean, it looks just like the real thing.
@Tang0five yeah, there’s also a “zero on deactivate” setting for engines, but it’s an XML setting, so, sorry to all you iOS builders!
@RamboJutter can you tag me and I can take a look at it.
Make it 1:1 scale, but that would require a rebuild. Add selectable AB (one you can turn on and off). That’s what I would do if I were you...
Sweet build, I wish I could Spotlight it but you have more points, nice!
+1Hey, I landed it on the Beast! It took half a dozen tries, but I figured it out...trim about 3/4 of the way down to the first notch, flaps down all the way, 3-5% power, 135 mph...which is right above stall at 130 mph when the jet sinks and rolls uncontrollably and crashes into the fantail. Then aim to put the MLG about 1’ (no more!) from the end of the fantail. Go to idle and brake right before hitting the deck, then hope to stop before rolling off the end of the deck, into the grey, forbidding ocean where you’ll either be crushed by the aircraft carrier crashing over you or drown in ice cold water...nice!
+1I think I figured it out, AB doesn’t zero on deactivate, I think. Nice build, and featured, no less!
+1Ok, flies well...except...I....can’t...slow...down..?
+1Sorry, I'm just a little wrapped up and wound up about some recent arguments I had on the SP forums regarding the P-51 Mustang's legacy. There's a story out there among quite a few players that: 1. The Mustang wasn't really a good fighter, just a long range escort plane that was useless in a dogfight and 2. The Mustang waltzed into WWII and basically mopped up where other aircraft had already won the war and really wasn't a good fighter or critically needed at the time. Anyway, I was a little wound up with all the stupidly incorrect opinions, I was looking for Mustang builds, saw yours and noticed that ChromeGamer25 had made his moronic comments (below) and figured I'd try and fill you in. I know, I know, I shouldn't get drawn into a fight with a bunch of uninformed kids, I just care about accurate understandings of history.
Results...?
+1And...?
+1@pavthepilot yes, I am on Discord. How would I join your channel?
I have no idea why ChromeGamer25 (and, surprisingly, many other players on these forums) is/are down on the Mustang, but he posted this here, then cut and pasted on your build as well. Anyhow, here was my response to him:
I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
Anyway, I really like your build.
@pavthepilot no...I’m pretty sure we’re empirically correct and his opinion is incorrect. Believe me, I’m pretty much only opinionated about those things I’m certain of.
Both. The very first comment below on this post is an assessment of your build. I like your build and for some reason, there’s a current of misconception against the Mustang in SP. Anyhow, you agreed with ChromeGamer25, but he’s incorrect.
@pavthepilot I’m sorry you got an incorrect view of history and the Mustang’s reputation. In my professional opinion, he’s incorrect in his assessment.
@ChromeGamer25 I strenuously disagree...the P-51 has ended up on nearly every aviation historian’s list of finest fighters, ever, for any time period. Sure, the victor tends to write history, but Mustang pilots were pretty unanimous in their praise of the P-51 and every US fighter pilot wanted to fly one. Col Bud Anderson gave a talk some years ago in my squadron (I also bought his book there) and he was overjoyed with the P-51. In his anecdote discussing one of his most famous kills vs. an Fw-190, he talked about how he went vertical with the Fw, “knowing” he could beat the Fw with full confidence in his plane and the Packard-built Merlin (don’t think to correct me here—the Merlin was license built by Packard and equipped most P-51s during the war). Anyway, he killed the Fw and the unfortunate Luftwaffe pilot. So, I believe your assessment to be incorrect—from an anecdotal perspective, at least. Here’s a discussion you might enjoy. In case you’re wondering, I have a Bachelor if Science degree in History from the United States Air Force Academy, served 24 years flying U-2s, T-38s, T-37s and KC-135s. So I know a bit about flying. And history. And aviation history. And WWII aviation history. The Merlin-powered P-51 was the right balance, turned well enough and was certainly faster than nearly every German and Japanese prop fighter it encountered. If you even have an iota of an inkling that I am who I say I am, you might want to reconsider your position. If you think I’m a liar and internet poseur, then I’ll never convince you otherwise. Either way, I made my argument in the references post. Check my bio (short as it is), look at all my comments. Either way, you might enjoy the read.
+1Ok, I like it. Simple, sure, but that’s part of the charm here. The colors are fantastic, the pitch rate is realistic—no wobble, another plus. It doesn’t roll quite as fast as it should, but it’s not far off. It also isn’t fast enough, but that’s because the SP engine sucks. We have XML drag reduction now, so that might be something we can all fix. I especially like that it’s an A model (actually this is closer to a B or C model, the first two Merlin variants). I encourage you to build a super realistic P-51, but in any event, this should have gotten more upvotes.
Great pic upfront on your bio page. I like it and, because of it, you might appreciate this discussion. I’m going to download your P-51 now.
The rules state: “Don’t beg for upvotes.” The question is whether or not this constitutes begging for upvotes. If you write a description for the build, then tag that at the end, then, technically it probably wouldn’t be seen as begging. But I’m not a Mod. I do know a few, and they might disagree. It’s up to them, and as much in life, it’s open to interpretation. I can tell you that if you make a separate forum post with that message, then, yes it would definitely be seen as begging. In spite of all that, the SP community, especially the platinum ranked denizens of the SP universe who might Spotlight your creation to their 6,385 followers, generally think it in very poor form to ask for upvotes in any way. The build should sell itself. I’ve been posting builds for over 2 years and it’s a learning process. Some builds I thought would be wildly successful weren’t, while others that I thought would be mildly successful were very well received. Bottom line, though, is if there’s any question in your mind that it might be seen as begging, it would be prudent not to do so. Hope this helps to answer your questions.
+6Nice build, good camo job.
Great flight dynamics, very nice.
Nice!
Interesting build, it flies well enough, unlimited fuel, though, that’s a shame.
Additionally, same page as the citation below also states that the RAF, upon evaluating the Allison-engined Mustang I determined that “Tests soon showed the Mustang I to be superior to the Kittyhawk [P-40], Airacobra [P-39] and Spitfire [has to be the Merlin engined variety] in both speed and maneuverability at low altitudes.” And this wasn’t even the Merlin-engines Mustang, clearly superior to the original Allison engined model in nearly every measure.
+1Interesting. Just found this note in a recent book, “Dogfight” by Tony Holmes (Chartwell Books, 2012). In Part IV, Dueling for the Reich 1943-45, P-51 Mustang vs. Fw 190, the author relates on p. 216 that after the RAF took delivery of their first Allison-powered Mustang Is, “...It’s first operational sortie [with the RAF] was flown on July 27 and in October Allison-powered Mustangs became the first RAF single-engined single-seat fighters to penetrate German airspace from England.”
+1Nice build. How did you get it to “sit” so abruptly upon spawning and when landing.
Nice, drones destroyed with ease!
+2What @F104Deathtrap said, how did you get the idea that the “bulge” on the bottom of the P-51 was a jet engine. That was where the radiator resided on the airframe.
Your build is going to be over 2,000 parts if you persist at that level of detail...but it looks really great, I must admit.
Does the nozzle rotate as it pivots down?
Making an F-35B?
Nice P-38. Couldn’t find a Spitfire (Merlin or Griffon powered) or a P-51. Would have upvoted those as well!
@Mostly well, I’ll meet you half way on this with a qualification: I’m certainly not a “fanboy”. The term is degrading and frankly, not an accurate description of me personally. I have a B.S. in History from the United States Air Force Academy, plus 24 years flying U-2s, T-38, T-37 and KC-135. So, I know a bit about Airpower and Airpower history (notice how I capped “Airpower”?), because I’ve spent most of my adult life thinking about this subject. I have also graduated from both the Air Command and Staff and Air War College courses. Plus, I’ve worked staff assignments at the numbered Air Force, CAOC and MAJCOM levels, working operational issues. So, I know a bit of what I’m talking about. The Spit was a great dog fighter but much shorter ranged. The Mustang didn’t turn quite as well, but was fast and long ranged and exploited zoom and boom tactics, but could certainly turn if need be. Both were highly successful in their roles. The fact of the matter, though, is we need to understand the history accurately. To do otherwise is to introduce a creeping misreading or revisionism to the truth.
+2@Mostly the summary page says exactly what I’ve been saying all along. So, no LoL. The first paragraph highlights its Home Defence role, while the second emphasizes its P.R. Role and evolution (in Griff Spit guise) as a more multi-role aircraft. The P-51 lands on MULTIPLE “finest fighter of WWII” lists by many historians. The Spit does as well, but not as many in my perusal of the subject, but I could be incorrect here. Tactically, but he Spit could outturn the Mustang (something you don’t even mention for some reason), while the Stang was superior in speed, but certainly no slouch when in cane to dogfighting (reference Eric Brown’s quote). Strategically, the Mustang’s superior range allowed it to attain the strategic effect of taking the fight to the enemy and into Germany. The Spitfire’s strategic impact was to prevent the Allies from losing the war in the first place. Both significant roles, but your characterization is incorrect. The Spit didn’t single-handedly win the war and just allow the Mustang and 8th Air Force to simply waltz into the Fatherland. There was a lot of bloody combat and mayhem from 1943 and beyond. In fact, the bloodiest day for the Mighty 8th was 14 Oct 43 on the Scheeinfurt mission. Ultimately caused the USAAF to abandon the idea of unescorted daylight bombing. If your assertion of the Spit being an escort is correct, where was the Spit on that day? Couldn’t be there, but the Stang was eventually there and allowed the continuation of 8th AF bombing against the German heartland, where the fighting was more desperate by the Luftwaffe.
+1Geez, look here. Famous range graphic.
+1@Mostly no LOL. CLEARLY I know what I’m talking about. It’s escort role was highly limited as RAF Bomber Command flew night missions without escort. Sure it flew sweeps and some escort across the Channel over France but this was likited. Plus it’s range was limited.
+1BTW, I’ve read all three of these primary accounts...and more. The three books are sitting in my library. You have read them, haven’t you? Or are you arguing your points based on knowledge gained by reading secondary and tertiary accounts on the Net? Besides I’m not saying the Spit did nothing. Read my comments carefully...I just disagree with your assertion marganalizing the Mustang’s role as a mop up. Simply incorrect.
+1@Mostly also how would you explain the fact that the P-51 has the most kills of any USAAF type in WWII? I thought you said, “hey, the P-51 was just mopping up.” The P-38 was withdrawn in favor of the Pacific theater, where it’s twin engines were a better safety margin over water and is cockpit heater was more adequate, leaving (I believe) a single P-38 group in Europe by 1944. The Bolt was readsigned to fly strike missions, better suited due to the P-47’s ability to absorb damage. The Spit didn’t even fly escort missions, it did photoreconnaissance with the longer ranged recce Marks modified to carry fuel in its leading edges. The Spit’s (and Hurri’s) main role in all this was that saved Britain’s butt during the BoB, without which the whole war would have been over. After that, it flew cross Channel missions where it first met the 190s. But the Spit’s role was “increasingly defensive from 1943 on” (Wikipedia quote), Home Defense. I would characterize the Spit’s role like a homeowner with a .38 shooting a home invader. But it really didn’t carry the fight into Western Germany. That was done by the Lancaster, Mossie, Typhoon and Tempest. By the way, another couple of excellent books on this are “Reach for the Sky”, Douglas Bader’s book and “The Big Show” by Pierre Clostermann. The first book by Gp Capt Douglas Bader tells about the earlier phase with the Spit as he was shot down over France in 1941. He lost his legs in a prewar flying accident and flew with articficial legs during the war—incredible story and great read, BTW. Clostermann was a Typhoon/Tempest Pilot during the war and his book tells the story of the latter part of the air war. Those along with the 4th FG’s account should give you a some more historical perspective in your assertions the Mustang did nothing and the Spitfire claimed air superiority over Western Europe.
+1@Mostly do you’re saying, “hey the air war had already been won, so really the P-51 didn’t really do anything!”??? Really. Please read this book, 1000 Destroyed, it’s the USAAF’s 4th FG’s account of the war Over Europe.
+1He’s a nut, no one to be taken seriously. Conspiracy theorists want to believe what they believe and will argue anything and everything and will not listen to reason. And to attack you for swearing on the Bible? That drives me nuts...he probably believes in aliens, but not God?
Finally, here’s a quote I pulled straight out of the Wikipedia article on the P-51 by an RAF test pilot who flew both aircraft: Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[57]
+1But to maintain that the Mustang was not maneuverable because it was a long range escort fighter as compared to the Spitfire’s role as a point defense interceptor, isn’t correct. The Mustang always had great handling. And so did the P-38, for that matter...big wing in spite of the weight of two engines. Perhaps you’re confusing what you hearing about the P-47 with the Mustang.
+1That adaptability was an important characteristic of the Spitfire and one of the keys to its success. And it was a success.
+1So consider the Griffin powered Spitfire. The RAF wanted to re-engine the Spit with a much more powerful engine to keep up with the Luftwaffe. The Merlin was always the power plant of the definitive Mustang (having re-engined the original Allison powered A-36 Apache), through 1945 and beyond. It was simply a more advanced design at the time and the equal of the Luftwaffe and Japanese fighters it encountered, even with the Merlin. The Griff Spit, however, was a remarkable machine. An airplane 100 mph faster than the original design, but STILL a light and nimble flyer. The Me-109G and beyond, having undergone the same evolutionary improvements was difficult to handle and did not adapt well to increased power and speed.
+1@Mostly not true at all. The P-51 attained air superiority over Germany against later model Me-109s and Fw-190s, Ta-152s, etc. The early model Spits attained air superiority, or at least parity against, mainly, the Bf-109E. The later model Spitfire Vb was bested, for the most part, by the Fw-190A, especially at low and medium altitudes. Sure, tactics had something to do with both types’ successes, but to know the history, then say a Mustang was no match for a Spitfire is simply not true.
+1@Mostly P-51 really can’t do much compared to the Spit? That’s simply incorrect.
+1Getting the 3-views should be the very first step. Trying to re-engineer a build after the fact is sometimes more difficult than a whole new build. Hope the 3 views help. If you need a tester, have a question or need some help, please let me know.