You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Who needs Cold War jets?
When will we get a like button
You couldn’t handle a like button.
Wow! How low was that Spitfire?
😁
You can hear why the Japanese called the Corsair “whispering death”! Noticeably quieter than the in-line engines.
Wow that spit was low, awesome noise.
Spitfire won that round!
The noise...!
Spitfire deffo the win.
Spitfire won that round!
Although it is important to remember that you can only ever tie the record for the lowest pass.
Did anyone else think "Use the force Luke"?
Spitfire won that round!
The noise…!
My neighbour sold his Hurricane 2 years ago. Not bought him a beer since.
Outstanding. 🙂
Looks spectacular but is it real? No sign of the grass or water moving - surely at that level there would be some airflow disturbing the ground?
I’d say Hell Yeah! Real.
Magic!
Looks spectacular but is it real?
Yep, there’s a ‘behind the scenes’ film/interview with the pilot somewhere.
Brilliant flying in that case!
Is it only me that thinks the Mustang is a much nicer looking plane than the Spitfire?
Probably the superior fighter too if my late night docu viewing is to be believed anyway.
Both have nice engines though.😃
Great vid, thanks for posting op.
Is it only me that thinks the Mustang is a much nicer looking plane than the Spitfire?
Probably the superior fighter too if my late night docu viewing is to be believed anyway.
To my mind, the Merlin engined Spitfires look very elegant. The Mustang looks purposeful.
Based on what I have read, the Mustang was faster despite being bigger and heavier because it was designed for low-drag and it had incredible range. The Spitfire was designed as a short-range interceptor, so I gather it would out-perform a Mustang in one-on-one combat but a Mustang would be able to stay engaged long after a Spitfire had to dive for home due to lack of fuel. The Mustang was more versatile because it was more robust and could carry a greater payload of fuel or munitions.
Wow! How low was that Spitfire?
MH434, a mk IX flown by Ray Hanna He has form...
Amazing flying and ballsy given how rare and expensive these things are.
Mustang vs Spitfire? has to be Spit for me. The Mustang is a nice bit of kit for sure but to my eye the Spitfire looks nicer and sleeker - chunky up front, massive prop, elegantly tapering to the tail and that massive elliptical wing and tail is a thing of beauty - a genuine work of art. Form and function. The Mustang is nice but square edged wings and tail, much more slender wing (obviously more aerodynamically efficient), but far more functional. Big fat and bulbous in the middle, which ruins its lines, and slender at the nose and tail. a later and more efficient design aerodynamically to suit its longer range escort role, but aesthetically the Spitfire has it for me.
The later variants of the Spit were faster than the mustang and were better at the interceptor role, which is what it was designed for - short range, fast with a high climb rate and very manoeuvrable. The Mustang was an escort fighter due to better range and more efficient airframe...different planes designed for different tasks so pointless comparing - apples and oranges. But between them they were the best fighters of the WW2. But the Mustang only really came to the fore when they plugged a Merlin engine into it, so that is the common link between the two aircraft.
I was actually stood next to a MKXIX spit and a Mustang last week. Both beautiful aircraft in the flesh and close up - but the Spit pipped it to my eye, but the Mustang certainly had presence. Surprisingly the Mustang looked a bit smaller than the spit, I had always imagined them to be larger (probably due to the bulbous middle). The spit had a massive 5 bladed prop vs the Mustangs smaller 4 bladed prop, so Spit won hands down on those grounds - but it had the far more powerful Griffon engine so needed the bigger prop to soak up all that extra HP.
Saw the Spit go out for a short jaunt during the day. Unfortunately the Mustang remained on the ground. Must be a real privilege to fly these things.
MH434, a mk IX flown by Ray Hanna He has form…
/blockquote>
**** me!
Surprisingly the Mustang looked a bit smaller than the spit, I had always imagined them to be larger (probably due to the bulbous middle)
The Spit got longer with the Griffon and was within a few inches the same size.
Think there was a bit of a stretch around mk9? although nothing like the difference the griffon made.
obviously more aerodynamically efficient
Contentious.
Spitfire wing was about as good as it got. Mustang tried for laminar flow but in wartime conditions that was a complete miss. Practically identical wing area. Mustang wing probably easier to build.
The Mustang got the Meredith effect on the radiator right, and the Spitfire didn't. Spitfire had smaller tips which had lower drag. Griffon Spitfires had more power and less weight than the Mustang.
But between them they were the best fighters of the WW2
Hmmm.
190?
Yak-9?
Macchi 202?
Jug?
Zero?
Spitfire wing was about as good as it got.
hmmmm, Depends. The prevailing theory of the German fighters was the smaller the better, look at the Me-109 and FW-190 wings, teeny by comparison. Highly loaded, giving them that snap-tight turn performance that the Spitfire couldn't match. But it's swings and roundabouts (as always) the spitfire (in theory) could hold a turn for longer...But early war fighter tactics were pretty much dive, squirt off some rounds, swoop back up, and start again...Turning fights weren't encouraged by either side.
Griffon Spitfires had more power and less weight than the Mustang.
And yet the Mustang was still faster, no space for that giant 11ft diameter Hamilton 4 blade on the Spitty. Weirdly the prop in the Griffon engined Spitfires was smaller than the Merlin engined ones.
Wait, where are you going? I have a short but informative power point to show you....
Hmmm.
190?
Yak-9?
Macchi 202?
Jug?
Zero?
Well you'd need to define criteria to sort that lot out - top speed? time to climb? tightness of turning circle? high speed manoeuvrability, Low speed manoeuvrability? the list goes on. You can choose any single parameter and all of those will probably be the best at something, but you've got to balance it all out and decide, somehow, on the balance of attributes. Also the aircraft are designed for their specific theatre of combat so not all designed to fulfil the same roles.
A debate that will rage on almost as long as the 26er vs 29er / flats vs clips / tubed vs tubeless etc debates.
But early war fighter tactics were pretty much dive, squirt off some rounds, swoop back up, and start again…Turning fights weren’t encouraged by either side.
That's the bit usually ignored by the romantics. The ideal kill was where you snuck up unseen on someone and shot him in the back or the belly.
I've got somewhere a book on the Confederate Airforce from the 80s and it reprinted a large part of the basic primer on aerial warfare for pilots. It doesn't make for pleasant reading, but then it wasn't a time to be pleasant.
There was a documentary that the BBC showed about the Confederate Airforce in the 80s that was epic, the first 5 minutes were just shots of planes being readied and taxiing out to the opening section of Shine On You Crazy Diamond.
Wish I could find it.
Wish I could find it.
On you tube, look for "Colonel Culpepper's flying circus". I think the CAF use the name "Commemorative Air Force" now.
And yet the Mustang was still faster
I thought it were other way around. But the difference was only a mph or six, and probably different at different heights.
Well you’d need to define criteria to sort that lot out
Zigackly.
British astronaut Tim Peake is on TV later tonight (The One Show, 7pm) flying a Spitfire, he's posted some teaser footage on Twitter (@astro_timpeake).
Christ. he's only qualified on an ISS, he'll be all over the place in a Spitfire.
But early war fighter tactics were pretty much dive, squirt off some rounds, swoop back up, and start again…Turning fights weren’t encouraged by either side.
Boom n zoom baby.
You want a good continuous climb rate, a good zoom climb rate, a high roll rate and high instantaneous turn rate/angle of attack - with good control authority over 400mph.
Spitfire had the first two and a good continuous turn rate, which is a different thing. If I had to choose an aircraft to fight over Europe I'd have preferred to go to war in a P-47 or over the Pacific a P-38, simply because both were highly survivable aircraft in their respective theatres. Mustang jockeys got shot down a lot on the way home from escorting the bombers, a lot of the USAF would strafe Germany on the way back home and the P-51's proved to be particularly vulnerable to AA. The P-38 was great in the pacific because you had two engines over the vast ocean, a load of nose mounted guns and a 20mm cannon and you were faster than the vast majority of the Japanese land based and naval fighters.
As an aside, PaddyPatrone youtube channel.
On you tube, look for “Colonel Culpepper’s flying circus”.
That was it. Brilliant! Thanks for that.
I’d have preferred to go to war in a P-47
The standard joke went: "How do you evade enemy fighters in a P47? Answer: "You undo the seat-belts and run around the cockpit"
sort of almost a fighter, kind of
Also, sometimes one mustang is not enough
simply because both were highly survivable aircraft in their respective theatres
interviews with (surviving) pilots often show them valuing this attribute for some strange reason 😀
many hurricane pilots were on record as envying the spitfire's climb rate but preferring the ease of handling and amount of punishment the hurricane could take
Highly loaded, giving them that snap-tight turn performance that the Spitfire couldn’t match
Actually the spit could out turn the 109. Larger wing generally means better turning due to lower wing loading. Spits generally had the better of the 109 throughout especially when they got their pressurised carburettors solving the negative G fuelling issue. The FW109 came along and the response was the Spit MK IV to counter that...which it did. The rest was down to tactics to play into the strengths of your aircraft and exploit the weaknesses of your competitors.
Griffon Spitfires had more power and less weight than the Mustang.
And yet the Mustang was still faster, no space for that giant 11ft diameter Hamilton 4 blade on the Spitty.
Nah, the later gen merlin spitfires were faster (though what altitude you talking about???) and the griffon ones were definitely faster, and the 5 bladed prop on the spitfire I saw last week was larger than the 4 bladed prop on the mustang - at least looked It as they sat there side by side. The griffon was significantly more powerful than the Packard built Merlins in the Mustangs which were not even as powerful as the later gen merlins the Spitfires got before getting the griffon.
Like I said...the Mustang was a better aircraft than the spit for the purposes it was designed for, and the Spitfire was a better aircraft than the Mustang for the purposes it was designed for. Basically to say one aircraft was better than the other without qualifying the statement is oversimplifying. Like saying a Ferrari is better than a tractor...well not at ploughing a field it isn't.
Difficult to tell from the images below but both chuffing big props...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Nah, the later gen merlin spitfires were faster (though what altitude you talking about???) and the griffon ones were definitely faster, and the 5 bladed prop on the spitfire I saw last week was larger than the 4 bladed prop on the mustang – at least looked It as they sat there side by side. The griffon was significantly more powerful than the Packard built Merlins in the Mustangs which were not even as powerful as the later gen merlins the Spitfires got before getting the griffon.
Depends - RAF Mustangs C's with the malcolm hood and 25lb boost were faster on the deck - pretty sure they were faster than even the Tempest on the deck as well.
Actually the spit could out turn the 109. Larger wing generally means better turning due to lower wing loading.
There's a lot to turn performance, there are continuous turns that you are talking about, energy retention (ie how much speed are you still carrying after executing a turn at a certain rate/G), instantaneous turn rate and angle of attack.
The ME109 could sustain higher angles of attack and higher instantaneous turn rates, it's just that a lot of rookie pilots panicked and let off the stick when the leading edge slats opened.
Hans Joachim Marseille exploited those characteristics with his preference for high angle deflection shooting and went on to become the highest scoring western front ace.
A key point to keep in mind is that the Mustang was designed four years after the Spitfire, and that was a big technological difference back then.
A similar gap is the one to the Sea Fury as the final generation of piston engined fighters to see service. It is noteworthy that when converting aircraft for air racing, where pure performance is the goal, the Mustangs received a lot of aerodynamic work on the wing, whereas the Sea Fury wing is about as good as it can get, with most changes focussing on the power plant.
Actually the spit could out turn the 109
On paper yeah, it's one of those "facts" that often gets drummed out. In actuality not so much for all the good reasons oakleymuppet points out. When talking about dog-fighting the 109 allied pilots would talk about how much ammo it carried, and how it could pack a punch and how fast it was, no-one ever said, "yeah, bit we could out turn it"...As in reality, they couldn't.
On paper yeah, it’s one of those “facts” that often gets drummed out.
Not on paper. Was a key tactic. Get a 109 on your tail, go into a tight turn. 1.5 turns later you were on its tail. words straight out of the mouth of Spitfire Ace Jonny Johnson when I met him 28 years ago (ish). Utilising the superior turn performance of the spitfire was THE key tactic if you got a 109 on your tail. Once in the turn the spit had the advantage. The 109 couldn't peel off or they hand the advantage to the spit. In the early part of the war the 109 could only hope to get away from a spit by a negative g dive, which due to merlin carbs (vs 109 fuel injection) meant it had to do a half roll before pulling back to keep positive G on giving the 109 a chance to get away. But they introduced pressurised carbs pretty quickly to counter that. Worked for Jonny Johnson. He was alive and kicking because of it.
On the speed thing the altitude is the key factor. No aircraft was fast at low altitude and high altitude. The requirements on the design of the aircraft to achieve those two things are different. The spit was faster at higher altitudes. Still surprised the later spits would have been slower at lower altidudes due to the superiority of the later merlins and Griffon engines but I guess the big wing of the spit was draggy so hampered performance at low altitude. In reality there is only 5 or 10 mph in it anyway...they were all pushing the limits.
Some serious plane love and insights on here. 🙂
Not on paper. Was a key tactic. Get a 109 on your tail, go into a tight turn. 1.5 turns later you were on its tail. words straight out of the mouth of Spitfire Ace Jonny Johnson when I met him 28 years ago (ish). Utilising the superior turn performance of the spitfire was THE key tactic if you got a 109 on your tail. Once in the turn the spit had the advantage. The 109 couldn’t peel off or they hand the advantage to the spit. In the early part of the war the 109 could only hope to get away from a spit by a negative g dive, which due to merlin carbs (vs 109 fuel injection) meant it had to do a half roll before pulling back to keep positive G on giving the 109 a chance to get away. But they introduced pressurised carbs pretty quickly to counter that. Worked for Jonny Johnson. He was alive and kicking because of it.
The tactic to defeat a fighter going into a continuous turn, is just to carry on in a straight line - then high yo yo back down on them and fire off a high deflection shot. Lots of pilots were not so lucky as Johnson when going into a basic defensive manoeuvre like that.
Sticking to someones tail and following them into a turn for a close rear shot is how a lot of pilots got themselves killed by their opponents wingmen as well.
Pappy Boyington had the right idea in the pacific - the Zeros had an awesome turn rate. Doesn't matter if you hold your speed better and fight aggressively with high deflection attacks.
A key point to keep in mind is that the Mustang was designed four years after the Spitfire, and that was a big technological difference back then.
I love the fact that the B52 flew 12 years after the Mustang and the USAF are planning to keep it in service until 2045.
Not on paper. Was a key tactic
Might be if you're Johnny Johnson, but wasn't by any means a "key tactic" for everyone, in fact because the Spit had to "climb to turn" otherwise in a flat turn it would loose altitude and speed, Pilots were warned specifically against getting into a turning fight, as 1. the 109 will likely get inside you, and 2. the 109 will straight line out if there's no advantage. The key tactic was gain height, dive, quick blast, dive away and climb for another go. Turning fights are for Hollywood. As Oakleymuppet points out nearly all HJ Marseilles kills were lead deflection shots on turning aircraft, and he shot down 158...doesn't seem like the best place to be to me.