I have an ongoing debate with a friend of mine on this topic. Steven is Team Mustang, he believes it is a more reliable and powerful aircraft (he is an aircraft engineer so his reasons make sense). I believe the Spitfire was more capable as a fighter and holds more significance in aviation history than the Mustang (I also grew up in the UK so please read a LOT of bias in my opinion).
It’s important to note that myself or Steven have neither flown in a Spitfire nor a Mustang (but are very open to offers), but as with most aviators we nevertheless have strong opinions on the subject.
Let’s get quantitative for a moment – here are some performance stats of the two aircraft:
| SPITFIRE | MUSTANG | |
|---|---|---|
| Max takeoff weight | 6,700 lb / 3,039 kg | 12,100 lb / 5,490 kg |
| Cruise speed | 272 mph / 237 kts | 362 mph / 315 kts |
| Max rate of climb | 2,600 ft/min | 3,200 ft/min |
| Service ceiling | 36,500 ft | 41,900 ft |
| Range (approx) | 430mm | 1,400nm |
Based on those numbers you could say the Spitfire was slower, couldn’t carry as much, ran out of fuel faster, and would therefore be outperformed by the Mustang every time. But pilots who have flown the Spitfire tell of how agile it was, and that whilst it may not go as high, nor as fast, it could out-manoeuvre the Mustang in a head to head battle any day of the week.
My favourite part of this debate though is eventually we both come around to finding reasons to like each other’s preferred aircraft. Steven will admit the Spitfire was a deadly combatant in the Battle of Britain and I will watch the Mustang display at airshows and realise what a wonderful aircraft it really is.
The truth is there is no “better” aircraft out of the two, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a favourite. I like having a strong opinion, but holding on to it loosely. I think that’s our job as aviators, to use all the available information to make a decision rather than thinking we’re right all the time. Because we’re not!
I ran a quick poll on Instagram to ask the audience what they thought, I haven’t shown this to Steven yet…
During WW2 my father flew Spitfire Vs initially with the RAF ( 130Sqn ) in the UK then in the India/ Burma campaign ( 615 sqn. After two tours he returned to Australia and was assigned to 79 Sqn ( RAAF )- Spitfire VIIIs and sent to Morotai to prepare and assist with the invasion of Japan. Some big bombs put a stop to that. Thought the Mk VIII an absolute gem.
The Spitfire was designed to be a close range, high altitude interceptor. Makes sense as the UK is rather close to Europe.
The Mustangs original power plant was a V12 Allison engine and the aircraft didn’t set the world on fire. Then some bright spark came up with ifea of swapping the Allison engine witha RollsRoyce Merlin. Result- Magic happens!
As to which is a better beast ? Depends on the task. Still, the Americans loved the Spit.
It would have been interesting to see how the Spitfire VIII performed against the Focke-Wulf Ta 152. On paper the Ta 152 is superior- but in combat? who knows?
I read a comment from an american pilot that flew Mustangs and most other ww2 arena us fighters. His comment after flying a spitfire for a while..and which I love .. and makes no preference was simply.. You get INTO an american fighter but you put ON a spitfire .. probably similar to the me109.. right and surrounding part of… It’s form fitting to an extent.. must have made aerial combat more responsive and second nature I’m guessing
The above quoted performance stats are nonsense.
Are you comparing a mk1 spit with a later mustang!
The later marks of the spitfire particularly with the Griffon engine knocked spots off the mustang which was only good because we put a rolls engine in a good airframe.
The range issue is explaiined by the fact that Leigh Mallory declined the opportunity to make the spitfire long range.
The P51 was a result of a British order for a fighter but Allison engine was badly underpowered..
Hence the installation of the Merlin.
Paul Murphy the reason why the P51s range was greater than the Spitfire was because of the laminar Flow Wings the P51 had.
And the guy Stefano Drury who wrote this story needs to get his facts right because all those stats for the Spitfire are completely Wrong, the speed of the spitfire he as put is from a mk1,if we use the speed of the mk9 spitfire with the Griffin engine it would destroy the P51.Spitfire 397mph cruise speed, P51 362mph.
Climb Rate Spitfire 4,745ft/min P51 3,200ft/min.
Service Ceiling Spitfire 43,000ft. P51 41,900.
These stats are from a Spitfire Mk9.
It’s a facile explanation… Which Spitfire, and which Mustang? Both types changed dramatically in the course of their development. An F22 is a Spitfire in name only – it shares nothing in common with the Mk.1. Likewise, the P-51D was an entirely different aeroplane to the early Allison-powered razor backs.
Let’s consider their ultimate marks that were used in the war though – the Spitfire was slightly faster, was appreciably more agile, had a better rate of climb. The Mustang had far better endurance and better firepower (and I think had a slightly higher ceiling).
Both were excellent aircraft which generally did different types of job. I don’t think one is better than the other; they’re different. A Yank will choose the P51, a Brit will choose the Spit.
No contest. The Spitfire (and Hurricanes) saved England during the Battle of Britain, but the Mustangs undoubtedly won the war. You can debate and compare performance figures, but there is no comparison when the P-51s were escorting the formations of B-17s over Berlin — the Spitfires simply weren’t there. Spitfires were about 500 miles behind without the range to get to Berlin or anywhere deep within Germany. While the Mustangs were destroying the German Air Force as they tried to stop the bombers, the Spitfires simply played a supporting role (much like the P-47s before the invasion). Without the Mustangs enabling the allies to go on the OFFENSIVE against the Germans we would not have had the air superiority necessary to enable the invasion or the success of the ground campaign afterwards.
I’ll readily admit that the Mustang would not have been a war winner without the Merlin. Funny story, the British were actually the first to recognize the performance potential of the Merlin Mustang. They had to push to get the Americans to even evaluate it.
Also, I’ve never been a huge fan of the Spitfire’s elliptical wing planform shape. The Mustang enjoyed the same minimum induced drag benefit of an elliptical wing simply by using wing twist to achieve an elliptical lift distribution. This enabled the wing to be much easier to manufacture. All modern aircraft use this same technique. Ever see a commercial jet with an elliptical wing shape like the Spitfire?
Comparing the mk 21/24 or even the mk14 to an early p51 makes no sense. Just as comparing a p51d to a mark 1 spit is again pointless. But if you put the mk IX against the p51C model you get a true late 1943 early 1944 comparative which will show a mkIX at 408 mph and the p51C at 437mph the range is not comparable one a short range interceptor the other a long range escort. In this small but comparatively the same category of maneuverability they both had advantages and disadvantages. One thing you failed to consider the Mustang could drop its flaps 10 degrees and out turn the spit at most altitudes, As far as engines you can’t compare the Griffon to the Merlin but most airmen preferred the Packard (American) built Merlin’s over the British built Merlin’s for its reliability and greater performance due to higher quality manufacturing. Let’s do the F15 to the Brits umm never mind we would have to wait until the euro fighter Typhoon.
RICK -Mustang won the war? Air superiority was in Allied hands before D-Day in 1944, and there were only a couple of squadrons of Mustangs in service during Big Week in March of ’44 when it was lost to the Germans. Pretty much the Luftwaffe had died well before the Mustang arrived in numbers. And what likely ‘won the war’ was superior Allied ground support as provided by Thunderbolts, Lightnings,and Typhoons.
We need to remember that, in 1934 when Mitchell first put pen ro paper for the Spitfire, aerodynamics as a science was barely 20 years old. When Kindelburger & Schmeud started work on the P51 in late 1940, things had advanced considerably, so the Mustang ended up significantly faster, taking advantage for instance of the “Meredith effect” (1935) which essentially eliminated drag from the radiator, and the work at NACA which gave rise to the laminate flow wing. The Mustang was designed and built in a tearing hurry in 1940, without great care being given to weight. This was rectified in the last Mustang, the P51H, which weighed some 700Kg less than the D model, and was thus significantly faster.