Mustang Angst

[Badger 1]

Hello All

I've been reading this forum for about a year and enjoying the knowledge displayed. I really get a kick out of learning the ideas of folks from around the world. I always find it instructive to hear different points of view. Thats part of why I like this forum so much.

When hearing other points of view, I expect to be surprised by challenges to my preconceived notions. Prior to reading this forum I figured that people from Germany, Italy, Japan (and to a lesser extent Russia), would rate U.S. planes poorly in relation to their own. It seemed to me that this would be a natural reaction. (I know its a knee jerk reaction on my part regarding their aircraft...rose colored glasses and all).

What I found was something quite different. The strongest objection to U.S. aircraft (it seems to me) comes from England. And of all the Yankee aircraft discussed...the Mustang really seems to "touch a nerve". This I did not forsee.

Now don't get me wrong, I know the P-51 is not the wonder plane that most Americans think it is...but the disdain it receives by many in this forum is a bit curious, and I can't help but wonder why...particularly since the heart of the beast is a Rolls Royce masterpiece! In the interest of learning more I submit the following reasons as possible answers as to why the "Stang" catches the "flak" (pun intended) it does.

1. The Mustang gets the attention, while the Spitfire was the better plane (and there from the start).

2. Americans are just too annoying for words(I sometimes think so...and I'm a Yank!)...and so are their cruddy airplanes. (the phrase "Overpaid, Oversexed and Overhere...comes to mind).

3. This issue is just one symptom of the larger pain...England gave its all for the duration of the war, the U.S. shows up late, claims the glory and reaps the benefits post war, while England has to recover from a devestated economy for many years thereafter. The Mustang is a symbol of that angst.

I'm just spitballing here...and hoping to hear from the folks who know.

[Wuzak]

Hi Badger,

Welcome to the forum.

You make an interesting observation. Can't say that I have been aware of any antipathy towards the Mustang, not to say that it doesn't happen.

Your 3rd point has quite a bit of validity, I think. Particularly for the English who had to bear the brunt of the war until Hitler turned on the Russians.

2nd point, Americans can be annoying, mainly when they come together in a group (say like a country), but individually they really are quite nice. Well, mostly. Well, the ones I have met and/or convesred with over the net.

1st point, I guess superficially is true. But I think that in discussions it usually comes out that the Spitfire and the Mustang are really for two different roles - one is a defensive fighter and the other can fly long distances.

I think it was Greg who first posted this quote (and he can correct me if I get it wrong):

The P-51 can't do what the Spitfire can, but it can do it over Berlin

[ChrisMcD]

I know the P-51 is not the wonder plane that most Americans think it is...but the disdain it receives by many in this forum is a bit curious, and I can't help but wonder why...particularly since the heart of the beast is a Rolls Royce masterpiece!

Hi Badger,

Well as one Brit, I always suspect that there is a risk that we try and take the credit for the Mustang! All that; "built in 100 days to a British spec stuff".

IMHO North American did a superb job. They knew what they had to build and got it exactly right. Time and time again a good company builds the best plane with only a loose specification/lack of official interest (ie Spitfire, Mustang, Fw190 etc.).

So I tend to vote for companies rather than countries!

Personally I always get amused by the amount of adrenalin that any debate on the P-38 generates.

But then Lockheed are hard to pigeonhole - not fighter specialists, not bomber specialists, not transport specialists - but they keep on coming up with iconic examples of each!

[GregP]

Hi Badger,

Welcome to the fray.

You pose an interesing question. The Spitfire is a GREAT airplane. So are the Me / Bf 109 and the P-51 Mustang. Anyone who doesn't think so should check out the number of enemy aircraft shot down by the ubiquitous Me 109.

By far, it exceeds the Spitfire or any OTHER WWII aircraft in kills, but the British, for some reason, are loathe to acknowledge the Bf 109 as a "Great Plane." This forum used to be called "The Great Planes" or "TGP".

Many posters here say that kill ratio should not be considered as a significant factor. That is usually because they favor a plane that was shot down in droves by another plane they don't like from the other side.

The North American P-51 Mustang was a "Great Plane," and still is, and it takes nothing away from the Mustang.

Most British comparison tests were done limiting the Mustang to some 36 to 40inches of boost, but their Spitfires were allowed, in the SAME test series, to use upwards of 60+ inches of boost and, in some cases, more. Of course, the Spitfire always comes out on top in these cases. Go figure.

Now it is true that the Spitfire was a better performer in air-to-air comabt since it used the same engine but weighed some several thousand pounds less than the Mustang but, in lethal combat the winner would probably be the better pilot.

That is also true of other airplanes of more disparate performance ... the better pilot usually always wins. For instance, a really great pilot in a Curtiss P-40 could probably shoot down an average or lower pilot in a Spitfire.

The real question is which fighter contributd more to the victory in WWII.

The answer depends on your point of view, where you were, and what you were doing.

If you were escorting a squadron of B-17's (or Lancasters, Halifaxes, etc.) into Germany to bomb of war material factory in a Mustang, then the Mustang was the best, at least in YOUR mind.

If you were scrambling from Bassingborne to shoot down a V-1 in a Spitfire, and succeeded, then the best was the Spitfire.

If you swapped mounts, the pilots would not be familiar with the idiosyncracies of the other bird, and so would not be ABLE to take advantage of the aircraft's inherent abilities to the fullest extent.

Also, we are dealing with familiarity. A pilot who flew only the Mustang would swear it was the best fighter he ever flew, whether or not he mentioned that it was the ONLY fighter he ever flew. Same for the Spitfire in reverse.

The question of whether or not the Spitfire or the Mustang was the better aircraft could really be best answered by the enemy piliots who fought both. According to most German Luftwaffe pilots, the Mustang beat them because it was flying over Berlin (and the Spitfire wasn't) ... but that is misleading.

In reality, the Spitfire did NOT have the best roll rate, DID have the best climb rate, and had average armament coupled with a medium roll rate and short range for most of the war. Yes, the range COULD have been fixed and everntually was, but it wasn't used in the escort role very often.

The Mustang was faster, with a GREAT ZOOM climb, had average armament and a MUCH longer range.

Also, there were never enough Mustangs to supplant the Spitifre of vice versa.

My overriding impresion is that the Mustang, Spitfire, Me 109, Fw 190, La-5, La-7, Zero, and Kawanishi Flying Boats were the best of the war, but other planes could and DID perform missions of vital importance.

"The Best" is sometimes quite subjective.

[ickysdad]

We always talk "best fighter" BUT remember having the "best fighter" doesn't necessarily mean having the "best fighter service" or "best airforce" nor does it imply "carrying out the best strategy" . If I'm not wrong Germany & Japan were churning out fighters at a decent quip even at the end but thier pilot training programs were pretty kaput at the end.
However IMHO you can take all the Lavochins, Yak's , Spitfires,Tempest ,'109's , '190's, Ki-84's , George's , P-51 , P-47, P-38 , F4U and F6F with the result being all 13 are essentially equal. If I left anybody's favorite out well add them !!! LOL!!!! There are probably a couple that deserve to be added.
Greg pointed out that other planes provided useful service two example come to mind for me the Spitfire V and F4F. The "V" is the most maligned of the Spitfire series BUT it held the line from mid-1941 to mid-1942?????? Anyways It was inferior to the '190 but fact is it was THERE at one of the most critical points of the war just as the F4F was there for the USN in the Pacific in 1942 & early '43 when F6F's started coming online.
Anyways I post on several websites and it does seem that the US & UK posters always seem at odds with each other more so then others. Could it be because we are the same people seperated by a common language??? LOL !!!!! Now on issue # 2 Badger said the US were overpaid over-sexed, and over here!!! LOL !!! Well now I heard a story that US troopes had access to large amount of silk stockings which they could bestow on the British ladies which led to the term " one YANK and there off!!!""" LOL !!!!!! I imagine the British men did get resentful!!!!! LOL !!!!!!

[Double T]

Welcome Badger...
I still can't BELIEVE GregP left out the Lockheed P-38 in his "short list" of great WW2 fighter aircraft.
Har-de-har.
I do believe Nationalism is very much alive and well in discussing this emotional subject... NO, not women. Fighter planes.
I'm just sorry that Grumman didn't introduce the F8F Bearcat in 1943... but that's another subject for another discussion.

Tim

[merlin]

Yes, I am also puzzled by the anti P-51 brigade in some forums.

The combination of the Mustang airframe and the Merlin engine gave the Allies one of the most outstanding aircraft of the War. Yet too many seem to think it wasn't as good as its 'legend' - whatever that is meant to mean.
When the US Fighter Squadrons came to Britain - they were equiped firstly with Spitfires. In Northern Europe to use the P-39 & P-40, just wasn't viable - in the Med or Russia sure - combat altitude was usually lower.

Why the dislike - maybe the Brits prefer the Spitfire, while the Americans prefer a home grown aircraft - rather than an Anglo-American aircraft (British spec., US design, British engine), who knows.

Just as the Spitfire was crucial to the RAF's fighter success, the Zero to Japanese success in the Pacific, the Hellcat to the USN success in the Pacific, so to the Mustang to the US 8th Air Force success over the skies of Germany.

[Double T]

Oh, like... we're SURE to get an objective response from a guy named "Merlin."
(BIG smile)
I think the accolades are well-deserved, but the issue of nationalistic-pride does play a role. Had the "marriage" not gone so well, history would have remembered the Merlin-engined Mustang as a real bastard... or a mutt of questionable breeding at the least.
Might some of the animosity be related to the fact that USA-based Packard built a motor every bit as strong and reliable as the Rolls Royce folks?

Tim

[Wuzak]

Oh, like... we're SURE to get an objective response from a guy named "Merlin."
(BIG smile)
I think the accolades are well-deserved, but the issue of nationalistic-pride does play a role. Had the "marriage" not gone so well, history would have remembered the Merlin-engined Mustang as a real bastard... or a mutt of questionable breeding at the least.
Might some of the animosity be related to the fact that USA-based Packard built a motor every bit as strong and reliable as the Rolls Royce folks?

Tim

Not sure about that last point DT. If Packard didn't build Merlins as strong and reliable as Rolls Royce I think they would hev ben dropped from the program very smartly.

[Ricky]

Bacause they proved they could re-jig it for mass-production and churn them out by the thousand, and yet they were still as good as the RR version.

I have seen a good deal of belittling of the P-51 (and the Packard Mustang) on various forums - much of it richly undeserved and often from posters with names like 'megabrit' :rolleyes:

But I didn't think TGP was really in that category...

[merlin]

Oh, like... we're SURE to get an objective response from a guy named "Merlin."
(BIG smile)
I think the accolades are well-deserved, but the issue of nationalistic-pride does play a role. Had the "marriage" not gone so well, history would have remembered the Merlin-engined Mustang as a real bastard... or a mutt of questionable breeding at the least.
Might some of the animosity be related to the fact that USA-based Packard built a motor every bit as strong and reliable as the Rolls Royce folks?

Tim

I chose my username as much from King Arthur's magician as the aero-engine, and it needs to be something not-too-long and memorable.
Sure - 'nationalistic' pride is a factor, though that can work both ways!
The early estimates were not believed - especially by the US, but in the end it worked out to everyones advantage - except the Germans.
Personally no problem over Packard, my Father who was in the RAF in WW2 thought the Packard Merlins were better.

[Double T]

Well spoken Merlin.
You DID understand I was joking with you about your handle?
I wasn't sure how to handle the "smilies" in this new forum... thus the (BIG smile)
No explanation required... but thanks for sharing!

Tim