When I was starting my teens in the country east of Edmonton, the local crop-duster actually used a P51 to spray our county for mosquitos, caterpillars and other insects. I fell in love with the plane and it was one of the reasons I got interested in WW2. There was also some fellow who lived further north east who every summer would go with friends back and forth over our skies with P51s and other WW2 fighter planes.

They used to build P51s in Winnipeg here in the West and one of my distant relatives flew what the British called “Mustangs” in the war and Korea.

Here is a great example of “Propoganda” I am always warning you about.

From what I’ve read, the P51 ‘series’ continues to be over-rated. Originally, the British ordered this design, whose fuselage was actually designed by one of the German designers responsible for the famous Me109 by the way, from the Americans. However, the American engines in the P51a series sold to the British greatly disappointed the Commonwealth Airforces. The P51 was relegated to ground attack roles where it continued to suffer.

Despite protests by American Arms Contractors, the British experimented with placing the Rolls Royce engines in these bodies...the same family of engines already having proved themselves in the Spitfire series. The result was the salvation of the P51 series and literally of the Allied Daylight Strategic Bombing Offensive, without which we probably would not have won the war.

The new engine greatly increased speed and performance especially at high altitudes. With an expanded internal self-sealing fuel tank and added extra fuel tanks, the P51 quickly replaced the out-matched (in Europe at least) P38 Lightnings and P47 Thunderbolts presently used as long-range fighter escorts.

The vast majority of American sources will say that the P51c/d/e series were the best Allied if not best piston-engined fighter of the war on either side. They use deceiving statistics and selective quotes from pilots on both sides. For example, when it is reported that the P51 Mustang was responsible for most of the Luftwaffe figher losses in the last 2 years of the war, they fail to mention that 75% of Mustang kills were of planes either on the ground, just taking off or just landing. They even quote Luftwaffe Aces such as Adolf Galland to support their claim, however they ignore his other quotes where he and all other Luftwaffe and Italian Aces state that in their experience, the Spitfire was a more dangerous dogfighter to deal with.

Enemy pilots would all admit that it was the range and vast numbers of P51s appearing over Europe that was the biggest difference in the last 2 years of the war. German and Italian experience waned due to losses, numbers and incompetence in High Command Planning. Experience and training cannot be under-estimated. The Germans and even Italians were always outnumbered in all 3 fronts combined at least 3 to one and by late in the war the hours a pilot had in the air decreased from hundreds to dozens. The British, after the Battle of Britain of course, were able to gain some breathing space with all their Commonwealth Allies and untouchable airfields to increase the hours of training again. The Americans were by far the best and most fortunate having this luxury from day one to VE day.

Numbers can be deceiving. Another example is the claim that the Hellcat was the best American fighter in the Pacific War. After all, it is noted, Hellcats claimed more kills that Corsairs for example. However, like the P51 myth, there is a catch here. Because the Corsairs, although designed specifically for carrier use, was found to be too dangerous to operate from carriers so was replaced by the Hellcat. The Hellcat, therefore engaged far more enemy planes than the land-based Corsairs. Although even the Corsair could not outmaneuver the Zeros or later Japanese fighters, it was more agile than the Hellcat. So again, numbers and claims can be deceiving.

Famous American Ace Chuck Yeager is also often quoted. Yet even he is quoted as saying that the more experienced and talented a pilot, the more he preferred the Spitfire over the Mustang. The Spitfire, in the same vein is also over-blown in history as the ‘saviour of the Battle of Britain’. In reality, the Hurricanes shot down more planes, even for their numbers, than the Spitfires did. It should also be taken into consideration which units were on which missions mostly and engaged which planes mostly. As series goes, upgrade for upgrade, the Spitfire was a better dogfighter than the Mustang. However, the Spitfire was limited in range, and designers unwilling to expand the fuselage for fuel tanks to increase its range. Both were comparable in other areas such as speed, agility and rate of climb. Ok, let’s compare these two series in generalities after the British engine in the P51.

Take-off/landings...definately the P51 was the safest here with its wider spaced landing gear and greater base of support. It should be mentioned, however, that the extra-fuel tanks and space the P51 required for its range advantage did require pilots to learn to use the drop-tanks first and take more care when loaded with them, nonetheless, the Spitfire was the more difficult to take-off with and land, not good for training or inexperienced pilots.

Rate of climb...well the Spitfires edge out the P51s here but not significantly.

Durability...the Spitfires were not as durable as the Hurricane for example, and comparison with the Mustang takes some explanation. The Spitfires and Mustangs were better armoured than the early Zeros for example but more vulnerable than Thunderbolts or even Me109s for example. The Mustang suffered for exactly the same reason it was invaluable, extra fuel capacity. Hits on even self-sealing fuel tanks are still dangerous and often force a pilot to flee. The P51 was further hampered by its huge ventral air-intake and the P51 was particularily vulnerable to even small arms fire on its belly, thus it had to avoid operations at lower altitudes and ground support.

Firepower...comparable, some Spitfire versions had more powerful guns but less ammo, but comparable.

Agility...the Spitfire was better in turns and loops, the P51 in rolls and therefore Immelmans, both were exceptionally agile and maneuverable.

Range...the P51 Mustangs were undoubtedly superior here even without extra exterior drop tanks. It should be mentioned that planes’ performance increased the less fuel weight it holds. It cannot be overstated how invaluable the range of the P51 Mustang was to the Allied war effort.

Cost...considering both had to use the expensive superior British engines, the Spitfire was cheaper to build, maintain and repair, but barely signficant.

Visibility...both had excellent visibility, unlike the Me109 for example. Some pilots would criticize this as making the cockpit too vulnerable, but most appreciated the ability to hopefully see the enemy before it became an issue in the first place.

Altitude Performance...here is the greatest disparity. The British invented something called the “Universal Wing”. This permitted the same version of the Spitfire to change wings impressively quickly complete with differing armament to optimize performance at low, medium and high altitudes for operations against ground, naval, bomber or fighter opponents. The P51’s best performance was at high altitudes, at medium and especially low altitudes it was inferior to the Spitfires even without the “Universal Wings”.

The P51s were ideally suited to high level long range strategic bomber escorts. The Luftwaffe’s Fw190s had the firepower to deal with the heaviest Allied bombers, but their performance waned at higher altitudes. The Me109s excelled at high altitudes and could dogfight better with the P51s, but lacked the Fw190s firepower to bring down the heavy bombers. As long as the P51s were operating at high altitudes, they were at their best.

In summary, despite my enduring love of the P51 Mustang, I have come to learn that it was not the best dogfighter series our side had. It was, in my opinion, the best escort fighter our side had and was crucial to the outcome of the war. I have always wondered why it couldn’t be made into a carrier version like the Spitfire was.

Leigh Miller
President Miller Systems

Posted: Feb 11, 2000