Mustang Vs. Spitfire - Which Was Best?

by FliteTest | July 23, 2018 | (4) Posted in Just Fun

The P-51 Mustang and Supermarine Spitfire were both brilliant Allied fighters during WW2, but which one was the best?

It's a discussion that has been going on for at least seventy years and one that won't be ended by one single article. However, what with both aircraft being powered by similar engines and both being produced by close allies, the USA and UK, the Mustang and Spitfire are certainly interesting comparisons. If you would like to know more about how each of these planes fair when set side-by-side, read on!


Let's look at the facts!

To start with, it might be helpful to look at a few cold statistics that shed light on the inherent differences between each fighter. Later on, we can dive more deeply into the specifics. 

Aircraft
Mustang
Spitfire
Country
USA
Britain
Type
Fighter
Fighter
First Flight
1940
1936
Introduction
1942
1938
Crew
1
1
Number Built
16,000
20,300


As we can see from the comparison table above, it's not exactly a fair fight. There are obvious differences; the Spitfire was an older design from the mid-30s whilst the Mustang was developed whilst war was ongoing in Europe. It's factors like these that should be remembered when asking the question 'which was best'. Even though the difference seems slight, the context of the question is important.   

 A P-51D in Flight


All Out Performance 

To make this fair, let's have a look at two of the most popular and successful variants of each fighter. The P51D and Spitfire MK.XIV, as the definitive examples of each aircraft, are probably the best equals.

A Rolls-Royce Griffon, the engine that powered the MKXIV Spitfire to a top speed of 437mph.

 
In most cases, the Spitfire had better performance as an all-purpose fighter. The all-important climb rate for a P51D sat at 3200ft per minute whilst the Spitfire could climb at an impressive 3650ft per minute. The maximum speed of a P51D was 437mph whilst the Spitfire was slightly faster at 448mph. For interception, this was clearly quite important. However, the P51D was generally more specialized than the Spitfire. In it's main role, the Mustang proved itself as a superb escort fighter in Allied bombing raids over Germany. For this role, the American aircraft didn't really need the Spitfire's versatile performance. Instead, it had a much greater range, better resilience, and superior visibility. 


Firepower 

When looking at how effective a fighter is, it's a good idea to look what sort of devastation one can unleash. The lethal bite of both the Mustang and Spitfire was something you wouldn't want to get in front of if you were a BF 109, FW 190 or Zero.  Again, let's compare the P51D and Spitfire MK XIV.


Primary Guns
Secondary Guns
P51D
6x M2 Browning Machine Guns
N/A
Spitfire MK XIV
4x 20mm cannons
.303 Machine Guns


It's clear that both aircraft had fearsome loadouts. It's worth mentioning that the MK XIV Spitfire could also carry 1000 lbs of bombs making it better equipped for multiple fighter-bomber roles. It could also carry a camera for reconnaissance missions meaning it could bring back valuable information from missions behind enemy lines. Wing racks were fitted to some P51D's, but the recommended load was just 500lbs. Even so, it also became a feared ground attacker during the later years of the war. 

Artwork by Antonis Karidis


Contribution to the Conflict

Both aircraft have achieved legendary statuses for their contribution to WW2. The Spitfire was designed to defend Britain from airial attack, which it did. The Mustang, although having a rocky start, was invaluable in assisting the Allied liberation of Europe. Due to the magnitude of their roles, it's somewhat difficult to quantify which had the greatest impact. 

Artwork by Antonis Karidis

Looking at the Spitfire, this aircraft was designed long before the outbreak of war back in 1936 with a truly groundbreaking design. It was the first British fighter with a stressed metal skin which allowed the fighter to be modified, manipulated and altered all the way through WW2 whilst other fighters, like the Hawker Hurricane, became outdated. Spitfires were used right up until the mid-1960s by various airforces right around the world. 

The last version of the Spitfire, the MKXXIV

Like the Spitfire, the Mustang proved itself on multiple fronts. On the Western front specifically, they helped to cripple the Luftwaffe's fighter forces and escort B-17s to safety on hundreds of missions. Commander of the Luftwaffe Hermann Göring was quoted as saying, "When I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up." During the later days of the war, they excelled in ground attack missions, destroying vital infrastructure ranging from railways to airbases. The Mustang too served after WW2 and played another key role in Korea. 

A Mustang taxis through a puddle at an airbase in Korea. 


Which do you think was the best fighter and why? Write a comment below!


Build your own Spitfire!

Build your own Mustang!


Article by James Whomsley

Editor of FliteTest.com

james@flitetest.com

www.youtube.com/projectairaviation

COMMENTS

kilroy07 on August 1, 2018
Well, if you are waiting on the enemy coming to you... Then the Spitfire does just fine. (Limited range)
But if you want to go looking for a fight, then the Mustang is by far the better choice!
Log In to reply
BigSexy on July 31, 2018
As an American I grew up believing the best fighter was without a doubt the Mustang. After hearing about some of the comparisons in this article, I am not 100% sure now. Wait............ No, I am sure the mustang is superior. It looks better, duh.
Log In to reply
BritainSexy on February 29, 2020
The Spitfire is Better in Combat as it is Lighter and More Nimble
Log In to reply
BigBananna on May 14, 2021
I must agree with the writer. Both were very formidable aircraft. I would be psyched to fly either one!
Log In to reply
Gingerninja613 on February 25, 2021
The P-51 is (in my opinion) a mediocre-looking aircraft. While it did what it was designed for very well, just think the Spitfire is better. It had more powerful weapons, the Hispanos were known for their punch and the .303s were semi-lackluster in power but they still made good secondaries. In a 1-on-1 dogfight, I am fairly sure the Spitfire would win. It had a superior turn rate and speed. Also, the Spit just looks better
Log In to reply
BigBananna on May 14, 2021
Negative ghost writer, that just won't work. Put the Merlin in the Mustang and it would actually out run the spitfire. So, we'll just agree to disagree.

Log In to reply
Alex Rider on June 9, 2023
Sorry, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about, you are the ghost writer in this instance. The P51D did have a Merlin. To be specific, the Packard-Merlin, which was the Merlin produced under license in the US.

The fact of the matter is, the Spitfire had a better design as a fighter, it could carry more bombs, had a bigger punch, & could fly faster, climb higher, turn tighter etc.

The P51D was an escort, its bonus was range, so as to which was best? The Spitfire had higher performance, hands down. However, which of them you would use depends on the situation. The P51D should only be used in situations where long range is required. Otherwise, the Spitfire should be used as it has better performance.
Log In to reply
Dgaona on July 8, 2022
you can say whatever you want about the P-51 but I'll just tell you this. This debate doesn't really matter. The planes were relatively evenly matched. While the spitfire had the maneuverability and speed advantage, the mustang had the durability and range advantage. So I'm just going to say this. IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE PILOT IN THE PLANE. Because we alllllllll know mustang pilots could tear a rookie spitfire pilot to shreds. But then again, a veteran spitfire pilot could shoot down a rookie mustang pilot easily. Just saying it depends on the pilot.
Log In to reply
Alex Rider on June 9, 2023
So the question then becomes, if you had two evenly matched veteran pilots, one flying the Spitfire, one flying the Mustang, which plane would win?

I'll tell you which, the Spitfire would because of its superior performance, the Mustang is only useful in escort type jobs, any other dogfight, and the Spitfire will win.
Log In to reply
RodgeyD on November 19, 2018
If the Spitfire had not been designed by RJ Mitchell then I don't think we would be having this debate , the Hurricane shot down more enemy aircraft but could it have coped against the might of the Luftwaffe ! . Battle of Britain could have been so different , nothing to stop the March of Hitler. A free hand in Russia and Europe! . Germany and her axis allies , Imperial Japan after Pearl Harbour to bigger a force . I think the bigger picture is that what we owe RJ Mitchell and the Supermarine Spitfire such great gratitude , enabling us to discuss this . Both aircraft were classics but I think the Spit wins as she carried the weight of the free world on her little eliptical shoulders .
Log In to reply
Oggy72 on June 14, 2019
I totally agree with you my friend.Great comment.
Log In to reply
Dragonblaster on August 10, 2019
Yes: the Hurricane, before it gained a new role as a tank-buster, took care of the bombers, while the Spits took on the 109s.
Log In to reply
Alex Rider on June 9, 2023
Very apt, you do effectively sum up the argument without needing to offend anyone!
Log In to reply
andre on August 2, 2018
Spitfire ;)
Log In to reply
Dave B on July 31, 2018
Another great article Sir.
Log In to reply
MadTom on September 13, 2019
I consider the Spitfire to be the equivalent of General George Gordon Meade's Army of the Potomac, which repelled an invasion attempt of its home soil and kept their side from losing the war. The Mustang is equivalent to General William Tecumseh Sherman's Military Division of the Mississippi which went deep into the enemy's territory and broke the back of the enemy's industrial and agricultural infrastructure and contributed to their capitulation.

Goering's quote wasn't "I knew the jig was up when I saw Spitfires over Paris," or even "I knew the jig was up when I saw Thunderbolts over Alsace."
Log In to reply
BigBananna on May 14, 2021
Well said.
Log In to reply
Dragonblaster on August 10, 2019
The Mustang P51D did not have better visibility than the Spitfire XIV. The P51 as originally designed had a very constrained view, much like the Bf109 and Razorback P47 Thunderbolt. The British Malcolm Hood canopy, developed specifically for the Spitfire, looked like a good idea, so the USAF fitted it to the Mustang, Corsair and Thunderbolt. But it was also on the Spitfire Mk XIV,
Log In to reply
MadTom on September 13, 2019
You must mean the P-51B and P-51C. The P-51D had the "teardrop" or "bubble" canopy.
Log In to reply
Stevesteve on January 28, 2020
What this article does not mention is that the P51 mustang was originally Designed for and First used by the British Royal Air Force and was only taken on by the USAF after the Royal Air Force.
Its an American built plane by 'North American Aviation' but was designed for the British to British specs and requirements.
Log In to reply
ListenHereYouLittleShit on March 14, 2021
That's why it didn't look that fat compared to other american fighters like the P-47 or the F6F.
Log In to reply
threads on December 14, 2022
It didn't have a massive air-cooled radial mounted to the nose. That's what dictated the fuselage having to be so fat & bloated.
Log In to reply
BigBananna on May 14, 2021
So true.
Log In to reply
Alex Rider on June 9, 2023
That is an excellent point, and one that even WW2 guru's like me often overlook
Log In to reply
johnstew on May 24, 2020
As has been pointed out already, the Mustang design was benefited by huge leaps in areodynamics which took place between 1936 and 1940. Just look at the comparison of the P-51D and Spitfire IX. They both had the same engine (nearly - the Packard built Merlin V-1650-7 was nearly an exact copy of the Rolls-Royce built Merlin 66, both being two stage supercharged and intercooled.) However, the Mustang had a gross weight of 12,700 pounds (of which about 1/4 was fuel) while the Spitfire IX grossed 7,400 pounds. Yet the Mustang was essentially as fast. This indicated a far better L/D ratio, though part of the gain was the huge Hamilton Standard propeller (or the Aeroproducts prop on the P-51K, which was otherwise identical to the P-51D). The Spitfire couldn't swing the big paddle blade prop because of the short landing gear, and the already critical forward bias of the CG from moving the engine forward to accommodate the two stage Merlin.

Both of these compromises could have been easily dealt with by a comprehensive redesign, but with the Nazis at the door, HMG naturally decided to proceed with the limitations inherent from progressively modifying an old design.

The Mustangs aerodynamics were revolutionary, and were a natural outcome of the lessons learned, equally at Cal Tech, and in the skies over southern England (which the Spitfire made possible).

The Brits definitely deserve the credit for the Mustang's existence, having paid for the design and development, and for having kept the production line open while the AAF (with a typically American head-in-the-sand attitude) was letting the type die on the vine. That the American brass finally saw what was right in front of them all along is one of the ironies of the war.

Which was better? IMHO, an irrelevant question. The Spitfire lead to the Mustang, and together they won air superiority over the Luftwaffe.

...and that's what counts
Log In to reply
BigBananna on May 14, 2021
Now, that was the best reply I've read. Well done.
Log In to reply
An_Almighty_Lenom on March 31, 2020
Great article! But with all due respect I would like to point out a few errors though. In your article, you mentioned that the F Mk. XIV was the definitive Spitfire. Well this is actually untrue, the most produced model was the LF Mk.IX, which was still one of the most common Spits by the end of the war. The F Mk.XIV was also not the last, or most powerful one, that would be the Mk.24. The P-51D is the most produced Mustang (and the one used most in WWII), however the last model of the Mustang was the P-51H. So the right combination would be either the P-51D, Vs the Spitfire LF Mk.IX, or P-51H, Vs the Mk.24. Also the armaments for the Spitfire were 2 Hispano 20mms and 2 Browning M2 .50 cals, not 4 20mms and 4 .303s. Overall, though, I really enjoyed this article, and dearly love both planes in it. Though the Spitfire will always be my plane of choice.
Log In to reply
Alex Rider on June 9, 2023
That depends on which model of Mk. XIV we are talking about, the armament in Spitfires depended on the wing type. Also, armament could be changed extensively in the field (and often was). Also, we need to look at the time at which these aircraft were in use, in which case, the Mk. XIV vs the P51D is the best.

As to power, the Mk. 24 was only ever built in tiny quantities, so although slightly more powerful, it didn't see much active service.
Log In to reply
barnowljenx on April 25, 2020
Good article but missed out a critical fact. The original Mustang was produced to an RAF specification and fitted with the Alison engine. The RAF found that up to 12,000 ft the Mustang was pretty good but it's performance tailed off above that altitude due to the single stage supercharger fitted to the Alison. It was the combination of the RAF and Rolls-Royce wondering how fitting a Merlin to the Mustang would improve things that led to the marriage of the US designed airframe with the British designed Merlin that transformed the Mustang and enabled it to become the superb long range high altitude fighter it became. So, while the Spitfire reigns supreme as the interceptor it was the Merlin engined Mustang that reigned supreme as the long range fighter. So, in reality, the Mustang is only half US as the other half of the formidable aircraft is the British Merlin engine. Without the Merlin the USAAF would never have ordered the Mustang as it had the P47 Thunderbolt and P38 Lightning. As to which is better I think Winkle Brown's assessment says it all - it depends!
Log In to reply
richardevens on October 17, 2019
Can I refer to the great Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown, who flew more types of allied and axis aircraft than anybody else. A man Neil Armstrong looked up to. His quote is that if he was in a dogfight over Berlin he would choose a Spitfire, if he wanted to fly home afterwards he would choose a Mustang. Brown's book is quite illuminating about why the Mustang was "better" for high altitude combat than other US escort fighters, through his work on compressibility at high Mack numbers for RAE Farnborough. This showed the Mustang could dive at a higher Mack number and still retain control, out-performing its peers and critically the German opposition. Hence the decision to equip with Mustangs. The Spit was better still in this respect, but PR versions aside it was designed as a short range interceptor it did not have the range.
Later in the war both aircraft used external fuel tanks to extend range. Adolf Galland's book is a quite instructive insider view on how Germany lost the air war, one aspect being that the opportunity was missed to challenge the allied escort fighters early in their flight so that they were forced to drop their tanks and could not fly so deep into Germany.
Which looks better is trying to split degrees of excellence and varies by model. Is the purity of line of an early Mk 2 Spit better than a pre-merlin 51, or the proportions of a 51D better than a Mk 22? It is probably determined by your national viewpoint - as a Brit growing up where the Battle of Britain was fought and recalling Spits in the '70's doing aerobatics on B O B Sunday over Bentley Priory where Dowding led fighter command in 1940, there is a clear choice for me.
Log In to reply
RAAFY on July 16, 2020
I should have added , these planes had souped up engines and were modified in many ways to achieve the performance they enjoyed
Log In to reply
Jsapper55 on August 23, 2019
Everyone discus forgetting that the Spitfire MK XlV was the heavyest, less nimble than it's predecessors. The P-51 kept improving over its production run. Mustang hands down.
Log In to reply
xROJANBOx on September 7, 2019
Jsapper it was also faster, its called the Griffon engine look it up. Spitfire hands down is the best most Iconic fighter of ww2

Log In to reply
BritainSexy on February 29, 2020
The Spitfire I weighed 5,280 lb. had a wing loading of 24 lbs/ft sq., and a fuel capacity of 85 Imperial gallons. The P-51 Was 12098lbs. The Spitfire was More Nimble than a P-51. The Spitfire was Better in Combat than a P-51
Log In to reply
RAAFY on July 16, 2020
RAAFY A little infomation on some Spits you may not have heard about an Aussie bloke the Brit hierarchy loved to hate [ "The last Plane out of Berlin " paperback ] ---------- As well as being arguably the best fighter of the second world war, the Spitfire has a pretty decent claim to being its finest reconnaissance aircraft too: it pioneered a radical new conceptual approach to aerial photo reconnaissance, was fantastically successful and recorded the fastest speed ever attained by a piston-engined aircraft (over 600 mph in a dive). Not bad for an aircraft that only existed due to the eccentric persistence of one man, Sidney Cotton.
Log In to reply
Mr.Flyguy on February 8, 2021
The mustang.
Log In to reply
Mr.Flyguy on February 8, 2021
that plane wins
Log In to reply
CJH63 on May 4, 2021
Gentlemen, the spitfire didn’t need to be anything else, it was perfect for its application and didn’t need to evolve much further due to another plane that did almost everything required, from a fighter to a bomber through to reconnaissance and a forgotten hero of WW2, the DH.98 Mosquito.
Log In to reply
SteveStrato on June 28, 2021
"P51 Mustang... Cadillac of the sky!"

Log In to reply
KayKayTee on February 13, 2022
Comparing two icons like these is probably not a battle of equals and both had their virtues.
From a personal perspective I would prefer the Mustang, why?
Built using modern methods of manufacture with consequently standardised parts.
Wider track so safer ground handling.
More room in the cockpit for longer flights.
And critically, the main fuel tank was below you and not in your lap as in the spit. Many pilots found the fuel leaking from the main tank caused horrible burns.
Mustang is as smooth as silk and easy to fly.
I've not flown a spit so can't compare.
Love to some time though.

Log In to reply
Frat973 on January 28, 2023
It would be hard to say which would be better but if I were a pilot at tge time and I could choose which plane I would choose the mustang. Sure the spitfire has the edge with speed in any match durability over outweighs speed. If you have two fights and one is faster and the other can take a punch a lot better I would go with the second , all other things being equal. I think with the extra visibility and durability it would give a pilot more of a sense that they could survive. An extra security that you can go toe to toe. Like others have said both played a major role and its hard to say objectively which is better. Which would you choose and why?
Log In to reply

You need to log-in to comment on articles.


Mustang Vs. Spitfire - Which Was Best?