Mustang vs. Spitfire Aerobatics - EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2019 

P51 wasnt a great plane until it borrowed a British engine. Spitfire also wasnt that great and required American high octanes to gain the power that German large displacment planes such as the me109 were using. Germans had the best planes but you arent alloweed to know this since the allies won. Why the allies win? Simple alliies had tons and never ending resources and petrol. Shhhh you not suppose to know.

@Hoa Tattis how much enough to challenge Germany in ww2 no way. British lost ww2 when then went begging the world for help. How could so many of you historians be so ignorant? How does this happen what are you guys eating? No fruits and vegetables perhaps or fear of the truth

@Ben Cobley Yes they did not show the Mk IX climbing with the P51 because it would leave it behind nor did they show the P51 taking the Spitfire on in the Roll or the turn because the Spitfire was better

@Ben Cobley My info Mk IX 406 mph @ 25000 ft P51B 422 mph @ 25000 ft ? Climb rate Spitfire by 800 ft/min with Spit Mk IX JL165 Merlin 66 [ so late] 25lb boost 5080ft/min MS gear

Cont: With FS gear radiator flaps open 4750 ft/min

@@jacktattis143 Nor did they show the P51 flying 700 miles further or going all-out at 70mph faster the than the Spit. Two great planes built for two purposes, both turned the tide of WWII.

@@jbrowne9381 Not 700 miles further about 450 miles further without Drop tanks They could not show 70 mph faster because it was only 30 mph faster and only at 25000 ft And you are right both were great aircraft

Absolutely. Two of the finest aircraft ever built in my opinion. That sound though eh? 👍

You just forgot 🇵🇹

@@nuno3095 How could I forget Portugal, Englands oldest aIly. I have had two happy visits to Central Portugal and loved it 👍

@@blackdog5354 Many people are visiting Portugal this summer ... Although we are a small country our history is very important for humanity ... You will always be welcome here

@@nuno3095 Thank you Nuno 🇵🇹 🇬🇧😊

Bless her

@@fistpunder Hats off to your aunty Betty.

@@fistpunder thank you thanks james

These ladies did a wonderful job, and even now they are not recognised enough. Thank God for your aunt Betty.

@@Shoshun2 thank you on her behalf

Exactly, equal admiration. 👍

Very well said,together are stronger.

I know right. Obviously the p51 is better.

@@justintime41776 Of course it is, the slower aircraft with poor acceleration, climb and maneuverability is bound to be better.

Willy Wanker The Spitfire did many jobs the P 51 could not do, including escorting USAAF bombers in 1943, and for 3.5 to 4 hour missions, slightly slower is like 2,000 ft/min less and a 1944 P 51 taking 6 minutes more to get to 40,000 feet than a 1942 Spitfire. the slightly less turn radius was about 200 feet unless the P 51 used full flap and turned very slow, still 60 feet more radius at lower much speed than the Spitfire If the Spitfire was so hard to make why were so many more made than P 51's and why did NAA go to Supermarine to try to find out how to make a light strong fighter before they made the much altered P 51 H ? Poor little Willy, you really have no idea do you?

@Jim Barrows Not only a much better sound but a much better and more important engine, it powered the best US fighter of WW II and the best fighter of WW II as well as the best multi role aircraft of WW II and the best bomber of WW II.

Mark Acker except the Mustang was powered by the PACKARD modified and updated version of the Merlin !!! Different American supercharger/intercooler and controls that the lessor British version !! ! PLUS the wider bladed Hamilton prop put out more thrust !! Why the Mustang was FASTER inspite of being 2,000# heavier !! And more aerodynamic, smoother less drag !!! Just the fact ol bean and not the Hype or British BULLSHIT !!!!

@Jim Barrows Pratt Whitney produced more engines in WW II than all of Rolls Royce.!!!! 125,000 R2800 200,000 R1820's and a bunch of R2000 to boot !!! and then throw in the 200,000 Plus Wright R1830's and the R3350 and the 70,000 R2600 and the measly output of RR fades off into obscurity !!!

Willy Wanker. The P 51 was powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin, Packard were well paid by Rolls Royce to make the Merlin 66 which was not modified by Packard at all, a different heavier US supercharger and the not so good Hamilton prop, you keep comparing it to the Spitfire Mk IX of 1942 which had the earlier Merlin 61 engine and used less boost, the P 51 was a bit faster but with less acceleration, climb, lower service ceiling and far less maneuverable than the 1942 Spitfire Mk IX. All the facts unlike your cherry picking and lies.

Willy Wanker Pratt & Witless may have made a lot, they had to because they had to be replaced so often, Packard made many less than Rolls Royce. and the Packard copy was not as good.

Exactly 👍

Me too, until you need a dentist, then right back to now thanks!

Well my friend sometimes it's just invitiable!

@@ckelley63 come on Americans and british will always compare one another, Britain's still hurt we won the revolutionary war lol just playin around

Well, it would, just with an Allison V1710.

No, the Allison at the time was not up to the job. so the Merlin had to be the choice.

But it was Packard that took the Rolls Royce to the next level, making a great engine even better!!

Sorry but it is you trying to re-write history. The Mustang was designed to use the Allison V-1710 engine (which had limited high-altitude performance in its earlier variants). The aircraft was first flown operationally by the Royal Air Force (RAF) as a tactical-reconnaissance aircraft and fighter-bomber (Mustang Mk I). Replacing the Allison with a Rolls-Royce Merlin resulted in the P-51B/C (Mustang Mk III) model and transformed the aircraft's performance at altitudes above 15,000 ft (4,600 m) (without sacrificing range),[8] allowing it to compete with the Luftwaffe's fighters.[9] The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650-7, a license-built version of the two-speed two-stage-supercharged Merlin 66

@@SvenTviking V170 worked with older aircraft, but just wasn't powerful enough for the Mustang. That's why most Allison-engine P-51s were redesignated A-36 Apaches and used in a ground attack role. P-51As were, to my understanding, somewhat rare in dogfights, especially once the Merlin-equipped P-51Bs and Cs came around.

The P 40 was too late for the Battle of Britain and not good enough. The Spitfire carried the allies to the end of the war with a couple of other fighters that came later.

Hurricane and Spitfire first combat Oct 39. P51D Jun 44 almost 5 years

Bob, I agree; the term "vs" usually applies to a competition, but I think that in this instance the term was meant to be used rather loosely. Also, neither of these great fighters made any unusual maneuvers or acrobatics that any other fighters, or even some bombers of the WWll era, could not do. But I still loved watching and hearing these 2 iconic WWll fighters roaring around.

@@marbleman52 I loved the video too but I think that the term "vs" is really over used on youtube.

@@tempestmkiv Yes, and there is a news channel, Golden State Times, a conservative news channel, that uses headlines like this : "President Trump's SHOCKING news conference..." . The news conference was just an uneventful news conference by Trump with the usual and expected idiotic questions by the liberal press, but there was nothing "SHOCKING" about it at all. This channel does it for every video. Just because I am a conservative and this channel is apparently also conservative, that doesn't mean that I'm gonna let them slide for deliberately using a misleading and dishonest title. I have made my thoughts known on several of their videos but, and as I expected, I have never heard any response from them. Yea, I know that it's to hopefully increase the viewership and such, but it is still dishonest and misleading.

bOB: No ,if they were the Spitfire would leave in for dead in the climb roll and turn and on the deck the Spit was slightly faster but up at 25000 ft the P51 was the faster

@@jacktattis143 These two aircraft were not designed for the same role, the Spit was a defensive interceptor but the Mustangs attributes were such that it excelled at being a long range air superiority fighter. The Mustang was also designed 4 years after the Me 109, the Hurricane and the Spitfire first flew so North American had lots of time to study the world's best fighters before designing the mustang. Even then, they put an inferior engine in it and it still couldn't out fight the Spit!

Yes as you have stated both types were designed to different roles. The P 51 was an excellent long range escort fighter without which continued daylight strategic bombing would have been difficult if not impossible, and making an invaluable contribution to victory. The Spitfire was designed to the very opposite... It was an interceptor design to attack raids and deal with escort Fighters. The Spitfire of cause went on to for fill other role excellently. But the defence of Britain in the Summer of 1940, ensured victory.

There's nothing wrong with comparing apples to oranges - why not?

@@stumccabe Didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

Exactly my thoughts, one is s shortish range dog fighter, one s long range escort. One turns inside and out climbs, one swoops and dives.( Only one had its own warning when spotted though.)

@@rogerduncan2603 Achtung Spitfire.

Sounds better in a spit 😉

I would expect no less. As an American, I'm a Mustang fan, but that's not to take anything from the Spitfire. Also, we owe the Brits both for the idea of the Mustang and the engine that made it what it came to be after the Allison experiment failed.

Both great aircraft; both with Rolls Royce Merlin engines. the only difference was that the Mustang engine was made under licence from RR by Packard.

@@jamesmartin9401 ; Agreed. The Mustang is an `awesome` creation, and was very highly regarded in GB WWII, but the Spitfire is deeply ingrained in British iconography, having been created almost single handed by the genius Mitchell, dying from cancer and desperately working to get this plane ready for the coming troubles. Up close, and in the air it never fails to put a chill in the back, as does the Hurricane. I would love to see a play off between a Mosquito or Whirlwind and that other great US fighter, the Lightning.

@@Shoshun2 ; Both create the very best man-made sounds. Mechanical poetry.

How could the Spitfire sound differently? They had the same engine!

Antonio: The Brits did not use IX C they had the F LF HF

Jack Tallis... The "C" designation refers to the wing design. It is the first used "universal" wing...ie could be fitted with 8 guns(not used to best of my knowledge), 4 guns and 2 cannon(most common configuration like the "B" wing) or 4 Cannon (rarely used). Late version were equipped with the"e" wing which replaced the 4 0.303 guns with 2 50 cal, or 4 cannons. The "HF"," F", and "LF" refers to the optimal altitude setting for a particular aircraft... HF had Merlin's optimised for high altitude ( over 35,000 ft)and may have pointed extended wings but not necessarily. F aircraft were "standard" configuration optimised for 15,000 to 30,000ft. Finally LF were low altitude fighters with Merlins suited to altitude below 20,000 ft and often with clipped wings. So in short yes the RAF did use Spitfire HF/F/LF MkIXc .

@@keithyork7691 I will check thanks

@@keithyork7691 You are right thanks

@@jacktattis143 no problems Jack.

The spitfire was named after Robert Mcleans daughter, tomboys were known as spitfires in those days, Mitchell wasn't happy, he wanted to call it the shrew

Shrew? Maybe he really wanted to name it after his wife? ;)

@@rafsmith1993 goddamn now that is funny!!!

@@watsondove849 Yes, as a matter of fact, when Mitchell heard that the RAF had chosen the name Spitfire he said, "That's just the sort of silly name they WOULD give it!"

@fifthof BUT MUSTANG is an American name of the wild free roaming horses of the southwest western USA !!!

😂 Nice one

🤣🤣🤣I'm glad it did keep it!! 👍👍👍👍👍

Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You can see why they wanted to bang so badly. That engine sound could make anyone hard

👍👍👍👍👍

Pregnant fish lol

Yep fully agree with you. No matter what airshow you go in the uk it goes silent when the spitfire arrive .

63DW89A The Mustang is heavier and more aerodynamic so yes it dives faster and more speeds means it will climb faster also !!!

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Not correct Wilbur P51 initial climb rate 3475 ft/min MkIX Spit 4800ft/min Mk VIII 5400 ft/min

@HiWetcam How about the Allison engines P 51 it was a poor fighter, you are obsessed with just one Spitfire made in small numbers for a special purpose. No Spitfire was a disaster, maybe you just hate that the best and most produced allied fighter of the war was British.

@HiWetcam How is the Allison engine P 51 better than the Spitfire Mk V, it did not go as high, did not climb or accelerate as well and did not maneuver as well, and you call that better.

@HiWetcam Bull Dust the Spitfires were fitted with Slipper tanks not any wing tank Are you dyslexic?

@HiWetcam The V beast the Bf109 of the day it met its nmatch with the Fw190 however from the IX on that changed for good

@HiWetcam Crap I have Great Aircraft of WW2 and it starts with the MkI and finishes with the Mk22 and nowhere does it mention that shit you are spruiking

Actually it had government backing. Rolls Royce and Dowding and Chamberlain knew it was going to be a winner.

lw216316 maybe a Policarpov I-15 or I-16, if you want monoplanes then A6M or Spitfire.

@@HawkerMkIII not very fond of RC biplanes, a guy at our club has the Zero, so looks like I am blessed it was a used Spitfire that I bought - she is doing very well at the aerobatics I've tried so far.

Lucky and priviliged. The Spitfire is built to be aerobatic, it had to be, to counter the brilliant M109's. Good luck with her.

If you want roll rate Fw190 followed by Clipped wing Spitfire, Dive always Spit, Turn Zero or Hurricane Climb rate at zero feet Spitfire /Tempest Acceleration down low Spitfire and Tempest.

@Hoa Tattis No, the D Model has the Bubble Canopy, while the C and B (Razorback Canopy) models were made at different plants

anthonyfrost YOU Brits gave us NOTHING !!! RR Came BEGGING Packard to build the merlin FOR THE BRITS !!! SAme time Brits were begging North American for P40's and then the boat load of stuff from the Tizzard mission showed up!!!!! Why ??? For the USA to HELP research, develop and PRODUCE the stuff you brits needed !!!! surprised you dumb Brits don't know this !!!!

Not true One of the designers had a very willful daughter and she was called a Spitfire

Lope's Hope is a P-51C although the only differences in the B and C are the factory they were made in. There are some great videos of Kermit Week's P-51C (also videos of his D model) on his youtube channel.

@@ginacalabrese3869 You're right about difference in B and C model Mustangs. Same plane but B model was assembled in Los Angeles; C model was assembled in Dallas, Texas.

@@gregmctevia5087 inglewood and dallas*

@@donoteventry4298 that's right Inglewood. I seem to recall that North American stored finished Mutsangs waiting for transfer on the grounds of Hollywood Park race track which was closed for the duration of WWII. Hollywood Park has now been demolished and is the sight of the new stadium for the Rams and the Chargers.

Dale wanna be ???? Mustang can do ANYTHING a shitfire can do BUT do it for 8 hours !!!! Shitfire cannot and did NOT do what the Mustang did !!! Long range escort duties !!! !

Willy wanker Why resort to lies all the time, the Mustang could not manage air superiority, was slower, had much less acceleration, climb and lower service ceiling, The p 51 could not maneuver like a Spitfire. Guess what was doing escort in 1943 which the P 51 could not do. .

@@barrierodliffe4155 LYING ????????? WTF !!!!!! Just do the research dumb ass the Mustang did not have to fight the few shitfires that were faster, they were fighting the Germans and it and the P47 cleared the Luffewaffe out of the skies over Germany !! ! SOMETHING the shitfire could not do !!! ALSO you keep spouting "Facts" of performance of the shitfire but NEVER quote WHICH of the over 30 plus versions you are quoting !!!! Dumb ass the Mustang out performed all the early shitfires and was still faster and twice the range and load carrying ability of all but the FEW Griffon powered versions made, and that dumb ass was but 1700 !!!!! DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Willy Wanker The much better Spitfires did fight the Luftwaffe right through the war and the few faster or over 1,000 did so well that the P 51 had little to fight except for the very few Me 262's that the P 51 had so much trouble with. I quote the performance of the 1942 Mk IX and it makes the 1944 P 51 look rather bad. The 1944 P 51 did not have the acceleration, climb, service ceiling or maneuverability of the 1942 Spitfire Mk IX but any Spitfire from 1942 on would make any WW II P 51 look silly. There were few Luftwaffe and not many experienced Luftwaffe pilots left for the P 47 or P 51. The P 51 did not have twice the range, another of the many US lies.

@@barrierodliffe4155 You stupid son of a bitch !! ! !Here you come with more fukin lies,nofacts just BULLSHIT !!!!! P51 did a job the shitfires could not do!!! Bomber escort and they took the fight TO Germany and destroyed the Luftwaffe !!!! Fuk off idiot !!!!

There's 2 being rebuilt currently aside each other in UK- mk 1 and 2.

Totally agreed 😊

@@bigglesmcg great news, i think this great fighter plabe is very underrated

@HiWetcam Recently, I got up close and personal with a Sabre engine in a museum in Nelson, New Zealand. My gods! That thing is a monster! I have an audio track of a Sabre starting up, taxiing, take-off and high-speed fly-by. I'm hoping to hear the real thing one day. (I'm also hoping to see someone walk on Mars. I wonder which will come first)

And its close relative the typhoon too

lol they won the land war in fairness. spitfires with hurricanes with merlin engines saved the battle of Britain they gave a bridgehead to invade nazi held Europe the mustangs with merlin's could go all the way with bombers there and back and do there own missions on top

They rebuild quite a few P40"s here in NZ, Keith Skilling rates it as a favourite in handling down low, really quick roll rate and easy to fly, The RNZAF had them in mass during ww2 so we have quite a soft spot for them.

Yet the Spitfire was better at any height.

@@barrierodliffe4155 NOT !!!! The P40 had the best roll rate of any fighter !!! Period !!!

Bill Well DUUUUUHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!

Willy Wanker No stupid comment from you apart from the usual DUHHHHHHHHHH.

billsee ALL merlins used in production Mustangs used PACKARD made in American and MODIFIED merlins, similar not the same !!!

More than that, the Rolls Royce Merlin transformed the sluggish Allison powered Mustang from being a very average late WW2 aircraft into a top 5 aircraft. Excellent planes though.

yes the P51 had a Packard Merlin and the Spit had an original Merlin

@@Gez492 Popular, but wrong. The Allison equipped Mustangs were excellent from the start, but because they only had a single stage supercharger, they did not have the necessary high altitude performance to escort bombers. Remember, early war Merlins also only had single stage superchargers. Using the same design of supercharger on the Allison engine would have had a very similar result. More information here: ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/what-was-the-problem-with-the-allison-engine.29243/

@@yosemite-e2v The Allison engine Mustang lacked performance at low altitude as well, it was not slow but it had poor acceleration and climb, that is compared to the single stage supercharged Merlin engine.

@@yosemite-e2v The historical fact is that the Mustang would never have achieved the appreciation it did, had they not opted for the merlin. It would have failed and become just another mediocre US aircraft. Instead it is a legend.

Only the Mk1 after that they had direct fuel injection and the problem was solved

@@Shoshun2 Damn I didn't know that

Hate to rain on the parade, but the ME 109 shot down more aircraft than any other in battle.

Aussie Deplorable what does this have to do with the conversation

@@aussiedeplorable8670 Mostly in the East, in the West they had to face the Spitfire, also there were more Bf 109's than any other WW II fighter. There is also the slight problem of German records being released which show many of their claims were false.

Smooth leading edge on the wings, it's the gun ports / barrels that whistle.

only the D/K models had the whistle this is the earlier C modelless guns !!!

Speaking of Ford Henry Ford actually developed an aluminum V12 60° dual overhead cam aircraft engine that was better than the Merlin but the government didn't want to go with it because it was already obligated to other contracts at the time. That and all the mechanics and spare parts that were already in the field for Allison and the Merlin engines.

@@jonadam5392 No Henry copied the Merlin illegally when he was asked to build the Merlin and had the drawings copied . The US Government rightly turned him down Otherwise the Ford company would have faced a almighty court case.In both countries

Actually the battle of Britain was won with the hawker hurricane

Andre Robert Drouin Actually no, you’re clamping down on part of the story. The usual scoop is that popular media promotes the Spit and ignores the Hurri. As far as actual history, there were more Hurris, but the Spit was there too and fought just as hard.

@@andrerobertdrouin3642 you know the war went on after that, right? Not saying the Hurricane was not an amazing airplane but it was outshone by the Spitfire and Mustang.

@@bazonka1 I do think that the hurricane is rather underrated though. I mean it saved our countries arse many a time

Without the spitfire the British would have lost the Battle of Britain. Don't get me wrong but the Hurricane was an amazing airplane too

Clearly, one wouldn't really exist without the invention and design of the other Mustang became a great aircraft too though

To true they are both Fantastic aircraft tho I love them both!!

Except for the Mosquito ! ;-)

The USAAF needed escorting, the RAF did not so much. This is direct from the USAAF " our main bomber escort until mid 1943 the Spitfire" The Spitfire was able to escort bombers for 900 miles. The P 51 could not do so at all until 1944.

@@barrierodliffe4155 USAF had the more difficult task of Daylight bombing. The US planes were more heavily armed....it was only their difficulty of task that needed escort. A little respect, without the USAF you’d be speaking German.

@@Johnmk24 The RAF did daylight and night bombing right through the war and daylight bombing was not more difficult. It was more dangerous which is why the USAAF so often had to beg the RAF to escort them. Apart from the USAF not being in the war, the USAAF did not stop the German's so no, we would not be speaking German.

@@barrierodliffe4155 Hahahaha. The only begging that happened was Brits begging US to save the UK. No argument on the RR engine. The US had the lions share of daylight bombing. Let’s not take a detour around historical facts.

@@Johnmk24 THe US were too late to save us, we did that by ourselves in 1940. 1942 when the USAAF started their lions share of the bombing. The RAF had already conducted a raid with over 1,000 bombers. The USAAF who of course knew best thought they did not need a fighter escort so they sent 12 bombers to attack an airfield in France in July. 6 were lost. the first USAAF bombing using B 17's in August, just 12 B 17's and none were lost thanks to the RAF providing an escort. The USAAF did very often beg for an escort since the USAAF had nothing of their own they could use. These are historical facts.

Mirek Replika ???? What the fuk !!!! These BOTH are restored original planes !!!!

lfcmarkeb The Mk IX $hitfire with the merlin engine was 35 MPH SLOWER than even the P51 B/C Or the P51 D/K as the mustang was more aerodynamic, cleaner fuselage and wing and thrust producing radiator housing, and the Mustang had a wider prop blade more thrust !!!

however it was the best the USAAF had

@HiWetcam AM most certainly does NOT provide more channels. It is the most band-width wasteful transmission mode. Who ever trained YOU should be made to pay you back your fees! AM contains carrier and two sidebands, one of which is redundant. Recent changes have reduced bandwidth to 8.333 Khz spacing to cram more in channels but speech quality (not SOUND quality) is abysmal It IS important... It helps just a bit if you can tell what the other guy is saying! NBFM at 8.333 would not lose any readability and adjacent channel selectivity would improve. Hf speech components would not be sliced off by a sharp IF filter..Deviation (volume) would be restricted but the amplitude limiter in front of the detector would reduce electrical interference which is largely amplitude in nature. The readability of some, in the video was deplorable!. AM is THE most unsuitable mode for closer channel occupancy. If the carrier and one unnecessary sideband were suppressed, higher readability & selectivity could be down to 3 khz.

TYPE C