WWII fighters dicking around at low altitude. Turn up the volume.

Who needs Cold War jets?

When will we get a like button

You couldn’t handle a like button.

Wow! How low was that Spitfire?

😁

You can hear why the Japanese called the Corsair “whispering death”! Noticeably quieter than the in-line engines.

Wow that spit was low, awesome noise.

Spitfire won that round!

The noise…!

Spitfire deffo the win.

Spitfire won that round!

Although it is important to remember that you can only ever tie the record for the lowest pass.

Did anyone else think “Use the force Luke”?

Spitfire won that round!

The noise…!

My neighbour sold his Hurricane 2 years ago. Not bought him a beer since.

Outstanding. :)

Looks spectacular but is it real? No sign of the grass or water moving – surely at that level there would be some airflow disturbing the ground?

I’d say Hell Yeah! Real.

Magic!

Looks spectacular but is it real?

Yep, there’s a ‘behind the scenes’ film/interview with the pilot somewhere.

Brilliant flying in that case!

Is it only me that thinks the Mustang is a much nicer looking plane than the Spitfire?

Probably the superior fighter too if my late night docu viewing is to be believed anyway.

Both have nice engines though.😃

Great vid, thanks for posting op.

Is it only me that thinks the Mustang is a much nicer looking plane than the Spitfire?

Probably the superior fighter too if my late night docu viewing is to be believed anyway.

To my mind, the Merlin engined Spitfires look very elegant. The Mustang looks purposeful.

Based on what I have read, the Mustang was faster despite being bigger and heavier because it was designed for low-drag and it had incredible range. The Spitfire was designed as a short-range interceptor, so I gather it would out-perform a Mustang in one-on-one combat but a Mustang would be able to stay engaged long after a Spitfire had to dive for home due to lack of fuel. The Mustang was more versatile because it was more robust and could carry a greater payload of fuel or munitions.

Wow! How low was that Spitfire?

MH434, a mk IX flown by Ray Hanna He has form…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOoiEbtf2w&ab_channel=WingsTV

Amazing flying and ballsy given how rare and expensive these things are.

Mustang vs Spitfire? has to be Spit for me. The Mustang is a nice bit of kit for sure but to my eye the Spitfire looks nicer and sleeker – chunky up front, massive prop, elegantly tapering to the tail and that massive elliptical wing and tail is a thing of beauty – a genuine work of art. Form and function. The Mustang is nice but square edged wings and tail, much more slender wing (obviously more aerodynamically efficient), but far more functional. Big fat and bulbous in the middle, which ruins its lines, and slender at the nose and tail. a later and more efficient design aerodynamically to suit its longer range escort role, but aesthetically the Spitfire has it for me.

The later variants of the Spit were faster than the mustang and were better at the interceptor role, which is what it was designed for – short range, fast with a high climb rate and very manoeuvrable. The Mustang was an escort fighter due to better range and more efficient airframe…different planes designed for different tasks so pointless comparing – apples and oranges. But between them they were the best fighters of the WW2. But the Mustang only really came to the fore when they plugged a Merlin engine into it, so that is the common link between the two aircraft.

I was actually stood next to a MKXIX spit and a Mustang last week. Both beautiful aircraft in the flesh and close up – but the Spit pipped it to my eye, but the Mustang certainly had presence. Surprisingly the Mustang looked a bit smaller than the spit, I had always imagined them to be larger (probably due to the bulbous middle). The spit had a massive 5 bladed prop vs the Mustangs smaller 4 bladed prop, so Spit won hands down on those grounds – but it had the far more powerful Griffon engine so needed the bigger prop to soak up all that extra HP.

Saw the Spit go out for a short jaunt during the day. Unfortunately the Mustang remained on the ground. Must be a real privilege to fly these things.

MH434, a mk IX flown by Ray Hanna He has form…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iOoiEbtf2w&ab_channel=WingsTV

**** me!

Surprisingly the Mustang looked a bit smaller than the spit, I had always imagined them to be larger (probably due to the bulbous middle)

The Spit got longer with the Griffon and was within a few inches the same size.

Think there was a bit of a stretch around mk9? although nothing like the difference the griffon made.

obviously more aerodynamically efficient

Contentious.

Spitfire wing was about as good as it got. Mustang tried for laminar flow but in wartime conditions that was a complete miss. Practically identical wing area. Mustang wing probably easier to build.

The Mustang got the Meredith effect on the radiator right, and the Spitfire didn’t. Spitfire had smaller tips which had lower drag. Griffon Spitfires had more power and less weight than the Mustang.

But between them they were the best fighters of the WW2

Hmmm.

190?
Yak-9?
Macchi 202?
Jug?
Zero?

Spitfire wing was about as good as it got.

hmmmm, Depends. The prevailing theory of the German fighters was the smaller the better, look at the Me-109 and FW-190 wings, teeny by comparison. Highly loaded, giving them that snap-tight turn performance that the Spitfire couldn’t match. But it’s swings and roundabouts (as always) the spitfire (in theory) could hold a turn for longer…But early war fighter tactics were pretty much dive, squirt off some rounds, swoop back up, and start again…Turning fights weren’t encouraged by either side.

Griffon Spitfires had more power and less weight than the Mustang.

And yet the Mustang was still faster, no space for that giant 11ft diameter Hamilton 4 blade on the Spitty. Weirdly the prop in the Griffon engined Spitfires was smaller than the Merlin engined ones.

Wait, where are you going? I have a short but informative power point to show you….

Hmmm.

190?
Yak-9?
Macchi 202?
Jug?
Zero?

Well you’d need to define criteria to sort that lot out – top speed? time to climb? tightness of turning circle? high speed manoeuvrability, Low speed manoeuvrability? the list goes on. You can choose any single parameter and all of those will probably be the best at something, but you’ve got to balance it all out and decide, somehow, on the balance of attributes. Also the aircraft are designed for their specific theatre of combat so not all designed to fulfil the same roles.

A debate that will rage on almost as long as the 26er vs 29er / flats vs clips / tubed vs tubeless etc debates.

But early war fighter tactics were pretty much dive, squirt off some rounds, swoop back up, and start again…Turning fights weren’t encouraged by either side.

That’s the bit usually ignored by the romantics. The ideal kill was where you snuck up unseen on someone and shot him in the back or the belly.
I’ve got somewhere a book on the Confederate Airforce from the 80s and it reprinted a large part of the basic primer on aerial warfare for pilots. It doesn’t make for pleasant reading, but then it wasn’t a time to be pleasant.

There was a documentary that the BBC showed about the Confederate Airforce in the 80s that was epic, the first 5 minutes were just shots of planes being readied and taxiing out to the opening section of Shine On You Crazy Diamond.
Wish I could find it.

Wish I could find it.

On you tube, look for “Colonel Culpepper’s flying circus”. I think the CAF use the name “Commemorative Air Force” now.

And yet the Mustang was still faster

I thought it were other way around. But the difference was only a mph or six, and probably different at different heights.

Well you’d need to define criteria to sort that lot out

Zigackly.

British astronaut Tim Peake is on TV later tonight (The One Show, 7pm) flying a Spitfire, he’s posted some teaser footage on Twitter (@astro_timpeake).

Christ. he’s only qualified on an ISS, he’ll be all over the place in a Spitfire.

But early war fighter tactics were pretty much dive, squirt off some rounds, swoop back up, and start again…Turning fights weren’t encouraged by either side.

Boom n zoom baby.

You want a good continuous climb rate, a good zoom climb rate, a high roll rate and high instantaneous turn rate/angle of attack – with good control authority over 400mph.

Spitfire had the first two and a good continuous turn rate, which is a different thing. If I had to choose an aircraft to fight over Europe I’d have preferred to go to war in a P-47 or over the Pacific a P-38, simply because both were highly survivable aircraft in their respective theatres. Mustang jockeys got shot down a lot on the way home from escorting the bombers, a lot of the USAF would strafe Germany on the way back home and the P-51’s proved to be particularly vulnerable to AA. The P-38 was great in the pacific because you had two engines over the vast ocean, a load of nose mounted guns and a 20mm cannon and you were faster than the vast majority of the Japanese land based and naval fighters.

As an aside, PaddyPatrone youtube channel.

On you tube, look for “Colonel Culpepper’s flying circus”.

That was it. Brilliant! Thanks for that.

I’d have preferred to go to war in a P-47

The standard joke went: “How do you evade enemy fighters in a P47? Answer: “You undo the seat-belts and run around the cockpit”

sort of almost a fighter, kind of

Also, sometimes one mustang is not enough

simply because both were highly survivable aircraft in their respective theatres

interviews with (surviving) pilots often show them valuing this attribute for some strange reason :-D

many hurricane pilots were on record as envying the spitfire’s climb rate but preferring the ease of handling and amount of punishment the hurricane could take

Highly loaded, giving them that snap-tight turn performance that the Spitfire couldn’t match

Actually the spit could out turn the 109. Larger wing generally means better turning due to lower wing loading. Spits generally had the better of the 109 throughout especially when they got their pressurised carburettors solving the negative G fuelling issue. The FW109 came along and the response was the Spit MK IV to counter that…which it did. The rest was down to tactics to play into the strengths of your aircraft and exploit the weaknesses of your competitors.

Griffon Spitfires had more power and less weight than the Mustang.

And yet the Mustang was still faster, no space for that giant 11ft diameter Hamilton 4 blade on the Spitty.

Nah, the later gen merlin spitfires were faster (though what altitude you talking about???) and the griffon ones were definitely faster, and the 5 bladed prop on the spitfire I saw last week was larger than the 4 bladed prop on the mustang – at least looked It as they sat there side by side. The griffon was significantly more powerful than the Packard built Merlins in the Mustangs which were not even as powerful as the later gen merlins the Spitfires got before getting the griffon.

Like I said…the Mustang was a better aircraft than the spit for the purposes it was designed for, and the Spitfire was a better aircraft than the Mustang for the purposes it was designed for. Basically to say one aircraft was better than the other without qualifying the statement is oversimplifying. Like saying a Ferrari is better than a tractor…well not at ploughing a field it isn’t.

Difficult to tell from the images below but both chuffing big props…

Nah, the later gen merlin spitfires were faster (though what altitude you talking about???) and the griffon ones were definitely faster, and the 5 bladed prop on the spitfire I saw last week was larger than the 4 bladed prop on the mustang – at least looked It as they sat there side by side. The griffon was significantly more powerful than the Packard built Merlins in the Mustangs which were not even as powerful as the later gen merlins the Spitfires got before getting the griffon.

Depends – RAF Mustangs C’s with the malcolm hood and 25lb boost were faster on the deck – pretty sure they were faster than even the Tempest on the deck as well.