ok same side, but which is better?

[CFcops]

Thats because he is and so am I, we are both 14,the guy just likes to copy me. I actually know stuff about planes and he just goes by my oppinion. He also got the CF thing off me as you may have noticed. PS: by the way spitboy the P-51D and the Spitfire used the same engine.

[osuorsa]

Firstly - The P-51D wasn't so simply the best fighter in WW2 (I suppose you meant the best propeller driven a/c). What about the Focke-Wulf FW-190D and the too late Ta-152 or the latest Spits? What about the latest Yak-9 and -3s or La-7 or even the Me-262? The Mustang was built in so huge numbers that it played a big role in a war material etc. Yes it was one of the best and one of the most advanced designs of the propeller driven planes in the whole wat BUT I wouldn't say it was the best...One thing it also gain so much attention is that the Allieds won the war (thanks for that) and the Mustang was one of the 'big' players in the air war on that...It was a kinda of USAAF's trademark with the Flying Fortress of air power!

The best fighter of the war was without a doubt the Me-262 becouse of its overwhelming speed advantage and technical advancements that left nearly no chance for others IF NOT taken political decisions made under consideration and not that it came too little too late. As a war machine it was the best fielded in WW2 air combat!

[osuorsa]

To go back to the topic I would say that in the Battle of Britain the young men who flew in the most tensioned days of the battle, they all would love to fly and fight in the Spit which had all the same hallmarks as the Messerschmitt Bf-109E...Without the 'upper hand' in form of the Spit I think the Battle of Britain would have went a bit differently....

[hunter0f2]

During the Battle of Britain The Hurricane was the Real Hero, the RAF had fewer Spitfire Sqn's at that time & had not yet come on line for full scale production. The Hurricane registerd more kills than the Spit. it was also easier To Sevice, Patch up ,& maintain & being a less complicated construction method, could take more punishment than the Spit. ( Cannon shells would go straight through the Canvas -Wood structure without exploding. The hurricane could not outclimb & was not as fast in a dive as a Spit or a 109 ,but it could out-turn both of them.It wa also superior & more than a match for the 110.

[hunter0f2]

The Mustang used a Packard Merlin , & was built in USA to a British specification. The original Allison engines were a dissapointment, & did not become the true fighter it should have been untill the British put the Rolls Royce Merlin in it!!!!!

[cee47]

Horses for courses, really. They could be considered a generation apart, the Hurricane a 1st generation "modern" fighter, the Spitfire a 2nd generation (a bit like the BF109 and the Fw-190).

The Hurricane was available in large numbers when needed, and quite a few histories credit this aircraft for the RAF winning the "Battle of Britain". It was also a more stable gun platform than the Spitfire and easier for relatively inexperienced pilots to fly (and weren't they all inexperienced at what they were doing back then?).

Having said that, however, the Spitfire, when it did arrive in numbers, was the much better "interceptor".

The Hurricane was better as a ground-attack/close air support aircraft than the Spitfire because of it's inherent 'neutral' handling, especially when fitted with cannon (Hurricane IID) and was able to carry a heavier bomb load. The Hurricane was only surpassed in this role with the arrival of the Typhoon and Tempest (also both from Hawker).

Hurricane v Spitfire is like trying to compare a hack with a thoroughbred... they were both good at what they were designed to do.