Here's an interesting fact about American losses in WW2

The original had an Allinson engine which was under powered and could get thr altitude or speed ...it was converted to take the merlin on a trial basis but proved so successful that the rest of the 51s had the merlin and later derivatives fitted as standard and drop tanks fitted to give greater endurance ...@tallpowerhouseblonde

@braveheart21 Yes you are right.Also the P51 was designed to meet an RAF specification.The Mustang was the best fighter of WW2

Thats debateable..much to be said for the hellcat ..bearcat ..51..corsair ..spitfire and hurricane...plus the zero ..109 and 190 all brilliant and all with slight flaws ..@tallpowerhouseblonde

@tallpowerhouseblonde If I'm not mistaken the radical P-51 design accommodated 2 fuel tanks. This was the sought breakthrough.

The big deal was the merlin engine then the addition of drop tanks to give the 51 the range to go to Berlin n back and still have as it was called loiter time ..ie ..fighting time over the target..@21stCenturyFox

@braveheart21 The Corsair almost matched the P-51 Mustang in kill ratio- and this was over the wide open Pacific. After it's initial landing problems were solved (by the British) it proved to be a peerless navy plane: serving even in the Korean war.

Dont forget to go into fighter bombers like the Mosquito...superb as a fighter ...bomber ...pathfinder or as a night fighter ..@braveheart21

@braveheart21 The 190 was better than the 109.The spitfire was up engine to be superior to the 190 and remained so for all of the war.The lightweight zero had range and manouverabilty advantage to begin with but was quickly outclassed and could not sustain combat damage The hurricane ended up outclassed.The corsair was great but difficult to land because of its large propeller.

If u look at the corsair kill ratio in the pacific area tho ...many of its kills were still on the ground in hit n run strafing raids on jap airfields ...@21stCenturyFox

@braveheart21 They used to attack ground targets too such as trains.

The early problem with the spit and hurri was the fact that they were carburettor fuelled engines and in a dive the lost power where the 109 and 190 were fuel injected and had no such power loss ..@tallpowerhouseblonde

As did the spits armed with Hispano cannon in the wings and same with the later hurricanes @tallpowerhouseblonde

@braveheart21 Yes.The German planes were fuel injected.The Zero had problems with its horizontal stabiliser.

And no armour plate for the pilot...as i said all very good aircraft but all with small flaws that took the edge off them @tallpowerhouseblonde

@braveheart21 The same can be said of mustang missions in Europe.

@braveheart21 All aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages. The most serious contribution of the P51 was its range and thus its role in protecting daytime bombers on long flights.

Daytime bombing was more accurate than nighttime bombing, but the losses were staggering.

Both sides progressively ramped up their tactics and weaponry as the war progressed. The Luftwaffe learned how to more effectively attack B-17 and they upgraded their firepower. The P-51 with the upgraded engines made a critical contribution in that part of the war.

The Spitfire was supposedly more agile and a better interceptor, but lacked the range. The Corsair was designed for carrier operation. While comparable in performance to the P-51, my guess is that the Corsair had better low altitude performance and the P-51 had better high altitude performance. There are other considerations for why one and not the other, such as production schedule, and maintainability.