• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Could a T-6B defeat a P-51 in a dogfight?

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Good nerdery. P-51 has higher speed and ceiling per Wikipedia. I assume that the P-51 performance specs are at least for an aircraft with 6x.50 installed. Unsure if it's for a full load of ammo (doubtful). T-6 specs are for an aircraft without any weaponry. Adding any will result in a performance decrease regardless of how the weapons are installed. At the very least the P-51 could stay high and zoom down on the T-6 and then escape with superior speed. So I agree with @sevenhelmet, a P-51 would win due to performance edge.

All this obviously assumes you manage to weaponise a T-6B. Because the question asked a T-6B I assume the OP meant "stock". Because otherwise the P-51s going to win unless the T-6 driver is a kamikaze.
For all intents and purposes there is very little difference between a T-6B and T-6C other than hard points and the AT-6 is very similar, mostly changes to armor, hard points and avionics/weapons systems so you can easily weaponize a T-6. Plus, it handles pretty well loaded out. I mean, if it flew fine with Jollygreen shoe-horned in the back, it can handle a little weight just fine.:D
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I'm curious how the T-6 does in a climb. In the T-34, you would lose energy extremely quickly (especially with any kind of control loading), but that's also with 500+ less HP. When I watch videos of of TBMs, they seem to keep the energy up longer, but they're also slipperier.

@HackerF15E, were you able to get a feel for how the P-51 sustained energy in the climb? Seems like it would hold energy well since it had to get up there with a combat load quickly.
 

xj220

Will fly for food.
pilot
Contributor
The T-6 is stout until above 10k when you start to notice performance loss. It's still respectable to 15k then trickles off more. Down low it's a beast. The difference between the A and B is 500 lbs, so take that for what it's worth.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
For all intents and purposes there is very little difference between a T-6B and T-6C other than hard points and the AT-6 is very similar, mostly changes to armor, hard points and avionics/weapons systems so you can easily weaponize a T-6. Plus, it handles pretty well loaded out. I mean, if it flew fine with Jollygreen shoe-horned in the back, it can handle a little weight just fine.:D
"handles pretty well" is not the same as actual data as to how much its performance is degraded by carrying around several thousand extra pounds.

I'm also intrigued by @xj220 comments above since he's been trained to talk intelligently about the performance of various aircraft and because he mentions that the T-6's performance falls off above 10k. The P-51 was designed to be a high altitude fighter; this is the plane that destroyed the Luftwaffe at high altitudes over Europe. It's peak performance was up high.

But again, if the question is assumed to be "stock T-6B vs stock P-51D" then the answer is P-51 because it has guns while a stock orange and white T-6B has nothing so this is a stupid Internet argument and I hate you all for dragging me into it.
 

xj220

Will fly for food.
pilot
Contributor
I guess I should have been more specific and said climb perf down low is stout. As for turn perf, I don't think it really drops off more than one would expect at altitude. Like others have said, I'd have to look at an E-M diagram to really compare. That is an interesting point about the P-51 being made for altitude and that would factor in for sure.
 

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Not sure that the P-51s performance at lower altitudes was worse than it was at higher ones. Most WWII air to air started high and got low rather quickly. Thinking that the Mustang's high altitude performance had as much or more to do with the Merlin's high altitude performance than the air frame. also, does the T-6 HUD have an air to air, or a guns mode?
 

picklesuit

Dirty Hinge
pilot
Contributor
Not sure that the P-51s performance at lower altitudes was worse than it was at higher ones. Most WWII air to air started high and got low rather quickly. Thinking that the Mustang's high altitude performance had as much or more to do with the Merlin's high altitude performance than the air frame. also, does the T-6 HUD have an air to air, or a guns mode?

Yes
 

HackerF15E

Retired Strike Pig Driver
None
the P-51 is significantly faster (500+ mph vs. about 360 mph) both in a dive and straight & level flight,

Stock Mustangs -- especially those in WWII config and loadout -- are not doing 500 MPH in straight and level.

They're most certainly not sustaining anything close to that once they start turning.
 
Last edited:

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
Stock Mustangs -- especially those in WWII config and loadout -- are not doing 500 MPH in straight and level.

They're most certainly not sustaining anything close to that once they start turning.

On re-reading that, I see that my post was a little confusing. My assertion was that the P-51 is probably faster than a T-6B straight and level (likely has better climb perf as well), and certainly has a faster maximum dive speed, since Vne in the T-6B is 316 KCAS. My point being that the P-51 could use dive and zoom tactics to take advantage of its superior top-end speed vs. a T-6. In an turning engagement in one plane-of-motion, I completely agree that speed advantage is probably nonexistent.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
On re-reading that, I see that my post was a little confusing. My assertion was that the P-51 is probably faster than a T-6B straight and level (likely has better climb perf as well), and certainly has a faster maximum dive speed, since Vne in the T-6B is 316 KCAS. My point being that the P-51 could use dive and zoom tactics to take advantage of its superior top-end speed vs. a T-6. In an turning engagement in one plane-of-motion, I completely agree that speed advantage is probably nonexistent.
Let's be honest . . . did the P-51 have a faster Vne, or are those stories about 400+ knots just something that happened because there was a war on and because we hadn't thought of NATOPS yet? I mean, we didn't really understand the whole concept of compressibility and transonic aero back then. What could a T-6 do under 1940s safety standards? Better yet, where would our current DT/OT nerds draw the NATOPS line for the Mustang if it were to be, say, pressed into service for SOCOM CAS tomorrow a la the AT-6?

That's not entirely rhetorical; I seriously don't know. Seeing as we have people on here who have actually logged time in both . . . well?
 
Top