It, the Spitfire compared to the Hurricane was a lousy naval fighter,

No it wasnt it was superior in nearly all aspects that is why it REPLACED the hurricane!

( too FRAGILE. Hellcat was better since it was purpose designed to crash on decks.).
whilst fragile it was a superior fighter and once actually navalised was a very successfull one,

  It flew over Berlin as a stripped down lightened recon bird optimized for speed unable to fight at all.

actually not, it was, in early forms unarmed but the extra weight of the cameras made up for that, weight wise they were heavier (excluding fuel) , some later ones actually retained the guns IIRC all tyhe Recon birds the USAAF flew all retained the guns

 Note that it was important to fly recon and the Spitfire did it well, but to call that recon bird a fighter is a misnomer.

why? if it looks like a fighter , is armed like a fighter and flys like a fighter why is it not a fighter?

by the time the P51 begain ops over Japan there was no japanise airforce, what few planes they had left were all kept in reserve for the invasion, plus the fact that Lemay had swtiched to night bombing meant that the P51 was rarely used as an escort

 Draw the range  circles for yourself. 750 miles (1300 kilometers  combat radius). This is not hard to figure out or to check (I'm not Shooter, I tell you how to check my facts.). The Japanese and Americans both knew where they were doomed to fight each other. There are only so many islands suitable for land based single engined fighters with those characteristics in the Pacific near Japan.     

try looking at the numbers of P51s and the numbers of P38 that served in the pacific!

About the RAF failure to mount fighter intruder sweeps...

What makes you think this? You seem to assume that the way it played out is the ONLY possible way it could have occurred, the US threw aircraft over Germany. Fortunately it had the manufacturing and manpower to do this the RAF hadn't at this time, the British were running out of men. 

Admittedly it would have required a radical set of ideas to go to a daylight fighter bomber campaign in 1942-43, but what the heck? What Harris did wasn't working. *(known by 1943) Four men lost per plane was better than seven. I frankly think the Americans were incredibly stupid to not mount their own version of this kind of fast bomber campaign with a long ranged medium bomber force of their own. The B-17 was not the right kind of bomber, and neither was the B-24. Too slow, too expensive to make, and too manpower intensive. An aluminum Mosquito, or a Marauder would have delivered the same ineffective tonnages at less cost in men and money, with the same fighter bait function and the same end results, but that is hindsight.

back in your cage, they were not incompetent they just regarded the compromise needed to carry that amount of fuel to be to great, the P51 fully loaded was bearly flyable, the Spit had the same flight charactistics as did the p51 when fully loaded the RAF just regarded it as ott when they didnt have a need for such a long range fighter 

Why would the same exact reasons and methods that the USAAF used to win the air war over the Luftwaffe day fighter force from British air bases not apply to the RAF? This is an argument I think you cannot make at all.

just because they disagree with your opinion of how things should be does not make them incompetent   this is what shooter does, he has his opinions and everyone else is just too stupid to agree with him

Ahhhh. I think you also just insulted me! Hindsight shows what worked for the Americans. A little imagined foresight indicates what could have worked for the British. The Americans did that work. The British didn't. The Americans killed the Luftwaffe. The British helped with night intruders, but not enough over Germany where it mattered in quantities where it mattered and where the Americans wanted to force the air battle. Not over France where the ground armies were, but over Germany. Bodenplatte was a one shot affair. Imagine five or six in a row?

but that range was at the penalty of performance - you are doing a shooter here, taking the pros and ignoring the cons

In the Mediterranean? Against the Axis JUNK flown there?

PART V
Marine Air Against Rabaul

F-82 and your aforementioned Fury, which was a P-51 with a jet engine stuck into it.

the F82? a twin mustang not what I would call a developement and the NA Fury is a jet one that owed little to the P51 (except it kinda looked like one if you squint, the wing whilst similar were different in construction, profile and plan) in fact I think the ONLY thing carried over to the fury was the canopy

The F-82 was development of the Mustang, much as Heinkel He 111z was an iteration of the He 111. Some drunken engineer thought it would be a good idea. It was built.

I do take a considerable interest in jets. While I do not think much of the Hunter,

yes and I notice that the majority disagree on the quality of the Hunter but not going back to that

the Gloster for its time when all the bugs were worked out was a very good first generation jet aircraft, aerodynamically much better than Messerschmidt's bodged up Me 262. 

I agree that the 262 was a bodge job (the fact that the famous swept wing was a bodge on the fact that the engines it was forced to use had a different CoG and they swept back the wing to compensate for that rather than any flight charactistics)

one of the main faults with the meteor was I believe, that they were too conservative, it would have been a far better fighter had they pushed the boundaries more (the RAF were on the whole more conservative than say the USAAF, they tended to give bigger leyway in the flight envelopes, the meteor had over heavy controls to stop the overstressing the airframe, )