# P-38 or Mosquito?



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

Which was better, at the moment i think the mossie, but i wont vote yet...


----------



## Andrew (May 13, 2004)

The Mossie witout a doubt.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

You see thats what I think too, but at the moment Lightning Guy is trying to convince me that the P-38 was better, I hope he manages to because I dont like the Mosquito. 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

Ok. A review of my arguments from else where. The only true mulit-role Mossie was the FB marks like the FB.VI. The Lightning had this version beaten in virtually every aspect of performance and maneuverability. The Lightning was extremely versatile with any one version being capable of serving as a escort-fighter, interceptor, skip-bomber, dive-bomber, tank-buster, etc. Other P-38s were modified to carry a Norden sight or BTO radar and actually led P-38s on bombing missions. The P-38M would have been one of the outstanding nightfighters of the war had it lasted. One P-38 was even successfully tested carrying 2 torps. And don't forget the something like 1400 F-4 and F-5 photo-recon models.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Yes, the Lightning could do the bomber role but the Mosquito was better in it. The Lightning was better as a fighter, but the Mosquito was better as a bomber and it had a proper anti-shipping title to its name. 
I was waiting for this thread to appear.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

The Lightning sank a lot of shipping in the MTO, PTO, and CBI. Had the AAF been interested in torpedo-bombing the Lightning would have been one of the best torpedo bombers of the war. So the Lightning was very capable in the anti-shipping role.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

No. Any planes armed with bombs can dive bomb a ship, this is called dive bombing. It is not an anti-shipping role, and 'could of' isn't a did, so the Lightning does not have anti-shipping to its role.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

ive gone for the lightning


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

Several planes were capable of dive-bombing but the P-38 was better than most of them. It's counter-rotating props (which the Mossie lacked btw) meant that once it entered it's dive there was no torgue pulling it one way or the other allowing a very accurate run. I'm not sure where you are going with the "anti-shipping" thing unless you are refering to the FB.XVIII but they weren't produced that much because a standard Mosquito could sink ships just as well. And the Lighting was just as effective at skip-bombing or rocket attacks (carrying more rockets with a heavier warhead). Besides all that, the FB.XVIII wasn't designed as an anti-ship plane so much as an anti-U-boat plane.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

i still think the mossie was better.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

i dont 8) and it appears the p-38 is winning


----------



## Maestro (May 14, 2004)

plan_D said:


> No. Any planes armed with bombs can dive bomb a ship, this is called dive bombing. It is not an anti-shipping role, and 'could of' isn't a did, so the Lightning does not have anti-shipping to its role.



I don't know a lot about bombers, but I vote for the Mosquito. I think it could take much dammage than the P-38.

And concerning the dive bombing, I agree with Plan_D. Any plane armed with bombs could sink a ship. After all, wich plane sank the Tirpitz ? I think it was a Spit, wasn't it ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

both the planes are great. its hard to choose between the 2


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

A U-Boat is a ship(sub-ship, submarine), Lightning. Shall I say 'anti-vessel' to make it easier. The Mosquito was a superior bomber, there shouldn't be any argument about it, because it's true. Yes, the P-38 was a better dive bomber than most, not the Mosquito.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

I've never heard of a Mossie dive-bombing. But without the counter-rotating props it wouldn't have been as stable as the Lightning. P-38 better dive-bomber. 

Maestro . . . the Tirpitz was sunk by a Lanc. And I doubt the Mosquito could take more damage that a Lightning. There are several instances of Lightings suffering mid-air collisions and returning to base on one engine.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Here is a pic of a P-38 that hit a telephone pole on a strafing run. The pilot managed to bring it 360 miles back to base.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Not too healthy


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Not healthy at all. But it does demonstrate the toughness of the P-38.

The Lightning was also a "hands off" airplane meaning that once trimmed it would continue to fly straight and level without input from the pilot (and without an auto pilot either). In the Pacific, were some missions lasted ten hours, pilots packed lunches in their cockpits, read books, wrote letters, and even smoked (and probably caught the occassional catnap).


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Sleeping would just be silly.  
I'm sure Mosquitos have got some good stories of surviving from bad damage.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

Guys, I have something totally unheard of! Did you know.... that..... there are..... STORIES and PICS..... of..... damaged


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

B-17's! Isn't that a crazy surprise and idea? When I myself heard about these stories, I, for one, was shocked.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

ive seen hundreds of pics of damaged b-17's


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

you notise there aren't many of damaged lancs...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Because they didn't make it back to have their picture taken! 

I can't common on the toughness of the Mossie. I imagine that it was a fairly tough airplane but trying to argue that it was tougher than the P-38 would be difficult to do.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

i have 2 pictures of damaged lancs


----------



## Crazy (May 15, 2004)

Lightning, without a doubt 8) 

Mossie was for Englishmen


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

yup 8) i though the mossie would streak away with this but it isnt, and that makes me happy


----------



## Maestro (May 15, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Maestro . . . the Tirpitz was sunk by a Lanc. And I doubt the Mosquito could take more damage that a Lightning. There are several instances of Lightings suffering mid-air collisions and returning to base on one engine.



Okay, my mistake. Sorry.


----------



## Crazy (May 15, 2004)

Check out my posts in the story section, this story about Charles Hoffman and his good old P-38 are inspiring  

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=161


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

I've heard one story about a P-38 pilot in the MTO who suffered a head-on collision with a Bf-109. The 109 was outta luck. The Lightning had one engine seize up and the tailplane was severed where it met the right tail boom. The pilot was able to keep the plane in the air for four hours and even managed a respectable belly landing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

ill say it again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

that's nothing, now if he'd landed with his undercarage down, that would be impressive..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

i think otherwise


----------



## ahanswurst (May 16, 2004)

I vote for the P-38 because of what it did and could do during the war. Granted the Mosquito had it's place and mission. But compared side by side I think the P-38 has no equals as far as a piston driven aircraft.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 17, 2004)

I, however, do. The Corsair. Same-ish bombload in weight, although the sizes of their ordanance varied, I prefer the Corsair. Although few were produced, I believe the version with 4x 20mm cannons was the definitive dogfighter, and the ones used by the USMC in Korea the definitive attack variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The Corsair, heh? Where were you on the "Best Naval Fighter" thread? The Corsair was a great plane, but not the point of this thread, and not as versatile as the Lightning.


----------



## bader (May 17, 2004)

how could anyone not like the mosquito? it was the most versatile plane of the war


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The Mosquito was the better bomber, the Lightning was the better fighter. And you'd be surprised how durable the Mosquito was.


----------



## bader (May 17, 2004)

the mossie definetly


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Thank you.


----------



## Andrew (May 17, 2004)

There are photgraphs in Chaz Bower's book "The Mosquito at War" that show a Mosquito that came back from a mission with half the starboard Wing Missing, the Port Engine very badly damaged and half the Tailplane missing and it still made it back to the Airfield, also there are records of a Mosquito that ended up with a chimney pot in the cockpit, also there was another Mosquito which returned froma Mission with several hundred feet of telegraph wire wraped round it. And the Mosquito as far as I know is the only Aircraft to have a loss rate of less than 1 Aircraft a mission.

There were 2 types of Rockets that the Allied Aircraft used during the war, these were 25lbs and 60lbs warheads, the 25lb Warhead Rockets were originally designed for Tank busting, and the 60lb Warhead Rockets were desinged for Ship and Submerine Busting, strange as it may seem the Rockets performed better when their roles were reveresed, the 25lb Rockets were used for Submerine Busting, and the 60lb Rockets were used for Tank Busting, both The Mossie and the P38 were capable of carrying 8 Rockets, 4 on each wing using the Standard wing mounted pods.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The Mosquito would have also been the better bomber destroyer, simply because of its more powerful armament.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Ok, were to begin. First of all, I had never seen anything on the durability of the Mossie and that is very impressive. Secondly, the P-38L carried 10 rockets on 1 "inverted Christmas tree" launchers. They were tested with as many as 14 zero-length launchers (like on the P-47 or P-51) but the structural changes involved were too great. Plus the Christmas tree launcher could be removed when not needed producing a cleaner plane. Thirdly, the Lightning's armament was more concentrated than even the Mossie and I think it's high rate of climb and high altitude performance would have given it the edge in interception missions.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The rate of climb and ceiling on the Mosquito were good enough to reach the bombers in time, and its 4 20mm cannons were very close together and packed a harder punch than the Lightnings armament.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

They were packed tightly, but not as closely as the Lightning's guns. Question: how much ammo did the Mossie carry for it's cannons?


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

I don't actually know, but the ammo count will be lower than the P-38s. I know where you are going with this, I've used it countless times before. The thing is, the Mosquito would have less ammo, but a harder punch, therefore it doesn't have to use as much ammo to bring a plane down. 
The P-38s guns were tightly packed, even more so than the Mosquitos but the Mosquito has more powerful armament, which more than makes up for it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

But you do have the problem of endurance. Not because of fuel because both planes had exceptional range (certaintly better than the Hurricanes or the Spits from the BoB). But the Lightning had 40 secs worth of firepower. And if the enemy bomber formation is escorted I would much rather be in a P-38.


----------



## Huckebein (May 19, 2004)

What are we talking about here, a few inches difference in gun grouping? the Mosquito carried out every task asked of it exceptionally well. (Take a look at the old Mossie Vs Ju-88 thread for the full list). The Lightning was a good fighter, but only in the Pacific where Japanese fighters couldn't keep up with it. In Europe, the Mosquito was more effective as a day fighter when used on Ranger intruder sorties over enemy airfields. The Lightning was generally out of its depth against German fighters, especially if they encountered them in any significant numbers.
Also, the Mossie could be, and was, used as a high-speed VIP transport and carrier-borne Anti-shipping strike aircraft (the High-ball version).
As for intercepting, they are very closely matched - having 40 seconds worth of ammo is no use if it takes 10 seconds to bring one down (exaggerated I know, but you know what I mean), so I wouldn't be surprised if both aircraft carried the same 'bombers-worth' of ammunition in their guns.
Oh, and _don't_ knock the Mosquito's 
durability - it came back with all sorts of $hit£ done to it.

All in all, I go for the Mosquito - the two are only closely matched in the fighter role. In every other role the Mossie wins (IMHO).


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

You obviously have read what the Germans thought about the P-38. Several German ACES admitted that a P-38 could turn inside a 109 or 190 and could outrun both. The P-38 got a bad wrap in Europe because of the situations it was exposed to. It must be remembered that the P-38s on bomber escort were often out numbered by as much as 10 to 1, handcuffed by orders to stick to the bombers, and yet they still gave better than they got. When it comes to dogfighting, I would much rather be in a P-38 than a Mossie. As an example of what the P-38s could do, on July 7th, 1944, the 20th and 55th FGs were flying escort when they were jumped by 109s, 190s, and Me-410s. By the end of the day the score was P-38s 21 Germans 1.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

In the tactics of the RAF the Spitfires would have sorted the 109s and the Mosquito would have sorted the bombers. Even then the Mosquito could handle itself perfectly well in a dogfight. 

There's plenty of examples of aircraft performing brilliantly on days. The P-38s might have out-numbered the German planes. Anyway, I've heard plenty like that, like one day in 1943 (I can't remember the exact date) the Fw-190s clocked up 32 kills to 2 losses. Then again the Fw-190 was a great plane. 

In my opinion I still think that the Mosquito would be a better Bomber interceptor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

> Several German ACES admitted that a P-38 could turn inside a 109 or 190 and could outrun both.



thankyou, i keep telling the lanc that the p-38 was a manoeverable plane but he doesnt believe me


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

German Aces admitted it, and I've read more than one account of P-38s turning inside Ki-43 Oscars to achieve kills.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

ive read accounts of p-38 pilots saying how amazingly manoeverablr they were for a plane of that size but he still wouldnt believe me, he just cant hack that hes wrong


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

Lighting just clear things up a bit. the 7-7-44 mission in which Fw 190's of IV.Sturm/JG 3 and II.Sturm/JG 3 protected by Bf 109G-6's of I./JG 300 were given the mission on their first Gefechstverband to attack the US bombers en-masse of the 8th AF over Oschersleben and the 15th AF to the south. the German tactic was to attack the US bombers at whatever cost and to avoid the US P-38's or any other Allied escorts. this was in reality for pure propaganda reasons only as only the 55 claimed kills were recorded in the German news as a great victory and noth the German losses. i have perosnally over 25 pages of documentation on this air battle and some of it resides on my web-site that is undergoing some radical changes...............

if interested just type in Sturmgruppen in your search engine(s), and look for Sturmgruppen missions 1944 run by Neil Page and myself. U guys may want to take note of over 10 pages of materials listed on the search as the site has three seperate site facings..........

the P-38 was an excellent craft but it appears that the Fw 190 pilots if aggressive could tackle the Lighting without problem. I have some real ugly gun-cam footage of P-38's being torn to ribbons under the 2cm and 3cm M shells

for now

Erich


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

I've seen lots of footage of 190s going down to Lightnings as well. The fact is, that the Lightning, outnumbered and hampered by poor tactics at the time, more than held it's own against both the 190 and the 109.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

in what year are we talking about ? 43, 44 or 45 ? I know full well what the P-38 could do as the 1st fighter group was quite fond of it.......

E


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Well, '43 saw most of the P-38 groups (fighting the Germans that is) in the Med. where the P-38 was THE fighter plane. For much of '44, the P-38 was the only Allied fighter capable of providing escort over the target area. By '45, the Lightning was on it's way out of the 8th (for economical reasons mostly) but that freed them up to chew up the Wermacht with the 9th AF or to transfer to the PTO where they decimated the Japanese.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

yes I will agree with your assesment. Truly in 1943 the P-38 was the top notch bird by day to contend with especially in the Med.

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

it doesn't matter really how close the guns were, they were all in the nose so they have to be pretty close anyway, if your intercepting, you've got a big target so it doesn't matter...............


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2004)

heres a pic from friend and pilot G. Hezmahalch flying his P-38 recon version in early 1945.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

nice pic 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

That appears to be an F-5G model. They were all conversions of P-38L-5-LOs and were perhaps the best photo-recon aircraft of the war (the Mossie being the other contender). I haven't seen much info on the F-5G but reportedly it could fly missions up to 3,750 miles in length which must have been killer on the pilot.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

3,750 miles!!! ha, wait until i tell the lanc this


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2004)

will have to check my data but Gordon was a very youthful looking pilot. He is hand signing a pic of him in his flight kit next time we meet. He has suffered a major stroke and his memory is going and he is quite aware of past eveents lost somewhere from his mind...............this is so sad. he did say on two occassions while flying this a/c he pulled away from zero's that tried to bounce him. this particular bird and ones like this in his squadron were un armored and un-armed. Very fast buggers. In this banking pic with the glorious Fujiama in the background you can see the camera setup underneath the fuselage.

blue skies guyz !

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

I've never see a top speed listed for a F-5G but the P-38L was supposed to be able to top 440mph. Seeing as how the recon models were considerably lighter I am sure their speed must have been incredible.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

i dont distrust you L.G, but where do you get your info on the P-38 from?


----------



## Huckebein (May 25, 2004)

I am quite aware of the Lightning's performance in Europe against the Luftwaffe, and quite certain that it was outclassed as a fighter. Quite apart from whather it was better than the Mosquito, it most certainly ws _not_ better in air-air combat than a Focke Wulf Fw 190. Here's one statement I remember (can't remember where I read it though, annoyingly):

'During the North African campaign, the American P-38 Lightning had achieved a fearsome reputation as a powerful, fast twin-engined fighter that could severely punish the Axis pilot who treated it as his inferior whilst flying a single-engined type. However, once the later mark Focke Wulfs and '109s arrived on the scene - types that could outrun, out-climb _and_ out-turn the Lightning, the nickname 'Fork-tailed Devil' began to seem a bit out of place. Whenever I encountered P-38s over France, the engagement, without exception, switched by default to a defensive action by the Lightnings, even if they started with a slight altitude advantage. Their first priority became survival, whereas we were the aggressors.'


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Range of 3,750 miles, you mean ferry range or its combat radius was 3,750 miles?


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

mossie


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

mossie


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

it was the P-38


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I imagine that would be ferry but still phenomenal for a single-seat fighter of the era. I've got several books on the Lightning, the info on the F-5G comes from P-38 Lightning by Warren Bodie. 

Huckebein, interesting post but I can give you several quotes from German pilots who felt the Lighting could out-turn, out-climb, and out-run them. You have to remember that the full-up versions of the Lightning were not deployed to Europe (at least not in numbers anyway) and yet the Lightning still gave better than it got despite being almost always outnumbered. I have not seen direct tests between a P-38 and Fw-190 but test showed the P-38 turned as well or better than a P-51 and the P-51 could always turn inside a 190.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Not really that amazing, as it is a twin-engined plane. Without armament or armour, it greatly reduces fuel consumption, and the consumption lowers even more when more fuel is used. This also allows more space for fuel. 
The Spitfire PR. XI had a ferry range well over 2000 miles, and this was a single engined plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Well, carrying two engines means twice the fuel consumption of a single-engined aircraft so the extra fuel is required. Specifically I was refering to the fact that it was amazing to the pilot to pull that off as were are talking about missions of nearly 14 hours in length, in a bucket seat.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

The more engines you have the longer range you'll have, so saying single seat is hiding the fact its a twin-engined plane. And I hope you all realise the more engines the more range, in most circumstances. 
More engines gives you power which allows you to carry more fuel. Which in most cases is more than what is required to give you the same range of a single engined plane. 3,750 miles for a late war twin-engined plane isn't impressive when the single engined PR.XI was doing over 2000 miles on one engine. 
You have to find a compromise obviously on amount of engines, size and design of plane, and fuel carried. But in WW2 mostly, more engines more range. So it's not surprising the F-5G could do almost double a single engined plane. 

B-17 4 engines, 4 times consumption of the Mk.I Spitfire but it out-ranged it...why? Simple really.


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

it was so easly the mossie!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

You still haven't addressed what I was getting at Plan_D. 14 hours is a long time for one person to sit in a bucket seat without anyway to move around. The Pr. XI could hack that. I was meaning to place more emphasis on the endurance rather than the range.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Ok, so the pilot needed to be able to hack a numb ass. There, I addressed it. Still, C.C said it was impressive when really 3,750 miles for a twin-engined plane isn't.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

i don't think he realised it was the ferry range, recon mossies after the war could go up to 3,500miles, that's combat raduis, not ferry range............


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

not bad


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

not bad, that's pretty damn good..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

no i doubt that 3500 miles was its combat radius


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

I doubt that as well. That would mean it could fly to New York and back, no problem. I doubt that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

A 3,500 mile radius would have required a range of somewhere around 8,000 miles (allowing for warm-tp, take-off, climb to altitude, plus reserves for avoiding weather or going to high power to avoid fighters).


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

yes, and im very doubtful of that


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 3, 2004)

p-38 for me  very good aircraft and looks good too


----------



## brad (Jun 3, 2004)

1 question if the p38 was so good why did so many get shot down


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

There were a lot of every plane that got shot down. But here are some things to consider. There were 10,000 P-38s built, meaning there were a lot to get shot down. The P-38 was used in every theatre of the war and used constantly meaning a lot of time to be shot down. A lot of P-38s were lost to other causes (weather or mechanical failure, NOT enemy combat).


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 4, 2004)

De Haviland Mosquito was the best of the two I think


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

nope it was the P-38  incredible plane


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 5, 2004)

Very incredible plane in fact! if you think different you must be


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

exactly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

that's not a great picture to chose to show how great a plane is though, is it 

"yes, the good one's the one that's going up in flames"................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

what are you on about?


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 13, 2004)

Mossie the best!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 14, 2004)

P-38 is better that the best then!

and i see what you mean now lanc, that isnt fire from the mossies, its coming from the building


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

oh yeah, so it is 



> P-38 is better that the best then!



it's impossible to be better than the best..............................


----------



## ev0 (Jun 20, 2004)

My vote goes to the p 38 because it could take really hard hits and still come home. I read the story of charles hoffman and he made a 300mile (or longer? don't remember) trip with a p38 on one engine....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

the mossie could fly just as wel on one engine aswell you know, one of it's test flights the pilot showed off by feathering one propellor and going into a rolling climb on one engine.............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

Lockheed test pilot did stunt flights post-war in which he feathered both engines and landed dead-stick. During the flight he would do all kinds of maneuvers on one engine including turns and rolls into the dead one.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

Hurricanes were landing dead stick a lot of the time. Pilot being injured turn off engine it'd come down, and still be able to taxi in.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

My point was that lots of planes could be landed dead-stick and that the P-38 also handled very well on one engine. Often pilots would simply choose to shut-down a rough running engine rather than bother with it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

but that offers the P-38 no advantage over the mossie as the mossie could do it too..........................


----------



## Huckebein (Jun 28, 2004)

Jeez, this thread has not got very far - there's only a couple o' guys here trying to back up their arguments. I think it's very difficult to argue that the Mosquito truly rivalled the Lightning in a pure day-fighter role (not as a daylight intruder which some count as being a 'fighter'). Likewise it is next to impossible to argue the P-38's case when it comes to bombing.
For nightfighting the Mosquito's phenomenal _actual_ war record has to overcome the 'promising' nature of late war Night-fighter Lightnings. Likewise I believe the Mosquito just about pips the P-38 to the post for photo-recce (about the only area where the two are _very_ closely comparable, apart from durability and strike capability [rockets/ Molins cannon etc]). From there on the Mosquito wins hands down because the P-38 was _not_ carrier-capable, was _never_ successfully used as a high-speed transport, and was found to be surplus to requirements long before the Mossie bowed out in 1954 (I think - I'll go check).

Overall, I believe that, although the P-38 was an outstanding plane, the Mosquito was the more versatile and overall more capable aircraft (as well as being Goring's personal least favourite plane).

If anyone has any real arguments against these points, _please_ post them - I'm tired and may well have erred.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 28, 2004)

Ah, so there you are Huck!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

P-38 was never needed to be carrier capable as the Navy was well underway with their F7F project. The P-38 was used as a high speed transport. I am unsure of the numbers involved, but several 300 gallon drop tanks were modified to carry up to two stretchers each allowing the P-38 to function as a fast ambulance. Most historians note that the P-38 was retired too early and could have preformed invaluable service over Korea. Anyway, Lockheed was busy churning out P-80s. I still consider the P-38 the better aircraft and believe that the P-38 made a better bomber than the Mossie made fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2004)

fighter varients of the mossie could "mix it" with the best of them, no P-38 could "out bomb" the mossie.......................


----------



## Huckebein (Jun 29, 2004)

*sigh*, ok I give up, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

I didn't know about the stretcher carrying though, very interesting, thanks. I can see your point regarding the F7F too, although to some extent the same was true for the dH 98, with the dH 102 Sea Hornet well advanced by the time Mossies were cleared for carrier operations. Besides, it's not the point whether or not the P-38 was 'needed to be' carrier operational, the fact is it wasn't. As for Korea, was there much that P-38s could do that the combined efforts of F-80s, F-86s, F-51s, A-26s and F7Fs couldn't, (as well as the odd Meteor and Sea Fury...)?

And your final point? I'm afraid I'll have to very strongly disagree there - the P-38 was a better air-superiority fighter/ dogfighter than the Mossie, but when it came to bombing there was absolutely _no_ comparison. The B.Mk XVI Mossie could carry up to 4.000lbs of explosives and drop them with phenomenal accuracy from low, medium or high level, and whilst unloaded it had a maximum speed of 415mph at 28,000ft and a service ceiling of 37,000ft. I don't know how else to get across the fact that the Mosquito totally out-stripped the Lightning's bombing performance, but there you go...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 29, 2004)

There you are again you sneaky beaver!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2004)

The most random spammer award goes to GrG.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Versions of both the P-38Js and Ls were modified to carry either the Norden sight (better than anything the British had) or APS-15 radar. It was very capable of hitting a target from any height. Both models were capable of carrying a 4,000lb bomb. Clean the L version could make 443mph and could reach an altitude of approximately 44,000ft. The P-38 was a very effective bomber, much more effective that the Mosquito was as a fighter. As for Korea, the P-38L was far more effective at ground attack than the F-51 as it had greater firepower, greater payload, and a greater resistance to groundfire.


----------



## Huckebein (Jun 30, 2004)

Maybe the F-51, yes, but the A-26 or F7F? Also, although I have twice admitted that the '38 was the better fighter, you still seem to be underestimating the Mosquito's capability against german fighters by quite a margin. Apart from _absolute_ superiority over German twin-engined types (which has to count for something), there are more than a few recorded incidents of retreating FB.VI Mosquitoes turning on their single-engined pursuers and coming out on top. One such machine of a squadron based in South-West England (Cornwall) was damaged on an anti-shipping strike and the port engine began losing power. With another Mossie to escort it, it headed back for England as directly as possible, taking a route that under normal circumstances would have been deemed far too close to the Cherbourg peninsula. They were subsequently spotted by 5 Fw 190s, and after a 5 minute chase, realised that with the damaged Mossie still losing power, the Fw 190s were gradually starting to close on them (once again, under normal circumstances they'd have outrun the Focke Wulfs with ease). The pair decided that they'd have to take the upper hand, and so swung round and charged the '190s head on. In the ensuing melee the damaged Mosquito was further hit, but shot down one Focke Wulf and damaged another. It's escort shot down another one, and the remaining three turned back for France, allowing the pair of Mosquitoes to return safely home.
Also, following a dive-bombing attack on the Marshalling Yards at Ywataung, six Oscars intercepted Mosquitoes of 45 Sqn. One Ki-43 was brought down by the retreating FB. Mk VIs for no loss. The only machine damaged during that raid was one from another squadron. It had been following up the dive-bombing attack at low-level when flying debris (including 2 40 Gallon oil drums and a 10ft long log) hit it, forcing it to crash land at the newly constructed P-47 field nearby. Surely two oil drums and a log hitting a '38 at over 200mph would bring it down without further ado?

As for bombing, the British 'Oboe' radio bombing system was far more accurate at night than the Norden could ever hope to be (for obvious reasons  ), and _just as accurate_ during the day. The British also had a _very_ accurate visual bombsight (described in the book 'The Dambusters', which I'll root out later if I can be bothered) used almost exclusively by 617 Sqn's Lancasters (for security and availability reasons - it was more than small and light enough for a Mossie to carry if it had been required of it). With this sight, during an attack on a bridge in Germany, a Tallboy bomb and a Grand Slam 22,000 pounder hit either end of the bridge simultaneously, momentarily lifting the entire concrete span into the air. Whilst it hung there, another Tallboy came down and struck it dead in the centre, causing it to disintegrate in mid-air. I don't think you need to be much more accurate than that...? 

Serously, the _only_ point in the _entire_ war when it became seriously dangerous for the Mosquito to operate _anywhere_ in the world was when Me 262B jet nightfighters began taking a toll of Mosquito night-bombers. At any other time or place the Mosquito held its own and exacted a painful toll on the airforce tasked with dealing with it.

PS. "Beaver"? - GrG's letting his beard get a bit too long methinks...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

Oboe was more accurate at night Nordon at day. The SABS sight was never installed in a Mosquitoe. If I can't talk about the potential prowess of a night-fighting Lightning you can't talk about the potential of the Mossie had it been given this sight. At least P-38s flew with interception radar and some of those in combat. The Mossie did have a number of air-to-air success but remember this, the P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane. That right there closes the fighter argument. I certainly know which plane I would rather be in if I was going to be having to face enemy fighters day in and day out.


----------



## Huckebein (Jun 30, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other plane. That right there closes the fighter argument. I certainly know which plane I would rather be in if I was going to be having to face enemy fighters day in and day out.



Christ you can be frustrating sometimes! 

I _know_ the Mossie wasn't as capable a dogfighter as the Lightning, I simply said it was a lot better than you seemed to give it credit for.

My comments about the SABS sight were designed to counter your 'better than anything the British had' comment about the Norden, not to add to the Mossie/ '38 argument.

As for the Lightning's record in the Pacific, I am well aware of it and it is _very_ impressive. I think a little of that has to go down to the Lightning's consistent ability to outrun every plane the IJN used, and use BnZ tactics to the full. As I have already said, in Europe it didn't achieve a record anywhere near as impressive 'cos the Germans could _keep up with it_. A little also has to go down to the fact that the pacific skies were flooded with day-fighter P-38s (relatively), and _nowhere_ was ever 'flooded' with dayfighter Mosquitoes...

But, as you said, 'fighter argument closed', I just don't think you'll do as well with recce, nightfighting, strike/ anti shipping, bombing etc. etc...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

Flooded? I would be very surprised if the 5th AF ever had more than 200 P-38s on hand at any one time. Notice that there was only one all P-38 group in the Pacific, ever! As for your comments about the P-38 in Europe, take a look at what it did to the Germans in North Africa, over the Med, and in Italy. The same P-38s cut the same Fw-190s and Bf-109s to ribbons. Over Europe they were plagued with some technical problems at altitude as well as poor tactics (close escort which left any fighter at a serious disadvantage) and poor quality British fuels. Yet at low-altitude, the P-38 more than held its own while managing to chew the Wermacht into little bitty pieces. As a close to this piece on the P-38 in the ETO I give you this quote from Arthur Heiden, P-38 pilot with the 20th FG - 

"Let me repeat this again and again. It can never be emphasized too strongly. It makes up the Gospel Word. The P-38L. Now there was the airplane." 

"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or split-S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do better." 

That's not my opinion or the opinion of some historian, that's the factual experience of the guy that was there doing it day in and day out.


----------



## Huckebein (Jun 30, 2004)

Ok, ok, if you want to argue the same point over and over that's ok - the P-38 _was_ the better fighter! It sounds a bit as though you're trying to argue the case for the P-38 being the best fighter on the Western Front though...? I'll leave that for another date or thread...

Oh, and don't even _try_ to pretend that the '38 could out-roll an Fw 190 - a '109 maybe, but then what couldn't? "The Gustav's maximum rate of roll is embarassing - the leading edge slots keep opening..." (From an RAE evaluation of the Bf 109G-2 whilst comparing it to various Allied types).

Interestingly enough from the recconnaisance angle of the argument, if the '38 was so damn capable why did the USAAF, which usually had more than enough planes not to need to buy foreign ones, feel the need to buy large numbers of PR Mosquitoes?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

there's no way you can say the P-38 was the better PR plane..................


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 30, 2004)

Just look what happens when I leave the Site  

Well let's look at the facts:

I have never heard of a P-38 Dive Bombing as such  Yep, it did shallow to mid dives, not never dive like the Stuka or Dauntless. A Lightning was dive at high-speed from an altitude of 30,000 ft (9,120 m). When the Pilot reached an indicated airspeed of about 320 mph (515 kph), the airplane's tail began to shake violently and the nose dropped until the dive was almost vertical. The Pilot recovered and landed safely and the tail buffet problem was soon resolved after Lockheed installed new fillets to improve airflow where the cockpit gondola joined the wing center section. Seventeen months passed before engineers began to determine what caused the Lightning's nose to drop. They tested a scale model P-38 in the Ames Laboratory wind tunnel operated by the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) and found that shock waves formed when airflow over the wing reached transonic speeds and became turbulent. Lockheed never remedied this problem but the firm did install dive recovery flaps under each wing in 1944 to restore lift and smooth the airflow enough to maintain control when diving at high-speed. But it was never taken beyond 45 degrees - like the Spitfire, P-51 etc.

The U.S.A.A.F used PR Mossie more then the F-5 because the Merlin Engine was better suited at High Attitude then the Allison. I could go on, but you must remember that the P-38 was built as a Fighter and the Mossie as a Fighter-Bomber. In some area's the Mossie was better and some the P-38 was better, but if you want to compare the P-38 with something, try this beaut 8) 

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/hornet/hornet.htm

The D.H Hornet was a "Pure" Fighter updated of the Mossie 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 30, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The most random spammer award goes to GrG.



It's from il2skins, sorry.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

P-38 was shown to be a first rate dive bomber and regularly when past 45 degrees. The compressibility problems were only encountered when the plane entered a dive from high altitude. Dive-bombing runs started at 12,000ft or so were no problem. In fact, the P-38 was considered to be more stable than the single-engined types since it didn't have any asymmetrical engine torque pulling it off line. Oh, and the dive-flaps would have been installed sooner but a trigger-happy Spitfire pilot shown down the C-54 carrying the first 425 sets of them to England.

I will admit that I don't know as much about the PR Mossies as I probably should. However, I do know that eventually more than 1200 F-4 and F-5 Lightnings were produced/modified. They only required a crew of one and could easily carry as many as 5 cameras in the nose. Performance figures were all very similar to those of the Mosquito.


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 30, 2004)

You have to admit though that you can't really compare the two as the P-38 was made as a Fighter and the Mossie as a Fighter-Bomber. Both were very good Planes, but in their own area's 8) 

But the P-38 had the same diving problem lower down as well, m8.

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 30, 2004)

Technically the mossie was designed as a Bomber.


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 30, 2004)

Yes, m8. And that's the difference. The D.H Hornet was fighter version shall I say of the Mossie, but the Mossie still comes out tops in some area's.

Hot Space


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

There was no problem with compressibility at low altitudes. As quickly as the P-38 accelerated, it took a little while for enough speed to build up for compressibility to occur. At lower altitudes, the P-38 wouldn't be in the dive long enough for this to occur. That is why you hear of very few instances of compressibility occuring in the MTO or PTO where combat was generally at medium to low altitudes. Furthermore, the onset of compressibility was delated by the thinner air at lower altitudes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

i doubt there was a version of a P-38 that could beat the 3,500mile range of a late war PR mossie??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 2, 2004)

F-5G - 3,750miles.


----------



## MattyG (Jul 2, 2004)

P-38 was heavily armoured and could take a beating. But the Mosquito was quicker, lighter, more manouverable. Besides, I was born in Canada. De Havilland made the mozzie, gotta support the home side!


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

The "mossie" was basicly made from wood. now wood isn't a very good type of armor (heck i don't think it is armor) but the P38 as you all know is made from all american steel so the p38 was better than the "mossie" in the armor catagory


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

in armour yes, but the mossie could still take one hell of a beating, it took damage to th fusilage like a sponge.....................


----------



## Hot Space (Jul 2, 2004)

I think what folk's are missing here is that the P-38 was a Fighter, chaps  

Hot Space


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2004)

The Mosquito could take a beating more than most. It was a very durable plane, which is amazing being made of wood.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2004)

the fact that it was wood was what gave it allot of that durability, if it was a stressed metal skin, if you were hit it would leave a large rip/hole, but with the wood it onlt left a tiny where the bullet had gone straight trough.......................



> I think what folk's are missing here is that the P-38 was a Fighter



so were some varients of the mossie...........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

There were no true day-fighter marks of the Mossie to go into service. The P-38 could outmaneuver the Mossie, outclimb it, and most marks could outrun in. In air-to-air, the P-38 takes the Mossie, no two ways about it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 7, 2004)

i never said it didn't, but that's the only time a P-38 would beat a mossie, you have to admit that??


----------



## kiwimac (Jul 7, 2004)

LG,

Air is thinner the HIGHER you go. So air at low altitiude is (comparatively speaking, this is a gas you know) 'thicker' than at height.

Comparing the Mosquito the P38 is like comparing apples and guavas, now if it were the beaufighter and p-38, thats different.

Kiwimac


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 7, 2004)

Sorry, the 'thinner' should have read 'thicker.' My fingers were getting ahead of my brain.

The P-38 was markedly superior than the Mosquito in fighter roles. As a bomber, the P-38 could carry an equal load with similar performance. The Mossie probably was better, but the P-38 was close. As a photo-recon aircraft, I think the two were pretty much a toss-up. The performance of both was excellent but the F-5 could carry a wide number and variety of cameras and only required a single crewman.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 7, 2004)

I know I'm late to this, but my vote's with the Mossie. It was just in a class of it's own, not just performance-wise, but in terms of the missions it flew.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 7, 2004)

The P-38L outperformed any mark of the Mossie built.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 8, 2004)

To be honest, I am not an expert on the figures, but a random google gave me these figures for the PR.Mk 34, which was the final Mossie photo-recce version to see action in WW2:

Maximum level speed: 425 Mph (684 km/h)
Ceiling: 43,000 ft (13.105 m)
Range: 3,500 miles (5.633 km)

Which stacks up well against the P-38L:

Maximum speed: 414 mph 
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft. 
Range: 2600 miles

This wasn't a common mark, of course, but it does seem that SOME Mossie versions could at least match the performance of the P-38.


----------



## Huckebein (Jul 8, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The P-38L outperformed any mark of the Mossie built.



Only in terms of the '38L having a higher actual 'performance'. The Mosquito 'out-performed' the Lightning in _all_ roles except day fighter by the sheer diversity and effectiveness of the tasks it carried out. Oh, and the Fb VI was a day fighter variant, and don't say it wasn't 'cos it carried bombs - so did most other WWII day fighters, and what would you suggest they did with that bomb-bay space if not to offer bomb-carrying capability, given the already ample operational range for the ETO?

www.mossie.org

Quite a nice site, this; it has some nice stories of Recce-Mossie Vs '262 encounters.
8) 

LG, think of it this way: if you had a fledgling airforce, and were required to pick as few aircraft types as possible to perform as many tasks as possible as well as possible in order to simplify production, you'd take the Mosquito every time. No matter that technically the '38 is a better day fighter, from a purely utilitarian point of view the Mossie, with the capability to excel at fighting, night-fighting, photo recconnaissance, strategic bombing, tactical bombing, carrier-borne strikes, anti-shipping strikes, anti-tank strikes (any Molins cannon that can sink a U-boat can take out a tank), _and_ with the ability to carry large cargo/ passenger loads (up to 6 people were squeezed into a transport Mossie once) at high speed, knocks the P-38 for six.  

Oh, and weren't the de Havillands English? I know de Havilland Canada still exists whereas the British company don't, but I think the Mosquito is still a British plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2004)

> As a bomber, the P-38 could carry an equal load with similar performance



there is absolutly no way you can say the P-38 compares to the mossie as a bomber, the mossie could take a bigger payload (5,000+lb) further and faster than the P-38 



> and only required a single crewman



two crew men is an advantage if anything, admitidly it's a few stone more, that's not a huge differance, but the second crew man eased the workload for the pilot, as he didn't have to worry about navigation, it gave the pilot an extra pair of eyes and there are even stories of the pilot getting injured and the navigator taking the controlls and getting tham both back safely, and the P-38 pilot has a cramped cockpit, he had to fly the thing and figure out where he's going and he doesn't have a second crew member to back him up...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 8, 2004)

That's not true about the warload, the P-38 could carry 4,000lb (the L at least) and the Mossie could carry 4,000lb. The only difference was that the Mossie could carry it as a single bomb. The P-38, not having a great abundance of pylons or a bomb-bay, had to mix it up, so to speak.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

P-38Ls carried as much as 5,200lbs and the cockpit of the P-38 was larger than any British single-seat type including the recon versions of the Spit.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 9, 2004)

The Recce-Spitfire being a single-engined, and one of the most important recce planes in Europe. Can't knock it. 

I read the Mosquito had a 6000lbs maximum bomb load.


----------



## Huckebein (Jul 9, 2004)

I have to say I can't remember hearing the Mossie carrying any more than 4,000lb, but then the same can be said of the '38 in my experience. Oh, and LG, saying that the P-38's cockpit was bigger than a Spitfire's does _not_ count as an argument against the point that there was more room for a Mosquito pilot...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2004)

what the hell's the pint in saying the P-38 was roomier than a spit?? we're not talking about the spit, we're talking about the mossie which DID have more room than a P-38, and the modifications made to the mossie that could carry the cookie also allowed it to carry 2x500lb, bumbing it up to 5000lb, but i wouldn't be supprised if it usualy carried 6,000lb, and ask your self, if the P-38 was so good as a bomber, why was it not used that much, just face it, the P-38 couldn't out bomb the mossie....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

You made the point about the roomie Mossie . . . my point was the P-38 provided more room for a single crewman than most. You also have to remember, the Mossie had to hold two people in all that room. The fact that 1200+ F-4s and F-5s were produced/modified is a testament to their effectiveness as recon planes.

The P-38 proved itself as a level bomber attacking sub pens, airfields, and even the Ploesti oil fields among other targets. You have to remember that the whole of USAAF bombing doctrine was based around the idea of big, gun-covered bombers blasting their way into Germany. With B-17s and B-24s being produced like crazy (eventually totalling more than 31,000 planes) there was no real reason to start using the P-38 in their place. You also have to remember that there was only 1 plant turning out P-38s and that it was the ONLY fighter available in 1943 and early 1944 to provide fighter cover over the German targets. The P-38 proved that it could bomb effectively, but it was too desparately needed as a fighter to commit more resources too it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 10, 2004)

ok i looked through al my books last night and this is what i found, as you kept on saying how the P-38J was better than any varient of the mossie, i thought it would be fun to prove you wrong....................

P-38J

Max speed: 414mph 
range on internal fuel: 475 miles
ceiling: 44,000ft
payload: 3,200lb


DH Mosquito B.MK XVI

max speed: 415mph
range on internal fuel with max payload: 1,485 miles
ceiling: 37,000ft
payload: 5,000lb

so i make the mossie faster, able to fly further and able to carry allot more in terms of payload. The P-38 has a higher ceiling, but as the mossie was a bomber, it didn't need a huge ceiling anyway..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

Now, now I only said I had read the 6000lbs load. You'll probably find it could have carried 6000lbs but would have struggled to get off the ground. So it being pointless to carry so much.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

I'm not making this stuff up. I've read books on the P-38, not books on WWII aircraft that included the P-38. The P-38J was shown to have a top speed of 421mph in USAAF tests (the L was even faster). The often cited range of 475miles on internal fuel was range at MAXIMUM continuous power or cruise when carrying a max bombload. The P-38F was demonstrated to have a range on internal fuel of 1,300miles. That is interesting because the J model carried an extra 110 gallons of internal fuel. That would suggest a range over 1,700miles. And the P-38J was also proved to be capable of carrying 5,200lbs of bombs not 3,200lbs. Just some food for thought.


----------



## Erich (Jul 10, 2004)

just as an added thought...........anyone of you have the 82nd fighter group history that flew the P-38 and variants ?

curious

Erich ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

Erich, here is a link to their official web site. I imagine it should help you with whatever you are looking for.

http://www.82ndfightergroup.com/


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2004)

> The P-38F was demonstrated to have a range on internal fuel of 1,300miles





> That would suggest a range over 1,700miles



the B.XVI had a range of 1,485 on internal fuel with a 5,000lb payload, so i still make that one for the mossie



> And the P-38J was also proved to be capable of carrying 5,200lbs



and what would it's range and speed with this load (given that the 5,200 is made of bombs, not fuel)?? and would it need modification, i.e. more underwing hardpoints?? and that payload wasn't normally carried, it just say's it was capible of carrying that, i'm sure you could easily say the mossie "was capible" of carrying more, it just wasn't practical...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 11, 2004)

Note: I am not attempting to argue than the P-38 was a better bomber. The Mossie was designed as a bomber and the P-38 as a fighter. The P-38 made a better bomber than the Mossie made fighter.

The 5,200lb load was made up of 2 2,000lb bombs on the standard hardpoints. 4 300lb bombs were carried under the outer-wing. I'm not sure how they were carried and my reference lacks pictures or details. The modifications were done in the field in the Pacific and so I doubt they were very extreme. The P-38's speed with a full bomb-load was impressive. When tested with two torpedoes it's speed loss was only 16%.


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2004)

LG no what I was getting at was do any of you gents have the book ? I do with 10 signatures by pilots of the fg. Also anyone have the book on the 1st fighter group ? I ask this as it may help all of you in your debates covering the Lightinging.....

E ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2004)

> I am not attempting to argue than the P-38 was a better bomber



then it's time you admit then that the mossie was the better, as i have agreed that the P-38 was the better fighter, so take it like a man......................



> The 5,200lb load was made up of 2 2,000lb bombs on the standard hardpoints. 4 300lb bombs were carried under the outer-wing. I'm not sure how they were carried and my reference lacks pictures or details. The modifications were done in the field in the Pacific and so I doubt they were very extreme



so we can agree that while, ok, it was capibile of carrying 5,200lb, this was an uncommon and proberly unnoficail field modification, and that the maximum payload for the J was 3,200lb.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

The Mossie was the better bomber. The P-38 was the better airplane.
The P-38 was an excellent fighter, and a good bomber. The Mossie was an excellent bomber, but only mediocre as a day fighter. Advantage: P-38.

The 3,200lb load was the maximum for the P-38H. Both the P-38J and L regularly carried 2 2000lb bombs.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

The Mosquito was the better night fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2004)

> The Mossie was the better bomber. The P-38 was the better airplane



how was the P-38 the better aeroplane??



> Both the P-38J and L regularly carried 2 2000lb bombs.



i make that 4,000lb, still short of the 5,000lb mark....................



> The P-38 was an excellent fighter, and a good bomber. The Mossie was an excellent bomber, but only mediocre as a day fighter. Advantage: P-38.



if that's the case then surely the P-38 was a mediocre bomber?? and you have to remember that the mossie was designed as a bomber, and as Plan_D said, the mossie was the better night fighter, i make that advantage mossie...........................


----------



## Donnervogel (Jul 12, 2004)

P-38 or Mosquito?-what for a silly Question! 

You can not compare these two aircrafts! The P-38 was in the first line a fighter with a very good performance and the Mosquito was a bomber which was built of wood so that the aircraft could fly very highly
- higher then the german fighters (12.000m)


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2004)

you forget the Mossie XIX and XXX as the best RAF nachtjäger. 

The Mossies were bounced many times by Bf 109G-6/AS single engine Nachtjägers in the late summer-late fall of 44. Again all in my book(s).......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

Lanc, you were quoting normal max as 3,200lbs. That's not true. That's the point I was making with the 4,000lb load which could (and was) carried without any modification. The P-38 was shown to be a first rate bomber either visually with the Norden site or through overcast with APS-15 BTO system. The P-38M was probably the best American nightfighter developed during the war. I'm not sure it would have been better than the Mossie but we will never really be able to know.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 15, 2004)

the mossie's combat record would show it to be the better night fighter...............

and about the P-38 bombing, how far could it carry 4,000lb on internal fuel?? as i have said some marks of the mossie could take 5,000lb 1,485 miles on internal fuel......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

Well, when they tested a P-38F as a torpedo bomber, it carried two torpedoes (slightly more than 4,000lbs) to a range of 1,000 miles. Again, the J and L had the benefit of leading-edge takes which increased internal fuel by about 33% so I would estimate a range for these later Lightnings of 1,300 miles or so. Granted, that is inferior to the Mossie but better than any other wartime fighter could manage (few could even carry 4,000lbs!) and in comparable to the range of most medium bombers.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 15, 2004)

I don't think anyone is going to convince LG that the Lightning wasn't the better plane , but just to sort things out for myself, if nothing else...

It's an interesting idea to compare each aircraft's role, but to others of the class rather than to each other. (I tried to base these at least partly on the discussion above.)

Bomber
Mossie: One of the greatest bombers of WW2
P-38: Apparently possible and certainly good enough to be comparable with some medium bombers, but not really known for it.
Winner: Mossie

Day Fighter:
Mossie: Successful in some roles, such as interceptor, but there were many better
P-38: Excellent, but few claim it was the best in the war. Probably surpassed in most roles by planes such as the Mustang, Spit, Fw190
Winner: P-38

Night Fighter
Mossie: Excellent, with demonstrated performance to prove it. Best allied nightfighter, possibly best in war...
P-38: Probably excellent, but without anywhere near the record of the Mossie
Winner: Mossie

Recce Plane
Mossie: Famously good, probably the best Allied recce plane
P-38: Excellent--but the US bought Mossies for this role, too
Winner: Mossie

High speed transport
Mossie: Very effective
P-38: Not really

Tagline
Mossie: Flew really cool pinpoint commando-raids-in-the-sky against Nazi installations just like in the movies
P-38: Shot down lots of Japanese planes
Winner: Mossie

Overall: Mossie

The P-38 was without doubt an amazing plane, but for me, the Mossie was in a class of it's own...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

Excellent arguements DP. The Mossie was the better bomber, but the P-38 was very good (especially considering the Mossie was designed as a bomber and the P-38 was designed as an interceptor). In the day fighter role, the P-38 was very much better. I would argue that the P-38 was in a different class than the Fw-190 and the Spit because of it's superior range. Nightfighter is interesting, the P-38M was considered superior to the P-61 but never received a combat test (pity). The Recon role is probably a toss-up (certainly as close as the two get). The P-38 was used as a high speed transport using modified 310 gallon drop tanks to carry cargo or even stretcher cases. I think you should also add that the P-38 was THE US fighter in the Med. and that the P-38 pretty much kept the daylight bombing raids going into 1944 (but people don't like to talk about that). Still, a very interesting, and comprehensive anaylsis.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 15, 2004)

Well, I tell you what, you've convinced me that the two planes are a lot closer than I thought they were before reading this thread. Hadn't realized how versatile the Lightining was, or what a good performer...


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, the Mosquito was an awesome wooden aircraft, some 43 different variants, but it's single-seat version, the DH 103 Hornet, which just missed the War, certainly established what a 'refined' development it became, at 487 mph top speed....


----------



## Huckebein (Jul 16, 2004)

I thought that, but it would have been unfair to compare the Hornet to a Lightning.

I have to echo Dead Parrot's sentiments here, LG has certainly managed to persuade me that the Lightnint was a much better aircraft than I originally thought, but then DPs little list just about summed it up for me - I couldn't find anything to argue about.

LG came back and said he would argue the P-38 was in 'a different class' to the Spit or '190 due to its range. I do hope you meant a different class of aircraft, LG (i.e. a long range fighter rather than a short-range interceptor), because then you have a point; it is difficult to compare the three equally (although the Mustang is still up there with the Lightning). I would _not_ agree, however, that the Lightning was in a different class combat-wise. I think well-flown Fw 190s or Spitfires would have a very good chance of coming out on top against a well-flown Lightning (although thanks to your arguments I now believe the outcome would be a lot closer than I did previously).

Overall I think most people have exhausted their arguments now, as very few new points appear to be arising, but it has been a very rewarding (and educating) debate.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 16, 2004)

i think it is coming to an end, i to be honest i think more people are siding with the mossie....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, if this is coming to closing remarks I will make a few. As an airframe, I do feel that the Mossie was more versatile. I feel, however, that any individual mark of the Lighting was more versatile than any individual mark of the Mossie. 
The P-38 has received a bad wrap mostly because of bad press coming out of the ETO. The P-38 did have its problems in Europe, but many or even most of these were not directly related to the plane itself (poor fuels, poor early pilot training, poor tactics, and low numbers). That the P-38 was not out-classed by its Luftwaffe opposition is proven by its success in North Africa and the MTO and the really cool nickname it earned. Over the Pacific, the P-38 was THE fighter.

Huckbein, concerning a P-38 v. Spit match-up I've never seen any test data or ever the results of a mock fight. However, Tony Levier, who was a Lockheed test pilot demonstrating the proper way to use a P-38 in combat in England was recalled as saying that "the P-38J was absolutely superior in maneuverability at low altitudes, except for a well-piloted Spitfire Mk IX." Apparently, the two aircraft were close enough that it would have been VERY interesting.

The Hornet was another incredible plane. But it was at the end of an error. And of course, it did enjoy the advantage of some 600hp over the P-38.


----------



## Schrage Muzik (Jul 17, 2004)

I feel a little silly saying this.

I belive the Mossie and the Lightning are so closely matched is is incredible. I think the biggest difference was the amount of interior space, which the Mossie obviously wins. But I think that the Lighning didn't do so well in the ETO because of it's turbo-superchargers, which did not do well in cold climates. I think which one is better comes down to which side of the Pond you hail from. I choose the Lightning, as I'm an American, and most of my grand-relatives had something to do with them. Both of my grandfathers and 3 of my granduncles flew them, in all theatres, and both of my grandmothers built them and played poker with Kelly Johnson.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2004)

dead parrot said:


> I don't think anyone is going to convince LG that the Lightning wasn't the better plane , but just to sort things out for myself, if nothing else...
> 
> It's an interesting idea to compare each aircraft's role, but to others of the class rather than to each other. (I tried to base these at least partly on the discussion above.)
> 
> ...



i think tat this is a good way to leave it, it give credit to both planes, and has come to, what i feel, is the right conclusion..................


----------



## kiwimac (Jul 18, 2004)

Just to Queer the pitch I came across these proposed designs for Late-war Italian Fighters. All of the pics without special diacritics are copyright the following URL site.

http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/italtwin.html







**





**http://win.www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/sm92.html



> The SM.92 flew November 12, 1943, after Italy's capitulation. All testing was carried out under Luftwaffe control. As the engineers had hoped, performance was significantly better. The SM.92 could reach 382 mph at 29,935 ft, could climb 19,680 ft in 7 min 10 sec, and could reach a service ceiling of 39,370. Range increased to 1242 miles at 335 mph.


 Sourcehttp://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/italtwin.html








> The SM.91 flew for the first time on 10 March 1943. Performance and handling were good. The airplane could reach a maximum of 363 mph at 22,960 ft and could climb to 19,680 ft in 8 min 30 sec. It had a service ceiling of 36,090 ft and a range of 994 miles at a cruising speed of 320 mph. The SM.91 spanned 64 ft 7.25 in and was 43 ft 5.75 in long. Wing area totaled about 450 sq ft.


Sourcehttp://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/italtwin.html

**





**http://sfstation.members.easyspace....hoto.mimerswell.com/air/italy/savoia/sm91.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







> The Corsaro never flew. But it ought to have been an excellent airplane. Caproni estimated its maximum speed as 400 mph at 23,525 ft and ceiling as 34,450 ft. It was to climb to 19,680 ft in 7 min 9 sec. Maximum cruising speed was to be 323 mph, and maximum range would lie between 1336-1616 miles.


Source:http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/italtwin.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------












> Engine: 1x Alfa-Romeo "Tifone"(Daimler-Benz DB-605) making 1,250 hp driving a six blade contrarotating propellor.
> 1x FIAT A.30 radial piston engine making 700 hp driving the Campini engine
> Weight: Loaded 16.538 lb
> Maximum Speed: 460 mph / 520 mph with "Thermojet"
> ...



Source: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/CC-2/CC-2.htm

Hope you find it interesting

Kiwimac


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

I don't think the P-38's trouble in the ETO was due to the temperature. The P-38 served very successfully in the Aleutians where the temperature was as bad as it was at altitude over the continent. 

Here's the thing, regardless of how you feel about this debate, it must be admitted that the P-38 was an incredible plane. So often people talk about the Ju-88 and the Mossie as being so incredibly better that everything else out there. At the very least, the P-38 was the most versatile American aircraft. As such I feel that it deserves to be mentioned with these other two.


----------



## HurricaneMkIId (Jul 21, 2004)

Lightning Guy......







Lancaster Kicks Arse


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 21, 2004)

Very nice picture. It looks like a P-38M minus the radar and the black paint.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2004)

i can't see the bottom pic, again, although i'm going to assume it's a lancaster.......................


----------



## Twilight (Jul 23, 2004)

Right men... sorry this is late but I had a little problem with my mail...

I don't know about the combat statistics of the Lightning but....

The Mosquito....

-was the first bomber to hit Berlin.
-was the only bomber capable of flying down a street at 25ft and dropping
a 250lb bomb through the doors of a Gestapo Headquarters. Which was placed between both a school and convent.
-was the first plane to have a pressurised cockpit.
-increased its designed bomb load from 1000Lb's to 4000Lb's
-was stealth.... due to its all wood construction radar could not pick it up.
-got 3 squadrons of FW-190's moved from the Eastern Front to try and stop them raiding.
-had the lowest loss rate of any bomber in bomber command.
-marked most of the targets for the heavy bombes over Germany.
-dropped the first bouncing bomb... and the was designed to drop the ground based version of the same bomb still secret.
-could carry a 57mm gun for anti shipping duties.
-4 x 303.s and 4 x 20mm Hispano cannons 2 x 256Mb bombs and wing rockets.... nuff said.
-was built in furniture shops all over Britain and Canada.
-was used by the Americans in the Pacific..... they liked it.
-and was faster than most Axis fighters.
-oh and thanks to its radar... was one of the most feared night fighters of WW2.

And it had its own theme tune......


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 23, 2004)

Ah crap...

HurricaneMkIId is here...


Glad we don't have any skins for him to insult!

If you get abusive pm's or anything, report it!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 23, 2004)

Interesting list twilight. I thought I would post a few facts about the P-38.

It was the first military aircraft (possibly first aircraft of any type) to use tricycle landing gear.
It was the only US fighter in production for the entire period of US involvement in the war.
It was the first aircraft to encounter compressibility.
It was the only fighter of the WWII era to ferry across the Atlantic.
It was the first Allied fighter plane over Berlin.
It was the first aircraft to be equipped with power-boosted controls.
It was used in every theater America was involved in.
It saw it's bomb capacity go from the designed 0lbs to 5,200lbs.
It could carry 4 x.50cal + 1 20mm + 2 x 1,600lb bombs + 10 x 5in rockets.
It was the only fighter to carry two torpedoes.
It was the only fighter (at the time) capable of flying 500miles over open ocean and still intercepting Yammamoto.
It shot down more Japanese aircraft that any other plane.
The top two American aces scored all of their victories in P-38s.
It earned a really cool nickname from the German pilots who flew against it.

This isn't meant to devalue the Mossie in anyway. I've just found that most people are terrible unaware of the P-38.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2004)

yet it's strange that even most of the people that are educated about the P-38, myself included, still side with the mossie....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 24, 2004)

And yet isn't it interesting that the P-38 has lead (and continues to lead) the Mossie in the voting on this poll.


----------



## ev0 (Jul 24, 2004)

I think that "the fork tailed devil" was the p-38's nickname? Correct me maybe?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 24, 2004)

You are right. Der Gabelschwanz Teufel.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Jul 29, 2004)

P-38 By far!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2004)

no way........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2004)

I'm still severely amazed that anyone would think the Mossie was better than the Lightning...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

Well look through the whole discussion, there's a lot of argument for it. And in fact there was a very nice comparison between the two, the Mosquito came out on top in more areas than the Lightning.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 29, 2004)

Possibly, but the Lightning was closer to the Mossie in those areas than the Mossie was when the Lightning came out on top.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 30, 2004)

stop being a bad looser....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

And it's not possibly, it was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It wasn't nearly the truth.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 30, 2004)

look, we've all agreed that both were exelent planes, but the mossie simply had the little extra that made it better.................


----------



## toffi (Jul 30, 2004)

...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

Exactly toffi, see, he gets it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 31, 2004)

and the mossie's closing on the P-38 in the poll...............


----------



## jamon51 (Aug 19, 2004)

Wow--cool site. I'm a 23 year old World War II buff--very excited to see this website. And I'll admit it up front, I am prejudiced toward the P-38 in this discussion. But I did learn some about the Mosquito at the same time!

Several points to make that haven't been, if you don't mind:
1. One of the most important roles of the P-38 has been totally overlooked in this discussion--that of a long-range bomber escort. Our B-17's and 24's were being chewed up by the Luftwaffe fighters and the P-47, although an incredible fighter in its own right, didn't have the range at the time. The P-38 more than filled this gap. I've never heard of the Mosquito providing escort for anything.

2. When discussing the merits of a "bomber role" vs. a "fighter role," don't just focus on payload. Think of the destructive capability of the aircraft as a whole. As a "Fighter Bomber" the P-38 was absolutely feared and did more from the air to win the Normandy invasion. Read "Invasion--They're Coming!" by Paul Carell and you will see what a devastating effect the fighter bombers had, even when using smaller bombs and strafing a lot. The German reinforcements couldn't move during the day! The Mosquito might have done this too but I haven't heard much about it.

3. A P-38 was tested with Merlin engines (a great engine design, and yes, British) and performed fantastically. But by then the P-51 and all of the British planes were taking nearly all of the Merlins and the P-38 took a back seat to it. I know we're not playing "What if's" here...but...that was an advantage the Mosquito had.

4. Richard Bong, USA top ace and P-38 pilot, was able to turn inside of Japanese _Zeros_. No one can discount that achievement.

I don't think anyone's going to be convinced it was better by these points, but hey, give cred where cred is due. Fighter, intercepter, escort, fighter-bomber, recon, the P-38 did whatever was asked of it. The Mosquito was an incredible design and did everything that was asked of it as well. 

I think most of the Lighting advocates would agree that the P-38 gets dismissed as a sub-par airplane that was quickly replaced while the Mosquito gets the "glamour" in most cases. Maybe that's why we're so passionate about it.



Jamon


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 19, 2004)

> I've never heard of the Mosquito providing escort for anything


 
no because they weren't flying at night fighting off german nightfighters to protect their bomber friends................



> The Mosquito might have done this too but I haven't heard much about it.



if anything the mossie did it more than the P-38, and it did it better.............



> Richard Bong, USA top ace and P-38 pilot, was able to turn inside of Japanese Zeros. No one can discount that achievement.



that is down to pilot skill, not the aircraft..................

and a point that hasn't been mentioned before, the mossie remained the fastest plane of the war for 3 years until the introduction of the tiffy, i think................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 19, 2004)

The Lightning was never tested with Merlins. Lockheed produced the design sketches and their performance estimates were most impressive but the airframe was never actually mated with the engines.


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 20, 2004)

Reading back through the pages, the Lightning seems the more impressive plane to me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 20, 2004)

there was a rather convincing post a while ago that clearly made the mossie the winner.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2004)

The winner of what??? Best fighter of the 2?? Best night-fighter??? Best ground strafer??? Best fighter-bomber???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

it rightly made the mossie the better combat aircraft..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

but the poll is clearly stating that the P-38 was better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

i think we're all guilty of posting in that poll more than once....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

*GASPS*

Shame on u for posting twice....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

we've all done it.....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

I havent even tried to... Yet...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

you cant, it logs your IP and it doesnt let you  i couldnt vote on anything with sagaris because it knew my IP


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2004)

here's the trick, don't do it when you're signed in..................


----------



## jamon51 (Sep 2, 2004)

> i think we're all guilty of posting in that poll more than once....................



Ahhh! So that's where the 300-odd mossie votes came from. I was wondering...  

-Jamon


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 4, 2004)

i've actually only done it a few times, and don't challenge my authority lol................


----------



## jamon51 (Sep 13, 2004)

Nah, I wouldn't challenge your authority. I'm just one of those dang ignorant Yanks anyway.... 

Hey Lanc, I do have to commend you for your stout defense of Brit aircraft. Lots of Americans appreciate what the UK has been doing to help us in Iraq today and we remember WWII as a round-the-clock cooperation between the US and UK. It sure as heck wasn't the *French* who won that war.... 

Maybe we can agree on that?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

I would agree with that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2004)

I think everyone except the French would agree with that....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

But after a very short argument they would probably capitulate and agree with you


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

Yea they do change sides rather easily dont they??? God I hated Paris.... Hated it more than anywhere else I've been... 

Cannes was great... Toulon was really bad... But Paris???? 

Jesus the French suck ass....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 14, 2004)

and i think that's the first time i've been commended for my love of british aircraft.....................


----------



## evangilder (Sep 17, 2004)

HI all,

I am going to abstain from voting because I am giving a presentation on the P-38 Lightning tomorrow at the WWII aviation museum where I volunteer. I will state for the record that I feel both planes had strong multi-role capabilities. 

There are certainly reports of P-38s turning inside of smaller enemy fighters, but I can guarantee that they were the J version or later. It wasn't until the J version that they had that kind of manueverability because of the addition of dive flaps and eletrical aileron controls. Even then, it took a skilled pilot to pull off that kind of manuevering. While that gave them a better chance in the low to medium altitude fights, the preferred style was still to attack from above and then climb up again.

There were many versions of both aircraft that made them versatile and powerful. What might be an interesting comparison would be to compare the two prototypes "out of the box" with no modifications.

If any of you are in the Southern California area and would like to see the presentation, drop me an e-mail and I can give you directions.

PICTURE REQUEST: If any of you have pictures of General Stratemeyers P-38 VIP transport that was modified at the Hindustan aircraft factory, PLEASE let me know.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 17, 2004)

The P-38 turned very well even before the addition of the dive flaps and the power boosted ailerons. According to historian Martin Caiden, "Without combat flasp the P-38 can easily turn inside the Me-109G; with use of these flaps the odds get even better for the Lightning jock." Of course the J-25 and L models were even better often but the Luftwaffe pilots flying 109s against F and G model Lightnings admitted the P-38 could turn inside them.

Also, in 1942 a P-38F (without combat flaps) was evaluated against the P-39D, P-40F, P-47D, and P-51. Accoring to the official reports, "The P-38F has an equal or shorter radius of turn."


----------



## evangilder (Sep 17, 2004)

I am not totally convinced about the turn radius of the earlier models. 

Capt. Stan Richardson, who flew with the 8th AF said:

"The P-38 was a large fighter with much mass. 52' wingspan and long, wide-chord ailerons contributed to slow response along the longitudinal axis of the early airplanes. The higher the indicated airspeed, the slower the response. At very high IAS it took plenty of muscle to roll the airplane. I don't believe that a joystick would have improved matters over the wheel. The Luftwaffe soon recognized the slow roll rate of the "H" and early "J" model Lightnings and used it to their advantage. It also learned of the dive restrictions caused by "compressibility" and used that advantage also.

The P-38J25-LO and P-38L's were terrific. Roll Rate? Ha! Nothing would roll faster. The dive recovery flaps ameliorated the "compressibility" (Mach limitation) of earlier Lightnings. An added benefit of the dive recovery flaps was their ability to pitch the nose 10-20 degrees "up" momentarily when trying to out turn the Luftwaffe's best, even when using the flap combat position on the selector. Of course the nose "pitch-up" resulted in increased aerodynamic drag, and must be used cautiously. High speed is generally preferred over low speed in combat situations. Properly flown, the Fowler flaps of the P-38 allowed very tight turning radius." 

But I also read that at the higher altitiudes, the Lighhtning's performance was very good, but the manueverability was not as good at low to medium altitudes.

A 1942 Mustang would not have been a good comparison. They were still powered by the Allison engines at that time. The Merlin powered Mustangs didn't start showing up until 1943.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 17, 2004)

You first citation is a note of roll rate not turning circle and the two are totally different. Several Luftwaffe aces admitted that the P-38 was capable of turning inside with their fighters with ease.

Johannes Steinhoff of JG77 - "Pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening."

Franz Stiegler of JG 27 - "P-38's could turn inside us with ease."

Also, comparing the Allison-engined Mustang to the Lightning in terms of turning radius is perfectly fair since the added power of the Merlin made little difference in terms of maneuverability. But even if we were to suppose that the P-51D was capable of a tigher turn than the P-51, that would be negated by the combat flaps of the P-38G and (as you've noted) the J-25 and L would have been evern better.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 18, 2004)

You are correct, roll rate is different, but he mentioned the nose "pitch up" that could be used to tighten turns. 

I would be curious to know what model those Luftwaffe aces were speaking of. 

I would have loved to had the opportunity to fly the old and newer version to compare though. Alas, I don't think it possible today.

I was only saying that an Allison powered mustang would be slower and would handle slightly differently at high speed because the top-end would be lower. While it would not affect manueverability, we both know that the higher the speed, the wider the turning radius. But then again, if the results showed the Lightning tighter, it would be even better than the Merlin powered Mustangs. Add the later J and above models with the right pilot and I'll bet that thing turned like it was on rails!

BTW, with your online handle being what it is, have you been to the Bong heritage center? I am curious because I would like to check it out someday.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 18, 2004)

Is this plane there???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2004)

oooh shiney....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 18, 2004)

That's the one. Sadly I've never even been able to see an actual P-38. I was hoping to make a trip to the UASF museum this summer but it didn't pan out. A couple of years ago my uncle was fortunate enough to see one of the few P-38s left flying to an airshow.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 18, 2004)

Yep, Marge was Richard Bong's plane. I think I saw a pciture similar to that on the heritage center webpage, only smaller. I would love to go someday. Maybe make a swing by on the way to or from Osh Kosh.

Lightning Guy, if you ever get out to the southern California area, let me know and I will get in to see the P-38 we have in our museum. It doesn't fly currently due to questionable engines, but it is in flyable condition. I could get you in to where you could get a chance to sit in the cockpit as well. I was in it today, demonstrating egress procedures.

Not far from us there is at least one P-38 that does fly, down at Chino airport. Most of the ones still flying are in Southern California. I will post some shots I took of the P-38 in our museum.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 18, 2004)

Would your museum be Chino?

Or is it the one in Santa Monica? (The one that has a Mustang (Ford)-Mustang (P-51) show occasionally)

I'm curious because I live in SoCal, near Torrance Airport (flew from it in FS2004 last night, but forgot the name of it; Zamperini, I think)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 18, 2004)

I would LOVE to get a picture of myself in a Lightning . . . especially if I could get a khaki jumpsuit to wear for it, maybe make the photo black and white . . . .I'd look like I was an actual pilot! Of course I would need to do it before I get too much older so it will look convincing.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 19, 2004)

The museum is in Camarillo at the airport there. That is part of the problem we have, not too many people know we are there, but we are working on getting more exposure to the community. We have a good collection of WWII birds there, Spitfire, P-38, Hellcat, Bearcat, C-46, several SNJ-5s, we actually have 2 REAL Zeroes, one flyable, the other currently in a few pieces. We also have a Yak-3 that is not and never will fly (That was in the Santa Monica museum) and a B-25 Mitchell in restoration. We have some cool other stuff in the muesum as well, including the Norden bombsight, uniforms, etc.

We are a chapter of the CAF, one of the biggest chapters in the country, actually, and still we have so many people drop in and say they didn't even know we were there! Sheesh!

Anyway, if you ever want to come down, our website is here:
http://www.orgsites.com/ca/caf-socal/

If you catch a day I am there, I could give you the grand tour.

By the way, my avatar is me sitting in our P-38, taken when it first arrived, about 3 years ago. There is some ownership question on that P-38, but it is a long story and possession is 9/10 of the law...


----------



## evangilder (Sep 19, 2004)

Pictures in the Color album of our P-38 just posted. 2 shots for now.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Sep 19, 2004)

That's the P-38 that I made!
Damn. I did a black spot on the front, not a red one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 19, 2004)

Call me annoying, but I wanna revive this. Even with no LG to back me or make arguments, I think that for anyone to say the mossie is better is plain stupid. The Lightning was _intended_ to be a fighter, which makes it so much more amazing that it performed excellently in the bomber roles (Not quite as good as the mossie, but that was more bomber inclined).

The Mosquito was a pretty average fighter at best, whereas the P-38 was superb, and responsible for having shot down the most Japanese aircraft of many planes.

The Nightfighter version of the mossie was fantastic and probably the best of the war, yes. But the only reason the Lightning isnt well credited for this is due to the fact they didnt convert it to a nightfighter until _very_ late in the war. As the P-38 didnt have a chance to show itself here, there is no logical reason we can decipher which is better. However, had this been done earlier, I reckon it would have surpassed the Mossie, due to the fact it was a much better day fighter anyway.

I dont know about the recce versions, so ill call it stalemate there to be fair.

All this adds up to my conclusion, I may be wrong but here goes:

Mosquito: Designed to work well in multi roles, and was superb at doing this. 
P-38: Designed as a fighter, it just happened to at least come very close to the mossie in the bomber role, and at least equal it or surpass it in the other roles; thus in my eyes, making it the superior plane.

I dont know if i'll change any minds or bring new light to this topic, but im giving it a go because i have become more informed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 20, 2004)

> The Lightning was intended to be a fighter, which makes it so much more amazing that it performed excellently in the bomber roles (Not quite as good as the mossie, but that was more bomber inclined).



but i can just as easily say the mossie was intended as a bomber, which makes it so much more amazing that it was pretty damned good as a fighter, see what i mean??




> As the P-38 didnt have a chance to show itself here, there is no logical reason we can decipher which is better.



if your gonna say that then i could say "but the mossie didn't get a chance to prove itself against the japs" in reply to you saying 



> whereas the P-38 was superb, and responsible for having shot down the most Japanese aircraft of many planes.



what i'm trying to say is that it's because the P-38 didn't prove itself in the nightfighter role that the mossie was better.....................



> I dont know about the recce versions, so ill call it stalemate there to be fair.



dude the americans bought the mossie for the recon role as they favoured it over the P-38, that definatly puts the mossie ahead in the recon role...................



> it just happened to at least come very close to the mossie in the bomber role



dude it came nowhere near to the mossie in the bomber role...................



> and at least equal it or surpass it in the other roles;



uh huh, so in the transport role the P-38 could carry 6 passengers like the mossie could could it?? and in the anti shipping role, yes it could carry two torps, but when did you ever hear of them using them?? 

and the mossie saved on stratiegic materials, easier to repair as well..............


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 20, 2004)

couldnt you do more Quotes ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 20, 2004)

dude i was ripping his arguments to shreads, i had to include allot of quotes, now who's side are you on??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 20, 2004)

Dude, the Mossie was _average_ as a fighter, if you're being generous.

The P-38 could also be used as a high speed ambulance you know

The P-38 was better as a bomber than the Mosquito was a fighter, and the P-38 was a better fighter than the Mosquito was a bomber.

Dude what you said about the nightfighter bit was bollocks...it wasnt that the P-38 didnt prove itself as an NF, its that it _*COULDN'T*_ prove itself, because it came too late in the war!

Ok so the The Mossie has the P-38 beaten in the recce role, but the versions of the P-38 that were used for recce were just about as good. And I have a hunch that the reason the Yanks bought Mossies for the recce role is that the P-38's were busy doing other things.

And against the Japs I am _fairly_ certain that Mossie's would have been ripped to shreds. They arent manoeverable enough.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 22, 2004)

> Dude, the Mossie was average as a fighter, if you're being generous



dude as a night fighter it was feared above all over planes....................



> Dude what you said about the nightfighter bit was bollocks...it wasnt that the P-38 didnt prove itself as an NF, its that it COULDN'T prove itself, because it came too late in the war!





> And against the Japs I am fairly certain that Mossie's would have been ripped to shreds. They arent manoeverable enough.



dude you can't say the mossie would have been "ripped to shreads" by the japs because it never got the chance to prove itself against them, it's for the same reason you can't say the P-38 was a better night fighter, because it never got the chance to prove itself, do you see what i mean??



> And I have a hunch that the reason the Yanks bought Mossies for the recce role is that the P-38's were busy doing other things.



as far as i know they were bought later in the war, when the P-38 was no longer being used in europe or the med, she they proberly had enough P-38s.....................



> The P-38 was better as a bomber than the Mosquito was a fighter, and the P-38 was a better fighter than the Mosquito was a bomber.



dude you ceem to think the P-38 could do no wrong, the P-38 was a good bomber, but it never made a name for itself in the role, wheras the mossie was a good fighter and was the most feared nightfighter of the war, so it can't have been that bad as a fighter, hey.................

and the mossie was an amazing bomber, it was so fast it didn't need armourment, for more than 3 years it was the fastest plane of the war, even then it was another british plane that was faster, the mossie carried out some of the most daring raids of the war, it caused havoc with shipping accros france and norway, first plane to bomb berlin, but yes the P-38 was a great fighter, i just don't think you can justify you saying the P-38 was a better fighter than the mossie was a bomber, because i don't believe it was, and i wouldn't mind some convincing arguments from you trying to change my mind, insted of you just saying it................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2004)

> dude you can't say the mossie would have been "ripped to shreads" by the japs because it never got the chance to prove itself against them, it's for the same reason you can't say the P-38 was a better night fighter, because it never got the chance to prove itself, do you see what i mean??




But i'm saying that based on evidence that the P-38 was a great day fighter. Because it was a great day fighter, Its fairly safe to assume that it would have been superb as a night fighter. But because the Mossie was an average day-fighter, It would have only been average against the japs. Comparing roles and theatres are different, if you were saying that the Mossie would have probably been good against the Japs as a nightfighter, I would agree. But because you are saying that it could be good against the Japs as a day fighter, i dont, because it wasnt that great at doing it during the day in Europe.

And quit the night fighter thing, I know it was superb as a night fighter, but could you name me some of the planes it would go up against at night, to see what you are trying to prove here please?

You want convincing arguments? I will get convincing arguments, backed up by hard evidence if you wish, but you'll regreat it because the P-38 was the better plane and I believe you will find it hard to come to terms with that fact...

Im trying to put across the message that the P-38 _would[i/] probably have been better than the Mossie at night, because it was good at daytime._


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

it's very different fighting at night to fighting during the day, how good was the P-38's RADAR? how much did the extra weight prey on it's performance? and you can't use the argument that because it was a good day fighter it would have been good at night, the hurricane was a good day fighter, wasn't so great during the night was it?? 



> But because you are saying that it could be good against the Japs as a day fighter





> dude you can't say the mossie would have been "ripped to shreads" by the japs because it never got the chance to prove itself against them



do i mention anything about it fighting the japs at a particular time?? no. so don't assume stuff like that................



> great





> superb



this has little do to with the argument but can you just clarify which you think is the better term, you know, is superb better than great or what??



> I know it was superb as a night fighter



not just superb, it was the very best we had.....................



> but could you name me some of the planes it would go up against at night, to see what you are trying to prove here please



FW-190s, Me-110s, Bf-109s, specailist night fighters like the 219 Uhu, the odd Me-262B, the mossie was a feared plane to pilots of any of the above planes....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

> Early in 1943, at least two unidentified P-38Fs were modified in the field by the Fifth Air Force as single-seat night fighters by fitting an SCR540 radar with yagi antennae on the nose on both sides of the central nacelle, and above and below the wings. In order to make room for the radar, two of the 0.50-inch machine guns and their ammunition boxes had to be moved forward. Three P-38Js were also modified in the field as experimental night fighters.
> 
> However, these modifications were all single seaters, and it was found that the flying of the plane and the operation of the radar was too much of a job for just one person. Consequently, Lockheed attempted to adapt the P-38L as a two-seat night fighter. In 1944, Lockheed converted P-83L-5-LO Ser No 44-25237 as a two-seat night fighter, with the radar operator sitting aft of the pilot under a raised section of the canopy. The aircraft was fitted with an AN/APS-6 radar in an external radome underneath the nose, relocated radio equipment and anti-flash gun muzzles.
> 
> ...



http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_16.html

There you go, so you see, the extra weight of the radar had very little effect on the performance.



> > dude you can't say the mossie would have been "ripped to shreads" by the japs because it never got the chance to prove itself against them
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lanc, what the fuck are you on, you typed that in the first place 


What Im trying to say is that its stupid to say that the Mossie is better than the P-38 for nightfighting, (it would also be stupid to say the P-38 was better at it than the Mossie) 



> Manufacturer: Lockheed
> Base model: P-38
> Designation: P-38
> Version: M
> ...



BTW, I was intending "superb" to be a better word than "great".


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

In an operational sense, the -38 was a better day fighter, and the Mossie was a better night fighter....

To compare the 2 is silly.... Was the Mossie a better nightfighter than the -38 was a dayfighter???? Thats like comparing Apples to Carrots in Alaska....

In Europe, the Mossie was better than the -38... In the Pacific, the -38 was better than the Mossie....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

And overall, the P-38 was better...You said so yourself a while back.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

In all around capabilities the P-38 was a better aircraft... Although convincing Lac of that will take an act of Parliment, as well as a sexual favor from one of the Benny Hill Girls....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

wow that last post didn't make sence..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

All the posts on this page make perfect sense  Or cant you hack the fact you fighting a losing batlle?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

"In Europe, the Mossie was better than the -38... In the Pacific, the -38 was better than the Mossie.... " 

i'll agree with that........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

If you didnt then I really would question your intellect. I reckon that the P-38 was better in Europe though than the Mossie was in the Pacific.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2004)

well the mossie didn't really serve in the pacific...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

And thats the point I am making about the nightfighter version of the P-38


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

yes, but it's because they didn't serve i don't say "i think the mossie would have been good in the pacific" because i don't know that, it's because the nightfighter P-38 didn't enter service you can't say it would have been better than the mossie at it, because you don't know that...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

But the P-38M did enter service...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2004)

let's have some combat records then................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

I will search. And do you realise that im the only one getting evidence? I dont see you getting any...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

Hang on, did you actually bother to read my other post or not?



> These were just entering service when the war ended. The P-38M saw operational service in the Pacific in the last few days of the war. It was an effective night fighter with very little performance penalty over the standard single-seat Lightning.



Obviously you didnt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2004)

but the mossie was extremly combat proven, it was the best night fighter the allies had and one of the most feared planes of the war, even FW-190 pilots were scared of it..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

And just because it was combat proven it automatically means you dont need to back your answers up? No. So please provide some evidence.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

give me more than the 40 mins a night i get on the internet to do some research and i will.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

You have lots of time at the weekend.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

not when my sister the internet nazi's around...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

Do a deal, you have all saturday and she has all sunday, or vice versa


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2004)

I guess this will show my preference!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 30, 2004)

I also side with the P-38 Evan....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2004)

Although I will admit I do like the Mossie too. I just think the P-38 was better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2004)

funny, i don't......................

is that you in front of the P-38 Evan???


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 31, 2004)

I would hope so... His avatar and that pic look the same....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

And I am also with the P-38  A non-patriotic Brit, thats a first...


----------



## evangilder (Oct 31, 2004)

Yes, Lanc, that is me and my son. We were hanging out at the museum yesterday.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

You have no idea how much I envy you...


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

a war-time shot of a 34th prs bird of the 9th AF


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

A war-time shot of friend Gordon Hezmahalch and his F-5 near .... ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

Nice pics  I believe the bottom P-38 is a recce version?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 31, 2004)

They both are, but the top one is the first time I've seen a sexy one!

Usually they have the Ginormous bulky nose, as the one on the bottom...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

What, the "Droop-Snoot"?

The Droop-snoot was more effective In the recce for and the Fighter-Bomber role.


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

getting back I think to page 12 of this long thread. The M 262 nf pilots were not afraid of anything in fact they kenw they had the superior plane to the Allies for nf work.

the P-38 could not work out do to the cramped quarters ofr a radar operator and this had already been releived by the P-61 in the Pacific during 1944. there were many flight comparisions between the Mossie and the Widow and the Weidow won primarily becaouse US crews did not want to transfer over to a British a/c. this was not the case for the US nf crews in the Med who flew the Beu and the Mossie and they were quite happy with their mounts. the P-38 was kpet in the ETO not as a fighter vs fighter a/c but for the stable platofrm as a ground attack a/c agasint any thin armor and MT columns while the P-51's especially of the 8th AF were kept on high altitude work agasint bomber killing German a/c.

We must look at the roles played by both the Mossie and P-38 and the strongest sphere for the Mossie was the ETO where the Mossie was used in all sorts of combat radius, even an anti ship a/c. the performance as an RAF night a/c is unsuprassed in the protective/intruder roles, the unit as a pathfinder and jamming a/c as well. It was well suited to these tasks that the P-38 would not have been able to fill.

to compare the two at this length is somewhat silly guys; maybe this should be simply broken down into two seperate threads by listing the attributes and the faults of each of the two a/c, and please none of the "which is the better looking a/c"


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

neither is a droop snoot gents. both F-5 recon versions but with different camera set-ups as seen if you look closely. The 34th prs has one of the best individual web-sites I have ever seen along with it's sister 33rd prs which were the eyes of Patton in his drives through Europe.

E ~


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

This has been probably the most successful thread ever on the site. There has been lots of heated discussion and information, with very little spam. 

I also believe the Mosquito had more faults than the P-38.


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

but how do you know this that the mossie had more faults; are you comparing the different variants with each other to come with this type of conclusions ? what are you basing this on ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2004)

and could you list the faults in question??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

Yep, some other time though, Im rather tired now though and dont feel like gathering evidence. I will do it though.


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

another 34th prs F-5 off their site

typical P-38 in the special blue paint with the bright 34th prs red markings.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2004)

i believe the standard RAF recon colours were either dark blue or this kind of beige colour..............


----------



## Erich (Nov 1, 2004)

it was called PRU blue, no beige at all. Sometimes the a/c were overall blue, other times over all aluminum silver


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 1, 2004)

I think the original P-38F's in the standard US colours look best; with the navy blue on top and dark blue-grey on the underside.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2004)

i prefer RAF paint schemes to the american ones...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2004)

I dont. However, the P-40 looks very good in RAF colours.


----------



## Crazy (Nov 2, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i believe the standard RAF recon colours were either dark blue or this kind of beige colour..............



Not beige, PRU pink. I've seen it applied to some Spits

http://www.jpsmodell.de/dc/shemes/prspit_p.jpg


----------



## Maestro (Nov 2, 2004)

Yeah, just like the Spitfires FRIX from the 16th Squadron (RAF) wich flew over Normandy beaches on D-Day. They were recconnaissance planes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 3, 2004)

What a horrid shade of pink  Actually I wouldnt even call that pink, id call it brown.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 3, 2004)

*Take 1, Scene 1:Spamming Debate on nice-looking colors on aircraft-Cue the fancy fadeout!*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2004)

B-29's look best in Silver 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 5, 2004)

olive drab's best on B-29s................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2004)

No, Olive Drab for B-17's; Silver for B-29's.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2004)

I think I'm gonna vomit...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2004)

Why?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

because you actually think the B-29 looks best in "silver" or neutral aluminium to give it its proper title..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

Yup....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

so you agree with me les??


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

Yes I agree with you Lanc.... The only 2 planes that I found sexy in aluminum were the P-51 and the P-47... 

I am not, I repeat, NOT a bomber fan.... Flying Death Traps..... Manned target practice....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

i prefer bombers to fighters................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

Hehe... Obviously my young Padawan....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2004)

but if i'm your padawan i need to be following your lead, as im'a bomber fan, you're a fighter fan, how's that possible??

does this make me the dark lord of the sith??


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 7, 2004)

Sometimes Padawans dont follow their masters views and strife ensues... this can lead to the Dark Side.... 

Fear Leads to Anger, Anger Leads to Hate, and Hate Leads to Suffering.....

I would definatly not consider u THE Dark Lord of the Sith, but more like a Dark Jedi that has learned the ways of the Light Side and choose to use both for ur own benefit, similar to a Jedi Mercinary....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2004)

i would agree with that..................

a very well argued point.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 7, 2004)

Dude, I would have any plane in neutral aluminium if i could have the chance. Paint adds weight and air resistance, i am not a fan of paint.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2004)

i agree with the adding weight however air resistance??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

It increases surface area.


----------



## Maestro (Nov 8, 2004)

May be, but I seriously doubt that it increased surface area enough to create air resistance.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

It would still creat the tiniest little bit.


----------



## Maestro (Nov 8, 2004)

If the paint on your plane is enough to create a noticable air resistance, your plane really is a piece of sh*t.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2004)

not noticeable, but it still creates it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 9, 2004)

putting another ariel on the outside will proberly give more air resistance..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2004)

Yup  Youve got the idea lanc


----------



## gord55 (Nov 12, 2004)

Hi folks... excellent (if a tad long) thread.  

According to Williams Green's "Fighting Aircraft of WWII" (which I've lost) the Mossie dropped *16mph* from its max airspeed when painted matt black.
Stands to reason, really. Matt paint is rougher than gloss. But still surprising.

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the Mosquito was the better aircraft. Or maybe it was the Lightning...

Cheers, GW

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

It was the Lightning  

And the P-38 only lost 8mph when painted matt black, which goes to show it was more aerodynamic. 8)


----------



## gord55 (Nov 12, 2004)

OH no... I've started it all off again.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Started what off? 

And welcome to the site


----------



## gord55 (Nov 12, 2004)

...Sorry, I thought there was a lively extended 'discussion' going on here, which had gone a bit quiet. Anyway, thanks for the welcome.
A question re the Mossie (but not perhaps relevant to comparisons with the P38) : Apparently it was said that the Mosquito could take the same bomb load to Berlin as the Flying Fortress (crew of 11?). It also did it quicker and used less fuel. Now that's REALLY something, if true. Anybody out there with proof?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

I dont think theres any proof to that one... Sounds far fetched to me....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 12, 2004)

I have to agree. How could a plane the size of the Mossie possibly take the same bomb load as a B-17?  
Or am I missing something obvious, again? Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I thought it was true but now I think about it im not so sure...you see i was provided with the information by the lanc, who never gives _any_ sources to his information.


----------



## gord55 (Nov 13, 2004)

Getting off-topic here, but after a bit of Goooogling I find that the Fort's maximum bomb load was 12,800lb, rather more than the Mossie could carry, methinks. BUT... its fully loaded max range was 1,100 miles. Berlin is 600 miles or so from the East Anglian bases, which is surely at (or beyond) the limit of its range for a round trip? Obviously with a slightly less-than-maximum load, it would get there back and still outdo the Mosquito. At the Fort's normal load (6,000lb), the Mossie would beat it on speed. So that's it, I guess. Another mostly-believed story not based on the full possibilities... back to the topic?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

The Mossie was actually designed as a fighter bomber (I think). But the P-38 was designed as a fighter. All models of the P-38 could carry a normal payload of 4000lbs, and its maximum was 5,200lbs. Quite Amazing for a fighter.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Yup... Twin engines sure helped.....


----------



## gord55 (Nov 13, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this thread seems to have exhausted itself. The two aircraft were exceptional in their own fields, and each one could outperform the other in certain areas... this was of course because (as has been said here many times) the P38 was designed as a fighter, and the Mosquito as a fighter/bomber. They were different aircraft, and could not honestly be compared 'like for like'. It's like trying to put a pedal bike against a motor bike - they both do very similar jobs, but the motor bike will do it quicker... and that's not an advantage to a keen cyclist. So you take your choice, cast your vote, and nothing much is proved either way!
I happen to love them both, although I voted for the Mossie. If we could have a tie, then the best man will have won.

(That's all my opinion, by the way. Do continue, if you must. I just wonder what else there is to compare!  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

We have kinda exhausted it to be honest. It is still a lively topic though and we welcome any new opinions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

and the mossie was desinged as a bomber, which makes it even more amazing that it became our most successfull night fighter..................



> All models of the P-38 could carry a normal payload of 4000lbs, and its maximum was 5,200lbs. Quite Amazing for a fighter.



all my sorces say the normal load was 3,200lbs, i've NEVER seen a sorce stating 5,200lbs as a maximum................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)

> Several instances were recorded where the P-38 J carried loads of 5,200 lbs.



http://www.p-38online.com/p38j.html

Dont look very hard do you. 

It also says somewhere on that site that the normal load was 4000lbs.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 17, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Dude, I would have any plane in neutral aluminium if i could have the chance. Paint adds weight and air resistance, i am not a fan of paint.




See the pictures and comments.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

That ally Spit looks amazing! 8)

Is that on IL2 or FS2004?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

dude next time you post pics can you try and make them smaller please..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

But you just had your computer uprated didnt you? There shouldnt be any problems, they just come up straight away for me all the time...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 17, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> That ally Spit looks amazing! 8)
> 
> Is that on IL2 or FS2004?




AEP, it's a HF.Mk.IXe...


http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=13395


Works on all models, including your fancy-pants VIII that comes with Pf...

Some more Aluminum...

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=11521 for P-51B

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=11458 for P-63

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=13053 for P-63

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=10354 for P-80 (Bare Metal, not polished aluminum as such...)

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=9415 For P-51D's





C.C., get this program, and enjoy! THE MARKINGS ARE INCREDIBLE!!!

http://www.leigh-kemp.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MATfiles.htm


IL2MAT...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 17, 2004)

Here's an example...


Here are two La-5FN's, "wearing" the default NAVY skin - the top one is labeled up with AEP regularly, the bottom one is modified with IL2MAT...



*EDIT* Size fixed, both are now 512x384.


(whiners...)


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 17, 2004)

On Behalf of Lanc- "WILL YOU SIZE IT DOWN?!" (please?)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 17, 2004)

Does it matter that much???


They're fairly small in memory size (something like 239kb and 272kb), or is it just the fact that you guys don't like the margins broken?


So, which is it?


Is it that they take too long to load, or are too big in viewing size?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 17, 2004)

Oh, yeah, size for each is 1024x768...


----------



## MichaelHenley (Nov 18, 2004)

BOTH!!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 18, 2004)

Fixed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 18, 2004)

Personally I find nothing wrong with the pictures and my computer isnt all that great...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

yes but when you sit there for 15 mins waiting for a pic to load it becomes a problem................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 19, 2004)

Hmm....


I've got the problem figured out...

Your internet service sucks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

We all figured that out way back


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> No. Any planes armed with bombs can dive bomb a ship, this is called dive bombing. It is not an anti-shipping role, and 'could of' isn't a did, so the Lightning does not have anti-shipping to its role.



Hmmm... It carried torpedos... that's anti-shipping to me!

Seriously the P-38 did lots of anti-shipping duty, mostly using rockets and guns, but also using bombs and even torpedos.

The P-38 was the more capable plane, carrying up to 4,000 lbs of bombs, and being by far the more capable fighter. The mossie excelled at night, where a two+ man crew is needed, and dogfighting does not happen.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

The P-38 could actually carry up to 5,200lbs of bombs...which for a fighter is damned good.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The P-38 could actually carry up to 5,200lbs of bombs...which for a fighter is damned good.



Yes, the F4U was also shown (by Lindberg) to be able to carry 4000 lbs of bombs. But for practical purposes, 2 x 2000 lbs bombs was the max reasonable payload for the P-38, and 2 or 3 x 1,000 pound bombs was the max for the F4U (more commonly 2 x 500's + 8 x 5" HVAR's).

The same is true for the heavy bombers. Yes we see payloads up in the 20,000 pound range for the B-29 and Lancaster, and as much as about 15,000 lbs for the B-17, but in truth half these payloads or even less were much more the norm. Maximum payloads were very rarely carried except for special missions.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

the lancaster had a max. payload of 22,000lbs with modification but the normall load was 10,000lbs consisting of 6x1,000lb bombs and a cookie, it wasn't uncommon for B-17s to carry only 2,000lbs...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

but they normally carried 6,000lbs.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 25, 2004)

While the P-38 was a very good aircraft, I feel that the view of it as a 'great' aircraft is somewhat misplaced!
Why ???
Well in the ETO/MTO if you use the measure of 'kill to loss' ratio as a guide, the P-38 actually comes out as the worst of the 4 fighters used by the 8th Airforce .

The P-51 comes out top destroying 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air for 2,520 losses.
Next is the Spitfire, followed by the P-47.
The P-38 comes in last shooting down 1,771 enemy.
aircraft for a loss of 1,758.

In fact the performance of the P-38 was so poor in the ETO/MTO that all four 8th AF Fighter Groups that had flown the P-38 during early 1944 (the 20th, 55th, 364th, and 479th FGs) had transitioned to the P-51 by October 1944. There were no P-38 FGs in the 8th AF after that date, and the only FG in the 9th AF using the P-38 by V-E day was the 474th FG.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 25, 2004)

While I agree with you for the most part, you have to take into consideration that the P-38 was the trickiest of those four to fly and get used to; landing and takeoff accidents must be counted too...


Just because it had 1,758 losses doesn't mean 1,758 were shot down...



It's kinda the same for the Bf-109, over 1/3 (11,000  ) of the 33,000-some built were lost in landing and take off accidents due to the narrow track landing gear...


----------



## redcoat (Nov 25, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Mossie was actually designed as a fighter bomber (I think).


No, the Mosquito was originally designed as an unarmed light bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Ah ok, thanks.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

redcoat said:


> While the P-38 was a very good aircraft, I feel that the view of it as a 'great' aircraft is somewhat misplaced!
> Why ???
> Well in the ETO/MTO if you use the measure of 'kill to loss' ratio as a guide, the P-38 actually comes out as the worst of the 4 fighters used by the 8th Airforce .
> 
> ...



There were a lot of reasons for this. Early on the P-38 was the long range Allied fighter. There were realtively few of them compared to the P-47 which often numbered as much as 700. German pilots would sit out of range of the P-47 and when the P-47's turned back the P-38's would continue and get pounced. Also pilots typically had only 20 or fewer hours in the P-38 before taking it into combat, and it was a very different plane from the P-40 or P-39 with which they had experiance.

There were also a lot of mechanical problems for the earlier P-38's, and it was not a plane that did well in cold weather, and there was no heating for the pilot - they froze thier asses off at 20,000 feet. Furthermore, in these earlier models the process of transitioning from cruise condition to combat condition was difficult and complicated. It went something like this (off the top of my head):

1) Reach under the seat and twist two sperate hard to get at fuel cocks to switch from external tanks to internal fuel tanks.
2) Jettison external fuel tanks
3) Switch each engine from full auto lean to full auto rich
4) Turn on the gun heaters and enable the guns
5) Turn on the lightbulb for the gunsite.

I think there were a couple more steps I cannot recall. The point is that it was not easy to do and it was noted that many pilots, when bounced, took no evasive action at all. Probably the pilot was too busy trying to reconfigure his plane to fly it. In the PTO the weather was usually warmer, and the combat altitudes lower, and the P-38 held the speed advantage to such a degree that it was doing the bouncing. Pilots also had more training in the plane before going into combat, and the scale of combat was generally much smaller, less than 100 fighters on each side, with a few exceptions like the Turkey Shoot.

About mid way through the P-38J series (the -25LE ??), most of these problems were resolved, but by then the P-51 had hit the scene. P-51's were a lot simpler to fly, had equal range, cost about half as much and were much easier to mass produce, were much easier and cheaper to maintain, and arrived in huge numbers. So the P-38J-25 was not going to redeem the P-38's rep no matter how good it was.

Finally, the P-51 was one hell of a plane. The key thing about the P-51 that most people don't realize is that this was a plane that CRUISED at 395 mph! FW's cruised at 280 mph or slower depending on model, and 109's at an even slower speed. This meant that, all other things being equal, at the point of engagement the P-51 had a huge initial advantge.

Here is a German Pilot quote for you to consider:



> Hans Pichler, a German pilot, came in behind some P-38s and fired. The P-38 pilots applied full WEP power and Pichler described what then happened, "They disappeared leaving our mouths wide open. The five-minute chase caused my engine to seize. One of the connecting rods pushed itself through the cowling." Pichler felt that the P-38 was more maneuverable that his BF-109G-6 fighter. He did not look forward to engaging P-38s in combat.
> http://p-38online.com/medovr.html



When they were working right, in the hands of skilled pilots the P-38 was deadly.

Here's a good link on the P-38: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

> P-51's were a lot simpler to fly, had equal range,



Actually it was quite a bit less, about 100 miles for the P-51 (Without Droptanks) to about 1400 miles for the P-38L.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > P-51's were a lot simpler to fly, had equal range,
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was quite a bit less, about 100 miles for the P-51 (Without Droptanks) to about 1400 miles for the P-38L.



Yes but in reality the P-51 had sufficiently long range, and those figures are kinda mute because the P-38 carried much larger drop tanks, and these were rarely carried until they were empty.

Also, range with drop tanks is decieving. The P-38's models in the MTO had a practical range (one way) of about 950 miles on internal fuel, which is almost identical to the P-51D range of 950 miles on internal fuel. I suppose it is fair to consider the P-38L since by this time it was there, and it did have about a 1400 mile range on internal fuel, but to get this range the plane had to cruse way down at 230-250 mph, which was dangerous and most pilots would not do this until they were in very safe airspace. At higher speeds the P-38 fuel economy drops off sharply because it was not nearly as clean an airfoil as the P-51 and it had no radiator thrust to recapture cooling system drag. The P-51 on the otherhand, had a 950 mile range at about 360 mph, and a 900 mile range at 395 mph.

All things considered, they were of roughly equal range in practical terms.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

I stand corrected 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

all my sourses say the P-38J had a range on internal fuel of no more than 1,100 miles....................


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> all my sourses say the P-38J had a range on internal fuel of no more than 1,100 miles....................



Late mode J's (-25 and up) are the same as L's. But still, the range when flying accross the USA is not the same as the range after engaging the enemy and then wanting to return to base. By the time the P-38 had made it clear of enemy threats, and could power down to an economical cruise, it'd burned off enough fuel to have about an equal realistic combat range (for the return flight) as the P-51, which could economically cruise at speeds high enough to be safe even in enemy territory. So for practical purposes, while the Luftwaffe' was still somewhat of a threat to US planes over or near German lines, the P-51 had about equal range.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

that's not the point i was trying to make..........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Yes lanc, the J's could only go 1,100 miles, but the L's could go 1,400


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

i read today that the P-38L could carry 3,200lbs of ordinance a range of only 450 miles...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah but thats with ordinance, without it was 1,400. I dont think the L's were often used as bombers though, the J had that job.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i read today that the P-38L could carry 3,200lbs of ordinance a range of only 450 miles...............



Sure, external ordinance means more drag and thus reduced range. Still that is 900 miles round trip plus combat time (normally figured at ~20 minutes).

Also keep in mind USA range figures usually include 1 hour of reserve flight time. Most other countries include half that or less. Soviet ranges include no reserve at all.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2004)

no, that's 450 miles for the whole trip, not 450 there, 450 back.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

Your book is totally wrong then, it is a 900 mile round trip as RG said...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no, that's 450 miles for the whole trip, not 450 there, 450 back.................



That seems extremely low. Check again, if it says "range" it probably means each way.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2004)

seen as how unladen the J model could do 2,200 round trip on internal fuel I think a range drop of 1,850miles for a few thousand lbs of bombs is a little dodgy....


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> seen as how unladen the J model could do 2,200 round trip on internal fuel I think a range drop of 1,850miles for a few thousand lbs of bombs is a little dodgy....



I think the range was more like 1100 miles round trip on internal fuel, not counting reserve time (typcially 1 hour which is about another 250 miles). 2200 miles is probably the round trip range with drop tanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2004)

> Fully fueled, the 'J' carried 1,010 gallons, and had a maximum range of 2,260 miles (12 hours). In the Pacific Theater of Operations, more efficient power settings were devised, and the range was extended to 2,300 miles (this included takeoff, formation, climb-out, cruise to target, combat maneuvers, and landing).


www.p-38online.com

Hmmmmm that doest really claer it up but Id actually say you were probably right.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 2, 2004)

does anybody know a mosq. is alot more vuneruable than the p-38??


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> does anybody know a mosq. is alot more vuneruable than the p-38??



More vulernable how? Do you mean it could take less battle damage, or that it was more likely to sustain battle damage?

The fact is, wood was often quite resilient. The Mossies were made of plywood and held up surprisingly well to small arms and even smaller cannon.

I'd guess they were about the same as far as ability to absorb damage, maybe the Mossie even had a slight edge (it's a lot bigger). But clearly the P-38 was the plane more likely to evade enemy fighters.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 3, 2004)

I vote for the lightning!

Well I could not decide I read most of the thread but Í vote the lightning just fot its design


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

> Mossie even had a slight edge (it's a lot bigger



it's span's about 2 feet more............

i believe the mossie has the advantage as it was wood, if it get's hit it'll merely splinter, if a sheet of the P-38 was hit it would split and the whole pannel would have to be repaired..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

The P-38 had a very narrow surface area though so hitting it would be more difficult. And it doesnt rot in wet weather


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Mossie even had a slight edge (it's a lot bigger
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looking down at the two planes the Mossie is a much larger target. The projection from any angle is larger.

??? Often when sheet aluminum is hit all that happens is a hole. Plywood often shatters or splits when hit even by a small caliber round, it depends on lots of little factors. Once wood is damaged, the damage often spreads widely, this is much less common (though it happens) with alluminum and steel.

Wood was used because it was cheap. Usually wood planes were over-built to compensate for the negative aspects of wood, which gave them some added resiliancy. But they also were heavier than their metal counterparts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

the P-38J was a mere 600lbs lighter than the Mk.II mossie......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Its still lighter...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 4, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the P-38J was a mere 600lbs lighter than the Mk.II mossie......



The normal flying weight of the P-38J was about 17,500 lbs. The normal flying weight of the Mossie VI was about 20,500 lbs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

yes but i stated the weight of the Mk.II


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but i stated the weight of the Mk.II



So you think it is approprate to compare one of the very early model Mossies with the very late model P-38? As available engine power increases, planes tend to get heavier.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Good point 8)

If compare the MkII Mossies weight with the P-38E there should be a large difference.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 5, 2004)

interestingly though as the mossie got heavier it had little to do with the change in engine weight, most of it was due to the equiptment carried............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

We're talking about the empty weight here...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> interestingly though as the mossie got heavier it had little to do with the change in engine weight, most of it was due to the equiptment carried............



Same for the P-38. As the engine(s) gets more _powerful_ the weight tends to increase because the engines can support it. The engines themselves generally don't get much heavier unless the displacement is changed or the engines are changed (such as merlin -> griffon).


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > Fully fueled, the 'J' carried 1,010 gallons, and had a maximum range of 2,260 miles (12 hours). In the Pacific Theater of Operations, more efficient power settings were devised, and the range was extended to 2,300 miles (this included takeoff, formation, climb-out, cruise to target, combat maneuvers, and landing).
> 
> 
> www.p-38online.com
> ...



Internal fuel in the P-38J/L was good for about 1,100 miles. The max range is cited in the 2,200-2,600mi is with 2x300gal drop tanks. It's interesting to note these range figures are high rpm/low manifold/medium pitch props as per AAF procedures. Lindberg showed that low rpm/higher manifold pressure/corse prop was good enough to strech the fuel to 3,000mi. Beyond the endurance of the pilots.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

I read somewhere that a P-38F once flew over 3,400 miles in combat spec - with ammo and everything. Quite amazing.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 2, 2005)

Sorry, i can't let this go un-answered.


> A question re the Mossie (but not perhaps relevant to comparisons with the P38) : Apparently it was said that the Mosquito could take the same bomb load to Berlin as the Flying Fortress (crew of 11?). It also did it quicker and used less fuel. Now that's REALLY something, if true. Anybody out there with proof?


*lesofprimus wrote
*


> I dont think theres any proof to that one... Sounds far fetched to me....


*Nonskimmer
*


> I have to agree. How could a plane the size of the Mossie possibly take the same bomb load as a B-17? Confused
> Or am I missing something obvious, again? Wouldn't be the first time.


The B-17E could only carry a total bomb load of 4000lbs. A variant of the mosquito could carry a 4000lb single bomb, called the 'cookie.'
It's often said the Mosquito could shut down one engine and still carry the 'cookie' without falling out of the sky.

*Lightning Guy wrote
*


> I've never heard of a Mossie dive-bombing. But without the counter-rotating props it wouldn't have been as stable as the Lightning. P-38 better dive-bomber.



Well, if it couldn't dive bomb, it was sure accruate.


> The campaign lasted into the fall of 1944, and statistics compiled later showed that the Mosquito destroyed one site for each 36.4 tonnes (40 tons) of bombs dropped, as opposed to 150 tonnes (165 tons) for USAAF Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses, 158 tonnes (182 tons) for Martin B-26 Marauders, and 200 tonnes (219 tons) for North American B-25 Mitchells


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

that's good info, but i think the main debate's in the aviation forum..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)

Thanks for the info G/C but I've become a little better educated on the aircraft, since I made that post. 
If I remember correctly, I may have been drinking too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

oh sorry, was that supposed to suprise us ??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)

Stop picking on me, lanc!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

hey hey, only a couple of posts away from joining the 1000 posts club, congratulations................


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2005)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> Sorry, i can't let this go un-answered.
> 
> 
> > A question re the Mossie (but not perhaps relevant to comparisons with the P38) : Apparently it was said that the Mosquito could take the same bomb load to Berlin as the Flying Fortress (crew of 11?). It also did it quicker and used less fuel. Now that's REALLY something, if true. Anybody out there with proof?
> ...



Ummm... where do you get that figure from? First off, of the approximately 500 B-17E's bulit most were deployed to the Pacific, though about 45 were given to the RAF, designated the "Fortress IIa", and they did indeed complain the bombload was insufficient. Both the B-17E and the B-17F arrived for US use in Europe in the summer of 1942 and the few E models were used mostly for training. The B-17F had a internal bomb capacity of 9600 lbs, normal bombload was 4000-6000 lbs at ranges exceeding 1400 miles (each way), max bombload was 20,800 pounds with external racks for short ranges. Range was about 2100 miles (each way) with about a 5000 lbs bombload. The B-17G arrived about 6 months later and had a slightly smaller bombload capacity, 4000-6000 lbs still being normal depending on range, and 17600 lbs load with external racks for short ranges. 

The Mosquito of the same time, the B Mk IV Series II, which was fitted for the 4000 lbs bomb, had an operational radius of 535 miles. Hardly comparable to the B-17F/G.



(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> *Lightning Guy wrote
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Mossies mostly specialized in striking command positions, usually Villa's and the like. They would come in low and drop slightly delayed fuse bombs right into the front door of the target. They genrally did not attack the same kind of targets the B-17 or even the medium bombers attacked. The definition of "hitting" and "destroying" the target were also quite different. So this is really comparing apples and watermelons.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

Actually the Mosquito did bomb to complete destruction in most cases. Only in the famous raids, like Ameins, were they given the precise area to strike. Most of their raids, they were told which buildings to strike and given all targetted buildings were destroyed it was a direct hit. 

Much more efficient than any heavy bomber. They complimented one another well. I also already stated long ago that the Mosquito could carry the same as the B-17 while the Mosquito was on a short mission, and the B-17 was on a long mission.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 3, 2005)

yes.. i completely agree with you. above that, the mosquito didnt have enought punch to take out an building by itself, but once the building was already cracked, its attacks were devestating 

and it doesnt really matters what plane was heavier, the mossie was the fastest propellor plane of ww2, and it as as maneuverable as the lightning. i think thats says enough ^^


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

No, you mis-read my post. I was stating that Mosquitos didn't area bomb, they attack individual buildings. I can assure you the pay load on a Mosquito was more than enough to destroy a building.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> No, you mis-read my post. I was stating that Mosquitos didn't area bomb, they attack individual buildings. I can assure you the pay load on a Mosquito was more than enough to destroy a building.



not enough to destroy a building thats worth a raid, cuz they were protected y flack. so the mosquito had to fly 2 or 3 attacks b4 the building was destroyed, and they would be shot down. thats my point.
but indeed, i mis-read your post 
it wasnt areal bombing.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

FlaK is certainly deadly to all aircraft but the Mosqutio coming in low and fast would have certainly gained the advantage of shock and surprise over the FlaK gunners. 
In the Amiens raid, they only lost one Mosquito which fell to a swarm of -190s.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 3, 2005)

*RG_Lunatic wrote:*


> Ummm... where do you get that figure from? First off, of the approximately 500 B-17E's bulit most were deployed to the Pacific, though about 45 were given to the RAF, designated the "Fortress IIa", and they did indeed complain the bombload was insufficient.


You really need to take off your blinkers  
I'm stating a comparison between a un-armed two engine- two man aircraft, against a heavely armed four engine- ten man crew bomber....That carried the same bomb load. Do the sums. That's why the Mosquito is good.



> In the Amiens raid, they only lost one Mosquito which fell to a swarm of -190s.


This was only because the C/O done an orbit of a crashed aircraft and was bounced..IRC, more then one were lost.




> I also already stated long ago that the Mosquito could carry the same as the B-17 while the Mosquito was on a short mission, and the B-17 was on a long mission.


No, the 'Mossie' could go to Berlin no problem...Sometimes twice in one night!


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 3, 2005)

Yes, Harris described the Mossie raids to Berlin as just 'stoking the fires'.

Not something the German nightfighter squadrons would agree with.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2005)

Mosquito hands down.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

I never said it couldn't go to Berlin. I said that the Mosquito could carry as much as the B-17, if the B-17 was going on a long run and the Mosquito was going on a short run. Where Berlin came in, I have no idea. Learn to read. 

For example, the B-17 bombing Berlin would carry 6000 lbs worth of bombs. The Mosquito could not carry 6000 lbs worth of bombs to Berlin but it could carry 6000 lbs to Cherbourg. 

Awfully defensive attitude you have, I simply state that a Mosquito was lost during the Amiens raid - as a fact - and there's a big rant and rave about how it got lost. Yes, in short, it was lost because a swarm of -190s got it.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 3, 2005)

It's not about learning to read with you, it's your interpretation and inaccurate statements!
I said Berlin because it was a long haul flight!. So it doesn't matter where the early B-17 variant flew too, the Mosquito could match it.....Even to Timbuktu!

That's news to me the Mosquito can carry 6000lbs.

As for the Amiens raid, the only reason the C/O got shot down, and i do say the only reason.... He completed the mission, BUT didn't fly straight OUT! as i said he stooge around observing a burning aircraft on the ground...Germany was full of swarming of 109's.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 3, 2005)

thats true. but back to the flack.
why u think there were to many torpedo bombers shot down, when they tried to attack a ship? yes,. they had to fly low to drop the torpedo.
what i want to say is, when you fly ure plane close to the ground, and u fly over a flak cannon, that cannon can hit you straight into ure cockpit, b4 ure over the cannon. and then it doesnt quit matter how fast you are, cuz they can alwayst hit u on the front. (u only shorten the very dangerous time if ure very fast.)


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

Again, you've failed in reading properly. The Mosquito could NOT carry the same payload as the B-17 over the same distance. 

And again, I already know why he got shot down. That doesn't matter, it was just a simple statement. He got downed by -190s, not -109s.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 3, 2005)

First off Mandrake, if your going to quote and reply to multiple parties in a post, please indicate who you are quoting. This is easily done by changing the quote start tag from {quote} to {quote="whoever"}, using square rather than curly brackets.

============================================



(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> *RG_Lunatic wrote:*
> 
> 
> > Ummm... where do you get that figure from? First off, of the approximately 500 B-17E's bulit most were deployed to the Pacific, though about 45 were given to the RAF, designated the "Fortress IIa", and they did indeed complain the bombload was insufficient.
> ...



But this is really not valid. The B-17E was the first production model, and it was barely used in the ETO. The B-17F on the other hand, carried a larger bombload, which is what I was pointing out. The first Mosquito raid on Berlin was using the Mk VI variant, on January 30, 1943, so comparison to the B-17E is inappropriate as none were in service in the ETO at that time, and in fact the B-17G was already in action.

I'm sure you're referencing the following quote (or a similar one):



> It was said that the 2 man twin engined Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as the 4 engined Flying Fortress with its crew of 11. It also did it quicker and used less fuel.
> 
> Some of the most famous raids were due to the precision bombing by the Mosquito from roof top height. Among these were raids on the Gestapo Headquarters in Oslo, the Central Registry in The Hague, Shell House in Copenhagen, and Amiens Goal. They were expected to hit a single enemy building in the middle of a city with minimum harm to the civilians. In many cases they did not achieve all they set out to do but the effect on enemy morale was devastating.
> http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/mossie01.htm



I've been searching, and so far what I've found is the Mk IV and VI Mosquitos could not carry the 4000 lbs bomb to Berlin, they instead carried 4 x 550 lbs bombs and drop tanks. These types of daylight attacks ended about summer 1943, because the speed of the Mosquito was no longer sufficient to protect it from German fighters. It was not until the 1944 that the Mk B.XVI carried the 4000 lbs bomb to Berlin, with drop tanks, and _these attacks were carried out at night_.

Also, your previous quote about the accuracy of the Mosquito is inaccurate. You said:



(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> Well, if it couldn't dive bomb, it was sure accruate.
> 
> 
> > The campaign lasted into the fall of 1944, and statistics compiled later showed that the Mosquito destroyed one site for each 36.4 tonnes (40 tons) of bombs dropped, as opposed to 150 tonnes (165 tons) for USAAF Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses, 158 tonnes (182 tons) for Martin B-26 Marauders, and 200 tonnes (219 tons) for North American B-25 Mitchells



The accurate data is:



> An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons!
> http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mosquito.html



As you can see, this only referes to attacks on V1 sights, a job much better suited to low level attacks than high level attacks. Futhermore, the targets hit by the Mosquitos were those that were appropriate for their attacks, those that were not so well suited for Mosquito attack, because of defenses and/or terrain, were hit by other bomber types.

I'm not knocking the Mosquito. Personally I think it was a great plane, and if the RAF was intent on night bombing it probably would have made more sense to produce a plane similar to the Mosquito, but a little larger and made of metal, than the large 4 engine bombers that made up the bulk of Britain's bomber force. This would have resulted in a relatively lighter plane with the same speed capability and more bomb capacity. But to compare the Mosquito to the B-17, you have to focus on large scale brute force daylight attacks, which the Mosquito was not well suited to accomplish. The Mosquito was great for small, precision "raids" and as a pathfinder aircraft.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## redcoat (Jan 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I never said it couldn't go to Berlin. I said that the Mosquito could carry as much as the B-17, if the B-17 was going on a long run and the Mosquito was going on a short run. Where Berlin came in, I have no idea.


Berlin comes into it, because the bomb-load for both bombers on a mission to Berlin is approx 4,000Ib
It was on shorter missions that the B-17 had the advantage. Being able to carry up to a maximum of 17,000Ib on very short range missions. While the Mossies max limit ,was 6,000Ib* (4,000Ib internal, 2,000Ib external) though this was very rare, the normal max was 4,000Ib.

*It was only from 1944 that the mosquito could carry a 4,000Ib Cookie in its internal bomb bay, before then the max internal bomb load had been 2,000IB. 




> I simply state that a Mosquito was lost during the Amiens raid - as a fact - and there's a big rant and rave about how it got lost. Yes, in short, it was lost because a swarm of -190s got it.


The 2 Mossies lost (1 to fighters and one to flak) were not the high speed bomber marks, but the slowest of the Mossie marks(380mph), the armed (4x20mm, 4x.303MG, 2,000Ib bombs ) fighter-bomber FB IV's of the 2nd TAF


ps, the average bomb load for a B-17 on a operational mission over NW Europe in WW2 was 4,391 lbs.

pps, the average bomb load for a Lancaster on an operational mission was 8,572 lbs.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

What is everyones problem with going on about the Mosquitos lost at Amiens? Is it an attempt to try and defend their loss or something? They were LOST end of story. 

Again, the B-17 could carry more than the Mosquito - end of story.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2005)

but it wasn't shockingly uncommon for B-17s to only carry 2,000lbs to berlin, a feat the mossie could match, the B-17 never carried it's full pawload in combat, and someone's comment about the B-17 being able to blast their way to berlin, they were sitting ducks without fighter escort


RG said:


> But to compare the Mosquito to the B-17, you have to focus on large scale brute force daylight attacks, which the Mosquito was not well suited to accomplish



what makes you think the bomber that was too fast to be intercepted wasn't suited to the hundreds of daylight raids it carried out??


----------



## redcoat (Jan 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > *[=RG]
> > But to compare the Mosquito to the B-17, you have to focus on large scale brute force daylight attacks, which the Mosquito was not well suited to accomplish*
> > what makes you think the bomber that was too fast to be intercepted wasn't suited to the hundreds of daylight raids it carried out??
> 
> ...


----------



## redcoat (Jan 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> What is everyones problem with going on about the Mosquitos lost at Amiens? Is it an attempt to try and defend their loss or something? They were LOST end of story.


 I thought you and the others would like to know some of the facts behind the loss 



> Again, the B-17 could carry more than the Mosquito - end of story.


Not quite, it depended on the range. At long range the mossie had the advantage.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

As far as bombloads go, it depends a lot on which version of the plane we are talking about, and the nature of the mission.

For daylight raids, the B-17F and G could carry 8000 lbs of bombs to deep targets such as Berlin. In large formations, the amount of bombs carried had to be reduced because more fuel was required for forming up, and as a result loads of 5000 or even 4000 lbs were generally used.

For the Mossie IV, daylight raids involved 2-4 500 lbs bombs with two wing drop tanks. These raids started in early 1943, and ended in the summer as German defenses, espeically radar, improved. A fully loaded Mossie IV with drop tanks could NOT outrun a German fighter. If they were intercepted, they had to dump their loads and run.

It was the Mossie B.XVI in 1944 that carried the 4000 lbs bomb to Berlin, and they did so at night. And they had the option to land at forward bases in France if necessary.



> Gradually, as more bomber Mosquitos fitted with the oversized bombbay doors to carry Cookie bombs came into service, the LNSF's "diversionary" raids turned into effective attacks of their own. The B.IV didn't really have the horsepower to carry the Cookie well, but the B.IX and the B.XVI, with two-stage engines, were fairly comfortable with the load. The B.XVI, built standard to carry the Cookie, entered service in early 1944, at about the same time that the LNSF started dropping Cookies on the Germans in earnest.
> 
> Th B.XVIs became very energetic in the late stages of the war, in particular performing about 170 strikes on Berlin, reaching a peak on the night of 21 March 1945, when a total 142 Mosquitos hit the city in two attacks. The crews hit Berlin so often they called it the trip the "Berlin Express".
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss2.html#m4



You really cannot compare the two, the B-17 attacking during the day and the Mossie attacking at night. The Mossie would have stood little chance of surviving _and_ bombing Berlin in the day in 1944. On the other hand, if the B-17 were to have conducted such a raid at night, it could have carried 8,000 lbs of bombs (as they would not have had to form up so tightly or climb so high), more if it removed 5-7 of its defensive guns and their ammo and the 4-5 crewmen manning them.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what makes you think the bomber that was too fast to be intercepted wasn't suited to the hundreds of daylight raids it carried out??



Hundreds? Please document hundreds of daylight raids into Germany in 1943. I count... two to Berlin, some to the coastal areas in NW Germany, and that's about it. There well may have been more, but I think you are grossly overestimating the number of deep daylight raids made by the Mossie. Most raids were against targets such as Gestapo HQ's in France and the low-land countries.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

I would like to point out, the Mosquito was the first to bomb Berlin during the day. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2005)

and as a night bomber the B-17 wouldn't be much good, the americans just didn't have the tactics or proper escorts..............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and as a night bomber the B-17 wouldn't be much good, the americans just didn't have the tactics or proper escorts..............



That's silly. The USA had no problems switching to night bombing against Japan. The British had few problems switching from day to night operations. Why would you assume the B-17 would have such problems when others did not?

And, unlike the Lancaster, the B-17 would have been able to defend itself. The rear turret, top turret, and belly turret would have been sufficient to make night fighters much more careful about taking fire. The remaining guns could have been removed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## redcoat (Jan 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and as a night bomber the B-17 wouldn't be much good, the americans just didn't have the tactics or proper escorts..............


The B-17 was a great bomber, and so was the Lanc,( I don't want to take sides in this issue  )

There was a unit of the 8th AF in NW Europe which did a number of night raids ( sorry, but I don't have the book which states this at the moment, so I can't give you the unit  )

If the B-17 had been used as a night bomber on a large scale , I've no doubt they would have copied RAF tactics ( it is allowed, they were allies after all  ) , and as for escorts they would have used the fighters the USAAF night-fighter units already used in Europe, the Beaufighter, Mosquito, and when it was ready, the Black Widow P-61.

One advantage of the B-17 being used at night would be an increased bomb-load, thanks to the fact they wouldn't have to carry the vast amount of ammo the day bombers did. (over 5,000 rounds of .50 ammo weighs a amazing amount )


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2005)

The USAAF Night-Fighter units with Mosquitos and Beaufighters - WHAT!?!

It still couldn't carry as much as the Lancaster. So, as it was, Lanc at night - Fortress at day.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

The normal load for a B-17 was 12000 rounds of ammo. Crews often snuck aboard another 2000 rounds. 1000 belted .50 rounds weighed about 300 lbs, the .50 itself weighed about 65 lbs and its mount probably at least another 25 lbs (for ball mounted guns). The Chin turret weighed on the B-17G weighed about 500 lbs not counting guns and ammo (based on the weight of the B-25 retractable periscope ball turret).

So lets say you took a B-17G and removed all the guns except those in the dorsal and belly turrets and the pair in the tail, and give each of those guns 800 rounds to fire (lets round to 5000 total rounds). That means we would be saving:

7 x .50 BMG's (65 lbs each) = 455 lbs
5 x mounts (25 lbs each) = 125 lbs
7000 rounds of belted ammo = 2100 lbs
chin turret = 500 lbs
Total weight savings: 3180 lbs

But were not done. Now lets remove some crew members. Each crew member weighs about 150 lbs, plus gear and O2, lets figure 250 lbs. The B-17 had an 11 man crew, but we only need: Pilot, Co-Pilot, Navigator/radio operator, bombadier, belly turret gunner, tail gunner, a total of 6 (we assume the bombadier and navigator would share the top turret). So that's 1250 lbs for a total savings of almost 4500 lbs!

With this configuration, the B-17 could easily carry 8000 lbs of bombs to any target in Germany. Yes that is still about 2000 lbs less than the Lancaster, but the B-17 as described could probably defend itself pretty well against night fighters, where the Lancaster could not. And the B-17 was a lot tougher than the Lancaster as well.

As I've said before, personally I think the smart thing to do would have been to switch the B-17's and B-24's to night raids for about 6 months in 1943, after the perils of unescorted daylight raids became apparent. This would have made the Luftwaffe' focus on night fighters to the exclusion of day fighters. Then, in early 1944, when the P-51's arrived and the P-47 range had been extended, the USAAF should have shifted back to daylight raids (and perhaps the RAF too except their bombers were not so well suited for it). This would have forced the Germans to try to shift their industry back to day fighters, but they still would have to anticipate a possible USAAF shift back to night operations, so they would have been sorely pressed to make choices between the two types of fighters, their resources would have been stretched even thinner, and whichever choices they made would inevitably have been wrong. Georing would have had a nervous breakdown! 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2005)

You have to take into account the size of the bomb bay as well. Could the bomb bay accomadate another 3000 lbs worth of bombs? Also, for night bombing the B-17 would have had to been equipped with all the electronic thingy-majigs (  ) to fly and bomb at night.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 6, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The USAAF Night-Fighter units with Mosquitos and Beaufighters - WHAT!?!


Both the Bristol Beaufighter (used by four USAAF night-fighter squadrons) and de Havilland Mosquito (used by one) were used by ETO/MTO USAAF night-fighter squadrons, and in at least one instance for each aircraft, were not replaced with P-61s until the European war was over. The Mosquito was used by the 416th NFS until June 1945, and the 417th NFS flew the Beaufighter until the end of hostilities.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

redcoat said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > and as a night bomber the B-17 wouldn't be much good, the americans just didn't have the tactics or proper escorts..............
> ...



Due to the fact the B-17 was a day bomber and the Lancaster a night bomber I find it hard to justifiably compare the 2. Howver I feel that if the 2 planes were used in the same situation (day or night) the B-17 would always come out on top.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

The B-17 bombay could actually accomodate 9600 lbs in bombs. It could certainly carry eight 1000 lbs bombs (which actually weighed about 1100 lbs).

Given the much less complicated and time consuming form-up for night operations, and the lower altitude requirement, there was pleanty of payload for the night electronics, most of which the B-17 already had anyway. Also, I didn't account anything for the removal of waste gunner armor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Due to the fact the B-17 was a day bomber and the Lancaster a night bomber I find it hard to justifiably compare the 2. Howver I feel that if the 2 planes were used in the same situation (day or night) the B-17 would always come out on top.



The Lancaster was a great plane. It could carry a larger payload than the B-17 and it was significantly faster.

However, having B-17's (and B-24's) flying at night would have forced the German night fighters to treat every heavy they came upon with a lot more caution, and the Lancasters would have done a lot better as a result.

While it was proven that unescorted daylight bombers could not hold their own against enemy fighters, I suspect that at night they probably could have. Had the Lancaster been armed, lets say, with 2 x .50's in the tail, two in a dorsal turret, and two in a belly turret or blister, I believe they would have been able to do quite well against German night fighters. Against the B-17, I think German night fighters would have had a very hard time because of the firepower, armor, and overall toughness of the B-17.

There is certainly is no denying the Lancaster was one of the great bombers of WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Wait a minute, there's Mosquitos in the USAAF had US markings? I thought the USAAF only had them in the Pacific. And in the MTO? I need some PROOF of this! 

You wouldn't take out the waist armour, or the B-17 could be split in half.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I'll have to check my books later tonight, but I think I saw a pic of a Mossie with AAF markings in the Freeman book "The Mighty Eight, the Colour Record". I will look again. If I find it, I will scan it in and post.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I know they had US markings in the Pacific. I didn't even know the Mossie served in the MTO (LG, score one Mosquito that's Russia, CBI, Pacific, ETO, Russia and MTO - if it's true).


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I did see a reference to the USAAF flyijng them with the 25th BG, 653rd BS in England from 1944-1945 as a weather reconnaissance aircraft. They did also fly PR versions. I am looking for the group numbers and will get back to you.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You wouldn't take out the waist armour, or the B-17 could be split in half.



The waist armor was added to the B-17G to protect the gunners, the G model had 850 lbs more armor than the F model. It was not required for structural integrity. So you would remove it if there were no waist gunners to protect.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

I'd guess that USAAF Mossies were photo-recon planes. ????


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

From what I can tell so far, yes.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I know for certain those in the Pacific were PR Mosquitos.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2005)

and the B-17 wouldn't have been able to adopt RAF tactics, the B-17 was so unsuited to our tactics, not to mention that even your precious norden would loose allot of accuracy as navigation would have become more difficult, whereas we had some navigaional aids, although they still weren't brilliant, chances are they americans would still try and use their day tactics, including a long form up time, reducing the payload from what you estimate, even if it did carry more than it did by day it'd be slower, and the NFs would still be able to bring them down..............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the B-17 wouldn't have been able to adopt RAF tactics, the B-17 was so unsuited to our tactics, not to mention that even your precious norden would loose allot of accuracy as navigation would have become more difficult, whereas we had some navigaional aids, although they still weren't brilliant, chances are they americans would still try and use their day tactics, including a long form up time, reducing the payload from what you estimate, even if it did carry more than it did by day it'd be slower, and the NFs would still be able to bring them down..............



When Curtis Lamay took over the B-29 effort against the US switched over to night bombing tactics in all of a month.

What is it you think was soooo difficult about night bombing?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Night-bombing is difficult. B-17s with some modifications could take on Night-bombing, but not as they were. And RAF tactics would be adopted, the Americans weren't stupid - lanc.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I'd guess that USAAF Mossies were photo-recon planes. ????


This is about the Mosquito in US service, its from this web-site
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss2.html#m8



> General Henry "Hap" Arnold, commander of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), witnessed a demonstration of the Mosquito on 20 April 1941 as a guest of Lord Beaverbrook. Geoffrey de Havilland JR was in prime form that day, screaming the machine low over the ground and performing sharp maneuvers with one engine feathered. Arnold was extremely impressed, and returned to the US with engineering drawings of the machine.
> 
> There matters more or less stood with the Yanks until late 1942, when a B.IV Mosquito was given to Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, the American President's son and commander of a USAAF reconnaissance squadron in North Africa, equipped with Lockheed F-4 Lightning reconnaissance aircraft. The B.IV was faster and had much longer range than the Lockheeds, and Elliot Roosevelt began to press for adopting the British machine.
> 
> ...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I found the pictures. It was indeed part of the 25th BG. The initial 20 or so were sent to Abbots Ripton to install chaff dispensers (I think the Brits called it 'window'). Normally, the bombers would carry chaff and the crews would drop it from the sides. It was also decided to have a separate aircraft fly ahead of the formation to confuse the radar operators before the bombers struck.

The red tails were for identification. It had previously been mistaken for an Me-410 by friendly fighters. The red prop spinner denotes that the aircraft was from the 654th bomb squadron.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

Looks like you beat me to it, Redcoat! Ah well, better to have it twice than not at all.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

Those pictures are great...and what's next to it in the bottom picture? Fitting for the thread.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

and RAF tactics called for long streams of bombers in very loose formations, no mutual protection, if you're jumped you try and corkscrew or take evasive action, something the B-17 couldn't do, by day a lone unescorted B-17 would be picked off, it'd be no different at night..........


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2005)

By day, a lone Lancaster would also be picked off. If you are talking at night, obviously, the 17s would have flown differently than they did during the day to keep from hitting each other. That's kind of a no brainer. As Erich pointed out, the Luftwaffe crews figured out how to counter the corkscrew, so it wasn't perfect. Do you know for a fact that the B-17 couldn't perform a corkscrew?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

And remember that the B-17 could also fly some 10,000feet higher than the Lancaster which has gotta hold some sort of advantage...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

The altitude advantage would help most of all with the flak. I'm not sure about this, but I believe some of the German night fighters (such as the Do-217 derivatives) would have been unable to reach the B-17s but the Bf-110s and Ju-88s could still reach their altitude.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

but flack could still have got up there, however the german gunners and luftwaffe had an agreement that the gunners would go for anything below a cirtian height, the fighters anything above that height............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

Flak could still reach that height, but there would be less of it and it would be less accurate.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

not the radar predicted stuff, mind you small course alterations would counter that for the most part..............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and RAF tactics called for long streams of bombers in very loose formations, no mutual protection, if you're jumped you try and corkscrew or take evasive action, something the B-17 couldn't do, by day a lone unescorted B-17 would be picked off, it'd be no different at night..........



The B-17 could engage in some evasive manuvers, certainly suitable for night fighting. However it would indeed rely on its firepower more than evasive manuvers to defend itself. These would have been more effective at night, where only rear attacks are possible, and the target night fighter is nearly stationary w.r.t. the bomber it is trying to attack.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2005)

German flak was almost useless anyway. Something like 100,000 rounds expended per bomber damaged or destroyed. It was necessary for moral purposes, and had some effect on the wits of the bomber crews, but was of little use beyond that, even in the day. At night, it'd have been nearly meaningless.

Radar guided flak was not a big issue. There was still such a huge lag between aiming/loading, fuse setting, and firing that the odds of scoring a hit were tiny. Without a proximity fuse, flak was ineffective.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## redcoat (Jan 8, 2005)

It should be noted that Bomber Command used a number of B-17's on night missions as part of 100 Group on what is now know as 'Wild Weasel' counter measure missions.
The more spacious crew areas made them more suitable for the task than British bombers


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I would have to take exception with Flak being useless. Most bomber crews were far more affraid of Flak than of fighters.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I would have to take exception with Flak being useless. Most bomber crews were far more affraid of Flak than of fighters.



That is only true late in the war when there were very few fighters, but lots of flak. 

Perhaps useless is the wrong way to put it. It was increadibly inefficient. To achieve what success they did have, huge numbers of flak guns and associated resources were expended.

It is often said that the battle of Stalingrad was lost because of all the 88's that were tied up firing at Allied bombers. 18000 rounds were fired for each bomber destroyed (this is a correction to an earlier figure I posted). 20,000 heavy AA guns were used to defend German cities in WWII. That's hugely inefficient.

Had Germany been able to develop a proximity fuse similar to the VT fuse, this number would have been reduced to at most around 6000 rounds per bomber destroyed in late 1943, and to at most around 3000 rounds by mid 1944. 

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

It may be inefficient, but inefficient is a long way from being ineffective. American bomber crews had an extremely difficult time facing Flak. Flak was far more terrifying than a fighter attack since flak was so random. At least when facing fighters, the crewman could shoot back. Against flak all they could do is watch and PRAY. Many crewman admitted they would rather face a sky full of fighters than fly through the flak. Much the same could be said of the escorting fighters who stated they would have hated trying to fly through that stuff.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> It may be inefficient, but inefficient is a long way from being ineffective. American bomber crews had an extremely difficult time facing Flak. Flak was far more terrifying than a fighter attack since flak was so random. At least when facing fighters, the crewman could shoot back. Against flak all they could do is watch and PRAY. Many crewman admitted they would rather face a sky full of fighters than fly through the flak. Much the same could be said of the escorting fighters who stated they would have hated trying to fly through that stuff.



But that just means they didn't like it. Flak didn't stop them from bombing the targets nor did it force the USAAF or the RAF to abandon bombing of German cities. To me, that means it was ineffective.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Those people in the bombers that saw aircraft falling out of the sky due to FlaK shots would disagree completely. And I'll take their word for it. 
To be ineffective, they had to fail in shooting down bombers. Take 'Black Thursday' for example, over Schweinfurt, the bombers had awful time due to FlaK and lost a lot of men. On top of actually bringing the bombers down, often crewmen would be hit and killed while in the bomber.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Those people in the bombers that saw aircraft falling out of the sky due to FlaK shots would disagree completely. And I'll take their word for it.
> To be ineffective, they had to fail in shooting down bombers. Take 'Black Thursday' for example, over Schweinfurt, the bombers had awful time due to FlaK and lost a lot of men. On top of actually bringing the bombers down, often crewmen would be hit and killed while in the bomber.



As I recall, on the USAAF's Black Thursday (as opposed to the Luftwaffe's in 1940), 60 B-17's out of about 275 were shot down, most by fighters, a few by flak. But even that is not indicative of flak results.

Overall effectiveness was horrible. By the end of 1944 it took an average of 33500 shells to down a bomber. Sure it was scary but that's war. It was not effective, that's just the math of it.

Soldiers were more afraid of those wirblewiffer (whatever they were called) rocket launchers than of machine gun fire too (sreaming meanies), but they were no where near as deadly. Those kind of opinions are often based upon perceptions far more than reality.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

RG, by your own "definition", the entire Luftwaffe was ineffective since it's efforts were not enough to prevent the USAAF and RAF from blasting the cities of Germany into rubble. 

Furthermore, a direct comparison of the numbers of bombers shot down by flak and fighters is bound to be inaccurate. Fighters could attack during virtually any part of the mission while flak was often only encountered over the coast and over the target.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 10, 2005)

> Flak didn't stop them from bombing the targets nor did it force the USAAF or the RAF to abandon bombing of German cities. To me, that means it was ineffective.


And neither did enemy fighter aircraft.. It wasnt a deterrant... Does that mean that the Luftwaffe was also ineffective?????


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

Yes, the Luftwaffe' was ineffective.

The question is, if you doubled the strength of the Luftwaffe' or the number of flak guns, which would have been more effective? I have to go with the Luftwaffe'.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

Those rockets were Nerbelwerfers, RG. I notice you didn't mention the fact that people still got killed without the actual bomber going down due to FlaK. Those incidents don't get counted, or at least haven't been shown.


----------



## redcoat (Jan 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > Soldiers were more afraid of those wirblewiffer (whatever they were called) rocket launchers than of machine gun fire too (sreaming meanies), but they were no where near as deadly. Those kind of opinions are often based upon perceptions far more than reality.
> ...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

They don't call artillery the "God of war" for nothing.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

Casualities yes. But for fatalities, in WWII over 50% of those hit by a machine gun were killed, for artillery it was something under 20%, and Nerbelwerfers (thanks Plan_D) were even less likely to kill someone. So when it came to what was more frightening _when faced_, they should have been more afraid of the machineguns than the Nerbelwerfers. However, in general, the lounder it was the more fearful it was.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 11, 2005)

Doubling the fighters would produce more kills but this is still an inaccurate comparison. Fighters could attack over a period of hours, while the flak guns could only fire for a period of minutes. A better comparison would be something like, bombers lost per minute.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Doubling the fighters would produce more kills but this is still an inaccurate comparison. Fighters could attack over a period of hours, while the flak guns could only fire for a period of minutes. A better comparison would be something like, bombers lost per minute.



That's silly. There are two reasonable evaluations. The first is which item kills more bombers per bomber sortie. It does not matter that the Flak only can fire for a couple of minutes, but the fighters can attack over a longer period of time. You seek to contrive a measurement that is meaningless, short contact time is a inherant weakness of Flak vs. Fighters which you want to exclude. That'd be like excludeing enemy escort fighters from the effectiveness equation for the intercepting fighters... which would also be silly.

The other reasonable method is to consider the cost of each system. I'm not sure how much a Flak gun, crew, ammo, radar, etc.. costs w.r.t. the cost of maintaining an interceptor, but I would guess the Flak gun would be a little bit less expensive (perhaps 66%?).

In any case, my point is if you doubled the number of intercepting fighters, the results would have been far more substantial than doubling the number of flak guns. Amoung other advantages of fighters is they can cover multiple targets, flak guns cannnot.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Casualities yes. But for fatalities, in WWII over 50% of those hit by a machine gun were killed, for artillery it was something under 20%, and Nerbelwerfers (thanks Plan_D) were even less likely to kill someone. So when it came to what was more frightening _when faced_, they should have been more afraid of the machineguns than the Nerbelwerfers. However, in general, the lounder it was the more fearful it was.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic




You've gotta keep in mind...


Machine-guns are close-up, in your face.


Arty is like Mortars, surprise the crap out of the enemy from afar and do as much damage with what I call, "controllable blind aiming," or just, "controlled blindness."


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

I have to differ about that GRG. If there is not a spotter, then I will agree with you. But if you have a spotter/FAC, your chances of scoring a hit are VERY good. We had a guy that I travelled with that was an arty spotter/FAC, and I can tell you, that guy could spot like nobody's business. But he said he was average at it. He may have been average, but I watched several vehicles vaporize before my eyes because of his spotting. Machine guns are obviously closer, but a well placed ambush will also achieve surprise also.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

When artillery has your positioned zeroed in, then you're screwed as well. The only reason artillery isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread is because the enemy has it too! Counter-battery fire can wreck a whole artillery battery that hasn't been dug in effectively.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

True. The best bet is to get the first shot.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

Or have dive bombers wreck theres. Like the Germans did to the one covering the Meuse at Sedan...I say wrecked, they just scared the French gunners away that never returned.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I have to differ about that GRG. If there is not a spotter, then I will agree with you. But if you have a spotter/FAC, your chances of scoring a hit are VERY good. We had a guy that I travelled with that was an arty spotter/FAC, and I can tell you, that guy could spot like nobody's business. But he said he was average at it. He may have been average, but I watched several vehicles vaporize before my eyes because of his spotting. Machine guns are obviously closer, but a well placed ambush will also achieve surprise also.



In WWII? Yes spotters could be effective, but it was rare to have one. Comm's equipment in WWII was nothing like today, or even like what they had in Vietnam (the North). Artillery and mortar fire is also far more accurate post-WWII than during WWII.

During WWII, most casualties came during assaults and invasions. Most deaths came from machinegun fire, though artillery and mortars may have wounded more soldiers.

This topic was covered in some detail on "the color of war" (THC), which I think I watched last sat. night.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

I wasn't speaking of WWII, but in general today. If you have a spotter, it can be deadly accurate. There were arty spotters in WWII, but I don't have a number of how many.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 12, 2005)

In the ETO the escort fighters brought the average loss rate from missions into germany from 9/10% per mission to 4/5% per mission Wheather it was Two F/Gs of P-38s or 17 P-51/7 P-47 F/Gs (Planes and pilots of WWII" website) apx 4% of the bomber losses were ground fire and cannot be reduced directly by fighter escort. This is one reason why the escort was changed from "Close Escort" to the later tactics of "Roaming Escort" followed by "Attack at will return flights". The large number of F/Gs available allowed escort change offs and optimum ammo/fuel for the return attack roll. 

There are Two documented cases of a single P-38 covering a group of B-25s succesfuly from fighter attack (probably more to the suspicion of more P-38 who just wern't there on these mossions).


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I wasn't speaking of WWII, but in general today. If you have a spotter, it can be deadly accurate. There were arty spotters in WWII, but I don't have a number of how many.



Spotters today have GPS and laser range finders. By giving your GPS position, and an angle and distance via the laser spotting tool, you can give a very precise fire solution to artillery.

In WWII, at the best spotting consisted of a man with binoculars using a radio or wired line. He'd call in artillery to his best guess of the target on a map grid location, they'd fire spotting rounds, and he'd then adjust fire by saying "left 50, up 100", they'd fire again and he'd say "down 30, fire for effect" and then they'd blanket that area with shells.

Also, todays artillery is much more effective than in WWII. Until very late in WWII, all artillery and mortar fire was ground burst. Starting with the Battle of the Bulge, US artillery started using proximity fuses for airbusts, allowing the rounds to burst about 15-30 feet above the ground, making for a much larger area of effect. For the most part, when we talk about WWII artillery and mortar fire, we mean ground burst.

Things have changed considerably since WWII in terms of how large ordinance is delivered. It is many many times more effective today than it was then.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

The spotters I worked with (cold war, not recent) were not using laser range finders, occasionally GPS, depending on where we were. The artillery may be better, but the spotter that can work his magic can make a BIG difference. Saved our butts multiple times.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> The spotters I worked with (cold war, not recent) were not using laser range finders, occasionally GPS, depending on where we were. The artillery may be better, but the spotter that can work his magic can make a BIG difference. Saved our butts multiple times.



Any time past 1960 is hugely different than WWII. For one thing, satalites and other technologies give extremely accurate maps. In WWII, maps were often quite poor.

My point is simply that you really cannot compare WWII era atillery with that of the cold-war era, or especially with modern stuff. Fire control is far superior today.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > The spotters I worked with (cold war, not recent) were not using laser range finders, occasionally GPS, depending on where we were. The artillery may be better, but the spotter that can work his magic can make a BIG difference. Saved our butts multiple times.
> ...



Overall there is no question.

I saw a History Channel documentary recently pitting the Civil war field pieces ie. Cannon, Amo, Tactics to modern equivalents. The results in some cases favored the older wepons in areas like efectivness and accuracy and quantity of effective fire. Remember were talking line of sight field pieces and no mortars but suprising even so.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

Once again, I wasn't speaking of WWII, but in general today.


----------



## trackend (Jan 23, 2005)

hi guys 
a few thoughts My old man came under fire from 88,s using airburst in October 1944 when he was taking his LCA ashore in the Walcheran islands campaign.
As for comparisons with modern weapons/fire control I agree that things have moved on somewhat but even in WWII computer controlled gunner was common place on navel vessel. 
Regarding weapons the French QF 75mm of the 1914-18 war could exceed 20 rounds a minute with a good crew which is some going for a field piece (mind you I bet they got knackered doing it). I believe the modern Gattling/Phlanx ect gun was the result of tests carried out using a museum piece fitted with an electric motor in place of the crank handle.
As for deaths caused by machine guns/rifles ect I didnt know they carried out millions of autopsies to determine what the cause of death was.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 23, 2005)

The British 25 (?) Pdrs in World War I were the fastest, they had that remarkable chamber that didn't require unscrewing for reload. THEN in World War II they got them on ring mounts...which was sweet, if not complicated.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

trackend said:


> hi guys
> a few thoughts My old man came under fire from 88,s using airburst in October 1944 when he was taking his LCA ashore in the Walcheran islands campaign.



How did they achieve an airburst with the 88? There are only two fusing options; timed which is nearly useless against ground targets, and contact.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

You didn't know the 88 had air burst!?!    
Of course they did. You've never seen it!? Jesus christ there's footage of it, and yes they used timed charges to DEADLY effect.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You didn't know the 88 had air burst!?!
> Of course they did. You've never seen it!? Jesus christ there's footage of it, and yes they used timed charges to DEADLY effect.



No I've never seen footage of the 88 using airburst shells against ground targets. Where can this footage be seen?

Do you realize the precision needed to cause an effective airburst using timed fuses? And the number of variables involved in setting that timed fuse? I really doubt this was done, the dial on the fuse simply does not graduate that precisely, and I don't think the mechanism was accurate to within less than a millisecond anyway.

I believe the first use of airburst artillery was at the Battle of the Bulge, where the VT fuse was used to burst the shells approximately 20 feet above the ground.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

It was used by the 88 in Africa, Russia, Europe and Italy. I cannot believe you didn't know. I've seen the footage on TV, but I'll try and find it on the internet. 

Do you know how much death this 'useless' timed fuse caused!?!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It was used by the 88 in Africa, Russia, Europe and Italy. I cannot believe you didn't know. I've seen the footage on TV, but I'll try and find it on the internet.
> 
> Do you know how much death this 'useless' timed fuse caused!?!




Well, try to find it. I can see such a thing on a howitzer round, since it is arced and thus timing it would require less precision. But on a flat trajectory 88 mm? Only if the target area were particularly wide could this be effective.

If it was used, it would have been because there was simply no other way to put the 88's on the target. The flat trajectory may have made it impossible to attack dug in positions with direct fire, so they may have set the FLAK fuse and fired them over the target positions. But this would hardly have been an efficient way to use 88's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

Exactly why would this be ineffective use of the 88 against troops on open ground, though? Shrapnel is extremely effective, and has been used for centuries. Since before the Napoleonic Wars (Even during that, the British Army used it to deadly effect).


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 24, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Exactly why would this be ineffective use of the 88 against troops on open ground, though? Shrapnel is extremely effective, and has been used for centuries. Since before the Napoleonic Wars (Even during that, the British Army used it to deadly effect).



Because there is no way to precisely control where the airburst is going to happen. Effectiveness diminishes with the cube of the distance from the target beyond the burst radius (size of the HE expansion, about 1000 fold its pre-detonation volume).


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

When there's a lot of people out in open plain, these things can be pretty lethal. As they were.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2005)

There is a scene in Band of Brothers that shows the air bursts being used while the 101st guys are in the woods. This was late in the war, but it had a hell of an effect on the poor guys under it.


----------



## trackend (Jan 24, 2005)

hi RG
I can only say what my father told me and he is not prone to telling lies as for effectiveness against ground troops I thought that multiple small projectiles against soft targets is the norm even now eg: cluster bombs, Claymore mines (which is an up dated version of the WWII shue mine ). if air bursts where so ineffective why did AA guns employ them so widely
I always believed that only air bursts where employed over 10.000 ft by the 88,s and the British 4.5inch QF AA as lighter weapons such as the Orlikon and Bofors lacked the effective range.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2005)

While they were over looking Foy, air burst was used on the 101st lads. 
Trackend, your father certainly is not wrong, or lying, air burst was used to great effect against troops on open ground. FlaK is generally air burst, and I believe the British AA was 3.7 inch but I may be wrong.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 25, 2005)

Ive seen video of airbursting 88's pretty wild stuff! I remember when I saw the video I tried to find out some information on the shell and all that was ever said was that it was simply timed. I figured thats all they really could do anyway as they didnt have proximity fuses.

They probably had some good tables and a bit of trial and error to get some rounds where they wanted it, but it still was very effective.


----------



## trackend (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry Plan D you are quite right it was the 3.7 . I was getting all navy-fide when I put down 4.5 Out of interest I don't know if you've been to Duxford and seen the post war twin barrelled 3.7 AA prototype on display there it's got two massive rotary auto feeds and the designed rate of fire was fantastic.
RG me old china I believe you are not totally correct in describing the 88 as a flat trajectory weapon as all explosive propelled projectiles are subject to the force of gravity, thus the reason for elevation of the barrel and taken to its conclusion as the 88 started life as an AA gun the possible arc of fire was even higher than that of a Howitzer assuming of course the gun is on its original AA mount and you had a very good spotter or very big range finder 

PS love the pic of the Bear Lightning Plan D (my favorite jet of any period)


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2005)

No, I have never been to Duxford I would certainly like to go some time though. It sounds like an interesting idea, auto-AA cannon with such a huge calibre. 
The US tried to design an auto-cannon 75mm for their Sherman, but proved too complicated and big. 

A good point on the FlaK 18 36 88mm. It was a remarkable weapon used as an Anti-aircraft cannon, Anti-tank cannon, Anti-personel cannon and an artillery piece. In fact, those guns at Brecourt Manor that were pounding Utah beach on D-Day were no other than 105mm AA cannon, resembling the 88 but just larger in calibre.

And the Lightning is my favourite plane of all time. My dad served with them in 11 Sqn. during the Cold War.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

and so it should be!! a truely great aircraft and proberly the greatest intorceptor of all time...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 25, 2005)

The greatest interceptor of all time is the Spitfire, the Lightening gives it a close second though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2005)

good point, still hard to compare the two though..............


----------



## redcoat (Jan 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> [
> 
> No I've never seen footage of the 88 using air burst shells against ground targets.


The 88 was used against ground troops in WW2 using air-burst shells. I've read numerous accounts of the fact in British accounts of the fighting in the Desert and Italy.
In fact during the Italian Campaign the British also used their 3.7 inch AA guns in the direct fire mode using air burst shells.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

How could you consider the Spitfire a good interceptor compared to the Lightning. Taking into account their time period, the Spitfire wasn't far ahead of its time. The Lightning was a 1947 design that lasted until 1988, first being put into service in 1960. 

The Lightning was a far advanced aircraft, that was untouched by anything for decades. The Spitfire was not.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 26, 2005)

ten i ask you, wasnt the Go-229 far its time ahead? it wasnt in mass production only cuz germany lost the war. but that but that still doesnt make that plane less advanced or a less good plane. 
what i want to say is, its not only the design that counts.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

The existence of the Go-229 as a design has something to do with comparing the Lightning to the Spitfire, how? 

The Lightning was not just a design, it existed. See that thing in my sig, escorting a Tu-95 'Bear' ...THAT'S A LIGHTNING!


----------



## Archangel (Jan 26, 2005)

i just say, the dsighn is NOT everything.....

and I shure know the English Electric F1 Lightning. (duh, who doesnt)


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 26, 2005)

I have read about 50% of this thread and forgive me if this has been covered but I am running out of time tonight.

There was a question of which plane had the better armament, I have done the research and I have the answer.

*P-38L*
1 x 20mm (150 RPG)
4 x .50 (500 RPG)

*Mosquito FB Mk.VI*
4 x 20mm (150 RPG)
4 x 0.303 (500 RPG)

I worked out total projectile weights and while the P-38 carries 4% more by weight the FB Mk.VI carries four times as many explosive projectiles as the P38, I think that would give a destructive advantage to the FB Mk.VI.

Now as for my personal opinion, while the P-38 was a good Fighter / Fighter Bomber the Mosquito was an outstanding plane in many roles. 

While there has been lots of discussion about stats and subjective opinions there has been one area that has been overlooked IMHO, that is how good the Mosquito was as a pathfinder aircraft, in this role it was a HUGE force multiplier, by marking targets accurately for the main force bombers of the RAF bomber command they proved themselves time and time again.

Now there has been much talk of P-38’s out turning German fighters, and a lot of quotes by German pilots, what would be interesting to know is what they were flying, I doubt anyone would doubt that a P-38J25/L could out turn a BF-109G I would have a harder time believing that it could out turn a FW190.

There has also been a lot of talk about poor quality fuels in the ETO for the P-38’s, but would the Mosquitoes not have had the same handicap?

In my considered opinion (and it is only mine) the Mosquito is the winner hands down.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

The Mossie didn't have the same handi-cap because it was using geared and not turbo-superchargers.

As far as the Fw-190 is concerned, it's turn radius wasn't extremely impressive. It's roll rate was what made it stand out (but even then the P-38J-25/L could outroll it at high speeds). In 1942 a P-38F (without dive or combat flaps to improve turning ability) was tested against (among others) a P-51. It's turn radius was described as being equal or better than the Mustang's depending on altitude. Since the Mustang could turn inside the 190 and the (early, less maneuverable) P-38 could turn with a Mustang, it stands to reason that the Lighting could turn inside a 190.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

That's an F.6 in the picture, Archangel. 







Look at the vast difference in tail, on the F.1.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 15, 2005)

MikeMan said:


> Now there has been much talk of P-38’s out turning German fighters, and a lot of quotes by German pilots, what would be interesting to know is what they were flying, I doubt anyone would doubt that a P-38J25/L could out turn a BF-109G I would have a harder time believing that it could out turn a FW190.
> 
> There has also been a lot of talk about poor quality fuels in the ETO for the P-38’s, but would the Mosquitoes not have had the same handicap?
> 
> In my considered opinion (and it is only mine) the Mosquito is the winner hands down.



In the Med the P-38s had a 608 german/itallian kill for 113 P-38slost to ALL causes. The Sicilian Commander went to Galland with the complaint that his planes were totaly outclassed by the P-38.
In the ETO it's more muddeled and sad to say the P-38 suffered from a host of new problems including fuel, training, maintenance, experiance, proceedures and an evironment it was not designed for. It still had a 1.1 to 1 all losses kill ratio a 4 to one plane to plane ratio against the numericaly and experianced German Luftwaffe and the final few months in service as escorts with the P-38L the ratio was 20 to one, including G models and 190s.

The Early models had some handicaps at high altitudes but below 15,000ft they were great. The late J and Ls could fight anywhere at any speed with anybody! 

Sources
Marten Caiden the Forked Tailed Devil
CC Jorden
P-38.onlone
Planes and pilots of WWII
and a few others.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

Pictures of P-38s and Mosquitos for all!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 15, 2005)

Nice shots, plan_d!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 15, 2005)

Yeah, they are!


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

Thank you, and here's one more.


----------



## Panzer (Feb 15, 2005)

I think I am going to have to agree with plan_D on this argument; both aircraft were outstanding in their roles but both were designed for different purposes. I think I would have to say that the mosquito is the better over all aircraft. This is just as bad as trying to compare the spitfire and the P-51 mustang, both were great aircraft, but the mustang wasn’t outstanding until the British switched out the engine…. Not a bad example of a great joint effort between two countries.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

The Spitfire and Mustang were different type fighters anyway. The Spitfire was an interceptor, the Mustang was an escort fighter.


----------



## Archangel (Feb 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's an F.6 in the picture, Archangel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just say that the desighn of the Go229, was much more its time ahead as the desighn of the lightning in his years. i mean the Go229s desighn is used 4 one ot the most expensive planes in the world, the B-2 Bomber, wich still is operative. the planes with the lightning desighn arent.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2005)

actually the B-2 draws more from Jack Northrop's XB-35 flying wing bomber..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

ACTUALLY, whilst the B-2 was being designed, they looked at the plans of the Ho-229 and went to see the remains of one.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Actually there are designs on the Lightning that are still used today, which were first used on the Lightning. On top of that, the Go-229 never actually flew. The Lightning was an operational aircraft. 

The ABS braking system was first used on the EE Lightning (Mechanical on the Lightning), Mach meter speedometer was first used on the Lightning, fuel cooling first used on the Lightning.


----------



## Archangel (Feb 17, 2005)

I't wasnt operational. so what? It only wasnt cuz germany lost b4 it could be operational.

ow, and about those brakes and stuff. why do you think the go-229 didnt had them? Yes, cuz it was developed much earlyer. it didnt needed a mach speedometer, cuz the engines of that time didnt have enough power to breack the speed of sound. and the abs-brackes? now is an aircraft good cuz someone added someting thats just developed? 

but, if i use your arguing, the sr-71 is a much better plane as the lightning. i mean, its the first aircraft thet flew mach 3.5.. and it has been operational. (do you c what i mean? you cant just argue with that. you also have to look at the year/time it was developed  )


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

You don't have a clue, do you? 

The initial discussion was the Spitfire compared to the Lightning in intercept duties. I stated that the Lightning was an advanced design for its time period, the Spitfire was not. I took into account periods of which these two aircraft were developed, but I still think the Lightning was better in its own time zone than the Spitfire was in its. 

Then you start waffling about the Go-229, not making any sense what so ever apart from babbling about 'The design isn't everything, the design isn't everything'...what the hell are you talking about?!!

The mention of the 'brakes and stuff' was in reply to comment you made about nothing on the Lightning being used to this day. ABS-Brakes, Mach-meter and fuel cooling are all things that were first used on the Lightning, that are used on aircraft to this day. 

My GOD, you don't even know what you're talking about. Do you? You just rattle off mispelt words, and complete grammatical NIGHTMARES you call sentences. And then try and hold down a discussion with me! What exactly are you talking about? Explain, go on. Explain to me what you are talking about? Are you trying to compare the Lightning to the Go-229? Trying to say design isn't everything, what are you talking about!?! In fact, design is just about EVERYTHING in a plane, that's what the freakin' plane is!!! You trying to say that I should take into account that the Spitfire was before the Lighting!?! I've already done that, then you start talking your crap...like you've got crap spewing from your brain to fingers, and it seeps out like puss from a ghoneria infected dick! My word. That is beyond belief. Look how easy you've made it for me to rattle on!

Now, I've calmed down, what in GODs name are you talking about!?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

I agree where you're coming from pD, but less of the obcenities please...


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

There was only one, just a really long one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

You make a fair point


----------



## Archangel (Feb 17, 2005)

Why didnt you tell that emediately? sorry,.. but you kept replying to,.. so how should i know that im suposed to stop..  

ow yes,.. i apologize for my spelling,.... but.. well, lets just say engish isnt my favorite langulage 

but still i dont understan why u haave to look that mean and arrogant in you post,.. i havent done anything against you, and i dont even know ou.


anyway,.. i know i dont know anything about planes,. all i can do is being interested, and try to learn something about them... (and yes.. thats the reasong why im on this forum..)

but if you want me to leave.. just say it, and im gone.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Nah dont leave...pD was having a bit of a funny day today, he had a go at lots of people. Just ignore him and continue educating yourself


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Yes, plan_d was being a bit of a cranky hank earlier. I guess someone pissed in his porridge. Don't take it personal. I guess we all get cranky sometimes. I know I have!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

Hang around, Archangel. Just give as good as you get.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Give as good as you get? No, ONE cheddar cheese on the site is enough thankyou very much


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 17, 2005)

There can be only one CC!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

No there cant...theres 2, you forgot about cute corporal


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2005)

Yeah, that's gonna get confusing real quick!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Just put CC#2 or something


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

but which one's the no. 2??

i know i'd rather give one to cute corporal...........

and post war it was found that the Go-229 was too unstable to be of much use...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 18, 2005)

I've tried the Go-229 in CFS3, it's incredibly unstable, I've flipped one on it's back while still on the runway


----------



## trackend (Feb 19, 2005)

Don't bugger off Archangel I think plan D quite likes lightnings and you upset him.  As for your spelling you are better at English than I am at Dutch in fact you are better at English than I am at English (does that make any sort of sense guys) 
Getting back to the thread, I think the mossi wins in my books if nothing else than for the fact that it's a wooden plane conceived using build technics (that are still used today) this enabled it to compete in combat and holding it's own against later designed alloy skinned aircraft. For me its this brilliant concept that makes it one of the outstanding multi role aircraft of ww2.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 19, 2005)

That was one of the things that I found truly remarkable about the Mosquito, that it was made of wood, when all of its contemporaries were metal. Even more remarkable is that performed as well as, and in some cases, better than it's contemporaries.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

the mossie was pretty damned near the best in every role it performed in if not the best.................


----------



## trackend (Feb 19, 2005)

If youv'e ever built a model plane does this sound familiar
The Mosquito's wooden construction meant it could be made very smooth. The fuselage was made in left and right halves, which were shaped in concrete rigs and then joined. They were made of balsa wood between two layers of birch plywood. Cement was applied between the layers and they were held together with metal bands until set. The internal fitting were added and the two halves joined. The rest of the airframe was primarily made of Canadian spruce, with birch plywood covering. Engine mountings and hardpoints were of Walnut. The wing was built in one piece and attached to the fuselage later. 550 brass screws held the aircraft together, along with glue, initially Casein, but this was found to be prone to fungal attack and a synthetic glue called Beetle replaced it. Eat your heart out Airfix/Tamiya


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but which one's the no. 2??
> 
> i know i'd rather give one to cute corporal...........
> 
> and post war it was found that the Go-229 was too unstable to be of much use...........




Actually the Ho-229 had incredibly docile flight characteristics...

And I would call the mossie any where near the best in most of its roles, Maybe as Nightfighter and highspeed attack bomber but not anything else...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

not anti shipping?? pathfinder??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Nope...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

name a better pathfinder aircraft?? name a better anti shipping aircraft used by Coastal command??


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

Better anti-shipping I would say the Beaufighter but the Mossie was the best pathfinder, nightfighter and bomber


----------



## Archangel (Feb 20, 2005)

Yes.. i can only agree with that.

funnt is though, that also the first mosquito ever build, also the last one was who exited the RAF in 1963. and it was, till the operationallity of jet-planes, the fastest plane on earth (that's whats standing in this book  )

but, what top speed had the lightning?

i know that the haviland D.H.98 Mosquito (with 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin XXI 12-cilinder V liquid colled engines) had a top speed of 611Km/H on 5200 meters height.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

If you mean P-38 lightning then the P-38L could crack 442mph...or 711kmh.


----------



## Archangel (Feb 21, 2005)

bah.... then why its wrong in 2 books here >.< 

was there a faster version of the mosquito?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

I think some Mossies could do between 690-700kmh, but there wasnt a Mosquito that was faster than the P-38L.


----------



## acesman (Mar 16, 2005)

This poll is the most apples/oranges poll I have seen yet. While there were versions of the Mosquito built as a "fighter", you would be hard pressed to claim that it would stand beside the Spitfire, Mustang, FW-190, etc as an air superiority fighter. It was an excellent light bomber, recon, ground attack, sea attack fighter-bomber. The P-38 was intended as a long range fighter, that could carry rockets or bombs, but that was not it main role, and it was relegated to that role in the later part of the European Theatre of WWII. The P-38 served as an air superiority and escort fighter in the Pacific till the end of the war. They were both excellent aircraft, but cannot be directly compared any more than you could directly compare the Ju-88 and the Thunderbolt.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

Well the P-38 is whooping ass and thats good enough for me! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

i wouldn't say it's wooping ass.........


----------



## P-38 Raptor (Mar 23, 2005)

Actually, the Mosquito was made of wood,(which you all already know) so the P-38 could take more. Both the P-38 and the Mosquito were very manuverable, very fast and VERY cool. But, I'm going to have to go with the P-38. I LOVE it, though the mosquito was awesome.


----------



## P-38 Raptor (Mar 23, 2005)

Archangel, what the heck is that plane?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 23, 2005)

P-38 Raptor said:


> Archangel, what the heck is that plane?



The Horten Go 229.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229.html
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ho229.html

It received the designation Go because Gotha was to be the manufacurer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

why does the fact that the mossie was made from wood automativlly mean it could take less damage than a metal plane??


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> why does the fact that the mossie was made from wood automativlly mean it could take less damage than a metal plane??



Because generally speaking, wood was more vulnerable to gunfire than duraluminum. Wood tends to crack badly when hit by medium caliber guns, and once a fire starts it is nearly hopeless - the glue used in WWII wooden aircraft was quite flamable.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

but the mossie proved herself to be able to withstand huge ammounts of damage in combat........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the mossie proved herself to be able to withstand huge ammounts of damage in combat........



Yes even flying through the fireball of exploding a/c and rtb with all the paint burnt off.

What RG forgets is the Mossie was not built with a single layer of wood.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

and the wood was beautifully crafted in places.............


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 25, 2005)

Archangel said:


> bah.... then why its wrong in 2 books here >.<
> 
> was there a faster version of the mosquito?



For some reason the P-38 stats were released at METO or Military power on the P-38L thats 1,425hp per engine. Other aircraft were at the max power possible or WEP "war emergengy power", in the P-38Ls case that's 1,725hp or an additional 600hp total. All stats for the P-38L are similarily low.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 26, 2005)

From the Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for the P-38H, J, L-1, L-5 and F-5B. Interesteingly, it does not directly have a top-speed chart.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Nice 8)


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 28, 2005)

I voted for the P-38 because its my favorite fighter besides the P51. (Not only that but its an American Aircraft and i am an american!   )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2005)

and very patriotic.........

but then who am i to talk


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2005)

If you want a 
day fighter then the P38 must win
bomber then its the Mossie
fighter bomber then its the mossie
night fighter then its the mossie
Photo Recce then its the mossie
Carrier Strike then its the Mossie
Precision Strike then its the Mossie

Overall ITS THE MOSSIE


----------



## evangilder (Jun 28, 2005)

I'd call the photo recce a draw. The F5 was a great photo recce plane as well. They were both very capable for that.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 28, 2005)

They could both do just about anything the difference is that Any single P-38 could do most of the jobs just by specific load out. The Mossies were modified for specific roles and could not cross those lines as easily. Both aircraft were able to do just about anything envisioned. For aircraft designed for dissimilar missions it'e pretty amazing what they could do. 

I chose the P-38 thats all.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2005)

actually i'm with glider on this one.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

Duh 


But the P-38 is far too underrated as a multi-role aircraft and wmaxt hit the nail on the head.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2005)

P-38 8) 

Oh, Hedy Lamar is a beautiful gal, 
and Madeleine Carroll is too, 
but you'l find if you query, a different theory 
amonsgt any bomber crew 
For the loveliest thing of which one could sing 
(this side of the Pearly Gates) 
Is no blonde or brunette of the Hollywood set 
But an escort of p-38's 

Yes in the days that have passed, when the tables were massed 
With glasses of scotch and champagne 
Yes it's true that the sight was once a thing to delight 
Us, intent on feeling no pain. 
But no longer the same, nowadays, in this game 
When we head north from the Messina Straits 
Take the sparkling wine- every time just make mine an escort of P-38's 

Byron, Shelly, Keats run a dozen dead heats 
Describing the view from the hills, 
of the valleys in May when the winds gently sway 
In the airs a different story; 
We sweat out our track through fighter and flak 
We're willing to split p the glory 
Well, they wouldn't reject us so Heaven pretect us 
and, until all the shooting abates, 
Give us the courage to fight'em- and one other small item, 
An escort of P-38's


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

Brilliant!


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

The mossie was the better of the two. The mossie also looks great!


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

I dont feel that the mossie and lightning can be put in the same class together because they were mainly used for differnet roles and in different theatres.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

As far as I am aware the lightning never did the important job of dropping flares before a bomber raid. 

The lightning was only famous because the role of fighter or escort seemed very heroic and popular compared to flare dropping which could make a huge differnece to the effects of the bombing raid.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 6, 2005)

i think the mossie wins by a clear mile! it was good in most roles that it played and did not gain all the respect it deserved unlike the overated lightning.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)

d_bader said:


> i think the mossie wins by a clear mile! it was good in most roles that it played and did not gain all the respect it deserved unlike the overated lightning.



Obviously you are not aware of the role the P-38 played in the Pacific where it was surpreme. Yes, it is a hard comparison as both aircraft were used in different roles, but to call it over-rated is nonsence. The P-51 was over-rated, if anything the -38 was under-rated.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2005)

FJ is right. Mossie couldn't shine in the Pacific as the glue came unstuck. not a god situation sitting in a plane at a shade under 390mph and no glue.

Wmax point about the P38 doing most roles with a different load I would disagree with. The P38 nightfighter, PR and bombers were all special builds. If I had to take a standard Mossie VI and Wmax A standard P38 and do a minimum conversion to fit the roles the Mossie would be a much easier task. 
A It has 2 crew
B It has an internal bomb bay ideal for putting camerasm fuel tanks or electronic bits and pieces in.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 6, 2005)

d_bader said:


> As far as I am aware the lightning never did the important job of dropping flares before a bomber raid.
> 
> The lightning was only famous because the role of fighter or escort seemed very heroic and popular compared to flare dropping which could make a huge differnece to the effects of the bombing raid.



The Lightning not only did pathfinder work, it radar bombed with loads up to two two-thousand pound bombs. 

Half of the P-38s roll was as a tac-air or ground pounder where it did an excelent job, many consider it one of if not the best dive bomber of the war. As you say it's known primarily as an escort fighter ang that's only part of the story, think what its rep would be with the whole story!

As a bomber the mossie had an edge, as a fighter the P-38 had an edge. 

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 6, 2005)

Glider said:


> Wmax point about the P38 doing most roles with a different load I would disagree with. The P38 nightfighter, PR and bombers were all special builds. If I had to take a standard Mossie VI and Wmax A standard P38 and do a minimum conversion to fit the roles the Mossie would be a much easier task.
> A It has 2 crew
> B It has an internal bomb bay ideal for putting camerasm fuel tanks or electronic bits and pieces in.



There were night fighter P-38s before the M model without major mods as early as Guaglcanal. Their scores range from 6-36 kills, the limiting factor was not capability but the priority of use of the P-38s available. These same aircraft could be loadded with tanks or bombs the next day and used for any roll desired, even the M models whose modifications were a second seat, black paint and radar.

Recon P-38s were dedicated, yes, but again they could tote a full load if desired. 

As for the Droop Snoot version, it was for lead planes in formation bombing and path finding only about 50 were made. The loads varied by model, 3,200lbs on the F models to 4,000lbs on the Ls (5,600lbs field load was common) but EVERY P-38 could carry at least 3,200lbs by hanging the load on the shackle, NO mods needed.

All P-38s except the recon and Drop snoot birds could do ALL the tasks on the same day(recon and droop snoot planes normaly did not have guns). Primarily, Mossies were built, not modified, to do their respective rolls. Modifications took days to months on the Mossie and minutes on the P-38.

The thing is the P-38 was a fighter/bomber the Mossie was a Bomber/fighter, each was better at that prime role. I think the P-38 was a little better bomber that the Mossie was as a fighter, so for me I would go for the P-38.

Lastly, I think they were both great but underated planes.

wmaxt


----------



## evangilder (Sep 6, 2005)

Let's not forget that the P-38 could carry 2 torpedoes.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2005)

Also the Mossie had the bouncing bomb. Not used I grant you but I doubt that the P38 was often used as a torpedo bomber.

To be honest we basically agree. One had the edge as a fighter and the other as a bomber. Both were very, very capable aircraft and each airforce would have been considerably poorer without them.


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2005)

as I stated earlier the P-38 in the nf role only scored 12 kills.

the Mossie was superior in all respects, high recon, night fighters as the XIX and XXX and even as a fighter bomber. It was a plague in the side of the German Luftwaffe all during the war and only with advent of the Me 262 could their possibly have been some control


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 6, 2005)

Erich said:


> as I stated earlier the P-38 in the nf role only scored 12 kills.
> 
> the Mossie was superior in all respects, high recon, night fighters as the XIX and XXX and even as a fighter bomber. It was a plague in the side of the German Luftwaffe all during the war and only with advent of the Me 262 could their possibly have been some control



There is some debate on the number of night kills, but I grant you the number is low. However the point that is often ignored, is that the reason was not because it couldn't, it wasn't asked to.

Yes, the Mossie was a thorn in the Germans side, and very effective too but the biggest handicapp the P-38 had was it's numbers vrs its demand. It did everything asked of it and normaly as competantly as aircraft designed for that roll specificaly.

I stick to what I said above the Mossie was a better bomber and the P-38 was a better fighter, they were both underrated and did what they were asked beautifuly.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2005)

The night kills of the P-38 are confirmed and the outfit was a day fighter version. I agree to disagree, the Mossie was second to none and the P-38 doesn't even come close, and it should not even be compared with the Mossie ....

the P-38 was queen in the Pacific in the ETO it was not. It did it's job when it was needed but was replaced by more able craft such as the Jug and Stang.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 6, 2005)

Erich said:


> The night kills of the P-38 are confirmed and the outfit was a day fighter version. I agree to disagree, the Mossie was second to none and the P-38 doesn't even come close, and it should not even be compared with the Mossie ....
> 
> the P-38 was queen in the Pacific in the ETO it was not. It did it's job when it was needed but was replaced by more able craft such as the Jug and Stang.



I, guess we do agree to disagree. The P-38 record is there if you look beyond the gross, out of context statisitics. 

As to the claim of replacement Doolittle himself confirmed it was not capability but ease of support.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 7, 2005)

i'm with erich the mossie far, far far outdoes the P-38 as a nightfighter.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 12, 2005)

It terms of records yeah, in ability the -38M was probably right up with it...

In terms of a day fighter the P-38 far, far, far outdoes the Mossie. Its swings and roundabouts.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 12, 2005)

It seems that the Mosquito was more of a high speed light attack bomber than being a fighter, and the P38 was a good fighter-bomber but not a light attack bomber.

When it came for night missions, the Mosquito was definetly the better of the two.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 12, 2005)

P-38s were used in one of the raids over Ploesti on June 10, 1944. 46 P-38s each carrying 1,000 lbs of bombs raided the Romano Americano Oil refinery. Some led raids of bombers as well. So it could be a light attack bomber. 

For nightfighting, I agree, the Mosquito was the top dog in the ETO for night fighting.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> P-38s were used in one of the raids over Ploesti on June 10, 1944. 46 P-38s each carrying 1,000 lbs of bombs raided the Romano Americano Oil refinery. Some led raids of bombers as well. So it could be a light attack bomber.
> 
> For nightfighting, I agree, the Mosquito was the top dog in the ETO for night fighting.



The P-38 could and did carry 4,ooolbs on a radus of 400mi, 2,000lbs for 600 miles and was considered very effective as a Dive bomber, attack bomber, and even level bomber. P-38s were credited with doing the most damage to the refineries at Ploesti by many sources.

The Mossie did the brunt of Allied night fighting no doubt. When asked to the P-38 was an effective night fighter. This is a distinction the Mossie boys miss, the P-38 did the jobs as well as many purpose built planes did, the problem was there were not enough of them to do everything that could be asked of them. 

There are accounts of P-38s flying a strike mission in the morning a recon (visual or hand cameras) on the strike and an escort in the day time by the same planes on the same day.

I think the mossie was a bomber/fighter and the 38 a fighter/bomber each was better in it's prime roll. I also think the P-38 is just a hair better as a bomber than the Mossie is as a fighter, esp in daylite right after I've dropped my bombs and got jumped by a gagle of 109s.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Sep 12, 2005)

wmax remember that the P-38 in the night time role in the Pacific was not an altered craft but a day time interceptor. the units did not have radar ard were free lance fighters something like the German Wilde Sau equivalent with some ground to air guidance. Also credit is given as this was the infancy of the US night fighter program during those early tender years


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 12, 2005)

Erich said:


> wmax remember that the P-38 in the night time role in the Pacific was not an altered craft but a day time interceptor. the units did not have radar ard were free lance fighters something like the German Wilde Sau equivalent with some ground to air guidance. Also credit is given as this was the infancy of the US night fighter program during those early tender years



Understood and agreed, I never said it was dedicated night fighters, that didn't happen until the M model. What I did say was that when asked it did the job and had it been desired it was perfectly capable. It was only a 6hr job to hang a radar system on a F4U. 

A good portion of this thread is capabilities personaly I think were comparing apples and oranges. The P-38 was effective in every roll it was ever tried (except two gliders at a time when one has slamed on its beakes half way through the takeoff run). This was from a dedicated interceptor that in reality was the first and one of the very best multi-roll fighters ever built. Its biggest drawbacks, publicising its teething problems (all the other planes had ~the same magnitude of problems but the P-38 was good enough to fight and hold it's own in spite of them) for political ends and numbers of planes built.

The Mossie, is in a way in the same boat, designed for recon but with minor mods it could do most anything and was a great plane in it's own right. Best? it depends more on personal choice and particular mission than anything else. 

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 12, 2005)

The P-38 was a good aircraft, but the Mosquito was probably better. Some examples: Faster speed, better recon plane, better and stronger armanent (when it had it), low radar detection, and it was way lighter. Also you could save a whole bunch of aluminum.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2005)

But the Mosquito couldnt compete in a dog fight. The P38 could.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 13, 2005)

Oh man, I think you are going to get some flak for that one. I think that they were both very capable aircraft that went far beyond what they were originally designed for.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 13, 2005)

The Mosquito was not the best dogfighter but it's speed let it dictate the fight. And in any case, the Mosquito was the superior bomber, night-fighter and ship hunter.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 13, 2005)

elmilitaro said:


> The P-38 was a good aircraft, but the Mosquito was probably better. Some examples: Faster speed, better recon plane, better and stronger armanent (when it had it), low radar detection, and it was way lighter. Also you could save a whole bunch of aluminum.



Well lets look at the planes P-38L and Mossie Mk-VI

Wingspan - P-38 52' - Mossie 54'
Weight max - P-38 21,400lbs - Mossie 21,750lbs
Empty weight - P-38 1,450lbs - Mossie 1,430lbs 
Max Speed - P-38 ~ 442mph - Mossie 362/380mph with some PR planes hitting 425
Best cruise both @ 295mph
Ceiling - P-38 44,000 ft - Mossie 33,000ft some PR planes could go higher
Range max - P-38 2,600mi - Mossie 1,850mi
With Bomb Load of 2,000lbs - P-38 1,200mi - Mossie 1,400mi 
Bomb load of 4,000 - P-38 900mi - Mossie not known

The aircraft have esentialy the same size, weights and load capacity the P-38 exceeds it in most other respects. It still comes down to choice/mission mine is the P-38.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> The aircraft have esentialy the same size, weights and load capacity the P-38 exceeds it in most other respects. It still comes down to choice/mission mine is the P-38.
> 
> wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

The P-38L was a late mark P-38. Comparing it with a Mosquito Mk.VI is a little unfair. Why no mention of armament? Or maximum bombload? Production time? Service record? 

In fact, don't bother it's been done before. It does depend on the mission profile for which aircraft you take. The Mosquito being more capable in more mission types.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

The big arguments is primary mission roles....

Was the P-38 a better fighter than the Mossie was a bomber...... Thats the argument in a nutshell...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2005)

Les summed it up perfectly. I think were comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

Good points presented in this thread wmaxt...well said...


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The P-38L was a late mark P-38. Comparing it with a Mosquito Mk.VI is a little unfair. Why no mention of armament? Or maximum bombload? Production time? Service record?
> 
> In fact, don't bother it's been done before. It does depend on the mission profile for which aircraft you take. The Mosquito being more capable in more mission types.



The J model was a bit slower but all other performance atributes were essentialy the same and between the two around 5,000 were built only 6,710 Mossies were built durring the war. Also the Mossie I picked was a better than average model with most marks being about equal (the NF XIX is almost identical) - I feel it's a fair comparison 

If I was flying a night tac strike Id choose the Mossie. Durring the day, or for anything else, I would pick the P-38. This is especialy true if I could get into a fight. I also think the P-38 is a better fighter than the Mossie was a bomber (their both still tac air) and I think the P-38 was a better bomber than the Mossie was a fighter BUT the margin of difference is small.

I also dissagree about which is most versatile not only could each P-38 do a wider range of things many of the Mossies capabilities are just variations of the same thing Dropping a mine is no different than dropping a bomb, while dive bombing is a different beast from level bombing and a Mossie can't do it.

Choice/mission!

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Good points presented in this thread wmaxt...well said...



Thanks  

They had different rolls and their versatility was the best of any other aircraft in WWII, comparing them isn't really fair to either.

wmaxt


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 4, 2005)

In my opinion the Mosquito was better than p-38, 1 it was faster, 2, simple and quick to reapair, could be armed with any variety of weapons at a higher volume than the p38


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> In my opinion the Mosquito was better than p-38, 1 it was faster, 2, simple and quick to reapair, could be armed with any variety of weapons at a higher volume than the p38



Wood sucks to repair, requires skilled workers, and is more critical with regards to the repair. Sheet metal is a lot more forgiving and doesn't require the skill level.....


----------



## Glider (Oct 4, 2005)

102 I am afraid your quote is wrong. It Churchill talking to Lady Astor and its a well known quote.
Lady Astor 'Churchill, your drunk, very drunk.'
Churchill to Lady Astor 'Lady, your ugly, very ugly, But I shall be sober in the morning'. 

Back to Topic, Wood is easier to repair but both planes complemented each other. If you wanted an airforce with the minimum number of aircraft types then you could do worse than.

P38
Mosquito
Pick a Heavy Bomber
Use the Heavy Bomber for long range AS
Pick a transport
And that should suffice for most purposes


----------



## Glider (Oct 4, 2005)

Mistype, Wood is harder to repair


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 5, 2005)

"102 I am afraid your quote is wrong. It Churchill talking to Lady Astor and its a well known quote. 
Lady Astor 'Churchill, your drunk, very drunk.' 
Churchill to Lady Astor 'Lady, your ugly, very ugly, But I shall be sober in the morning'. 


The saying has been around for decades it is known throughout the world it is a fact that mackenzie king said the same thing to FDR's other,
and im sure Winston said the same to Lady Astor


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 5, 2005)

Yeah, it's better known as having come from Churchill, but that definitely does sound like something King would say. 
I've heard that he said it to Lady Roosevelt, too.
It's a classic saying, regardless of who said it first. Still often applicable today.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2005)

not only is sheet matal a strageigic material but if an entire sheet had to be replaced the entire plane often had to be sent away to a fitting shop......


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> In my opinion the Mosquito was better than p-38, 1 it was faster, 2, simple and quick to reapair, could be armed with any variety of weapons at a higher volume than the p38



I don't think so - most Mossies topped out about 360/380mph the fast ones (photo jobs) at about 425mph. All P-38s were faster than 400mph, J/L models flew at 420/414 respectively in METO (1,425hp)power top speed in the L model was in the 440 range at WEP power (1725hp each engine).

As for wepons what that plane came with it kept except for gun packages the P-38 had more flexible options with about the same limitations (weight/range). 

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not only is sheet matal a strageigic material but if an entire sheet had to be replaced the entire plane often had to be sent away to a fitting shop......



Not necessarily Lanc - There have been field repairs accomplished by both USAAF and RAF ground crews where whole aircraft segments were removed and spliced together using field produced tooling which amounted to trees and other scraps found at the receptive base. Two famous repairs I could think off the top of my head was a B-17D "The Swoose" which operated out of the Philippines early in the war, 3/4 of the aircraft was rebuilt or replaced. Another story happened in Burma when the Japanese were over-running the area an RAF crew spliced 2 Lockheed Electra's together and was able to evacuate before their base was over-run. 

Where wood is non-strategic, as stated, it could real cumbersome to repair, requires labor with extra skills, and in many cases requires a super-clean environment to prep surfaces and apply glues. In addition, you are also going to be limited to the amount of repairs you could to do a wood structure where aluminum structures could be repaired to a greater point or actually replaced as a sub-assembly. Additionally if a sheet metal got sloppy with his repair, sheet metal and rivets are much more forgiving than improper glue splices and glue wood patches....


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

Glider said:


> Back to Topic, Wood is harder to repair but both planes complemented each other. If you wanted an airforce with the minimum number of aircraft types then you could do worse than.
> 
> P38
> Mosquito
> ...



This is pretty much true!

I changed easier to harder to reflect Gliders next post without reposting it.

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Glider said:
> 
> 
> > Back to Topic, Wood is harder to repair but both planes complemented each other. If you wanted an airforce with the minimum number of aircraft types then you could do worse than.
> ...


I agree, that is all you really need.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 5, 2005)

To save construction time the Mosquito fuselage was built in two half, and all the inside gear and components was fitted in each half fuselage. Then the two pieces were glued/nailed together in the centreline.
It is likely that change some failed component after the construction was a nightmare...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> To save construction time the Mosquito fuselage was built in two half, and all the inside gear and components was fitted in each half fuselage. Then the two pieces were glued/nailed together in the centreline.
> It is likely that change some failed component after the construction was a nightmare...



Possibly - many times the manufacture will recognize that and develop a "Standard Repair Manual" to address situations like that - even still, I can't imagine cutting half a fuselage apart to get a failed component out and then having to glue everything back together again!


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 5, 2005)

.. well, I don't believe that the maintenance procedure was to saw the airplane in two (!), I suppose there was some door/opening or even pre-defined sawing area in the fuselage.
Just the space was probably more cramped than a plane assembled in the standard way.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> .. well, I don't believe that the maintenance procedure was to saw the airplane in two (!).



Don't under-estimate the imagination of engineers!! - On the Boeing 747 there is a corrosion service bulletin called I believe a "Section 48." It involves removing the entire upper deck of the aircraft, checking for corrosion and reinstalling it with reinfored parts. This is probably one of the most in-depth maintenance actions to be accomplished on a fleet airliner.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

And how can I forget! I worked for a company where we converted DC-10s to MD-10s - basically put MD-11 avionics in a DC-10 and eliminated the flight engineer's position. To get the new avionics bay into the aircraft, THE ENTIRE LOWER NOSE WAS REMOVED FROM THE AIRCRAFT, ABOUT AND REPLACED WHEN THE NEW AVIONICS WERE INSTALLED!!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And how can I forget! I worked for a company where we converted DC-10s to MD-10s - basically put MD-11 avionics in a DC-10 and eliminated the flight engineer's position. To get the new avionics bay into the aircraft, THE ENTIRE LOWER NOSE WAS REMOVED FROM THE AIRCRAFT, ABOUT AND REPLACED WHEN THE NEW AVIONICS WERE INSTALLED!!!!



Yup, I have a friend with Fed/Ex who has flown those very planes.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > And how can I forget! I worked for a company where we converted DC-10s to MD-10s - basically put MD-11 avionics in a DC-10 and eliminated the flight engineer's position. To get the new avionics bay into the aircraft, THE ENTIRE LOWER NOSE WAS REMOVED FROM THE AIRCRAFT, ABOUT AND REPLACED WHEN THE NEW AVIONICS WERE INSTALLED!!!!
> ...



NO KIDDING! I did the first 2 done at SR Technics - they went belly up because they under bid the mod - I quit before that - saw the writing on the wall!

The Mossie also required a special IFF system (from what I understand) becuase of it's low radar signature (or did we already discuss this?). Does anyone else have information on this?


----------



## Glider (Oct 6, 2005)

The Mossie certainly had an IFF system and I believe some had an IFF system that triggered a response from the German fighters. This obviously helped identify the nightfighters from the bombers in the mass of aircraft in the bomber stream. 
I also know that the Mossie had a low radar signiture but I am not aware of a system that had to be installed because of the low radar response.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 7, 2005)

Well, at least Mosquitos carried sufficent bombs etc. into Germany rather than P.38's armed to protect armed bombers...At least Mossies could actually fly into Germany UNARMED and drop bombloads equivalent to the bombers the P.38's were defending...I can't think of one US variant offhand, that flew into Germany that wasn't bristling with guns, that wasn't a transport or light recce, post D-Day...

Interesting how many US members would rather fly a Mosquito in Bomber Command than any other British Bomber Command aircraft though, as currently posted in the Polls....and they would choose this ''wooden'' aircraft over all those other metal-constructed ones....I guess that finally puts paid to all the old ''wood burned well over Germany'', and the ''borer-fatigue'' jokes.......

Why even try comparing the two? - P.38's were used pretty exclusively over Germany as escort fighters, something the Mosquito was far too busy to be pissing around with - Both had their respective qualities and theatres - It wasn't until the B.26 Invader came along, LATE in the War, that there was a reasonably comparable US twin-engined aircraft to the Mosquito....and then, I'd STILL prefer the Mosquito........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Well, at least Mosquitos carried sufficent bombs etc. into Germany rather than P.38's armed to protect armed bombers...At least Mossies could actually fly into Germany UNARMED and drop bombloads equivalent to the bombers the P.38's were defending...I can't think of one US variant offhand, that flew into Germany that wasn't bristling with guns, that wasn't a transport or light recce, post D-Day...
> ...



There were P-38 "Pathfinders," P-38s with no armament, a glass nose and a second crewmember (bombardiar). These were used on missions were a group pf P-38s carried 2 2000 pound bombs and released them on the lead plane's command, minni stategic bombing.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2005)

From the site "http://www.vectorsite.net/avp38.html"

"Although the Lightning didn't do so well in the air-to-air combat role in Northern Europe, it was regarded as an excellent strafer and light fast bomber aircraft. To capitalize on this capability, a number of P-38Js and P-38Ls were field-modified in the UK as formation bombing "pathfinders", fitted with a glazed nose with a Norden bombsight, with the machine guns and cannon deleted and a hatch under the nose for the bombardier. They were called "Droop Snoot" machines. A Droop Snoot pathfinder would lead a formation of other P-38s, each overloaded with two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) bombs, and the entire formation would release when the pathfinder did. The rest would then go on to strafe the target.

The initial pathfinder raid was performed on 20 April 1944 against a Luftwaffe airfield in France. Results of pathfinder raids were good, but optical bombsight bombing was only possible in clear weather, which was not always the norm for Northern Europe. As a result, a number of pathfinders were built with an H2X radar "bombing through overcast" nose. The H2X, also known for some lost reason as "Mickey", was a crude targeting radar by modern standards, only able to pick out targets marked by lakes or confluences of rivers, but it was better than nothing."


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 9, 2005)

Well, I figured I would probably have to concede on some point with ''The P-38''......actually, I thought it would be the Recce variant, but since they performed their own type of pathfinder raids, how many aircraft were usually involved and how often??

The LNSF first started their raids about June 1943 when 8 Group absorbed RAF 105 139 Sqn.'s from 2 Group, the latter Sqn. gaining particular distinction for their overall service....But a little hop or two into France for what appears to have been a little ''pre-D-Day Airfield-suppression,'' when these guys were dragging tonnage to Hamburg, Essen, and spoofing to Berlin for the Peenemunde raid, [they operated 21 nights THAT month,] hardly appears to be the same calibre of mission.....

Early the following month, [Sept.] after 'windowing' for the Main Force over Berlin, they then proceeded to lay false route White-Drip flares away from the Force, a tactic designed to attract the Nachtjagd, that's pretty brassy for a WHOLE buncha unarmed Mossies....that month the Germans had developed their flak to burst at 30,000 ft. - One chap over Brandenburg that month was coned by searchlights for 10 mins and received 10 direct hits, but instead of jettisoning his load, carried on to Berlin and delivered, then limped home... [Sqn.Ldr. D.A Braithwaite].....

They were quite different aircraft I feel.......


----------



## The Nerd (Dec 11, 2005)

Both were awesome planes, but...its the Lightning all the way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 11, 2005)

oh god that's just gonna set it all off again..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 11, 2005)

Nah theres no point. Weve argued every concievable difference here and people can just read back through the thread for the arguments  Of course, the Nerd is right though 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 11, 2005)

meybe he's just annother of these narrow minded british people that're too patriotic towards italy to admit that a british plane's better than a yank one


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Ha I love the way you post things Lanc sometimes. Seems me you are too narrowminded to admit that there are planes out there better British one. Not necessarily this plane in question but any plane in general.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 11, 2005)

Mossies ruled in the ETO - period

P-38 was best in the PTO....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ha I love the way you post things Lanc sometimes. Seems me you are too narrowminded to admit that there are planes out there better British one. Not necessarily this plane in question but any plane in general.



well we did make the finest planes of the war


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2005)

If you say so!


----------



## book1182 (Dec 13, 2005)

I would go with the P-38. First reason is a simple one. I'm an American and I like most American airplanes. Now to good reasons for the P-38. It might of not been the best dogfighter, but it could dogfight. I haven't heard of to many Mosquitoes being sent on fighter sweeps. Both had good armament and both carried a good arrange of weapons. So I would give it a tie. As in roles preformed look above and you will see that the P-38 provided many different roles. Some not as good as the Mosquito but it still performed them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

yes and the mossie performed even more roles, but we've kinda greed we're not going to argue about thin anymore, it's the second longest running argument on the site and we're never going to settle it so we're not gonna bother this time round


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2005)

No it didnt...Anything the Mossie done the P-38 done too, except any P-38 could do any mission, or thereabouts, and the Mossies had to be specially adapted...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2005)

no it didn't, no moreso than the -38 did.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2005)

Yeah it did...A standard P-38L can do anything asked of it, Bombing, ground attack, fighting, intercepting...A Mossie couldnt because theyre all vastly different...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yeah it did...A standard P-38L can do anything asked of it, Bombing, ground attack, fighting, intercepting...A Mossie couldnt because theyre all vastly different...



Agreed. The P-38L not only did it but it did the job, whatever it was, on par with the best in that particular nich.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 16, 2005)

if they changed a weel nut on the mossie they gave it a new mark designation, almost all mossies were based on the Mk.IV airframe.........


----------



## RonRyan85 (Apr 14, 2006)

Hi Guys: I'm glad we had both aircraft on our side during WW2.(I
always thought you were all heros flying or being part of the
groundcrew on any base.) All I have are models of the P-38 and a
recently built Mosquito model by Tamiya and a few pictures of
the mossie.I was surprised to find so many articles on the "wooden Wonder" on the internet.

http://www.ImageHostingOnline.com/is.php?i=6767&img=mosqto004.jpg

(Tried to show actual picture above but if you click on it it can be
seen. BTW...how do I show pics on this forum?


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 14, 2006)

With tags like so:


```
[img.]http://www.ImageHostingOnline.com/image2.jpg[/img]
```
without the . after the first


----------



## RonRyan85 (Apr 14, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> With tags like so:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


----------



## RonRyan85 (Apr 14, 2006)

I guess everyone knows this already...but when you Google the
words: "Mosquito Bomber" you get all kinds of articles on the 
airplane. I was also looking for a movie that featured the Mossie
and found two: "633 Squadron"(1964) and "Mosquito Squadron"(1969)
and someone who had seen both said to skip the 1969 one as all
or most of the good airplane film was taken from the earlier
film. Anyone see these two films?


----------



## Glider (Apr 15, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Agreed. The P-38L not only did it but it did the job, whatever it was, on par with the best in that particular nich.
> 
> wmaxt



I thought this thread had finished ages ago. My personal summary goes like this.

As a day fighter then it has to be the P38.
As a nightfighter then its the Mossie. I know the USA had NF P38's but no one can claim it was a 'standard P38', it was also more than a little tight in the back nor was it as effective or widely used. The mossie was also a special built but it could be argued that it required less modification than the P38. It already had a crew of two and internal space for the electrics. However at the end of the day, they were both modifications. 
As a GA its so close as to be a draw. Mossie had considerably more firepower, and the ability to carry rockets as well as 1000lb bombs internally whereas the P38 had extra performance, sufficient firepower and similar payload.
As a pure bomber the Mossie has it on range, payload and speed, plus the not insignificant fact, that it carried a bomb aimer and is far more likely to hit the target. The P38 could carry a bomb aimer but then it loses its guns and is also a special build. A standard P38 could carry the same payload certainly but this would all be hanging off the wings and have a significant impact on performance, both speed and range. It also lacked the ability to carry a 4000lb cookie and be far more likely to miss which defeats that object.

Thats my summary for what its worth.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 16, 2006)

Glider said:


> I thought this thread had finished ages ago. My personal summary goes like this.
> 
> As a day fighter then it has to be the P38.
> As a nightfighter then its the Mossie. I know the USA had NF P38's but no one can claim it was a 'standard P38', it was also more than a little tight in the back nor was it as effective or widely used. The mossie was also a special built but it could be argued that it required less modification than the P38. It already had a crew of two and internal space for the electrics. However at the end of the day, they were both modifications.
> ...



Actually range/payload are pretty equal and the bomb aimer in a Mossie had about as much equipment as the P-38 pilot had a gunsite. Your right the droop snoot was special build but had the norden sight and the flight dropped on Que more accurate that the Mossie system.

The night fighter aircraft had a radar added and a special canopy similar riggs had been set up the the field many times both temporary and permanent. Here is an interesting site about the P-38M night fighters which were considered better than the purpose built P-61s.
www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/combair015

Overall though I think one was a great fighter/bomber/photo plane, and the other was a great bomber/fighter/photo plane.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Apr 16, 2006)

Do you have any stats for the performace of a P38 when loaded with bombs? I only know that the P38 was limited to 250mph when carrying 300 gallon drop tanks but that could have more to do with the design and size of the tanks. The clean speed of a P38 wasn't much faster than the loaded speed of a Mossie bomber and I would be suprised if the P38 only lost 10-15 mph with the extra drag of the bombs. PR Spitfires gained 5mph by changing the type of radio mast which is a heck of a lot smaller than lugging 4000lb of bombs around. Different plane I know, but the rules of aerodynamics remain static.

I also don't know the impact of carrying bombs instead of the drop tanks on range, but would be suprised if it matched a Mossie bomber.

I must also disagree with the comments about the accuracy of bombing. A specialised bomber with a trained bomb aimer is always going to be better than a fighter pilot aiming through a gunsite, unless you are talking about using a dive bombing technique. The Mossie was used on countless missions as a pathfinder, dropping bombs with great accuracy a long way from home. It was also used on pin point raids against specific targets sometimes on individual buildings in the middle of cities. I am not aware of the P38 being used for missions of this type. Using a buddie system of dropping on the release of another plane is not going to be as accurate, due to the inevitable scatter and of course useless at night. 
The Norden bomb sight when it came into service was definately ahead of the game but the later RAF sights could give it a run for their money.

I do agree with your final statement 'Overall though I think one was a great fighter/bomber/photo plane, and the other was a great bomber/fighter/photo plane'
The P38 was without doubt a better day fighter and the Mossie a better bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2006)

do you not think the fact the mossie often bombed at street top level, even by night, made it accurate? and the british Mk.XIV sight was the accuracy equivilent of the Norden, it wasn't the accuracy of the norden that made it so famous it was more the computing side of it, and hey, atleast the bomb aimer could come out of the nose of the mossie for the rest of the fight and sit in the chair, as opposed to the very few droop snoots used where the bomb aimer had to lay prone the whole time  ...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2006)

When you go to sleep, do you sit in a chair or lay in a bed? Its the bed isnt it, beds are more comfortable, laying down is more comfortable  Hell on long car journeys id give anything for a lay down 

And to be honest, its hard to not be accurate at street top level.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 17, 2006)

Unless you are Italian...

I'd agree with you though CC, lying down is much better than sitting down and in the Mossie you have the choice of both...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 17, 2006)

at 240knots your doing about 400ft a second so it would be hard to hit a target a lo level


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2006)

i don't think lying prone for several hours in a cramp compartment was exactily ideal  i doubt you'd get much kipp eather  atleast the mossie bomb aimer could then help navigate..........


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 17, 2006)

good point.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 17, 2006)

elmilitaro, fix ur siggy dude, its about ready to drive me nutzzzzz....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 17, 2006)

yeah, i mean Wurger even made a post for your siggy a week ago, and u just ignored it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't think lying prone for several hours in a cramp compartment was exactily ideal  i doubt you'd get much kipp eather  atleast the mossie bomb aimer could then help navigate..........



Lightning pilots were so clever it didnt take 2 to navigate  And the Droop Snoot looks pretty roomy to me, I reckon you could sit up if yo wanted too...

The back of the P-38M, THAT was cramped....


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2006)

There were some comments about the room inside the droop nose of the P38. The following quote may amuse you all.

P-38L-5-LO Ser No 44-25605 was rebuilt by Hindustan Aircraft in India as a special VIP aircraft for a General Stratemeyer. The plane had a transparent nose, which made it look a lot like the "Droop Snoot" pathfinder Lightnings used in the European theatre. The General sat in a special seat inside the nose, and the inside walls of his "office" were lined with leather. There were even provisions for a built-in Thermos jug (I won't even ask what was IN the jug ). Sort of reminds me of General Dreedle in the movie *Catch 22*. Nowadays, if *Sixty Minutes* were to get wind of such an extravagance on the part of the military, heads would roll.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2006)

you think that's extravigant? if you want i'll give you a link to all the ministerial use of the RAF's 32 (The Royal) squadron, and how much it costs, when they could hop on a civilian plane for a fraction of the price, it's rediculous............

and you think putting a seat in it makes it roomey? bearing in mind they would've taken the bomb sight out for that as well, well in the civilian transport mossies some even had a matress in the bomb bay so on long overnight flights you could get some sleep too.......


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2006)

I think you will find that the mossies only had a matress, were unpresurised, unheated, without any windows and the passenger was given a flask with a hot drink. Not quite the same a special chair, windows, leather lined heated with a fitted flask for refreshments.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2006)

of course they were bloody heated! and there where seats too.........


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2006)

I found a couple of quotes on the topic. Note the double flight suits presumably to keep out the cold.

A perhaps unsurprising role for the Mosquito during wartime was as a high-speed transport. British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) flew a small number of Mk.VI's with their armament removed and a modified bomb bay converted to carry passengers in very cramped conditions. By the end of the war, some 520 round flights had been made to neutral Sweden by BOAC Mosquitoes.

A single B.IV and nine FB.VIs were assigned to this duty. They carried mail, including diplomatic documents; high-value cargoes such as Swedish precision ball-bearings; and the occasional passenger tucked away in the bombbay. The bomb bay was fitted with oxygen, a reading light, an intercom, and a bunk, and passengers were packed in wearing double flight suits, a life preserver, and a parachute. They were given reading material and refreshments to allow them to pass the time on the "ball-bearing" route

A variant of the PR.IV was supplied to BOAC as the prototype Mosquito courier-transport. 'Accommodation' for the two passengers was on their backs in the bomb bay.


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 26, 2006)

In a development point of view they did do a Interceptor Mossie, the Hornet. That would have knocked the lighting to bits! 4x20mm, cotra-rotating propellors, 4000hp, 475mph+ and a climb of 5000ft per minute!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 26, 2006)

Thats not a Mosquito though is it...

P-38's had contra-rotating propellors too.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

As far as I'm aware contra-rotating props refers to the props being on the same screw, not two different ones. If this is the case, the Hornet nor the Lightning had contra-rotating props. I may be wrong. I know the Lightnings spun opposite ways, but it that was on two different screws.


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 27, 2006)

I think the term is handed? but I'm not sure


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

> P-38's had contra-rotating propellors too



what you wanna biscuit? not only did it make maintenance a problem but having props spinning the same direction never seemed to affect the mossie.........


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2006)

Once the logistics issues of supplying parts for the P38 had been worked out, there never was an issue about left and and right hand engines.

Lanc, contra rotating props are a bonus for any two engined aircraft. The mossie would have had even better performance than it did had it had this feature.


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2006)

helmitsmit said:


> I think the term is handed? but I'm not sure



Your correct. Contra rotating is very different to handed engines. Neither the P38 or the Mossie had Contra rotating props.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

> Once the logistics issues of supplying parts for the P38 had been worked out



you make it sound so simple  getting spares for any part of any aircraft in WWII was often hard enough, even with the short distances over land in the UK orders took weeks and sometimes arrived wrong, there's a famous incident where air_screws_ where ordered, and an air_crew_ turned up because of a simple mix up, now imagine you're on an island thousands of miles out into the pacific, you think it's easy to just nip down to the manufactures to get that exact part you need for your P-38, not only that but you can't order a generic part, for some parts you have to be engine specific............



> The mossie would have had even better performance than it did had it had this feature.



all i'm saying is there's were never any complaints about the mossie because of it.......


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 29, 2006)

The Hornet eventually did have handed propellers so the De Havilland designer must have seen it as an improvement, but not important nor major.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2006)

Lanc, maybe the RAF had supply problems, but once the US had its logistics train in order, there never was a problem (except in CBI).


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2006)

The US had a massive supply problem in North-West Europe, actually. For weeks the Allied armies were still using the ports dragged across the Channel. And when on the German border all the armies had practically ran out of fuel. The destruction of France's excellent infrastructure had made supply columns miles, upon miles long. The trucks involved were using just as much fuel as they were delivering because the trains weren't running.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2006)

The AAF didnt have many logistics issues in 1944. Maybe the RAF did, but not the AAF.

Hint..... look at the hundreds of AAF squadrons deployed around the world. All of them flew their planes regularly.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2006)

You said the U.S. I was correcting you on the US issue. Precisely, the USAAF nor the RAF had supply problems except in the CBI in 1944. Although, the squadrons based in France did have to take priority of fuel delivery over everything else because, as I said, the supply problem was there for everyone in France. Few ports and no rail transport, it had to be rebuilt.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2006)

I think it was Les that said "is the P38 a better fighter or the Mosquito a better bomber".

Still true and while its interesting to see the differences between them, theyre two totally different aircraft in two different roles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2006)

syscom operating so far away from home you're gonna have supply problems getting spare parts, they flew regular missions because there's more than one plane in a squadron, but chances are, you'll always get one plane that needs a spare of some sort, even if it doesn't ground it, let's face it, back then there was no next day delivery back then, the RAF got it sometimes because we were close, the americans had to wait a bit longer, and btw, that airscrews/crew incident was the americans


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 30, 2006)

Did any one do a muck combat between the two aircraft?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 30, 2006)

If you look at aircraft dispatched per squadron per mission, each group always managed to put a hefty number of aircraft in the air. I dont think any squadron or group managed to have a 100% sortie rate.

Unlike the RAF, the AAF and USN in 1944 and 1945, there was a flood of aircraft, mechanics and spare parts available and having a large number of aircraft grounded due to a lack of spare parts was simply not happening.


----------



## Jo3 (Nov 17, 2012)

Hi guys,

I'm new, so i read this interesting thread.

I have read the 46 page, and I have tried to do a comparative table

P38 

- better speed in clean configuration
- better dive
- better turn radius (?)
- better durability (aluminium doesn decay)
- better spare parts in the first period of WW2 (mosquitos are very few)

Mosquito
- better bomb payload (4000 lbs or 3000 lbs : 6x500 lbs)
- better speed with payload, thanks to internal bomb bay.
- semi stealth characteristics (The First Stealth Fighter: The De Havilland Mosquito - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com), so better tactic and strategic characteristics
- better instrumental navigation (bomber and fighter bomber variant)
- better armament (4x20 mm + 4x7.7 british)





Am I forget something?



I love both, so I do not vote.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 17, 2012)

Jo3 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm new, so i read this interesting thread.
> 
> ...



You could argue that the P-38 was a better day fighter, and that it was used in CAS.. think those are the only two advantages you could claim for the P-38. All the night roles (bomber, night fighter,etc) recon, weather scout, low level/long range bombing against tactical and strategic targets would seem to favor the Mossie.


----------



## Jo3 (Nov 18, 2012)

drgondog said:


> If by the last statement, you are referring to pre-1944, there were fewer P-38s than Mossie's (making the 'spares' claim dubious) and it is not entirely clear that a P-38 could dive faster while maintaining control until mid 1944. Durability may not have mattered as operational life of most P-38s and Mossies were less than 400 hours.
> 
> You could argue that the P-38 was a better day fighter, and that it was used in CAS.. think those are the only two advantages you could claim for the P-38. All the night roles (bomber, night fighter,etc) recon, weather scout, low level/long range bombing against tactical and strategic targets would seem to favor the Mossie.




Thank you for your reply.

It is true : i think it must be done a distinction between various version of P38 and various versione of Mosquito and the time (and war situation) when this version are used.

I'm quite sure the mosquito (versione IV and XVI, and versione XI) is a perfect plane to do the right job (deep incursion) in the right time (1943/1944) at the right place (early FW 190 and Me 109 have got the same (maybe slightly better) max speed to the mosquito at sea level, but Mosquito is very elusive and hard to catch and find : it is made by wood , so it is hard to detect it by radar).

So in a 1943 Era, when only few airplane risks to fly over Berlin, the little speed demod did his job.


But if you compare Mosquitos in 1944/1945 Era, when air superiority was gained by English/American, when the war changes theatres of operation, and FW 190D outpass it in speed, the mosquito return to be a fast figther/bomber, but not ininterceptable.

It still remain a superb multi role aircraft for all WW2 time, with excellent characteristics.


----------



## RENGLAND (Nov 28, 2012)

Hi all
First post.
I always have trouble with these types of comparisons. What's the better plane, who's the better hockey player, football player etc. I find it difficult to quantify "better". eg. A great quarterback would be a lousy DB. So who's the best player? Impossible to answer. When I get into these discussions it almost always boils down to who is your favorite. For me it is the Mossie. This is not an informed opinion but it just grabs me somehow. 
Great site btw. I just stumbled on to it.
Randy


----------



## dobbie (Dec 5, 2012)

Bartender, Id like one of each please!


----------



## ccheese (Dec 8, 2012)

I like the P-38 better. The lightening was designed as an interceptor. I think, in that role, it excelled. The later variants did their jobs, too, I do not believe the "mossie" was designed as an interceptor. To me it's like comparing apples to kumquats...

Charles


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2012)

The Lightning is a beautiful plane but, the Mossie could do more...



When the Mosquito entered production in 1941, it was one of the fastest operational aircraft in the world.[6] Entering widespread service in 1942, the Mosquito first operated as a high-speed, high-altitude photo-reconnaissance aircraft, and continued to operate in this role throughout the war. From mid-1942 to mid-1943 Mosquito bombers were used in high-speed, medium- or low-altitude missions, attacking factories, railways and other pinpoint targets within Germany and German-occupied Europe. From late 1943, Mosquito bomber units were formed into the Light Night Strike Force and used as pathfinders for RAF Bomber Command's heavy-bomber raids. They were also used as "nuisance" bombers, often dropping 4,000 lb (1,812 kg) "Cookies", in high-altitude, high-speed raids that German night fighters were almost powerless to intercept.
As a night fighter, from mid-1942, the Mosquito was used to intercept Luftwaffe raids on the United Kingdom, most notably defeating the German aerial offensive, Operation Steinbock, in 1944. Offensively, starting in late 1942, some Mosquito night-fighter units conducted intruder raids over Luftwaffe airfields and, as part of 100 Group, the Mosquito was used as a night fighter and intruder in support of RAF Bomber Command's heavy bombers, and played an important role in reducing bomber losses during 1944 and 1945.[7][nb 1] As a fighter-bomber in the Second Tactical Air Force, the Mosquito took part in "special raids", such as the attack on Amiens Prison in early 1944, and in other precision attacks against Gestapo or German intelligence and security forces. 2 TAF Mosquitos also played an important role operating in tactical support of the British Army during the 1944 Normandy Campaign. From 1943 Mosquitos were used by RAF Coastal Command strike squadrons, attacking Kriegsmarine U-boats (particularly in the 1943 Bay of Biscay offensive, where significant numbers of U-boats were sunk or damaged) and intercepting transport ship concentrations.
The Mosquito saw service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and many other air forces in the European theatre, and the Mediterranean and Italian theatres. The Mosquito was also used by the RAF in the South East Asian theatre, and by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) based in the Halmaheras and Borneo during the Pacific War.

Operation Carthage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

30 January 1943 Mosquito daylight attack on Berlin - to disrupt the Nazi Party’s tenth anniversary celebrations. Wouldn't you have loved to see Hitlers face....

Cheers
John


----------



## J dog (Dec 15, 2012)

I chose the lightning but there is one major disadvantage of the plane is when it dives it builds so much speed the controls don't work as well. they were both great planes but the differences being the Lightening being better at dog fighting and the Mosquito at bombing.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 11, 2013)

Got to be the wooden wonder for me.
I think the P38 was a good long range fighter, but the mossie was a fast intruder that had some ability if it were intercepted.


----------



## aurora-7 (Jan 11, 2013)

One wooden wonder for me.

I think as a pure fighter, the 38 has the edge but for speed and handling, I'd go for the Mossie.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2013)

Readie said:


> The Lightning is a beautiful plane but, the Mossie could do more...



What roles could Mossie do that the P-38 could not? 

Obviously the Mossie was a better a bomber, but the P-38 could be used as a bomber as well. Likewise the P-38 was probably a better fighter, but the Mossie could be used as a fighter as well. Both could be recon, both could be night fighters. 

But, what could the Mossie do that the P-38 could not do. Not talking about what was better at what role, but what could either one do that the other could not?

I remember me and Lancaster hashing this discussion out years ago.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 11, 2013)

> what could the Mossie do that the P-38 could not do.



Carry a 4,000 lb block buster bomb for one thing, a torpedo, unguided rockets under its wings, a passenger in its bomb bay - BOAC used Mosquitos as fast transports during the war, carry a heavier load across a greater distance, operate from aircraft carriers - I'm sure there's more. The Mosquito came in a greater number of variants than the P-38.

Kind of a difficult one to really compare the two adequately, since one was designed as a high speed unarmed bomber, but was used in a multitude of roles and the other as a high altitude fighter. The Mosquito appeared in many different variants each with different characteristics; one that was used as a long range bomber had different performance to low altitude strike version for example. At first glance the Mosquito appears the more versatile airframe than the P-38, but as it's been pointed out, the P-38 made a better fighter vs fighter combat aircraft because that's what it was designed for. That alone makes comparison awkward. 

Hard also to argue which was better in similar roles, such at high altitude reconnaissance, which one returned with images more often? How clear were the images? How often did each type escape interception? Apples and oranges...

I think this one boils down to personal opinion, national pride etc, all those things we shouldn't use in these kind of threads!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Carry a 4,000 lb block buster bomb for one thing, a torpedo, unguided rockets under its wings, a passenger in its bomb bay - BOAC used Mosquitos as fast transports during the war, carry a heavier load across a greater distance, operate from aircraft carriers - I'm sure there's more. The Mosquito came in a greater number of variants than the P-38.



None of those are roles. We already stated that the Mossie was a better bomber. The P-38 however could be used as a bomber, correct? Absolutely. 

Again carrying a 1000lbs of bombs does not make it any less of a bomber than a Mossie carrying 4000lb of bombs. A passenger plane that can only carry 2 passengers is still a passenger plane when compared to a passenger plane that can carry 6 passengers. 

Examples of roles are fighter, bomber, ground attack, recon, etc.

As for your other suggestions. Lets see...

The P-38 could carry unguided rockets. Still not a role though? Ground attack would be a role, and both the Mossie and P-38 could do them.

Torpedo bomber. P-38s were modified to carry 2 torpedoes. None were used operationally however. Still could be done.

Carry a passenger. The P-38 did not have a bomb bay to carry a passenger, but could still carry passengers in purposely designed under wing pods. This was done in the Pacific. Mossie could certainly fulfill this role better, but the role could still be done by the Lightning. The Pods could also be used for cargo. Another P-38 was also modified to carry a passenger in a glazed nose. 

Carrier operations. Lockheed offered a carrier based Lightning to the US Navy with folding wings and stronger undercarriage. The Navy chose not to, because they considered the Lightning too big, and there was no need for it. Point being? It was a role the Lighting could have fulfilled. 

Greater numbers? What kind of role is that?





nuuumannn said:


> Kind of a difficult one to really compare the two adequately,



Now that is something we can agree on.



nuuumannn said:


> since one was designed as a high speed unarmed bomber, but was used in a multitude of roles and the other as a high altitude fighter.



A fighter which was used in a multitude of roles. 



nuuumannn said:


> The Mosquito appeared in many different variants each with different characteristics; one that was used as a long range bomber had different performance to low altitude strike version for example.



As did the P-38. 

Fighter
Fighter Bomber
Ground Attack
Transport
Photo Recon
Dive Bomber
Night Fighter
Long Range Escort
Tested as a float plane
Pathfinder
Glider Tug



nuuumannn said:


> At first glance the Mosquito appears the more versatile airframe than the P-38, but as it's been pointed out, the P-38 made a better fighter vs fighter combat aircraft because that's what it was designed for. That alone makes comparison awkward.



That we can agree on.



nuuumannn said:


> Hard also to argue which was better in similar roles, such at high altitude reconnaissance, which one returned with images more often? How clear were the images? How often did each type escape interception? Apples and oranges...



That is why I also stated in my original post we are not debating which one could do each role the best. The question was still what role the Mossie could do that the P-38 could not. 



nuuumannn said:


> I think this one boils down to personal opinion, national pride etc, all those things we shouldn't use in these kind of threads!:rolleyes



Only if people let it...


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2013)

Hi Adler, looks like I misunderstood the question. 

As for the suggestions, okay, the P-38 _could_ carry unguided rockets and _could_ carry torpedoes, but did it do these in any wartime role? Was it assigned within a command specifically with these roles in mind? Not torpedoes, as you've stated. Passenger aircraft? Didn't know about the passenger pods - Mossie still did it as an established role on a frequent basis, the Lightning could hardly be called a _transport_ type - again, not assigned as a passenger carrying aircraft within a command or service. Carrier based, then the Lightning could not as it did not, so any aircraft carrier based role that the Mossie could do the P-38 could not. As a bomber, the Mosquito was a long range bomber serving in Bomber Command; the P-38 could not carry out that role, there's another. 

This is where we are splitting hairs, these roles that the Mossie variants carried out, the aircraft served in a command in each role, the aircraft was purpose built for these differing jobs, hence the different variants; the P-38 was a fighter that could carry out other roles, but it was not a "bomber" per se, it was used as one though, successfully. Likewise as a "transport" or even a "torpedo bomber" and "ground attack aircraft". Sure, it could do those things, but it was _not_ those things - if you get what I'm saying. There were never squadrons of P-38 torpedo bombers operating with the navy, there was never an organisation that operated the P-38 purely as a transport, nor purely as a low level strike aircraft, nor as a bomber by bomber squadrons. This is where the Mossie differs with the P-38 in versatility.

As for the rest of what you did with my post - yeah, okay then...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Hi Adler, looks like I misunderstood the question.
> 
> As for the suggestions, okay, the P-38 _could_ carry unguided rockets and _could_ carry torpedoes, but did it do these in any wartime role? Was it assigned within a command specifically with these roles in mind? Not torpedoes, as you've stated. Passenger aircraft? Didn't know about the passenger pods - Mossie still did it as an established role on a frequent basis, the Lightning could hardly be called a _transport_ type - again, not assigned as a passenger carrying aircraft within a command or service. Carrier based, then the Lightning could not as it did not, so any aircraft carrier based role that the Mossie could do the P-38 could not. As a bomber, the Mosquito was a long range bomber serving in Bomber Command; the P-38 could not carry out that role, there's another.
> 
> ...



Yes the P-38 used rockets operationaly? Why would thst be hard to believe? The task was not limited to the Mossie. German, US, British Acft all did it.

As for the rest of your post, you still have not answered it. Again we were not debating best here, all I am asking is what roles could not be performed. I agree we can't compare acft. I agree the Mossie was a more versatile design. 

Also a command does not make an acft purpose or versatility. It is just a command. 

As for what you started in your post to me...
Disrespect is a two way street...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2013)

The P-38L model was equipped to carry 10 5in rockets, The L model was first delivered from the factory in June of 1944, I am not sure when combat debut was. 

June of 1944 also sees 39 P-38s from the 82nd FG bomb the refineries at Ploesti, with 39 P-38s of the 1st fighter group flying top cover. 
Mission was not very successful and while these are not bomber "units" it was certainly a bomber mission.

Summer of 1944 also sees "droop snoot" missions. P-38s with guns removed and a clear nose, bomb sight and bombardier carried, several "droop snoot" P-38s are assigned to each formation as master bombers and the formation of p-38s drops when the "droop snoot's" do. Again still fighter groups but definitely bomber missions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2013)

The 28 Photo Squadron operated F-5Es (P-38J) with a passenger pod for a photographer. I do know the same pod was used to move injured soldiers in both the PTO and ETO - documented in the book "P-38 Lightning at War" (Christy Ethell) 

4.5 inch M-8 rockets mounted in tubes just below the center fuselage were used by the 459th FS based out of Chittagona.

There were many more units who used these items in all theaters during WW2.

Even Wiki shows the rocket armament of the P-38.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2013)

Hi Adler, I'm curious about your suggestion that I was being disrespectful; from reading my threads I fail to see what I had written to cause disrespect, nevertheless, it most certainly was not my intention, so I unreservedly apologise if it seems implied.

Back to the P-38, yes, read about the rockets - didn't know about the type's use as a bomber against Ploesti - interesting.

As for my comments about the differences in both types use in different roles, they stand because in all the roles we've discussed, only as a pure single seat fighter vs fighter role would I choose the P-38; now, not to be accused of rubbishing the type, since I do think it is rather cool, having seen them flying at airshows, but in the other roles discussed, I would choose the Mosquito.

Putting it simply, the P-38 was a fighter designed as such, and although it was built as a photo recon platform, night fighter, like many other fighters it was used in other roles. The Mosquito was built as a bomber, but was also built as a specialised ground attack aircraft, as a torpedo carrier (although if I had a choice I'd pick the Beaufighter over the Mosquito in this role), as an aircraft carrier based aircraft etc aside from photo recon and night fighter variants. These were far from just modifications to the existing design, but planned specific variants built to carry out these roles. This is of importance because despite the P-38's ability to do these things, which it shared with other fighter types as pointed out elsewhere, the Mossie proved excellent beyond initial anticipation at them and was thus constructed and employed accordingly.

To reinforce my bias, this from a letter sent to the Air Ministry in February 1943 from Washington:

"When we compare our aircraft in production and the tactical operational range of your Mosquito with our F-5/P-38, there seems no doubt the purposes of our combined air forces will best be served if the A.A.F curtail their conversion of P-38 and rely in part on your Mosquito production."

Now, so as not to ruffle any more feathers, what I have done here is produce evidence as to why I choose the Mosquito over the P-38, not to denigrate the latter in any way.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> To reinforce my bias, this from a letter sent to the Air Ministry in February 1943 from Washington:
> 
> "When we compare our aircraft in production and the tactical operational range of your Mosquito with our F-5/P-38, there seems no doubt the purposes of our combined air forces will best be served if the A.A.F curtail their conversion of P-38 and rely in part on your Mosquito production."



And this letter was sent by who?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2013)

Adler, it's just ocurred to me how I might have caused you to think I was disrespecting you. Was it this?



> I think this one boils down to personal opinion, national pride etc, all those things we shouldn't use in these kind of threads



If so, that was actually a subtle dig at another thread posted elsewhere by another forum member, not intended at you in your role as moderator. Again, I apologise if you have been offended.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2013)

> And this letter was sent by who?



Hmm, I knew someone was going to ask - I don't actually know; it's a quote out of a book I have on the Mosquito. Scanning through the pages I can see that Hap Arnold requested Mossies for use in the Middle East, he also pressed for American PR Mossies in North Africa, stating that; "the Mosquito can go beyond the F-5 in range." The British, however, specifically Chief of Air Staff Portal responded to his initial request stating that the Lightning was "...fully satisfactory for PR work; it's as good as the Spitfire."

In March 1944 Arnold also requested Mossies for use by the USAAF in the Pacific, he argued that the P-38s that were in use in that theatre could be sent to Europe and free up Mosquitos, "where their capability could be better utilised."

Here's something else I've just found; "it will be recalled that early in 1943 they [the Americans] approached the British for Mosquito night fighters to equip planned squadrons in Europe. As soon as the supply of PR.XVIs was agreed, the matter was again raised. As part of Plan CCS329/2 of 26 August 1943, the United States committed itself to placing in the US 9th AF and by 1 May 1944, three squadrons each armed twelve Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighters. Development of that unconventional aircraft was far from straight forward, with speed and handling restrictions applied to the P-61 making it useless for operations. Once more the USAAF turned hopefully towards the Mosquito."

The book is "Mosquito" by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J.F. Bowyer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmm, I knew someone was going to ask - I don't actually know; it's a quote out of a book I have on the Mosquito. Scanning through the pages I can see that Hap Arnold requested Mossies for use in the Middle East, he also pressed for American PR Mossies in North Africa, stating that; "the Mosquito can go beyond the F-5 in range." The British, however, specifically Chief of Air Staff Portal responded to his initial request stating that the Lightning was "...fully satisfactory for PR work; it's as good as the Spitfire."
> 
> In March 1944 Arnold also requested Mossies for use by the USAAF in the Pacific, he argued that the P-38s that were in use in that theatre could be sent to Europe and free up Mosquitos, "where their capability could be better utilised."



I'd like to know more "specifics" about these claims - Although Arnold ran the AAF, folks under him dictated what equipment was to be used "where and when." General Kenney just about had full reign of his command in the PTO and the equipment used - I don't think he ever had a problem with the P-38 (except he wanted more of them in 1943) and it wasn't until late in the war where we seen the P-51 start to emerge as the primary fighter in the PTO. Arnold may have felt it "desirable" to see PR Mossies in the PTO, I think General Kenny would have had the final say.


nuuumannn said:


> Here's something else I've just found; "it will be recalled that early in 1943 they [the Americans] approached the British for Mosquito night fighters to equip planned squadrons in Europe. As soon as the supply of PR.XVIs was agreed, the matter was again raised. As part of Plan CCS329/2 of 26 August 1943, the United States committed itself to placing in the US 9th AF and by 1 May 1944, three squadrons each armed twelve Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighters. Development of that unconventional aircraft was far from straight forward, with speed and handling restrictions applied to the P-61 making it useless for operations. Once more the USAAF turned hopefully towards the Mosquito."


Again I'd like to know more "specifics' about this. Did those who allegedly approached the British about using the Mosquito as night fighters have either the expertise or authority to make such a decision? Despite these "issues" with the P-61, I think history says otherwise to these concerns.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2013)

I don't think the book is insinuating that the Americans thought that there was anything wrong with the P-38 at all, but that Arnold commented on the fact that its range was inferior to the Mosquito. After all, why wouldn't you want an aircraft that demonstrated superior qualities to the equipment you were using regardless of how good what you had was. As for the P-61, again, more to demonstrate that the USAAF wanted Mosquitos as night fighters at that time - you are right about history and the P-61, but all this is entirely with hindsight and at the time the P-61's issues had obviously led the USAAF to raise the issue of Mosquito night fighters for them, as the US Navy had previously.

I'll do some more reading/posting later; have to get ready for work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I don't think the book is insinuating that the Americans thought that there was anything wrong with the P-38 at all, but that Arnold commented on the fact that its range was inferior to the Mosquito. After all, why wouldn't you want an aircraft that demonstrated superior qualities to the equipment you were using regardless of how good what you had was.


I don't think that either, but I also would like to know more about the sources for these comments by Arnold. As far as wanting an aircraft that demonstrated superior qualities? I don't think the Mosquito, as good as it was had such superior qualities that it would constitute replacement of the P-38.


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2013)

An aside I admit but I did read a book on the Mosquito where it went into the operation of the Mosquito in airforces other than the RAF. It was quite impressive for instance it detailed the only Mosuito used by the Russians and what happened to it. When commenting on the use by the USAAF I was suprised to read that officially the USAAF considered the Mosquito bomber to be unsuitable for operations at night in Europe. It stuck in my mind as it was so unexpected.
Assuming this was true I wonder if the use of the nightfighter by the USAAF could have been impacted by this decision. Just a thought


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Adler, it's just ocurred to me how I might have caused you to think I was disrespecting you. Was it this?
> 
> 
> 
> If so, that was actually a subtle dig at another thread posted elsewhere by another forum member, not intended at you in your role as moderator. Again, I apologise if you have been offended.



Yeap that was it, and apology is accepted as well. 

Back to the thread and topic and hand, I am not arguing that the P-38 is a better aircraft. The Mossie certainly was a more versatile aircraft by design. I am just arguing that that it could match the Mossie role for role. Not that it could do any of those roles better. I also agree with you that the Mossie and P-38 are kind of hard to compare and in my opinion, should not really be compared.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 13, 2013)

Hi Adler, glad we got that sorted.



> I don't think the Mosquito, as good as it was had such superior qualities that it would constitute replacement of the P-38.



Arnold certainly seemed to think so regarding the F-5's range at least. He wasn't the only one, Col Elliot Roosevelt, commander of the 3rd Photo Recon Group evaluated a B.IV in England prior to Operation Torch and in comparison with the P-38 F-4 variant proved able to out perform it and have a greater range. Interesting to note Portal's response stating that the F-5 was as good as the Spitfire at Photo recon, although there's no doubting that it probably was, Portal's interest lay squarely with the fact that if the USAAF received Mossies, then that would mean fewer for the British.

Aside from US Navy interest in the type as a night fighter, in April 1943 the USAAF requested a total of 235 Mosquitos for use by the 13th Photo Squadron in the 8th AF, the 5th and 12 Photo Squadrons of the 12th AF and also the 22nd and 23rd Photo Squadrons at Colorado Springs as well as the 27th and a training squadron. Each needed to be 13 aircraft with three reserves and others for attrition. The result was the Arnold-Courtenay Agreement, which saw 120 Mosquitos going to the USAAF at that time. These were initially unpopular with US crews. The majority of these werte Canadian built examples, B.XXs, designated F-8s in USAAF service, although British built FB.VIs were offered also, but were turned down for more PR variants, mainly PR.IXs. At the end of November 1943 the USAAF was offered 102 PR.XVIs; of these 14 were delivered to the 8th before D-Day and the rest were sent to the Mediterranean Theatre. By March 1944, PR.XVIs were delivered to the 802nd Recon Group based at Watton, which carried out photo sorties over D-Day using the Mossies and also the German mainland.

Further info on the US P-61 squadrons in the Med and the supply of Mossies there;

"On 4 July 1944 the British Government informed the Americans that they still could not supply Mosquitos to their Meditteranean based US night fighter squadrons. General Spaatz responded by requesting help with re-equipping just two British based P-61 squadrons. It was pointed out to him that ifMosquito production permitted it, his Meditteranean squadrons would already have received Mosquitos to relieve pressure on Beaufighter availability [which the USAAF also requested as night fighters] because these aircraft were requested for British and Allied squadrons. Not until the closing weeks of 1944 did the position ease sufficiently for an agreement to be made concerning the issue of 40 Mosquito night fighters to the USAAF in Italy. No 416 Squadron, Pisa based )) during December received 12 Mosquito NF.XIX and four Mk.30s..."

A total of 160 night fighter Mosquitos were operated by the USAAF. 

As for USAAF in the PTO and Mosquitos, in response to Arnold's request mentioned earlier, the British stated that the 40 F-8s supplied by the Canadians should be used - evidently they were not as these saw next to no wartime service.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 14, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Hi Adler, glad we got that sorted.
> 
> Further info on the US P-61 squadrons in the Med and the supply of Mossies there;
> 
> ...


 
The Mosquitos arrived with the USAAF in the MTO too late to see any success. 416 managed one shoot down with a Mosquito, a Ju-188 over Italy. That's it for USAAF kills with the Mossie.

160 is a very large amount of aircraft to be supplied for just a single victory. 

On the other hand, the did score 111 kills with the P-61 and 35 with the Beaufighter. 


More on the Mosquito vs P-61 night fighter controversey:

"AAF Col. Phineas K. Morrill laid the groundwork for a major controversy in September 1943, when he requested that all of the night fighter squadrons trained by his 481st Night Fighter Operational Training Group be equipped with twin-engine British Mosquitoes rather than American P–70s or P–61s. The proposal received little attention until June 1944, when Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Deputy Commander in Chief of Allied Expeditionary Air Force in Europe, added his weight to Morrill’s request. Considering that “neither the P–61 nor the P–70 type aircraft are suitable night fighters . . . and that little success can be expected,” Vandenberg wanted US night fighter squadrons to switch to British-provided Mosquitoes.

To resolve the controversy, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Spaatz, Commander of United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, ordered a July 5, 1944, flyoff at Hurn, England, pitting the P–61 directly against Vandenberg’s choice, the British Mosquito. Lt. Col. Winston W. Kratz, director of night fighter training in the United States, bet $500 that the Mosquito could outperform the Widow. According to the 422d NFS historian, the competing P–61, “tweaked” to get maximum performance, proved faster at all altitudes, “outturned the Mossie at every altitude and by a big margin and far surpassed the Mossie in rate of climb.” All in all, the historian noted, “a most enjoyable afternoon—Kratz paid off.” The official report concluded that the “P–61 can out-climb the Mosquito due to the ability of the P–61 to operate indefinitely at military power without overheating,” critical to closing on a bogey."

From '_Conquering the Night - Army Air Forces Night Fighters at War_' by Stephen L. McFarland

Link for those interested: HyperWar: Conquering the Night--Army Air Forces Night Fighters at War


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanks for posting the stuff, Jabberwocky.

Now, I'm not trying to bash anybody's wartime achievement, but how much was it a fair contest? One aircraft, specially tweaked, and operated against the manual, beating the randomly picked 'adversary'? We do not know what sub-type was the Mosquito in the contest, either. This sentence has plenty of bearing on the comparison, from same web site:


> Despite this impressive performance, the Black Widow lacked the speed advantage necessary to intercept some high-flying enemy bombers



Not the case for Mosquito.


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2013)

Its an interesting read but there are a couple of quotes in there that I find interesting:-

before converting to Beaufighters and giving up the P–70s in which they had trained in the States. The P–70 proved too slow in climbing to operational altitudes (45 minutes to 22,000 feet) and performed poorly at high altitudes.

Only two days after arriving on the scene, British Beaufighters made their nighttime presence felt, downing eleven out of thirteen attacking Luftwaffe bombers. In part, British success could be attributed to the advanced microwave Mark VIII airborne radar, which did not suffer from the range limitations of the Mark IV/SCR–540 airborne radars that equipped US Beaufighters. 

Personally this and other books I have read would indicate that the most important feature of a nightfighter is its radar and climb. Bombers normally cruise at around 180-220 mph and even a Beaufighter could catch the target. Headline speed be it 350, 380 or 400mph whatever, is only really of use if you are after another fighter/fast bomber who has seen you and is trying to run.

It has to be said that shooting down 11 out of 13 is a pretty impressive performance whatever you are flying


----------



## Nig (Mar 29, 2013)

I have a slightly different take on the whole thing (though I must say I gave up on reading every post after say the twenty page mark) 

I believe the p38 was one of the most expensive fighters produced in ww2, the Mosquitos cost was around two thirds the price of the p38 and didn't use as much strategic materials in her construction and largely used a skill set in the population that was under utilised . It would also have lent itself to decentralising its construction due to lower energy requirements of wood vs energy hungry aluminium .
The better performance in the ETO is the same argument on the Allisons already known poorer performance at high altitude, which is probably why we see less of the use of the p51 in the PTO. Major Bong of course was PTO.
Adolf Galland was unimpressed by the p38 and compared it to the bf110 for shortcomings - low blow . 
Reading a list of US aces the p38 features well PTO but less so in the ETO.
I wonder if it would have been possible to make a theatre specific p38 by re powering them with merlins?
Interestingly the mosquito only weighs a couple of hundred kilos more but carried less. I would imagine though that the p38 having only external stores would have suffered more performance loss on the outward leg of the mission than principally internal storage of the mozzie


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 31, 2013)

Nig said:


> Interestingly the mosquito only weighs a couple of hundred kilos more but carried less. I would imagine though that the p38 having only external stores would have suffered more performance loss on the outward leg of the mission than principally internal storage of the mozzie



Stores in/stores out performance difference was between about 5 and 11 mph, depending on the altitude and sub-type of Mosquito.

An early B Mk IV at 20,000 lbs (full fuel, 2000 lb internal bombload) could do about 365 mph at 12,000 ft. With bombs gone and half fuel burned off, weight drops to about 16,500 lbs and it could do about 370 mph. A later B Mk IV would do 380-385 mph, thanks to the addition of multi-ejector exhausts.

A B Mk XVI at 23,000 lbs (ful internal fuel, full 100 gal external tanks and 4,000 lb bombload) could do about 397 mph at 26,000 ft. Bombs gone and half fuel (rougly 17,500 lbs), it could do about 408 mph. 

I'm not sure of the performance penalty that the 2 x 2,000 lb load would mean for the P-38, but my *guess* is that it would be significantly greater than the 10-11 mph for a Mosquito.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 1, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> Stores in/stores out performance difference was between about 5 and 11 mph, depending on the altitude and sub-type of Mosquito.
> 
> An early B Mk IV at 20,000 lbs (full fuel, 2000 lb internal bombload) could do about 365 mph at 12,000 ft. With bombs gone and half fuel burned off, weight drops to about 16,500 lbs and it could do about 370 mph. A later B Mk IV would do 380-385 mph, thanks to the addition of multi-ejector exhausts.
> 
> ...



There was a chart posted on here a while back, which shows a B.XVI with Merlin 76/77s could do 415mph unladen, earlier XVIs with Merlin 72/73s 408mph. The chart also shows a maximum bomb load of 5000lb for a B.XVI (1 x 4000lb + 2 x 500lb on the wing racks) with a range at most economical cruise speed of 1370 miles.

The performance numbers were given for mean weight - 19,100lb.


----------



## redcoat (Apr 21, 2013)

While both are two engined aircraft, they are very different aircraft, one was built as a long range fighter, while the other was built as a light bomber/multi-role aircraft.
In the day fighter role the P-38 is clearly superior, in the hands of a good pilot it could hold it's own against most Axis fighters, while in the night-fighter, bomber and recce roles the Mosquito has the advantage due to its high speed, two man crew, and load carrying abilities.


----------



## nincomp (Apr 21, 2013)

Did the F5's originally use the same "economy" cruise settings as their fighter cousins? 
If that is the case, the range of the F5's was significantly less prior to using the low RPM, higher MP cruise settings developed by Charles Lindburg. If I recall correctly, it was the summer of 1944 when Lindburg proved that his fuel-saving cruise settings caused no damage to the engines.
This might explain the comments about the F5's lacking sufficient range. It was late in the war when the range of the plane increased significantly.


----------



## redcoat (Apr 21, 2013)

From what I have read the problem with the F5's in the Northern European theater wasn't it's range, but it's high altitude performance difficulties in cold weather.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 22, 2013)

Redcoat, the P-38 was faster, the other stuff you mentioned was correct though.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (May 29, 2013)

I like both planes but I don't think the two are really comparable in the sense some folks are making. I agree that it would depend on the theater. Mosquitoes didn't fare so well in the Pacific area because the wood was subject to rot due to the high moister and heat. P-38's didn't have such a problem there.

Someone mentioned the war record of the P-61 in Europe being 111 kills. This is not true. Total P-61 victories, based off of HQ USAF, office of AF History, Champlin Fighter Museum, Orders of awards, Combat reports, and Squadron histories, were 127... not counting 9 V-1s. Of the 127 victories, 58 of those were in the ETO. The 416th NFS doesn't exist. The 9th AF had the 422nd and 425th NFS. The 12th AF had the 414th and 415th NFS and they were in the MTO. Everybody else was somewhere around the PTO.

The Competition between the P-61 and the Mossie happened four times from what I gathered. The competition that was sited was against the Mk 17 version of the Mossie and flown by Sqd Ldr Barnwell of the 125th Sqdrn. Lt. Doyle flew the Widow. It was reported that the Widow won. Second time was at Eglin Field Florida, Mossie won. Third time the widow was flown by Col. Kratz... outcome, the widow won. In the fourth competition, both planes were flown by test pilots. End result, the widow won. But before anyone declares the Widow a better plane, this note must be mentioned. The British needed the Mossie because it could fly all the way to Berlin and back. In the opinion of Col. Kratz, the British threw the competition because they needed the plane and if making the Americans think that the P-61 was better, thus taking away the U.S. orders for more Mossies, then that was okay. In the words of Col. Kratz, "The P-61 was not a superior night fighter. It was not a poor night fighter; it was a good night fighter. It did not have quite enough speed." Col. Kratz was the head of the AAF's night fighter program.

Just wanted to set the record straight. Source: Northrop P-61 Black Widow... The Complete History and Combat Record.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 29, 2013)

Night Fighter Nut said:


> Mosquitoes didn't fare so well in the Pacific area because the wood was subject to rot due to the high moister and heat.



Sorry but the comment about the Mossie's wood structure rotting is...well, utter rot. The first group of Mosquitos in the Far East suffered from delamination of the plywood structure due to the glue being adversely affected by the local weather conditions. The problem was rapidly identified and an alternative glue obtained. From that point on, the Mosquito operated successfully in the Far East, indeed the RAF's last operational Mosquito sortie was flown out of Seletar, Singapore (about as hot and humid as it gets) on 15 December 1955.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (May 29, 2013)

Great. thanks for the correction, my knowledge is scant on that point.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 30, 2013)

Does anyone have any info on the Nightfighter variant of the Mossie?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry but the comment about the Mossie's wood structure rotting is...well, utter rot. The first group of Mosquitos in the Far East suffered from delamination of the plywood structure due to the glue being adversely affected by the local weather conditions. The problem was rapidly identified and an alternative glue obtained. From that point on, the Mosquito operated successfully in the Far East, indeed the RAF's last operational Mosquito sortie was flown out of Seletar, Singapore (about as hot and humid as it gets) on 15 December 1955.


Disagree my friend - it depended on if the aircraft were moved and what operating enviornment they wound up at. Israel and the Dominican Republic had their Mossies just about fall apart, this was discussed in some old threads here several years ago...

Wood structures will maintain better if they are consistanatly kept in an original enviornment. Move a wood aircraft from a moist damp enviornment where it's been operated for a period of time into a humid enviornment and see what happens.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 30, 2013)

*Hint* Squish squish lol


----------



## tomo pauk (May 30, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Does anyone have any info on the Nightfighter variant of the Mossie?



You might want to start from here.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 30, 2013)

Thanks for the link!


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2013)

Last year I did a workup of the performance evolution of the Lightning. Awesome plane by the way. I really wonder how it would have done as anti-shipping with those two torpedoes. I have recently started a workup of the performance evolution of the Mosquito. Another awesome plane. I won't be ready to vote until I have finished. But from what I have read so far, I can't help but wonder why the US did not mass produce the Mosquito under license and use it instead of the B-17/B-24. True they would have had to use a few more to carry the same bomb load (B-17: 6,000 lbs. vs. Mk.IX: 4,000 lbs). But the Mosquito cruising speed was almost 70 mph faster (250 mph), range was at least equal (2,500 mls.) and after dropping load could have hit the deck run like #ell. Fewer airmen (Mk.IX: 2 vs. B-17: 10) would have been put at risk and I believe the survival rate may have been better. I know I'm sort of off topic but you all have pretty much summed up the pros and cons already. I believe the two were pretty close in the ruggedness category (two engines and all). And there shouldn't be any argument over which was the better fighter vs. fighter considering the P-38's acceleration, climb, turn and roll rate. But the Mossie was what was needed where it was needed when it was needed. Lord, I'm just glad we had both of them on our side. So, which was better?............I guess it depends on when and where you were at the time.

Great thread Guys. Thanks, Jeff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> Last year I did a workup of the performance evolution of the Lightning. Awesome plane by the way. I really wonder how it would have done as anti-shipping with those two torpedoes. I have recently started a workup of the performance evolution of the Mosquito. Another awesome plane. I won't be ready to vote until I have finished. But from what I have read so far, I can't help but wonder why the US did not mass produce the Mosquito under license and use it instead of the B-17/B-24. True they would have had to use a few more to carry the same bomb load (B-17: 6,000 lbs. vs. Mk.IX: 4,000 lbs). But the Mosquito cruising speed was almost 70 mph faster (250 mph), range was at least equal (2,500 mls.) and after dropping load could have hit the deck run like #ell. Fewer airmen (Mk.IX: 2 vs. B-17: 10) would have been put at risk and I believe the survival rate may have been better. I know I'm sort of off topic but you all have pretty much summed up the pros and cons already. I believe the two were pretty close in the ruggedness category (two engines and all). And there shouldn't be any argument over which was the better fighter vs. fighter considering the P-38's acceleration, climb, turn and roll rate. But the Mossie was what was needed where it was needed when it was needed. Lord, I'm just glad we had both of them on our side. So, which was better?............I guess it depends on when and where you were at the time.
> 
> Great thread Guys. Thanks, Jeff



The Mossie was a great plane but it was not designed to accomplish high altitude precision daylight bombing. If it was used in that same capacity with a bombardier in the lead plane using a Norden bomb sight, it would still have to be flown at substantially slower speeds.


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2013)

Thanks for the information FLYBOY. What about fast under the radar with P-51/P-51As as escorts. I'm not real versed on bombing strategies and I know, it shows.
Jeff


----------



## Glider (May 30, 2013)

another site to try

Subject Index: de Havilland Mosquito


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2013)

Thank you Glider.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> Thanks for the information FLYBOY. What about fast under the radar with P-51/P-51As as escorts. I'm not real versed on bombing strategies and I know, it shows.
> Jeff


Then you have what it did in the war to begin with - a fast capable fighter bomber that could take out precision targets


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2013)

There you go sir. Now imagine that on a greater scale.


----------



## CORSNING (May 31, 2013)

Before I even get started, I want you all to know that this is all Glider's fault. I read everything on the sight he posted on #725
that's right this is all your fault (God bless you man). I'll start with the Mosquito B Mk.IX:"When equipped with electronic bombing aids, the Mosquido B Mk IX could bomb from a height of 30,000,". To continue on " Later tests with the Merlin 77 engine saw the prototype reach a speed of 437 mph at 29,000 ft." Just for the record this type reached No.109 squadron on April 21, 1943.
The B Mk.XVI had a pressurised cabin that gave it an operational ceiling of 35,000 ft. "When combined with Gee-H NS H2S, the Mosquito was capable of relatively accurate bombing from this high altitude. More importantly, it could hit a given target on nights when the main bomber stream would be grounded." The B Mk.XVI entered service in December 1943 with No.109 sqd.
LG, I'm sorry man but as a bomber, the Mosquito wins. HANDS DOWN.....PERIOD!
I'm not saying the P-38 couldn't be adapted to do the job. I'm just saying it wasn't at the time the Mosquito was when it was needed and kicking @$$ BIG TIME by the way.

For the record: I still like the idea of an armada of Mosquitoes flying in at tree top level with an escort of P-51As 800 mls. from home. One group of Mustangs flying top cover and one flying close cover. Now that would be quite a sight.

I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'm just saying, have a great night guys, Jeff.


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2013)

I always get the blame. Anyway back to the P51 escorting the Mosquito. This was often done but there was a problem. The P51 needed drop tanks to get the max range but with drop tanks the P51 was a lot slower than the mossie. 

The result was Mosquito had to slow down resulting in the Aircraft being in the danger area longer and, as it would be flying at a less economical cruising speed the bombers range was reduced


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 2, 2013)

Glider,
I have been mowing the yard and cleaning the garage all day so I haven't done all the research needed. So all I am about to write is as much a question as it is a statement. The P-51A was capable of 2,000 mls. at 266 mph. with two 125 gallon drop tanks. I am early in my studies of the Mosquito but from what I have read so far the Mk. IV's cruising speed is 250-260 mph. After dropping wing tanks the P-51A was capable of 376-380 mph at sea level graduating up to 395-413 mph at 10,000 ft. depending on what engine it had in it,the V-1710-73 or -81. So from what I have read so far the only time the Mustang would have had a rough time staying up with the Mossie is if it pealed off to intercept E/A allowing the Mosquitoes to high tail it out of there. That would have been there job.

We are talking 1943-early 1944.

Jeff


----------



## proton45 (Jun 2, 2013)

It was the Mossie...But I do LOVE the P-38!


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> Glider,
> I have been mowing the yard and cleaning the garage all day so I haven't done all the research needed. So all I am about to write is as much a question as it is a statement. The P-51A was capable of 2,000 mls. at 266 mph. with two 125 gallon drop tanks. I am early in my studies of the Mosquito but from what I have read so far the Mk. IV's cruising speed is 250-260 mph. After dropping wing tanks the P-51A was capable of 376-380 mph at sea level graduating up to 395-413 mph at 10,000 ft. depending on what engine it had in it,the V-1710-73 or -81. So from what I have read so far the only time the Mustang would have had a rough time staying up with the Mossie is if it pealed off to intercept E/A allowing the Mosquitoes to high tail it out of there. That would have been there job.
> 
> We are talking 1943-early 1944.
> ...



There are cruising speeds and then there are cruising speeds.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV_ads.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkXVI_ads.jpg

These are three data sheets for the Mosquito - B.IV (Merlin 21), B.IV (Merlin 23) and B.XVI (Merlin 72/73).

Note that the cruising speeds are all listed at 15,000ft - which may, or may not, be the optimum height for cruise.

Two cruise speeds are listed - most economical and max weak mixture. Most economical gets the best range, obviously. Max weak mixture is a fast cruise using a power level at or near maximum continuous power.

The B.IV's most economical are both 265mph @ 15,000ft. With the Merlin 21 the max weak cruise is 320mph (2650rpm, +4psi boost), whereas the Merlin 23 B.IV could get 327mph (2650rpm, +7psi boost). The B.XVI is listed as 321mph max weak mixture, and 245mph at most economical. I would suggest that 15,000ft is far from the best cruise altitude for the B.XVI. 

The B.XVI with the later Merlin 76/77s had a max weak mixture cruise speed of over 350mph TAS.

Speeds at sea/low level are reduced. For the FB.VI (similar engines to the B.IV, but with more drag) the most economical cruise at sea level was about 220-230mph, whilst the max weak mixture cruise was 270-280mph (from my recollection - FB.VI pilots notes).

The Mustang I's cruise speed of 266mph would be at altitude. I would also suggest that the P-51A's sea level max speed was somewhat less than 375-380mph, since that was close to its maximum speed.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2013)

After a quick look on P-51 Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials I stand corrected. The Mustang I could do 370-380mph @ sea level.


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2013)

Dont get confused btween max and cruising speed. I dont see a cruising speed of 370 mph with drop tanks anywhere. In one of the papers is a description of a long range (Rhubarbs) mission which I copy here
_Specialised pilot training is a very important phase in this operation. New pilots coming with the unit are not allowed to go on an operational flight for several months. They must have become familiar with every phase of the operation before going out on their own. They are thoroughly instructed in radio procedure and discipline. They must know their airplane completely and have the responsibility for keeping their own ground crew on their toes. They are allowed to make changes in their own aircraft for their personal comfort and are encouraged to keep the wings polished and free from scratches. In fact, no one is allowed to climb up on the wings without a pad in place. The pilots enter from the front stepping on the wing at only two designated spots. *They must run slow speed fuel consumption tests so that they are convinced that it is possible to operate at 200 mph and approximately 20 gal per if they keep the R.P.M. down to 1100*. They must supervise the swinging and checking of their own compass in order to increase their confidence in their equipment. Blind flying practice is carried out at all times. Each pilot is so trained that he can “lay on” a complete mission in all details_.

I based my oringinal statement on books that I have read but the following story with a PR Mossie and a P51 B-D Mustang does show the difference in those versions.

Lt. Richard Geary flew the 21 January mission to the Politz Oil Refinery at Stettin, Poland with Lt. Floyd Mann as navigator.

_They had been on standby for this particular mission waiting for the weather to clear. The operations room had an enormous map that covered 25 feet or better of one wall. The missions for the day, the next day or when weather permitted, were represented by colored yarn. A different color for each mission was stretched from Watton to the target area. The yarn for the Politz mission went all the way from one end of the map to the other. Geary recalls aircrew members asking, 'Who the hell is going to fly that mission?'

It was a cold winter morning when an orderly awakened Geary at 0400. The weather had cleared and the mission proceeded as scheduled. Geary went to the flight line and then to the parachute room to meet his navigator Floyd Mann.

Watton was covered with a thin layer of snow as they took off at 0920 in NS569. Prior arrangements were made to rendezvous at 0925 with four P-51s from 20th FG at 18,000 feet over Cromer. They would provide escort to Stettin and return._
_The Mosquito met the fighter escort as planned; but now heavily loaded with l,000 gallons of fuel, flew at a severe speed disadvantage. *Geary attempted to maintain economical cruising speed but outpaced the P-51s and was forced to throttle-back to continue flying formation with them. The Mustangs had long-range drop tanks and were also fully loaded*. Once involved with enemy action, they would jettison their tanks, and therefore, were attempting to conserve and obtain maximum range from their fuel supply. This exacerbated the problem. It was a very-long flight to the Polish border, and on three occasions Geary throttled-back and did not receive the mileage planned_.

On most missions it wasn't a problem but on the very long range missions it was.


----------



## BlackSheepTwoOneFour (Jun 3, 2013)

Mosquito. Lightweight and fast enough to do it's job. The P-38 is an awesome aircraft no doubt but you have to be careful in a full all out steep dive.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 3, 2013)

Thanks for post #735. I haven't done enough digging yet but it does appear that the maximum cruise of the P-51 / -39 engine was around 275 mph. I haven't located a max.cruise for the P-51A / -73 or -81.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 3, 2013)

Great contribution, Glider et al, many thanks.


----------



## nincomp (Jun 3, 2013)

Glider said:


> *They must run slow speed fuel consumption tests so that they are convinced that it is possible to operate at 200 mph and approximately 20 gal per if they keep the R.P.M. down to 1100*.



I have read in a number of places that the Merlin engines did not run smoothly at low RPM's. Did the engines run more smoothly with some boost?

What was the cause of the rough running with the Merlins? Was it mainly uneven fuel distribution and/or a poor intake manifold design?


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> Thanks for post #735. I haven't done enough digging yet but it does appear that the maximum cruise of the P-51 / -39 engine was around 275 mph. I haven't located a max.cruise for the P-51A / -73 or -81.



It isn't the max econ cruise of the P51 that is of interest. Its the Max econ cruise of the P51 carrying drop tanks thats of interest.


----------



## pattle (Jul 31, 2013)

Why compare a bomber to a fighter? surely the Mosquito was the better bomber and the P38 the better fighter. Having said that the mosquito was the better night fighter of the two and the Mosquito was a more versatile and unique weapon.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 31, 2013)

I tend to dislike these "which is better" threads. 

About the only point of comparison between the two aircraft is the number of engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## YakFlyer (Nov 9, 2013)

Come on folks, we all have to admit, the non british/american aviators here will have to say the Mosquito had far greater impact on the second world war. It was a very clever design, while the P38 was effective, it surely can't be said that it was any where near as effective as the Mosquito in combat. Surely?
See this video: I saw the Jagen Mossie before it was crated up in NZ and sent to Virginia Beach.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGCslbIktnQ_

Now, that said, for me, purely from an enthusiasts point of view, I love the P-38! It is undeniably my favourite multi-eng aircraft, which means it got my vote. The Lightning was just something else to see and hear wasn't it? 





The no.1 thing to see at Oshkosh last year, was to see Glacier Girl. Mission accomplished. Everything else was a bonus. 

yakflyer


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2013)

Amazing how a fighter and a bomber can be used for such similar roles. Both Great aircraft, its the Mosquito for me as it was the dogs goolies as a night fighter and recconnaisance A/C which it wasnt designed for while being the most accurate and cost effective Bomber in Bomber command day or night. We will ignore the unfortunate incident which nearly killed Niels Bohr world famous Physicist.

from Wiki

When the news of Bohr's escape reached Britain, Lord Cherwell sent a telegram to Bohr asking him to come to Britain. Bohr arrived in Scotland on 6 October in a De Havilland Mosquito operated by British Overseas Airways Corporation. The Mosquitos were unarmed high-speed bomber aircraft that had been converted to carry small, valuable cargoes or important passengers. By flying at high speed and high altitude, they could cross German-occupied Norway, and yet avoid German fighters. Bohr, equipped with parachute, flying suit and oxygen mask, spent the three-hour flight lying on a mattress in the aircraft's bomb bay.[94] During the flight, Bohr did not wear his flying helmet as it was too small, and consequently did not hear the pilot's intercom instruction to turn on his oxygen supply when the aircraft climbed to high altitude to overfly Norway. He passed out from oxygen starvation and only revived when the aircraft descended to lower altitude over the North Sea.[95][96][97] Bohr's son Aage followed his father to Britain on another flight a week later, and became his personal assistant.[98][99]


----------



## Njaco (Nov 11, 2013)

Hey Yakflyer, is that you with GG?


----------



## pattern14 (Feb 25, 2014)

I was reading Adolf Gallands book, 'The first and the last", and he put the P38 in the same category as the Bf 110. He considered it inferior to single engine fighters, saying it suffered the same drawbacks as the 110. Having encountered them in actual combat gives him a unique perspective I suppose.


----------



## MildExplosion (Feb 22, 2016)

I absolutely adore both aircraft, but in terms of pure performance, the late model P-38s for sure. The P-38L outpreforms the Mosquito Mk. FB VI in every way, except possibly turn circle, but I'm not sure about that. Not to mention things like boosted ailerons and dive recovery flaps that were included on late model P-38s.

However, that is not to say the Mosquito was not excellent at some things the Lightning simply could not do. Including, but not limited to: anti submarine operations with a 57 mm cannon, proper bombing, and much more. 

In terms of performance, the P-38. In terms of utility, probably the Mosquito. 

In the end, they are some of the most fantastic preforming, and beautiful aircraft of the war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CreamPuff (Dec 31, 2018)

I admire the Mosquito for an entirely different reason. Mosquito production kept a large number of piano shops gainfully employed making something other than pianos. And I think we can all agree that a piano shortage is a good thing. 
Just imagine the damage done to the atmosphere of countless village pubs if they'd had shiny new pianos in the corner instead of battered old wrecks with no tone but massive character?

How does that saying go? Fighter pilots make movies...bomber boys make _history_.
History is endlessly fascinating, but movies are more fun. I'll take the (late model) Lightning!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 31, 2018)

Lord have mercy - this has to be one of the oldest revived threads on the forums...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Rabies Cobradriver (Apr 19, 2019)

Nig said:


> I have a slightly different take on the whole thing (though I must say I gave up on reading every post after say the twenty page mark)
> 
> I believe the p38 was one of the most expensive fighters produced in ww2, the Mosquitos cost was around two thirds the price of the p38 and didn't use as much strategic materials in her construction and largely used a skill set in the population that was under utilised . It would also have lent itself to decentralising its construction due to lower energy requirements of wood vs energy hungry aluminium .
> The better performance in the ETO is the same argument on the Allisons already known poorer performance at high altitude, which is probably why we see less of the use of the p51 in the PTO. Major Bong of course was PTO.
> ...


Reliability plagued the Mossie. It had float bowl type carburetors which would malfunction during evasive aerobatic maneuvers, causing unrecoverable stalls. The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range, superior firepower, and better maneuverability. The only advantages of the Mosquito were lower manufacturing cost and practical invisibility to the German radars of the time. In the latter sense, the Mossie may have been a superior solution for very specific bombing missions, but was inferior in every other performance metric.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Apr 19, 2019)

Reliability plagued the Mosquito ???
I've never heard that one before - and I've had the privilege of knowing a number of Mosquito aircrew.


----------



## Rabies Cobradriver (Apr 19, 2019)

BlackSheepTwoOneFour said:


> Mosquito. Lightweight and fast enough to do it's job. The P-38 is an awesome aircraft no doubt but you have to be careful in a full all out steep dive.


Compression problems in dives were resolved by the installation of five flaps (speed brakes) on the versions following the initial production model. The problem was identified and solved very early on.



Rabies Cobradriver said:


> Compression problems in dives were resolved by the installation of five flaps (speed brakes) on the versions following the initial production model. The problem was identified and solved very early on.


“Dive flaps” — flipping autocorrect sux.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2019)

Rabies Cobradriver said:


> Reliability plagued the Mossie. It had float bowl type carburetors which would malfunction during evasive aerobatic maneuvers, causing unrecoverable stalls.



Welcome to the forum.
Could you please quote a source about Mosquito entering unrecoverable stalls, especially the ones caused by malfunctioning carburetors?



> The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range, superior firepower, and better maneuverability. The only advantages of the Mosquito were lower manufacturing cost and practical invisibility to the German radars of the time. In the latter sense, the Mossie may have been a superior solution for very specific bombing missions, but was inferior in every other performance metric.



P-38 was designed as a fighter, so it should be more maneuverable. Some Mosquitoes were faster than contemporary P-38s, plenty of them were with much greater firepower - 4 cannons and all that jazz. 60% greater range for any P-38s vs. any Mosquito?



Rabies Cobradriver said:


> Compression problems in dives were resolved by the installation of five flaps (speed brakes) on the versions following the initial production model. The problem was identified and solved very early on.



Problem was not served early on, but in 1944. When it is about fighters, P-38 was among the worst of them.
Mosquito have had more favorable dive limits.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2019)

Rabies Cobradriver said:


> Reliability plagued the Mossie. It had float bowl type carburetors which would malfunction during evasive aerobatic maneuvers, causing unrecoverable stalls. The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range, superior firepower, and better maneuverability. The only advantages of the Mosquito were lower manufacturing cost and practical invisibility to the German radars of the time. In the latter sense, the Mossie may have been a superior solution for very specific bombing missions, but was inferior in every other performance metric.


It was also superior solution to recon missions, a superior solution to maritime strike missions, a superior solution to night fighter missions and pathfinder missions. and shooting down V1s at night missions. I don't remember reading about its 4 x 20 cannon, rockets and bombs being inadequate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2019)

And the Mossie was not even close to being invisible to German radar. It had a small signature, but it was not practically invisible. Wood still returns a radar signature, the shape was not stealthy, and those big spinny things called props all ensured it was seen on radar.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And the Mossie was not even close to being invisible to German radar. It had a small signature, but it was not practically invisible. Wood still returns a radar signature, the shape was not stealthy, and those big spinny things called props all ensured it was seen on radar.



Rumor is that Mosquito also featured two engines. My understanding is that those were not made of wood, but of metal.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And the Mossie was not even close to being invisible to German radar. It had a small signature, but it was not practically invisible. Wood still returns a radar signature, the shape was not stealthy, and those big spinny things called props all ensured it was seen on radar.


From what I read German RADAR could find them easily enough but their speed and height made vectoring an interception very difficult in daylight more so at night.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Rumor is that Mosquito also featured two engines. My understanding is that those were not made of wood, but of metal.



You mean it was not powered by magic?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> From what I read German RADAR could find them easily enough but their speed and height made vectoring an interception very difficult in daylight more so at night.



That is what I have read over the years as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Welcome to the forum.
> Could you please quote a source about Mosquito entering unrecoverable stalls, especially the ones caused by malfunctioning carburetors?
> .


This was basically the cause of the Barton crash in 1996 but as far as I see in this report the carbs were incorrectly set https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542301dce5274a1317000b69/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 19, 2019)

The only way to settle this thing is with facts & figures. There are some caveats that have to be mentioned right off the bat

Lockheed P-38
Was designed first and foremost as a day-fighter
Disclaimer: Some will immediately say it was an interceptor, but that was just an excuse to get around undesirable requirements. The people issuing the specs wanted a plane that was usable for both offense and defense, but had heavier armament (1000 pounds of armament as a starting point instead of 500, which was the rule), and more engine power (which lead to the desire for two engines, which was verboten with one crewman). A lieutenant cannot legally override a colonel or general, so they decided to call it something other than a fighter.

While it did other missions including reconnaissance, night-fighter, fighter-bomber, path-finder, and level-bomber (it might have also hauled a person in the nose once or twice), it was firstly a day-fighter.

De Havilland Mosquito
Was designed first and foremost as a bomber & reconnaissance aircraft: And I'm not totally sure the reconnaissance role was there for a purpose other than manufacturing a case for the aircraft's production if the Air Ministry wouldn't get attached to the idea of an unarmed bomber.
While it did quite a number of other roles including: Night-Fighter, Fighter-Bomber, Target-Tug, and even Transport, that was not it's primary mission.

I figure if one's to compare it, I'd compare the fighter variants of the P-38 to the fighter-variants of the Mosquito: Since I'm not sure if any Mosquito served as a day-fighter variant, the various night-fighter variants can be included. The general metrics of a day-fighter would include the following.

Time period: After all, there is no realistic point in comparing a P-40 to an F-22. The variants should be compared by time-frame.
Performance: This is basically subdivided into several areas
Speed
Level-Speeds: This should include the maximum overall speed, maximum cruise-speeds, and typical cruise-speeds. These should be factored, when possible, across the tactically useful altitudes. Ironically high-speed cruise is more useful a figure than the top-speed as this would be what you'd probably see when combat starts. These should be measured at weight figures typically seen at the start of combat. Don't factor in the speed of one airplane weighed down to the max with racks hanging off of everything, and drop-tanks with the other lightly loaded, and completely clean.
Dive-Speeds: This should both factor in airspeed and mach-number. I'm pretty sure the Mosquito would come out on top in regards to mach number, though the P-38's with dive-recovery flaps should be considered as mentioned. I wouldn't weigh it as much as an airplane that could achieve that mach number without them, as it's a sign of better wing-design (plus not all P-38's were fitted).

Acceleration: This subdivides into
Level Acceleration: This is pretty much self-explanatory, acceleration rate varies with speed and altitude. Some aircraft will out accelerate another at all altitudes, others just at some. The condition of the aircraft should be that typically seen in combat-trim.
Dive Acceleration: There are aircraft that don't have the highest dive-speeds, but can accelerate real fast in a dive and be on you before you can reach your peak dive speed. The Spitfire had an unbelievable maximum dive-speed (placard limit 0.85), but a P-47 might very well out-accelerate it in dives (placard limit was 0.745)

Altitude: This subdivides into...
Critical Altitudes: This should be factored with ram compression and equal power settings (i.e. normal rated, military, war emergency power)
Service Ceiling: As before

Climb-Rate: This subdivides into
Continuous Climb: Self explanatory
Zoom-Climb: Some aircraft don't have the best steady-state climbs but they can zoom-climb well (the P-47 comes to mind)

Roll-Rate: This subdivides into
Responsiveness: How quickly the rate of roll-builds from when the pilot moves the stick
Peak-Rate: Basically, if you throw the stick to one side and hold it there long enough, you reach a peak roll-rate.

Rate of Turn: This includes several areas of importance
Corner velocity: The CAS at which you can pull the maximum rated g-load. Predictably varies with altitudes.
Responsiveness: Some airplanes build up g-load / rate of turn faster than would others.
G-load: The P-38 was stressed for a higher g-load than the Mosquito


Armament: This includes rate of fire, ballistic accuracy, and weight of fire. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mosquito was better in this regard as it had 4 x 20mm.
Ease of Handling: Control forces, control harmony, stall & spin characteristics, engine-out characteristics, etc...
Human Factors: Cockpit layout, visibility, etc...
I'm not sure what you call this one, but I do remember it mentioned that, even before the maneuvering flaps were put in the P-38 had a decent rate of turn, but because of a poor-roll rate, even the P-47 would be able to beat it because it could bank into a turn fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2019)

Rabies Cobradriver said:


> Reliability plagued the Mossie.


As with the others I would like some stats to support such a comment 


> It had float bowl type carburetors which would malfunction during evasive aerobatic maneuvers, causing unrecoverable stalls.


 Does this explain the single engine rolling climb that was done when the Mosquito was first demonstrated to the USA?


> The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range, superior firepower, and better maneuverability.


Does this explain why the P38 was withdrawn from the fighting over Europe so quickly, why the USAAF had such heavy losses with the F5 they asked for PR Spits and Mosquito's to replace them?


> The only advantages of the Mosquito were lower manufacturing cost and practical invisibility to the German radars of the time. In the latter sense, the Mossie may have been a superior solution for very specific bombing missions, but was inferior in every other performance metric.


The cruising speed of the Mosquito was much faster which is often more important than headline speed. Firepower 'are you serious' 4 x 20mm and 4 x Lmg trumps 1 x 20mm and 4 x heavy any day. Payload common payload was 2000lb on the FB version and it could carry it a lot faster and further than a P38.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> De Havilland Mosquito
> Was designed first and foremost as a bomber & reconnaissance aircraft: And I'm not totally sure the reconnaissance role was there for a purpose other than manufacturing a case for the aircraft's production if the Air Ministry wouldn't get attached to the idea of an unarmed bomber.
> While it did quite a number of other roles including: Night-Fighter, Fighter-Bomber, Target-Tug, and even Transport, that was not it's primary mission.
> 
> .


I think this are some common misconceptions here. The Mosquito wasn't designed as a P/R aircraft, I don't know that any WW2 aircraft was. But as soon as UK was at war it was realised P/R was needed and also how difficult it was. By the time the Mosquito was in production the RAF was desperate for P/R aircraft so desperate that the prototype P/R Mosquito flew operationally. as the war progressed the need increased for all sorts of reasons, when the USA became involved the need increased further not only to identify targets, evaluate damage, but also find which targets were covered in cloud and what the general weather was. The allied joint P/R effort in Europe was massive and unglamorous but vital in saving lives and as a force multiplier. The Mosquito was one of very few non USA aircraft used by the USA and they would have taken more than they did. There were many types of P/R aircraft, they were all high performance after the first years of the war, in a certain niche the P/R version of the Mosquito was the best. 

The role of night fighter was completely dependent on RADAR that could be carried on an aircraft so you couldn't design a "nightfighter" in 1939, airborne RADAR was still completely experimental.

The role of "fighter bomber" has many aspects, if the object is to destroy enemy equipment and destroy aircraft that can destroy your equipment. In that the Mosquito saw of its main adversaries the Ju88 and Me110 by day and night over land and sea.

Maybe a better question would be how would the P-38 fare trying to stop Mosquito bomber and P/R and maritime strike operations?


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Maybe a better question would be how would the P-38 fare trying to stop Mosquito bomber and P/R and maritime strike operations?



Excellent idea

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2019)

Let’s get a few details straight.

The “dive flaps” fitted to P-38J’s and L’s from 1944 did not solve the compressibility problem. These were truly five brakes, designed to reduce acceleration in a dive so that the speed would not reach that where compressibility occurred.

The allowed dive angle at altitude was increased from 15 degrees to about 45 degrees. Not a match for most contemporary fighters.

If the P-38 had a range 60% greater than the Mosquito the 8AF could have escorted their bombers to Germany in early 1943.

To be fair to the P-38 it has to be noted that the majority (all?) P-38s were diverted to North Africa in support of the Torch landings in 1943.

A significant proportion of Mosquitoes weee produced with the single stage Packard Merlin, which featured an injection carburettor. Most, or all, 2 stage variants had an injection carburettor.

The FB.VI is not the appropriate Mosquito to compare to the P-38. The 2 stage NF versions were a better match. The NF.XIX would have been contemporary to the P-38J and the NF.XXX with the P-38L. The XIX and XXX had the universal radome, which was usually fitted with the AI,X (SCR720) radar, possibly the best AI radar of the war.

And, Zippier, the Mosquito was not deployed as a day fighter, though the possibility was explored (but rejected).


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2019)

Glider said:


> Does this explain why the P38 was withdrawn from the fighting over Europe so quickly, why the USAAF had such heavy losses with the F5 they asked for PR Spits and Mosquito's to replace them?





wuzak said:


> To be fair to the P-38 it has to be noted that the majority (all?) P-38s were diverted to North Africa in support of the Torch landings in 1943.



Wuzak is correct, all fighter P-38s were diverted to North Africa in Support of Torch. It would be about a year before P-38 fighters would appear in NW Europe again. 

I don't know if a small contigent of photo recon planes stayed behind or were supplied during the time the fighters were in North Africa/Italy. 



wuzak said:


> If the P-38 had a range 60% greater than the Mosquito the 8AF could have escorted their bombers to Germany in early 1943.


Early P-38s certainly didn't have any extra range over the Mosquito (only 300 US gallons internal) and the later ones while better (410 US gallons) were still going to come up short. 
Mosquitos holding over 500 Imp gallons internal?
maybe you could get a P-38 to fly further than a Mosquito by hanging a pair of huge drop tanks on it but that is ferry range and not combat range.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Wuzak is correct, all fighter P-38s were diverted to North Africa in Support of Torch. It would be about a year before P-38 fighters would appear in NW Europe again.
> 
> I don't know if a small contigent of photo recon planes stayed behind or were supplied during the time the fighters were in North Africa/Italy.
> 
> ...


You can hang 2 x 200 gallon tanks under a Mosquito too. The longest range Mosquitos had 1,592 gallons in internal and external fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2019)

Thank you, I didn't know the max capacity of the Mosquito. The P-38 (at least the late ones) maxed out at 1076 US gallons (two 330 gal under wing tanks).


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 19, 2019)

Rabies Cobradriver said:


> Reliability plagued the Mossie.



*To quote General McArthur on 16 July 1942*








Rabies Cobradriver said:


> It had float bowl type carburetors which would malfunction during evasive aerobatic maneuvers, causing unrecoverable stalls.



Only until Miss Shillings Orifice was invented. It was fitted to all fighter command Merlins by the end of March 41 and fitted to all production Merlins starting early 41. Given the Mosquito did not enter production until 15 November 1941 that means this problem only affected a few prototypes.



Rabies Cobradriver said:


> The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range ....



But a Mosquito crew could fly maximum range operations day after day after day while the P-38 needed a break between long flights (unless each P-38 had many pilots).
To quote a USAAF Air Intell Report








Rabies Cobradriver said:


> The P38 ... *had 60% greater range*



From the F-8 and P-38 US Army Flight Ops Manuals dated 30 Jun 44 and Sep 44 respectively

the USAAF F-8 Mosquito had a *2430 *statute mile range with 887 USG fuel. The longest range Mosquito's had 1,592 gallons fuel which would provide the F-8 with close to double the range in the Ops manual.
the P-38 Lightning had a *1560 *stature mile range with 600 USG external fuel or *810 *miles with no external fuel *under the same operating condition of economy cruise*
*This means the USAAF says the Mosquito has exactly three times the range on internal fuel and 36% greater range if the P-38 was carrying maximum fuel*
*You will note that the Mosquito carries zero fuel that is not available in flight but the P-38 carries 50 gal internal and 5 gal in each drop.*
*



*












Rabies Cobradriver said:


> The P38 had superior firepower



How do you conclude 4 x .50 MGs and *one* 20mm cannon is greater firepower than 4 x .303 MGs and *four* 20mm cannons?



Rabies Cobradriver said:


> The P38 had better maneuverability.



Again from the F-8 and P-38 US Army Flight Ops Manuals dated 30 Jun 44 and Sep 44 respectively

Mosquito 3 three prohibited and one restricted manuouvre.
P-38 - just read them and weep










I do not know what medication your doctor has you on but I would strongly suggest a change of both


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Mosquito wasn't designed as a P/R aircraft, I don't know that any WW2 aircraft was.



The Ki-46


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2019)

I think there is a mistake and/or misinterpretation of the phrase "Allowance not available in flight"

It should not be zero for the Mosquito and while there very well may be 5 gallons in each drop tank that cannot be gotten out 50 gallons is way too high for the internal fuel.

That 50 gallons is supposed to cover starting the engines, warming them up, taxing, take-off and climb to some nominal altitude (like 5,000ft) and so there are 50 gallons not avaialabel for cruising (or anything else) 

I don't know what a Mosquito would need to to do that but I doubt it would be significantly different. 

It doesn't actually change anything, the Mosquito still has a much longer range.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> *To quote General McArthur on 16 July 1942*
> View attachment 535598



While good points were brought up in the rest of your post, it's kind of funny how one of his subordinates (who ran the 5th AF) saw differently. Also, Mac mentions "operational experience to date," July 1942??? How many P-38s were in the PTO during that time? I wonder what Mac would have said after December 27, 1942? The rest is history...


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 20, 2019)

Well ,while both extremely versitile one was designed to be a fighter and the other a bomber. Asking what's better the p38 or the Mosquito is, although less extreme, akin to asking what is better the p51 or the Lancaster.
I guess it would depend on theater and mission. If I were doing poto recon or anything by night in western Europe I'd definitely want the Mossie. If it was a long range fighter for the South Pacific I think I'd go with the Lightning. Just depends on what and where. At least that's the way I see it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 20, 2019)

Rabies Cobradriver said:


> The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range, superior firepower, and better maneuverability.



Climb performance is also interesting

The USAAF puts the time to *20,000ft* for the Mosquito as 8.6 min at 16,770lb (roughly equivalent to P-38 with no drops at 17,400) and 22 minutes at MTOW.

At 17,400 lbs (no drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 5 minutes to *15,000ft* at combat climb - add a third to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7.5 mines to 20,000 in combat climb. 
At 17,400 lbs (no drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 9 minutes to *25,000ft* at combat climb - deduct 1/5 to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7 min to 20,000 in combat climb. 

*At 17,400 lbs, given that is a combat climb in an aircraft designed as an interceptor and the turbos are hard at work above 15,000 ft the difference in climb time is not great when considering that the bigger and far fatter mosquito was designed as a bomber and photo recon aircraft. *

At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 8 minutes to *15,000ft* at full climb - add a third to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7.5 min to 20,000 in combat climb. 
At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 9 minutes to *25,000ft* at full climb - deduct 1/5 to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7 min to 20,000 in combat climb. 


*However, given the F-8 Mosquito is a PR aircraft it would always do ferry climb so we should compare ferrry climb performance and in that comparison the Mosquito wins hands down.*

At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes *14 *minutes to *15,000ft* at ferry climb - add a third to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 21 min to 20,000 in ferry climb boout the same as the mossie. 
At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes *40 *minutes to *25,000ft* at ferry climb - deduct 1/5 to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 32 min to 20,000 in ferry climb, ten minutes slower than the Mosquito which does not even have turbos to boost its climb above 15,000 ft. Much slower than the bomber/PR aircraft.


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 20, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While good points were brought up in the rest of your post, it's kind of funny how one of his subordinates (who ran the 5th AF) saw differently. Also, Mac mentions "operational experience to date," July 1942??? How many P-38s were in the PTO during that time? I wonder what Mac would have said after December 27, 1942? The rest is history...



I totally agree with you Flyboy about the aircrafts *operational *value later on but having worked on two P-38s I know they are a bitch to maintain and I would expect that to have continued to the bitter end because of the complexity in a compact package. A number of common jobs require a wing off to access a fuel or hydraulic component, even on the late L models. I saw a lot of other defects showing though some were probably shipping related like excessive tyre failures. There are many reports on tyres and other spares being dead on arrival due to being badly transported.

Mine is also a far more valid, and historically correct, comment than claiming all Mosquitos had the carb flooding problems when it was only the early prototypes engines that were not fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice or pressure carbs and thus flooding under high g turns. No production Mosquito was affected with the carb problem but McArthurs P-38 problems did exist in early operations at least.

Those who want to denigrate the Spitfire and Mosquito on moronic grounds always seem to like to shout about the VERY EARLY Merlins carbs while forgetting that some US and Japanese engines had the very same problem. Many American engines by then had the Stromberg pressure carbs so were immune and most German combat engines had fuel injection but in both countries this was not a universal situation. Who knows what the French and Italians and Russians had? I suspect float carbs in the early war years.

As others have pointed out the Packard Merlins all had Stromberg carbs and the later Merlins had a British pressure carb. My Merlin experience is almost purely Packard but others far more knowledgeable on Merlins than I will no doubt be willing and able to identify when these were introduced. I would suspect late 42 at the latest as if I remember right the Bristol Hercs had pressure carbs around then. Horribly complex beasties on the Hercs but definitely reliable.

I may be able to find the number of P-38s in the PTO at that stage - saw it only about a week ago in the 30,000+ pages of US archives I just received and was not particularly interested but should be able to find it again. It was many more than I expected and in a record that included LB-30's and an L-C1. I must admit to having spent an hour trying to find what the L-C1 was and eventually decided it was probably a typo. A surprising number of Curtiss Falcons arrived in Aus about the same time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2019)

Looking through this thread I think many years ago I defended the P-38 to the death. Just to under LancasterKicksAss’s skin...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2019)

McArthur's "experience" with P-38s was limited to a small number of F-4 photo-recon planes that first showed up April 7th 1942 with Flight A of the 8th Photo squadron. They had four planes. They started operations on April 16th. 

" "B" and "C" Flights arrived at Camp Murphy, Melbourne, on 16 July 1942 aboard the S.S. Matsonia, and departed for Townsville on 27 July 1942. "
from https://www.ozatwar.com/8pr.htm 

Strangely enough in Aug of 1942 Gen Kennedy is pleading with General Arnold for P-38s for the 5th Air force. But he didn't arrive until after McArthur wrote that memo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> I totally agree with you Flyboy about the aircrafts *operational *value later on but having worked on two P-38s I know they are a bitch to maintain and I would expect that to have continued to the bitter end because of the complexity in a compact package. A number of common jobs require a wing off to access a fuel or hydraulic component, even on the late L models. I saw a lot of other defects showing though some were probably shipping related like excessive tyre failures. There are many reports on tyres and other spares being dead on arrival due to being badly transported.
> 
> Mine is also a far more valid, and historically correct, comment than claiming all Mosquitos had the carb flooding problems when it was only the early prototypes engines that were not fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice or pressure carbs and thus flooding under high g turns. No production Mosquito was affected with the carb problem but McArthurs P-38 problems did exist in early operations at least.



Agree on some points and no doubt the P-38 had it's gestation issues, even in the PTO but MacArthur's comments in reality turned into hot air as General Kenny was the main focus of the deployment and probably the success of the P-38 in the SW Pacific.


MiTasol said:


> Those who want to denigrate the Spitfire and Mosquito on moronic grounds always seem to like to shout about the VERY EARLY Merlins carbs while forgetting that some US and Japanese engines had the very same problem. Many American engines by then had the Stromberg pressure carbs so were immune and most German combat engines had fuel injection but in both countries this was not a universal situation. Who knows what the French and Italians and Russians had? I suspect float carbs in the early war years.
> 
> As others have pointed out the Packard Merlins all had Stromberg carbs and the later Merlins had a British pressure carb. My Merlin experience is almost purely Packard but others far more knowledgeable on Merlins than I will no doubt be willing and able to identify when these were introduced. I would suspect late 42 at the latest as if I remember right the Bristol Hercs had pressure carbs around then. Horribly complex beasties on the Hercs but definitely reliable.



And agree on all points


MiTasol said:


> I may be able to find the number of P-38s in the PTO at that stage - saw it only about a week ago in the 30,000+ pages of US archives I just received and was not particularly interested but should be able to find it again. It was many more than I expected and in a record that included LB-30's and an L-C1. I must admit to having spent an hour trying to find what the L-C1 was and eventually decided it was probably a typo. A surprising number of Curtiss Falcons arrived in Aus about the same time.


The first P-38s reached the SW Pacific in April 42, when 4 F-4s were operated by the 8th Photo Reconnaissance Squadron, they were not armed. The First armed P-38 arrived in Brisbane in August 1942. They formed the 35th and 39th FS and were not operational until November. The 339th FS, 347th FG based on Henderson also received P-38s, their first mission was in November, 1942. The first real combat involving P-38s in numbers took place December 27, 1942 with the 39th FG. So going full circle, MacArthur was really talking out of his ass as there were only a handful of P-38s in theater at that time.


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 20, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The first P-38s reached the SW Pacific in April 42, when 4 F-4s were operated by the 8th Photo Reconnaissance Squadron, they were not armed.


Yep - no date in archives documents so I will put a note on the page saying Apr 42 and details from Shortrounds post 777



FLYBOYJ said:


> The First armed P-38 arrived in Brisbane in August 1942.


Agreed - 34 arrived on the John Wise, one damaged and 15 allocated to 39th FS on Sep 17th. No records of where others allocated. All except 3 had 42-126nn serials



FLYBOYJ said:


> So going full circle, MacArthur was really talking out of his ass as there were only a handful of P-38s in theater at that time.


Absolutely though it would be nice to know who gave him that advise. Brereton? That may be in archives

By the way last night I found two more L-1Cs with serials and they were a conversion from 0-49As according to Joe Baugher's site. Obviously the L-C1 entry was a typo.

I am currently trying to read General Kenny's diary. Not _General Kenny Reports _but the actual diaries. They were microfilmed post war and are now available on CD with a five month lead time. If anyone wants a copy ask and I will contact the supplier to get permission to pass them on. I am confident the answer will be yes.

Unfortunately human error during microfilming has been a major problem. Those that microfilmed them obviously ranged from those who really cared to those who did not give a ****, deleting pages or whole files when they felt like it, photographing pages out of order, never changing exposure, not setting focus, etc. Despite the exposure and collating problems very interesting.

I intend to compare the diary with _General Kenny Reports _ on several items such as his pleas to Washington to allow him to return worthless officers to the US rather than being forced to move them to multiple posts where they fail every time and his battles to get food given a higher transportation priority than spares and spares a higher priority than beer.

According to the microfilm index (obviously prepared before the documents were photographed because the frame numbers are on each page) the first diary roll contains




In reality Vols 1, 2 and 3 are missing, the index starts at Frame 1401, not 1862 and Vol 4 starts at 562 not 596.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Climb performance is also interesting
> 
> The USAAF puts the time to *20,000ft* for the Mosquito as 8.6 min at 16,770lb (roughly equivalent to P-38 with no drops at 17,400) and 22 minutes at MTOW.
> 
> ...



While interesting we are drawing conclusions without quite enough information. 

Like what power levels was the Mosquito using? The US F8 being a Canadian built MK XX using Packard Merlin 31 engines? 
Granted there were only 40 built so the pilot's manual might be a bit on the sketchy side, and/or copied from the English pilot notes? 

On the P-38L the Turbos weren't really working all that hard at 15,000ft. The engines on the L used 8.10 supercharger gears instead of the 7.48 gears used in the P-38 F and G. 
The L's also used the B-33 turbo instead of the early B-13. The combination was good for 54in of boost (about 12lbs) to 26,600ft with no RAM (and would actually pull 60 in/14.7lbs? at 25,800ft with no RAM). 

P-38s "combat" climb was at military power which varied with which model P-38 (and which model Allison engines) however their "Ferry" climb also varied. The engines were run at 2300rpm and the allowable boost varied with the engine model, on the L's the boost was 35in (about 2 1/2 lbs) and was the maximum *lean* cruise setting. Something interesting is that the P-38L when heavily loaded (21,400lbs) would burn less fuel using the combat climb than when using the Ferry climb getting to a given altitude. 

The max lean settings for the XX series Merlin seem to be 2650rpm and 4lbs of boost. I have no idea if these settings were used for the "ferry" climb of the F8 Mosquito or not. 

We also seem to have a bit of a disconnect on the weight. A Mosquito at 16,770lbs is running awfully light, even for a photo recon plane. That is only about 3370lbs heavier than the tare weight for a MK IV bomber? 

we seem to have a lack of numbers/facts and a lot of guessing.

The Mosquito may still come out ahead in some categories but lets try to use real numbers.


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Mosquito may still come out ahead in some categories but lets try to use real numbers.



All I can find for numbers in the same format and layout with significant detail and using the same services SOPs are the USAAF TOs. I could look at RAF Pilots notes for both but then the manual layout is totally different and, as you know, the RAF APs are very sparse on detail at the best of times.

I do not know where the USAAF got its operating weights from but I would doubt they are inaccurate. The (very limited) weight data in the -1 and the -1 engine page are below. The complete manual is posted on the forum if you want further details but the whole document is only 36 pages so it is hardly comprehensive. The -2 is quite detailed but as always has no weight data.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

Thank you for the engine chart. 

as for the accuracy of the weights? 

See; http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf 

for a chart on the P-39Q-1 that gives weights of 8100lbs, 7600lbs and 7200lbs.

8100lbs is correct (or close enough) for carrying either a 500lb bomb or 75 gallon drop tank, 7600lbs is close (30lbs over) for the plane clean, with ammo and 87 gallons of fuel.
7200lbs means either no ammo of any caliber (and no ballast) or only 20 gallons of fuel left in the tanks (or combination).
This last combination, while interesting to the pilot and "accurate" tells the pilot how long a runway he needs in such a condition or the difference in climb or some differences in other performance as the plane gets lighter. performance can be estimated depending on actual weight when it differs from the weights given in the table ((falls between).

Picking the lightest weight on the chart may mean a less than "combat" ready condition even if the plane will fly perfectly well in that condition/at that weight. 

The weight "selection" is not consistent on the charts. P-40 chart/s is/are like the P-39 chart. the lightest weight given means there is something not in the airplane. The one for the P-40E lists one weight of 7500lbs, once you stick your 180lb pilot and 75-97lbs of oil into a 7665lb basic weight airplane you have 580lbs left for fuel and ammo (and a P-40E will hold 423lbs of ammo) 

However the P-38L chart starts at 17,400lbs. I don't have the weight charts for the P-38L but for the J 17,400lbs covers the plane with _full ammo _(500rounds per .50 cal gun) and and nearly full tanks, including leading edge. (17,699lbs) using just 300 gallons of fuel and full ammo drops the weight to 17,009lbs. P-38s often carried 300 rounds per .50 cal gun and the weight savings was 240-250lbs. 
The P-38L may well be several hundred pounds heavier than the J and I have no explanation as to why the lightest weight listed for the P-38L is for a more fully supplied plane (even if not max clean weight) than the lightest weight plane on the other two charts. 

granted an F-8 Mosquito doesn't have to worry about ammo but _if_ the plane weighs 21,000lbs max with 887 US gallons of fuel (carried by whatever means needed) then to get down to the 16,770lb figure you have to lose 4230lb of fuel or equipment (or crew?) as there is no ammo or guns. If you lose 4230lbs of fuel that is 705 US gallons and comparing a Mosquito with 182 gallons of fuel to a P-38 with even 300 gallons is a bit of a bogus comparison. 

I would imagine (but could very well be wrong) that the F-8 would use the bottom line on the engine chart for a "ferry" climb. This chart doesn't say but 2650rpm and 4lbs boost was the common limit for two speed Merlins when running lean. 
So for the "ferry" climb we have the P-38 using engines that are 3.6% larger but turning only 87% as fast(rpm) and operating at 92% of the manifold pressure. Not exactly a surprise that a _lightweight_ Mosquito can climb well in comparison. 

I admit I have made a few assumptions here, we don't have the actual numbers to back either of us up. I am not claiming that I am right or that you are wrong, only that there seem to be a range of possible answers (weights and power levels) that can skew the results if not looked at in a critical manor.

Pilots notes/manuals are great and I am not saying that the numbers are wrong (at least not in the sense that you exceed limits, either high or low, you won't be in trouble) but sometimes the weights used seem out of touch with the intended use of the plane. although knowing that even running with no ammo and little fuel trying to put a P-39 down on a wet jungle airfield is going to need a lot more runway than even a warm summer day on dry concrete 

May help with the planning of auxiliary or emergency airstrips too. How long a runway do you need to get a repaired airplane running light off the ground to 'ferry' it to the main field only 10-30 miles away?


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

wow i read some of the posts but there are to many, forgive me if i have repeated someone else's post.

firstly, one aircraft was a result of very poor political/military directions where the other was in spite of poor political/military directions.

the only similarities between these two aircraft is simply that they had two motors and a pilot.
In addition one was designed as an interceptor while the other was designed as a bomber. 
So comparing the two raises a question in itself. to compare them head to head or as to how successful they were in there actual application?

we could come up with a simple answer by saying that the P38 while successful early in the pacific war was soon superseded. it was moderately successful in North africa and totally failed in europe. the mossie was very successful in Europe and very successful in the pacific and asia.

the mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor. 

The P38 was a sturdy airframe but was inherently a poor design, a twin boom single tail created more aerodynamic and stability issues than any other airframe.
pilot servivablity was also poor, getting out in high slipstreams and missing the tail and an unfortunate habit of killing pilots. the mosquito demonstrated none of these folts.
The only disadvantage of the mossie i can think of would be a wheels up landing where if a prop broke off it could tale the legs off the pilot. 

The nazis credited any german pilot who managed to shoot down a mosquito with 2 kills. this was not the case for the P38, i think it speaks volumes in itself.

Development. i see no point in quoting clime rates and air speeds at altitude. while one may have the advantage in one area the other gains that back somewhere else. advantages change back and forwards and each airframe and power plants were developed. But there is one very interesting point. the mosquito got more power it became faster. the P38 did not this is a result of the inherent issues with the airframe as mentioned before. in short it was just very dragy for high speed. for example the turbochargers exhaust directly up, at 90deg to the airflow. this hot gas actually produces drag where the mosquitoes twin or latter fish tail stacks actually increased thrust or at higher speeds the hot gasses filled a low pressure point that would otherwise produce drag.

Lastly, the P38 while on paper stacks up well but in reality it didn't. it could not climb on full power to 30 000ft, at 26000ft it had air inlet temp issues so any climb could not be continued. 

American politics created the P38 with the insistence that any future aircraft motors would be turbo charged and NOT supercharged. this was a correct choice based on theory but incorrect once you have to take into account available metallurgy, heat and the extra plumbing involved. Its this plumbing that precludes its fitting to the P40 but then the P40 was also and old airframe to the point where it benefited a bit but not enough in fitting a packard merlin. the P38 was also not an economical intercepter. 2 motors, one which would have cost more than the actual airframe. compared with the cost of any other american f6f P47 p51 etc. redevelopment of oil and glycol coolers. some decent props. lifting the centerline of thrust. a decent intercooler instead of trying to use the wing etc would all have improved the P38 greatly. BUT the ARMY owned the motors and the P38 needed two of them.

Lastly it could not carry 4+ imperial Tons of bombs nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon. nor did it ever carry 6lb rockets


Based on that and its extensive post war use around the world from canada to australia africa and israel i guess the last nail is the fact that the american purchases and used mosquitos during ww2 both in europe and italy.

My vote is mosquito

Keep to shoot down any counter points.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> wow i read some of the posts but there are to many, forgive me if i have repeated someone else's post.
> 
> firstly, one aircraft was a result of very poor political/military directions where the other was in spite of poor political/military directions.


 Can you validate that with PROOF? The P-38 was the only game in town with regards to it's performance at the start of the war. Need dictated it's production


Clean32 said:


> the only similarities between these two aircraft is simply that they had two motors and a pilot.
> In addition one was designed as an interceptor while the other was designed as a bomber.
> So comparing the two raises a question in itself. to compare them head to head or as to how successful they were in there actual application?


 agree to a point although the P-38 was a very effective fighter bomber where it was not only used for close ground support, but as a medium altitude bomber with a pathfinder aircraft.


Clean32 said:


> we could come up with a simple answer by saying that the P38 while successful early in the pacific war was soon superseded. it was moderately successful in North africa and totally failed in europe. the mossie was very successful in Europe and very successful in the pacific and asia.


 Early in the Pacific? There you're wrong. The P-38 was only being supplemented and slowly replaced during the latter part of the war - look at the operation history of the squadrons flying the aircraft, there were many P-38 units operating in the Pacific right up to VJ day. The first aircraft to land on Japaneses soil after the shooting stopped was a P-38. It was the only US fighter produced prior to the US entry right up to the end.


Clean32 said:


> the mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor.


The mossie and hornet are two different aircraft - that's like saying the P-38 developed into the P-80 which BTW had about a 15% component commonality



Clean32 said:


> The P38 was a sturdy airframe but was inherently a poor design, a twin boom single tail created more aerodynamic and stability issues than any other airframe.
> pilot servivablity was also poor, getting out in high slipstreams and missing the tail and an unfortunate habit of killing pilots. the mosquito demonstrated none of these folts.
> The only disadvantage of the mossie i can think of would be a wheels up landing where if a prop broke off it could tale the legs off the pilot.


 Whilr the P-38 had issues with compressibility, it was well flown and produced more aces in the SWP than any other AAF fighter. The mossie had it's issues - wood aircraft don't last long and there were many DOCUMENTED issues Mossies coming apart, especially in hot humid climates


Clean32 said:


> The nazis credited any german pilot who managed to shoot down a mosquito with 2 kills. this was not the case for the P38, i think it speaks volumes in itself.


Hmmm - can you validate that? The P-38 still had about a confirmed 1 to 1 ratio in the ETO - look at it's record in other theaters, especially the the SWP.


Clean32 said:


> Development. i see no point in quoting clime rates and air speeds at altitude. while one may have the advantage in one area the other gains that back somewhere else. advantages change back and forwards and each airframe and power plants were developed. But there is one very interesting point. the mosquito got more power it became faster. the P38 did not this is a result of the inherent issues with the airframe as mentioned before. in short it was just very dragy for high speed. for example the turbochargers exhaust directly up, at 90deg to the airflow. this hot gas actually produces drag where the mosquitoes twin or latter fish tail stacks actually increased thrust or at higher speeds the hot gasses filled a low pressure point that would otherwise produce drag.


 Again you're wrong - the P-38 was continually being developed and improved - look into the P-38K. 


Clean32 said:


> Lastly, the P38 while on paper stacks up well but in reality it didn't. it could not climb on full power to 30 000ft, at 26000ft it had air inlet temp issues so any climb could not be continued.


 Again please validate that, there are many "clime rates and air speeds at altitude" as well as pilot reports that place this statement in the trash can. 



Clean32 said:


> American politics created the P38 with the insistence that any future aircraft motors would be turbo charged and NOT supercharged. this was a correct choice based on theory but incorrect once you have to take into account available metallurgy, heat and the extra plumbing involved. Its this plumbing that precludes its fitting to the P40 but then the P40 was also and old airframe to the point where it benefited a bit but not enough in fitting a packard merlin. the P38 was also not an economical intercepter. 2 motors, one which would have cost more than the actual airframe. compared with the cost of any other american f6f P47 p51 etc. redevelopment of oil and glycol coolers. some decent props. lifting the centerline of thrust. a decent intercooler instead of trying to use the wing etc would all have improved the P38 greatly. BUT the ARMY owned the motors and the P38 needed two of them.


 Again you make these statements with references or validations to back up your claims. For being a twin ENGINE aircraft, nearly 10,000 were produced. 


Clean32 said:


> Lastly it could not carry 4+ imperial Tons of bombs nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon. nor did it ever carry 6lb rockets



No, but if carried two tons of bombs and could of carried one of these...








Clean32 said:


> Based on that and its extensive post war use around the world from canada to australia africa and israel i guess the last nail is the fact that the american purchases and used mosquitos during ww2 both in europe and italy.


Mosquitos were used in theater because of need - they did do well. Post WW2 use of the Mosquito was not that successful as these aircraft eventually "fell apart." Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia used the P-38 for many years after WW2 


Clean32 said:


> My vote is mosquito
> 
> *Keep to shoot down any counter points*.



No problem there, you're an easy target.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> Lastly it could not carry 4+ imperial Tons of bombs nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon. nor did it ever carry 6lb rockets



Firstly, the Mosquito didn’t carry 4+ imperial tons of bombs....ever.

(Also need to be more precise - 1 UK Ton/long ton is 2,240lb while 1 US ton is 2,000lb.)

4+ tons is what the Manchester, Halifax and Lancaster could carry.

The most a Mosquito could carry was 5,000lb. This was 1 x 4,000lb plus 2 x 500lb on the B.XVI.

Secondly, the P-38 did carry rockets - just not the British ones.

Lastly, the Mk.XVIII had a 57mm cannon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No, but if carried two tons of bombs and could of carried one of these...
> 
> View attachment 535725



I believe that is two torpedoes.

The mosquito’s wing racks were only rated to 500lb, so the torpedoes couldn’t be carried there.

The Sea Mosquito was able to carry one under the fuselage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Whilr the P-38 had issues with compressibility, it was well flown and produced more aces in the SWP than any other AAF fighter. The mossie had it's issues - wood aircraft don't last long and there were many DOCUMENTED issues Mossies coming apart, especially in hot humid climates



Mosquitoes served with the RAF well into the 1950s, in the Mid-East and far-East.

They also served a long time with Israel. I don’t have access to my books so I can’t give more than that at this time.

During the war there were some failures in the East, these being traced back to glue not suited for tropical climates. A different type of glue was substituted, resolving most or all of the difficulties.


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2019)

I admit to being a little bemused by some of this. It looks impressive hanging two torpedo's under the early P38, but really, how far do you think they could carry them?

That said the P38 is getting some bad press from some of the posters. It clearly was a better daylight fighter than Mosquito and useful in a number of other rolls. The Mossie was better at other area's. If you want to intercept a bomber in daylight, take the P38, at night, the Mossie.

It's pretty obvious that that's the case and I don't think anyone can argue with this, so why not leave it at that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Mosquitoes served with the RAF well into the 1950s, in the Mid-East and far-East.
> 
> *They also served a long time with Israel. I don’t have access to my books so I can’t give more than that at this time.*
> 
> During the war there were some failures in the East, these being traced back to glue not suited for tropical climates. A different type of glue was substituted, resolving most or all of the difficulties.



I think after the 56' they were pulled from service - somewhere there is a post about their use and the maintenance issues encountered while operating them.

At the end of the day I think we know that wood is not good for longevity. (discussed in depth on early threads)


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Can you validate that with PROOF? The P-38 was the only game in town with regards to it's performance at the start of the war. Need dictated it's production
> agree to a point although the P-38 was a very effective fighter bomber where it was not only used for close ground support, but as a medium altitude bomber with a pathfinder aircraft.
> Early in the Pacific? There you're wrong. The P-38 was only being supplemented and slowly replaced during the latter part of the war - look at the operation history of the squadrons flying the aircraft, there were many P-38 units operating in the Pacific right up to VJ day. The first aircraft to land on Japaneses soil after the shooting stopped was a P-38. It was the only US fighter produced prior to the US entry right up to the end.
> 
> ...


correct the P38 was the only game in town at the beginning of the war. but even that differ as to what country you are from, for an american it 1942 to the british its 1939. so it would be correct to say it was the only american game in an american town at the start of america waking up to the war.
Availability in theater is not an indicator of successful performance it is just that and indicator of availability and it was the first airframe that the americans had, that could take it to the japanese in the pacific. again this is because it was available, there was nothing else. but that is not an argument for it being good! the fact that you could hang a couple of Bombs on it is hardly a point, the british hung bombs, cannon and rockets on all of there fighters at some stage.
correct the mossie and Hornet are different aircraft How ever they hold the same ethos. the P38 has no post war lineage.

can i validate that the Nazis credited two kills for one mozzie kill, yes i can. google is your friend and frankly, since it is such a well known fact i am surprised that you wish to push the point. maybe a bit one eyed?

you are correct the P38 produced more american aces than any other airframe. Keyword- American. theater Pacific in the early days when the japanese army and navy were able to provide so many targets. even by the time the americans got to europe the nazis could only produce a shadow of an effective air force as it did in 1939-1942

You are correct. the mozzie has some initial issues in asia. the glue being used was not suitable with the humidity and became unstuck. the canadian builds were not sealed well so rotted initaly and the australian builds used steel screws which would sweat creating rot. but these issues were identified and fixed. unlike the P38 having the tail fall off which was never fixed, well apart from just making it slower.

OK clime rates and air speeds. or speed at a given altitude. is not a comparable number. airspeed at a given air density is a better gage. so given the troposphere is lower. the further away you get from the equator, at height given in Feet is nether and indicator of airframe drag nor of air density in the manifold. just as airspeed is indirectly relative to grown speed and for the same reasons. this in part is why the p38 failed in europe.

Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, well yes but its not like they had a choice, it was more like an american attaboy nice little banana republic take out old and useless aircraft and be dam grateful for them as well, follows by an uncle same pat on the head. this example hardly improves your point.
*Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance*

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> The P38 was a sturdy airframe but was inherently a poor design, *a twin boom single tail created more aerodynamic and stability issues than any other airframe*.


Right...you mean like the Fokker G.I, Blohm & Voss Bv138, SAAB 21, Focke-Wulf Fw189, Northrop P-61, Gotha Go242, DeHavilland Vampire/Venom/Sea Vixen, Cessna 0-2 Skymaster and literally dozens of other military and civil designs?



Clean32 said:


> but then the P40 was also and old airframe


By barely a year to the P-38's



Clean32 said:


> nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon


The Mossie FB Mk XVIII (TseTse) carried a modified 6-pounder, which was *57mm*.



Clean32 said:


> the mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor.


While 20 nations operated the Mosquito during and after the war, 12 nations operated the P-38 during and *after* the war, the Honduran Air Force retiring the P-38 from service in *1965*.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Right...you mean like the Fokker G.I, Blohm & Voss Bv138, SAAB 21, Focke-Wulf Fw189, Northrop P-61, Gotha Go242, DeHavilland Vampire/Venom/Sea Vixen, Cessna 0-2 Skymaster and literally dozens of other military and civil designs?
> 
> 
> By barely a year to the P-38's
> ...



all of the airframes mentioned had high MK number stability issues but only the P38 and p 61 had bits falling off in a dive. well at least i have never read anything other than the p38 and p61 having structural issues due to compressibility.

the P40 may only be a year earlier than the p38. but then a P40 is a repowerd p36 first flight 1936. old by 1942.

Correct 57mm

I give no heed to the fact that some south american countries were forced to create an airforce using donated american surplus aircraft. this fact is way to political to have any influence on the question at hand.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> can i validate that the Nazis credited two kills for one mozzie kill, yes i can. google is your friend and frankly, since it is such a well known fact i am surprised that you wish to push the point. maybe a bit one eyed?


That's a load of crap...pure and simple.
The Luftwaffe method for awarding claims was one of three categories and none were "shared":
Abschuss (Destroyed)
Herausschuss (Seperated)
Endgualtige Vernichtung (Final Destruction)
And ONLY a confirmed Abschuss was credited - One Pilot: One Kill.

I do suspect, however, you're mistaking the point system introduced in 1944 that was used for awarding the Knight's Cross: 4-egined aircraft = 3 points, 2-engined aircraft = 2 points and 1-engined aircraft = 1 point.
But this had zero influence on their kill award. Zero.

And in regards to the "hand me downs" to other countries, they received Spitfires, P-51s, F4Us, Tempests, P-47s, F6Fs and so on.
So that point is invalid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

Thank you for the engine chart.

as for the accuracy of the weights?

See; http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

for a chart on the P-39Q-1 that gives weights of 8100lbs, 7600lbs and 7200lbs.

8100lbs is correct (or close enough) for carrying either a 500lb bomb or 75 gallon drop tank, 7600lbs is close (30lbs over) for the plane clean, with ammo and 87 gallons of fuel.
7200lbs means either no ammo of any caliber (and no ballast) or only 20 gallons of fuel left in the tanks (or combination).
This last combination, while interesting to the pilot and "accurate" tells the pilot how long a runway he needs in such a condition or the difference in climb or some differences in other performance as the plane gets lighter. performance can be estimated depending on actual weight when it differs from the weights given in the table ((falls between).

Picking the lightest weight on the chart may mean a less than "combat" ready condition even if the plane will fly perfectly well in that condition/at that weight.

The weight "selection" is not consistent on the charts. P-40 chart/s is/are like the P-39 chart. the lightest weight given means there is something not in the airplane. The one for the P-40E lists one weight of 7500lbs, once you stick your 180lb pilot and 75-97lbs of oil into a 7665lb basic weight airplane you have 580lbs left for fuel and ammo (and a P-40E will hold 423lbs of ammo)

However the P-38L chart starts at 17,400lbs. I don't have the weight charts for the P-38L but for the J 17,400lbs covers the plane with _full ammo _(500rounds per .50 cal gun) and and nearly full tanks, including leading edge. (17,699lbs) using just 300 gallons of fuel and full ammo drops the weight to 17,009lbs. P-38s often carried 300 rounds per .50 cal gun and the weight savings was 240-250lbs.
The P-38L may well be several hundred pounds heavier than the J and I have no explanation as to why the lightest weight listed for the P-38L is for a more fully supplied plane (even if not max clean weight) than the lightest weight plane on the other two charts.

granted an F-8 Mosquito doesn't have to worry about ammo but _if_ the plane weighs 21,000lbs max with 887 US gallons of fuel (carried by whatever means needed) then to get down to the 16,770lb figure you have to lose 4230lb of fuel or equipment (or crew?) as there is no ammo or guns. If you lose 4230lbs of fuel that is 705 US gallons and comparing a Mosquito with 182 gallons of fuel to a P-38 with even 300 gallons is a bit of a bogus comparison.

I would imagine (but could very well be wrong) that the F-8 would use the bottom line on the engine chart for a "ferry" climb. This chart doesn't say but 2650rpm and 4lbs boost was the common limit for two speed Merlins when running lean.
So for the "ferry" climb we have the P-38 using engines that are 3.6% larger but turning only 87% as fast(rpm) and operating at 92% of the manifold pressure. Not exactly a surprise that a _lightweight_ Mosquito can climb well in comparison.


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> That's a load of crap...pure and simple.
> The Luftwaffe method for awarding claims was one of three categories and none were "shared":
> Abschuss (Destroyed)
> Herausschuss (Seperated)
> ...


Oh a load of crap is it?? you have my sympathies

No country got the british Tempest after ww2 since they were all scraped with in months. but for the rest of the aircraft all being american gifted within the american sphere of influence. the variety of airframes lends to the argument that the P38 was not superior because of the fact

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, well yes but its not like they had a choice, it was more like an american attaboy nice little banana republic take out old and useless aircraft and be dam grateful for them as well, follows by an uncle same pat on the head. this example hardly improves your point.



Love this one.

What were the Banana republics supposed to use for aircraft?

Brand new (expensive) P-80s, Gloster Meteors or DH Vampires? 

Which had crap engine lives and rather severe maintenance issues? 

And just what were they going to use them for? Aside from going to war with each other over the results of soccer matches most South American countries used their aircraft for internal policing and counter insurgence. the bandits/insurgents have few if any aircraft and few AA guns. 

What ever aircraft they got were not going to protect them from American or British interference. An American aircraft carrier often had more planes than several South American countries put together. 

Some South American Countries were still operating these in 1945




Or planes like then so the supply of WW II fighters, even if used, was more welcome than you are giving credit to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> correct the P38 was the only game in town at the beginning of the war. but even that differ as to what country you are from, for an american it 1942 to the british its 1939. so it would be correct to say it was the only american game in an american town at the start of america waking up to the war.


So what's your point???



Clean32 said:


> Availability in theater is not an indicator of successful performance it is just that and indicator of availability and it was the first airframe that the americans had, that could take it to the japanese in the pacific. again this is because it was available, there was nothing else. but that is not an argument for it being good! the fact that you could hang a couple of Bombs on it is hardly a point, the british hung bombs, cannon and rockets on all of there fighters at some stage.


Again you're talking in circles - at the end of the day the P-38 was good, VERY good, at least in all theaters except the ETO


Clean32 said:


> correct the mossie and Hornet are different aircraft How ever they hold the same ethos. the P38 has no post war lineage.


Actually it does - the P-80. Although a different propulsion system was used, about 15% of the airframe used the similar or the same parts.


Clean32 said:


> can i validate that the Nazis credited two kills for one mozzie kill, yes i can. google is your friend and frankly, since it is such a well known fact i am surprised that you wish to push the point. maybe a bit one eyed?


Then I suggest you post evidence of your babble if you want to continue to participate here


Clean32 said:


> you are correct the P38 produced more american aces than any other airframe. Keyword- American. theater Pacific in the early days when the japanese army and navy were able to provide so many targets. even by the time the americans got to europe the nazis could only produce a shadow of an effective air force as it did in 1939-1942


 So again, your point? The aircraft was assigned to complete a mission and it did so quite effectively


Clean32 said:


> You are correct. the mozzie has some initial issues in asia. the glue being used was not suitable with the humidity and became unstuck. the canadian builds were not sealed well so rotted initaly and the australian builds used steel screws which would sweat creating rot. but these issues were identified and fixed. *unlike the P38 having the tail fall off which was never fixed, well apart from just making it slower.*


 Again, you speak from Ignorance - yes the compressibility issue was never corrected but the aircraft was incredibly strong. P-38 pilots were trained to avoid compressibility. Once discovered during its early service, "the tail were not falling off" operational aircraft!


Clean32 said:


> OK clime rates and air speeds. or speed at a given altitude. is not a comparable number. airspeed at a given air density is a better gage. so given the troposphere is lower. the further away you get from the equator, at height given in Feet is nether and indicator of airframe drag nor of air density in the manifold. just as airspeed is indirectly relative to grown speed and for the same reasons. this in part is why the p38 failed in europe.


 Please spare me the elementary aerodynamics lesson, I'm a commercial pilot and been in the aviation industry for 40 years, you've said little to comprehend here


Clean32 said:


> Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, well yes but its not like they had a choice, it was more like an american attaboy nice little banana republic take out old and useless aircraft and be dam grateful for them as well, follows by an uncle same pat on the head. this example hardly improves your point.
> *Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance*



Boy, you have a real attitude. "banana republic"? "uncle same pat on the head"? I suggest taking a deep breath before you expel more hot air as your participation here may be short.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> No country got the *british Tempest after ww2 since they were all scraped with in months.* but for the rest of the aircraft all being american gifted within the american sphere of influence. the variety of airframes lends to the argument that the P38 was not superior because of the fact



You might be taken a bit more seriously if your posts weren't so riddled with mistakes. 
It was the Typhoon that was scrapped within months, 
Tempests were used into the 1950s and were used by India and Pakistan also into the 1950s after getting them in 1947/48.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Firstly, the Mosquito didn’t carry 4+ imperial tons of bombs....ever.
> 
> (Also need to be more precise - 1 UK Ton/long ton is 2,240lb while 1 US ton is 2,000lb.)
> 
> ...




Yes quite correct, my statement was not precise. typing out of my head and not checking. how ever i do not completely hold to your numbers eather. 
so lets start at the beginning with British Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 to which the mozzie exceeded


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> No country got the british Tempest after ww2 since they were all scraped with in months.


India and Pakistan operated the Tempest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> typing out of my head and not checking.


Yes, more than once


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You might be taken a bit more seriously if your posts weren't so riddled with mistakes.
> It was the Typhoon that was scrapped within months,
> Tempests were used into the 1950s and were used by India and Pakistan also into the 1950s after getting them in 1947/48.


AHH quite correct


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> Oh a load of crap is it?? you have my sympathies


Don't need nor want your "sympathies".

You posted a bullshit statement and were called on it...the irony is that you suggested google to others and yet don't seem to know how to use it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You might be taken a bit more seriously if your posts weren't so riddled with mistakes.





Clean32 said:


> AHH quite correct



And stop with the tongue and cheek smart-assed political comments

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> Yes quite correct, my statement was not precise. typing out of my head and not checking. how ever i do not completely hold to your numbers eather.
> so lets start at the beginning with British Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 to which the mozzie exceeded



P.13/36 was a specification that required an 8,000lb bomb load, catapult launch at AUW, defensive guns and the carriage of two 18 inch torpedoes.

The Mosquito was designed, not to any specification, as a light unarmed bomber with a maximum bomb load of 1,000lb.

The Mosquito was eventually launched with catapult (from a carrier), its bomb load was increased to 2,000lb using short fin 500lb MC bombs, then to 3,000lb with the introduction of the strengthened wing, which allowed wing bombs, then to 4,000lb with the bulged bomb bay and, finally, to 5,000lb with the B.XVI.

One part of the P.13/36 specification the Mosquito could never achieve was the carriage of two 18 inch torpedoes. They were large in diameter and long.

Only the Manchester and Lancaster were able to meet that criteria, not that they ever used those weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Don't need nor want your "sympathies".
> 
> You posted a bullshit statement and were called on it...the irony is that you suggested google to others and yet don't seem to know how to use it.


sorry it took me so long to respond.
quote "The Germans had nothing equal to the Mosquito and it sapped their morale. Its fighter pilots were allowed to claim two “kills” for each one they were able to shoot down. "

Is the Mosquito the greatest warplane of all?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2019)

I thought that the issue with P/R Mosquitos and the individual night bomber variant wasn't its ultimate performance but its cruising speed. Assuming still air, if a plane is cruising at 25,000 ft and circa 250 to 300MPH its ground speed is higher than the ground speed of any plane of the era, so interception is pot luck or the equivalent of standing patrols using many aircraft to find one. The massive internal fuel load didn't increase top speed but did increase cruising speed, to the point it was governed by engine reliability issues not range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> sorry it took me so long to respond.
> quote "The Germans had nothing equal to the Mosquito and it sapped their morale. Its fighter pilots were allowed to claim two “kills” for each one they were able to shoot down. "
> 
> Is the Mosquito the greatest warplane of all?



And an article written by a journalist who didn't do his homework either.
​From an earlier post:​​_The Luftwaffe scoring system was rational and realistic. "One pilot - one victory" was the straightforward scoring rule. If more then one pilot claimed a kill they had to settle who would get it, if in the end they still remained undecided, the kill was awarded to the Staffel.
Without a witness, a Luftwaffe pilot had no chance of victory confirmation. Such a claim, even if filed, would not pass beyond his Gruppenkommandeur.
The final destruction or explosion of an enemy aircraft in the air, or the bail-out of the pilot, had to be observed either on gun-camera film, or at least one other human witness. This witness could be the pilot's wingman, squadron mate, or a ground observer of the encounter. there was no possibility, as with some RAF and USAAF pilots, of having a victory credited because the claiming officer was a man of his word. The Luftwaffe rule was simple "no witness - no victory credit." This rule applied universally in the Luftwaffe, no matter what the pilot's rank or status.
This made the Luftwaffe claim procedure possibly the most rigid and trustworthy of all World War Two combatants (as always mistakes have been made, but nothing points out that this was deliberate or significantly higher then on the Allied side)._
​_The Luftwaffe system was impartial, inflexible and far less error-prone than British or American procedures. Luftwaffe fighter pilots sometimes had to wait more then a year for victory confirmation to reach them from the Luftwaffe High Command.
The Germans differed radically from the Allies with the Luftwaffe's introduction of a complicated "points" system, instituted to bring a modicum of uniformity into the bestowal of higher decorations._
_*In effect only on the Western Front:*_​
_*Aircraft TypeAbschuss*
Destroyed*Herrausschuss *
Separation*Entgültige Vernichtung *
Final DestructionSingle-engined100Twin-engined bomber211/2Four-engined bomber321_​

_The German set a great store by the ability of a fighter pilot to separate individual Allied bombers from the box formations in which they flew. Thus, a Luftwaffe pilot could not win points for damaging an Allied bomber unless he separated it from the box. The system recognized the fact that achieving a Herrausschuss of a bomber was a more difficult task then the final destruction of a damaged straggler._​_The point system had nothing to do with the total number of victories (and claims), only with awarding decorations and promotions through proven ability and worth.* Many people think the Luftwaffe awarded multiple kills for multi-engined aircraft and even for damaging them, this is totally false!*_​

_*Decorations were awarded after the following point totals had been reached*_​
_*AwardPoints*Iron Cross 2nd Cl.1Iron Cross 1st Cl.3Honor Cup10German Cross in Gold20Knight's Cross40_​

_This point-decoration system was used only on the Western Front, because the Germans believed it was easier to shoot down Soviet fighters and bombers than to down Western-flown aircraft._​_The Knight's Cross, which was worn on a ribbon around the neck, even in combat, was recognized in the Jagdwaffe as a sign of a true Experte. Glory-hungry pilots were said to have a "neck rash", "itching neck" or "sore throat", it was a common desease in the Luftwaffe, sometimes even a fatal one - although not always to the one contaminated - which only the coveted award could cure (quite similar to the Pour Le Mérite, or more commonly known as the Blue Max, in the Great War of 1914-18)._​_The Luftwaffe pilots, and Wehrmacht personal in general, wore all their all their decorations in combat unlike their RAF and USAAC/F adversaries._​
_The Knight's Cross to the Iron Cross was not the highest order, there were several higher orders created during the war which were basically additions to the Knight's Cross._​
_Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves_
_Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords_
_Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds_
​_*Decorations were awarded on the Eastern Front after the following kill totals had been reached (1943/44)*_​
_*AwardKills *Iron Cross 2nd Cl.2-3Iron Cross 1st Cl.8German Cross in Gold30Knight's Cross45-50Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross100-120 Swords to the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves200Diamonds to the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords 250_

*Google is your friend *​

​​​

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2019)

wuzak said:


> P.13/36 was a specification that required an 8,000lb bomb load, catapult launch at AUW, defensive guns and the carriage of two 18 inch torpedoes.
> 
> The Mosquito was designed, not to any specification, as a light unarmed bomber with a maximum bomb load of 1,000lb.
> 
> ...



Totally agree. Re the lack of two 18in torpedo's, they did carry two anti shipping bouncing bombs which is some sort of compensation. I know they just missed operational use but it was close


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> sorry it took me so long to respond.
> quote "The Germans had nothing equal to the Mosquito and it sapped their morale. Its fighter pilots were allowed to claim two “kills” for each one they were able to shoot down. "


No idea if the L/W pilots were allowed to claim two victories or not but the success of the Mosquito night fighter version was entirely reliant on the RADAR it carried. Of course you need a high performance aircraft with a spare crew member but it is actually the electronic war that is under discussion.


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 21, 2019)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

pbehn said:


> No idea if the L/W pilots were allowed to claim two victories or not but the success of the Mosquito night fighter version was entirely reliant on the RADAR it carried. Of course you need a high performance aircraft with a spare crew member but it is actually the electronic war that is under discussion.


not sure but i was under the impression that speed altitude and maneuverability especially early in its introduction was the reasoning. this would be before the night fighter variants i suspect


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

pbehn said:


> No idea if the L/W pilots were allowed to claim two victories or not but the success of the Mosquito night fighter version was entirely reliant on the RADAR it carried. Of course you need a high performance aircraft with a spare crew member but it is actually the electronic war that is under discussion.





Clean32 said:


> not sure but i was under the impression that speed altitude and maneuverability especially early in its introduction was the reasoning. this would be before the night fighter variants i suspect



And it was not true - the Germans had a very specific system of not only confirming kills but awarding credits (as posted) The Mosquito was a great aircraft but it was not indestructible, I believe something like 900 were lost in combat

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> sorry it took me so long to respond.
> quote "The Germans had nothing equal to the Mosquito and it sapped their morale. Its fighter pilots were allowed to claim two “kills” for each one they were able to shoot down. "
> 
> Is the Mosquito the greatest warplane of all?


Sorry, but that's simply not true.

They NEVER earned multiple victories, it was not allowed.
The points system from 1944 onward toward earning the Knight's Cross has been confused with victory awards and this is most likely the case.
4-engined aircraft = 3 points
2-engined aircraft = 2 points
1-engined aircraft = 1 point

And the point system has nothing to do with the Mosquito, it was put in place at a time when Germany was being bombed day and night by Allied bombers and the Luftwaffe was trying to boost victories with an incentive.

I never take anything for fact that comes from newspapers and case in point, not too long ago the Daily Mail had an article about the Battle of Britain. A picture in that article showed a flight of Hurricanes and the photo's caption referred to them as Hurricane Jet Fighters...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> not sure but i was under the impression that speed altitude and maneuverability especially early in its introduction was the reasoning. this would be before the night fighter variants i suspect


What is that reasoning, the Mosquito famously shut down a Goering radio broadcast on a daylight raid in Jan 1943, the first raid was a success the second raid wasnt so much and one aircraft from three was lost. Defence is based on protecting a target, until a raid was made on a radio centre the "haus des Rundfunks" wasn't considered a target.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And it was not true - the Germans had a very specific system of not only confirming kills but awarding credits (as posted) The Mosquito was a great aircraft but it was not indestructible, I believe something like 900 were lost in combat


There was a period in the nightfighter war when the Mosquito pilots were deliberately shooting down L/W night fighters close to their home airfield as part of a psychological war between crews. I could imagine the people involved valuing a victory over a night fighter more than that of a bomber, I havnt seen any evidence that it was made part of the award system.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

pbehn said:


> There was a period in the nightfighter war when the Mosquito pilots were deliberately shooting down L/W night fighters close to their home airfield as part of a psychological war between crews. I could imagine the people involved valuing a victory over a night fighter more than that of a bomber, I havnt seen any evidence that it was made part of the award system.


Agree. I think because of this combined with the Luftwaffe credit system created a myth that 2 kill credits were given to certain aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree. I think because of this combined with the Luftwaffe credit system created a myth that 2 kill credits were given to certain aircraft


It was an intensely personal conflict, there may have been thousands of four engine night bombers involved but there were a comparative few night fighters who were both hunters and hunted in the dark. Pilot navigator skill played a part but most of it was the electronic war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And stop with the tongue and cheek smart-assed political comments




there is no tongue in cheek nor smart ass in my comments. at the beginning of the cold war and with the soviets publicly declaring that they wished to have influence in south america and america publicly stating that they would not let that happen. to that end America encouraged or forced some south american countries to build up or create an air force. in the case of argentina with the help of some Nazis as well. the fact is that and in context of this thread, the fact that a south american country had surplus american aircraft is not a merit of that particular airframe but is a result of the politics of the day.
even in more recent times. the sale and licence build F18? deal with indonesia was canceled by Clinton over E Timor and then australia was given a couple of squadrons of F111 like really cheap ( read free) who then flicked there Skyhawks to New Zealand Like really cheap. Or when australia pulled out of the F35 development because of cost overruns. the US cut off supplies/parts for the f111 until they relented. they also had to purchase the indonesian f18s 
Or new Zealand having to burn there Corsairs in japan, which was Ok since they were LL. but then having america spit the dummy over still flying P51s which were purchased, all because New Zealand purchased Vampires and Not F16s. the the interference in New Zealand's attempts to sell the skyhawks and then there refusal to buy F18s at a pumped up price.

My point is as with all arms sales there is a political component, and this component is usually the larger wich in an exaggerated way, you get the american attaboy or big stick, vers soviet oh god we let them in the door. or the french bleeding you of parts or the british who are just to expensive anyway. aircraft sales are Not based on the attributes or even suitability of that airframe to the requirements of that country. think Mig25 in Iraq or Lightings in Saudi Arabia


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

There are people here who are more familiar with the Mosquito than I am but the common thread is that the use of the Mosquito as a bomber is often misunderstood.

Only about 1/4 of the Mosquitoes built were bombers (1,690?) and only 18 bomber squadrons ever used Mosquito bombers out of 78 squadrons that flew Mosquitoes.

Please note I am not making any claims either for or against the Mosquito as a bomber, only putting the numbers involved in some sort of context. 
The context also covers the timeline.
No 105 Squadron was the first bomber squadron to get the Mosquito (and was the first squadron to get any sort of Mosquito) and that was in Nov of 1941. However, like many new planes, it took a considerable period before the the Mosquito was used on operations, which for the Mosquito was the Morning of May 31st when 4 aircraft from No 105 squadron did a high level raid on Cologne after the 1000 bomber raid the night before. No 105 Squadron was the ONLY Mosquito bomber squadron for 9 months. No 109 Squadron was equipped with Mosquitos in Aug of 1942 but No 109 squadron was NOT a "line" squadron. It was more of a proving ground for radar and electronic equipment. The 3rd squadron to use the Mosquito bomber was No 139 Squadron which converted to the Mosquito in Oct of 1942 although a few operations had been flown the month before with aircraft "borrowed" from No 105 squadron. No 105 and No 139 were the ONLY active Mosquito bomber squadrons doing daylight attacks in late 1942 and early 1943 and in June/July (?) of 1943 they were transferred to pathfinder duties with No 8 Pathfinder group. Most later daylight attacks were carried out by Mosquito fighter-bombers. 
The Mosquito MK XVI was the main bomber variant with at least 429 built but it used a pressure cabin and Merlin 72/73 engines (or later). The First MK XVI flew in Jan of 1944. 

Any and all claims that the British/Canadians/Americans/Guatemalans should have scrapped all their Halifaxis/Lancasters/B-17s/B-24s and Waco bi-planes and used Mosquitos should be looked at with that timeline in mind and the numbers of actual raids and tons of bombs dropped. Also please note that the first use of the 4000lb cookie was Feb 23rd of 1944 which was right in the middle of "Big Week" by the 8th Air Force. 
Mosquitos would post an enviable record during 1944 and 1945 with truly remarkable results but without a time machine there was no way for this record to affect procurement planning (aircraft orders) in 1942 and most of 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> there is no tongue in cheek nor smart ass in my comments. at the beginning of the cold war and with the soviets publicly declaring that they wished to have influence in south america and america publicly stating that they would not let that happen. to that end America encouraged or forced some south american countries to build up or create an air force. in the case of argentina with the help of some Nazis as well. the fact is that and in context of this thread, the fact that a south american country had surplus american aircraft is not a merit of that particular airframe but is a result of the politics of the day.
> even in more recent times. the sale and licence build F18? deal with indonesia was canceled by Clinton over E Timor and then australia was given a couple of squadrons of F111 like really cheap ( read free) who then flicked there Skyhawks to New Zealand Like really cheap. Or when australia pulled out of the F35 development because of cost overruns. the US cut off supplies/parts for the f111 until they relented. they also had to purchase the indonesian f18s
> Or new Zealand having to burn there Corsairs in japan, which was Ok since they were LL. but then having america spit the dummy over still flying P51s which were purchased, all because New Zealand purchased Vampires and Not F16s. the the interference in New Zealand's attempts to sell the skyhawks and then there refusal to buy F18s at a pumped up price.
> 
> My point is as with all arms sales there is a political component, and this component is usually the larger wich in an exaggerated way, you get the american attaboy or big stick, vers soviet oh god we let them in the door. or the french bleeding you of parts or the british who are just to expensive anyway. aircraft sales are Not based on the attributes or even suitability of that airframe to the requirements of that country. think Mig25 in Iraq or Lightings in Saudi Arabia



Bla, bla, bla - this has NOTHING to do with this thread. You need to read this forum's rules, stop the political BS


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Mosquitos would post an enviable record during 1944 and 1945 with truly remarkable results but without a time machine there was no way for this record to affect procurement planning (aircraft orders) in 1942 and most of 1943.



enlightening, so based on your post and in context of this thread the mossie actually had a short war of just 2 years plus asia. at a time when when the Luftwaffe was not at its best? where the p38 was taking on a stronger/ capable Luftwaffe 2 years earlier?? would that be correct??


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Still trying to figure out how New Zealand was punished for buying Vampires instead of F-16s.
The Vampire was retired from RNZAF service long over a decade before the F-16 was even thought of...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Still trying to figure out how New Zealand was punished for buying Vampires instead of F-16s.
> The Vampire was retired from RNZAF service long over a decade before the F-16 was even thought of...


Yup!!!!!


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Still trying to figure out how New Zealand was punished for buying Vampires instead of F-16s.
> The Vampire was retired from RNZAF service long over a decade before the F-16 was even thought of...


ops sorry F86 typo


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 21, 2019)

Not your first either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

Crimea_River said:


> Not your first either.


and probably not my last eather


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> ops sorry F86 typo


Hell of a typo, especially when the RNZAF never had the F-86 in it's inventory.

Their first jet was the Gloster Meteor and from there, all their jets were British (vampire, venom, Canberra, etc.) until the A-4, which was purchased in 1970.


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Hell of a typo, especially when the RNZAF never had the F-86 in it's inventory.
> 
> .



easy typo just swap an 8 for a 1, as i demonstrated


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> there is no tongue in cheek nor smart ass in my comments. at the beginning of the cold war and with the soviets publicly declaring that they wished to have influence in south america and america publicly stating that they would not let that happen. to that end America encouraged or forced some south american countries to build up or create an air force. in the case of argentina with the help of some Nazis as well...................think Mig25 in Iraq or Lightings in Saudi Arabia



There may be something to what you say but the "sale" of surplus aircraft to South America may not have been as nefarious as you think, despite some of the shenanigans done by later arms deals. 
The US either gave the planes away or charged a nominal fee, it is hard to "sell" aircraft to South American nations at very high prices when US citizens could by surplus aircraft for less than the price of the gas in the tanks. 
The P-47 was used by 10 or 11 Central/South American nations. Now some of these nations had been trying build up some sort of Air Force for years. Claiming the US "forced" them may take a bit of proof. 




5th Brazilian aviation regiment in 1932

from Wiki
"By 1938–39 Argentina's air power had about 3,200 staff (including about 200 officers), and maintained about 230 aircraft " there was a scheme to build fixed landing gear hawk 75s in Argentina. 

we also have, again from Wiki, on the Gran Chaco war 

"The Chaco War is also important historically as the first instance of large-scale aerial warfare to take place in the Americas. Both sides used obsolete single-engined biplane fighter-bombers; the Paraguayans deployed 14 Potez 25s, while the Bolivians made extensive use of at least 20 CW-14 Ospreys. Despite an international arms embargo imposed by the League of Nations, Bolivia in particular went to great lengths in trying to import a small number of Curtiss T-32 Condor II twin-engined bombers disguised as civil transport planes, but they were stopped in Peru before they could be delivered." 

While many central/South American nations did not have large Air Forces they did have them and in some cases they could be traced back to before 1920. 

Which Nations did the US _force_ to create Air Forces?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 21, 2019)

I think the pummeling of the Lightning by some as a poor design because of the trouble the early( pre L/J25) had in the ETO in late 43/ early 44 is a bit unfair.
For one there are other reasons beside any limitations in the design for this, inexplicable verry limited training for multi engine aircraft for the p38 pilots that seems to be largely unique to the theater for one. The conditions of the ETO another. Verry few aircraft are ideal for all missions in all theaters. To me that an aircraft preformed great in all theaters except one where it did only OK does not sound like an indictment.
Lastly to call the p38 a failure in the ETO as I have read in a few posts here not to mention articles on the internet over the years is a bit much. They certainly had their issues, some due to design limitations and some to factors that had nothing to do with the plane itself but the later(J25/L) versions racked up about a 4 to 1 kill ratio at least if the 474th is any representation. Even if you want to lop this in half for overclaiming, considering their usual mission profile in mid 44 to VE day( ground attack ladden with ordinance on the way in) still ain't bad. Certainly not a "failure"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> enlightening, so based on your post and in context of this thread the mossie actually had a short war of just 2 years plus asia. at a time when when the Luftwaffe was not at its best? where the p38 was taking on a stronger/ capable Luftwaffe 2 years earlier?? would that be correct??




Do NOT put words in my mouth or claim I said things I did not. If that is what you got from my post it is no wonder you are at odds with a number of people.

My post had to do with the Mosquito as a bomber and bomber only. It also was in relation to claims by some people that somebody should have changed some air force or other to use much larger numbers of Mosquitos than used historically because it was so much better than (or got better results ) than other bombers. 

I said nothing about it's use as a fighter bomber or maritime strike aircraft and I said nothing about it's use as a night fighter, either defending British air space or intruding into German air (or other axis power) air space. 

I also made no mention of the P-38 what so ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> There may be something to what you say but the "sale" of surplus aircraft to South America may not have been as nefarious as you think, despite some of the shenanigans done by later arms deals.
> The US either gave the planes away or charged a nominal fee, it is hard to "sell" aircraft to South American nations at very high prices when US citizens could by surplus aircraft for less than the price of the gas in the tanks.



i think you have missed my point or i have not been clear in my point. 
in context of this thread the fact that a few south american countries operated P39s is not a result of the benefits of that particular airframe.

but you are quite correct above about the cost of aircraft post ww2, but they still needed and export cert to leave the US and that required government approval.

and if you think about it and in the light of the start of the cold war it was a smart move, you get benefit and influence and possibility your boots on there ground for as you said the price of a tank of fuel

maybe it was better if i wrote create a modern air force


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

"Or when australia pulled out of the F35 development because of cost overruns. the US cut off supplies/parts for the f111 until they relented."

OMG, Did this happen before or after the F-111 was retired?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Do NOT put words in my mouth or claim I said things I did not. If that is what you got from my post it is no wonder you are at odds with a number of people.
> 
> My post had to do with the Mosquito as a bomber and bomber only. It also was in relation to claims by some people that somebody should have changed some air force or other to use much larger numbers of Mosquitos than used historically because it was so much better than (or got better results ) than other bombers.
> 
> ...


sorry i had no intention of putting words in your mouth. i was just relating the dates you provided or applying the dates sorry if i offended you that was not my intent. i thought you post was informative


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Lastly to call the p38 a failure in the ETO as I have read in a few posts here not to mention articles on the internet over the years is a bit much. They certainly had their issues, some due to design limitations and some to factors that had nothing to do with the plane itself but the later(J25/L) versions racked up about a 4 to 1 kill ratio at least if the 474th is any representation.




The P-38 went into service in the ETO 1-2 months before the P-51 and it was with one fighter group (7 fighter groups were equipped with the P-47?) The P-38 was already in service in every other theater so demand was high while production was lower than the P-47 and P-51 from Dec of 1943 on, making a rapid build up difficult. 
There is no question that picking the P-51 was the right decision but that hardly renders the P-38 a piece of crap as you point out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Or when australia pulled out of the F35 development because of cost overruns. the US cut off supplies/parts for the f111 until they relented."
> 
> OMG, Did this happen before or after the F-111 was retired?
> 
> View attachment 535792


well the f35 development has been a bit longer than expected, australia was one of the original signatories to the f35 program. a change of government some bad press over costs etc etc and the australian government pulled out. then ummed arrred out in out in as pollies do. as i understand it australia got back in with another change of government and a deal where the f111 were scraped locally only a few years ago, the f18 went to canada and the Super Hornets rolled in as a stop gap until the f35 became available. i think the f35s are rolling in now and the Super Hornets are to roll out next year? i think?. so the short answer is yes this did happen before the f111 was retired. i must say the Super Hornets make a rackett more like a mirage sort of make the early F18 sound like a nissan leaf in comparison. but don't hold me to all that im just recalling local press


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> well the f35 development has been a bit longer than expected, australia was one of the original signatories to the f35 program. a change of government some bad press over costs etc etc and the australian government pulled out. then ummed arrred out in out in as pollies do. as i understand it australia got back in with another change of government and a deal where the f111 were scraped locally only a few years ago, the f18 went to canada and the Super Hornets rolled in as a stop gap until the f35 became available. i think the f35s are rolling in now and the Super Hornets are to roll out next year? i think?. so the short answer is yes this did happen before the f111 was retired. i must say the Super Hornets make a rackett more like a mirage sort of make the early F18 sound like a nissan leaf in comparison. but don't hold me to all that im just recalling local press


You are totally delusional. F-35s had over runs, most of them involved the US program, each partner had its own schedule/ stake/ issues within the program and the dynamics are too complicated to explain to you, especially after reading some of your comments. Australia was totally able to sustain their F-111 fleet with no help from the US and there is NO evidence that the US withheld any technical assistance because of any polices Australia imposed or suggested with regards to the F-35 program. 

With that said I think you need to understand 3 things here - 1. Update your browser because you're about 3 years behind with regards to the progress of the F-35 program, 2, understand that there are several on this forum who have actively worked in industry and on warbirds, so be warned that you will be challenged with any off the cuff comment you may make. 3 There are many on here who have thoroughly studied the discussed subject matter and can back up their comments with documented facts. If you want to be an appreciated member of this forum I suggest you start doing the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> Or new Zealand having to burn there Corsairs in japan, which was Ok since they were LL. but then having america spit the dummy over still flying P51s which were purchased, all because New Zealand purchased Vampires and Not F16s. the the interference in New Zealand's attempts to sell the skyhawks and then there refusal to buy F18s at a pumped up price.





Clean32 said:


> ops sorry F86 typo





Clean32 said:


> easy typo just swap an 8 for a 1, as i demonstrated


Hate to say it, but you're demonstrating much more than typographical errors.
You're demonstrating a spectacular lack of knowledge.

The RNZAF never had the F-86, F-16 or F-18. They _*did*_ have the Gloster Meteor F.III and T.7, the DH Vampire FB5, FB9, FB52, T11 and T55, the DH Venom FB1, the McDonnell-Douglas A-4G/K, TA-4G/K and the BAC Strikemaster Mk88.

And that's it...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Australia was totally able to sustain their F-111 fleet with no help from the US .



how so?


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 21, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The RNZAF never had the F-86, F-16 or F-18.
> 
> And that's it...



correct i never said they did.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> correct i never said they did.


Really?


> Clean32 said:
> Or new Zealand having to burn there Corsairs in japan, which was Ok since they were LL. but then having america spit the dummy over still flying P51s which were purchased, all because *New Zealand purchased Vampires and Not F16s*. the the interference in *New Zealand's attempts to sell the skyhawks and then there refusal to buy F18s *at a pumped up price.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> how so?



Read carefully - *They bought sustainment*. Engineering, tooling and the capability to manufacture replacement parts. Boeing Australia was the last contractor doing heavy maintenance on the Australian F-111 fleet. Also read about No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Really?


yes as i said


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> yes as i said


LMAO!!

Yes, as you said incorrectly.

Now might be a good time to quietly bow out and save face.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 22, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read carefully - *They bought sustainment*. Engineering, tooling and the capability to manufacture replacement parts. Boeing Australia was the last contractor doing heavy maintenance on the Australian F-111 fleet. Also read about No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF



OK not arguing. as as i said based on what i have read in australian press, as i have already said. so the version i read is that General dynamics didn't want to support the last f111s around, i assume this is technical support. i also understand that Boeing was doing ALL F111 maintenance, although i do not know when they started doing ALL as opposed to service/ deap / heavy. i do know that the planned rollback was 2020 for the f111 and not 2010. i do know that neither the Super Hornets or f35 have the operational range of the f111 which is an issue since australia is quite large and that has been one of the main points constantly raised. i do know that the australian government pulled out of the f35 development program after spending millions, because they said so. on TV even. i know that america wanted the f111 junked and for australia to buy Super Hornets because the australian government said so, on TV even. i also know that sustainment is not equal to independant. guess that's it.


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> LMAO!!
> 
> Yes, as you said incorrectly.
> 
> Now might be a good time to quietly bow out and save face.


i guess your just pushing buttons


----------



## wuzak (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> well the f35 development has been a bit longer than expected, australia was one of the original signatories to the f35 program. a change of government some bad press over costs etc etc and the australian government pulled out. then ummed arrred out in out in as pollies do. as i understand it australia got back in with another change of government and a deal where the f111 were scraped locally only a few years ago, the f18 went to canada and the Super Hornets rolled in as a stop gap until the f35 became available.



The Australian government conducted a review into the F-35 program about 2010, IIRC. The conclusion was to continue with the program.

The F-111s were retired after a series of incidents and a crash, or two. They were intended to continue until the F-35 was available, so F-18E/F were purchased as replacements.

Meanwhile a number of F-18As were approaching end of service. Because the F-35 was not going to be available, the Australian government purchased more F-18E/Fs and some Growlers (F-18G?) and reduced the F-35 order by the same number of airframes.

At no time has the Australian government canceled or pulled out of the F-35 program.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> i guess your just pushing buttons


I might be pushing buttons, but at least I'm not blowing smoke out my ass.

Perhaps head back to your War Thunder forum where you might make some sense?

This forum is where real WWII history lives


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you for the engine chart.
> 
> as for the accuracy of the weights?


No sweat on the engine chart - the whole -1 and a partial -2 on on the forum somewhere so I have to thank the person who posted the -1 for you

The points you raise are all valid. As you say there obviously were some anomalies in some manuals and we can only make educated guesses at what the rationale was behind what they wrote.


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 22, 2019)

Glider said:


> (The P-38)* clearly was a better daylight fighter than Mosquito and useful in a number of other rolls. The Mossie was better at other area's. If you want to intercept a bomber in daylight, take the P38, at night, the Mossie.*
> It's pretty obvious that that's the case and I don't think anyone can argue with this, so why not leave it at that?



That is worth a truckload of bacon. Short and to the point.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 22, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Still trying to figure out how New Zealand was punished for buying Vampires instead of F-16s. The Vampire was retired from RNZAF service long over a decade before the F-16 was even thought of...



Have pity on him.

It has to be some sort of "medication" he is on makes him believe they both existed at the same time and dream that the RAAF were given F-111s and have cancelled their F-35s, etc, etc etc.

Ignore him and he will go away like any other obnoxious child.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 22, 2019)

Reading the American archives lists while looking for what I am really trying to find I see there are a couple of files that *may be relevant to the real topic of this thread* that some may want to get. The normal delivery time is around five months so this forum will probably be dormant by then but then again???

If anyone wants them PM me and I will send you the details on how to get them. The only cost is the time it takes to order and get.

_ABSTRACT _-- ITEM HAS MANY MESSAGES THAT ARE UNREADABLE; THE ONES THAT CAN BE READ DEAL WITH SUBJECTS SUCH AS:* JB-2 JET BOMB (COPY OF THE GERMAN BUZZ BOMB); *OPERATION TINK, TO DISRUPT COMMUNICATIONS AND SUPPLY TO THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE AREA; CITIES AND RAILROADS BETWEEN THE MOSELLE AND RHINE RIVERS; MEDITERRANEAN THEATER AIR FORCES OPERATIONS; 15 AIR FORCE STATISTICAL SUMMARY; "C" DAY DROP OF LEAFLETS AND RATIONS ON PRISONER OF WAR CAMPS; "ECLIPSE" PLAN FOR OPERATIONS; APHRODITE "CASTOR" PLANE OPERATIONS REPORT; A-26 MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS; *FIGHTER MARKINGS, PROBLEMS*; 15 AIR FORCE WEEKLY ROUND-UPS; AND *MOSQUITO AIRCRAFT USED FOR RECONNAISSANCE.*
SUBJECT -- LEAFLET OPERATIONS APHRODITE PROJECT TINK OPERATIONS JET BOMBS
******************************
_ABSTRACT _-- CONTAINS *DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CAUSES OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FAILING TO COMPLETE COMBAT OR OPERATIONAL MISSION BECAUSE OF MECHANICAL FAILURE. *COVERS COMBAT MISSIONS OF *P-47 AND P-38 AIRCRAFT*.
_BEG_DATE _-- 08-08-1943 _END_DATE -_- 12-31-1943 
_MAIN _-- UNITED STATES STRATEGIC AIR FORCES IN EUROPE
note that I could not find similar files on P-39, P-40, P-51, P-61, or for other combat theatres, but that does not mean they do/did not exist
******************************
_RECTYPE -- _*ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW*
_ABSTRACT -- _TOPICS: P-36 AIRCRAFT; AIRCRAFT SHIPPED IN CRATES TO ALASKA NO REFUELING FACILITIES; P-39 AIRCRAFT FLEW TO ALASKA; STAGING TO UMNAK AND COLD BAY; P-40 AIRCRAFT WHEN WAR STARTED; P. K. MORRELL WITH P-39'S; FIRST RADAR SITE INSTALLED ON MOUNTAIN SOUTH OF DUTCH HARBOR; GROUND OBSERVERS USED; RADAR WENT IN BEFORE DUTCH HARBOR; ARNOLD SAID FOR EVERY SQUADRON THERE WOULD BE THREE; "COMBAT READY" MEANT FULLY EQUIPPED AND MANNED; HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS IN COLD WEATHER; *P-38 COMPARED TO P-40; LINDBERGH EXTENDED RANGE OF P-38; P-39 MECHANICAL PROBLEMS, BUT RUSSIANS LOVED IT*; LIVING CONDITIONS FOR FAMILIES WERE ROUGH AT MERRILL FIELD, NOW ELMENDORF; LONG MISSIONS; AIRCRAFT LANDING ON PIERCED STEEL PLANKING (PSP); ENGINEERS VERY EFFECTIVE WORKING WITH VOLCANIC ASH AND CORAL; SEA BEES.
_DNOTES _-- GEN. SILLIN WAS INTERVIEWED BY JOHN H. CLOE OF ALASKAN AIR COMMAND ON 8 AUG 80.
_SUBJECT _-- P-36 AIRCRAFT SQUADRON/0018/FIGHTER P-39 AIRCRAFT P-40 AIRCRAFT P-38 AIRCRAFT ALEUTIAN CAMPAIGN RADAR SITES, WORLD WAR II CIVIL ENGINEERING, ALASKA ALASKA WORLD WAR II

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 22, 2019)

The Americans wanted PR.XVI Mosquitoes, but received, initially, converted B.XX. The B.XX was the Canadian built B.IV.

The performance was somewhat less than for a PR.XVI


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> OK not arguing. as as i said based on what i have read in australian press, as i have already said. so the version i read is that General dynamics didn't want to support the last f111s around, i assume this is technical support.


General Dynamics hasn't existed as an aircraft company for decades!



Clean32 said:


> i also understand that Boeing was doing ALL F111 maintenance, although i do not know when they started doing ALL as opposed to service/ deap / heavy. i do know that the planned rollback was 2020 for the f111 and not 2010. i do know that neither the Super Hornets or f35 have the operational range of the f111 which is an issue since australia is quite large and that has been one of the main points constantly raised. i do know that the australian government pulled out of the f35 development program after spending millions, because they said so. on TV even. i know that america wanted the f111 junked and for australia to buy Super Hornets because the australian government said so, on TV even. i also know that sustainment is not equal to independant. guess that's it.


There's a lot of things you don't know, as you said earlier "google is your friend." You're making statements with no basis, perhaps a figment of your imagination.

*Sustainment means the operator could independently support the maintenance and operation of the aircraft.*

READ POST 848!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> *Oh a load of crap is it??*



Actually yes it is. Google might be your friend, but you still are wrong. I would suggest you seperate the facts from fiction and myth.

The Luftwaffe did not award pilots two kills for a Mossie. Any aircraft shot down was one kill, and one kill only.

What you are thoroughly confused with is the points system. The Luftwaffe awarded points, for the purpose of awarding decorations. 

Single Engine: 1 pt
Twin Engine: 2 pts
4 Engine: 3 pts

Kills of a Mossie were the same as kills for a P-38. 1 kill, 2 pts.

_”The point system had nothing to do with the total number of victories (and claims), only with awarding decorations and promotions through proven ability and worth. Many people think the Luftwaffe awarded multiple kills for multi-engined aircraft and even for damaging them, this is totally false!”_

Luftwaffe Score System

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> sorry it took me so long to respond.
> quote "The Germans had nothing equal to the Mosquito and it sapped their morale.* Its fighter pilots were allowed to claim two “kills” for each one they were able to shoot down. "*
> 
> Is the Mosquito the greatest warplane of all?



Wrong again!

Read my post above this one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2019)

And lets all tone it down a bit.

Be easy on the internet gamer historians...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 23, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wrong again!
> 
> Read my post above this one.


I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?



And the reporter is wrong, just like you are. Lots of false things are reported. He is obviously confusing the kill and points system, as many do. And the points had nothing to do with the fact that it was a Mossie, but rather that it had two engines. The P-38 was awarded 2 points as well.

Mossie: 1 kill, 2 pts
P-38: 1 kill, 2 pts
P-51: 1 kill, 1 pt
Spitfire: 1 kill, 1 pt
B-17: 1 kill, 3 pts
Lancaster: 1 kill, 3 pts

The Luftwaffe kill and points system is well documented.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?


There is a tendency to create myths around some weapons especially aircraft. The performance of the Mosquito did not mean its crews were guaranteed immortality or even survival many were in fact lost. Pilots and aircrew have a different view to commanders, they saw much more value in shooting down a night fighter than a bomber simply because the night fighter could shoot them down. Some reporters and even historians transferred this mentality to the actual tally and award system.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> *There is a tendency to create myths around some weapons especially aircraft.* The performance of the Mosquito did not mean its crews were guaranteed immortality or even survival many were in fact lost. Pilots and aircrew have a different view to commanders, they saw much more value in shooting down a night fighter than a bomber simply because the night fighter could shoot them down. Some reporters and even historians transferred this mentality to the actual tally and award system.



Just like the P-39 Gabelschwanzteufel myth.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just like the P-39 Gabelschwanzteufel myth.


Everyone would prefer to say "gabelschwanzteufel" over the radio rather than "P-38" or "lightning" wouldn't they?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 23, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Be easy on the internet gamer historians...



You mean ones who believe

a reporter doing a rave job or a beat-up job using doctor google as their sole information source, *and *
looking for urban legends and anything else that suits the idiot headline they are trying to "prove" (like the headlines about the Spitfire/Mustang/Mosquitos fatal flaw that was fixed before the end of March 41 and before the Mosquito and Merlin Mustang entered service and never applied to Packard Merlins, etc, etc, etc), *and *
working to a deadline (often self imposed) that does not allow proper research, *and*
often has the ethics of a lawyer (remember Rudy G recently quoted _The Lawyers Creed_ - _The truth is *NOT *the truth_), and
is often starting from a knowledge level best described as minute, *etc.*
instead of believing

a dedicated researcher who has been researching and/or physically involved in the industry for several decades or more, *and *
a real historic document that a dedicated researcher can find with not much more effort than a Dr Google search (though nowhere near as quick as a giggle search), *and *
who knows that, when dealing with any archives that hold genuine copies of genuine historic paper documents written at the time of the event, that the costs and time frames can be very very trying (not because of any fault of the archive staff but because most archives are grossly understaffed and over worked - I deal regularly with a couple where there are a significant number of volunteers doing fantastic support work and they still they cannot respond in less than multiple months).


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> There is a tendency to create myths around some weapons especially aircraft. The performance of the Mosquito did not mean its crews were guaranteed immortality or even survival many were in fact lost. Pilots and aircrew have a different view to commanders, they saw much more value in shooting down a night fighter than a bomber simply because the night fighter could shoot them down. Some reporters and even historians transferred this mentality to the actual tally and award system.



and myths become perception that becomes history and perception is reality. i guess with just about every complimentary comment made by Herman or to him, squadron of spitfires, piano maker etc there is nothing about the 2 for one kill, like the other comments you would expect this to be recycled much more than it is. 
I remember reading once something about RAF squadrons being a different size to a luftwaffe squadron. That neither side realised the difference and as a result the Raf always overestimated the Luftwaffe strength and the Luftwaffe underestimated RAF strength ( or the other way around) everyone applying their own assumptions. 

I can imagine some Luftwaffe pilot being interaged by some RAF officer. 
So old chap you say you shot down 2 spitfires and one mosquito. 
ja vier punkte
so you say 4 then
Nie drei
2 spitfires and 2 mosquitos? then
nie 
zwei spitfires und eine mücke


Ok then, 2 spitfires and 2 mosquitos. 
zwei spitfires und eine mücke
ja vier punkte


in his summary it appears that the luftwaffe is credditing 2 kills for one mosquito.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> and myths become perception that becomes history and perception is reality. i guess with just about every complimentary comment made by Herman or to him, squadron of spitfires, piano maker etc there is nothing about the 2 for one kill, like the other comments you would expect this to be recycled much more than it is.
> .


Almost all taken out of context Gallands comment about the Spitfire was valid, not because the Spitfire was a better plane but their relative strengths and weaknesses meant the Spitfire would do the job Goering wanted, it was actually Galland telling Goering the tactics were wrong. Goerings various rants about things are mainly an indication of himself as a man and a leader, he was a bombastic drug addict.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Apr 23, 2019)

I usually skip these discussions about who was best because they so easily turn into arguments. However, this morning I was processing some of my scanned documents from the National Archives and came across the following November 1942 memo from General Butler (commander of the Eleventh AF in Alaska) to General Arnold (daddy rabbit to the Army Air Forces). Clearly, higher command levels had voiced some early displeasure with the P-38, but some field commands disagreed. Here's Butlers wire, reproduced as received:

Rumors have reached me that the P thirty eight is not regarded too highly by Army Air Force authorities (This for General Arnold from General Butler) this airplane is the most versatile and useful airplane employed in this theater. It is extremely fast at both high and low altitude, can be flown from small rough fields, is excellent for ground straffing and good in aerial combat at all altitudes as high as twenty five thousand feet (highest used here) can accompany bombers six hundred and fifty miles, can carry two thousand pounds of bombs two hundred and fifty miles is perfect for deck level attacks within its range because of speed and forward fire power, comes home on one motor without difficulty with the other well shot up, requires crew of only one man which simplifies war training and makes for better results in combat. Cannot praise too highly the work of this airplane in this theater, it has been invaluable and continues to be so.

A month later the AAF got its first in-depth look at the Mosquito: prototype KB300 was built in Canada with parts shipped from the UK. Wright Field and General Arnold insisted that the Mosquito could be tested and evaluated, but that it could not be flown in comparison tests with the P-38 -- there were concerns that the two-seat Mosquito could best the P-38 in certain flight conditions.

My personal belief is that the Mosquito was World War II's best aircraft in nearly every mission it was built for. (The major exception was as a fast, unarmed day bomber, where the loss rate was high enough to cause a switch to night missions after only eleven months.)

It's notable that the Mosquito was not built as a daylight escort fighter or interceptor, but the P-38 was. Each aircraft had its advantages...

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Goerings various rants about things are mainly an indication of himself as a man and a leader, he was a bombastic drug addict.



I kinda agree, but I think it's a simplistic view of Goring, to be honest. He couldn't understand what was going on based on the evidence that he was receiving. He never thought to question the evidence, which, had he been better aware of the strategic situation, then he would have realised that the Germans just didn't have any real intel on how well they were doing. Their reconnaissance aircraft were being shot down, therefore denying them useful post-raid reconnaissance, so inaccurate intel was being fed to him in terms of Fighter Command's strength. Couple that with natural overclaiming from fighter pilots engaged in combat and a very lop sided picture emerges. By not questioning the information he was receiving, he couldn't see why the RAF was still intercepting his bombers in numbers and therefore blamed the fighter pilots. It smacks to me not only of a failure of Goring himself, but the German 'system' and thought process; The Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain as much as the RAF won it - if that makes sense.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

It's interesting to note, Dana, that the Mosquito was favoured by the USAAF and US Navy as a night fighter at one point, as well as a PR aircraft. In their book simply called Mosquito, C Martin Sharp and Michael J F Bowyer dedicate an entire chapter to the machinations that went on to getting Mosquitoes into service with the USAAF as PR machines, night fighters and fighter bombers. The USAAF did use Bristol Beaufighter night fighters in the Mediterranean Theatre before the arrival of P-61s, but not Mosquitoes, although they were requested.


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 23, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> You mean ones who believe
> 
> a reporter doing a rave job or a beat-up job using doctor google as their sole information source, *and *
> looking for urban legends and anything else that suits the idiot headline they are trying to "prove" (like the headlines about the Spitfire/Mustang/Mosquitos fatal flaw that was fixed before the end of March 41 and before the Mosquito and Merlin Mustang entered service and never applied to Packard Merlins, etc, etc, etc), *and *
> ...


So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher? do they look different? do they have different coloured skin? do they sound different? maybe a squeaky voice, or a low one? what about personality? are they like? a Nikita? lend me your shoe comrade so i can bang it and make a lot of noise until everyone listens to me. or Kermit the frog, always trying to help? so how do you know who to listen to?

However i get your point ! having spent 3 years trolling though russian archives in the 90s i can guarantee i know more than you about the Russo Napoleonic wars. and i can virtually guarantee that you believe that the russian winter did napoleon in. well it didn't. But can i convince you. probably not, you cant read pre soviet simplified russian nor could you read colloquial village pesant russian. so i have no evidence. I could state that the Only reason that the russians were able to march directly into paris and not have to retreat and regroup, ( need food) is because of a communique from one russian officer to another. which was captured by the French. was written in an obscure Lativain dialect and in old cyrillic.( 44 letter alphabet) and it would have been a very ODD frenchman who could read that indeed!!! But back to my point. you may think i am simply full of it! but you would happily reference one of my publications rather than reference what i say. that's natural the written word has just so much more weight. personally i get a real kick out of someone refuring to one of my publications in an attempt to prove me wrong! But i digress. I take from you post, referenced above, That you are a learnard, professional and dedicated researcher. could you list your publications and ISBN numbers. with luck and the help of you publications i could rasie my starting point to something a bit higher than "a knowledge level best described as minute". Thank You in advance


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2019)

Look 
C
 Clean32
, no one here is an asshole. People just do not take kindly to people coming in half cocked, spouting half truths, myths and falsehoods, and doing so from a very cocky position.

No one knows everything, but there are some damn knowledgable folks here, and this forum prides itself on discussing history with accuracy. It is one reason it has survived for so long.

If you want to start fresh, and lose that cockiness, people will welcome that and you. 

That’s not saying there will not be spirited discussions...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher? do they look different? do they have different coloured skin? do they sound different? maybe a squeaky voice, or a low one? what about personality? are they like? a Nikita? lend me your shoe comrade so i can bang it and make a lot of noise until everyone listens to me. or Kermit the frog, always trying to help? so how do you know who to listen to?
> 
> However i get your point ! having spent 3 years trolling though russian archives in the 90s i can guarantee i know more than you about the Russo Napoleonic wars. and i can virtually guarantee that you believe that the russian winter did napoleon in. well it didn't. But can i convince you. probably not, you cant read pre soviet simplified russian nor could you read colloquial village pesant russian. so i have no evidence. I could state that the Only reason that the russians were able to march directly into paris and not have to retreat and regroup, ( need food) is because of a communique from one russian officer to another. which was captured by the French. was written in an obscure Lativain dialect and in old cyrillic.( 44 letter alphabet) and it would have been a very ODD frenchman who could read that indeed!!! But back to my point. you may think i am simply full of it! but you would happily reference one of my publications rather than reference what i say. that's natural the written word has just so much more weight. personally i get a real kick out of someone refuring to one of my publications in an attempt to prove me wrong! But i digress. I take from you post, referenced above, That you are a learnard, professional and dedicated researcher. could you list your publications and ISBN numbers. with luck and the help of you publications i could rasie my starting point to something a bit higher than "a knowledge level best described as minute". Thank You in advance



How do you know the difference? By fact checking my friend.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 23, 2019)

Can I hear the music of Greig wafting down the fjord ?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> I kinda agree, but I think it's a simplistic view of Goring, to be honest. He couldn't understand what was going on based on the evidence that he was receiving. He never thought to question the evidence, which, had he been better aware of the strategic situation, then he would have realised that the Germans just didn't have any real intel on how well they were doing. Their reconnaissance aircraft were being shot down, therefore denying them useful post-raid reconnaissance, so inaccurate intel was being fed to him in terms of Fighter Command's strength. Couple that with natural overclaiming from fighter pilots engaged in combat and a very lop sided picture emerges. By not questioning the information he was receiving, he couldn't see why the RAF was still intercepting his bombers in numbers and therefore blamed the fighter pilots. It smacks to me not only of a failure of Goring himself, but the German 'system' and thought process; The Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain as much as the RAF won it - if that makes sense.


It was obviously a generalisation but with a lot of truth in it. Goering may have been a WW1 ace but he was a poor leader, more concerned with grandstanding and stealing art than running the LW. Before the Battle of Britain he asked "where is my Luftwaffe" he was completely unaware of the losses they had incurred since the invasion of Poland. I agree that he was let down by the German system but it was his German system. By ranting like a mad man at bad news he just made sure he didn't get news. He even went so far as to suggest pilots were lying when they reported S/E fighters deep into Germany, no way to run a military force.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 23, 2019)

I've followed this thread with interest from afar and really have nothing to add to the discussion, but let me parse out your second paragraph with some thoughts.




Clean32 said:


> However i get your point ! having spent 3 years trolling though russian archives in the 90s i can guarantee i know more than you about the Russo Napoleonic wars. and i can virtually guarantee that you believe that the russian winter did napoleon in. well it didn't.


NEVER guarantee what others (whom you do not know) believe or know, that is a fatal mistake, especially here. You might very well be the number one authority on that subject, hard to say, but some here may surprise you with their knowledge of that subject. I for one would be fascinated to learn more if you're willing to share.



Clean32 said:


> But can i convince you. probably not,


Why not? You've landed among one of the best historical communities on the internet, so don't assume you cannot make a convincing argument, just be prepared to back up your statements with source documentation etc.



Clean32 said:


> you cant read pre soviet simplified russian nor could you read colloquial village pesant russian.


You're right.



Clean32 said:


> so i have no evidence. I could state that the Only reason that the russians were able to march directly into paris and not have to retreat and regroup, ( need food) is because of a communique from one russian officer to another. which was captured by the French. was written in an obscure Lativain dialect and in old cyrillic.( 44 letter alphabet) and it would have been a very ODD frenchman who could read that indeed!!!


Link or reference to fully researched and vetted material would help.



Clean32 said:


> But back to my point. you may think i am simply full of it!


Not yet...



Clean32 said:


> but you would happily reference one of my publications rather than reference what i say. that's natural the written word has just so much more weight. personally i get a real kick out of someone refuring to one of my publications in an attempt to prove me wrong! But i digress.


I'd be happy to read your published material, links or titles?



Clean32 said:


> I take from you post, referenced above, That you are a learnard, professional and dedicated researcher. could you list your publications and ISBN numbers. with luck and the help of you publications i could rasie my starting point to something a bit higher than "a knowledge level best described as minute". Thank You in advance


You've landed on one of the best forums in the world for aviation history, humility goes further than snark, unless you're me, I'm not the knowledgeable one around here but I am the snarky one.

In closing, please take this in the spirit of friendship that it is intended.

Cheers.
Pete

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> I've followed this thread with interest from afar and really have nothing to add to the discussion, but let me parse out your second paragraph with some thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wish I could give you bacon along with the winner medal. Screw it, bacon is worth more here...

Have some bacon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

> no way to run a military force.



That is true. It is of course arguable that he would not have gotten to where he was if it weren't for the Nazis being the Nazis. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't attempting to exonerate him or his actions, but it is too easy to write him off for being a buffoon and an addict, when he was very much a product of his Nazi environment, albeit one susceptible to the luxuries that one in his position expects. I do believe he bit off more than he could chew in stating the LW attacks against Britain would succeed in their objective in paving the way for invasion, mind you, he too was following orders from Herr Hitler, who was probably more delusional in his belief that he could successfully invade Britain.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> That is true. It is of course arguable that he would not have gotten to where he was if it weren't for the Nazis being the Nazis. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't attempting to exonerate him or his actions, but it is too easy to write him off for being a buffoon and an addict, when he was very much a product of his Nazi environment, albeit one susceptible to the luxuries that one in his position expects. I do believe he bit off more than he could chew in stating the LW attacks against Britain would succeed in their objective in paving the way for invasion, mind you, he too was following orders from Herr Hitler, who was probably more delusional in his belief that he could successfully invade Britain.


It was not just a question of biting off more than he could chew, he didn't know what he had bitten off at all. It was a mirror of the German Blitzkrieg communicating with radios while the French were waiting for a despatch rider. While Goering relied on reports in the old way, Dowding and Park could see the battle presented in real time. Even at the end of it he didn't know the battle he had just taken part in and how it ran. He was similarly clueless at Stalingrad when he lost his transports and most of his bombers in an action that could only end in disaster.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> It was not just a question of biting off more than he could chew, he didn't know what he had bitten off at all.



You can say that about the entire plan to invade Britain! Oh I agree with you Pbehn, completely regarding Goring and his mismanagement of the Luftwaffe, but remember that through him it became the formidable foe to the Allies that it was. That Goring struggled to implement a clear strategy against Britain was as much Hitler's fault as it was his own. As for the Eastern Front, again, biting off more than they can chew.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?


Read histories about the Luftwaffe written by credible sources. They're out there - Google is your friend!


----------



## wuzak (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> I added a link to a reporter talking about a documentary who made this statement. so who am i to believe?



A reporter talking about a documentary?

Was it a history channel documentary?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> I can imagine some Luftwaffe pilot being interaged by some RAF officer.
> So old chap you say you shot down 2 spitfires and one mosquito.
> ja vier punkte
> so you say 4 then
> ...



If that actually happened it would, most likely, be in a report in the National Archives of the UK.

You can get them to copy documents, or get a researcher to do it for you.

Off you go!


----------



## Dana Bell (Apr 23, 2019)

It's interesting to note, Dana, that the Mosquito was favoured by the USAAF and US Navy as a night fighter at one point, as well as a PR aircraft. In their book simply called Mosquito, C Martin Sharp and Michael J F Bowyer dedicate an entire chapter to the machinations that went on to getting Mosquitoes into service with the USAAF as PR machines, night fighters and fighter bombers. The USAAF did use Bristol Beaufighter night fighters in the Mediterranean Theatre before the arrival of P-61s, but not Mosquitoes, although they were requested.

Hi Nuuumannn,

You're bringing back some memories there! That chapter wasn't in the original edition of _Mosquito_, but it did turn up in the 1995 edition after I supplied much of my original research to MJF Bowyer. (That is NOT to say that everything in that chapter came from me, but a good bit did.)

The AAF valued the Mosquito for a great many roles, particularly long-range recon-type missions. Perhaps its greatest advantage over the F-4/F-5 Lightning was the observer's seat - the Lightning pilot was seriously task-saturated trying to navigate, flying a straight line for the photo run, and watching out for enemy fighters -- that second pair of eyes really helped!

One American MTO squadron did get Mosquitos - the 416th received its first Mozzy (as the Americans would misspell the nickname) in November 1944. Based in Italy at a time when there were few opportunities to fire their guns in anger, the unit scored only one victory - but what a victory! Losing the right engine soon after takeoff, the pilot and R/O still chased a recce Ju 188 from Naples across the Alps, finally downing the target as it attempted to land at its own Austrian base. (Earlier that evening, a P-61 tried to catch the Junkers, but lacked the speed and endurance to close for an attack.)

The confusing story of America and the Mosquito still needs to be told in a book - it parallels all of the US' efforts to develop night fighters and long-range reconnaissance aircraft. In the end, the Mosquito still beat every operational aircraft we had in the field.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher?


You pretty much answered your own question there.
A researcher will take the time to check and cross check facts and come to an educated conclusion.
A reporter will grab a bit of info and run with it, especially if the info fits a narrative.
There are also some authors who have done this in the past, like Green and Caidin...the latter getting his start by writing fiction and then became an editor for an aviation magazine. Some of his "claims" in his articles were very questionable and have long since been debunked, like the German pilots calling the P-38 the "Forktail Devil" (that name actually came from the USAAF pilots).
Green was also good for this, creating the legend in the 50's that the Ju390 flew to the New York coastline not once, but twice!
Keep in mind that these myths were created when these men were new editors writing articles for magazines and sensation sells - just as it does today.



Clean32 said:


> However i get your point ! having spent 3 years trolling though russian archives in the 90s i can guarantee i know more than you about the Russo Napoleonic wars...


Many members here have studied military history for decades - while I'm certainly not a leading authority, I have been a student of military history of the ancient to mid-20th century time period...for over 40 years. I have learned a thing or two along the way.

In regards to the Cyrillic alphabet, the archiac 44 character alphabet in Russian use was modernized by Peter the Great in the early 1700's.
The "peasant" Russian was spoken, not written, as the vast majority of peasants were illiterate.
By the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Peter the Great's changes to the alphabet would have had about a century to mature and become mainstream.

There were and are quite a few differences between the Cyrillic speaking nations, Bulgaria, the cradle of all Cyrillic languages, still retains a bit of the old tongue.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2019)

Dana Bell said:


> It's interesting to note, Dana, that the Mosquito was favoured by the USAAF and US Navy as a night fighter at one point, as well as a PR aircraft. In their book simply called Mosquito, C Martin Sharp and Michael J F Bowyer dedicate an entire chapter to the machinations that went on to getting Mosquitoes into service with the USAAF as PR machines, night fighters and fighter bombers. The USAAF did use Bristol Beaufighter night fighters in the Mediterranean Theatre before the arrival of P-61s, but not Mosquitoes, although they were requested.
> 
> Hi Nuuumannn,
> 
> ...


I did read an official USAAF review of the Mosquito and the summary was that it was unsuitable for flying at night. The RAF firmly believed that there was a massive case of NIH involved.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 23, 2019)

Glider said:


> I did read an official USAAF review of the Mosquito and the summary was that it was unsuitable for flying at night. The RAF firmly believed that there was a massive case of NIH involved.



Initially the Mosquito was rejected as a pathfinder on the basis that it was unsuitable for flying at night.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

Dana Bell said:


> The confusing story of America and the Mosquito still needs to be told in a book



Awesome, thanks for the info in the Mosquito book, then Dana, it has enhanced my knowledge of the Mossie enormously. The US connection hasn't really been explored and is often simply ignored. I agree, get writing!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> A researcher will take the time to check and cross check facts and come to an educated conclusion. A reporter will grab a bit of info and run with it, especially if the info fits a narrative.



Nailed it. To add to that, a good, thorough researcher always acknowledges any new information he/she receives and any errors he/she might have made in the past, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Nailed it. To add to that, a good, thorough researcher always acknowledges any new information he/she receives and any errors he/she might have made in the past, too.


Yes indeed!

It can be easy to fall for a "Caidinism" (I've REALLY been wanting to use that!) if it's been well presented, but often, cross-checking sources will show it for what it is.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 23, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> So how do you tell the difference between a reporter doing a rave job and a dedicated researcher? so how do you know who to listen to?



I will try and keep this simple. Other forum members have, and will in future, provided more material that you need to consider.

Firstly a dedicated researcher quotes and uses prime documents and details them in the book/paper/article. A prime document is one written *at the time *by experts or by persons who were there and who should have known what they were talking about. Think Diaries, official reports, official communiques and official manuals. Articles by reporters of the day are treated with great caution though because they were censored and approved by the censorship board to reflect what the government wanted the public to know.

A dedicated researcher will identify their prime source material, accept secondary source material only when it fits the prime material. A dedicated researcher will read but generally ignore anything written that has a headline grabbing title and which never identifies the sources.

Many of the people on this forum are well known authors who do have multiple publications which are fully and properly researched and do not need to do this on this site because they are known and respected experts. Where a dedicated researcher is not sure of something they say so and explain the rational for their decision to trust source x over source y or why they came to their conclusion. They will often summarize all the optional theories.

Because I do not have that level of recognition on this forum you will note that I regularly cut and paste graphics from my actual sources. This proves the source exists and anyone is welcome to ask for the full reference source. With manuals I try and include the manual number so anyone else can check for themselves without that inconvenience to both of us.

Dana just retypes from the source but he is so well known, well respected and well published and has been on this forum for so long that he does not need to provide the source in a simple online post. My way provides instant proof but his is far easier to read. His reputation means no one needs to see the source document but he will provide the details of the source where appropriate.

FlyboyJ, GruaGeist and many many others here are also acknowledged experts in their respective fields who also have access to original documents and accurate translations (and never use Giggle translate) yet you repeatedly ignore their information on Luftwaffe scoring, etc.



Clean32 said:


> so how do you know who to listen to?



Do they quote their sources in such a way that you can cross check them, and their context, yourself? *and or*
Are their references to prime sources? *and or*
Are they an acknowledged expert in the field? *and or*
Look at the quality of their writing.
The easiest example that I can use to indicate what I mean by that last item is the requirement in the aviation industry in the USA and other smart countries for commercial and ALTP pilots to allow any intending employer to access their driving records before and during their employment.

Behavioral science shows that people who do certain things one way do related things the same way.

History shows that drivers who drink and drive will drink and fly, that pilots who refuse to obey road rules will refuse to obey aviation rules, etc.

From this it is possible to conclude that a writer who is too lazy to follow proper writing forms such as spelling, grammar, case, correct wording and designations, etc is also most likely to be too lazy to do the research required to write an accurate post and also far too lazy or incompetent to proofread and correct what they have written before posting.



Clean32 said:


> typing out of my head and not checking.



See last paragraph above.



Clean32 said:


> easy typo just swap an 8 for a 1, as i demonstrated



This is not an easy typo. A typo means that you pushed the 7, 9, u or i instead of the 8 or transposed two letters or numbers like saying F-68 instead of F-86.

Pushing a letter with your left pinky instead of pushing a letter with your right middle finger and being too lazy to proof read what you have written (and leaving out the - in F-86 etc, etc, etc.) are all indications of extremely sloppy behavior and habits - see again the last paragraph referenced above.




Clean32 said:


> I take from *you *post, referenced above, *That *you are a *learnard*, professional and dedicated researcher. *could *you list your publications and ISBN numbers. *with *luck and the help of *you *publications *i *could *rasie *my starting point to something a bit higher than "a knowledge level best described as minute".



I am not a professional writer but there are eight examples of sloppy writing and failing to proof read in just that one short paragraph above.

I am a semi retired 75 year old and been in the industry since 1962 in 5 countries. I am a private pilot with warbird time, an Aircraft Maintenance Technician qualified in multiple countries, an Aircraft Engineer, a qualified Aerospace Auditor, and a trained air accident and incident investigator meeting the requirements for ICAO Annex 13 among other qualifications. My last two full time positions were as _Quality and Safety Manager _for my employers _International Air Operators Certificate_ and _Maintenance Organization Certificate_ for a small international airline performing B737 passenger operations in three countries and the same position for a mixed rotary and fixed wing operator operating helicopters ranging from Bell 407 to Mil 8, 17 & 26 in two countries. Both those positions require extensive and repetitive examination by the National Aviation Regulators to ensure that you are, and continue to be, a _Fit and Proper Person_ to hold each position.

I have researched all my life to keep my mind active and expand my knowledge.

Before I married I was well known in the warbird community (well before it was fashionable) and I was written about in multiple magazines and a few books. I am still occasionally consulted by current warbird restoration persons and businesses.

I do not consider myself an expert but, because of my experience and research, I am more learned than many people.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2019)

> so how do you know who to listen to?



Simple. None of us knows more than all of us. We'll keep ya right, mate!

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes indeed!
> 
> It can be easy to fall for a "Caidinism" (I've REALLY been wanting to use that!) if it's been well presented, but often, cross-checking sources will show it for what it is.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2019)

One of our forum members coined that phrase some time back and I truly regret that I have forgotten who it was, but they deserve all the accolades (and a lifetime supply of bacon).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 24, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> You pretty much answered your own question there.
> A researcher will take the time to check and cross check facts and come to an educated conclusion.
> A reporter will grab a bit of info and run with it, especially if the info fits a narrative.
> 
> ...



on your first, my point is. But how do you know the difference. if an editor of a publication gets it wrong. a BBC presenter gets it wrong a newspaper gets it wrong. then? you have answered what IS the difference. I asked how do you tell the difference? not the same.

second point, and you are basically correct. But the cyrillic alphabet is Phonetic and as such can record all languages. the illiterate peasantry still had the church who would write letters for them, not many but they are there. uumm ok if we look at china. a pictorial writing, a writing that can be read in any language ( they say 200 languages in china?) but all schooling is/was done in mandarin. Thailand, 5 main languages, all schooling in Thai Yai. Laos 4 main languages but again all schooling was done in Lao ( close to Issarn) Russia pre soviet had many languages, depending on who you talk to, up to 300 throughout the russian empire at its hight. yet the country ran on french. Ok so look at war and peace. the Landerd spent the summer months in the country over seeing there pesent farmworkers and there vast estates. sold their crops or what ever then buggered of to the city for winter and blowing what they had made. they probably would have spoken French to there friends, russian to there taylour and horseman and communicated in writing to the head pessant back on the estate in whatever was the local language/ dialect. by head pessant i meen Kuracks, the ones stalin killed off deported. my point is that there is vast piles of documents/ letters etc that can be read but not under stood.
another point and this is important. English you can survive with about 1200 words, ESOL i think is about 6000 words. 38000 words common language and about 120000 english words in use. again this varies depending on who you talk to. Russian well you need 1000 words to get your permanent residence visa ( they were talking about it when i did mine so i assume its in now) and 44000 words in total, again depending on who you talk to. my point is that russian and most russian languages are simply lacking in words IE machina is all machines. machinKA Ka being child like would mean a toy machine, a toy car etc if its a big machine then its bolshoy machine big. the bolshoi ballet. just means the big ballet. but machine means every machina just means every machine and that russian word has it roots in english anyway. in short russian is short of descriptive words so they use frases based of commonly known stories, like in english " cry wolf" or an old one " tilting at windmills" ( he is) or after the fact " blessed be the should i rid the world of such foul demons" in russian you can have complete conversations using cry wolf and other frases, infact to a point you can only have such conversations that way because russian is lacking in descriptive words. uumm i could go on but should do some thing about food!


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 24, 2019)

The answer is clear enough - the reporter for the rag gave a half-assed piece without citations.

Also, in your extensive google search, that was all that came up, wasn't it?

That should speak volumes...


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 24, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The answer is clear enough - the reporter for the rag gave a half-assed piece without citations.
> 
> Also, in your extensive google search, that was all that came up, wasn't it?
> 
> That should speak volumes...


 so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.
do you
A toss that poster down the well.
B tell that poster they are wrong.
C misrepresent what that poster has written to further entangle the issue.
D make representations about that posters education lineage and or activities?
E correct the post
F Correct the post with supporting link/documents etc.
G Correct the post with supporting Link/ documents AND then follow the link and contact the original informant to correct them with your supporting documentation?

In short do you play the ball or the man?


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 24, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> I will try and keep this simple.
> 
> From this it is possible to conclude that a writer who is too lazy to follow proper writing forms such as spelling, grammar, case, correct wording and designations, etc is also most likely to be too lazy to do the research required to write an accurate post and also far too lazy or incompetent to proofread and correct what they have written before posting.
> 
> ...



Ok i get it, you dot the eyes and cross your tees, and you do not like anyone who is not the same as you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.
> do you
> A toss that poster down the well.
> B tell that poster they are wrong.
> ...



Here, we attempt to correct him/her, but it’s kind of hard to do when the person came in with a high horse to begin with, and had no desire to learn.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> Ok i get it, you dot the eyes and cross your tees, and you do not like anyone who is not the same as you.



See post above.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> Ok i get it, you dot the eyes and cross your tees, and you do not like anyone who is not the same as you.


Strange, that's not the message I got from MiTasol's post, huh... perception/comprehension are funny things it seems.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 24, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wish I could give you bacon along with the winner medal. Screw it, bacon is worth more here...
> 
> Have some bacon.


MMMMM... BACON!!!


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2019)

Dana Bell said:


> My personal belief is that the Mosquito was World War II's best aircraft in nearly every mission it was built for. (The major exception was as a fast, unarmed day bomber, where the loss rate was high enough to cause a switch to night missions after only eleven months.)



The number of aircraft involved in those early missions was small, often as little as 3 or 6 aircraft, so the loss of a single plane gives a high mission loss rate.

1 out of 6 is a loss rate of 16.7%, which is high. It does not follow, however, that the same mission involving 60 aircraft will lead to the loss of 10.

In mid 1943 the USAAF lost ~60 out of 300 in the Schweinfurt/Regensberg mission- a disastrous loss rate. But when the USAAF sent 1000 bombers over Germany in early 1944 the number lost was also ~60.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.
> do you
> A toss that poster down the well.
> B tell that poster they are wrong.
> ...



We will discuss, often at length, the rights or wrongs of the information. It only gets sticky when someone refuses to accept well-sourced criticism of their info. It's typically the originator of bad information who starts making things personal.

We're all here to learn. I know a little about a few things. I am a published author with a MA in the History of Warfare from King's College London. I've also spent several weeks-worth of time sourcing contemporaneous information for my research. Many on the forum know a LOT more than me and I always learn from other posters.

Bottom line...this isn't a battle over who is right or wrong. It's about sharing knowledge and information so we can all learn. However, posters must be willing to learn in the first place. If they aren't, they won't last long here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> so a poster posts something that is incorrect with a link to source which is incorrect.
> do you
> A toss that poster down the well.
> B tell that poster they are wrong.
> ...


It has been exaustively explained and in great detail.

But let's simplify it a little, ok?

When making a statement, does one use a newspaper article as a source or does one use an official government document as a source?

In this case, you have used a newspaper article that makes a statement and the author did not make any citations to their claim.
The error was pointed out and explained as the author either mistaking the RLM's 1944 points directive as the basis of victory awards OR the author knew about the true award convention but used the points system as a basis for their statement, because it sensationalizes the Mosquito's legacy.
Knowing how the media operates, I suspect the latter.

Now, if you TRULY wish to learn, then go to the source:
Directive 55270/41, issued in 1939 by the Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, titled "Annerkennung von Abschüssen, Zerstörungen und Schiffsvernichtung" (Confirmation of aerial victories, destruction and sinking of ships).
This document outlined what constituted a victory and the proceedure for verification plus the submission of the claim. This document remained in effect from 1939 through 1945.

The point system introduced in 1944 was a bit more complex and it was only valid for the Western Front and only applied to aircraft that were airborn.

I truly hope this helps clear up any confusion but my sources are the actual Luftwaffe documents (as I mentioned above).

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2019)

I would note that when you start off with 

"Well this is my* first post*. somehow i ended up reading a thread that had a bit of a debate over the RAF .303 and the american .50, accuracy and power etc. its seems that *all the posters are quite misinformed*. so i joined and now can not locate that thread so here goes. "

and then post a bunch of stuff that is either nonsense or flat out wrong you are going to get a lot of people's backs up. 

I am not a published author nor get any money as an Historian. I am a long time competitive target shooter and my father had a number of books about guns on a technical level (Hatcher's Notebook and several books by Melvin Johnson, inventor of the Johnson semi-automatic rifle and Johnson Light machine gun among them) that date to the 40s. These books are on a shelf 6 feet away as I write this. There are several modern books by Anthony Williams and Maxim Popenker that cover the subject of aircraft guns and each man has a rather impressive website on firearms/machine guns/auto cannon. 

While there are some minor discrepancies between some of the old books and the new ones some of the old books were published while the war was in it's early years and so some information may not have been available for publication. However information on the prewar ammo was printed and in detail. trajectory charts, penetration charts, weights of components of the cartridges and so on. 

I would not presume to lecture anyone on language or even the proper way of writing (members here have put up with my mistakes for many years with great forbearance) but Firearms and engines are of great interest to me and I have made an effort to educate myself and am quite willing to give references to books that help form my opinions or I get what I think are the facts from. No one source is perfect and mistakes can be found in many books/sources. Some are typos and can be figured out quickly. But when figuring it out it helps to use logic and not just consensus. 8 sources say one thing and only 4 say something else so the eight must be right? What happens when 3 of the eight are by the same author and 3 moe just quote him?

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clean32 (Apr 24, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> We will discuss, often at length, the rights or wrongs of the information. It only gets sticky when someone refuses to accept well-sourced criticism of their info. It's typically the originator of bad information who starts making things personal.
> 
> We're all here to learn. I know a little about a few things. I am a published author with a MA in the History of Warfare from King's College London. I've also spent several weeks-worth of time sourcing contemporaneous information for my research. Many on the forum know a LOT more than me and I always learn from other posters.
> 
> Bottom line...this isn't a battle over who is right or wrong. It's about sharing knowledge and information so we can all learn. However, posters must be willing to learn in the first place. If they aren't, they won't last long here.



you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito 
Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
its is and atack to state that i do not wish to learn, i did join a form to gather information and leads for my own work, and that has been successful thanks to one member.

But it makes me wonder, with such a inverted bunch of people with such correct knowledge, who is correcting publicly any incorrect perceptions, Like Miss #### orifice. or the P51 not having a true laminar wing. or are you just prepared to sit in forum and slaughter anyone who risks to stick there nose in?


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 24, 2019)

3...2...1..................

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito
> Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
> A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
> the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
> ...



A reporter reporting on an upcoming documentary is not a great source, certainly not a primary source.

For one thing, it is not known what the quality of the documentary is. Many are riddled with inaccuracies.

And I believe others have told you where their information originated regarding points and victory wards.

And I would like to know where the idea that the Mosquito could care 4 tons of bombs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito
> Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
> A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
> the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
> ...



When people called out the incorrect statement, you could have responded with "Wow, that's interesting! Where can I learn more?". Instead, you launched on a questioning approach of "Who can I believe?"

You have been pointed to original sources by a couple of folks, as well as the source of the original myth. However, instead of exploring those cues you still revert to questioning which people you can believe. I can't help you if you're unwilling to look beyond journalist articles for your info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2019)

In any case a Mosquito was an aircraft, you cannot construct a system where an aircraft becomes two aircraft just because you shoot it down unless you believe in witchcraft or are possessed by a special madness.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> you are correct but *no one has posted any source information except me.* with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito


What you posted, was a news article (with no citations).

What I posted, was the *official Luftwaffe directive* number that you can easily research.

Which do you suppose would bear more weight in an academic community?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 24, 2019)

By the way, here's a great article by the Daily Mail about the restored Hurricane Mk.I from Dunkirk that was restored - what's even better, is the article's title...
Hurricane jet takes to the skies after £2m restoration | Daily Mail Online

So now we're faced with a true dilemma: do we go by what the article says or do we go by historical fact?

If we go by the article, then there was aparently a Hawker Hurricane jet fighter over the skies of Britain in 1940 predating the Meteor's debut by 4 years.

If we go by historical data, then we know that the Hurricane was never a jet and that the author of the article made a mistake.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> you are correct but no one has posted any source information except me. with a link to a reporter commenting on an upcoming documentary on the mosquito
> Nor in any of my comments have i made any thing personal, But i have been attacked there is no doubt about that
> A couple of posters have even lied about what i have posted
> the responding , high horse. argognace comments directed at myself i feel have more to do with the authors than a reflection of my personality
> ...



What source information have you posted, and how does it have more weight than a Luftwaffe Directive?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> but no one has posted any source information except me.



And what do you call all those screen shots from the Mosquito and P-38 manuals. Those documents are PRIME sources.

And what do you call GrauGeists posts where he typed out the complete section from the original German document. AGAIN a PRIME source.

Etc

Etc

Etc

You remind me of the old truism *There are none so blind as those who will not see *

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 24, 2019)

Clean32 said:


> but no one has posted any source information except me.






MiTasol said:


> And what do you call all those screen shots from the Mosquito and P-38 manuals. Those documents are PRIME sources.
> 
> And what do you call GrauGeists posts where he typed out the complete section from the original German document. AGAIN a PRIME source.
> 
> ...






Clean32 said:


> * i see no point in quoting clime rates and air speeds at altitude.*

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 13, 2019)

There is for me no question whatsoever here, its the Mosquito, although its not that great a poll-choice as the two planes are not that closely matched in terms of purpose - so my choice here should not perhaps be regarded as a "total" dismissal of the Lightning either...

I would base this on the following points:

1) The lightning suffered as the wing mounted intercoolers couldnt be easily uprated and so performance suffered a lot when engine power got above that which had been originally envisaged. *source "Vees For Victory" by Dan Whitney

2) Having read most of the surviving Luftwaffe RLM conference meeting minuites, you`ll struggle to find much mention of the Lightning, conversely its full of diatribes against the mosquito, with Goring, and the rest going spare at the antics the aircraft was able to get up to with almost total immpunity. *source Erhard Milch microfilm (can provide page #`s and reel #`s if requested)

3) The British records of M.A.P. are full of genuine debate about if the entire 4-engine heavy fleet should be scrapped and replaced by Mosquitos, along with almost innumerable superlatives being poured upon it in the original wartime records *source AVIA-10-364 (below).

As far as I can see the Mosquito is one of VERY few planes where the modern day hype is actually really reproduced ON the original papers, even the British Govt. Spitfire records dont have anything like these sorts of levels of praise except for some quote isolated periods like the introduction of the IX or XIV. I suppose the only negatives I can see are that "glue & humidity blah..." or "could have done with more of them". Its a genine legend, and in my opinion a ingly undervalued plane - the only reason I wont say "better" than a Spitfire is because its not a comparable type. I`ve seen no other aircraft other than the P-51-B > that came in and utterly dominated from first to last in the same manner* source Erhard Milch microfilm "die Mustang ist anderer klasse". Never was the Mosquito outmoded in its entire operational career - other than except against the 262... which also applies to <insert name of any plane here> as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 15, 2019)

There is a book written in 1988 by Alexander McKee called " The Mosquito Log " - He is the author of more than 20 books on aspects of military, naval & aeronautical history, among other things - He flew his first aircraft while still in his teens - I urge anyone who doubts the integrity of this man and this aircraft to read his book ( ISBN 0 285 62838 0 ) -

I haven't the time to 'action-replay' all I've written here in the past to the derision of the likes of CC and his mate 'Lancaster is Greatest or whatever' his handle was, they would crack jokes about 'Mosquito Borer-bomber' and so forth.... The fact is the Mosquito was/is unique in aviation history, first flew in 1940, continuously in use through to 1958, there were 43 different variants made, it was loved by all those that used it and hated by those that it was used against, the Germans even tried to do a copy of it but the glues didn't hold !

Let's be honest, comparison between these two aircraft is totally redundant - The P-38 was a superb aircraft in it's own right, for what it was designed for, and was also loved by all those that used it, we are so lucky today to have survivors to see at airshows - It was an entirely different design made from metal, tricycle u/c, etc and trying to make a contest between these two when the ONLY thing they had in common was they were both twin-engined and in the same War ....

I have always loved the Mosquito since I was a young lad making up 30 odd model kitsets before my father gathered them up when I turned 16 and gave them to my cousins - "When you become a man you put away the toys and go to work-" - I kept my interest in aviation and read books on it instead, and I joined the Army at 19 in 1971 & served 4 years, which I enjoyed - So I understand things 'military' and know my way around a few things - Men should embrace the Laws of War, then maybe we wouldn't have so many, but always be prepared ~

Hope this clears the mists of trying to fit square pegs in round holes ~


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2019)

Snowygrouch said:


> 2) Having read most of the surviving Luftwaffe RLM conference meeting minuites, you`ll struggle to find much mention of the Lightning, conversely its full of diatribes against the mosquito, with Goring, and the rest going spare at the antics the aircraft was able to get up to with almost total immpunity



Well, for all of 1942 and about 10-11 months of 1943 the P-38 was operating on the fringes of the German "empire" while the Mosquito was operating right over the heads of Goring and the rest. The plane that bombed you last night or last week is going to get more attention than the plane that was giving a moderate amount of trouble hundreds of KM away in Tunisia or Sicily. The P-38 didn't show up in large numbers in NW Europe until the late winter and spring of 1944. One or two groups just starting operations in Dec of 1943 is hardly going to be that noteworthy to the German High command. 

This is meant as no disrespect to the Mosquito or it's crews. It (and the crews) certainly earned the attention the Germans gave it when considering how to defend against it. 

I would note that the page in photo does contain a bit of wishful thinking and uses the same skewed logic/accounting that the Mosquito vs B-17 arguments use in regards to the bomb load. The reason for the somewhat low average bomb loads of the Lancaster and B-17s was the high proportion of incendiaries carried on many raids. The incendiary loads were usually volume limited (ran out of space in the bomb bay) rather the weight limited. Mosquitos trying to carry incendiaries would have seen their "bomb load weight" plummet.

The Mosquito did do amazing things but some of the fringe roles (under 30 planes with 6pdr guns? the bouncing anti-ship bomb) seem to occupy a bit too much space in that evaluation.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 15, 2019)

Usually  Almost always, I dislike these "which was the best" discussions, mostly as "best" is never well-defined. The P-38 and Mosquito were two aircraft designed for radically different roles and largely operated in completely different ways.

I'm waiting for somebody to ask which was the better aircraft: the DC-3 or the P-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2019)

The P-47 was a single engine plane,

Which was better, the P-38 or the C-46

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2019)

Whereas the DC-3 and C-47 were pretty similar, the Dakota had the edge in dive and climb performance.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 15, 2019)

Wasn't that with different fuel tanks and armament?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Wasn't that with different fuel tanks and armament?


All CoG issues had been sorted. The Dak had a pod that could be swapped in 30 seconds, its appearance put 10,000 osteopaths out of work.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2019)

Which was better, the DC-3 or the P-47?


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 15, 2019)

All kidding aside, I think like with most" which is better" discussions the answer is it depends on the enemy your fighting and the mission your performing. Both great planes in my opinion.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 15, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which was better, the DC-3 or the P-47?


The Dakota, best version had D-Day stripes, no Dakota was shot down by a 262 which confirms its superiority.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 15, 2019)

Snowygrouch said:


> There is for me no question whatsoever here, its the Mosquito


The mosquito seemed more versatile, overall.


> I would base this on the following points:
> 
> 1) The lightning suffered as the wing mounted intercoolers couldnt be easily uprated and so performance suffered a lot when engine power got above that which had been originally envisaged.


And they had to redesign the intercooler, which appeared on the P-38J.


> 3) The British records of M.A.P. are full of genuine debate about if the entire 4-engine heavy fleet should be scrapped and replaced by Mosquitos, along with almost innumerable superlatives being poured upon it in the original wartime records *source AVIA-10-364 (below).


There was some intelligence in that decision, but ultimately, I would say it'd be a bad idea -- the UK and parts of the US and Canada would have suffered some serious deforestation to produce enough bombers.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 16, 2019)

In the book "The Mosquito Log" by Alexander McKee ( ISBN 0 285 62838 0 ) - The Earl Bathurst to the author , 1987 ~ " Would it be of interest for you to know that some six million cubic feet of beech trees were felled in the Cirencester Park Woods to be made into plywood at Lydney, Gloucestershire , for the skins of these aeroplanes ? The trees were felled by a New Zealand military forestry company using bulldozers and huge mobile circular saws of a type never seen in this country before -"
- It took this company of 200 men to fell this, from 3 different forests in 3 years - It was necessary to go through the forests three times - As the demand for timber increased the quarter girth was lowered : this , along with the fact that spare expert men weren't available to clear up as they worked - 
The aircraft used birch , spruce , balsa as well as beech and all needed expert handling in the factory - Such was the accuracy of woodworking at De Havilland's that the general workshop tolerances were in the order of plus or minus one ten thousandth of an inch (0.010", or a quarter of a millimetre in metric terms -)

It goes on, it's a really insightful book of how this remarkable aircraft was to be " Britain's wooden wonder weapon " ~

After all, it was stated that the firepower of 4 cannon, 4 machine guns & 8 rockets were equivalent to a broadside from a Cruiser - The RAF Coastal Command Strike Wings were about the most dangerous job given to Mosquito crews - The 'only' 30 odd Mk.XVIII Tsetse variants with the 25 round 57mm Molins cannon were very accurate, able to put 4-5 rounds in on a pass but the rockets were better along and below the waterline and were more of a success ~ The Mosquitoes and Beaufighters usually had Mk.III Mustangs for escort against the Luftwaffe fighters based in Scandanavia ~

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 16, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Dakota, best version had D-Day stripes, no Dakota was shot down by a 262 which confirms its superiority.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which was better, the DC-3 or the P-47?



Well, the DC-3, obviously, because it's got a larger passenger capacity.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 16, 2019)

I don't really have much data available on the Mosquito NF.VIII variant, which was a high altitude version of the Mosquito, the only data listed was the Mosquito FB.VI, and the NF.XV.

FB.VI
Advantages
It almost certainly had greater range while carrying payload than the P-38G/J (I don't have figures, but common sense would lead me to believe...)
It had more firepower than the P-38 (*Mosquito FB.VI:* 4 x 20mm+4 x 7.7mm; *P-38:* 4x0.50"+1x20mm)
It had two crew, which probably helped with with navigation at the minimum (I don't know the role of the second-seater) 
I would not be surprised if it had a superior rate of roll than the earlier P-38's, and might have built up a roll-rate faster than the P-38J/L
It seemed to be a bit faster at around 4700 feet over the P-38G
It seemed to have a higher maximum mach number than the P-38
I wouldn't be surprised if it had better survivability at low altitudes over the P-38 (though that's a guess)
It was probably easier to maintain, and quite a number of people were able to work with wood back then.

Disadvantages
It had a lower maximum G-load than the P-38
It had a higher stall speed than the P-38s (P-38F/G: 97 mph; P-38J: 100-105 mph; FB.VI: 105 mph @ 18000; 109-110 @ 19555),
I'm not sure if it could dive quite as fast in terms of indicated airspeed: At high altitude this wouldn't mean much as mach-number gets in the way first; at lower altitude it could definitely work against it, assuming my estimate is right.
It's climb-rate was quite slow compared to nearly every single variation of P-38.


NF.XV
Advantages
It had more firepower (4x20mm vs 1x20mm+4x0.50)
Climb rate was superior somewhere between 30000-35000 feet
It might very well have had a superior service-ceiling of 43000 feet
It might have still been able to achieve a higher mach number in a dive, though the different wing did have a reduced maximum dive-speed.
It was probably easier to maintain, as quite a number of people at the time were skilled with wood.
Two eyes in day-time operations (not likely to occur, but) would theoretically give better situational awareness

Disadvantages
Maximum dive speeds were reduced over earlier Mosquito variants
Most combat takes place around 10000-30000 feet, where the P-38's generally hold an advantage in climb rate (the P-38J could achieve a higher speed)
It had a higher stall speed and lower maximum g-load.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2019)

You probably could not data on the Mosquito NF.VIII because such a thing never existed.

The NF.XV was basically a PR.VIII with a gun pack of 4 x 0.303" mgs under the fuselage and extended wing tips. The PR.VIII was a converted B.IV with pressure cabin and Merlin 61s. Only 5 NF.XVs were built.

As the NF.XV was derived from the IV it had the lower drag vee shaped windshield, not the flat panel used on the fighters.



Zipper730 said:


> Most combat takes place around 10000-30000 feet, where the P-38's generally hold an advantage in climb rate (the P-38J could achieve a higher speed)



The NF.XV was designed for high altitude combat, to shoot down aircraft like the Ju 86P and R.

Where are you getting your data?

EDIT: I will have to check with books at home as to whether the PR.VIII and NF.XV were the same aircraft, or were different Mk.IVs converted for the two different roles.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> It had two crew, which probably helped with with navigation at the minimum (I don't know the role of the second-seater)



The second crew member was there to provide comfort and support during the mission when the pilot was under his greatest stress. This was done through a carefully crafted program of whispering sweet nothings over the intercom and singing soothing songs. The RAF found this improved mission performance by 37-44%.




OR




The second crew member was the navigator and a second set of eyes to look for enemy fighters. On bomber Mosquitoes the navigator/bomb aimer would often kneel on his seat facing backward to improve the chances of spotting an enemy fighter to the rear. I would not be surprised if the navigator would do a similar role.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I would not be surprised if it had a superior rate of roll than the earlier P-38's, and might have built up a roll-rate faster than the P-38J/L



I would.




Zipper730 said:


> It's climb-rate was quite slow compared to nearly every single variation of P-38.



Not surprising, since the P-38 was designed as an interceptor and the Mosquito never was.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 17, 2019)

wuzak said:


> You probably could not data on the Mosquito NF.VIII because such a thing never existed.


Was there an XII? I hate roman numerals...


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Was there an XII? I hate roman numerals...



Yes, there was an NF.XII, which were NF.IIs modified with an improved radar (AI Mk.VIII) and deletion of the 4 x 0.303". The NF.XIII was the same specification, but new build aircraft.


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, for all of 1942 and about 10-11 months of 1943 the P-38 was operating on the fringes of the German "empire" while the Mosquito was operating right over the heads of Goring and the rest. The plane that bombed you last night or last week is going to get more attention than the plane that was giving a moderate amount of trouble hundreds of KM away in Tunisia or Sicily. The P-38 didn't show up in large numbers in NW Europe until the late winter and spring of 1944. One or two groups just starting operations in Dec of 1943 is hardly going to be that noteworthy to the German High command.
> 
> This is meant as no disrespect to the Mosquito or it's crews. It (and the crews) certainly earned the attention the Germans gave it when considering how to defend against it.
> 
> ...



1) Your first point "One or two groups just starting operations in Dec of 1943 is hardly going to be that noteworthy" is perhaps missing the point - as the German ranting about the Mosquito started right from the first missions, when tiny numbers were operating. So your point that the p-38 wasnt around in huge numbers is I`m afraid not relevant. I dont remember saying I stopped reading the conference notes at 1943, they continue to almost the end of 1944. The fact is they were not very concerned about the P-38 - this isnt an insult, they were mostly not very fussed about the Spitfire either for most of the war ! - the Mosquito is almost totally unique in the vitriol in which it was discussed in Germany, thats whats in the records.

No. times P-38/Lightning discussed 8
Mosquito = 100+

A typical example:

"27th Jan 1944 - RLM meeting, "MILCH: in the Lightning I do not see a fighter of great threat, even if we only have a small number of our fighters in opposition"

"15th March 1943 - RLM meeting: "Goering: “I'm telling you directly, to just build the Mosquito!” <Goring orders Messerschmitt to just copy the Mosquito and start making them>

This isnt an attempt to make a retrospective performance evaluation, I`m pointing out that this what the thought was about it in Germany during the war.

2) You may if you wish call original archival records "wishful thinking", the fact is that is a page from the official british Air Ministry records, not the discussions in the tea-room of De-Havilland. Like it or not, thats what they were really thinking at the time - I cant find any such discussions about the P-38 (again, thats not an insult to it, that page of praise is basically unique to the Mosquito). I completely agree that the author of that report got a bit excited, but thats half the point - its the Mosquito they were getting excited about.

3) The final point about the anti-ship bomb "occupying too much space" is a little historically unfair, Highball was one of the most secret wartime aviation projects, and was (for quite a while) regarded as a critical development, even more so once the possibility of assaulting the Japanese fleet with it appeared (only not carried out due to "the bomb"). If they had sunk the Tirpitz with it, I think it would be hard to describe it as "occupying too much space". Discussions on its use were made up to and including General Eisenhower and General Arnold (15th November 1944 SHAEF signal marked TOP SECRET"). It seems that the 618 Squadron Mosquitos with Highball didnt quite manage to get themselves set up and trained and practised in time for Operation Paravane (agains the Tirpitz), "historical source" Wikipeadia says because "trials were unsucessful" - however this is flatly contradicted by the actual subsequent test records, which stated that 80% of the Highballs dropped struck the dummy target ship HMS Malaya, and it seems the real reason was just that they didnt manage to get ready in time for the earlier operation, and when all was set up and drilled in time for the planned assault on Japan, they worked very well indeed.

AIR-20/1092 - "SHEAF TOP SECRET, TO EISENHOWER FROM PORTAL - 15th November 1944 - DURING TRAINING No.618 SQUADRON DROPPED 70 INERT HIGHBALLS AGAINST HMS MALAYA ANCHORED IN CALM WATER. ALL HIGHBALLS RAN SATISFACTORALLY AND OVER EIGHTY PER CENT HIT THE TARGET".


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2019)

Goering was half mad, if Messerschmidt had started to build the Mosquito in 1943 they wouldn't have got one in service by 1945. Where would they get the wood from?


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 17, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Goering was half mad, if Messerschmidt had started to build the Mosquito in 1943 they wouldn't have got one in service by 1945. Where would they get the wood from?



I agree 100% that he was half mad, and Messerschmitt told Goring that it would be faster to develop a new plane than copy the Moquito.

I dont have figures on the types of wood available in Germany, but wood as an aviation material certainly didnt get in the way of the Ta154 programme being signed off - (although glue development and lack of the right engines certainly did get in the way....and it was as you say far too late to be of any use anyway).


----------



## pbehn (Jun 17, 2019)

Snowygrouch said:


> I agree 100% that he was half mad, and Messerschmitt told Goring that it would be faster to develop a new plane than copy the Moquito.
> 
> I dont have figures on the types of wood available in Germany, but wood as an aviation material certainly didnt get in the way of the Ta154 programme being signed off - (although glue development and lack of the right engines certainly did get in the way....and it was as you say far too late to be of any use anyway).


The Russians used quite a lot of wood, but it is a generic name, it depends entirely on what wood you use. Like saying aeroplanes are made of metal, so any metal will do or can be substituted as required.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 17, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Yes, there was an NF.XII, which were NF.IIs modified with an improved radar (AI Mk.VIII) and deletion of the 4 x 0.303". The NF.XIII was the same specification, but new build aircraft.


I thought it had Merlin 60-70 series?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought it had Merlin 60-70 series?



Nope.

The first production NF with 2 stage Merlins was the XXX.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 17, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The first production NF with 2 stage Merlins was the XXX.


When did that first fly?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> When did that first fly?



Late 1943, early 1944. Not exactly sure.

Went into service about mid 1944.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 17, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Late 1943, early 1944. Not exactly sure.
> 
> Went into service about mid 1944.


So the P-38N would be a good comparison against it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> P-38N


?????

The P-38M was the last version built and they were just P-38Ls that were converted to the 2 seat night fighter configuration.





They don't Start showing up (at the factory) until Feb 1945.
Cramped cockpit for radar operator and the radar may be pretty close or identical to the radar used by the F6F and F4U.

Mosquito MK XXX used a very similar if not identical radar to the P-61









No way this fits in the little pod under the nose of the P-38 and/or does the same job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 17, 2019)

Deleted


----------



## wuzak (Jun 18, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> So the P-38N would be a good comparison against it?





Zipper730 said:


> Deleted



N for "never mind"?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 18, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> When did that first fly?



First flight March 1944.

Began operations July 1944.


----------



## Washing Machine Charlie (Aug 22, 2019)

Lightning Guy said:


> I've seen lots of footage of 190s going down to Lightnings as well. The fact is, that the Lightning, outnumbered and hampered by poor tactics at the time, more than held it's own against both the 190 and the 109.


Let’s not forget that early Lightning pilots were not given much in the way of training for combat in a twin-engine fighter and that the plane itself, especially early models, didn’t offer much to ease the pilot’s load (forgive me, I am not a pilot but remember reading about multiple steps pilots needed to take, in order to respond to hostile threats, that made the plane “less friendly” for inexperienced fliers and a handful for the experienced.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Washing Machine Charlie (Aug 22, 2019)

plan_D said:


> The more engines you have the longer range you'll have, so saying single seat is hiding the fact its a twin-engined plane. And I hope you all realise the more engines the more range, in most circumstances.
> More engines gives you power which allows you to carry more fuel. Which in most cases is more than what is required to give you the same range of a single engined plane. 3,750 miles for a late war twin-engined plane isn't impressive when the single engined PR.XI was doing over 2000 miles on one engine.
> You have to find a compromise obviously on amount of engines, size and design of plane, and fuel carried. But in WW2 mostly, more engines more range. So it's not surprising the F-5G could do almost double a single engined plane.
> 
> B-17 4 engines, 4 times consumption of the Mk.I Spitfire but it out-ranged it...why? Simple really.



I believe, in a rush to defend personal favorites, people are misinterpreting the OPs comment. 
I could be wrong, but I believe he is saying that flying so long, alone and stuck in a bucket seat, is an amazing feat, not plane’s feat, but, the pilot’s endurance is being admired.


----------



## Owltiger (Aug 22, 2019)

I may be wrong but exactly how many mosquitoes survive today in flying condition? Maybe there should be a sub-category called, "Rust vs Termites and carpenter ants."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Aug 22, 2019)

Washing Machine Charlie said:


> Let’s not forget that early Lightning pilots were not given much in the way of training for combat in a twin-engine fighter and that the plane itself, especially early models, didn’t offer much to ease the pilot’s load (forgive me, I am not a pilot but remember reading about multiple steps pilots needed to take, in order to respond to hostile threats, that made the plane “less friendly” for inexperienced fliers and a handful for the experienced.



I have no figures on the "familiarisation" hours that USAF pilot got with the P38 - but the following figures are useful to know in any discussion involving european combat, there was a mention of 190`s.

From July 43 to June 44 (averaged) - maximum hours of TOTAL flying training
RAF = 360Hours
USAF = 340Hours
GAF = 160Hours

From July 44 to <THE END> - This ...amazingly went UP for the USAF
RAF = 360Hours
USAF = 400Hours
GAF = 110Hours

It should be noted carefully that this is TOTAL hours, not hours on type. So includes glider, trainer etc etc. So the 110 hours quoted for Germany
might look not too awful, but in reality this would have meant only a tiny amount of hours in anything like an actual combat aircraft, and since
these are averaged, you can assume that from 1945 onwards it was probably more like 50hours.

There is another report I have from the same microfilm reel, which states that the P38 was not easy to get used to, and that the engine problems
in the European theatre were very significant, a very high number of "aborts" were recorded by early P38 pilots it says.

- SOURCE: "THE DEFEAT OF THE GERMAN AIR FORCE" - Military Analysis Division, declassified 2nd October 1958.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Sep 28, 2019)

Maestro said:


> After all, wich plane sank the Tirpitz ? I think it was a Spit, wasn't it ?



Lancasters, dropping tallboys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 28, 2019)

Owltiger said:


> I may be wrong but exactly how many mosquitoes survive today in flying condition? Maybe there should be a sub-category called, "Rust vs Termites and carpenter ants."



Four or five rebuilt in NZ with more on the way - others rebuilt in Canada from memory


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 28, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Four or five rebuilt in NZ with more on the way - others rebuilt in Canada from memory


That's good news. I had read not too long ago that there was only one airworthey Mosquito in existence.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That's good news. I had read not too long ago that there was only one airworthey Mosquito in existence.



For 15 or 20 years there weren't any.


----------



## AlexS (Sep 21, 2021)

If you had to pick one aircraft to produce over the other, hands down the mosquito wins. It can do anything the P38 can do, maybe a bit slower etc and maybe less range (only when the P38 was equipped with external drop tanks, not too difficult to re-engineer something there for the Mossie but wasn't required for it's situation), but there was so much the mosquito could do that the P38 couldn't even attempt or be at a high disadvantage. The biggest bomb, Mossie 4000 lb cookie, P38 1000 lb, harder hitting guns, Mossie had multiple machine guns and 4 Hispano cannons being fairly average. The Mossie had a navigator on board, especially relevant for night or low level missions of the day. Lastly producing the Mossie had the advantage of using resources that were under much less demand from other war equipment.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2021)

AlexS said:


> It can do anything the P38 can do



Except be a long range day time fighter




AlexS said:


> The biggest bomb, Mossie 4000 lb cookie, P38 1000 lb, harder hitting guns, Mossie had multiple machine guns and 4 Hispano cannons being fairly average.



The biggest bomb load the Mosquito could carry when fitted with the Hispanos was 2 x 500lb in the bomb bay and 2 x 500lb on the wings, a total of 2,000lb. That is because the cannons protruded into the forward bomb bay.

Most Mosquito bombers could not carry 2 x 1,000lb bombs, which the P-38 could, mainly because of the size of the bomb bay and the lack of a suitable rack.

Late in the war a rack was developed for 627 Squadron (IIRC) which could carry 2 x 1,000lb Target Indicators (TI), which were the same size as the 1,000lb Medium Capacity (MC) bombs. This required the bulged bomb bay that was developed for the 4,000lb bombs.

Previously the rack developed to carry the 4,000lb bombs was adapted to carry a single 1,000lb TI. At this stage of the war (1944/45) the most important role for Mosquito bombers was as target markers. They could carry 4 x 250lb TIs or 1 x 1,000lb TI.

There was a push for the carriage of more TIs, including a scheme that adapted a bomb beam from a Wellington that would enable the Mosquito to carry 8 x 25lb TIs. This arrangement would also allow 8 x 500lb MC bombs to be loaded, but the CoG would have been to far to the rear for the aircraft to have been stable. Should have moved the IFF....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2021)

AlexS said:


> If you had to pick one aircraft to produce over the other, hands down the mosquito wins. It can do anything the P38 can do, maybe a bit slower etc and maybe less range (only when the P38 was equipped with external drop tanks, not too difficult to re-engineer something there for the Mossie but wasn't required for it's situation), but there was so much the mosquito could do that the P38 couldn't even attempt or be at a high disadvantage. The biggest bomb, Mossie 4000 lb cookie, P38 1000 lb, harder hitting guns, Mossie had multiple machine guns and 4 Hispano cannons being fairly average. The Mossie had a navigator on board, especially relevant for night or low level missions of the day. Lastly producing the Mossie had the advantage of using resources that were under much less demand from other war equipment.


All fine examples, however the Mosquito wasn't heavily armed when used as a bomber.
The P-38 could also (and did) operate in climates that were detrimental to the Mossie.
And consider that the P-38 was designed as a fighter that ended up being tasked in different roles.
The Mosquito was a recon/bomber that was tasked into different roles.

Two entirely different types that ended up performing similar roles, but at the time they were conceived none of that was thought of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlexS (Sep 22, 2021)

As a day fighter in the European theater where the Mossie operated I think the following quote should be taken into account, "General der Jagdflieger* Adolf Galland* was unimpressed with the* P-38,* declaring "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it." Heinz Bäer said that* P-38s* "were not difficult at all. They were easy to outmaneuver and were generally a sure kill"." The P38 record high number of kills in the pacific were against aircraft with certain remarkable qualities, and certain other remarkable weaknesses, and no where near the numbers faced in the European theater, defeating them was more a matter knowing how to defeat them as opposed to the type of aircraft used. It's the P51 that was able to protect the B17's not the P38 and the P38 was around a long time before the P51 and had slightly more range. Lastly, it mattered less if a different variant was required to perform a different roll as there was a lot less aluminum available as opposed to wood, and a lot of piano makers with nothing better to do. As for climatic problems, again, just build another one if they lasted in combat that long.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2021)

AlexS said:


> * It's the P51 that was able to protect the B17's not the P38* and the P38 was around a long time before the P51 and had slightly more range. Lastly, it mattered less if a different variant was required to perform a different roll as there was a lot less aluminum available as opposed to wood, and a lot of piano makers with nothing better to do. As for climatic problems, again, just build another one if they lasted in combat that long.


Read the "Forgotten 15th" I think your mindset is affixed to operations from England, read about P-38 operations from North Africa and Italy.

The Aluminum shortage was a myth - there was plenty to go around.

The Mossie was a great aircraft and there were some things it did better than the P-38, but as a long range fighter, the P-38 was more suited

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 22, 2021)

Glad I didn’t cast a vote. I would have thought the Mosquito would have been equal to the Lightning.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

AlexS said:


> If you had to pick one aircraft to produce over the other, hands down the mosquito wins. It can do anything the P38 can do, maybe a bit slower etc and maybe less range (only when the P38 was equipped with external drop tanks, not too difficult to re-engineer something there for the Mossie but wasn't required for it's situation), but there was so much the mosquito could do that the P38 couldn't even attempt or be at a high disadvantage. The biggest bomb, Mossie 4000 lb cookie, P38 1000 lb, harder hitting guns, Mossie had multiple machine guns and 4 Hispano cannons being fairly average. The Mossie had a navigator on board, especially relevant for night or low level missions of the day. Lastly producing the Mossie had the advantage of using resources that were under much less demand from other war equipment.





AlexS said:


> As a day fighter in the European theater where the Mossie operated I think the following quote should be taken into account, "General der Jagdflieger* Adolf Galland* was unimpressed with the* P-38,* declaring "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it." Heinz Bäer said that* P-38s* "were not difficult at all. They were easy to outmaneuver and were generally a sure kill"." The P38 record high number of kills in the pacific were against aircraft with certain remarkable qualities, and certain other remarkable weaknesses, and no where near the numbers faced in the European theater, defeating them was more a matter knowing how to defeat them as opposed to the type of aircraft used. It's the P51 that was able to protect the B17's not the P38 and the P38 was around a long time before the P51 and had slightly more range. Lastly, it mattered less if a different variant was required to perform a different roll as there was a lot less aluminum available as opposed to wood, and a lot of piano makers with nothing better to do. As for climatic problems, again, just build another one if they lasted in combat that long.


The thing is if you want to just produce the Mosquito instead of the P-38 you have to order it and the wood to make it before the Mosquito flew. The shortage of Aluminium was theoretical, future orders exceeded Aluminium production, but Aluminium and electricity production/generation was ramped up to cope. You dont produce wood, you select it and you rapidly run out of suitable trees in any particular location, especially for balsa wood.

Park would not have been happy with Gallands comment, which may or may not be true, because while he is tangling with a P-38 he isnt doing anything to stop what the P-38s were there for, the bombers. The P-51 was better than the P-38, but that doesnt mean the P-38 was useless, it was an effective escort and was needed in late 1943 to mid 1944, just because it was there. The Mosquito just couldnt do the job of an escort fighter, there are many other things it was more suited to doing than the P-38, but as a bomber design itself, it would never match a S/E fighter in anything but speed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Glad I didn’t cast a vote. I would have thought the Mosquito would have been equal to the Lightning.


In my opinion it was, apart from the role of fighting other single engined aircraft, the P-38 was designed as a fighter/ interceptor. The war threw up many roles that were not forseen or even possible when these two planes were first designed. Instead of using one or the other the military took the sensible decision of using both for the jobs they were most suited for. RAF bomber command used a P-51 for target marking on at least 1 occasion, because on that particular raid it was most suitable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> RAF bomber command used a P-51 for target marking on at least 1 occasion, because on that particular raid it was most suitable.



617 squadron used a Mosquito for low level target marking for a while, then changed to a Mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

wuzak said:


> 617 squadron used a Mosquito for low level target marking for a while, then changed to a Mustang.


It was 617 I had in mind, I dont know how oftn they used it, but it was considered better in the location.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The thing is if you want to just produce the Mosquito instead of the P-38 you have to order it and the wood to make it before the Mosquito flew. The shortage of Aluminium was theoretical, future orders exceeded Aluminium production, but Aluminium and electricity production/generation was ramped up to cope. You dont produce wood, you select it and you rapidly run out of suitable trees in any particular location, especially for balsa wood.



While there is a lot of forest in the world, there is also a lot of wood that's quite unsuitable for aircraft use. I would suspect that the supply of wood would be more problematic than that of aluminum. After all, the Mosquito wasn't the only wooden aircraft to be built in large numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2021)

Hmmmm,

A teak or Mahogany Mosquito????

Highly polished of course, by the piano makers? 


I believe I will take mine in Red Oak, if you please. 

With French Walnut wings

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 22, 2021)

Mahogany hull with teak decks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmmm,
> 
> A teak or Mahogany Mosquito????
> 
> ...


The original argument was that there were a lot in the furniture industry, I think Goering elevated them to piano makers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2021)

Another favtor to consider, is the wood itself - you can't just go out, cut down a few trees and make an airplane.
The select wood has to be processed and seasoned before fabrication.
Depending on the wood type and volume of stock, it can take about a year (on average) to properly season.

So prepping an adequate supply of wood needs to be done in advance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Another favtor to consider, is the wood itself - you can't just go out, cut down a few trees and make an airplane.
> The select wood has to be processed and seasoned before fabrication.
> Depending on the wood type and volume of stock, it can take about a year (on average) to properly season.
> 
> So prepping an adequate supply of wood needs to be done in advance.


The places that supplied the woods for the Mosquito were specialised in that type of work. It is like a mining operation, you obviously start at places that have a lot of the type of trees you are looking for, but very quickly you have to go further into the forest, clear trees you dont want to get at ones you do, build rail lines and roads to transport the to somewhere to be cut and dried. To more than double Mosquito production wouldnt have been easy or cheap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2021)

And at the end of the day a wood airplane is not great to maintain and repair, as a matter of fact, they suck and i say that from experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Mahogany Mosquito????



Anyone who's ever hefted a Les Paul can tell you -- that will be one heavy aircraft!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 22, 2021)

The Swiss keep their Vampire Trainers in service for 37 years(wood fuselage)


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And at the end of the day a wood airplane is not great to maintain and repair, as a matter of fact, they suck and i say that from experience.


A WW2 airplanes life was about 6 months in service if it was lucky, during the BoB fighters were being produced at a rate of 500 per month, but the front line strength was never more than 700. F for Freddie completed more operations than any other allied bomber with 213 completed and it was a Mosquito. In honour of F for Freddie and her crew - The People's Mosquito


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Anyone who's ever hefted a Les Paul can tell you -- that will be one heavy aircraft!


My wife advises me that Fenders are better, she bought one in the 70s.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> My wife advises me that Fenders are better, she bought one in the 70s.



_De gustibus non disputandum_. While I dig playing Strats, and do own one, I'm a Gibson guy -- an LP my #1 for fifteen years, and three SGs to round it out. In my mind's ear, that's the sound I want to make most.

If the music is good, no one cares about the gear, though. As it should be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> _De gustibus non disputandum_. While I dig playing Strats, and do own one, I'm a Gibson guy -- an LP my #1 for fifteen years, and three SGs to round it out. In my mind's ear, that's the sound I want to make most.
> 
> If the music is good, no one cares about the gear, though. As it should be.


Her previous boyfriend was lead guitarist in a band, she bought him his choice of guitar, but that ended her largess with presents, she was very cool on the idea of buying me an Armstrong Rotax. He was actually a great guitarist, became a session musician in London then New York.

Edit I disagree that if the music is good no one cares, I was drinking in a bar in Mulheim and the live act turned up, with their guitars on their backs and their "gear" in suitcases. As soon as the strummed his guitar you could tell from the tone it was special, a Gibson.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Sep 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Her previous boyfriend was lead guitarist in a band, she bought him his choice of guitar, but that ended her largess with presents, she was very cool on the idea of buying me an Armstrong Rotax. He was actually a great guitarist, became a session musician in London then New York



I gigged in SoCal for many years, solely bar bands, mostly cover-bands, no great success story for me. I'm no great guitarist, but I know enough to know that you gotta go with what delivers what you want. A Paul gave me almost all I wanted to play, except for the Jimi Hendrix Wind Cries Mary tones.

What was his name, if you'd PM it? Did he play on any tracks we'd know?

My old Lester, and Alvarez-Yairi on the side, in front of my gigging amp:







My SGs:
















I'm down to the Strat I mentioned above, an Ibanez 335 copy, and an old Yamaha acoustic, nowadays.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 22, 2021)

Snowygrouch said:


> I have no figures on the "familiarisation" hours that USAF pilot got with the P38 - but the following figures are useful to know in any discussion involving european combat, there was a mention of 190`s.
> 
> From July 43 to June 44 (averaged) - maximum hours of TOTAL flying training
> RAF = 360Hours
> ...


There was a discussion on these a while ago. I posted documents showing that P-38 pilots got training time in P 38s when they arrived in Britain. P51 pilots flew P51s for the first time when they joined there squadron


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> All fine examples, however the Mosquito wasn't heavily armed when used as a bomber.
> The P-38 could also (and did) operate in climates that were detrimental to the Mossie.
> And consider that the P-38 was designed as a fighter that ended up being tasked in different roles.
> The Mosquito was a recon/bomber that was tasked into different roles.
> ...


The Mosquito was schemed as a fighter from the beginning.
From "The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-39"
"Air Ministry staff then immediately discussed with the company an operational requirement to support the development of a high-speed light reconnaissance aircraft on these lines. It was to be capable of easy conversion to a fighter, or to a bomber with a bomb load of 1,000 lb and fuel for 1,500 miles, or 2,000 miles at overload from a 900 yard takeoff. This project was to become the Mosquito."
The 2nd prototype was a fighter complete with armament. While the first batch of 20 was split between recon and bombers with 1 NF, the rest of the batch of 50 were mostly converted to fighters on the production line. The initial big production orders were for fighters with a few trainers and recon examples throw in. 300 fighters were ordered before a bomber order was placed.
The most produced variant was the FB VI. I'll have to find the production numbers but fighter versions far out numbered bomber versions.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2021)

Um...no.
Geoffrey DeHavilland himself wrote to the air ministry pitching his concept as a light bomber that was fast enough that little or no defensive armament was needed.

He wasn't selling a fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The 2nd prototype was a fighter complete with armament.



Actually, the second prototype, W4051, was the PR.I prototype.

The first prototype, W4050, was configured as a light bomber. The fuselage sustained damage during taxiing trials on a rough field and was replaced by W4051's fuselage. This also led to the strengthening strake on the rear fuselage.

W4051 was then fitted with the first production fuselage, which delayed its first flight.

W4052, the F.II prototype, was the second prototype to fly because of the delay in W4051.




Reluctant Poster said:


> While the first batch of 20 was split between recon and bombers with 1 NF, the rest of the batch of 50 were mostly converted to fighters on the production line. The initial big production orders were for fighters with a few trainers and recon examples throw in. 300 fighters were ordered before a bomber order was placed.



That was all true, but the production priorities changed a few times in getting there.

Also, not sure about them changing from B/PR to F on the line. The fighter versions had different fuselages. 

The fighter and fighter-bomber types had a door in the left hand side of the fuselage for crew access, the bombers had an access door in the bottom of the fuselage.




Reluctant Poster said:


> The most produced variant was the FB VI. I'll have to find the production numbers but fighter versions far out numbered bomber versions.



Yes that is true.

But there weren't many pure fighters built. Except for a few F.IIs, all the fighters were night fighters, while the FB.VI was a fighter-bomber.

The A&AEE did some trials with an F.II or FB.VI configured as a long range day fighter, comparing it with single engine fighters - RAF types, maybe a captured Bf 109 (I can't recall for certain). It did not fare well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2021)

The Mosquito began life from Air Ministry specification P.13/36 which called for a twin-engine, medium bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Mosquito began life from Air Ministry specification P.13/36 which called for a twin-engine, medium bomber.


It took quite an effort by DeHavilland to sell the Mosquito to the Air Ministry, too.

They really weren't interested at first.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2021)

Any proposals for the Mosquito as a "fighter" would be along the lines of being a better Beaufighter which was obviously considered to be a fighter because of its name.


----------



## MiTasol (Sep 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Another favtor to consider, is the wood itself - you can't just go out, cut down a few trees and make an airplane.
> The select wood has to be processed and seasoned before fabrication.
> Depending on the wood type and volume of stock, i*t can take about a year (on average) to properly season.*
> 
> So prepping an adequate supply of wood needs to be done in advance.



Absolutely. I love the Mossie but the need to season the wood is a major factor that many ignore. I do not know the seasoning speed of balsa but for most wood the rule of thumb is one year for every inch of thickness. Given some of the balsa in the mossie far exceeds that you could easily run into a major problem. End grain balsa will have a different seasoning rate than long grain balsa and that may well be faster or slower.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> Absolutely. I love the Mossie but the need to season the wood is a major factor that many ignore. I do not know the seasoning speed of balsa but for most wood the rule of thumb is one year for every inch of thickness. Given some of the balsa in the mossie far exceeds that you could easily run into a major problem. End grain balsa will have a different seasoning rate than long grain balsa and that may well be faster or slower.


The more you read about what was needed to make a Mosquito the more you realise that "wood" used to make them was not actually a plentiful resource and it doesnt lend itself easily to high volume production.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The more you read about what was needed to make a Mosquito the more you realise that "wood" used to make them was not actually a plentiful resource and it doesnt lend itself easily to high volume production.


There were plenty of highly skilled woodworkers. Bonus in this war situation i think.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> There were plenty of highly skilled woodworkers. Bonus in this war situation i think.


But if you use the highly skilled woodworkers to make airplanes the high ranking officers will have to use metal desks, oh the humanity!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> All fine examples, however the Mosquito wasn't heavily armed when used as a bomber.
> The P-38 could also (and did) operate in climates that were detrimental to the Mossie.
> And consider that the P-38 was designed as a fighter that ended up being tasked in different roles.
> The Mosquito was a recon/bomber that was tasked into different roles.
> ...





wuzak said:


> Actually, the second prototype, W4051, was the PR.I prototype.
> 
> The first prototype, W4050, was configured as a light bomber. The fuselage sustained damage during taxiing trials on a rough field and was replaced by W4051's fuselage. This also led to the strengthening strake on the rear fuselage.
> 
> ...


March 1 1940 contract for 50 Mosquito bombers

June 10 1940 contract amended to 10 PR 1, 30 F II, 10 B IV

According to Mosquito the Original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft - Graham Simons

“..and there were 45 completed bomber/reconnaissance fuselages, 28 of which had to have their noses removed to be replaced by fighter types.”

The Mosquito did serve as a long range day fighter over the Bay of Biscay for example (operation Instep). It was battling its equivalent in long range JU 88 fighters, which were attcking ASW aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Um...no.
> Geoffrey DeHavilland himself wrote to the air ministry pitching his concept as a light bomber that was fast enough that little or no defensive armament was needed.
> 
> He wasn't selling a fighter.


In September 1939 DeHavilland went to the Air Ministry to pitch the light bomber version, however in November 1939 according to Martin Bowman in his book DeHavilland Mosquito:
“In November various long-range and escort fighter developments as well as bomber, fighter and reconnaissance versions were looked at and a conference was called with Wilfred Freeman to consider all the proposals.” 
He was selling fighters as well at the point.

According to William Green in Famous Bombers of the Second World War
“ On its own initiative, however, DeHaviland team designed their aeroplane from the outset with provision for guns or cameras so that it could serve equally well as bomber, fighter or photo-reconnaissance aircraft……”

According to Simon in Mosquito the Original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft
"Chief Designer for DeHavilland, Ronald E. Bishop, already had his eye on basic versatility, for all the while during the design studies he made sure that there was always space under the floor for four 20mm cannon." I wish I could find my copy of the Wooden Wonder by Bishop to hear (read) it straight from the horse's mouth. 

On March 1 1940 a contract for 50 Mosquito bombers was placed, however 3 months later on June 10 1940 the contract was amended to 10 PR 1, 30 F II, 10 B IV. And that's how they were completed. Obviously a fighter was in DeHaviland's plans all along. The next order was for 150 Mosquitoes of unspecified type was placed on December 30, 1940 but that was amended in April 1941 to 150 fighters with an additional 50 fighters added. Yet another 50 fighters were added. At this point there were 280 fighters on order with only the original 10 PR Is and 9 B IVs built.

Simon: "At last, in mid-July, a first mention of the bomber variant was made in the order schedule. It was now requested that the last ten PR machines in Contract 69990 be converted to unarmed bombers, together with the last 50 machines in Contract no 555, but was also stated that it was hoped these would have some form of fixed forward armament." Contract 555 was the order for fighters I previously mentioned, however the fixed forward armament sounds like a fighter bomber variant.

I have compiled the production numbers for the primary war time versions








2/3 of production were armed with 4 20mm cannon. The Mosquito was a fighter first and foremost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> *In September 1939* DeHavilland went to the Air Ministry to pitch the light bomber version, however in November 1939 according to Martin Bowman in his book DeHavilland Mosquito:
> “In November various long-range and escort fighter developments as well as bomber, fighter and reconnaissance versions were looked at and a conference was called with Wilfred Freeman to consider all the proposals.”
> He was selling fighters as well at the point.



Your original statement:

"The Mosquito was schemed as a fighter from the beginning"

This is not true!

Again, the Mosquito was born out of Air Ministry specification P.13/36 which called for a twin-engine, medium bomber. *1936!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your original statement:
> 
> "The Mosquito was schemed as a fighter from the beginning"
> 
> ...


Ah, but to paraphrase Macmillan "Events dear boy, events" In 1940 both Norway and France fell, allowing long range aircraft FW Condor and Ju88 to be stationed there, and in late 1940 the first airborne RADAR interceptions were made, the first "kill" by a Beaufighter was 5 days before the first flight of a Mosquito.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2021)

Let us never mind that the Whirlwind first flew a year before the invasion of Poland...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2021)

From our friends at Wiki - I left references and links in there, bolds from me...

_Based on his experience with the Albatross, *Geoffrey de Havilland believed that a bomber with a good aerodynamic design and smooth, minimal skin area, would exceed the P.13/36* specification.[16]​ Furthermore, adapting the Albatross principles could save time. In April 1938, performance estimates were produced for a twin Rolls-Royce Merlin-powered DH.91, with the Bristol Hercules (radial engine) and Napier Sabre (H-engine) as alternatives.[12]​ On 7 July 1938, de Havilland wrote to Air Marshal Wilfrid Freeman, the Air Council's member for Research and Development, discussing the specification and arguing that in war, shortages of aluminium and steel would occur, but supplies of wood-based products were "adequate."[nb 2]​ Although inferior in tension, the strength-to-weight ratio of wood is equal to or better than light alloys or steel, hence this approach was feasible.[12]​[16]​

*A follow-up letter to Freeman on 27 July said that the P.13/36 specification could not be met by a twin Merlin-powered aircraft* and either the top speed or load capacity would be compromised, depending on which was paramount. For example, a larger, slower, turret-armed aircraft would have a range of 1,500 mi (2,400 km) carrying a 4,000 lb bomb load, with a maximum of 260 mph (420 km/h) at 19,000 ft (5,800 m), and a cruising speed of 230 mph (370 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m). De Havilland believed that a compromise, including eliminating surplus equipment, would improve matters.[12]​ On 4 October 1938, de Havilland projected the performance of another design based on the Albatross, powered by two Merlin Xs, with a three-man crew and six or eight forward-firing guns, plus one or two manually operated guns and a tail turret. Based on a total loaded weight of 19,000 lb (8,600 kg), it would have a top speed of 300 mph (480 km/h) and cruising speed of 268 mph (431 km/h) at 22,500 ft (6,900 m).[13]​

*Still believing this could be improved, and after examining more concepts based on the Albatross and the new all-metal DH.95 Flamingo, de Havilland settled on designing a new aircraft that would be aerodynamically clean, wooden, and powered by the Merlin, which offered substantial future development.[13]​ The new design would be faster than foreseeable enemy fighter aircraft, and could dispense with a defensive armament, *which would slow it and make interception or losses to anti-aircraft guns more likely. Instead, high speed and good manoeuverability would make evading fighters and ground fire easier.[13]​ The lack of turrets simplified production, reduced drag and reduced production time, with a delivery rate far in advance of competing designs. Without armament, the crew could be reduced to a pilot and navigator. Whereas contemporary RAF design philosophy favoured well-armed heavy bombers, this mode of design was more akin to the German philosophy of the Schnellbomber.[19]​ At a meeting in early October 1938 with Geoffrey de Havilland and Charles Walker (de Havilland's chief engineer), the Air Ministry showed little interest, and instead asked de Havilland to build wings for other bombers as a subcontractor.[20]​

*By September 1939, de Havilland had produced preliminary estimates for single- and twin-engined variations of light-bomber designs *using different engines, speculating on the effects of defensive armament on their designs.[21]​ One design, completed on 6 September, was for an aircraft powered by a single 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) Napier Sabre, with a wingspan of 47 ft (14 m) and capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load 1,500 mi (2,400 km). *On 20 September, in another letter to Wilfrid Freeman, de Havilland wrote "... we believe that we could produce a twin-engine[d] bomber which would have a performance so outstanding that little defensive equipment would be needed.*"[21]​ By 4 October, work had progressed to a twin-engined light bomber with a wingspan of 51 ft (16 m) and powered by Merlin or Griffon engines, the Merlin favoured because of availability.[21]​ On 7 October 1939, a month into the war, the nucleus of a design team under Eric Bishop moved to the security and secrecy of Salisbury Hall to work on what was later known as the DH.98.[22]​[nb 3]​ *For more versatility, Bishop made provision for four 20 mm cannon in the forward half of the bomb bay, under the cockpit, firing via blast tubes and troughs under the fuselage.*[24]​

The DH.98 was too radical for the ministry, which wanted a heavily armed, multi-role aircraft, combining medium bomber, reconnaissance, and general-purpose roles, that was also capable of carrying torpedoes.[20]​ With the outbreak of war, the ministry became more receptive, but was still sceptical about an unarmed bomber. It was thought the Germans would produce fighters that were faster than had been expected.[25]​ and suggested the incorporation of two forward- and two rear-firing machine guns for defence.[26]​ The ministry also opposed a two-man bomber, wanting at least a third crewman to reduce the work of the others on long flights.[24]​ The Air Council added further requirements such as remotely controlled guns, a top speed of 275 mph (445 km/h) at 15,000 ft on two-thirds engine power, and a range of 3,000 mi (4,800 km) with a 4,000-lb bomb load.[26]​ To appease the ministry, de Havilland built mock-ups with a gun turret just aft of the cockpit, but apart from this compromise, de Havilland made no changes.[24]​

*On 12 November, at a meeting considering fast-bomber ideas put forward by de Havilland, Blackburn, and Bristol, Air Marshal Freeman directed de Havilland to produce a fast aircraft, powered initially by Merlin engines, with options of using progressively more powerful engines, including the Rolls-Royce Griffon and the Napier Sabre. Although estimates were presented for a slightly larger Griffon-powered aircraft, armed with a four-gun tail turret, Freeman got the requirement for defensive weapons dropped, and a draft requirement was raised calling for a high-speed, light-reconnaissance bomber capable of 400 mph (645 km/h) at 18,000 ft*.[27]​

*On 12 December*, the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, Director General of Research and Development, and the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of RAF Bomber Command met to finalise the design and decide how to fit it into the RAF's aims. The AOC-in-C would not accept an unarmed bomber, but insisted on its suitability for reconnaissance missions with F8 or F24 cameras.[28]​ After company representatives, the ministry, and the RAF's operational commands examined a full-scale mock-up at Hatfield on 29 December 1939, the project received backing.[29]​ This was confirmed on 1 January 1940, when Freeman chaired a meeting with Geoffrey de Havilland, John Buchanan (Deputy of Aircraft Production), and John Connolly (Buchanan's chief of staff). *De Havilland claimed the DH.98 was the "fastest bomber in the world...it must be useful". Freeman supported it for RAF service, ordering a single prototype for an unarmed bomber to specification B.1/40/dh, which called for a light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft powered by two 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (an early designation for the Merlin 21) with ducted radiators, capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load.[22]​[28]​ *The aircraft was to have a speed of 400 mph (640 km/h) at 24,000 ft (7,300 m) and a cruising speed of 325 mph (525 km/h) at 26,500 ft (8,100 m) with a range of 1,500 mi (2,400 km) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m) on full tanks. Maximum service ceiling was to be 32,000 ft (9,800 m).__[28]_​

There is no doubt the Mosquito was eventually "sold" as a fighter but it began life as a bomber "from the get-go"​

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _On *12 December*, the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, Director General of Research and Development, and the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of RAF Bomber Command met to finalise the design and decide how to *fit it into the RAF's aims.* *The AOC-in-C would not accept an unarmed bomber, *but insisted on its suitability for reconnaissance missions with F8 or F24 cameras.[28]​ After company representatives, the ministry, and the RAF's operational commands examined a full-scale mock-up at Hatfield on 29 December 1939, the project received backing.[29]​ This was confirmed on *1 January 1940*, when Freeman chaired a meeting with Geoffrey de Havilland, John Buchanan (Deputy of Aircraft Production), and John Connolly (Buchanan's chief of staff). De Havilland claimed the DH.98 was the "fastest bomber in the world...it must be useful". Freeman supported it for RAF service, ordering a single prototype for an unarmed bomber to specification B.1/40/dh, which called for a light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft powered by two 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (an early designation for the Merlin 21) with ducted radiators, capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load.[22]​[28]​ The aircraft was to have a speed of 400 mph (640 km/h) at 24,000 ft (7,300 m) and a cruising speed of 325 mph (525 km/h) at 26,500 ft (8,100 m) with a range of 1,500 mi (2,400 km) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m) on full tanks. Maximum service ceiling was to be 32,000 ft (9,800 m).__[28]_​
> 
> There is no doubt the Mosquito was eventually "sold" as a fighter but it began life as a bomber "from the get-go"​


It all just shows how in late 1939 and early 1940 the RAF didnt know what war it was fighting or what it wanted or needed. The navy were just finding out that they didnt know where German ships were on a day to day basis. The RAF were just finding out that they didnt know much about German industry and didnt know whether they were hitting targets that they didnt know what they looked like. The army would shortly discover that they didnt know that a huge German army would march through the Ardennes. In hindsight they should have ordered 2,000 aircraft, in 6 months time they were ordering the P-51 off the drawing board.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 23, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> 2/3 of production were armed with 4 20mm cannon. The Mosquito was a fighter first and foremost.



Note that almost all were night-fighters or fighter-bombers. Very few straight up fighter types.

These could not compete with single engine fighters, and could not replace the P-38 as a fighter.

And what was ordered by the RAF does not necessarily match what de Havilland actually conceived.

And all Mosquitoes had the bomb bay doors, though the fighter types had them in two parts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlexS (Sep 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The thing is if you want to just produce the Mosquito instead of the P-38 you have to order it and the wood to make it before the Mosquito flew. The shortage of Aluminium was theoretical, future orders exceeded Aluminium production, but Aluminium and electricity production/generation was ramped up to cope. You dont produce wood, you select it and you rapidly run out of suitable trees in any particular location, especially for balsa wood.
> 
> Park would not have been happy with Gallands comment, which may or may not be true, because while he is tangling with a P-38 he isnt doing anything to stop what the P-38s were there for, the bombers. The P-51 was better than the P-38, but that doesnt mean the P-38 was useless, it was an effective escort and was needed in late 1943 to mid 1944, just because it was there. The Mosquito just couldnt do the job of an escort fighter, there are many other things it was more suited to doing than the P-38, but as a bomber design itself, it would never match a S/E fighter in anything but speed.


Resourcing materials doesn't seem to have been that much of a problem when the numbers of each aircraft produced are looked at, especially when the later production start date of the mosquito is taken into account. Apart from that many keep mentioning the P38's a better long range fighter (or in my opinion just not as bad as the mosquito as a daylight fighter). Someone even mentioned that even if they weren't knocking down many enemy fighters, while the while the enemy fighters were on them, they weren't on the bombers, hmmm a little gem from Paton comes to mind, "the idea is not to die for your country, but the make the other guy die for his". Fighter aircraft performed only one of many purposes that aircraft were used for during ww2 and there is more than one way to skin a cat, for instance the English bombed at night. If you could only produce one or the other, the mosquito wins every time, purely because of it's versatility. It was easier to fly (took forever to open up the engines of a P38 in a hurry), it was easier to maintain (Merlins were used everywhere), it wasn't as expensive and used resources that were not as in demand so while some have bought up that there wasn't a shortage of aluminum it certainly cost more. As I've mentioned before having a navigator also expanded possible uses, night fighting, or check out the "Operation Jericho" raid as what it could do with daylight bombing. If they had guns, they carried at least 4X20mm cannon as a minimum, up to a full blown 57mm cannon. The list goes on and on. The *effectiveness *of any war machine i comes from a combination of ease of operation; ease of production; range of uses (versatility), cost, and performance. Using these rules, for example, show's that the Sherman tank was a very much more effective tank than the Tiger could ever be, check out the Sherman firefly as a really good reply to the Tiger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2021)

AlexS said:


> Using these rules, for example, show's that the Sherman tank was a very much more effective tank than the Tiger could ever be, check out the Sherman firefly as a really good reply to the Tiger


While the Sherman was a more effective war machine than the Tiger on a cost basis the Firefly gets a bit of an overblown reputation. Yes the 17pdr was a very good gun, however ergonomics and size of the ammo are rarely taken into account in many quicky evaluations. Rate of fire is about 1/2 the rate of fire of 76mm Sherman and the 42 rounds of ammo it carried was only possible by putting an ammo rack where the bow gunner used to sit. Further slowing down the rate of fire when the ammo in the turret was exhausted. 
Firefly's weren't much good for anything except anti-tank work and many a Sherman went through Europe without ever seeing a German tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2021)

AlexS said:


> *It was easier to fly (took forever to open up the engines of a P38 in a hurry)*, it was easier to maintain (Merlins were used everywhere)


That's not true - Compare the engine controls on the Mosquito to the P-38 and you're going to have many similarities if not identical processes to power up rapidly. Where it gets a little complicated is if you have to drop auxiliary tanks and transfer fuel. Eventually pilots trained for this. What is your basis to say engine maintenance was easier? Well known fact the P-38 had issues in the ETO but is your assumption based on that or operations in the Pacific? 

The Mosquito had a tail wheel, any tail wheel aircraft is much harder to fly than one with a nose gear. Lastly wood is horrible to maintain and repair, especially in adverse climates.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Sep 28, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> While the Sherman was a more effective war machine than the Tiger on a cost basis the Firefly gets a bit of an overblown reputation. Yes the 17pdr was a very good gun, however ergonomics and size of the ammo are rarely taken into account in many quicky evaluations. Rate of fire is about 1/2 the rate of fire of 76mm Sherman and the 42 rounds of ammo it carried was only possible by putting an ammo rack where the bow gunner used to sit. Further slowing down the rate of fire when the ammo in the turret was exhausted.
> Firefly's weren't much good for anything except anti-tank work and many a Sherman went through Europe without ever seeing a German tank.



Good points - especially about the Firefly only being good for anti-tank work - on the other hand that is what it was made for. 
The worst example of a tank only being good for anti-tank work was the Panther. This vehicle was said to be the one that was 
the basis for the MBT's that came later. It was only an example of how not to make an MBT. 

As to the Lightning and the Mossie - I'm sure the Axis would have loved to have had either as both were bloody good aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 28, 2021)

AlexS said:


> Apart from that many keep mentioning the P38's a better long range fighter (or in my opinion just not as bad as the mosquito as a daylight fighter). Someone even mentioned that even if they weren't knocking down many enemy fighters, while the while the enemy fighters were on them, they weren't on the bombers, hmmm a little gem from Paton comes to mind, "the idea is not to die for your country, but the make the other guy die for his". Fighter aircraft performed only one of many purposes that aircraft were used for during ww2 and there is more than one way to skin a cat, for instance the English bombed at night. If you could only produce one or the other, the mosquito wins every time, purely because of it's versatility. It was easier to fly (took forever to open up the engines of a P38 in a hurry), it was easier to maintain (Merlins were used everywhere), it wasn't as expensive and used resources that were not as in demand so while some have bought up that there wasn't a shortage of aluminum it certainly cost more. As I've mentioned before having a navigator also expanded possible uses, night fighting, or check out the "Operation Jericho" raid as what it could do with daylight bombing. If they had guns, they carried at least 4X20mm cannon as a minimum, up to a full blown 57mm cannon. The list goes on and on. The *effectiveness *of any war machine i comes from a combination of ease of operation; ease of production; range of uses (versatility), cost, and performance. Using these rules, for example, show's that the Sherman tank was a very much more effective tank than the Tiger could ever be, check out the Sherman firefly as a really good reply to the Tiger.


When the USA entered the war it was the ONLY long range high altitude fighter the allies had.
In terms of bomber escort and fighter aircraft the only Merlins that mattered were the two stage supercharger versions mattered. Every extra Mosquito you make is 2 less Spitfire IX or P-51 B/C D. 
During big week, in round numbers there were 100 P-51s 100 P-38s and 800 P-47s. There were many fighter versions of the Mosquito in service but none were used because it couldnt do the job. Mosquito's were used in Big Week and later doing what it did best, assisting RAF bomber command on their night raids and attacking ground targets like airfields during the day.


Versatility is one thing, but you have to be able to do the day job. The Mosquito was unusual in that it was the best night fighter, the best recon aircraft, and the best path finder/ precision bomber also an excellent heavy strike aircraft. It couldnt take on s/e fighters and couldnt act as a bomber escort. The thing is the combined offensive and all US strategy was based on long range bombing, you cannot compare a whole strategy to a few raids like Operation Jericho. Without the P-38 the whole US strategy would have to be changed and or delayed, meaning the LW would still be a major threat at D-Day. The Halifax and Stirling were much more versatile than the Lancaster, they could carry more people and cargo, they were just no where near as good at the day job of dropping bombs especially very big bombs on places a long way away.

If you could only produce one or the other you need the USA to start producing Mosquitos before it was designed, when it isnt even involved in a war, waiting for Merlins to be shipped from UK during the BoB and later when everyone in UK also wanted Merlins.

The job of an escort is to stop bombers being shot down. This is done mainly by being there, the LW would try to find bomber boxes or formations which didnt have cover. After that they prevented the LW attacking as they wanted. Without escorts the LW could "work over" a bomber formation from the speeds and directions they chose. 

The "English" didnt bomb at night the RAF did, their crews came from all over the world. Of the airfields close to where I live most were Canadian but also French and Polish squadrons with individual service men from literally all ower't place.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Sep 28, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> While the Sherman was a more effective war machine than the Tiger on a cost basis the Firefly gets a bit of an overblown reputation. Yes the 17pdr was a very good gun, however ergonomics and size of the ammo are rarely taken into account in many quicky evaluations. Rate of fire is about 1/2 the rate of fire of 76mm Sherman and the 42 rounds of ammo it carried was only possible by putting an ammo rack where the bow gunner used to sit. Further slowing down the rate of fire when the ammo in the turret was exhausted.
> Firefly's weren't much good for anything except anti-tank work and many a Sherman went through Europe without ever seeing a German tank.


In fact Firefly carried 77 17 pdr rounds, 63 in the turret crew area and 14 in the bin where the bow gunner used to sit.
While it was primarily an anti-tank weapon it could fire HE rounds and while its HE Mk I round was anemic, the Mk II was much better, even if not as good as the HE round M48 of the 75mm M3 gun. And it still had its turret mg.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Oct 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> While the Sherman was a more effective war machine than the Tiger on a cost basis the Firefly gets a bit of an overblown reputation. Yes the 17pdr was a very good gun, however ergonomics and size of the ammo are rarely taken into account in many quicky evaluations. Rate of fire is about 1/2 the rate of fire of 76mm Sherman and the 42 rounds of ammo it carried was only possible by putting an ammo rack where the bow gunner used to sit. Further slowing down the rate of fire when the ammo in the turret was exhausted.
> Firefly's weren't much good for anything except anti-tank work and many a Sherman went through Europe without ever seeing a German tank.



Except the 'overblown' Firefly could handily defeat even the much vaunted Tiger at normal battle ranges, and could open up MkIV's, still the backbone of the Heer, at any range.


----------



## Macandy (Oct 12, 2021)

P-38

Mosquito had some vicious handling characteristics and killed plenty of aircrew.
Weather killed as many Mosquitos as enemy action - rot and delamination never end well in an airplane


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 12, 2021)

Macandy said:


> P-38
> 
> Mosquito had some vicious handling characteristics and killed plenty of aircrew.
> Weather killed as many Mosquitos as enemy action - rot and delimitation never end well in an airplane



Name me a WW2 combat aircraft that, under certain conditions, didn't have problematic handling? These were high-performance aircraft which means some compromises had to be made to achieve that performance.

Weather didn't kill a single Mosquito because a Mosquito is an inanimate object. It may have killed the crew but how is bad weather the fault of the aircraft? Across the board, as many aircrew died in training accidents as did combat operations, regardless of nation or type of aircraft flown. 

By "delimitation" I presume you mean delamination? Do you have specific numbers of aircrew killed due to this problem to compare against combat losses? 

As to the P-38, it was far from problem-free:
_
The P-38 performed usefully but suffered from a number of problems. Its Allison engines consistently threw rods, swallowed valves and fouled plugs, while their intercoolers often ruptured under sustained high boost and turbocharger regulators froze, sometimes causing catastrophic failures.

Arrival of the newer P-38J to fill in behind the P-38H was supposed to help, but did not help enough. The J model's enlarged radiators were trouble-prone. Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems: Anti-knock lead compounds literally seethed out and became separated in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. This could cause detonation and rapid engine failure, especially at the high power settings demanded for combat.

The P-38's General Electric turbo-supercharger sometimes got stuck in over-boosted or under-boosted mode. This occurred mainly when the fighter was flown in the freezing cold at altitudes approaching 30,000 feet, which was the standard situation in the European air war. Another difficulty was that early P-38 versions had only one generator, and losing the associated engine meant the pilot had to rely on battery power.

In an article on ausairpower.net, Carlo Kopp noted that in their early days in the European theater, "Many of the P-38s assigned to escort missions were forced to abort and return to base. Most of the aborts were related to engines coming apart in flight….[due to] intercoolers that chilled the fuel/air mixture too much. Radiators that lowered engine temps below normal operating minimums. Oil coolers that could congeal the oil to sludge. These problems could have been fixed at the squadron level. Yet, they were not."

Eighth Air Force historian Roger Freeman described how bravery plus the P-38 was not enough during a mission on November 13, 1943, "an unlucky day for the 55th. In typical English November weather, damp and overcast, forty-eight P-38s set out to escort bombers on the target leg of a mission to Bremen; one turned back before the enemy coast was crossed and two more aborted later. At 26,000 feet over Germany, pilots shivered in bitterly cold cockpits, flying conditions were unusually bad, and the probability of mechanical troubles at that temperature did not help. Again outnumbered, the 55th was heavily engaged near the target as it strove to defend the bombers, for which it paid dearly. Seven P-38s fell, five to enemy fighters and the others to unknown causes." Another 16 Lightnings limped home with battle damage.

Things got better. The arrival of the improved P-38J-25 and P-38L models, modified on the production line based on lessons learned in Europe, helped, but problems remained. Lightning pilot 2nd Lt. Jim Kunkle of the 370th Fighter Group remembered: "The critical problem with us was we didn't have much heat in the cockpit. On high altitude missions it was very cold. And we didn't have the engine in front of us to help keep us warm. Bomber guys had those heated blue union suits that they wore but we tried heated clothing and it didn't work for us."

The only source of heat in the cockpit was warm air ducted from the engines, and it was little help. Lightning pilots suffered terribly. "Their hands and feet became numb with cold and in some instances frost-bitten; not infrequently a pilot was so weakened by conditions that he had to be assisted out of the cockpit upon return," wrote Freeman._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 12, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Name me a WW2 combat aircraft that, under certain conditions, didn't have problematic handling? These were high-performance aircraft which means some compromises had to be made to achieve that performance.
> 
> Weather didn't kill a single Mosquito because a Mosquito is an inanimate object. It may have killed the crew but how is bad weather the fault of the aircraft? Across the board, as many aircrew died in training accidents as did combat operations, regardless of nation or type of aircraft flown.
> 
> ...


Was there any reason why pilots werent given electrically headed gloves or suits as issued to bomber crews? I remember reading how to make your own heated gloves to ride motorcycles, basically just a length of resistance wire sewn onto a piece of thin canvas and then sewn inside the glove, motorcycles only run off 12 V supply.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 12, 2021)

On the criticisms of the P-38



buffnut453 said:


> The P-38 performed usefully but suffered from a number of problems. Its Allison engines consistently threw rods, swallowed valves and fouled plugs, while their intercoolers often ruptured under sustained high boost and turbocharger regulators froze, sometimes causing catastrophic failures.


Number of rods thrown? 
early turbo regulators froze, later ones were much better but not perfect. 


buffnut453 said:


> Arrival of the newer P-38J to fill in behind the P-38H was supposed to help, but did not help enough. The J model's enlarged radiators were trouble-prone. Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems: Anti-knock lead compounds literally seethed out and became separated in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. This could cause detonation and rapid engine failure, especially at the high power settings demanded for combat.


ALL P-38s used the same radiators. Later P-38s got bigger housings/ducts and moved the radiators a bit further out into the air stream. Also added boundary layer splitters. 
The British fuel furphy has been addressed many times. Yes anti-knock compounds precipitated out of the fuel, they were heavy aromatic compounds, not lead compounds. 


buffnut453 said:


> In an article on ausairpower.net, Carlo Kopp noted that in their early days in the European theater, "Many of the P-38s assigned to escort missions were forced to abort and return to base. Most of the aborts were related to engines coming apart in flight….[due to] intercoolers that chilled the fuel/air mixture too much. Radiators that lowered engine temps below normal operating minimums. Oil coolers that could congeal the oil to sludge.* These problems could have been fixed at the squadron level. Yet, they were not*."


The bolded part is large part of the problem. Fixing the problems at squadron level simply required the USAAF pilots to fly the P-38 *as both Allison and Lockheed advised.*
NOT as USAAF instructors or hanger know-it-alls advised. 
P-38s in Europe (and other places) were routinely being flown at high rpm and low boost in cruise conditions in the mistaken belief that this would allow more rapid availability of military or combat power. This also resulted in less range as it used more fuel for the same power to the propellers. 
A low rpm, higher boost, cruise setting with the turbos spinning faster would have meant higher intake mixture temperatures which would go a long way to solving many of the too cold engine problems. Increase the intake mixture temp by 100 degrees and the peak temperature inside the cylinder goes up 100 degrees and the temperature of the exhaust gas goes up 100 degrees as an example. 
It also requires less fuel for the same power to props as you are not running at the higher rpm so you have less friction in the engine. 
So a large part of fixing the engine problems doesn't even require a wrench or screw driver. 

This would do nothing for the pilot being too cold, but it would do away with many of the engine complaints. 

As far as getting bounced and having to go to full power goes, having the turbos spinning several thousand rpm faster to begin with may be more of an advantage the engine spinning faster but turbos idling. 

Are we going to blame the aircraft for poor training and procedures? 
British were using the low RPM/high boost method of cruise in 1942 with Spitfire MK Vs and other aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 13, 2021)

Further to Shortrounds comments I would add several items. Callum would do a better job of this but here goes.

The first is that the forces, and therefore fuel, required to accelerate and decelerate the pistons and con-rods is significant and increases with the square of the rpm so increasing the rpm significantly increases the internal loads. Using mythical *rpm *figures if the engine is cruised at 3000 rpm it will use four times the fuel to overcome these acceleration/deceleration forces that it would at 1500 rpm.

Another consequence of the high rpm/low boost operations is that the engine is designed for the supercharger(s) to force air into the cylinders at high rpm. When the boost is reduced the piston has to suck the air in. This means that the bearings that are designed to operate under constant load are now unloaded during 1/4 of a cycle which allows the crankshaft to "flop around" inside the bearing during the induction stroke. Soon after the compression stroke starts the crankshaft is then slammed back onto the bearing. This jackhammer effect will eventually damage/destroy the bearing which will result in debris from the bearing entering the oil gallery's downstream of the failing/failed bearing and starving bearings downstream. It will also reduce oil pressure to the rest of the engine as oil flows freely from the failed bearing instead of having the back-pressure that the bearing is designed to provide.

The exact same thing will happen on a Merlin or Griffin as Rolls Royce used Allison bearing made under licence.

A third consequence is that the bearings downstream of the failed bearing may seize on the crankshaft causing a connecting rod failure. I think this would be a rather rare result but Callum will possibly correct me on that.

A fourth consequence is that the small ends of the con-rods would suffer reduced lubrication and if one of those seizes that will definitely break a rod.

From the earlier comment on Allison's breaking rods in Europe some may conclude that the Allison con-rods were structurally unsound. I counter that with the fact that many air race Merlins use Allison con-rods.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 13, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> From the earlier comment on Allison's breaking rods in Europe some may conclude that the Allison con-rods were structurally unsound. I counter that with the fact that many air race Merlins use Allison con-rods.



Late/post war Allison rods from the G-series V-1710.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2021)

Allisson con rods may have been slightly stronger than Merlin con rods, but the late war Merlins were rated for 2000+ BHP in service. Con rods dont break because they are weak, they break because something goes wrong, no conrod will survive a breakdown in big or small end lubrication or a piston seizure, but the conrod flying out of the crankcase is what is seen. In my racing days, no one ever blamed a holed piston on weak pistons.


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Allisson con rods may have been slightly stronger than Merlin con rods, but the late war Merlins were rated for 2000+ BHP in service. Con rods dont break because they are weak, they break because something goes wrong, no conrod will survive a breakdown in big or small end lubrication or a piston seizure, but the conrod flying out of the crankcase is what is seen. In my racing days, no one ever blamed a holed piston on weak pistons.


I totally agree with you which is why I covered the two most likely causes of rod failure - crankshaft (big) end or small end lube failures so that those who have no mechanical knowledge do not assume that the rod failures were a design failure. 

They were caused by improper operation of the engine.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> I totally agree with you which is why I covered the two most likely causes of rod failure - crankshaft (big) end or small end lube failures.


My post wasnt directed at you, it is a topic that often comes up.


----------



## don4331 (Oct 13, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> Another consequence of the high rpm/low boost operations is that the engine is designed for the supercharger(s) to force air into the cylinders at high rpm. When the boost is reduced the piston has to suck the air in. This means that the bearings that are designed to operate under constant load are now unloaded during 1/4 of a cycle which allows the crankshaft to "flop around" inside the bearing during the induction stroke. Soon after the compression stroke starts the crankshaft is then slammed back onto the bearing. This jackhammer effect will eventually damage/destroy the bearing which will result in debris from the bearing entering the oil gallery's downstream of the failing/failed bearing and starving bearings downstream. It will also reduce oil pressure to the rest of the engine as oil flows freely from the failed bearing instead of having the back-pressure that the bearing is designed to provide.


Given the speeds of the engines involved, the pistons in the engine are always reducing the pressure below that of the intake manifold, so "boost" in never pushing piston down.
The highest load on rods/bearings is just after TDC on intake stroke when the crank is changing direction from pushing the piston up to pulling it down, while the piston is creating a low pressure to induce the intake air into the cylinder. That's where your rods/rod bolts/bearings/wrist pins fail - normally at high rpm.

Bearings better not ever be allowed to "flop around" and as the crankshaft is turning perfect circles (well within the constraints of actual materials), there is no jackhammer effect during normal operation.

There can be "jackhammer" effect from detonation, but detonation causes issues to pistons, rings, valves, spark plugs and bearings.

There aren't any oil galleries downstream from rod bearings - the oil from rods flows out to pan where the big debris is screen off before it goes into the scavenge oil pump and through the filter before it goes back into engine. And a damaged bearing will allows "leak" more oil than good one, so very little debris even goes to the next rod over on same crank throw.

All the engines I've blown up via rod bearing failure have been so catastrophic that little ends didn't have enough time to failure from lack of lubrication. (I have have rods fail from lack of little end lubrication, but that was cause, not consequence).


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 14, 2021)

Hey Shortround6,

re "Yes anti-knock compounds *precipitated* out of the fuel, they were heavy aromatic compounds, not lead compounds."

Did you mean "evaporated"? The aromatics (along with alkylates) are in solution with the other gasoline components, and will not precipitate out of solution.


edit: Hey buffnut453,

re "_The J model's enlarged radiators were trouble-prone. Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems:Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems: Anti-knock lead compounds literally seethed out and became separated in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. . ._"

Freeman did not know what he was saying. I assume that he was quoting someone, but whoever he was quoting was incorrect.


Hey anyone else,

re precipitation of TEL and/or British Avgas being the cause of the V-1710 problems

TEL (tetraethyl lead) goes into solution when added to gasoline and will not precipitate out, and it remains stable in a gasoline solution for at least 6 months. The reason lead is combined with tetraethyl (making it a liquid compound) is to allow it to go into solution.

The idea that TEL could precipitate out of the charge while traveling through the turbocharger (or supercharger) and degrading the running of the V-1710 is false. The stories of lead build-up being found in the intercooler system are false, at least if they are attributed to TEL precipitation. Regardless of the V-1710 apologist's myth to the contrary, TEL will not precipitate out on the way to the combustion chamber.

The lead in the TEL compound prevents/inhibits the ignition of gasoline by raising the temperature at which charge mixtures will combust. TEL is a liquid, and at the temperatures found in the intercooler system the TEL will not combust and leave atomic or molecular lead oxide - this is the gray or gray-yellow residue found on some components of the engine after combustion (ie valves, spark plugs, interior of the exhaust manifold) - and sometimes on the interior of the intake manifold (due to blowback and preignition through the intake valves).

The main source for degradation of WWII aviation gasoline was the break down over time, due to oxidation of the alkylates and aromatics (particularly if there is a fresh air source) and/or exposure to actinic* light. The proper sealing of the fuel storage units was a partial solution to the oxidation problem - but only partial due to various chemical processes that go on in the gasoline even without a fresh air source. The removal of optical sight glasses for the fuel levels was the primary way of preventing the breakdown due to actinic* light.

*actinic light is generally defined as in the blue frequency range and higher (ie into the ultraviolet range)

Also, I thought that it had been shown (on this website) that the P-38 never ran on "British gasoline" except for (possibly) a very limited period by the British A&AEE/RAE/AFDU when it (the P-38) was first tested by the Brits - and was actually operated by the USAAF using US made Avgas at least 99% of the time.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 14, 2021)

My, I seem to have started something of a kerfuffle...which was not my intent. I was simply responding to a 2-line post that made a lot of claims without any facts. The stuff I posted in italics was gleaned from a website simply to illustrate that the P-38 wasn't problem-free. It was not meant to be a treatise or the final word on the topic. If someone's going to claim that an aircraft killed as many crews due to its poor handling characteristics as were lost in combat operations, I'd like to see some evidence of that...that's all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 14, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> My, I seem to have started something of a kerfuffle...which was not my intent. I was simply responding to a 2-line post that made a lot of claims without any facts. The stuff I posted in italics was gleaned from a website simply to illustrate that the P-38 wasn't problem-free. It was not meant to be a treatise or the final word on the topic. If someone's going to claim that an aircraft killed as many crews due to its poor handling characteristics as were lost in combat operations, I'd like to see some evidence of that...that's all.


You got me going for a second there, as to which type you were referring to. The P-38 and Mosquito were both very effective, versatile and the allies as a whole would have been knackered without them for all sorts of reasons, but they both attract "knockers" like a pot of honey attracts wasps.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Oct 19, 2021)

Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.

Most were pushed onto the fire dump when the weather delaminated them.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2021)

Macandy said:


> Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.
> 
> Most were pushed onto the fire dump when the weather delaminated them.


Well it isnt quite as simple as that is it, thats why the discussion has 51 pages.

Losing an engine near the ground on many types was a serious problem but not certain death.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Oct 19, 2021)

Macandy said:


> Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.
> 
> Most were pushed onto the fire dump when the weather delaminated them.



1) References >







The only case where a stoppage was lethal at low level, was the Highball mosquito, as it has experimental 4 bladed props which were not feathering.... and
in that case, it was absolutely certain death to have a failure at low level.

2) Something like 99.99% of all WW2 aircraft were scrapped/destroyed/written-off, where do you think they`ve all gone...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2021)

Macandy said:


> Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.


Do you make this statement based on losing an engine on takeoff, cruise speed or max speed? The Mosquito, like the P-38 had excellent engine out characteristics if you were properly trained.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Mosquito, like the P-38 had excellent engine out characteristics if you were properly trained.



Geoffrey de Havilland Jr demonstrated the prototype Mosquito, W4050, with one engine shut down on several occasions. He may have done some simple aerobatics on one engine on those demonstrations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2021)

Macandy said:


> Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.


Just curious, but was this unique to the Mossie or would that also include the Bf110, KI-46, B-25, CA.310, A-20, G.1, Ju88, Whirlwind, KI-45, Pe-2, LeO 451, PZL.37, Me410, B-26, Blenheim, Ca.314, G4M, etc., etc., etc...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 19, 2021)

Well in all cases if that engine fell on you ......?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Just curious, but was this unique to the Mossie or would that also include the Bf110, KI-46, B-25, CA.310, A-20, G.1, Ju88, Whirlwind, KI-45, Pe-2, LeO 451, PZL.37, Me410, B-26, Blenheim, Ca.314, G4M, etc., etc., etc...


The Avro Manchester should certainly be on that list, it struggled to stay in the air one one engine with a full fuel and bomb load same for many early British types like the Beaufort.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2021)

WARSPITER said:


> Well in all cases if that engine fell on you ......?


During the war my mothers school was hit by a crashed Wellington's engine, she was disappointed to find her lessons not cancelled.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Oct 19, 2021)

Breda 88


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2021)

special ed said:


> Breda 88


The BA.88 was so underpowered, that losing power to one engine almost guaranteed to see it go down, no matter it's altitude.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 19, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The BA.88 was so underpowered, that losing power to one engine almost guaranteed to see it go down, no matter it's altitude.



That's always assuming it could get off the deck in the first place. Engine failure when you're still on terra firma is pretty safe...ground loops excepted.


----------



## special ed (Oct 19, 2021)

That's why I mentioned it.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 6, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Shortround6,
> 
> re "Yes anti-knock compounds *precipitated* out of the fuel, they were heavy aromatic compounds, not lead compounds."
> 
> ...


In my misspent youth we used to mix TEL with unleaded gasoline for my friend's boat with a 455 Buick with a 12 to 1 compression ratio. Didn't shake or stir it, it blended itself and it seemed to survive a BC winter without problems.
"Tetraethyl lead is a colourless liquid which is easily vaporised. This property of tetraethyl lead was important for its possible use as a fuel additive as it had to be miscible with the gasoline."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 18, 2022)

cheddar cheese said:


> Which was better, at the moment i think the mossie, but i wont vote yet...



Better at what?

The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load. 

As a fighter, the P-38 was far and away the better airplane, and more were built. You could put guns on a Mosquito, but it wasn't exactly agile when compared with a single-engine fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

A biggie: The Mosquito had the highest Vmc of any twin. If an engine failed below 165 mph, you were going straight in. By comparison, the P-38 was a docile machine around the patch.

Mosquito P-38L
B Mk XVI
Built ITotal): 7,781 10,037
Top Speed: 415 414
Climb fpm: 2,850 4,750
Range Radius Fighter: 450
Ferry range (miles): 1,300 2,600
Bombs: (pounds): 4,000 3,000

Speed was about a wash. P-38L was MUCH better fighter. The Mosquito was a better bomber. Neither was likely to supplant the other in its better roles. Both were very good airplanes, the P-38 especially after the initial faults were ironed out, and they were. The Mosquito, to it's credit, didn't have too many initial faults.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 18, 2022)

GregP said:


> Better at what?
> 
> The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load.
> 
> ...



Great summary. I'd also propose that the Mossie was a better night fighter than the P-38. I'm sure others will contest that view but the simple fact that the USAAF brought on Mossies as reverse lend-lease says a lot (to me, at least).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Sep 18, 2022)

GregP said:


> Better at what?
> 
> The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load.
> 
> ...


Arguably its best contribution (in Europe) was as a PR aircraft.

For anything else, there was nearly always something better available.

Its a bit iffy comparing bombloads like that as the 38 doesnt even have a bomb-bay, hence the speed will be 
quite severely impacted when operating in that role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 19, 2022)

Snowygrouch said:


> Arguably its best contribution (in Europe) was as a PR aircraft.
> 
> For anything else, there was nearly always something better available.



Yes, but I'd add night fighter to that as well (and just get rid of the "in Europe"). The RAF never operated a finer night fighter than the Mosquito in WW2. The Beaufighter was good, although the NF.II with its Merlins waaaay ahead of the rest of the airframe was a troublesome beast, leading to a high accident rate, and while the Hercules versions didn't offer the same pucker factor for their pilots, the Mosquito, from the NF.II had superior performance right off the bat. The value of the Mosquito of course was that the one airframe with minimal changes was able to do so many of those tasks it did very well indeed.



GregP said:


> P-38L was MUCH better fighter.



Obviously. The P-38 was designed from the outset as a fighter, the Mosquito was designed as a bomber. It only became a fighter on the recommendation of the Air Ministry, certainly not by design. The PR and night fighter prototypes were the result of the Air Ministry concerned that de Havilland might have been exaggerating the performance figures as a bomber. Originally, the Air Ministry via Sholto Douglas wanted a DH.98 bomber prototype to be built with a tail turret because of this. The fighter specification for the Mosquito, F.21/40 didn't come until November 1940 and that was for "Home Defence, night fighting" - wording from the original specification, so barely a comparison with the P-38.

The contract to build the prototype, 1/40/DH was issued in March 1940 and is interesting as it places its reconnaissance credentials before its intended bomber usage, as "primarily to be suitable for long distance high and low altitude reconnaissance by day, and bombing by day and night", the latter wording about bombing almost as an afterthought. It was Freeman who talked them out of building the bomber prototype with the tail turret by gambling the prototype's performance against it. The second prototype was going to be a PR aircraft.

I get why people like to compare the two types, both being twins and used in a variety of roles, but they kind of defy comparison simply because of the disparity in original design purpose.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 27, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Great summary. I'd also propose that the Mossie was a better night fighter than the P-38. I'm sure others will contest that view but the simple fact that the USAAF brought on Mossies as reverse lend-lease says a lot (to me, at least).


The P-38 accomplished very little as a night fighter. Its victories at night can be pretty much counted on the fingers of one hand. To compare it to the Mosquito as a night fighter is ludicrous.
Attached are a couple of papers on the subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 27, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The P-38 accomplished very little as a night fighter. Its victories at night can be pretty much counted on the fingers of one hand.


That's because it entered service after Japan surrendered.

It was a capable platform, but never saw combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Sep 27, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> That's because it entered service after Japan surrendered.
> 
> It was a capable platform, but never saw combat.


Hmmm there may have been reasons for that, when the British evaluated the P-38, the included a section on the viability as a night-fighter, they noted:
(The turbos are right on the same level as the pilots eye-line, to the sides, so this was a pretty big issue)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2022)

One does wonder how effective the P-38 nightfighter would have been on long missions.















Not saying the Mosquito was the height of luxury but the guy in the back seat of a P-38 was going to be more than a bit uncomfortable after 3-4 hours.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 10, 2022)

From any realistic perspective, the P-38 was far and away a MUCH better fighter than the Mosquito, particularly the P-38J and P-38L models with hydraulic ailerons. The people who fly them today say it is a pretty good airplane, but not something to fly when tangling with a dedicated fighter. I have heard it described as maneuverable, but not fighter-type maneuverable by current Mosquito pilots. It very certainly wasn't going to come anywhere close to rolling with a P-38 that had hydraulic ailerons, nor would it climb with a P-38,

The Mosquito was far and away a better bomber, Recce, and night fighter aircraft. It could cruise fast and long, and was the choice for a longer-range precision strike, and made a great night fighter. But there was very little night fighter versus night fighter combat ... their main function was to hunt bombers at night to prevent bomb damage. There was not real point in hunting enemy fighters because they did little to any major damage to cities. Certainly, a Mosquito NF would not ignore another enemy fighter if it found one, but that wasn't it's mission.

So, I'd pick both airplanes, but a definite "best" one for any particular mission type. They weren't very likely to overlap too often.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 10, 2022)

GregP said:


> The Mosquito was far and away a better bomber, Recce, and night fighter aircraft. It could cruise fast and long, and was the choice for a longer-range precision strike, and made a great night fighter. But there was very little night fighter versus night fighter combat ... their main function was to hunt bombers at night to prevent bomb damage. There was not real point in hunting enemy fighters because they did little to any major damage to cities. Certainly, a Mosquito NF would not ignore another enemy fighter if it found one, but that wasn't it's mission.


Which ignores the work of Mosquitos, and other night fighters, flying Intruder & Ranger sorties over enemy territory.

The first Mosquito Intruder sorties were flown in April 1942, initially in radarless Mk.II with additional fuel tanks behind the cannon. These were flown against “definite enemy activity” like airfields and enemy night fighter assembly areas. From Feb 1943 freelance Ranger operations were flown targeting aircraft, disrupting training schedules and ground targets.

From Oct 1943 Mosquito NF.II with AI.IV and Serrate Homer replaced Beaufighters in 141 squadron actively hunting enemy night fighters in support of Bomber Command. It was joined by 2 more such units before the year was out. These squadrons became part of 100 (BomberSupport) Group in Dec 1943/Jan 1944. As well as targeting enemy NF assembly areas they patrolled the target areas and provided a distant escort to the bomber stream. Centrimetric AI radars were only cleared for use over enemy territory in Europe & the Med in April 1944.

Eventually 100 Group had 7 radar equipped Mosquito NF squadrons deployed on Bomber Support duties. They used Mosquito NF.II/VI(some with ASH)/XII/XVII/XIX/XXX aircraft. While part of 100 Group these squadrons claimed 258 enemy aircraft in air to air combat plus 18 more on the ground.

They were joined in the skies over enemy territory from Aug 1944 by Mosquito NF squadrons from Air Defence of Great Britain as the Luftwaffe and V1 threat to Britain was much reduced.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Oct 10, 2022)

re "One does wonder how effective the P-38 nightfighter would have been on long missions."

I am going from memory so this could be wrong/incomplete, but IIRC the only(?) P-38Ms to see service were stationed in Japan post-war. Again IIRC, they were only based there until more suitable airframes became available in the form of the P-61 and then P-82. In service at least, they were intended for point defense in concert with GCI, never for standing patrols or long-range intruder missions.


----------



## EwenS (Oct 10, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> re "One does wonder how effective the P-38 nightfighter would have been on long missions."
> 
> I am going from memory so this could be wrong/incomplete, but IIRC the only(?) P-38Ms to see service were stationed in Japan post-war. Again IIRC, they were only based there until more suitable airframes became available in the form of the P-61 and then P-82. In service at least, they were intended for point defense in concert with GCI, never for standing patrols or long-range intruder missions.


The origins of the P-38 night fighter go back to 1943 with 5th AF in SWPA. The P-70 night fighters then available to them (conversions from A-20 Havocs) were not up to the job of catching Japanese Betty bombers. So a couple of single seat P-38s were converted locally and fitted with radar. 

That led to Lockheed trialling a two seat P-38L conversion in 1944 which proved about 40mph faster than a P-61. The USAAF then ordered 80 (some sources say 75 but 80 serials have been identified) P-38M night fighter conversions from P-38L-5 airframes. These only began to be produced from March 1945 at Lockheed’s Dallas Modification Center.

When the war ended 8 P-38M and their crews were at a west coast port ready for shipping to the Philippines for operational trials. Only 4 seem to have been shipped at the end of the day. These aircraft eventually joined the P-61 equipped 418th NFS after it moved from Okinawa to Atsugi, Japan in Oct 1945. One was lost in Jan 1946.

I think the main problems have been covered. Cramped accommodation for the radar operator (one pilot put 2 hours as the limit that a radar operator could suffer!). The other was the glow from the turbosuperchargers. Checking the fuel filler caps became essential as the turbos had a habit of sucking fuel out and setting it on fire. Was this an issue for other P-38 models? 

I don’t know what, if any, postwar use other than the above was made of these aircraft. But the P-61C began to be accepted in July 1945 and was intended for large scale production but this never happened either due to the end of WW2.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Checking the fuel filler caps became essential as the turbos had a habit of sucking fuel out and setting it on fire. Was this an issue for other P-38 models?


I worked with people who built and flew P-38s, first time I ever heard of this. You leave a fuel cap loose on any aircraft that is located on the top of a wing, fuel will be sucked out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 10, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The origins of the P-38 night fighter go back to 1943 with 5th AF in SWPA. The P-70 night fighters then available to them (conversions from A-20 Havocs) were not up to the job of catching Japanese Betty bombers. So a couple of single seat P-38s were converted locally and fitted with radar.
> 
> That led to Lockheed trialling a two seat P-38L conversion in 1944 which proved about 40mph faster than a P-61. The USAAF then ordered 80 (some sources say 75 but 80 serials have been identified) P-38M night fighter conversions from P-38L-5 airframes. These only began to be produced from March 1945 at Lockheed’s Dallas Modification Center.
> 
> ...



Based on the studies I posted previuosly the P-38 used as night fighters in SWPA were not fitted with radar but were rather used on "Wild Boar" type missions. 




























The reason the P-38M missed the party was that it had to wait until radar became small enough to fit it. There was no room to fit the SCR 720 (A.K.A. AI Mk X) used in the P-61 and Mosquito NFs. Theoretically it could have been in service in mid 1944 but the APS-6 radar was reserved for the US Navy's night fighters. The APS-6 was an adaption of the air to surface ASH (A.K.A. APS-4) radar that had proved to have some use as an AI radar particularly at low levels, however, it was not as capable as the SCR 720.
Due to a shortage of AI Mk Xs the RAF equipped some Mosquito FB VI's with ASH in a thimble nose but this was only a stop gap until sufficient Mk Xs were available.
The Mosquitos were also equipped with a full suite of electronic aids (Serrate or Perfectos, Gee, Monica) which would not fit the P-38M.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Oct 10, 2022)

Agreed that single seater P-38s were used in 1944 as you describe. But there are a number of sources that refer to 2 P-38F/G conversions in SWPA equipped with SCR-540 radar complete with arrowhead aerial on the nose in early 1943. I don't have photos to hand but for example, Joe Baugher makes reference in his P-38M page.


Lockheed P-38M Lightning



And this Modelling site makes reference to entries in a number of books/magazine articles some of which had photos and includes some quotes and references to photos.


Hasegawa 1/48 P-38G w/YAGI radar, by Andrew Garcia



Anyone got Queen of the Skies to verify the quotes and photos?

23 & 515 squadrons RAF received ASH equipped Mosquito VI in Oct/Nov 1944 which they flew until the end of the war. It also went into Firefly NF.I from mid-1944. But, AIUI, ASH in the night fighter role lacked some of the features of AN/APS-6 (e.g. the blind fire capability).


----------



## Greg Boeser (Oct 10, 2022)

Maestro said:


> I don't know a lot about bombers, but I vote for the Mosquito. I think it could take much dammage than the P-38.
> 
> And concerning the dive bombing, I agree with Plan_D. Any plane armed with bombs could sink a ship. After all, wich plane sank the Tirpitz ? I think it was a Spit, wasn't it ?


P-39

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 10, 2022)

I have seen quite a few sites that assume the P-38E "Swordfish" (41-2048) was radar equipped, which although it may look like it to some, wasn't.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 10, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Agreed that single seater P-38s were used in 1944 as you describe. But there are a number of sources that refer to 2 P-38F/G conversions in SWPA equipped with SCR-540 radar complete with arrowhead aerial on the nose in early 1943. I don't have photos to hand but for example, Joe Baugher makes reference in his P-38M page.
> 
> 
> Lockheed P-38M Lightning
> ...













Sounds like a one off that never made it to combat.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2022)

The droop snoot P-38 suggests that a modification could have been made to fit the SCR 720 radar, but that would need a new location for the guns and even more equipment to cram into the cockpit.

I'm sure a gun pack could have been developed to fit 4 x 20mm or 4 x 0.50" guns, but proper accomodation for the radar operator and his equipment would, surely, have needed a new crew nacelle developed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 12, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Which ignores the work of Mosquitos, and other night fighters, flying Intruder & Ranger sorties over enemy territory.
> 
> The first Mosquito Intruder sorties were flown in April 1942, initially in radarless Mk.II with additional fuel tanks behind the cannon. These were flown against “definite enemy activity” like airfields and enemy night fighter assembly areas. From Feb 1943 freelance Ranger operations were flown targeting aircraft, disrupting training schedules and ground targets.
> 
> ...


I would also mention the Instep Patrols over the Bay of Biscay where Mosquitos fought Ju88s and FW190s.






Night Fighter Navigator - Recollections of service in the Royal Air Force


Nightfighter Navigator




www.nightfighternavigator.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

