# P-38 vs Mosquito?



## B-17engineer (Oct 11, 2008)

Just want to here your opinions


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2008)

Two different airplanes for two different missions.


----------



## ScOoTeR1992 (Oct 11, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Two different airplanes for two different missions.



I agree with you there syscom. The p-38 was more of a fighter and the Mossie a light bomber, but both dam sexy lookin A/C


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2008)

ScOoTeR1992 said:


> I agree with you there syscom. The p-38 was more of a fighter and the Mossie a light bomber, but both dam sexy lookin A/C



The P38 was designed from the beginning to be a interceptor, and had enough performance to be pressed into a regular fighter, with some good fighter bomber characteristics.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 12, 2008)

So, would it be safe to say both planes performed their primary roles very well, and fulfilled many other roles well?

I think so........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 12, 2008)

The P38 is a fighter.

The Mosquito a light bomber.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 12, 2008)

The Mossie made a better Night fighter too. (though the P-38M never saw combat, I don't think it would have been as capable in any case)


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 12, 2008)

i think only for fighter bomber mission comparison is possible


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 12, 2008)

Wouldn't mind to have both in my hangar...


----------



## tankie1rtr (Oct 12, 2008)

Hi All.
My Uncle was on Mossies in Burma, and they were known as the "Yellow Peril" he told me when they were first sent overseas, they started falling apart, he said the glue that was used would come unstuck due to the heat and humidity, but he loved them. I was at an Airdisplay at a place in the UK called Manston. and the most beautiful site I have ever seen, was a Mossie on full power doing a fly past about 10foot off the deck. it was so breathtaking.
Regards
tankie1rtr


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 12, 2008)

If Lanc was here, he would say the _The Mossie was better because it could be fitted with a turret..."_


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Just want to here your opinions



Two excellent aircraft, multi role, with Mossie having more bombing versatility and Lightning more fighter capability. Both superb recce, low level attack, one a far superior day fighter, one a better night fighter. 

I have always wondered how good the P-38M would have been in nightfighter role... the radar was the wild card for the F7F, the F4U and the P-38 as an effective night fighter.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 15, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If Lanc was here, he would say the _The Mossie was better because it could be fitted with a turret..."_


----------



## TheMustangRider (Dec 23, 2008)

Both were excellent airplanes, the P-38 as a great fighter and the Mosquito as veratile night fighter and light bomber and both contributed greatly for the allied victory.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 23, 2008)

I have just finished reading Allan MacNutt's book called Altimeter Rising my 50 years in the cockpit Iwould estimate this man flew well into the 1000hour area on both types as a post war photo surveyor all over the world . I have to take his opinion seriously as he has done just about every type of flying imagineable and also is a AME
"The weakness of the P38 was that the aircraft often went unserviceable , an awkward situation in the far north where maintainence facilities existed only in the engineers toolbox. They were a rather fragile effeminate type aircraft that needed to be babied and operated from improved airstrips. by improved in those days I mean better then rough gravel , muskeg and dry river beds . The P38 was a beautiful aircraft to fly but not a money maker. The Allison engines were trouble prone .Air ducts kept blowing and the liquid cool system leaked. 
The next step up for the company from an economic standpoint and a step down for the pilots for the pilots in discomfort and austerity was the purchase of the fleet of DH Mosquitos .These were high speed long range high performance aircraft that could take a beating. "
Other interesting things stated was the P38 was a warm aircraft and the Mosquito was built on the cheap missing things that should or would have been standard on other aircraft ame xample pf this was am oil resovoir so if you lost oil pressure you could still feather the prop 




i


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I have just finished reading Allan MacNutt's book called Altimeter Rising my 50 years in the cockpit Iwould estimate this man flew well into the 1000hour area on both types as a post war photo surveyor all over the world . I have to take his opinion seriously as he has done just about every type of flying imagineable and also is a AME
> "The weakness of the P38 was that the aircraft often went unserviceable , an awkward situation in the far north where maintainence facilities existed only in the engineers toolbox. They were a rather fragile effeminate type aircraft that needed to be babied and operated from improved airstrips. by improved in those days I mean better then rough gravel , muskeg and dry river beds . The P38 was a beautiful aircraft to fly but not a money maker. The Allison engines were trouble prone .Air ducts kept blowing and the liquid cool system leaked.
> The next step up for the company from an economic standpoint and a step down for the pilots for the pilots in discomfort and austerity was the purchase of the fleet of DH Mosquitos .These were high speed long range high performance aircraft that could take a beating. "
> Other interesting things stated was the P38 was a warm aircraft and the Mosquito was built on the cheap missing things that should or would have been standard on other aircraft ame xample pf this was am oil resovoir so if you lost oil pressure you could still feather the prop
> ...



I wonder if the guy who wrote that ever spent time in the South Pacific with the 8th or 475th fighter groups.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 23, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I wonder if the guy who wrote that ever spent time in the South Pacific with the 8th or 475th fighter groups.


nope he was Seafire pilot but his 100's of hours on both types are more then most . But he flew in all climates with both and all continents with the exception of Australia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> nope he was Seafire pilot but his 100's of hours on both types are more then most . But he flew in all climates with both and all continents with the exception of Australia


Both of those groups were the most successful P-38 fighter groups of the war and it seems they never had the probelms or even complained about the things that chap cites. The produced such aces as Bong, McGuire, Johnson, Roberts and Watkins to name a few. BTW those groups were very close to Australia and many of the brass who ran them were stationed there, maybe that explains it.

The guy may of flown P-38s, it seems he didn't fly them in the South Pacific.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 23, 2008)

WTF I bring up some guy who flew both had more hours on type then all those guys combined , fixed them as well , worked in the harshest regions of the earth and he doesn't know what he's talking about , he was on the crew modding them for photo survey work with Wendy Phipps . these guys modded as the picture shows the 38 for photo mapping but as you stated they know not what they say


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> WTF I bring up some guy who flew both had more hours on type then all those guys combined , fixed them as well , worked in the harshest regions of the earth and he doesn't know what he's talking about , he was on the crew modding them for photo survey work with Wendy Phipps . these guys modded as the picture shows the 38 for photo mapping but as you stated they know not what they say


Modding? Did he fly them in combat?? *No.* he giving a perspective in a post war operational enviornment and with that said I could say just about any WW2 fighter _*"were a rather fragile effeminate type aircraft that needed to be babied and operated from improved airstrips."*_

BTW - the guys I mentioned had hundreds if not THOUSANDS of hours in the P-38. All of them shot down at least 10 or more aircraft and were the top US aces of the war.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 23, 2008)

What does he mean by "far north"? I know the P-38 was stationed in the Aleutians, and that conditions were fairly primitive at Adak; could that be what he was talking about?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> What does he mean by "far north"? I know the P-38 was stationed in the Aleutians, and that conditions were fairly primitive at Adak; could that be what he was talking about?


The guy flew them for a company that was mapping areas in Canada.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 23, 2008)

I think what FlyboyJ is trying to say is we know the P-38 was a highly technical plane, it needed alot of maintinence. That is not new info really. I also doubt that a Seafire would work too well on rough fields, grass sure. The information about the planes from the aerial mapping company is neat information though, it is just not combat related.

I also would not want to have a wooden airplane in the tropics. Keep the Mossies in the cold or dry desert.

Obviously two very different aircraft, but they both performed Photo Recon missions, I wonder how they compare in that aspect. A mission that arguably is just as important as any other flown!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 23, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The guy flew them for a company that was mapping areas in Canada.



Gotcha; so they bought war-surplus P-38's, and converted them into photo-mapping planes? I know there were several companies who did that and, in fact, one of the ex-F-5G's ended up on the racing circuit in the late '40's (don't remember which one).


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 23, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The guy flew them for a company that was mapping areas in Canada.


 I really thought some might appreciate these insights of a guy that flew both aircraft but I guess not.  He flew and ferried these aircraft not just in the North but in every continent save Australia and Antarctica , 
."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I really thought some might appreciate these insights of a guy that flew both aircraft but I guess not.  He flew and ferried these aircraft not just in the North but in every continent save Australia and Antarctica ,
> ."


I do appreciate what he had to say and I also appreciate that he didn't fly them in combat and had many hours on one (1) trying to be supported almost 10 years after production was stopped. With that said I put some of his comments into perspective. In fact, I think most of his comments comes from operating that ONE aircraft in the manner I just stated, not as an operational combat aircraft.


----------

