# What if: Mosquito vs P-38



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

I confess I am not as enamored with the P-38 as some on this forum. Considering it's advantages (twin engines, concentrated firepower, and range) I don't think it did as well in the ETO as it should have. I am sure it was a delight to fly at above zero temperatures but the advantages it offered were wasted on average pilots, I suggest. In the hands of exceptional pilots .. another story .. but equally true of the Me-109, the Hurricane and most fighter aircraft. There are pilots and then there are fighter pilots 

In contrast, I believe the Mosquito was probably the best value, most versatile airplane on the Allied side.

Both the Mosquito and Lightning were used as Pathfinders, both had quite a respectable bomb load, but the P-38 tackled aircraft like the Me-109 whereas the Mosquito (as a fighter) tackled night fighters like the Ju-88, Me-110, 210, 410 etc and was _stalking _rather than dog fighting. The rest of the time in daylight it just "ran".

So my question to you is this: In the hands of experienced pilots which aircraft would have prevailed under _typical_ daylight combat conditions. The P-38 has the slight advantage in altitude, speed and range (although I question the range differential if the Mossie has slipper tanks). Structurally, I believe the Mosquito is tougher than the P-38 and is trading 4x20mm cannon fire for 1x20 + 4x50's.

In the night fighter role I think the Mosquito would have it all over the P-38.



MM


----------



## river (Jul 22, 2009)

Hi,

If typical daylight combat operations means flying high and fast, beyond reach - maybe getting into a melee with the odd plane that could get up to my height, then I'd take the Mossie.

If it mean down low and locking horns with enemy fighters, I'd take the P38.

river

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

what were the turn characteristics of the two aircraft????


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 23, 2009)

Parsifal, one of the reasons I posed this question was to discover more of their characteristics. I suspect the P-38 could out turn and the Mosquito could out-dive ... but I'd like that confirmed. They are very close in weight.

MM


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2009)

When do we start comparing the P-38 vs other long range day fighters rather then night fighters?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 23, 2009)

"When do we start comparing the P-38 vs other long range day fighters rather then night fighters.."

Is that a no-no, DaveBender? Moreso than comparing things that were built in quantity with things that weren't ...

MM


----------



## drgondog (Jul 23, 2009)

In typical daylight conditions, each starting at same altitude I would favor the P-38 all day long, at the end of the respective life cycles the P-38L is *far *superior airframe in air to air combat and should remain so at any altitude.

The Mossie had a lower wing loading but the 38J-25 and newer ship had dive brakes, manuevering flaps and boosted controls and should turn with the Mossie even at low speeds.


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2009)

Of course not. You can compare a B29 heavy bomber to a Me-109 fighter if you really want to. However it makes more sense to me to compare aircraft of the same type and produced during the same time period.


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2009)

As a day fighter then the choice has to be the P38. If you want any other role then the Mosquito wins the day, but as a day fighter, its the P38


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 23, 2009)

The mosquito is simalar the the Bf-109 except for its higher speed.

The P-38 would win.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> The mosquito is simalar the the Bf-109 except for its higher speed.
> 
> The P-38 would win.



What?????

How is the Mosquito similar to the Bf 109?????


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm sorry, I ment the Bf-110.


----------



## FalkeEins (Jul 23, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Both the P-38 and Lightning were used as Pathfinders, both had quite a respectable bomb load
> MM



..slight understatement there ....versions of the Mossie could carry a bigger bomb load than the B-17


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 23, 2009)

FalkeEins said:


> ..slight understatement there ....versions of the Mossie could carry a bigger bomb load than the B-17


Well OK, but Mosquitos:-

1. Weren't composed primarily of metal
2. They didn't have to carry 10 aircrew
3. Or 12 heavy machine guns, each packing:-

i. Ball turret: 650 rounds/.50 cal gun (2) stored in containers attached to hangers outside of turret. 
ii. Tail turret: 500 rounds/.50 cal gun (2) stored in bins located in aft section of fuselage. 
iii. Nose turret: 700 rounds/.50 cal gun (2) stored in boxes located outside of turret on each side of nose fuselage. 
iv. Top turret: 480 rounds/.50 cal (2) stored in containers supended from turret ring in front of gunner. 
v. Waist gun x 2: 700 rounds/.50 cal gun (1 @ each waist window stored in boxes along fuselage on each side). 
vi. 10 - 15 boxes (150rds per box) reserve ammunition

as well as the payload. 

Both good aircraft, but a direct comparison is stretching it a bit


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 23, 2009)

I don't think Neil is making a direct comparison, he's merely pointing out that the Mosquito was a far more flexible aircraft, very good at any role it was asked to perform.

Or that's how I interpreted his post anyway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2009)

> Well OK, but Mosquitos:-
> 1. Weren't composed primarily of metal
> 2. They didn't have to carry 10 aircrew
> 3. Or 12 heavy machine guns, each packing:-


Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17. 

BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 23, 2009)

davebender said:


> Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17.
> 
> BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.



Me too.

I also consider fabric to be a bad feature.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 23, 2009)

davebender said:


> Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17.
> 
> BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.


Well
of course they were design choices, what else would they be? The fact is, Boeing DIDN'T make similar choices, hence Mosquito primarily wood, B-17 primarily aluminium; for which we can assume alot of surviving B-17 crews were very thankful.

I also consider wooden construction to be a negative feature, I would say its greatest achievement was freeing up aluminium for other aircraft and employing an area of the private sector in war production that would otherwise not have been. Sitting in a Mosquito that's getting thumped by German cannon must have been like sitting in something half greenhouse and half garden shed.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 23, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> So my question to you is this: In the hands of experienced pilots which aircraft would have prevailed under _typical_ daylight combat conditions.
> 
> MM



In a dogfight? Mossie vs. P-38? Or, Mossie vs. Axis Fighter compared to P-38 vs. same Axis Fighter? Or, Ground attack on the same target? Altitude? Weather conditions? There are so many variants of both types, how are we deciding which versions are going up against each other?

I'm not trying to be an a-hole, I just want clarification of the scenario.8)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 23, 2009)

Frankly, I posed this particular thread because it's an opportunity to compare 2 twin-engine high performance aircraft, both very versatile, that had similar features (nose armaments) range, manoeverability etc. etc. If I'd wanted to compare a B-17 to a Mosquito I would have ... duh 

The question I posed was whether a solid-nose fighter version of a Mosquito could hold its own with a P-38 (not the _ultimate_ P-38F or whatever) but the P-38 as it was operating in the ETO circa 1943 - in daylight - under typical conditions - from altitude to the deck. If I had wanted to compare the ultimate P-38 with the Mosquito I would have called for the post war aluminum version .. the de Havilland Hornet/Sea Hornet.

So far, I'm not getting much insight except that planes made out of wood are BAD and planes made out of metal are GOOD. I don't think that's necessarily true in all cases ... Hurricanes in the B of B -- which were fabric covered and had some wooden structural members -- often survived 20mm hits because the shells passed clean through without detonation - whereas Spitfires ....

I would love HoHun to jump into this thread with his charts and graphs ...

To my knowledge, the only downside to Mosquito construction was that it didn't do well in the tropics .... _dry rot eh what_ 

DaveBender may consider this thread frivolous but no more so than speculating on RR Griffin-powered P-40's with 5-bladed props - which, to me, is just silly.

Mosquitos were still being flown in military roles several years after the P-38's had all been scrapped or auctioned off as circuit racers.

"..Sitting in a Mosquito that's getting thumped by German cannon must have been like sitting in something half greenhouse and half garden shed."

And getting thumped by German cannon sitting in the P-38 must have been real comforting too, Colin. Those booms break up and you're in deep sh*t. Frankly, the only aircraft I'_d want_ to be in under your scenario is a P-47 ... I could dodge around inside  (Little joke from Eagle Squadron pilots when they were first confronted with their Spitfire replacement P-47's).

But for my next thread, DaveBender, I'd like to compare B-29's and Sturmaviks ... you know ... in the ground support role 

MM


----------



## marshall (Jul 23, 2009)

FalkeEins said:


> ..slight understatement there ....versions of the Mossie could carry a bigger bomb load than the B-17




I don't know much about bombers, and that's not the first time I see this claim, and to be honest it's hard to believe in this claim.

Also I've checked on wiki (I know it's a very poor source) and it doesn't seem possible for a Mosquito to take more bombs than B-17 for the same distance.

So could someone provide some figures that would back this claim up?



I also agree with others that in daylight conditions and in dogfight P-38 is superior to the Mosquito.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 23, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> And getting thumped by German cannon sitting in the P-38 must have been real comforting too


I did make the point that it may well be academic but removed it - I'd still rather be in the P-38's office under those circumstances any day

Secondly, the pilot doesn't sit on the booms, if his booms break up, he may have a good chance of bailing out; with both cockpits getting a squirt I'm still with the P-38.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 23, 2009)

marshall said:


> Also I've checked on wiki (I know it's a very poor source) and it doesn't seem possible for a Mosquito to take more bombs than B-17 for the same distance.
> 
> So could someone provide some figures that would back this claim up?



Normal load for the B-17 when bombing targets in Germany was 3600lbs, whereas the Mk XVI had a bulged bomb bay that enabled a 4000lb cookie to be carried to similar targets. The B-17 could carry more bombs over a greater distance, but usually didn't.

Wood is a good construction material apart from in hot or humid environments. In terms of strength and stiffness/weight it compares very well with aluminium (obviously depends exactly what sort of wood). The laminate used for the Mosquito was fairly damage resilient and gave a nice smooth surface finish, no rivet heads poking into the airflow. Its not possible to say that aluminium is conclusively better for this type of aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 23, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Its not possible to say that aluminium is conclusively better for this type of aircraft


What about the way it breaks up?


----------



## red admiral (Jul 23, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> What about the way it breaks up?



Depends exactly what you mean. I doubt the durability of wooden laminates is very different to stressed skin dural.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 23, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Depends exactly what you mean. I doubt the durability of wooden laminates is very different to stressed skin dural.


I don't think wood has the same ductile properties as metal, in this case, aluminium; if the airframe has suffered major damage, wooden surfaces and bearers could well just snap. I look at the state of some of the heavies that made it back from a raid and I can't see a wooden ship, even of the same dimensions and construction, taking the same beating and making it back.


----------



## marshall (Jul 23, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Normal load for the B-17 when bombing targets in Germany was 3600lbs, whereas the Mk XVI had a bulged bomb bay that enabled a 4000lb cookie to be carried to similar targets. The B-17 could carry more bombs over a greater distance, but usually didn't.




Quite interesting info on the topic

Re: Mosquito vs B-17

so it seems that this claim about Mosquito is a bit exaggerated.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 23, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I don't think wood has the same ductile properties as metal, in this case, aluminium; if the airframe has suffered major damage, wooden surfaces and bearers could well just snap. I look at the state of some of the heavies that made it back from a raid and I can't see a wooden ship, even of the same dimensions and construction, taking the same beating and making it back.



The aluminium ribs could snap as well. For the same weight, you've got a lot thicker wood laminate. Although the material may be weaker, there is more of it, so the load able to be taken is fairly similar. You've also got a thicker section which is much better able to resist any bending exerted on it. The fibrous nature of wood means it doesn't suffer from stress concentrations around holes as badly as metals (e.g. bullet holes). There shouldn't be much difference between them.


----------



## Butters (Jul 23, 2009)

I've got a Mosquito book (Mosquito at War, Chaz Bowyer- Ian Allen, '73) with plenty of pictures of badly damaged Mossies that made it back home. It doesn't seem that it was noted for any peculiar structural weaknesses. the P-38 was also a fairly tough machine, at least in regard to battle damage. Both types had the usual vulnerability common to liquid-cooled engined a/c.

For the sake of argument, it would be best to stick to FB versions of the Mosquito. The P-38M saw little action (None in the ETO), so any talk about the superiority of Mossie NFs over the Lightning in night combat is essentially irrelevant. Apples and oranges...

The Mosquito was designed as a light bomber, and tho the FB'S were very effective against German bombers, the fighter crews usually avoided dogfights with single-engine fighters. Most attacks on such a/c were a fast pass from ambush, and then a high speed bug-out. It did not possess the fast climb capability of the P-38, nor the high-speed roll and turn rate of the most widely produced Lightning models. It was not a match for single-engine German fighters in the dogfight.

The Mossie had the advantage in firepower, but whether it gave a practical advantage over the P-38 in fighter vs fighter combat is questionable. A concentrated burst from the P-38's quad .50's and 20 mm would kill a/c the size of the Mossie just as dead.

In ACM, the P-38 can do anything the Mossie fighter-bombers can. And then some...

JL


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

The thing about the Mosquito was that it was never intended as a daylight air superiority fighte, whereas the Lightning was. So the direction the discussion is going is bound to show the Mosquito as being inferior. Nevertheless ther are a couple of myths about the Mossie that need to be dispelled

Myth 1: The Mosquito was structurally weak because it was made of wood

wrong, wrong wrong. The Mosquito was as structurally strong as any all metal fighter of the day. It could pull as many gs as anybody, and could absorb as much battle damage as the next plane. Its wooden construction was in no way a weakness in this respect. 

Where criticism could be levelled at it was the longevity of the airframe. Wooden frames dont last long....they tend to vibrate to pices quickly. But even here, the disadvantage was theoretical rather than actual. A P-51 had an average life expentancy of about 10 months in the ETO, guess what thats exactly the same as the Mosquito.

Myth 2: The mosquito could not dogfight with Single engined fighters. 

Wrong again. The Mosquito is credited with at least 70 victories over FW190s alone, in daylihght, and approximately 140 at night. The Mosquito was not an ar superiority fighter....it was a multi role aircraft, so its fighter credentials are not going to be as impressive as the P-38, which was designed for this role. Nevertheless the P-38s success in the air over Europe are not as extensive as one might expect. In another thread someone able to answer this far more comprehensively than I stated that the P-38s in 1944 shot down about 240 or so LW fighters. If that is correct, thats not that many to crow about. I do know with greater certainty that the Mosquitoes in the NF role, in that same year, ahot down at least 600 LW Night Fighters. The Mossies assigned to the NF role in Eurpe never exceeded 140 in number....so that means on average each Mosquito shot down about about 6 or 7 enemy planes in its career

The Mosquito and the P-38 were comparable in their bombloads 
The P-38L could carry 3200 lbs of bombs, whilst the FBVI carried only 2000 lbs. However the B MkIX carried over 4000lbs of bombs, and more to the point could carry this load all the way to Berlin. The P-38 could not match that

To try and deny the Mosquito its multi role capability is to deny the Mosquito of its chief advantage. Whereas the P-38 could do one or two things very well, the Mosquito could do more things, only pretty well. So which is the more valuable. An aircraft that can do a few things better, or an aircraft that can do a lot of things pretty well......


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2009)

Might there be some resriction in the Mosquitos flight envelope or G loading that might restrict it's ability as a day fighter? 

Like climb rate?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Myth 1: The Mosquito was structurally weak because it was made of wood
> 
> wrong, wrong wrong. The Mosquito was as structurally strong as any all metal fighter of the day. It could pull as many gs as anybody, and could absorb as much battle damage as the next plane. Its wooden construction was in no way a weakness in this respect.
> 
> Where criticism could be levelled at it was the longevity of the airframe. Wooden frames dont last long....they tend to vibrate to pices quickly. But even here, the disadvantage was theoretical rather than actual. A P-51 had an average life expentancy of about 10 months in the ETO, guess what thats exactly the same as the Mosquito.


We spoke about this on another thread but wood in the field is difficult to repair, requires extra training of maintenance personnel and is weakened by continual repairs, and I make these comments from working with wood aircraft. 

As far as a life expectancy comparison of a P-51 to a Mosquito - are you factoring in flight hours and comparative numbers? "Months" don't mean anything - the benchmark or an aircraft's life span is measured in airframe hours.


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,



parsifal said:


> To try and deny the Mosquito its multi role capability is to deny the Mosquito of its chief advantage. Whereas the P-38 could do one or two things very well, the Mosquito could do more things, only pretty well. So which is the more valuable. An aircraft that can do a few things better, or an aircraft that can do a lot of things pretty well......



Agreed.

Perhaps the best thing about the Mossie was it being conceived as a private venture, and therefore there were no limitations/expectations placed on it by government contract.

What was designed was a versatile aircraft that could be easily adapted to many roles, all of which it performed quite well. And, at the time, England had a urgent need for such a versatile aircraft to fill the voids in its inventory.

river


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We spoke about this on another thread but wood in the field is difficult to repair, requires extra training of maintenance personnel and is weakened by continual repairs, and I make these comments from working with wood aircraft.
> 
> As far as a life expectancy comparison of a P-51 to a Mosquito - are you factoring in flight hours and comparative numbers? "Months" don't mean anything - the benchmark or an aircraft's life span is measured in airframe hours.




Joe it was you and i that had that conversation. I agree with you. But people are trying to say that the Mosquito was also weak in the air. I dont believe that is the case, based on previous conversations that Ive had with people that flew the mosquito 

In the air, the Mosquito was strong, incredibly strong. It was on the gtround that the problems arose

I just assumed that aircraft like the P-51 and Mosquito would be comparable in flying hours.....I suppose that a dangerous assumption......


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 24, 2009)

parsifal said:


> To try and deny the Mosquito its multi role capability is to deny the Mosquito of its chief advantage. Whereas the P-38 could do one or two things very well, the Mosquito could do more things, only pretty well. So which is the more valuable. An aircraft that can do a few things better, or an aircraft that can do a lot of things pretty well...


Nobody is denying the Mosquito's versatility but you do seem to be robbing the P-38 of the same virtue, high-altitude escort, long-range interceptor (the Yamamoto hit), ground attack, recconaissance, night fighter, tactical bombing platform (the B-38 ) - in terms of versatility I don't think you could slip a bus ticket between them.



parsifal said:


> ...people are trying to say that the Mosquito was also weak in the air. I don't believe that is the case, based on previous conversations that Ive had with people that flew the Mosquito
> 
> In the air, the Mosquito was strong, incredibly strong. It was on the ground that the problems arose


Who is?
If the Mosquito was 'weak' in the air the aircrews would have been the first to complain about it, assuming they survived to relate the shortcomings. My own reservations (ie in my own opinion) revolved around the impact of weapons on wooden surfaces/bearers compared with aluminium; alum perforates whereas wood tends to shatter into splinters. There are elastic properties in metals that wood doesn't have.

I didn't describe the Mosquito as weak, I have a healthy admiration for the Mosquito and its capabilities, simply that within the context of this thread, I'd prefer to be in an aluminium aircraft.

Fighter to fighter, I'd take the P-38 over the Mosquito


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 24, 2009)

I think the P38 was a better day fighter then the Mossie but the Mossie probably excelled in all the other roles for a very simple reason the Navigator/Radar operator took much of the onus off the pilot for getting to the destination and finding the target


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Joe it was you and i that had that conversation. I agree with you. But people are trying to say that the Mosquito was also weak in the air. I dont believe that is the case, based on previous conversations that Ive had with people that flew the mosquito
> 
> In the air, the Mosquito was strong, incredibly strong. It was on the gtround that the problems arose


Agree


parsifal said:


> I just assumed that aircraft like the P-51 and Mosquito would be comparable in flying hours.....I suppose that a dangerous assumption......


No worries - From what I understand about 500 hours was usually the max time on most WW2 deployed, multi engine aircraft more. Some of ww2 vets coming on this site may have some info on this. My wife's grandfather was flying a training mission on a B-24 with 1,100 hours when it had a gear collapse on taxi. The plane was scrapped. In today's world 1,100 hours is still considered pretty new.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 24, 2009)

At last - this thread is pulling in useful information.

There is another consideration I'd like to introduce to this thread although it is a thread in it's own right. Today we would call it user friendliness.
Many pilots have said that the Spitfire was a joy to fly, that it made average pilots BETTER. Same for the Hellcat - the "Ace Maker" - stable, forgiving, provided pilots with a margin of error.

Since most wartime pilots (at least prolonged wartime) are going to be AVERAGE - this characteristic of a plane is vital. (I have read that more Me-109 pilots died in training than in combat operations ... true...?)

We know that planes like the Typhoon and Tempest were challenging planes to fly. Likewise the Martin Marauder and the Beaufighter.

So ... you see where I'm going with this logic: Was the P-38 a platform that an average fighter pilot could achieve great results with - or - was it most effective in the hands of an _expert_ like Dick Bong? Likewise for the Mosquito. Did it bring the best out of average pilots?

Anyone .... 

MM


----------



## davebender (Jul 24, 2009)

Not suprising when you consider how quickly the average WWII aircraft was destroyed in combat. The average heavy bomber did not even survive a combat tour of about 25 missions. Fighter aircraft typically did not fare any better.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2009)

These are the roles that the Mosquito was used for on a significant operational level:

PR (PR IV, but many others as well) 
Ultra high altitude PR (eg mk 32)
Very Long range Recon (eg mk34)
Fighter/Fighter Bomber (eg FBVI, XXIV)
Anti-Tank Ship (specialised with 57mm Molins AT gun and extra armour) (Mk XVIII) 
Anti submarine aircraft and maritime patrol (mod Mk XVIII and some Mk 22) 
Long Range strategic Bomber (MkIV, IX,XVI, XX, XXIII, and other variants) 
Long Range Night Fighter (MkII, XII, XIV, XIX, 
Long range High Altitude Night Fighter (NF Mk 30)
LR ECM platform (converted Mk 30s mostly) 
Long range Intruder (converted FB VIs, FB Mk 21s, Mk 26s, and others) 
Land Based Torpedo Strike (TR Mk 33)
Carrier Based Torpedo Strike (TR MK 33)
Long Range Carrier Based Night Fighter and Strike (NF Mk 38)
Target Tugs (converted T Mk III) 
Trainer (T Mk 29)

The Mosquito was the most adaptable airframe of any allied aircraft. The P-38 was a great aircraft, and a superior fighter, it was adaptable, but its record pales when compared to the Mosquito in this regard. The Mosquito continued in front line service until 1955. If that is not an impressive service record, I dont know what will convince you


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> At last - this thread is pulling in useful information.
> 
> There is another consideration I'd like to introduce to this thread although it is a thread in it's own right. Today we would call it user friendliness.
> Many pilots have said that the Spitfire was a joy to fly, that it made average pilots BETTER. Same for the Hellcat - the "Ace Maker" - stable, forgiving, provided pilots with a margin of error.
> ...



Some great questions.

Many WW2 aircraft would be a challenge to fly for pilots with several thousand hours let alone several hundred. IMO the urgency of war placed many pilots in aircraft and flying conditions that would be cringed upon today. I think the average US fighter pilot went into combat during WW2 with about 300 hours. Look how many hours a USAF fighter pilot has before he's let loose in an F-16, almost double and triple that.

Many successful aces who flew more complicated aircraft like the P-38 had some hours under their belts prior to the start of the war. Bong, McGuire, Gerbreski, etc. were well seasoned. There were many other highly experienced pilots who, for one reason or another never made it overseas, primarily because it was deemed that they were needed to train new pilots.

There was also a mindset that fighter pilots had to be young. I think this myth went away by the time the Korean War started, but again, I look at this for another reason why you saw pilots with just a few hundred hours flying Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

In the end, practice and experience makes perfect and personally I think all sides suffered by placing what is viewed in today's word "inexperienced pilots" in combat situations and yes, they did not necessarily operate their aircraft to the fullest of their capability - but they did get the job done!!!

Last point because we're talking about multi engine aircraft. There was not much emphasis on multi-engine training at the start of the war. An engine out on takeoff on most WW2 twin engine aircraft will kill a pilot quicker than any enemy. I don't think twin engine fighters were well received by most fighter pilots unless they were assign to them and learned to master the aircraft.

There have been posts about fighter pilots evaluating aircraft and cockpits and the P-38 was always at the bottom of the list for "layout." Well if you look at the cockpit of the P-38 and the layout of the instruments and controls, little has changed when compared to many twin engine aircraft today. I think those evaluation were done by single engine pilots prejudiced and intimidated by a twin engine fighter aircraft.

My 2 cents


----------



## davebender (Jul 24, 2009)

> An engine out on takeoff on most WW2 twin engine aircraft will kill a pilot quicker than any enemy.


So will an engine out on landing. That is what killed Helmut Lent and he was as good as they get.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

davebender said:


> So will an engine out on landing. That is what killed Helmut Lent and he was as good as they get.


Engine out landings are second in this scenerio. You'll die quicker on an engine out on take off if you're slow to address the emergency or improperly trained.


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 24, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> At last - this thread is pulling in useful information.
> 
> There is another consideration I'd like to introduce to this thread although it is a thread in it's own right. Today we would call it user friendliness.
> Many pilots have said that the Spitfire was a joy to fly, that it made average pilots BETTER. Same for the Hellcat - the "Ace Maker" - stable, forgiving, provided pilots with a margin of error.
> ...



I have read a story regarding the P38 that addresses your question. I am pulling this from my memory, so please bear with me. The author stated that it took a special pilot to make use of the P38, one who knew how to use it's advantages. A pilot who flew it and used the same tactics and flying style as a single engine fighter, would not be able get the most out of the plane. It took very good pilot to fly it effectively. You had 2 of everything to worry about in regards to the engines. It was a very complicated plane to fly from all my reading. The author also wrote that the plane was much more maneuverable than it is given credit for, and when flown correctly was more than a match for most anything when flown by the right pilot. the author claimed you could almost spin the plane on it's axis by increasing throttle on the outside engine of the turn you were turning into. I believe it was in a Flight Journal article. I think it was a hard plane to fly, I do not think a average pilot could get the most out of the plane. I do not think it brought out the best in a average pilot unless they were dropping down on their opponent and making firing passes from a higher altitude.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 24, 2009)

I posted this video on another part of the forum some time ago, but a few of you might have missed it.


Mosquito Construction Reel

Enjoy.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Joe it was you and i that had that conversation. I agree with you. But people are trying to say that the Mosquito was also weak in the air. I dont believe that is the case, based on previous conversations that Ive had with people that flew the mosquito
> 
> In the air, the Mosquito was strong, incredibly strong. It was on the gtround that the problems arose
> 
> I just assumed that aircraft like the P-51 and Mosquito would be comparable in flying hours.....I suppose that a dangerous assumption......



Fatigue is the great killer of airframe structures - Knowledge of aeroelastic effects and fatigue due to reversible loads and high frequency inputs was in its infancy during WWII.

Have no idea what materials properties Mossies had relative to reversible loads. Would think to look to materials degradation due to moisture and bonding failures from glue decomposition as questionmarks?


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 24, 2009)

I'm not adding anything to the debate (I know diddly squat about either aircraft) but if any of you are in or visiting the UK you could do worse than go here:

Mosquito Museum

I never even knew it existed....


----------



## Butters (Jul 24, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Fatigue is the great killer of airframe structures - Knowledge of aeroelastic effects and fatigue due to reversible loads and high frequency inputs was in its infancy during WWII.
> 
> Have no idea what materials properties Mossies had relative to reversible loads. Would think to look to materials degradation due to moisture and bonding failures from glue decomposition as questionmarks?



Wood excels at resisting fatigue. A mature tree is subject to literally millions of bending movements in its lifetime from wind forces. The cellular structure of wood has evolved to deal with this challenge by a complex composition of rigid and flexible components that give it tremendous resistance to the forces of compression, tension, and torsion along its longitidunal axis ( This varies of course,not only with species and individuals within the species, but also within the individual tree itself). that's why wooden boats and ships can handle the constant pounding of the seas for years on end.

Because wood is a structurally complex, and extremely variable(as opposed to metals), engineering with wood is inherently more complex than with metal structures. The strength of a wood component is dependent upon factors like grain. End grain, for example, is highly resistant to compression, but subject to fracture (splitting) Because wood is so variable, and because the properties of a component will differ depending on how it is milled, engineering something like a high-performance a/c from wood is a daunting task. Esp with the types of adhesives and glues that were available during the war.

Not to mention the problems with moisture...The first thing anyone who works with wood learns, is that wood MOVES. Something that has to be kept in mind all the time.

JL


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Butters said:


> Wood excels at resisting fatigue. A mature tree is subject to literally millions of bending movements in its lifetime from wind forces. The cellular structure of wood has evolved to deal with this challenge by a complex composition of rigid and flexible components that give it tremendous resistance to the forces of compression, tension, and torsion along its longitidunal axis ( This varies of course,not only with species and individuals within the species, but also within the individual tree itself). that's why wooden boats and ships can handle the constant pounding of the seas for years on end.
> 
> Because wood is a structurally complex, and extremely variable(as opposed to metals), engineering with wood is inherently more complex than with metal structures


Just some observations
A mature tree is still alive and during its lifetime, can and does constantly repair itself, the moisture inherent within living wood will certainly lend itself to the ductile qualities of the tree whilst stresses in the form of bending movements are imposed upon it; seasoned wood on the other hand, can for the purposes of fatigue, be considered 'dead'.

Are not the bending movements of trees predictable to a large degree, trees normally bend to and fro subject to wind forces in a quasi-periodic manner. The forces subjected on a fighter engaged in manoevres would be more random in nature and could be considered more violent, if shorter in overall duration.

Would you consider that a valid argument?


----------



## Butters (Jul 24, 2009)

Only the few mm's under the bark are actually alive. And I think you're confusing ductility with elasticity. Wood is not a ductile material. It is intrinsically elastic and durable along specific axis. At least the types selected for building a/c components

Even kiln-dried wood normally has a fair amount of moisture, and any exposed wood, esp end-grain, will absorb moisture, so unless the wood is encapsulated in a waterproof coating (Like epoxy), it will eventually reach an equilibrium with the environment.

It doesn't matter whether or not the movement is periodic. The drawing of a wooden bow is very slow compared to the release. All that matters is that the force on the wood does not exceed its strength. The various attachment points of the components are probably the most critical design factors in a well-engineered wooden a/c. Just like a metal one...

JL


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 24, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Would you consider that a valid argument?



No. Each tree has a unique cellular structure and the moment it is cut down other forces come into play. Unless wood is correctly dried (kiln or otherwise) it is prey to shinkage and splitting. I've spent the last thirty years of my life playing with wooden things and unless the correct precautions are taken wood is a very volatile building material.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 24, 2009)

The fuselage of the Mosquito was extremely strong, possibly more so than a metal structure, because there was no internal frame. The fuselage was made as a laminated shell in two halves, rather like the fuselage of a plastic model kit, and the grain of the wood was arranged spirally, and the layers arranged with opposing spiral, this gave immense strength and, as the load was dispersed over the entire surface, a hole in it was less critical than if, say, a major load bearing structure was severed, as could happen with a metal airframe, as there was much more area available to take the strain.

As has been pointed out , its real weak spot was in hot humid conditions, such as the pacific theatre, where not only might the wood rot, but also the glue would literally come unstuck. In ETO however there was no such difficulty.

Here is a photo which shows another aspect of the Mossies survivability. This aircraft of 464Sqn not only had a huge chunk of wing missing, but also only had one engine and few hydraulics, yet made it back to base and a successful landing. Testament to both plane and pilot I'd say.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> I've spent the last thirty years of my life playing with wooden things and unless the correct precautions are taken wood is a very volatile building material.


BINGO!


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The fuselage of the Mosquito was extremely strong, possibly more so than a metal structure, because there was no internal frame. The fuselage was made as a laminated shell in two halves, rather like the fuselage of a plastic model kit, and the grain of the wood was arranged spirally, and the layers arranged with opposing spiral, this gave immense strength and, as the load was dispersed over the entire surface, a hole in it was less critical than if, say, a major load bearing structure was severed, as could happen with a metal airframe, as there was much more area available to take the strain.
> 
> As has been pointed out , its real weak spot was in hot humid conditions, such as the pacific theatre, where not only might the wood rot, but also the glue would literally come unstuck. In ETO however there was no such difficulty.
> 
> Here is a photo which shows another aspect of the Mossies survivability. This aircraft of 464Sqn not only had a huge chunk of wing missing, but also only had one engine and few hydraulics, yet made it back to base and a successful landing. Testament to both plane and pilot I'd say.



I agree strength of Mossie.

Suspec that what is hidden in that picture is a forward spar and what appears to be an aft spar, which combined with ribs and skin would make a very durableand strong design. 

If I were to guess on the design the spars are constant thickness beams rather than typical beam cap/shear web/beam cap designs of aluminum construction


----------



## Waynos (Jul 24, 2009)

Thats right. The front and rear spars were built up from 1/2 inch thick laminated spruce planks, with spruce and birch ribs and stringers and then the laminated wing skin was double thickness on the top surface, single below.


----------



## Butters (Jul 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The fuselage of the Mosquito was extremely strong, possibly more so than a metal structure, because there was no internal frame. The fuselage was made as a laminated shell in two halves, rather like the fuselage of a plastic model kit, and the grain of the wood was arranged spirally, and the layers arranged with opposing spiral, this gave immense strength and, as the load was dispersed over the entire surface, a hole in it was less critical than if, say, a major load bearing structure was severed, as could happen with a metal airframe, as there was much more area available to take the strain.
> 
> As has been pointed out , its real weak spot was in hot humid conditions, such as the pacific theatre, where not only might the wood rot, but also the glue would literally come unstuck. In ETO however there was no such difficulty.
> 
> Here is a photo which shows another aspect of the Mossies survivability. This aircraft of 464Sqn not only had a huge chunk of wing missing, but also only had one engine and few hydraulics, yet made it back to base and a successful landing. Testament to both plane and pilot I'd say.



The method of fuselage construction that you describe is very similar to a method used in building modern wood-epoxy boats. The double diagonal cold-moulded technique results in strong, resiliant and lightweight hulls that are easily a match for fiberglas or metal boats. The method also makes it much easier to form complex compound curves than other techniques.

BTW, I'm a professional home builder/cabinet maker, and have also put in a few years as a boat builder. Unfortunately, I'm now very sensitive to epoxies, so I can only use them on an occassional basis.

JL


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2009)

Butters said:


> The method of fuselage construction that you describe is very similar to a method used in building modern wood-epoxy boats. The double diagonal cold-moulded technique results in strong, resiliant and lightweight hulls that are easily a match for fiberglas or metal boats. The method also makes it much easier to form complex compound curves than other techniques.
> 
> BTW, I'm a professional home builder/cabinet maker, and have also put in a few years as a boat builder. Unfortunately, I'm now very sensitive to epoxies, so I can only use them on an occassional basis.
> 
> JL



epoxy can be nasty stuff - hopefully 'being sensitive' was the only damage?

I have fooled around with the stuff on boats, gunstocks, car bodies and R/C aircraft - have a healthy respect for it!


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Thats right. The front and rear spars were built up from 1/2 inch thick laminated spruce planks, with spruce and birch ribs and stringers and then the laminated wing skin was double thickness on the top surface, single below.



The double thickness on top was a recognition that the major bending due to lift loads were taken out as compression in top skin/beam cap, whereas the bottom skin was in tension. (in general)


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 26, 2009)

A small test for those people who think a plywood airframe is weaker than an aluminium one.

take 2 sheets both the same size and weight 1 of duralium 1 of quality plywood support both sheets around the edge.

Pick up 2 lb 6 oz ball pein hammer and take turns in hitting both sheets with the ball end. I got through the duralium in 11 hits, after 11 hits on the ply it was delaminating and bulging on the underside and it had split from side to side but it was still in one piece. It took 2 more hefty blows to penetrate the ply basically I just punched a big piece of chewed up ply through the sheet.

A rubbish test that proves that I dont want anyone firing bullets at me no matter what the aircraft is built of but its fun smashing things up


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 26, 2009)

fastmongrel said:


> A small test...
> 
> I got through the duralium in 11 hits,
> 
> after 11 hits on the ply it was delaminating and bulging on the underside and it had split from side to side but it was still in one piece


So the alum perforated, the plywood split

If it's split from side to side then it's not in one piece. Now add load forces from an aircraft engaging in violent evasive manoeuvres.

I think some useful points have been made here concerning the viability of wood for airframes construction, I don't think that this was one of them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2009)

Maybe I missed it but what difference does glue make?

Some "wooden" aircraft used wood that was impregenated with large amounts of resin (and not just at joints) and sometimes baked in large ovens. 
In fact some US trainers were refered to as "plastic" aircraft at the time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe I missed it but what difference does glue make?
> 
> Some "wooden" aircraft used wood that was impregenated with large amounts of resin (and not just at joints) and sometimes baked in large ovens.
> In fact some US trainers were refered to as "plastic" aircraft at the time.


The glues used during WW2 will deteriorate over time. Despite being resin impregnated, over time wood structure swells and shrinks depending on the environment.

"Plastic aircraft." Can you show a source for that?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 26, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> So the alum perforated, the plywood split
> 
> If it's split from side to side then it's not in one piece. Now add load forces from an aircraft engaging in violent evasive manoeuvres.
> 
> I think some useful points have been made here concerning the viability of wood for airframes construction, I don't think that this was one of them.



The plywood was in one piece the underside ply had bulged and split after 11 hits but it took another 2 blows to make a hole. The plywood is still in 1 piece and still resists twisting. The duralium with 2 fewer blows has suffered a great deal more damage tearing the holes I drilled to pop rivet it to the frame work and coming away frome the frame. The holes I drilled in the ply are intact and it was not detached from the frame.

I said it was a rubbish test because I am not testing like with like but it is a useful demonstration of the strength ply construction. If you dont believe me go to a timber merchant and get an off cut of half inch ply and start hitting it. Go on hit it harder. Here try a 14 pound sledge hammer hard work isnt it. Now go and find a car prefferably belonging to someone you dont like and have a go with the same tools. Now tell me that wooden ply structures are weak.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2009)

Try:

langley monoplane | flight january | priority materials | 1942 | 0084 | Flight Archive

and:

1941 | 2545 | Flight Archive

For an online source.

See also the 

N2T Tutor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which, although not refered to as "plastic" in Wiki is refered to that way by Joseph Juptner in Vol. 8 of" U.S. Civil Aircraft."

I know that these are not "plastic" in the sense that we think of plastic now but the Langley twin was supposed to use about 60 gal. of Vinyl-resin plastic per airframe.

Vinyl-resin wound up in even shorter supply than aluminium during the war so this construction technique was cut short. 
The long term durability of these resins may or may not have been what the developers hoped for, I don't know. Just pointing out that "wooden" structure may have much more than "wood" contributing to it's strength or structural integrity.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe I missed it but what difference does glue make?



Are you serious?

Think about it, if you use the wrong kind of glue or a glue that will deteriorate faster, what is going to happen to the plane?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 26, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The glues used during WW2 will deteriorate over time. Despite being resin impregnated, over time wood structure swells and shrinks depending on the environment.
> 
> "Plastic aircraft." Can you show a source for that?


might it be the finish applied to the Ryans Pt22 my dad said the ones made in the US had a baked expxy finish


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> might it be the finish applied to the Ryans Pt22 my dad said the ones made in the US had a baked expxy finish



The PT-22 had a metal fuselage from what I remember. Baked epoxy is a paint.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 26, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The PT-22 had a metal fuselage from what I remember. Baked epoxy is a paint.



The wings IIRC correctly amd it was on the PT26 not 22 my error , I was getting a lesson in the difference between the various models and how to tell which company made each one. the easiest way to tell the difference between the Fleet version and the ones made in the US was the baked on finish on the wings whereas the Fleet version looked much cruder with the standard linen


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Think about it, if you use the wrong kind of glue or a glue that will deteriorate faster, what is going to happen to the plane?



Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly.

I was refering to the contribution the glue could make to the structure of the aircraft, both as to strength and ability to absorb damage. 

Some Russian aircraft have been described as being made of "layers of birch strips glued cross grained, impregnated with VIAM-B-3 (phenol-formaldehyde resin, borax and boric acid) -- used in conjuction with bakelite ply( layers of birch strips bonded at 150deg C with bakelite film)" 

This was developed at a Propellor and ski factory and was supposed to be both fire resistant and of greater strength than untreated wood. Experimental spars were constructed for test by the Lavochkin OKB in the Spring of 1939. 

So yes, I am serious. 

What difference can the glue or bonding agent between the layers of "plywood" make in the strength of an aircraft.
Or what differnce is there between "cold molded"--"hot molded" and simply sticking bits and pieces of wood together with glue or trying to use flat sheets of ready made plywood and "bending" them to shape.

Please note that there could be different results even if the "glues" all worked as advertised.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly.
> 
> I was refering to the contribution the glue could make to the structure of the aircraft, both as to strength and ability to absorb damage.
> 
> ...


Different glues for different bonding application as you stated, there are some processes that require heat and pressure. Sometimes these glues deteriorate. Others may cure in a way that vibration and stress loads could cause them to fail, again application dependant.

There's a puplication called AC.4313 put out by the FAA - it has a good chapter on wood


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly.
> 
> I was refering to the contribution the glue could make to the structure of the aircraft, both as to strength and ability to absorb damage.
> 
> ...



As Joe pointed out, depending on the type of glue and where it is being use, and how it is to be applied, can all make the difference.


----------



## flakhappy (Jul 26, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Normal load for the B-17 when bombing targets in Germany was 3600lbs, whereas the Mk XVI had a bulged bomb bay that enabled a 4000lb cookie to be carried to similar targets. The B-17 could carry more bombs over a greater distance, but usually didn't.
> 
> Wood is a good construction material apart from in hot or humid environments. In terms of strength and stiffness/weight it compares very well with aluminium (obviously depends exactly what sort of wood). The laminate used for the Mosquito was fairly damage resilient and gave a nice smooth surface finish, no rivet heads poking into the airflow. Its not possible to say that aluminium is conclusively better for this type of aircraft.



Oops! I have to cut in here and correct that bomb load figure for a B-17. The normal bomb load for a B-17 in the 15th AF (and I presume the 8th) was 6,000 pouinds, except when carrying frag clusters or incendiaries, which were not as compact as regular bombs. I have pulled the safety pins on 12 500 pounders and six 1,000 pounders enough times to be certain on that.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 26, 2009)

I thought the rated load for the B-17 was 8000 lbs whilst the Mossie was 4000. There will always be instances where less warload is carried for certain missions, but as a generalization, surely the Mosquito is a lighter bomber.

Having said that, the Mosquito had two attributes worth noting. Firstly it was highly survivable. I believe (but have not absolutely checked) that it had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any allied bomber used on active operations. It was the only bomber that could attack a target, by day, with relative impunity. Once its bombs were dropped, the unarmed version of the Mosquito was reputed to have a top speed of over 400 mph. Thats fast, very fast. 

The second attribute was its accuracy. It was often used for pinpoint attacks, requiring great levels of accuracy, like its at45tacks on Gestapo HQS that required parts of the building only to be destroyed. I do think that the Mosquito crews were specially trained, certainly the pathfinders were special crews, however the Mosquito was also selected for these missions because of the inherent stability of the platform, according to my human source. He reckons they flew exceedingly pleasantly. They were not docile, but they didnt bounce around the sky whilst you were trying to hit a target.

Both the US and RAF heavy bomber forces had high degres of innaccuracy in their bombing. The mosquito (and other aircraft liker it) dropped a lower load of bombs, but more of those bombs hit the target, and more of the crews dropping those bombs returned alive


----------



## Butters (Jul 26, 2009)

It seems to me that any superiority in the accuracy of Mosquito bombardiers vis others, is either because of superior aiming devices, bombardier training, or most likely (IMO) because the attacks were made at much lower altitudes. 

No WWII bomb can be dropped from 15-25 thousand feet with enough accuracy to hit a specific part of a specific building. You would have to be on the deck to get that kind of result. Something that only an a/c with the speed and manouverability of the Mosquito could possibly do and survive.

JL


----------



## Watanbe (Jul 26, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I thought the rated load for the B-17 was 8000 lbs whilst the Mossie was 4000. There will always be instances where less warload is carried for certain missions, but as a generalization, surely the Mosquito is a lighter bomber.
> 
> Having said that, the Mosquito had two attributes worth noting. Firstly it was highly survivable. I believe (but have not absolutely checked) that it had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any allied bomber used on active operations. It was the only bomber that could attack a target, by day, with relative impunity. Once its bombs were dropped, the unarmed version of the Mosquito was reputed to have a top speed of over 400 mph. Thats fast, very fast.
> 
> ...



Exactly, the Mossie doesn't have to twist and turn with a German fighter, it completes its mission and if something is sent up to intercept the Mossie just opens the throttle and escapes. FB Mossies did shoot down single engine fighters, but I wouldn't imagine them wanting to get in a dog fight. Complete your mission, maybe fire a few shots at an enemy fighter and then get out of there and in that role it was brilliant


----------



## river (Jul 27, 2009)

Hi,



parsifal said:


> Having said that, the Mosquito had two attributes worth noting. Firstly it was highly survivable. I believe (but have not absolutely checked) that it had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any allied bomber used on active operations.



I think the lowest loss rate of Allied bombers goes to the B26 Marauder. However, I am not sure if those stats would include the Mosquito, as it was such a versatile aircraft and calling it a bomber covers only a part of its operations. On the flip side of the coin, maybe they did include the Mosquito in those stats and included all variants under the generic name of "Mosquito".

river


----------



## Glider (Jul 27, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know which bomber had the lowest loss rate but their were major differences between the operations undertaken by the B26 and the Mossquito. B26 operations were almost always undertaken in daylight with heavy fighter escort and didn't go that far into enemy territory. Mosquito's often didn't have any escort and ranged far behind enemy lines including some daylight raids over Berlin.

RAF No 2 Group in 1944 had a loss rate of 1.84% for Mosquito's on daylight raids, whereas its Boston and B25 Squadrons had a loss rate of 0.37% on daylight raids for the year. I recognise that this isn't quite the same as B26 operations by the USAAF but my belief is that the B26 and No 2 Group Bostons and B25's had similar missions.


----------



## bowfin (Feb 24, 2012)

> I've got a Mosquito book (Mosquito at War, Chaz Bowyer- Ian Allen, '73) with plenty of pictures of badly damaged Mossies that made it back home.



They couldn't very well put in any pictures of Mosquitos that were badly damaged that didn't make it home, could they?

An analogy could be made on the premise that dolphins are likely to help injured swimmers because there are stories told by said injured swimmers of dolphins pushing them to shore. For all we know, 99% of the injured swimmers encountered by dolphins are either pulled under or pushed out to sea, but we never hear about THOSE swimmers' experiences.

Likewise, some pictures of heavily damaged Mosquitos might represent the exception rather than the rule. We don't have pictures of a Mosquito burning up from a single 7.7mm incendiary round and crashing into the North Sea because only survivors were photographed.


----------



## bowfin (Feb 24, 2012)

By the way, the above is not a knock on the Mosquito. It was HUGELY successful, and had the added bonus of doing so while saving on aluminum to be used elsewhere.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 24, 2012)

You can't knock the Mossie.
Not only a beautiful aircraft (and genuinely outstanding in its roles, especially unescorted fast high altitude bomber photo reconnaissance) but one that set the rules of the bomber game for the next 20yrs or so too 
(I think it's fair to say from '45 - '65 the orthodoxy was as per the Mossie way, high fast as opposed to the later under the radar necessity of very low a lot more slow).


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 24, 2012)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My recollection is that the loss rates of B-26 vs Mosquito are about equal, around 0.6%. Having said that I don't think the B-26 deserves its good reputation. It neither opperated as deep into Reich terriotory as the Mosquito did and when it did opperate it was at a phase of war that the Luftwaffe was spread very thinly and in decline. A Lockeed Hudson wouldn't have done much worse.

On 0ccaision unescorted B-26's were intercepted by FW 190's the B-26's were totally shredded with loss rates of up to 20% in only a few minutes. Nothing can resist 4 x 20mm guns or worse 2 x 20mm plus 2 x 30mm guns at all. You need to avoid getting hit in the first place with that sort of fire power.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> (I think it's fair to say from '45 - '65 the orthodoxy was as per the Mossie way, high fast as opposed to the later under the radar necessity of very low a lot more slow).



The generals who thought high and fast was the way to go didn't appreciate that the game had changed since WW II. Unless you electronics were better than the defenders, attacking bombers couldn't fly higher or faster than ground based missiles. Since bombers were taking longer to develop than either fighters or missiles the bombers almost never managed to actually outfly the defenders in those decades, no matter what the "next generation"promised. Good EW changed things enough to make it somewhat workable.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 24, 2012)

Hornet construction which was similar to Mossie construction.

The de Havilland "Hornet" "Sea Hornet"


----------



## Glider (Feb 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The generals who thought high and fast was the way to go didn't appreciate that the game had changed since WW II. Unless you electronics were better than the defenders, attacking bombers couldn't fly higher or faster than ground based missiles. Since bombers were taking longer to develop than either fighters or missiles the bombers almost never managed to actually outfly the defenders in those decades, no matter what the "next generation"promised. Good EW changed things enough to make it somewhat workable.



I wouldn't go along with this for the 50's and 60's. The Canberra is probably the best example of an aircraft that could and did fly over Russia with no losses. There was a TV series a couple of years ago about the unadmitted flights over the Soviet block and the most interesting was an interview with an RAF crew. They were asked to fly over a Russian research station they said yes and then found that it was only 50 miles from Moscow and they would have to do it in daylight. They did the misson and described seeing russian fighters trying to get to their altitude and failing, as well as some missile that were fired but were deflected by their counter measures.

Some RAF crews flew US aircraft but these did suffer some losses. I cannot remember the type, but it wasn't a usual one about the size as a Canberra but with four engines. Any ideas welcome from anyone


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2012)

RB-45, a recce version of B-45 Tornado?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 24, 2012)

Glider said:


> I wouldn't go along with this for the 50's and 60's. The Canberra is probably the best example of an aircraft that could and did fly over Russia with no losses. There was a TV series a couple of years ago about the unadmitted flights over the Soviet block and the most interesting was an interview with an RAF crew. They were asked to fly over a Russian research station they said yes and then found that it was only 50 miles from Moscow and they would have to do it in daylight. They did the misson and described seeing russian fighters trying to get to their altitude and failing, as well as some missile that were fired but were deflected by their counter measures.
> 
> Some RAF crews flew US aircraft but these did suffer some losses. I cannot remember the type, but it wasn't a usual one about the size as a Canberra but with four engines. Any ideas welcome from anyone


watched the same show I believe which was aired on PBS , IIRC in the 50's the RAF was given the more daunting tasks in to recce work on the WARPAC using Canberras


----------



## Kryten (Feb 25, 2012)

bowfin said:


> They couldn't very well put in any pictures of Mosquitos that were badly damaged that didn't make it home, could they?
> 
> An analogy could be made on the premise that dolphins are likely to help injured swimmers because there are stories told by said injured swimmers of dolphins pushing them to shore. For all we know, 99% of the injured swimmers encountered by dolphins are either pulled under or pushed out to sea, but we never hear about THOSE swimmers' experiences.
> 
> Likewise, some pictures of heavily damaged Mosquitos might represent the exception rather than the rule. We don't have pictures of a Mosquito burning up from a single 7.7mm incendiary round and crashing into the North Sea because only survivors were photographed.



Not the exception at all, the Mossie was reknown for returning with considerable damage, lots of photographs exist because so many aircraft were able to return damaged, in the same way B17's were, and the notion it would burn out due to incendiaries is also a misconception, many mossies suffered engine damage and fires in combat and still got back.
To understand the strength of the mossie you have to understand how sandwich construction works, one of the reasons modern airliners use sandwich composites is because the skins are bonded over a greater area, unlike a single metal skin which has to be perforated and rivetted to its former (thereby installing failure points), that means the skin is only attached in localised areas, damage in one position can and does lead to increased stresses in the attachment points around it, leading to fatigue failure, the wooden skins bonded to the balsa spacer not only localise damage they spread the load over a much greater area reducing fatigue and stresses. it also insulates heat much better than metals, especially thins metal skins. Mossies frames were treated with flame retardants apparently, and the aircraft was not known as being a fire hazard in flight in any contemporary reports I have seen.

also aluminium has a "memory" you can only stress it so many times before it cracks, the bonded wooden sandwich has very good stress resistance due to the area it is bonded over, but the down side is lifespan due to degradation in the older style bonding agents, this however was no real problem in ETO as the lifespan of the glues was greater than the expected operational life of the aircraft.

it's no accident that most modern aircraft use sandwich composites in thier construction, albeit with more modern materials and epoxies!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2012)

Kryten said:


> also aluminium has a "memory" you can only stress it so many times before it cracks, the bonded wooden sandwich has very good stress resistance due to the area it is bonded over, but the down side is lifespan due to degradation in the older style bonding agents, this however was no real problem in ETO as the lifespan of the glues was greater than the expected operational life of the aircraft.
> 
> it's no accident that most modern aircraft use sandwich composites in thier construction, albeit with more modern materials and epoxies!



All very true but wood structures also loose resiliency when many repairs are done to a given area. Additionally wood repairs require a "cleaner" temperature controlled environment than working on metal aircraft. Back in the day there were still many mechanics around who were skilled in repairing wood structures.


----------



## Kryten (Feb 25, 2012)

yeah thats true, I assume damaged areas were replaced rather than repaired back then? can't see it being practical or advisable to fillet in repairs to a wing etc?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2012)

Kryten said:


> yeah thats true, I assume damaged areas were replaced rather than repaired back then? can't see it being practical or advisable to fillet in repairs to a wing etc?


I think it would depend on the size of the damage. I do know most aircraft have a repair manual that would give limits for repairs, the Mossie being no exception. I've worked on some wood aircraft that have pretty precise limits for damage and repairs. I'm sure de Havilland came up with a methodology to assess repairs and their limits.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 25, 2012)

There were well-established procedures for repairing the Mossie's wooden structure. For example, there was a procedure for replacing substantial sections of the outer wing section. They basically cut through the wing spar and butt-joined the spar for the new wing section onto the old, with strength being provided by the wing surface panels. Amazing but apparently it worked.


----------



## Kryten (Feb 25, 2012)

actually that makes sense if the skins were replaced at the same time, holes in skins will have an allowable size limit as Flyboy mentioned, you have to make some holes for controlls plumbing etc anyway, so theres a specified limit no doubt, as someone who used to build his own race car tubs out of alloy skins and honeycomb I would love to see the repair manual for this?


----------



## parsifal (Feb 27, 2012)

Apologies guys in advance, have not read all the posts. Its been a while since i last visited this thread.

A few observations. Some comments have been made with regard to wooden construction and how it was basically inferior to all metal. Well, its worth noting that the mosquito was not wooden in the traditional sense. it was laminar construction, which conferred a great deal of strength on the airframe, in fact pound for pound it was superior to the metal construction of the time. Its something that many people have a great deal of difficulty accepting. a mosquito was actually stronger as an airframe than any comparable all metal airframe of its time. that means it could pull Gs and take damage better than its supposedly more modern counterparts.

mosquitoes were versatile. They could undertake a wide range of missions. The discussion in this thread seems to have concentrated on the fighter characteristics of the p-38. I will get to the cold hard statistics of the p-38 versus the mosquito in a minute, but if you had a force made up solely of mossies versus a force of nothing but P-38s (and lets compare apples to apples here....if you american enthusiasts are going to call up late war or post war P-38s, then it would only be fair to compare that to the DH Hornet, which was the contemporary of those types) the Mossie would win hands down because the Mossie can do stuff that the p0-38 can only dream about, and at ranges well beyond what the p-38 could do. 

Finally it has been claimed that mosquitoes as fighters could onl;y operate safely at night. Not true. Like all TE fighters, the mossie was not as agile as the SE fighters in a turning fight. But turning fights are just one way to skin a cat, and the mossie enjoyed a great deal of success as a day and night fighter. It is credited with more than 600 air to air kills of German day fighters. some of those kills were at night, some by day, but thats a figure that cannot be dismissed or scoffed at all that easily. 

all of this is not intended to denigrate the p-38. it was a capable, formidable aircraft. but some stuff has been bandied about, suggesting the Mossie was only good at night, had no chance agaist SE fighters etc that is just not supported by the known facts


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2012)

I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.

The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.

I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.

For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
> 
> The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
> 
> ...



The superior range and load carry capacity (not simultaneously I would suggest) would seem to come at the expense of external carriage of fuel and munitions which would spoil the penetration speed. The mosquito could carry its bombs internally and achieve substantial range. In addition it could carry Jettison tanks under the outer wings.

If a P-38 did actually carry external bombs they would slow it down enough to get within interception capabillity. As a night fighter there P-38's nose was too small to handle 9cm centrimetric radar, it had to wait for the smaller 3cm systems and then mounted on an external pod.

Given the Mosquitos advantage of ease of 2 crew, more volume for avionics, internal carriage it would be harder to give up.

As recon mounts the P-38 (F-5) would however be at no disadvantage.

Granted the turbo-allison has better fuel consumption


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
> 
> The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
> 
> ...



It's a little unfair comparing a B.IV with a P-38J. Better using a B.XVI or PR.XVI.

The B.IV had the single stage 20-series Merlins, the B.IX, PR.IX, B.XVI and PR.XVI used the two stage 70-series Merlins. The XVI had a blower for cabin pressurisation.

The B.XVI had a top speed of 408mph when carrying a 4000lb "cookie". And it could carry it to Berlin. The P-38 could carry 4000lbs but not that far and not as fast.

Mosquitos were reknowned for their high cruise speeds - higher than se fighters certainly.

Overall the comparison between the two is unfair to both. The P-38 was a fighter that could carry a bomb load, and the Mosquito is a bomber which could be converted to a fighter.


----------



## Glider (Feb 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
> 
> The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
> 
> ...



What the P38 couldn't do was carry 3000lb of bombs nearly as far as the Mosquito, or nearly as fast. A Mossie carrying 4,000lb could top 400mph and the Mossie could carry that payload to Berlin. As a bomber the Mossie has it.

As PR machine its worth remembering that the 8th Air Force wanted PR Mossies or PR Spits in preference to the F5 P38. They received The Spit XI which was used on the more dangerous PR missions, the F5 being used for the other tasks. The loss rate of the F5 was much higher.

As a NF there is no question that the Mossie has it, equally as a day fighter the P38 rules.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
> 
> The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
> 
> ...


read a book about a guy whu used both the P38 and Mosquito in his busuness of aerial surveys of the north , he preffered the Mossquito over the 38 because it was far easier to keep in the air (far less snags) particularly as he and his photo guy were resposible for the maintainence in places far away from normal facilities, His major complaint on the Mosquito was lack of hydraulic resovoir (vey scary with runaway prop) and he called the turbo or supercharge system of P38 very labour intensive . Can't really knock this guys opinions as he flew 1000's of hours in both


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 27, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> read a book about a guy whu used both the P38 and Mosquito in his busuness of aerial surveys of the north ,



He probably complained about the heater as well...


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2012)

I KNEW I'd get some replies to the post above. Thanks!

The cruise speeds I see listed for the bombers are in the 250 mph range, with absolute maximum speeds in the 388 - 415 mph range, except for one PR version listed as 436 mph at height. The PR wasn't a bomber, and the fastest bomber I can find is listed at 408 mph top speed, which is hardly an operational speed on a mission. It MIGHT get that fast if desperately trying to run away from attacking fighters, but would never get that fast otherwise. The Mosquito pilots we have had give talks at our museum usually quote the high-speed ingress as about 350 - 360 mph unless they needed to go a bit faster for evasion. True, the Mosquito carried its armament internally and that is, indeed, a plus in the bomber mode. 

Of course, the P-38 was never built as a bomber. It was a fighter and was superior to the Mopsquito as a fighter in every respect.

No question that turbochargers were higher maintenance than superchargers. The exhaust heat was the issue, and it still is today.

I'll concede the Mosquito makes a better bomber.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He probably complained about the heater as well...


the guy flew years in the north, he became pretty much an authority on "cold soaking" shutting downn an aircraft in very cold temps and making it easy to start next day . Good book called "Altimeter Rising " by Al Macnutt my copy is floating around somewhere on a A340


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Feb 27, 2012)

In all honesty, I do believe the P-38's multi-role abilities have been under-rated in this thread. There's no doubt in my mind that the Mossie was a better bomber with its larger bomb load. Not to mention it was a better night fighter than the P-38M. But, considering that, the P-38 had a number of performance advantages. It was a smaller aircraft, was quieter, had a longer range (Mosquito NF Mk 30: 1299 miles P-38J: 2237 miles), was more maneuverable, as far as I know the P-38 was faster (Mosquito NF Mk 30: 407 mph P-38J: 414 mph), and had a higher service ceiling (Mosquito NF Mk 30: 38,025 ft P-38J: 43963 ft). That said, you'd never freeze to death in the Mossie and, as far as I know, it never had compressibility issues.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2012)

I've encountered a range figure of 1650 miles (internal bombload of ??? weight, Fb. VI), and even 3500 miles (PR.34, fuel in bulged bomb bay + 2 x 200 imp gal drop tanks).
Any plane that had good range, good performance in most altitudes, and great punch, was a great asset for any airf orce. Both P-38 Mossie were blessed with such important properties and we can be grateful that those planes were flying for Allied side back in WW2.


----------



## Kryten (Feb 27, 2012)

really comparing apples and pears here, the P38 was a fighter that could be used as a strike aircraft, the mossie was a strike aircraft that could be used as a fighter, the mossie was an outstanding success from the start, the P38 took several less than stellar marks to mature into the P38L, the P38 was surpassed by superior aircraft in it's role, yet the Mossie was not really surpassed in it's roles by any allied aircraft, I dont think they are comparable really!


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> In all honesty, I do believe the P-38's multi-role abilities have been under-rated in this thread. There's no doubt in my mind that the Mossie was a better bomber with its larger bomb load. Not to mention it was a better night fighter than the P-38M. But, considering that, the P-38 had a number of performance advantages. It was a smaller aircraft, was quieter, had a longer range (Mosquito NF Mk 30: 1299 miles P-38J: 2237 miles), was more maneuverable, as far as I know the P-38 was faster (Mosquito NF Mk 30: 407 mph P-38J: 414 mph), and had a higher service ceiling (Mosquito NF Mk 30: 38,025 ft P-38J: 43963 ft). That said, you'd never freeze to death in the Mossie and, as far as I know, it never had compressibility issues.



Would not 2237 miles be the ferry range of a P-38J?

1299 miles for a NF30 looks a lot like internal fuel only.

The P-38J was faster than 414mph (around 440mph IIRC). The NF30 was also faster than 407mph (424mph).


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> I KNEW I'd get some replies to the post above. Thanks!
> 
> The cruise speeds I see listed for the bombers are in the 250 mph range, with absolute maximum speeds in the 388 - 415 mph range, except for one PR version listed as 436 mph at height. The PR wasn't a bomber, and the fastest bomber I can find is listed at 408 mph top speed, which is hardly an operational speed on a mission. It MIGHT get that fast if desperately trying to run away from attacking fighters, but would never get that fast otherwise. The Mosquito pilots we have had give talks at our museum usually quote the high-speed ingress as about 350 - 360 mph unless they needed to go a bit faster for evasion. True, the Mosquito carried its armament internally and that is, indeed, a plus in the bomber mode.
> 
> ...



Thee wasn't much difference between a PR and bomber version of the Mosquito.

350-360mph would be their cruise speed on the way to target.

408mph for the XVI was, I believe, the top speed with cookie. So it could go faster on the return journey.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2012)

Glider said:


> What the P38 couldn't do was carry 3000lb of bombs nearly as far as the Mosquito, or nearly as fast. A Mossie carrying 4,000lb could top 400mph and the Mossie could carry that payload to Berlin. As a bomber the Mossie has it.
> 
> As PR machine its worth remembering that the 8th Air Force wanted PR Mossies or PR Spits in preference to the F5 P38. They received The Spit XI which was used on the more dangerous PR missions, the F5 being used for the other tasks. The loss rate of the F5 was much higher.
> 
> As a NF there is no question that the Mossie has it, equally as a day fighter the P38 rules.



I would think that the Mosquito would be able to carry more and larger cameras - the F5's being stuck in the not huge nose.


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Feb 27, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Would not 2237 miles be the ferry range of a P-38J?
> 
> 1299 miles for a NF30 looks a lot like internal fuel only.
> 
> The P-38J was faster than 414mph (around 440mph IIRC). The NF30 was also faster than 407mph (424mph).


I'm sorry, I'm not following you on "ferry range"

I'd imagine that is internal fuel capacity of the Mossie

I thought the same regarding top speeds also. I'm quoting off militaryfactory.com, so maybe it was the altitude the speed was being measured at that lowballed the results?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 27, 2012)

If the P-38 was to top 420 mph in level flight, that was the capability of the XP-38K and, maybe, P-38L with V-1710 over-revved at 3200 rpm (making 1700+ HP). Other P-38s were capable up to 415 mph.
Ferry range would be a distance of a flight from point A to point B; combat radius involves combat return to the originating airstrip. Combat radius is roughly 1/3rd of ferry range, but obliviously it depends on many things that might happen to a plane. Some planes were not able to easily drop the biggest drop tanks, so that should be taken into account.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2012)

Ferry range would, I presume, involve maximum fuel with minimum or no ammunition, and running at the best speed for economy for the whole flight.


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Feb 27, 2012)

Ahhh, ok. I'm not good with terms . Anyways, yes I'm pretty sure that would be ferry range under optimal conditions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 27, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> Ahhh, ok. I'm not good with terms . Anyways, yes I'm pretty sure that would be ferry range under optimal conditions


 
Given that the Mk XVI, quite similar to the NF Mk 30, had a range of 1800 miles with wing tanks (but no external tanks) and a 2,000 lbs bomb load, I doubt that the 1300 miles is ferry range.

For absolute distance, the best Mossie would be the PR Mk 34, which had a range of* 3755* miles at 290 mph, still air cruising speed. At 330 mph, it could do 2865 miles.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> Given that the Mk XVI, quite similar to the NF Mk 30, had a range of 1800 miles with wing tanks (but no external tanks) and a 2,000 lbs bomb load, I doubt that the 1300 miles is ferry range.
> 
> For absolute distance, the best Mossie would be the PR Mk 34, which had a range of* 3755* miles at 290 mph, still air cruising speed. At 330 mph, it could do 2865 miles.



The ferry range we were talking about was the 2237 miles for a P-38J.

1300 miles for a NF30 would be internal fuel only.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

The Mossie could fly the pond unrefuelled I'm not so sure the P38 could , they were staged across Goose/gander Greenland Iceland and the Mossies flew direct from either Goose Or Gander


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Feb 27, 2012)

I do believe that 1300 miles is the ferry range as that is what I've been getting from every website. And 3755 miles is VERY impressive. I know the P-38 couldn't reach that without external fuel stores. But, as far as I know, the Mk 34 was specifically just for photo-recon and I'm pretty confident that other war-time Mossies couldn't come close to that figure on internal fuel (correct me if I'm wrong)

And from what I've been reading, the P-38 sounds like it had a longer operation range than the Mossie. Maybe they were staged across Greenland/Iceland because it was a lot less risky to go trans-Atlantic? I'd imagine a decent amount more aircraft could be lost/damaged going trans-Atlantic than having a stop or two to refuel and/or do maintenance


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> And from what I've been reading, the P-38 sounds like it had a longer operation range than the Mossie. Maybe they were staged across Greenland/Iceland because it was a lot less risky to go trans-Atlantic? I'd imagine a decent amount more aircraft could be lost/damaged going trans-Atlantic than having a stop or two to refuel and/or do maintenance


One of the reasons for the short P38 hops was a poor navigational skill set of the pilots


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2012)

Now we have people saying the planes were faster than reported!

Sorry guys, they weren't faster. A Mosquito quoted at 408 mph went that fast ± a few mph, not 424 mph. Just like all the other WWII aircraft met their factory specs. Production aircraft varied a few mph, but not by many.

WWII aircraft weregenerally as good as their specifications when relatively new and clean. As they aged or got dirty, they got worse than specification, not better.

Still happens today.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 27, 2012)

GregP said:


> . As they aged or got dirty, they got worse than specification, not better.
> 
> Still happens today.


My Dad who was an AME in 1938 says the exact same thing to make an aircraft perform better clean it , and most forget all the accumulated dirt inside which weighs a few pounds


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2012)

Yeah, the average light plane that stays in a hangar gains about 5 poun ds per year. If left outside, it is bad enough that it has to be cleaned every few years or it really starts to get heavy.

I once flew a new Cessan 172 ... really, it had 25 hours on it and I was the first person to rent it. It climbed at EXACTLY book value for the weight and cruised at EXACTLY book value for the weight, altitude, and power setting. 4 years later the same planes was 3 - 4 mph slower and 80 fpm less climb. Not a bad degradation, but the prop gets nicks, the paint gets rough, and the dirt adds up.

It does the same for fighters that live outside in what is basically a farmer's field in WWII ... probably a bit worse.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> If the P-38 was to top 420 mph in level flight, that was the capability of the XP-38K and, maybe, P-38L with V-1710 over-revved at 3200 rpm (making 1700+ HP). Other P-38s were capable up to 415 mph.
> Ferry range would be a distance of a flight from point A to point B; combat radius involves combat return to the originating airstrip. Combat radius is roughly 1/3rd of ferry range, but obliviously it depends on many things that might happen to a plane. Some planes were not able to easily drop the biggest drop tanks, so that should be taken into account.



Some planes are going to have radius of 1/4 or less than their ferry range because in order to carry the fuel for the ferry mission and still stay within weight limits they carried no ammo and in some cases no guns. Practically ANY flight maneuvers were prohibited (even a hard turn) while the tanks were near full.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 28, 2012)

GregP said:


> Now we have people saying the planes were faster than reported!
> 
> Sorry guys, they weren't faster. A Mosquito quoted at 408 mph went that fast ± a few mph, not 424 mph. Just like all the other WWII aircraft met their factory specs. Production aircraft varied a few mph, but not by many.
> 
> ...


 
According o the pilots that flew them, Mosquito B Mk XVIs with the 4000 lbs cookie bombload were able to do a maximum of 408 mph with a full bombload, but 416 mph with bombs gone and half load of fuel.

B Mk XVI speeds also varied due to the different engines fitted, Merlin 72/73 in the first 80, Merlin 77/76 in subsequent deliveries.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 28, 2012)

GregP said:


> Now we have people saying the planes were faster than reported!
> 
> Sorry guys, they weren't faster. A Mosquito quoted at 408 mph went that fast ± a few mph, not 424 mph. Just like all the other WWII aircraft met their factory specs. Production aircraft varied a few mph, but not by many.
> 
> ...



There were many different versions of Mosquito with different types of engine.

The Mosquito B.XVI had a top speed with full bomb load of 408mph. The B.IV with ejector exhausts 380mph, B.IV with saxaphone exhausts (early models) around 365mph. The FB.VI around 370mph, IIRC, and the NF.30 424mph.

The RAE and AE&EE also did a lot of testing with different surface finishes to see how that affect speed.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2012)

Absolutely correct wuzak. Good catch


----------



## Arossihman (Mar 4, 2012)

P-38 J or L all day long for me!


----------



## wuzak (Mar 5, 2012)

Arossihman said:


> P-38 J or L all day long for me!



For what role?

Definitely better as a day fighter.

But as a night fighter, bomber or PR aircraft I would say not.

As a fighter bomber that would be the most debatable. The P-38 could carry a heavier bomb load than the FBVI Mossie, but not as far. It was far more capable in air to air combat, but the FBVI had more punch (4 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303" vs 1 x 20mm + 4 x 0.50").


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

Perhaps it was too bad that P-38 was conceived as a twin-boom plane, instead of being a 'classic' twin engined one? The pod was pretty restricting in regard to addition of another crew member, fuel, maybe some small bomb bay (size of Avenger's split longitudinally?) etc. 
Of course, a second source of P-38s would've been even nicer, even if that one is producing non-turbo ones


----------



## wuzak (Mar 5, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Perhaps it was too bad that P-38 was conceived as a twin-boom plane, instead of being a 'classic' twin engined one? The pod was pretty restricting in regard to addition of another crew member, fuel, maybe some small bomb bay (size of Avenger's split longitudinally?) etc.
> Of course, a second source of P-38s would've been even nicer, even if that one is producing non-turbo ones



The twin boom was fine for its original purpose - that of a fighter/interceptor. I'm sure the thought of converting into a night fighter/recon aircraft/bomber wasn't high on teh agenda during the design and development phase.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2012)

Id even be careful in claiming the P-38 was a more important day fighter. From memory (and im happy to be corrected by you guys) my understanding is that he m ossie was responsible for shooting down over 600 LW day fighters, whilst the P-38, i seem to remember something like 200. The Mossie, whilst a classic TE fighter was still a formidable opponent under any circumstance. Its ability as a fighter, day or night ought not be under estimated


----------



## Arossihman (Mar 6, 2012)

wuzak said:


> For what role?
> 
> Definitely better as a day fighter.
> 
> ...



Day fighter and fighter bomber for sure...but why not as a night fighter?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The twin boom was fine for its original purpose - that of a fighter/interceptor. I'm sure the thought of converting into a night fighter/recon aircraft/bomber wasn't high on teh agenda during the design and development phase.



You're right about the intended purpose.
OTOH, even without the bomb bay, the classic twin offers more useful volume; even the single engined fighters were usually turned into two-seaters without much trouble. And the P-38 in classic layout would've had more space/voulme to offer than those.



parsifal said:


> Id even be careful in claiming the P-38 was a more important day fighter. From memory (and im happy to be corrected by you guys) my understanding is that he m ossie was responsible for shooting down over 600 LW day fighters, whilst the P-38, i seem to remember something like 200. The Mossie, whilst a classic TE fighter was still a formidable opponent under any circumstance. Its ability as a fighter, day or night ought not be under estimated



Mossie waged the war mostly in ETO, unlike the P-38 that was present in Pacific in good numbers, and was credited for 3785 kills, total. 
I agree that it would be good if someone could provide some good numbers of kills for both planes; maybe it was the mistake for not using Mossies as a day fighter in the PTO/CBI? Guess the production was not up for all the tasks Mossie was useful for.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 6, 2012)

My db has 1,353 claims for enemy aircraft destroyed air-to-air by Mosquitos, however of that 89 are Fw 190s and 34 are Bf 109s. The 190s are actually easier to identify, since many of them were claimed by Mossie nightfighters over the UK against 190s on raids.

As for why one would support the Mossie over the 38 as a night-fighter: the Mossie had a proven track record as a night fighter over the last three years of the war, the 38 not so much.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 6, 2012)

Arossihman said:


> Day fighter and fighter bomber for sure...but why not as a night fighter?



The Mosquito carried a better radar, and the radar operator had better accomodations.


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2012)

As far as I know, the combat records as a fighter are as follows:

Lockheed P-38 Lightning
First combat kill: 14 Aug 1942, Fw 200. The top 28 P-38 Lightning Aces were all in the PTO with a combined 427.5 kills.

Kills in USAAF Service: ETO: 497; MTO: 1,431; PTO: 1,700; CBI: 157; Total: 3,785

De Havilland Mosquito
In USAAF Service:
ETO: 1

In British service:
ETO, Night fighter: about 600 kills

So, in the fighter role, the P-38 was slightly more than 6 times as effective in kills.

Give me a P-38 any day and I'll come out ahead.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 7, 2012)

What a strange way to use statistics.

As the Mosquito killed ~600 V1s and P-38s killed none, you could use the same logic to claim that the Mosquito was an infinitely better V1 killer that the P-38...

Given that only 6710 Mosquito's were built during the war period (of 7785 total, compared to the 10,037 P-38s), but only ~4100 of those in wartime service had fixed armament, you could also adjust that 6:1 statistic downwards notably. 

Statistics for Mosquito claims I've seen online indicate somewhere between 640 and 850 aircraft kills claimed.

Part of the problem is that the Mossie was so widely distributed in such a profusion of roles. The lower number (640) appears to be for ETO night claims only.

I'm unsure whether the upper number includes FC/ADGB, 2TAF and Coastal Command claims in daylight and/or any claims made in the PTO and MTO. There were at least five Mosquito F/B units operational in Italy and the Med and a couple in the PTO (although I know the RAAF didn't make any claims with its Mossies in the PTO), so there may be more. The Banff Strike Wing alone claimed ~20 aircraft with Mossies. 

I've got some Mosquito and RAF ETO claims/losses books at home, so I'll do some checking.


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2012)

The P-38 flew for the U.S.A. in ALL roles and did very well in all. It killed more than six times as many enemy aircaft as the Mosquito. It was never employed in the V-1 killer role, but where did you get the Mosquito V-1 kill total? All in all a non-maneuvering target. All you need to do is get behind it and shoot. A tough job, huh? It doesn't shoot back.

Give me a P-38 any time.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 7, 2012)

GregP said:


> The P-38 flew for the U.S.A. in ALL roles and did very well in all. It killed more than six times as many enemy aircaft as the Mosquito.



As above, the P-38 claimed three times as many enemy aircraft as the Mossie, not six. One can hardly claim the 38 did well as a night fighter, or as a night intruder, come to think of it.

Preferences are personal, no argument there.


----------



## GregP (Mar 7, 2012)

Opinions work both ways. My numbers are as posted. Give me a P-38 any day.

If you have sources for other numbers, then please post the numbers so I can see them.

WWII kills by types are difficult to get, but you DO run acroos them occasionally, albeit mostly without corroborating sources ... mostly just a short sentence that a particular type shot down so many aircraft.

I go my P-38 numbers from a US Governemt summary report of WWII by theater of operations. The Mosquito numbers come from whatever I could find on the net and may well have left out some kills that simply don't get mentioned very often. Either way, as a fighter, the P-38 was considerably more effective over its service in the war. Since it was designed as a fighter, I'd employ it as such. 

The Mosquito was designed as a bomber / recon platform and did well at those tasks, no question. But the P-38 did well in those tasks, too, when called upon to do so.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 7, 2012)

Kills in USAAF Service: ETO: 497

ETO, Night fighter: about 600 kills

Would say the Mossie is the better fighter in the ETO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2012)

What would be the numbers involved, P-38 vs. Mossie, against what targets?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2012)

Milosh - what is your source for ETO destroyed credits? 

The total 8th AF credits per USAF Study 85 has 281 total air to air victory credits for the P-38's in 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FG - oct 1943-Sep 1944. I will have to look at 9th AF but probable the 367/369 and 474 contributed another 200+ to get to 497..


----------



## Milosh (Mar 7, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Milosh - what is your source for ETO destroyed credits?
> 
> The total 8th AF credits per USAF Study 85 has 281 total air to air victory credits for the P-38's in 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th FG - oct 1943-Sep 1944. I will have to look at 9th AF but probable the 367/369 and 474 contributed another 200+ to get to 497..



Post #123

tomo, Greg is using the number of a/c shot down, thus in the ETO, the Mossie was the more effective fighter as it shot down more a/c.

One could ask your question for the PTO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2012)

I was asking about the numbers of P-38s that were to make those 497 kills in ETO, it's not stated neither at the post 123 (typo?) nor 133. Ditto for Mossie. 
Along with what type of their targets we are dealing with - 300 mph twins for Mossie, 400 mph singles for p-38?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2012)

It sounds like much too simplistic an approach. For instance we know that in the ETO almost as soon as the P-38 showed up in any numbs at all they were shuffled off to the MTO to support Operation Torch and that the actual build up of P-38 units in the ETO was slow to non-existent for a while as most/all new P-38s were sent to replace/reinforce the units in North Africa and then into Italy. Months passed between the P-38 "showing up" in Europe and combat operations being undertaken in any numbers in Europe because the Majority of the P-38s NOT in the Pacific were in the Med.
Same goes for the night fighter role. With something like only 75 P-38s equipped with radar and those late in the war the P-38 simply had no opportunity to prove itself one way or the other as a night fighter with combat results.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 7, 2012)

My primary sources are as below. 

605
"2nd Tactical Air Force, Volume 1"
"2nd TAF"
"Fighters Over Tunisia"
"Steinbock" excerpt from Simon Parry and Brian Bines
"Those Other Eagles"
12 O'Clock High! Bulletin Board.
23 Squadron ORB
2nd TAF
333 Squadron ORB
418 City of Edmonton Squadron History
418 Squadron Operations Record Book and Original Combat Report
456 Squadron Operations Record Book
464 Squadron Operations Record Book
605
A History of Number 68 Squadron
A Most Secret Squadron
A Separate Little War
Aces High
AIR 14/3085 
AIR 50/11
Air 50/11 - 104/5
AIR 50/139
AIR 50/140
AIR 50/146
Air 50/15
Air 50/15-72
AIR 50/164 - 256
AIR 50/169
AIR 50/240/11
AIR 50/240/13
AIR 50/301
AIR 50/41
AIR 50/42
AIR 50/84
Air Enthusiast # 45
Air Pictorial, February 1982
AIR50 /168
AIR50/125
AIR50/146
AIR50/15
AIR50/66/277
Bloody Biscay
Carsten Petersen
CGE 1501~1600
China Diary
Chris Goss
Chris Royston
Confounding the Reich
David Pausey
de Havilland Mosquito
Diver, Diver, Diver
Erich Brown
Fighter Command Losses
Fighter Command War Diaries
Fighter Command War Diaries volume 4
Fighter Command War Diaries volume 4.
Fighter Command War Diaries Volume 5
Fighter Command War Diaries, vol. 4
Fighter Command War Diaries, Volume 4
Fighter Nights
Fighters Over Tunisia
Flight Journal, June 2004
Flypast Magazine
Frank Olynyk
Geoff Bennet's logbook, via Danny Hill
http://bb.1asphost.com/lesbutler/tony/tonywood.htm
1944 in aviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ju 88 lost or damaged on 25th February 1944 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
V-1 bombs shot down by U.S. Air Force - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
V-1 flying bombs - Page 2 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.myring/beau/bios/mansfeld.html
Mosquito vs. Me 410 by Mark Beckwith (Tamiya and Revell 1/48)
Jan Josef ?afa?ík
http://tonywood.cjb.net/
http://www.151squadron.org.uk/
Battle of Britain Signed Photographs
BBC - WW2 People's War
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/V1/v1_info/vi_info.php
http://www.geocities.com/Mohikanie/307/
http://www.geocities.com/Mohikanie/307/307Story.html
http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/04-05.asp?id=print
http://www.luftwaffe.no/RAFClaims.html
http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2-2RAF/c9.html
http://www.rafandluftwaffe.info/lists/raf1b.htm
RAF night fighter claim 31.10. to 01.11.1944
W/O J J P McGale, RCAF
Sorties flown by RAF Banff Strike Wing 1943 - 1945, Scotland - UK
http://www.shrani.si/f/1a/dK/CUQg7HD/yucrashes.xls
Second World War Books: Review, citing Beale, Nick; Ferdinando D'Amico; and Gabriele Valentini. Air War Italy, 1944-45: The Axis Air Forces from the Liberation of Rome to the Surrender. Shrewsbury: Airlife Publishing Ltd, 1996. 232 pag
MS
Hugh Halliday
Internet Posting (Alex Crawford)
Internet Posting (Norway LW losses). Luftwaffe in Norway
Internet Posting (Norway LW losses). http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/Losses/Losses.html/df
Internet posting.
INTRUDER, The history of No. 418 Squadron. BY SQUADRON LEADER A. P. HEATHCOTE Air Historical Branch
Jan Horn
KG 55 Losses List
mailto:[email protected]
Mark Huxtable
MH Research
MIDNIGHT IS STILL NOON FOR NIGHTHAWKS, The history of No. 409 Squadron, by FLIGHT LIEUTENANT F. J. HATCH RCAF Air Historical Section
Moskitopanik
Mosquito
Mosquito Aces of World War Two
Mosquito Monograph
Mosquito nad Piest'anmi
Mosquito Squadrons of the RAF
New Zealand Fighter Pilots Museum
Newsletter of the Mosquito Aircrew Association, #24
Newsletter of the Mosquito Aircrew Association, #28
Newsletter of the Mosquito Aircrew Association, #29
Newsletter of the Mosquito Aircrew Association, #6
Night Fighter Navigator
Night Flyer
Night Intruder
Original Combat Report
Original logbook
Osprey 9
Pursuit Through Darkened Skies
RAF Commands Forum
Richard Oxby
Rod McKenzie
Six Aces
Squadron ORB
Stormbirds.com
Strathroy Age Dispatch (Strathroy Age Dispatch - Ontario, CA)
Terror in the Starboard Seat
The Gestapo Hunters
The Men Who Flew The Mosquito
The Mossie, Number 24
The Red Eagles
The Reich Intruders
www.151squadron.org.uk
The Mosquito Page
www.tonywood.cjb.net


Tried to post supporting sources, board wouldn't take the post.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 7, 2012)

double-post


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 7, 2012)

the value of comparating claims is zero, first that are claims, second how many fighters claimed that numbers? i.e. if 300 P-38 kills 500 E.A. and 100 Mosquito kills 300 E.A. is' clear that Mosquito is best but if wee have only that unk number of P-38 claimed tot E.A. and a unk number of Mosquito claimed tot E.A. we have nothing


----------



## Kryten (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm just trying to get my head around how anyone can compare the p38 to the Mossie, the Mossie was a fighter bomber/bomber/maritime strike/recon/nightfighter, the P38 was a fighter that could drop bombs if required, if your using the number of aircraft shot down as a yardstick to claim the P38 was superior, its a farce, how about comparing the number of ships sunk?, how about the number of low level special operations attacks?, how about tha ability to carry a cookie?, we can cherry pick all day but your not going to send a P38 to do a Mossies job any more than your going to send a Mossie to do a P38's job, if you want to compare a plane to the P38 then the Tempest, or the P47 is a far more logical choice!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 7, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Kills in USAAF Service: ETO: 497
> 
> ETO, Night fighter: about 600 kills
> 
> Would say the Mossie is the better fighter in the ETO.


 
I've done a count of ETO Mossie kill claims between July 1943 and May 1945 (using John Foreman's _Fighter Command War Diaries, Vols 4 5_). 

Total for Mosquito day and night claims for this period is *1175*. This is for Fighter Command, Air Defence Great Britain, 2TAF and 100 Group.

Obviously, this doesn't include kills between May 1942 and June 1943, the early operational period for the Mossie. Nor does it include claims by Coastal Command.

It also doesn't include claims by Mossies outside of Western Europe. There were plenty of Mosquito operations in North Africa, Malta, Sicily and Italy (where, as in Europe, the RAF had primary responsibility for night fighting), as well as Far Eastern operations (where there was very little night fighting). 

If anything, I'd suggest that mxhunt's figure of *1353* air-to-air claims may be an underestimation of total Mosquito claims.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2012)

To work out the effectiveness of each type as fighters, I think at some point you would have to look at the numbers of fighter sorties each type made and when. this is still rather meaningless as a number since a sortie flown in 1942 against the highly trained experten crews helping to defend in the west are going to be much tougher opponents than a rookie flying a 109 in say august 1944 with say 100 hours under his belt. Then there are issues like the numbers, proximity and so many other variables that just make such comparisons impossible.

The best we can do is look at the key characteristics of each type. I would suggest the following are relevant (incidentally, if you want to be fair, compare subtypes that are contemporary to each other....Mosquitoes were operational at a time most of the p-38 subtypes were just an engineers wet dream):

Speed, Dive rate, climb rate, turn radius, weight of shell per minute, armour protection, fire resistancce, stability as a gun platform

Start looking at those values and you might get a clearer picture on the relative strengths of each type as a fighter


----------



## GregP (Mar 10, 2012)

P-38’s were in USAAF service in the ETO from near the end of 1942, and got their first kill in Aug 1942 while being ferried to the ETO. The first ETO kill on an ETO mission was in April 1943. By September 1944, the Lightning was withdrawn for the ETO as a fighter due to a low limitng Mach number of 0.68, though it DID stay on a PR plane. Most Lightnings went to PTO and the low limiting Mach number was fixed with the P-38J. So the P-38 was basically in ETO service for 13 - 14 months and scored 497 kills. That’s 35.5 to 38.2 kills per month of service, counting September 1944, at which time the Lightnings were gone.

The Mosquito entered RAF service in 1941 and served for the entire war thereafter. It served for 4.5 years. Let’s say the Mosquito claimed about 1,700 kills, if the numbers sent to me are corect (I can't say). That’s generally in the same ballpark, at 31.5 kills per month.

So in the ETO, the two were apparently about equally effective.

Overall, in all theaters of USAAF operation, the Lightning was in USAAF service for 4.5 years and shot down 3,785 enemy aircraft. That’s about 70.1 enemy aircraft per month, and that is WAY better than any Mosquito unit ever achieved.

As I said, give me a P-38 any day all day long, unless I needed a bomber for a mission. As a bomber the Mosquito was very probably better, though I'd still take a squadron of P-38's over a squadron of Mosquitos.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 10, 2012)

The FBVI didn't enter service until 1943. The FII didn't do much before it became the NFII. And until 1943/44 NFs didn't go into Europe, staying home and defending British airspace.

The Mosquito was much more useful as a bomber, a PR aircraft and a night fighter. As a fighter the P-38 wins hands down, and as a fighter bomber you could probably go either way - remembering that the P-38's range was restricted quite a bit when carrying bombs.

So, what you want to achieve with the aircraft determines the final choice. If you wanted a fighter, go the P-38, but if you wanted a PR, bomber or NF aircraft go teh Mosquito.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 10, 2012)

GregP said:


> That’s about 70.1 enemy aircraft per month, and that is WAY better than any Mosquito unit ever achieved.


 
Assuming you don't want a single Mossie squadron to match the totality of the P-38 force, you'll probably need to moderate that sentence, or define what "WAY better" or "ever" mean, since the Mossie kill rate for all of 1944 was 76.5 per month. From January '44 to the end of the conflict in Europe, the rate was 70.0 per month.


----------



## GregP (Mar 10, 2012)

Good post Wuzak, and I can't argue too hard with your statements.

Mbux, you're doing what many others do ... some particular model was introduced at some point and you want to use only the best model and the best missions for your numbers. Sorry, use the series as a whole. I could break down the P-38 by model introduction and theater, too, but that gives a false picture of the total service life of the type.

My own measure of efficiency to the war effort is kills per month over the months of service. I'd MUCH rather have kills per action sortie, but you can't typically FIND that data for all the types you want to compare, so we're stuck with SOMETHING as a measure. You choose yours. I'll use a measure that takes into account for the entire service life of a type and I feel confident in my consculsions.

No doubt we could show that some Mosquio squadron had 5 kills and no losses on some mission and conclude that the Mossie was tops. But that ignores the rest of the service life of the Mosquito, and I find that disingenuous. I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this one. That does NOT mean I dislike the Mosquito; I don't. It means I use a measure that I find to be fair to the early life, the combat service, and the non-action sorties all rolled into one.

On the negative side, it doesn't take into account for the number of aircraft employed. I'd include that, too, but have no source ofr the numbers of P-38's or Mosquitos employed over what period. To get atht data sounds like a 10-year project and though I am interested, I am not interested enough to imterrput my already 15-year project to comile a databse of all WWII types including prototypes. So, I use total kills divided by months of service as a qualitative measure.

Actually, I have a GREAT measure that takes into account for everything (kills, losses, sorties, action sorties, time of service, and number of aircraft built), but you can't find all the data for ANY types as far as I have been able to see. So although it makes a great statistic, it is impractical to use as a qualitative measure. In plain English, my great number is uselsss because the data are almost impossible to obtain for any meaningful portion of all WWII aircraft.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 10, 2012)

GregP said:


> P-38’s were in USAAF service in the ETO from near the end of 1942, and got their first kill in Aug 1942 while being ferried to the ETO. The first ETO kill on an ETO mission was in April 1943. By September 1944, the Lightning was withdrawn for the ETO as a fighter due to a low limitng Mach number of 0.68, though it DID stay on a PR plane. Most Lightnings went to PTO and the low limiting Mach number was fixed with the P-38J. So the P-38 was basically in ETO service for 13 - 14 months and scored 497 kills. That’s 35.5 to 38.2 kills per month of service, counting September 1944, at which time the Lightnings were gone.
> 
> The Mosquito entered RAF service in 1941 and served for the entire war thereafter. It served for 4.5 years. Let’s say the Mosquito claimed about 1,700 kills, if the numbers sent to me are corect (I can't say). That’s generally in the same ballpark, at 31.5 kills per month.
> 
> ...



your numbers worth nothing

for clear, that numbers worth alone if we have same number of fighters that flying same number of missions that encountered same opposition


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 10, 2012)

That's a fair call Greg. So far as I know, the RAF sortie numbers are contained in the Group Summaries, and in the Squadron ORBs. I can find sortie numbers for bomber Mossies of 2, 5 and 8 Groups, and for the 2 Group FBs from late 43 onwards.

IIRC Chris Shores 2nd Tactical Air Force books have sorties (by Wing?) for the night-fighters of 2 TAF, however I don't have monthly summaries for Fighter Command or Coastal Command, though it's possible they appear in various books. 

Now that ORBs are available online, it may be possible to build a much better picture, though as the files are currently sold by month, it might be a while before I can access them all. Couple other mini-projects first, namely sorting out the 300-odd V-1 claims not yet in my db, and getting some files about German flak claims.


----------



## GregP (Mar 10, 2012)

Fair enough mhuxt. Good luck with your research. Maybe you could post the URl where they are avialable? Appreciate it!

Thanks Vincenzo, I appreciate YOUR numbers just as much as you appreciate mine, although you haven't posted any in here. I have to use SOMETHING, and the data available, particularly for Axis aircraft, are not very easy to dig out. Especially for Soviet aircraft.

I'd bet a large sun of money that my data are more complete than anything you have (being the subject of 15 years research), and it is STILL tough to come up with a fair evalutaion of aircraft.

Only ONE thing is for sure to date: the Me 109 shot down more enemy aircraft in WWII than all other aircraft in all other wars in human history combined. And it is tough to get exact numbers for the Me 109 production build, much less the victories.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 11, 2012)

GregP said:


> P-38’s were in USAAF service in the ETO from near the end of 1942, and got their first kill in Aug 1942 while being ferried to the ETO. The first ETO kill on an ETO mission was in April 1943.
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> The Mosquito entered RAF service in 1941 and served for the entire war thereafter. It served for 4.5 years.



Small correction:

Mosquito first operational fighter sortie (NF Mk II): 27 April 1942

First fighter claim: 30 May 1942

First 'confirmed' fighter kill: 26/27 June 1942


----------



## Southron (Mar 14, 2012)

My understanding is that the P-38 was largely replaced in the ETO by P-51's. One of the problems experienced by the P-38's was that their Allison engines did not do all that well in the cold temperatures of Northern Europe, especially at altitude.

Obviously, the USAAF did not think that the P-38 was an adequate night fighter because the P-61 was designed and used for that role.

Actually, I believe that the P-38 never had a chance to reach its true potential as it was equipped with Allison engines. IF the P-38 had been re-equipped with Packard built Rolls Royce Merlin engines, it would have been a much, much more potent fighting machine. 

I really wonder how a "fly-off" between a P-38 equipped with Merlin engines and a Mosquito would had have gone. 

Keep in mind that the Mustangs were a "so-so" performers until their Allison engines were replaced by Merlins!


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2012)

The major part of the P-38s problems (actually, the problems of the initial P-38Js) with the V-1710s were duel to pilots using wrong engione settings, the high RPM and low manifold pressure. Because the new intercoolers were more efficient than the old ones, that was leading up to the puddling of the fuel in the intake manifolds, leading to the damaged destroyed engines. With engines operated as 'ordered' both by Lockheed and Allison (low RPM, high manifold pressure), the air-fuel mixture was of right temperature and the engines were far less likely to be damaged.

Why do you think that a later plane (P-38M) could influence anything regarding the earlier plane (P-61)? Perhaps it was the other way around - the USAAF was not very happy with P-61, so they decided to go with a P-38 modification?

If you want to compare engines, I'd advice that you 1st try to read more about Merlins and Allisons. And then compare likes with likes. For the starters, you might want to compare the P-40s, planes that were fitted with both Allisons Merlins. Then, you might try to get yourself a nice book, called the 'America's hundred thousands' by Francis Dean. Worth every penny, it might be even cheaper for you in the USA than it was for me in Croatia


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2012)

Tomo is for the most part correct. What he has posted was a large part of the problem. Another part was that the allowable components of the 100/130 fuel were changed with more "heavy" Compounds being allowed. This contributed to the fuel puddling problem to the extent that Allison was working on a new intake manifold in the summer of 1943 that was to be fitted to ALL types of Allison engines and by Nov/Dec 43 shipments of new manifolds were being sent overseas for the refitting of ALL Allison engines regardless of airframe type. 
There were at least 5 contributing factors to the P-38 problem to greater or lesser degrees which is why it took a while to sort it out. Unfortunately for the P-38s reputation it was sorted out with in a couple of weeks of the decision to concentrate on the P-51. The P-51 was the better choice but it was not quite the obvious choice it is sometimes made out to be.

Another rather interesting book is "Vee's for Victory" which is the story of the Allison engine. It goes over 3 different paper studies to use Merlin's in place of Allisons. In some cases the Merlin's offer better performance in some parts of the performance envelope. But they were usually figured to give less range. In one instance ( depending on particular model of which engine and exact cruise conditions) the difference was estimated to be a loss of 30% in range with the Merlin. Most of the time the differences were estimated to be in the single digits percentage wise.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for further insight 

One issue remains for all of those Merlin P-38 advocates to clear is: who is going to produce all those engines needed? Unlike the Allison, Packard was not in position to provide any meaningful surplus of the engines. For any 1 P-38 to fly with two stage Merlins, that would mean 2 P-51B/C/D/K less - bad thing for Allied war effort.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 14, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks for further insight
> 
> One issue remains for all of those Merlin P-38 advocates to clear is: who is going to produce all those engines needed? Unlike the Allison, Packard was not in position to provide any meaningful surplus of the engines. For any 1 P-38 to fly with two stage Merlins, that would mean 2 P-51B/C/D/K less - bad thing for Allied war effort.


Or the Lancs, Mossies and Hurricanes made in the Great White North


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2012)

The Hurri was using single stage engines exclusively, though. For the Lancs and Mossies form Canada we could use some good data about usage of both single- and two-stage variants. 
Some two-stage Packard Merlins were also used in Spitifires, in the Mk.XVI. Beaufighters and Lancs from the UK also using the US-built Merlins.


----------



## GregP (Mar 15, 2012)

Southron, you could not be more wrong. The Allison engine is very reliable and strong. It holds a tune MUCH lionger than a Merlin. The first units over had some intake issues becasue they were deployed before being completly tested. It also took us some time to realize that European gasoline is fundamentally differnt from American gasoline. The aromatics are WAY different. 4% versus 12 - 20%.

The P-38 only served about 13 months in Europe, but was fixed about the time it departed for the Pacific, and fixed for both American and Europen fuel ... and the intake issue, too. It COULD have remained, but the P-51 was then in Europe and proved a great long-range escort. You might recall that the two top American Aces flew P-38's in the Pacific.

To this day, the Allison is whipping Merlins in tractor pulls all over Europe. Our Allisons (I work at a shop that builds Allisons) regularly get 900 - 1200+ hours between overhauls, and that is a LOT longer than WWII USAAF TBO. I don't know ANY Merlin operator getting that kind of service from his or her Merlin, Packard OR Rolls-Royce. All of the P-38's in the world except the Red Bull unit are running our engines and doing quite well, as are various Yaks, P-39's, P-63's and the odd MiG-3. The Red Bull P-38 may well be doing the same in the near future, if they want to keep flying it!

Even the Reno race-winning Merlins are using Allison G-6 rods to get the power because the stock Merlin rods won't handle 3500 HP but the Allison rods will. We want to field a race winning Allison 1710, but need someone to pony up and supply an airframe. If they do, we can deliver a race winning Allison V-1710. So far, nobody has wanted to race one ... but we're ready if they do. We can deiver about 2900 HP to the prop from a 1710 or about 5,000 HP from a W-3420. We have one W-3420 and about 100 V-1710 engines, including E, F and G series Allisons avilable.

The 3600 HP Merlins don't deliver that to the prop because they need to supply about 600 - 800 HP for the supercharger. So technically, they also deliver about 2900 HP to the prop.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 15, 2012)

> But they were usually figured to give less range. In one instance ( depending on particular model of which engine and exact cruise conditions) the difference was estimated to be a loss of 30% in range with the Merlin. Most of the time the differences were estimated to be in the single digits percentage wise.



Interesting. 

There is a USAAF document about aircraft maintenance, either from Nth Africa or Italy, that has average fuel consumption per hour figures for the P-40, in both V1650 and V1710 powered guises, as well as for other fighters. 

From what I can recall (Home PC died recently, so I can't get to it at the moment) the Merlin actually had marginally lower fuel consumption than the Allison. The Spitfires in USAAF service were also notably more frugal than the P-40s with Merlin engines.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 15, 2012)

GregP said:


> The 3600 HP Merlins don't deliver that to the prop because they need to supply about 600 - 800 HP for the supercharger. So technically, they also deliver about 2900 HP to the prop.



Greg, we've had this discussion before. 

If the 3600hp is a genuine power number I'd suggest it is taken at the prop. It makes little sense to quote power without the supercharger drive power, other than to compare the load that is in the engine.

In any case, how woul dthey measure the power to drive the supercharger?

At what boost/rpm are your engines making 2900hp?


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 15, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The Hurri was using single stage engines exclusively, though. For the Lancs and Mossies form Canada we could use some good data about usage of both single- and two-stage variants.
> Some two-stage Packard Merlins were also used in Spitifires, in the Mk.XVI. Beaufighters and Lancs from the UK also using the US-built Merlins.


 
None of the Canadian Mossies used two-stage engines.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 15, 2012)

mhuxt said:


> None of the Canadian Mossies used two-stage engines.


 
One (a MkXXV) was converted, however, in the UK.

There were plans to produce the Mk23 in Canada with two stage engines, but this came to nought.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 15, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> Interesting.
> 
> There is a USAAF document about aircraft maintenance, either from Nth Africa or Italy, that has average fuel consumption per hour figures for the P-40, in both V1650 and V1710 powered guises, as well as for other fighters.
> 
> From what I can recall (Home PC died recently, so I can't get to it at the moment) the Merlin actually had marginally lower fuel consumption than the Allison. The Spitfires in USAAF service were also notably more frugal than the P-40s with Merlin engines.



The Allison used About a 10% higher compression ratio, while it limited peak boost it should have made for better specific fuel consumption. Other things can factor into the fuel consumption of an engine, especially at different throttle/rpm settings. Please remember that the P-38 was also using the turbo even in many cruise settings and an Allison flown at low rpm and high (relatively) boost would have low friction and low supercharger losses. Exhaust thrust doesn't work so good at cruise because it depends on mass ( weight of fuel and air) and exhaust speed matching the speed of the aircraft, simplified. At cruise settings there is a lot less air mass and the engine has gone from rich to lean settings so their is even less fuel mass. The exhaust gas exit speed is pretty much the same, perhaps a bit lower but the slower aircraft speed makes for a poorer match and the thrust doesn't convert to power as well. Were the Spitfires more frugal at the same airspeed? or at the same throttle settings? or did they cover more ground for the same fuel?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 15, 2012)

Comparison of sinlge-stage Merlins and Allsions is a different metter than a comparison with two-stage versions. 
Single stage ones can have a difference in fuel consumption within single digits, for same flight regimes. A two-stage Merlin uses it's engine power to drive both of it's stages, while the V-1710 in P-38 uses the exhaust gasses to drive the 1st stage (the turbo compressor); engine drives only the second (engine-) stage. So for the cruise regime, a two stage Merlin should be using more fuel.
As SR6 noted, the pilot of the 'turbo plane' can use those properties to extract fair amount of power by keeping the manifold pressure high and RPM low. Low RPM means friction losses are low, that also improves mileage.

Thanks for clearing the issue about the two-stage V-1650s for Canadian Mossies, mxhut


----------



## zarglink (Feb 9, 2016)

As a one on one battle the p38 likely had an edge as all its specs from max speed to rate of climb and payload were higher, (although as for the basic airframe it would be interesting to see the mosquito fitted with the same more powerful engines as the lightning) and for sticklers about low altitude turning radius, it almost doesn't matter. in the pacific the lightnings were avoiding low altitude turning battles anyway. the lightning could dive in at a speed deserving of a mach number, then climb out two or three times faster than its opponent, it would be stupid to stick around and slug it out.

high altitude turning radius is a different matter. i believe (guessing) the mosquito could out turn the lightning at altitude also, but given the engines it would probably bleed speed and lose altitude faster. high ground in a battle wins. makes sense to me that even if you manouevered all the way to the deck down from 30 thousand feet with the lightning in pursuit, the lightning would do best to disengage, climb then finish off with a high speed dive at the retreating mosquito.

whos faster, superman or the flash?

as an aide to the war effort the mosquito was superior, think of something like the sherman tanks vs the panzers. the shermans were horrible but they were soooo much easier to make.
this advantage for the mosquito was because of its wooden construction, and the wood wasnt just a close substitute, it was superior in some regards.
Goring was asked what kind of plane he needed to win and he said he needed mosquitos. Comments were made that every piano, furniture, and cabinet shop in england could make mosquitos with mostly lowly skilled labor to boot. Additionally, here's where wood was superior...mosquitos absorbed hits from flak and bullets extremely well, and upon landing a crew could spackle in holes with epoxy and sawdust/fabric and the things would literally be as strong as new in 24 hours and back out there. tally ho!
in a sense, given the construction strategy of diagonally overlapping direction of the wood grain, the ability of the shell to add strength in both tension and compression, and the use of resin epoxy, they are almost the first composite aircraft ever deployed.
as a side note, if the yanks had actually offered to sell the brits the lightning WITH the superchargers, i wonder if the brits would have bothered to make so many mosquitos or continued development on them.




davebender said:


> Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17.
> 
> BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.





off with a high speed dive at the retreating mosquito.

whos faster, superman or the flash?

as an overall aide to the war effort the mosquito was superior, think of something like the sherman tanks vs the panzers. the shermans were horrible but they were soooo much easier to make.
this advantage for the mosquito was because of its wooden construction, and the wood wasnt just a close substitute, it was superior in some regards.
Goring was asked what kind of plane he needed to win and he said he needed mosquitos. Comments were made that every piano, furniture, and cabinet shop in england could make mosquitos with mostly lowly skilled labor to boot. Additionally, here's where wood was superior...mosquitos absorbed hits from flak and bullets extremely well, and upon landing a crew could spackle in holes with epoxy and sawdust/fabric and the things would literally be as strong as new in 24 hours and back out there. tally ho!
in a sense, given the strategy of diagonally overlapping direction of the wood grain, the ability of the shell to add strength in both tension and compression, and the use of resin epoxy type glue, they are almost the first composite aircraft ever deployed. a happy accident because of metal shortages.




davebender said:


> Those were design choices. Boeing could have made similiar choices when designing the B-17.
> 
> BTW, I consider wood construction to be a negative feature. Britain did this because they had a shortage of aluminum not because wood was inheritly superior for aircraft construction.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2016)

zarglink said:


> Comments were made that every piano, furniture, and cabinet shop in england could make mosquitos with mostly lowly skilled labor to boot. Additionally, here's where wood was superior...mosquitos absorbed hits from flak and bullets extremely well, and upon landing a crew could spackle in holes with epoxy and sawdust/fabric and the things would literally be as strong as new in 24 hours and back out there. tally ho!
> in a sense, given the strategy of diagonally overlapping direction of the wood grain, the ability of the shell to add strength in both tension and compression, and the use of resin epoxy type glue, they are almost the first composite aircraft ever deployed. a happy accident because of metal shortages.



Are you making these comments based on what you've read or by actually working with wood aircraft? Your comments sound like you're building your favorite 1/72 scale model! I've worked on wood aircraft (35 years as an AME) and I could tell you wood sucks and is no way as easy to repair as you say. The more repairs you do to it, the more the potential for structural failure. You have to have a clean and temperature controlled environment for some of the glues and resins to really work correctly. Remove a wood aircraft from a moist cool environment and watch the shrinkage! There's a reason why wood aircraft all but disappeared after WW2. Go back through this forum, this subject has been covered extensively. Even in todays world, wood could be a liability.

Plane crash kills 1 during qualifying at Reno Air Races

Lee Behel was not only a great pilot but was a friend. Many of us worried about him and his aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2016)

zarglink said:


> As a one on one battle the p38 likely had an edge as all its specs from max speed to rate of climb and payload were higher, (although as for the basic airframe it would be interesting to see the mosquito fitted with the same more powerful engines as the lightning) and for sticklers about low altitude turning radius, it almost doesn't matter. in the pacific the lightnings were avoiding low altitude turning battles anyway. the lightning could dive in at a speed deserving of a mach number, then climb out two or three times faster than its opponent, it would be stupid to stick around and slug it out.



Welcome to the forum 
Some things that I'd kindly disagree here. The payload of the Mosquito was nothing to scoff about, with caveat that most if not all was carried internally. That means that Mosquito is a far better bomber than P-38 in the best iteration. The P-38 was, however, a better fighter. 
The dive speed of Mosquito was higher than of P-38, you can check out at this thread where people contributed hard data, not opinions. No ww2 fighter will outclimb another one in zoom climb by factor 2 or 3, granted there are better and not so good zoom climbers.



> high altitude turning radius is a different matter. i believe (guessing) the mosquito could out turn the lightning at altitude also, but given the engines it would probably bleed speed and lose altitude faster. high ground in a battle wins. makes sense to me that even if you manouevered all the way to the deck down from 30 thousand feet with the lightning in pursuit, the lightning would do best to disengage, climb then finish off with a high speed dive at the retreating mosquito.



The P-38 have had a slight edge at altitude vs. Mosquitoes with 1-stage supercharged engine. If you disengage vs. Mosquito, you've just let it of the hook. As above - P-38 was a lousy diver (but a good climber), when compared with anything modern (Spitfire, Fw 190, P-51, Bf 109).



> as an aide to the war effort the mosquito was superior, think of something like the sherman tanks vs the panzers. the shermans were horrible but they were soooo much easier to make.



Don't fall to the myths, check this out: video.



> as a side note, if the yanks had actually offered to sell the brits the lightning WITH the superchargers, i wonder if the brits would have bothered to make so many mosquitos or continued development on them.



Again - don't fall to the myths. The British contracted the Lightning I with one supercharger per engine, and then for Lighting II with 2 superchargers per engine (4 S/C total), later the order was cancelled due to the pricey Lightining I not being as fast as the turboed (and even more pricy) Lightning II. The P-38 could replace Mosquito as a fighter bomber, not as a pure bomber.


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2016)

Hey Joe,

Does you know if anybody really knows yet what happened to Lee and "Sweet Dreams?"

I have heard:

1) Unknown structural failure
2) Wing fluttered and departed the aircraft
3) Failed glue joints
4) Encountered wake turbulence that exceeded the design strength

I was not there at the time, don't really know, and would not care to speculate about an event I didn't see. I DO know Lee and Sweet Dreams broke some time-to-climb records shortly before Reno and have seen a video of the flight as Lee disappears off the top edge of the screen, but never have seen a clip of the race. If nothing else, it surely was a great-looking aircraft.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 9, 2016)

I almost bought a partly completed Pietenpol Sky Scout about 10 years ago. Wood fuselage and wings.
Drove up to Pa. to inspect it, I even took my car trailer with me to bring it back.

It had been stored in a usually unheated garage for about 5 years, it had no fabric on it so I could inspect it pretty well.

Even to my uneducated eyes I could see way too many suspect wood joints. I drove back home with a empty trailer.

Speaking of repairing wood structures. Did they even have epoxy adhesives in the WW2 era ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hey Joe,
> 
> Does you know if anybody really knows yet what happened to Lee and "Sweet Dreams?"
> 
> ...


I was there but didn't see the accident but if I had to guess I would say all of the above. He did break some climb records at Mojave earlier in 2014.


----------



## GregP (Feb 9, 2016)

Thanks. I hadn't heard anything and wondered of someone more in the know had ...


----------



## parsifal (Feb 10, 2016)

Im late for this party so I apologise for being a bit off centre to the current state of the discussion. I think its impossible to compare the two aircraft outright because they each had vastly different roles. I prefer to look at operational results rather try and argue performance issues. I take the view that if the results are there, the performance had to be there somewhere.

There are limits to what can be done with operational results assessments. For one thing we cant say that the challenges were the same for the two aircraft, mosquito was used principally at night, was used in a somewhat different time frame and in vastly different circumstances. neither can we do much in the way of assessing air victories, since many of the roles for the mossie involved unarmed bombers and claims are just that .

possibly one useful exercise , if admittedly very simplistic is to look at loss rates, since these figures are fully known and allow for the widely varied roles that each type was used.

Looking first at the P-38....
In the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy. Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it the third best Allied fighter in Europe. The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb, and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable fighter, interceptor and attack aircraft


Now for the Mosquito. in nightime operations over the continent, between 1943 and 1945, it flew 26936 sorties and lost 106 aircraft to combat, a loss rate of 0.33%. no other allied aircraft even came close to that record.

In daylight operations, it flew about 12500 sorties and suffered a losses of 148 a/c at a rate of 1.15%

dangerous to do, but if we combine those day/night operations for the mosquito, we get 39436 sorties, and an overall combat loss of 254 a/c. Overall day/night combat loss rate for the mosquito is 0.64% per sortie.

it was about twice as safe to fly the mosquito in its various roles as it was to fly the p-38 in its various roles, in the ETO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 10, 2016)

If you're fighting a war, I'm not too sure safety is the primary concern. The primary concern would be combat results on similar missions.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 10, 2016)

Yes, I can agree with that,, but as the japanese found, crew survivability leads to a lot of other goodies. With survival comes a larger slice of your force structure with the necessary skills to do stuff better, a wider mission profile whereby your aircraft can be expected to do some really gobsmacking stuff, because you know you have a good chance of survival. You can bomb stuff more accurately, attempt more dangerous missions, look at stuff other people cant, remain in fights other aircraft cant, and the list goes on. The operational usage of both the P-38 and the Mosquito suggest both had these qualities. The two types had different backgrounds and development histories.....the mossie was designed as a bomber and recon machine, then had nightfighter added to the mix, then fighter bomber and finally day or night intruder. P-38 started as a fighter then had other roles added to it as time progressed. Both did those other things pretty well, suggesting two very versatile and capable aircraft. I cant see how massive distinction can be made to their respective capabilities, but each of them was born for a completely different purpose in the beginning.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 10, 2016)

zarglink said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> as an overall aide to the war effort the mosquito was superior, think of something like the sherman tanks vs the panzers. the shermans were horrible but they were soooo much easier to make.
> 
> *SNIP*



Not to pick nits but:

Dispelling the myths surrounding the M4 Sherman - Knowledge Glue

Just as a primer regarding the M4 Sherman. As Tomo said, don't fall for the myths. There are more resources out there that prove the M4 was a pretty good tank that I can happily point you to, but I don't want to start derailing this interesting thread with an armor discussion.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2016)

It is rather difficult to compare the two aircraft other than they were both twin engined aircraft using liquid cooled engines. 
Different size, different missions (originally, they crossed over a bit later) which resulted in different strength factors and different capabilities. The Mosquito was a light/medium bomber which gained guns to use as a _nightfighter _and strike aircraft. Nightfighters rarely having to perform hard turning/maneuvering dogfighting antics. Not to say that some Mosquitos didn't get into dogfights of a sort during daylight missions. P-38 started as an interceptor, moved to general fighter and then to fighter bomber/strike aircraft. AS a night fighter it was a johnny-come-lately and required compact later generation radar in order to do the job at all. 
The P-38 could most certainly NOT replace the Mosquito as a bomber (little range with under wing bombs and using internal fuel) or night fighter until the radar equipment got small enough, several years too late. 
The Mosquito could not perform the day fighter role as in escort bombers and take-on German single seat fighters on a consistent basis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 10, 2016)

I am happy this thread came back to life ....


----------



## Timppa (Feb 18, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The Mosquito could not perform the day fighter role as in escort bombers and take-on German single seat fighters on a consistent basis.



How about:

Mosquito Mk. VI modified:
Merlin 61
Machine guns and second crewmember omitted to save weight .
External bomb/wing tank racks removed.
Whirlwind canopy
Metal wing spars to save weight
Strenghtening of the wings to achieve 8g limit load.


----------



## The Kohler (Feb 18, 2016)

Timppa said:


> How about:
> 
> Mosquito Mk. VI modified:
> Merlin 61
> ...


this looks like a request for the DeHavilland DH.103 Hornet.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 18, 2016)

Mossie was never a day fighter though it often operated in daylight, shot down a claimed 650 enemy a/c in 1944 including thirty something FW 190s in daylight losing just two of their numbers to enemy fighters until late in the war, whilst operating in the FB role.

not bad for an aircraft designed primarily for recon and then as an unarmed bomber. what the mossie could do ALWAYs confounds people.

now, it was no wonder weapon. There were things it could not do. it was an intruder, a nuisance weapon, it couldn't do what the P-38 was assigned to help achieve, it couldnt do what a B-17 or a B-24 was given to do. it is s stretch to say that it could stand shoulder to shoulder with a stuka, or a DC-3, or even a Swordfish, and yet to various degrees it could do the jobs of all these a/c.....up to a point. It was its versatility that was its great strength.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 18, 2016)

In the context of this thread we often forget the Mosquito was designed as an unarmed bomber from the outset, whereas the P-38 was not. The only reason the Mosquito got accepted for production was if de Havilland expanded on its repertoire, so the first production contract was for a photo recon machine, then a night fighter and_ then_ a bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 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: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

