# Best Aircraft in many different roles



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)

The idea , E.g i think the 110 is the best aircraft in different roles because it was a good fighter/bomber and a good night fighter ect ect ... 

you get the idea ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Yeah, best multi-role plane was the Lockheed P-38 Lightning by far. The Ju-88 was the most widely used but not really very good at it.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 27, 2004)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo, has to be a Mossie 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## R Pope (Nov 27, 2004)

Mossie ranks right up there, so does P-47, fighter, bomber, and the old warhorse P-40 jack of all trades, but the Germans were the masters of multi-role aircraft.


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

I agree Pope , the Ju-88 had tons of roles like CC stated , though i wouldnt paticualy imagine it as a Night fighter


----------



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

but it was used as a night fighter, best was the mossie though.............


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but it was used as a night fighter, best was the mossie though.............



i know it was i was just saying i didnt thnk i Ju-88 was a good idea for nighgtfighter


----------



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

well no it wasn't that good................


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

I dont no much about it , but i'd say it would be a tad to heavy


----------



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

and generally to big................


----------



## JCS (Nov 28, 2004)

Anything I've seen said the Ju88 was a pretty good NF...



> The Ju 88 night-fighter was a refined and formidable aircraft, with a powerful armament, excellent agility and advanced electronic sensors. It is therefore appropriate that Ju 88 night-fighters destroyed more Allied night bombers in WW2 than all other fighters combined.


----------



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

now that's interesting as the Bf-110 was the most widely used german Nf.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> I dont no much about it , but i'd say it would be a tad to heavy



If anything the Mossie would have been too heavy; the P-38 was best because it could carry a similar payload, only slightly less range, a MUCH better fighter, extremely accurate at ground attack, potentially superb NF (If it had seem more service) Excellent at recce, and it was extremely tough. It was also known that Dick Bong could get his P-38 to turn INSIDE Zero's, which says a lot about the manoeverability.


----------



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

how can you be sure the zero was turning it's tightest?? anything could outmanouver a zero at 250+mph.................



> it could carry a similar payload, only slightly less range


 
it had a good range if it had no ordinance, the P-38L's range with 3,200lbs was 450 miles..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah but thats on internal fuel, its nearer 900 with Droptanks.

Dick Bong encountered Zero's on many occasions, and on the accounts I read its been said that he could regularly turn inside them.


----------



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

> Yeah but thats on internal fuel, its nearer 900 with Droptanks



if it was carrying ordinance how could it carry fuel as well??



> and on the accounts I read its been said that he could regularly turn inside them.



that doesn't answer my question, how do you know the zero was turning it's tightest?? anything could outmanouver a zero at 250+mph..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

The point I was making was that if he'd faced Zero's on several occasionas, its more than likely he turned inside them below that speed on at least a couple of occasions.


----------



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

i doubt it............

and stop trying to avoid my first point...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

You doubt it? Why do you doubt it?

I think P-38's could either carry 2 large tanks under the cockpit or 2 smaller ones nearer the end of the wings.


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 28, 2004)

The Mossie, easily. The best night-fighter of the war, an excellent low-level fighter-bomber, an almost uncatchable night bomber able to deliver a 4,000 lb 'cookie' to Berlin, one version even mounted a high-velocity 57mm gun for anti-sub work. 

Nothing else came close: the Ju 88 was slower, the P-38 too limited. Second place would probably go to the Soviet Pe-3, a very fast twin-engined dive bomber which was also made in a heavy fighter version. A most impressive plane, but you don't hear much about it in the west.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## R Pope (Nov 28, 2004)

Best German night fighter had to be the He219 Uhu. It was specifically designed for the job, and did it well. Burt that's not the point of this thread.


----------



## kiwimac (Nov 28, 2004)

Ju-88. Best all rounder of the war years. It was a bomber, fighter, heavy-fighter, ground attack, dive bomber, anti-tank, anti-sub shipping, Night fighter, transport, just about everything.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

> Nothing else came close: the Ju 88 was slower, the P-38 too limited.



I disagree about the P-38 being too limited, it could do everything the Mossie could just as well, and in a lot of cases much better.


----------



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

as a bomber the P-38 was useless, as a night fighter it wasn't combat proven, whereas the mossie was the best the allies had and one of the most feared NFs of the war, anti-tank the mossie Mk.XVIII well outclassed the P-38, anti-shipping the mossie's got it and transport the mossie gets it again....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

The P-38 was NOT useless as a bomber, it was extremely effective. against tanks it was damn good, anti-shipping the P-38 was also damn good and what the fuck could the Mossie do for transport?


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 29, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> .............and what the f**k could the Mossie do for transport?



Get the Num. 32 Bus to Walden on Rhye  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

I think there would be certain issues concerning that statement


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 30, 2004)

Yes, that the Bus Fare has gone up by 5p. It's ing I tell ya, ing  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

No!  If you took that bus twice a day every day for a year it will cost you £36.50 more than it would normally do!


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 30, 2004)

It's ok, I'm the Driver  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Bet the oldies love you


----------



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

> what the f**k could the Mossie do for transport



6 passengers, what the f**k could the P-38 do for transport..........



> The P-38 was NOT useless as a bomber



i class the ability to carry 3,200lbs the distance of 450 miles useless...............



> against tanks it was damn good



you think that the 20mm and 4x.50cal +bombs of the P-38 could stand up to a 57mm and 4x.303 + rockets and bombs.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

The P-38 could also carry rockets. 20mm and 4 .50cals is better than the 4 .303s, cos an far as I know the 57mm cannon wasnt used very often

Look, I know the range with bombs of the P-38 was poor, but at doing the actual bombing it proved very accurate. The Droop Snoot P-38J was slightly modified to make a better bomber, il have a look around for some info on it.

Ok I didnt mean the transport like that, I was a little surprised that a 2 seat plane was being used for Transport role, however I doubt it was used often in that role cos Ive never read any accounts of them going on Transport missions.

And I reckon that a P-38 would comfortably have a Mossie in a dogfight any day, and give it a run for its money at night.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2004)

So now this is a P-38 vs Mossie rant?

The Ju-88 woud be a Jack of all Trades master of non!

But i wil take the P-38. It did very well and was proven in the fare east were the Mossie had problums staying together, all that wood and water 
The P-38 could turn inside the A6M because it flew combat a a faster speed! Under 250mph the A6M was ear purfect!
As much as I love the P-40 it is not a place here.


----------



## kiwimac (Nov 30, 2004)

Junkers Ju 88 /188 / 388

Pour moi~

Kiwimac


----------



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

> an far as I know the 57mm cannon wasnt used very often



it was used on the FB.XVIII, the second most numerous FB mark...............



> but at doing the actual bombing it proved very accurate



any fighter bombing at low level will be accurate, as long as the pilot knows wht he's doing.............



> I doubt it was used often in that role cos Ive never read any accounts of them going on Transport missions.



but would you really expect to??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Junkers Ju 88 /188 / 388
> 
> Pour moi~
> 
> Kiwimac



No 288?

I like the 488, 4 engines


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > an far as I know the 57mm cannon wasnt used very often
> 
> 
> 
> it was used on the FB.XVIII, the second most numerous FB mark..............





It was dropped quickly, too much recoil, and rockets were more suited to the job; only 33 Mossies were equipped with the Molin 57mm...


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 1, 2004)

Hi all!

My vote on this would be the Ju88. It was deployed in an extraordinary range of roles, yet never became obsolecent like the Bf110. Furthermore, it was well-proven in each role:as a bomber from 1939 onwards, as a nightfighter, it saw service almost nightly from its introduction in 1944, and as an anti-shipping a/c, it served well throught the war, on all fronts. 

On the other hand, the Mossie NF only entered service after the worst German night raids were over, and so was never proven as thouroughly as the 88. As GrG mentioned, the big-gun anti-shipping version operated in only small numbers. The only roles the Mossie was fully proven in were light bomber and recon machine. So while it can be argued that it was a better _aircraft_ than the 88, it doesnt have such an extensive combat record behind it.

As for the P38, it really was too limited in its deployment. It was used more-or-less exclusively fas a fighter-bomber or photo recon machine. It never served as a bomber, tank-buster or night-fighter, making it hard to put in the same league as the Mossie or Ju88.

Just my 0.02 8)


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 2, 2004)

The Mossie was used as a transport - they were sent to collect much-needed ball bearings from Sweden, which involved flying through German-controlled airspace, so speed and stealth were essential.

There was nothing wrong with the 'Tsetse' (the FB Mk.XVIII armed with the 57mm Molins gun). It worked exceptionally well. The problem was that it was designed for the anti-tank role but the RAF changed their mind about the requirement (shame really, it was accurate and powerful) so it was given to Coastal Command who used it in anti-shipping generally and anti-sub in particular. The gun was far more accurate than RPs but the plane was less flexible (you couldn't switch the payload) so the use was limited. They did shoot down some aircraft with the big gun, though - including at least one Ju 88! You can read about the Tsetse and see photos at: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Molins.htm

You are right that the one argument in the Ju 88's favour is that it was in use throughout the War, while the Mossie only came in a bit later (but still before the USA did!). However, in every respect the Mossie could do what the Ju 88 could do, only better (the possible exception being torpedo dropping - the Mossie was never considered for that AFAIK). 

Don't get me wrong - I like the Ju 88, it was IMO one of Germany's best aircraft and would certainly be on my top ten list of WW2's best planes. But it was very much 'jack of all trades, master of none'. And it was obsolescent by the end of the war (see Ju 188, also being replaced in some roles e.g. night fighter), while the Mossie remained the cream of the crop for years afterwards.

The Mossie came in four main versions: 

1. P.R. - almost uncatchable, and the wooden construction made it hard to pick up on radar (one of the first stealth planes!). Also had a very long range.

2. Night-fighter; the best in the war (only the He 219 compared, and that came in very late and was very specialised). It actually operated as an escort fighter to the Bomber Command attacks, its role being to pick off the German night-fighters - which it did very well.

3. Bomber: it suffered only one-tenth of the loss rate of the Lancaster, and in winter the plane was so fast it was capable of two trips to Berlin in one night. Later versions could carry one single 4,000 lb bomb.

4. Fighter-bomber (with 4x20mm and 4x.303 in a solid nose, plus rockets and bombs): highyl effective and widely used in the ground attack and anti-shipping role. The Tsetse was a version of this.

Then there were the special roles, e.g. the bomber used as a transport etc.

The Mossie would get my vote as the best all-round aircraft of the war, by a comfortable margin. The Ju 88 was very good - the Mossie was brilliant.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2004)

BombTaxi said:


> Hi all!
> 
> My vote on this would be the Ju88. It was deployed in an extraordinary range of roles, yet never became obsolecent like the Bf110. Furthermore, it was well-proven in each role:as a bomber from 1939 onwards, as a nightfighter, it saw service almost nightly from its introduction in 1944, and as an anti-shipping a/c, it served well throught the war, on all fronts.
> 
> ...



The P-38 was used as a bomber - there was a special "Droop Snoot" version used specifically for this. It would carry maximum payload whilst being escorted by Regular P-38J's/L's carry smaller bombs. It proved very effective.
It also did see service as a nightfighter - albeit very briefly. About 60 or so were deployed in the role in the dying days of the war and I think scored a few kills.


----------



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

> On the other hand, the Mossie NF only entered service after the worst German night raids were over, and so was never proven as thouroughly as the 88. As GrG mentioned, the big-gun anti-shipping version operated in only small numbers. and recon machine. So while it can be argued that it was a better aircraft than the 88, it doesnt have such an extensive combat record behind it.



The mossie was the allie's most extensively used NF, it flew escort for our night bombers over germany and proved very effective.........



> The only roles the Mossie was fully proven in were light bomber



i'd class it as a fast light-medium, and it was extremely effective in this role, so fast nothing could intercept it...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

When fully laden I dont think the Mossie would be going its maximum speed, And I think FW-190's and Bf-109's were more than capable of intercepting it.


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 3, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> When fully laden I dont think the Mossie would be going its maximum speed, And I think FW-190's and Bf-109's were more than capable of intercepting it.



But in its strategic role it bombed by night, so it mainly had the German night-fighters to worry about, and it could leave those behind with ease until the He 219 arrived - and there were never very many of those.

In daylight yes, it could be caught by fighters going flat-out but it was still a very difficult target. If the fighters were too far away when they saw it then they would probably fail to catch it before running out of fuel! They had to be in just the right position to make an interception, and it was difficult to achieve that, particularly since in daylight attacks the Mossie tended to attack at low level, so it was hard for the Luftwaffe fighter control stations to pick up and direct fighters to.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Heres yet another point up for the P-38 lanc - Each individual model of the Lightning was more versatile than each individual model of the Mosquito.


----------



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

what makes you say that??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Well lets take the P-38J - it could be used as a fighter, interceptor, fighter-bomber, bomber, recon, nightfighter, dive bomber, torp bomber, skip bomber, tank buster and ground attack.

Could any single mark of the Mossie do all that? No. Thats why there's B, F.B and N.F versions of it. They all had to be modified to perform different roles.


----------



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

> fighter, interceptor



same thing



> fighter-bomber





> dive bomber





> skip bomber, tank buster and ground attack



essentially all the same thing..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

All slightly different though, if you wanna be lame like that you could say theyre all essentially the same cos they involve flying...

Fighter and interceptor ar different, fighteing involves the actual combat with another plane, intercepting includes taking off, getting to altitude and then engaging combat.

Skip-bombing, tank busting, ground attack and dive bomber all come under the hood of Fighter-Bomber.


----------



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

then why'd you put them separatly just to make it look as though it could do more??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Because they are all slightly different.


----------



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

they're not different enough to have to change the aircraft to do them.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

I know, but on top of the other things its still more than a single Mk of the Mossie could do.


----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 4, 2004)

C.C, Dive Bombing is a lot different then level fight Yes the P-38 did do this but Most would leave it to the P-47s.

This argument of Mossie or P-38 is only partly affective because in the PTO the P-38 was King and really did it all.


----------



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

i agree it is a bit useless arguing about it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Yeah but its about the only thing thats properly debated on the site 

If only the Me-410 was a better aircraft that it was


----------



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

it had the potentail............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Yep, it could have and should have been better than the Ju-88. But because the Me-210 from which it was derived from was so crap they probably didnt put their full effort into it


----------



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

well the war was lost for them anyway, no plane could have saved them...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

The 210 and 410 werent that late...


----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 6, 2004)

Th Me-410 was very good, but was later and lost in politics as did some of the relly good Geran designs. It is said that we cannot discuss more topics as well as P-38 vs. Mossie 

Now what about a PBY in this catagory? It was a patrol plane, rescue, transport, bomber, night fighter!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Which PBY?


----------



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

> It was a patrol plane, rescue, transport, bomber, night fighter



as was the sunderland..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Sunderlands are great planes...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 7, 2004)

The P-38L must be in the running with close to a 1,000mi radius 2,000lbs bomb load 1-300gal drop tank 1-2,000lb bomd. Over 1,000mi radiue with 2-300gal drop tanks and rockets. (this is an unusual configuration because it was outside the official max takeoff weight specifications).

Consider the B-25
Long range guided bomb missions to the China sea in the last year of the war. 75mm cannon equiped. models with up to 14 foward firing .50 cal machinguns. Skip bombing. The only plane to fight in Every front in WWII including Russia. Not to mention taking off from an aircraft carrier when it was required.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> they're not different enough to have to change the aircraft to do them.....................



If the plane is a P-38!


----------



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

no i mean the roles were so similar that you wouldn't have to make adjustments to the aircraft in order for it to do each role.............



> The P-38L must be in the running with close to a 1,000mi radius 2,000lbs bomb load 1-300gal drop tank 1-2,000lb bomd. Over 1,000mi radiue with 2-300gal drop tanks and rockets



may i suggest you read up on the De Haviland Mosquito, same marks could carry a 5,000lb payload up to 1,400+ miles, in comparison the P38J (i think) could carry a 3,200lb payload 450 miles...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

The thing with the Mossie was that it was a shit Fighter, so once its bombs were dropped there was every chance it could get jumped by 190's and shot down.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 8, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no i mean the roles were so similar that you wouldn't have to make adjustments to the aircraft in order for it to do each role.............
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The P-38L was rated at 4,000lbs for 450 mi radius I have seen reports that 5,000lbs and the same fuel was done in war time situations - Martin Caiden. but the main point is that the next day the very same plane went out on an escort mission.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

Everyone is forgetting the Fw-190... That plane did almost anything, and did it exceptionally well..... They even slung torpedos underneath em.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

I didnt think that had the capacitiy to carry a torp?


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 9, 2004)

No, but it was used for trails of the German Version of barnes Wallis's Dambuster Bomb though.

Hot Space


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

> I didnt think that had the capacitiy to carry a torp?



Yes there was a couple of variants of the -190 that were designed to carry a torpedo...

The Fw-190A-5/U14, carrying a LT F5b torpedo on ETC-502 rack...
The Fw-190A-5/U15, carrying a LT 950 torpedo.....
The Fw-190F-8/U2, carrying a BT 700 torpedo bomb.....
The Fw-190F-8/U3, carrying a BT 1400 torpedo bomb....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 11, 2004)

No idea about the designation, when I got it said it was an Fw-190A5-45...


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 11, 2004)

I would hate to try and fly that thing  

Hot Space


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 11, 2004)

Cool! 8)


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2004)

The 190 was one tough bird to shoot down, ask any allied fighter pilot that faced them. The cool thing about the raised tail wheel on that 190 would make visibility over the nose a heck of a lot easier when taxiing. Cool pic!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

Great pic....

That torpedo is a LTF-5b and the plane is a Fw-190A-5/U14......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> I would hate to try and fly that thing
> 
> Hot Space



Me neither, looks a bitch...


----------



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

it's the A, it looks amazing............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

I mean it looks a bitch to fly, and you know, you just couldnt think of anything constructive to post.


----------



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

well i reckon they'd have given it fighter escort so you wouldn't have to worry about fighting in it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Yep, perhaps a couple of other 190's. Once the torp is dropped itd be fine though.


----------



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

my money's on 190s as well and i'm not just saying this because it's my favourite, but i think they'd be As...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Depends on the time of war. They could have been D's in 44/45


----------



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

the A was prefered for low level work like that.............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 12, 2004)

Actually, I don't think fighters would be a problem, since little fighters had the same low-alt performance of the Anton...


I think I'd prefer flying the G.55S when it comes to torpedo-fighters, though!


The only downfall would be the inline engine, weak to flak and ground fire...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 13, 2004)

The P-38.

Successful as a long-range fighter, ground attack aircraft, dive bomber, level bomber, interceptor, recon aircraft, fast ambulance. It was also successfully tested towing gliders, dropping torps (2), and adapted into a very successful night fighter. It could pretty much do it all.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 13, 2004)

Oh, must be REAL comfy to ride in this ambulance while wounded...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 14, 2004)

No worse than a chopper. When you are wounded, you don't care how you get to the medical care you need. You just want to get there fast. After a syrette of Morphine, you don't care anyway.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Dec 14, 2004)

Omigosh! Are the two little pods where the people go? (It might seem to be an obvios 'Yes", but I'm just checking!)
Never knew it could be an ambulance!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Great Pic GrG.....


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 14, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Yeah thats a nice pic GrG, havent seen any of the P-38 Ambulance before.


----------



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

were the pods heated??


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

I would certainly hope so, as well as some armor plating as well.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

And I hope the control "Jettison Droptanks" in the cockpit was also disabled, imagine the horror if he hit that by accident...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 14, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> And I hope the control "Jettison Droptanks" in the cockpit was also disabled, imagine the horror if he hit that by accident...



I read an account of a trip in one of those 'Pods' really just a drop tank with a door and a flat floor NO windows (I guess some did), locked from the outside. The guy said "Nothing could ever get him back in one".


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 14, 2004)

It must have been like being in your coffin.... brrr! No heating system available could stop you shivering at that thought.......


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 14, 2004)

This is a pretty good web page with good/knowledgable people - even if their as hard headded about their favorite planes as I am!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Yes it is....


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 14, 2004)

I have never been in a war I have never been wounded but I'm not sure if I would get in that thing to go to the medical center...
Just think of the landing...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 14, 2004)

Fast ambulances would be used in relatively secure areas so armor wasn't that crucial. Flights would not be at ultra-high altitudes so heat wouldn't be a crucial problem either. Also, the people being moved in these need serious medical attention ASAP. That being said, the choice of a quick, life-saving trip wins out over comfort. Both 165-gallon and 310-gallon tanks were modified for the purpose. The 310-gallon tanks could cramp two stretchers each.

I've seen a picture where the pods were put to a different use. A USMC camera man hitched a ride in one so he could get some footage of Corsairs making napalm runs.


----------



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

and yes we are rather passionate about each of our favourite planes, the lancaster of course being the best aircraft in all different roles.............


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 15, 2004)

Haven't we had this haggle before, between the Mossie vs Lightning ??...
- If we compute in the factor that the Mossie was also much cheaper to build, easier to repair and was built to either Bomber, Fighter and PR in it's basic form, and also it's firepower left the P-38 wanting, [I don't recall P-38's even carrying rockets, and if they did, it must've been late in the War, like their NF version], the Mossies did hold their own surprisingly well against more agile fighters...[y'know, win some, lose some, type of thing...] they had to combat, especially the Strike Wings, when attacked...

So naturally, I vote the Mosquito...

Also, I give credit to the Fw-190A's, they too were a special breed.....

Finally, both these aircraft were so good, they just have to build some more these days, Mossies from NZ, and Flugwerk in Germany has started the Fw-190A kitsets.......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

P-38s carried rockets in a number of different installations. 10, 12, and 14 rockets were tried at different points in the war. The P-38 could be loaded out with as many as 10 5in rockets and still carry two 1,600lb bombs. And the P-38 also certainly did more than hold its own in the air. For a number of different roles, the P-38 was the aircraft.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 16, 2004)

But they still didn't have the heavier firepower, whether 4x cannon, 4x mgs, nor like the Mk.XVIII....etc. etc. etc......


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and yes we are rather passionate about each of our favourite planes, the lancaster of course being the best aircraft in all different roles.............



Tell that to the Ju-88!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

> and was built to either Bomber, Fighter and PR in it's basic form



But doesnt the fact that the P-38 was designed purely as a fighter, yet was able to do more differing roles than the Mossie at least as well and in a lot of areas better make it the better aircraft? I think it does...


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 16, 2004)

For me the most versatile aircraft is the Fw 190A.
It could everything and it could do it pretty well. And without any bombload when returning from missions it could defend itself very well. That's all I need of a multirole aircraft of that era. As far for the mossie and the lightning is concerned there is another post about these and I prefer the lightning ignoring the multirole capabilities of each aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

The 190A was versatile but I dont really think it compares to the Ju-88, Mossie or indeed, the P-38.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

The -190 lacked the range to have the true strategic versatility of those other aircraft. 

The P-38 was designed to best the firepower of the Mossie. Design specs were drawn up for a P-38 mounting a 75mm gun and two .50cals. Others were modified (and flown) with 2 x 20mm and 4 x .50cal or 8 x .50cal all concentrated in the nose.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Woah 8 x .50cal...


----------



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

> But doesnt the fact that the P-38 was designed purely as a fighter, yet was able to do more differing roles than the Mossie at least as well and in a lot of areas better make it the better aircraft? I think it does...



i'm interested to hear in which areas the P-38 was better the mossie, the P-38 was the better fighter and ......err... well.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Lightning Guy can answer this one, ive had enough of telling the lanc the facts he wont admit are true...

Im creating a rather large dossier on the P-38, if the lanc reads it I think his views will be dramatically changed...


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 17, 2004)

Yeah, the P-38 was a great fighter and could carry some ordinance, but it's general firepower was it's .50's and 1 x 20mm...Futhermore, it was essentially a single-seater, whereas the Mossie was always a two-seater. Therefore, 2x sets of eyes, the range of tasks performed were greater, it's main fighter variant carried 4x .303 4x 20mm, and it's ordinance-carrying ability was impressive...

Lets not forget it started-out as a high-speed UN-armed bomber, and also PR, which was pretty radical at that stage of the War...and once it took on the NF role, it continued that right through the War, and after, and in other Foreign Air Forces...
Futhermore, even the US asked for them and had some in service [also Beaufighters too], so they were quite an acceptable aircraft all round....Which is my point exactly.... 
To my knowledge, only the Aussies had some P-38's, [on loan] for PR work in the Pacific, no other Air Force used them....

Mosquitos were a thorn in the arse of the Germans from Day One, right-through....It's 'clobberring-power' in the Coastal Command Strike Forces, in concert with the Beaufighters was legendary....Their work with Bomber Command was exemplary, from PR, Light Night Strike Force and Pathfinders, really sewing-together Bomber Commands' overall efforts...

The PTO was the P-38's ball-park, and it really excelled there....It's abit much to ask of the Mossie, being wooden, to handle the tropic climate there, although they WERE there too, but metal aircraft had their problems there also, mostly for the groundcrews...

They were both fine aircraft, respectively, but I'll argue ad finitem for Mossies, essentially because of their uniqueness [wooden] and the timing of Service, which I believe contributed greatly to the Allied success, particuarly in the ETO.....Lucky for the Axis the Hornet entered service after the War, they would've given German jets a run for their money....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 18, 2004)

The Chinese also used P-38s

The P-38 was easily the better fighter. No contest there. The P-38 was close to matching the P-38 in bombing capability, and was far better as a dive-bomber (neither task was even considered when the P-38 was being designed). It was also probably the equal of the Mossie in the PR roll. It could match range, speed, and altitue pretty evenly and carried a superior assortment of cameras. All of that was a bonus for the P-38 which was never considered for any of these roles initially.

And then there is the theatre versatility. The P-38 served in the ETO, PTO, MTO, Aleutians, CBI, flew shuttle missions into and out of Russia, and patrolled the Carribbean. The Mossie flew in the ETO and . . .


----------



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

> The P-38 was close to matching the P-38 in bombing capability



i'll assume you mean "the P-38 was close to matching the mosquito in bombing capability" if that's the case, i fail to see how, i fail to class it as a good bomber when it could carry 3,200lbs the distance of 450miles...........



> It was also probably the equal of the Mossie in the PR roll



makes you wonder why the americans bought them for that role then when they already had P-38s doing it, the mind boggles.............



> All of that was a bonus for the P-38 which was never considered for any of these roles initially.



it's equally a bonus for the mossie as it was never considdered as anything else other than a bomber during the design stages..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

> Droopsnoots/Pathfinders
> 
> One of the more interesting experiments performed on the P-38 was the idea of using one to serve as a leader for a level bombing raid. This special P-38 would not carry machine guns in the nose, but would contain a bombsite for a bombardier instead. The frontal nose section was replaced with a small glass window similar to that on the B-17. This lead P-38 would lead a large flight of P-38s to a specified target. The bomb run would be the same as used by the heavy bombers. The lead P-38s bombardier would track the target using the bombsite (or radar in the Pathfinder version) and would signal all P-38s to drop their loads. Once the bombs were delivered, the P-38s could fight their way back home as fighters.
> 
> ...



Please take the time to read that lanc...


----------



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

wow and i thought i showd Bias in my 5 favourite aircraft list, that's taking the piss 

the ability to convert the P-38 from a fighter to a lead bombing aircraft, a little useless in the range department, but i mean, can you imagine a mosquito carrying a 5,000lb payload 1,000 miles+ then being able to fight it's way back, how ridiculous would that be............

yes, the P-38 was proberly the better dive-bomber

anyone could design a float plane version of almost any plane, the fact was it was just a idea, exactily the same thing could have been done for the mossie............

any plane could lay a smoke screen if it was so fitted, hell maybe even the mossie could..........

Torpedoes were expensive, complex, difficult to use and you needed allot of training to use them, rockets however were cheap, easy to use, and require very little training to use, an 8 rocket salvo was also thought to pack the same punch a broadside from a battleship, we use the rocket armed mossies to great effect, we had torpedo bombers to torpedo bomb, didn't see the need to convert the mossie for it.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

An 8 rocket salvo has the same power as a cruiser broadside, _not_ a battleship's...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

The Yanks also had Torpedo bombers, didnt stop them converting the P-38...

The Floatplane was only an idea, yea, but it would have worked. And P-38's could carry 14 rockets, I have a picture of one to prove it if ya wanna see...

lanc, I think any plane could be converted to do anything, the fact that the P-38 was converted to do a hell of a lot of things just shows its superior versatility and effects.

Yeah, and how stupid would it be for a fighter to carry 5,200lbs of bombs + ammo and be able to fight its way back...

The P-38 would have also made a superior interceptor.

There a film about the Mosquito on after Xmas sometime, ill probably watch it and have a good laugh...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

CC . . . the 14 rocket version was adandoned as it was two complex. It was replaced by a simplier and removable 10 rocket attachment (still 2 more than any Mossie). 

Lanc, the US used a lot of PR aircraft, and the P-38 intially was being relied upon as THE US fighter to hold the line. Consequently there weren't as many free to be converted. All told, there were some 500 new build F-4s or F-5s and upwards of 1329 F-5s modified from existing P-38Ls. These figures would compare well against the PR models of the Mossie and obviously the USAAF wasn't using EVERY PR Mossie built. Clearly, in the USAAF the P-38 derivitives were the numerically most important. They were also used for a number of important missions and provided much of the PR work done over the Normandy beaches.

As a bomber it could (and did) carry well over 3,200lbs and I've made that point numerous times before. No fighter of WWII (except maybe the Corsair) could match its load carrying. 

The P-38 undisbutably served in more theatres and weather climates and that is a mark of versatility as well.

Finally, a barage of 8 5in rockets was nowhere close to a BB's broadside. It wouldn't even match the weight of one 14in shell. Personally, I am skeptical of it besting a cruiser as most Allied CL's carried 12 6in-guns (more shells of a heavier caliber). The CA's of the UK mounted 6-8 8in guns and America's mounted 9 8in guns. At best, a barage of rockets would best a DD and nothing heavier than that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> CC . . . the 14 rocket version was adandoned as it was two complex. It was replaced by a simplier and removable 10 rocket attachment (still 2 more than any Mossie).



Ah my bad...Here's a picture anyway:


----------



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

> Yeah, and how stupid would it be for a fighter to carry 5,200lbs of bombs + ammo and be able to fight its way back...



what?? fight it's way out of the county, with 5,200lbs of bombs it aint goin no further than that..................



> the fact that the P-38 was converted to do a hell of a lot of things just shows its superior versatility and effects.



sure that fact that there were considderably more marks of the mossie shows it was more versatile??



> No fighter of WWII (except maybe the Corsair) could match its load carrying.



that's single engined fighters, 5,200lbs is nothing extra ordinary for a all metal twin engined...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> sure that fact that there were considderably more marks of the mossie shows it was more versatile??



No that could mean anything, like the plane could have had lots of problems and it kept needing to be improved...



> what?? fight it's way out of the county, with 5,200lbs of bombs it aint goin no further than that..................



No, fly out to a captured airfield somewhere in the Pacific where the fighting was, get loaded up with ordinance, fly to taget which is probably only a couple of hundreds miles away, fly back...


----------



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

couple hundred miles, you'll be lucky............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

If you look at the gfroups of islands in the Pacific you'll find theyre quite tightly packed...


----------



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

ok so the americans come across a group of islands, they take one but there's a few more they have to caputure, the island they have has an airstrip, but that japs also have one on their islands, the americans would send in carried born aircraft to take out the jap island, as using the captured stip would be to dangerous......


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 19, 2004)

I think the 'Hold the Line' fighters of the Pacific was the P-40's, F4U's and Venturas, that the Aussies Kiwis flew....The US Island-hopping Program was land and force the Japs back, capture a Jap airfield or get the Seabee's to build one, then leave the 'Colonial Boys' to mop-up while the US Fleet Co. barrelled-on off up the Pacific....Not that we particuarly minded, we're only little country's, but we sure as hell mopped-up alot of the S.Pacific with your leftover aircraft....

Personally, I feel the Allison engine was one of the most under-developed engines of the War....it was a great engine....and what a shame it was so neglected....the P-38 could've been a truly 'great' fighter, as other aircraft of yours that used it, could've too....Rolls Royce ended-up buying them out in 1994, such was the spirit engendered between both Companies over the 50-60 years....

Anyway, there's a few P-38's left today....will some enterprising chap tackle building new ones ?.......like we're doing down here with Mosquitos...so that the 'Legend' will continue on, renewed ?........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> Personally, I feel the Allison engine was one of the most under-developed engines of the War....it was a great engine....and what a shame it was so neglected....the P-38 could've been a truly 'great' fighter, as other aircraft of yours that used it, could've too....Rolls Royce ended-up buying them out in 1994, such was the spirit engendered between both Companies over the 50-60 years....



The Allison may have been underdeveloped in general, but the Allisons being put into P-38 were very developed indeed.

BTW, the P-38 was a truely 'great' fighter.


----------



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

i've read about that mossie project, it's truely amazing...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

The Ventura was a patrol bomber, not a "hold the line" fighter by any means. The F4U was also beaten into service by the P-38. The P-38 was more of a "hold the line fighter." It was certainly the first USAAF fighter to match the Japanese on equal terms.

Also, I don't think the Mosquito ever served or was even intended to serve as a pure fighter. That's an advantage to the P-38.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> couple hundred miles, you'll be lucky............



On internal fuel the P-38 was capable of a radius of 450mi some combat and return with the 5,000+ load the limit was hard points, two heavy and(normaly) 10 for rockets. The picture thet CC showed them on 0-length launchers which could have been fitted in the field - it was the "Chrismas tree" 14 rocket launcher that was abandonded.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Yeah, and how stupid would it be for a fighter to carry 5,200lbs of bombs + ammo and be able to fight its way back...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point is that the Mossie was set up at the factory to do a single type of mission. The P-38 had the droop snoot, and the PR (which was considered one of if not the best PR plane of the war) and the rest. The rest could do everything the Various Marks of Mossie but each plane/each day could do - that's versality.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

Good points.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 20, 2004)

Do they have a website for that Mosquito project?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

The 14 rocket installation wasn't the "Christmas tree" arrangement. That arrangement carried 10 rockets in two inverted Christmas trees. The 14 rocket scheme had to be abandoned since it required structural changes to the wing. Additionally, the zero length launchers could not be removed adding permanent weight and drag. Also, will the P-38 was normally limited to the 2 hard points, planes with the field were often modified to take a total of 6 hard points and 6 500lb bombs were regularly carried.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 20, 2004)

Unfortunately there is no direct site for the Mosquito Construction going on in Auckland, NZ, but it is generating alot of interest worldwide...
Warbird websites around NZ have some stuff updating developments, and I think www.mossie.org , the main Mosquito website worldwide, has note of the developments...
As I understand it, Glyn Powell, the chap whose behind it all, got the remains of one of our serving Mossies years ago, and became determined to build from scratch...He made the moulds for the fuselage from original drawings etc. [ the first person to do so since the War] and one of the first sets made are off to Canada to their Mosquito Restoration Group, who are also very pro-active about this Development Program...
- Out of 31 worldwide survivors, NZ has about 6, and after RR299 crashed in 1996 in the UK, [ the last flying Mosquito], it's galvanizing the whole Mosquito Restoration Movement to get them flying again....

The best PR aircraft were Spitfires and Mosquitos, a role they carried-out right through the War....and although they were not intially designed as a pure fighter, at the time of it's maiden flight, the Mosquito was faster than the current Allied fighters....so they made 3 main variants off the same mould; - PR [un-armed]; Fast bomber [un-armed]; and the Fighter/bomber, with 4x20mm and 4x.303.....and what awesome service they got from these incredible, inexpensive aircraft !!!

All this occurred earlier in the War, the P-38 came into it's own in the PTO, MTO, but the ETO was really the P-51's ballpark as escort fighter, the P-38 pilots suffered from no heating at altitude...and it never undertook NF duties in the ETO, that was ALWAYS the Mosquito's sphere of speciality....which it continued in, After the War....
- P.38's were scrapped at War's end...what you have left today is IT, and some are total rebuilds from wrecks....

Venturas served in Aussie and Kiwi AF's in the PTO, and with 4 forward-firing guns, carried-out many bombing and ground-attack sorties with P-40 and Corsair escorts....like I said, these 3 aircraft types did the majority of 'MOP-UP' Missions while the US Forces barrelled-on off up the Pacific....The Aussies also had some Mustangs, Mosquitos and some PR Lightnings [on loan]......

Mosquitos have earned their legendary place in History....
I personally preferred the Corsair to the P-38, as Best US Fighter/Bomber.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

There were something like 1200+ PR versions of the P-38 and that has to count for alot. Also, it flew in more theatres than the Mossie and that is important to. 

As far as the Corsair is concerned, it was unable to match the P-38 in climb, dive, turn, payload, radius, or firepower and every other attribute would be pretty close.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 21, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> There were something like 1200+ PR versions of the P-38 and that has to count for alot. Also, it flew in more theatres than the Mossie and that is important to.
> 
> As far as the Corsair is concerned, it was unable to match the P-38 in climb, dive, turn, payload, radius, or firepower and every other attribute would be pretty close.



The F-4U4 was almost identicle in climb, claimed overload and top speed (check out the web page "Planes and Pilots of WWII") you'like the F-4U4 article as he showes the superiority of the Corsair he has lots of "Except for the P-38 excerpts. The 14 rocket P-38 was also a Cristmas tree and it did concentrate to much load on the wing, I was unaware the same determination was made with the zero length launchers.

I've never seen the multiple hard point P-38, do you have pic's?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 21, 2004)

I've got the pic in a magazine. I will try to get in on here but it will be a while before I could do that. There is a smaller hard point on either side of the standard hardpoint and all six are mounting a 500lb bomb. According to Warren Bodie's book that loadout was fairly common in the MTO.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 22, 2004)

The P-38 provided a good long-range fighter in the PTO until the P-51D started to supercede it later in the War...and there was a few PR Lightnings, indeed...most long-range aircraft had that capability...but the Spitfire Mosquito PR versions were UN-ARMED, so probably quicker....

As for the Corsair, well it did sterling work in the PTO, right in there at Okinawa with RP's, right through into Occupation Duties, and then they went to Korea, and did a Tour of Duty there, especially night ground-attack under flares just over the 38th parallel, cutting the N.Korean supply lines...... then they stopped producing them in 1953 but they stayed in service for a little while longer after that.........
- They scrapped the P-38's after Japan surrendered.....

As for NF P-38's, they must've put the guns somewhere else, because the gunflash, with or without tracer would've blinded the pilot...
- Mosquitos just deleted the 4x.303's, leaving the cannons which were housed right underneath them, and just the gun-flame from them came a few yards out in front....but with the Nav/Radar Op. scoping the tube, they could usually keep the target available.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

I think on the NF P-38's there was a special device fitted to the guns to reduce the flash, but I will have to look this up.

In the meanwhile, here is a rather sad photo I found in the album the other day.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

The PR versions of the P-38 (except the one XF-5D) were all unarmed. Also, the P-38 carried a better assortment of cameras than either the Mossie of the Spit.

The P-38M, the NF version, had flash surpressors fitted to all guns.

Numerous aircraft were shortly after the war (that's what happens when wars end, weapons are destroyed). Countless Hellcats, Avengers, P-47s, Spits, Mossies, Forts, Lancs, Libs, and whatever else you care to name were sold, scrapped, or simply abandoned within the first few post-war years. Certainly that doesn't detract from the contribution these aircraft made to the war effort or their place in history. The outbreak of peace and the dawn of the jet age where the causes of these cutbacks.

As an added note, in August of 1945, the USAAF still had several thousand P-38Ls on order and a second factory (the Lockheed-Vega plant in Nashville) was just begining to turn out P-38s. The US was committed to continuing to use the P-38 for as long as the war continued. And it would have been of better use in the early days of Korea than the F-51 Mustangs.


----------



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

sadly we will never know that...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Well if you look at what the F-51 done in Korea, you compare it to how the P-38 done it in WW2 and see which was better.

For instance, if its ground attack we're talking about then the P38 would have been better off than the F-51.


----------



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

the corsair was doing fine though, and the skyraider, a much better ground attack platform than the P-38,-51 AND corsair............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

The Corsair and Skyraider are irrelevant. We're talking about the fact the the P-38 would have been far more effective than the F-51 during the early Korean war.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 22, 2004)

Maybe one of u should bring this over to the Post WWII Section and start a thread about the best plane for the job in Korea....


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 22, 2004)

Yeah, but the NF Mosquito was really a case of simplicity, this role began early in it's combat career and they weren't retired until the NF Mk.38's were replaced in 1951 by NF Vampires, and two years later NF Venoms joined the Vampires....That's a bloody remarkable combat career for a 'wooden' aircraft, legendary in fact, compared to any NF service performed by the P-38.....

I realise that at War's end, aircraft get scrapped, but if the P-38 was SO good, why did it's overall service career finish at the end of the War ??...Why did the Corsair and P/F-51 continue on into Postwar service, the latter through into the early '70's ???...It wasn't just the 'Jet-age', and as Lanc pointed-out about the Skyraider, which was one of the most powerful piston-jobs built, or the Sea Fury, or the Mosquito's hot-rod sister, the DH-103 Hornet, or the Latter Mk.'s of Spitfire......

The P-38 seemed to have alot of development potential, it was indeed effective at it's various roles, but there seems to be no satisfactory reason why it didn't seriously continue Postwar, even to be sold to Foreign AF's, as alot of the rest were....or had it really reached it's zenith by then ???......


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 22, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> The P-38 provided a good long-range fighter in the PTO until the P-51D started to supercede it later in the War...and there was a few PR Lightnings, indeed...most long-range aircraft had that capability...but the Spitfire Mosquito PR versions were UN-ARMED, so probably quicker....
> 
> As for the Corsair, well it did sterling work in the PTO, right in there at Okinawa with RP's, right through into Occupation Duties, and then they went to Korea, and did a Tour of Duty there, especially night ground-attack under flares just over the 38th parallel, cutting the N.Korean supply lines...... then they stopped producing them in 1953 but they stayed in service for a little while longer after that.........
> - They scrapped the P-38's after Japan surrendered.....
> ...



Actuly the very last mission of WWII was reported to be a 2,800mi mission over Borneo on 15 Aug 45 by P-38s. P-38s also landed in Japan before any other allied aircraft. The P-51s never replaced the P-38s except as escort in the ETO, they augmented them by replacing the P-40s and then were primarily used in escort missions from Iwo. The P-38s were retired because they were twice the cost of a P-51 not because they could do ANYTHING better (they couldn't until the H model and it's only claim was speed). The P-38M came about because tests showed it better than the P-61. Flash hiders made it bearable to fire the guns at night.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

I fail to see how the P-38 being the first aircraft to land in Japan makes it any better. If you're going into that, the Mosquito was the first to bomb Berlin in daylight. 

The Mosquito did everything, and it did it all very well or good enough. It served in Europe and the Pacific (where the Americans ruined the paint job).


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 22, 2004)

Thanks wmaxt, it's always puzzled me why it was discontinued.....bloody shame to scrap such fine aircraft as they did, if only they had known that 50-60 years on, they'd be worth a million or two, restored....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

There were some intial plans to leave the P-38s to the South Korean air force following WWII but Washington and the State Department nixed that idea. It makes for a very interesting "what if."

Plan_D, the Mossie didn't do it all. As an obvious example, it never served as a pure day fighter. It never flew a fighter sweep, intercept, or escort mission in daylight. The day fighter role was a huge mission in the war years and the Mossie never fulfilled it. And it's service around the glode doesn't even begin to compare to the P-38.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

No, wait right there...before we get dragged into this ALL over again...I'm stepping out of it. We had this in the Mosquito Vs. Lightning thread donkeys years ago.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

So what, its worth getting into again to prove a simple point...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> Thanks wmaxt, it's always puzzled me why it was discontinued.....bloody shame to scrap such fine aircraft as they did, if only they had known that 50-60 years on, they'd be worth a million or two, restored....



I agree that they should have continued development, but maybe it had reached ts peak. It was designed in 1937 in response to Specification X-608. It first flew on January 27, 1939. The F4U and the P-51 were newer fighters and they were cheaper to make. People often tout the Allisons, but they had more than their fair share of problems, especially in the P-38. From one of my articles:

_"Every Lightning in the European theater had at least one set of engines changed during it’s service life. The Allisons were problematic, but the redundancy of 2 engines helped to bring back many aircraft. The problem with the Allison engines were not entirely due to the design of the engines. The cooling system that was initially installed was not adequate and the lack of cowl flaps exasperated the problem. The original intercooler system led the airflow from the turbosuperchargers to the wingtip and back, which was a less than ideal situation. Later models resolved this problem. Temperatures at high altitudes above Europe were often 40 degrees below zero, which did not allow the engines to warm properly for correct oil cooling. Additionally, at the fuel octane and lead separated at that temperature, causing valve failures and backfires that would fire through the intercooler ducts, sometimes warping the leading edge of the wing. Engine fires were also experienced due to broken connecting rods. These problems were corrected for the most part in later models with the changes made to the intercoolers and the addition of the rear ducts."_

The P-38 also had no cockpit heating or cooling, which meant the pilot froze or fried, depending on the climate and altitude. 

Don't get me wrong, I love the P-38 and it did a great job in many roles. But I am not so sure that it would have been a great post-war airplane. 

I also have an affection for the Mosquito, so I couldn't pick a "Which one is better" side. They both were superb airplanes that did a great job.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Really, if you want to start it again we'll just copy and paste the whole Lighting - Mossie thread.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Nah, members like wmaxt need a chance to have their say.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

True but I'm sure LG can safely hold up the Lightning. Gemhorse holds up the Mosquito, and all the new members can be added in somewhere like...something that's add in, to the bigger picture.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

But wmaxt is the 3rd of the "3 lightning muskateers" If I may call him that


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

A bit behind aren't you? Civilisation has moved far on from muskets...


----------



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

now we're on to the heavy stuff, like air rifles


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Exactly and elastic bands with pencils.


----------



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

and screwed up bits of paper!!!!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 23, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> But wmaxt is the 3rd of the "3 lightning muskateers" If I may call him that



That's fine, it's nice to have friends against the odds. The 20mm makes a good musket, don't you think?


----------



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

not as good as 4x20mm...............


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 23, 2004)

evangilder said:


> Gemhorse said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks wmaxt, it's always puzzled me why it was discontinued.....bloody shame to scrap such fine aircraft as they did, if only they had known that 50-60 years on, they'd be worth a million or two, restored....
> ...



The P-38L cured all those issues. It's true the early P-38s had issues, some quite bad - fuel was a big issue the TEL (tetra-ethel lead to boost octane was a major problem and so was the standard proceedure of med throttle/fine pich props/no boost settings for cruise causing cold oil, more fuel consumption and frozen turbo regulators, destroying engines at altitude. Lindberg showedthat Low throttle/high boost/corse pitch even gave better fuel consumption. Also mods to engine/systems and some automatic controls ensured it would not happen anymore.

You could get one after the war for $1,200.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 23, 2004)

Thanks, evangilder, that more than explains this niggling query about the P-38 and although I openly express I am not as clued-up on them as some other aircraft, I still have great respect for them and their 'Tour of Duty'....Perhaps one could conclude that by War's end, they had by far fulfilled their duty, and I remain saddened by their thoughtless demise to the scrapheap...but they still had more development potential I feel, as you agree....
That was an inspired piece you've written there, and I note what you say, that others such as wmaxt offer much and need to know what us others have learned...I've certainly learned some, hashing-it out with LG !!!!...

I merely note that by the time Korea rolled around, the old adage about 'radial vs inline', must've made the Corsair one of the Best ground-attack aircraft then available, the 'F-51' did suffer heavier losses whilst in this role there...

And LG is generally correct about daylight dogfighting of Mosquitos....they were never intended for that role, but did what it could when confronted, whereas the P-38 was a fighter from the start...
Both these aircraft did far more than was ever expected of them, and they both had their respective problems, and I guess we ALL have our favourite aircraft and will defend them vigourously....

As plan_D states, 'do we have to have this discussion again ?' and I feel I've said all I really can about the Mossie, and at this time, I just find it really exciting to see going on around the world, these talented enthusiasts restoring all the old Warbird aircraft to such an awesome degree of originality, which is the Finest Tribute to that past generation of young men, who selflessly flew fought in them, to give us the relative Peace we live in today......


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2004)

Wmaxt, Yes, the L did iron out alot of problems, but while Lindbergh's methods are well known to save fuel, it was a lot harder on the engines. The Allisons were pretty temperamental, and they still are. Ask anyone who has worked on a P-38. Unfortunately, the one in our museum had an engine rebuild from someone who had problems with other rebuilds and so it has not been off the ground in 3 years.

Sadly, there has been a long custody battle brewing over that P-38 and some other aircraft and because of that it has been sitting idle. The worst part is that, long story short, we lost the custody battle and it is returning to where it came from. So around mid-January, we will be losing our Lightning. It may be back, hopefully, but it will be awhile.

Gemhorse, I agree that he Mossie and the Lightning both had their strengths and both did more than their original designs called for. They both were great. 

With the Corsair and P-51/F-51, I personally would choose the Corsair for ground support. Radial engines are way more resilient. I gave a presentation on the P-47 last weekend and there was a WWII P-47 Crew Chief who spoke as well. He said that there were many stories of P-47s coming back with up to 5 (yes FIVE) jugs (piston and cylinder) completely shot off! Yet they still made it home. Water cooled engines are way too susceptible to ground fire. One .303 in the radiator or coolant line, and you have maybe 20 minutes before you are done.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

All excellent points. On the matter of favorite aircraft people tend to become attached very firmly and for personal reasons. As much fun as these continued discussions are, I don't think anyone's opinion is really going to be swayed.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2004)

Agreed, if you have a favorite airplane or one you like alot, chances are, no one is going to change your mind about a favorite, or one you like. There are good and bad points to all of them, some more than others.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

> All excellent points. On the matter of favorite aircraft people tend to become attached very firmly and for personal reasons. As much fun as these continued discussions are, I don't think anyone's opinion is really going to be swayed.


Not so..... I have seen CC's opinion change atleast 6 times on a certain subject...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 24, 2004)

Not for the First 3 in my lists


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

Ur favorite fighter changed so many times we started kidding u about it CC......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 24, 2004)

Did it?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

Hehe yea.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 24, 2004)

I can safely say now that its the Fw-190D-9...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

I thought either the .108 or the -38 were ur favorite.....


----------



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

or the Mc.200??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

I think CC's New Year's Resolution should be to pick a a favorite aircraft and stick to it!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 24, 2004)

evangilder said:


> Wmaxt, Yes, the L did iron out alot of problems, but while Lindbergh's methods are well known to save fuel, it was a lot harder on the engines. The Allisons were pretty temperamental, and they still are. Ask anyone who has worked on a P-38. Unfortunately, the one in our museum had an engine rebuild from someone who had problems with other rebuilds and so it has not been off the ground in 3 years.
> 
> Sadly, there has been a long custody battle brewing over that P-38 and some other aircraft and because of that it has been sitting idle. The worst part is that, long story short, we lost the custody battle and it is returning to where it came from. So around mid-January, we will be losing our Lightning. It may be back, hopefully, but it will be awhile.
> 
> ...



An interesting story I read many years ago about a fateful mission over Germany in a P-51 straffing an airfield and as usual got hit in the cooling system. He wanted some altitude to jump and thought that if he pumped the primer the raw fuel might keep the engine cool enought to let him climb to several thousand feet. The engine kept going so he turned it towards home - he actuly nursed it all the way back, some 400 mi, and both gloves were worn through but he made it!

The engines in the 40s were all more maintenance intensive than todays. The Merlins required a set of cams every 40-50 hrs of run time. In attack missions the radials had a lot going for them.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2004)

The radials are the way to go if you going to do ground attack. They are way more durable. 

The Merlines did have their issues, but they were better than the Allisons. Look at the Mustang with the Merlin versus with the Allison, way better with the Merlin. 

Pumping raw fuel on a hot engine is not something that I would think is the wisest move. He got lucky. If he had gotten hit with a tracer just after priming, he'd light up like a Zero. I know combat has extraorinary circumstances and primimg versus capture was probably what came to mind. But I gotta be honest, the thought of that scares the bejeezus out of me!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

The Allison only had trouble in the ETO and only at extreme altitude. Note that they did just fine in the MTO, SWPA, CBI, Aleutians, Russia, and everywhere else.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 25, 2004)

I've alway's been fascinated by the Mosquito, dunno why, just love it's look and all it embodies as an aircraft of that time and the marvel of it's wooden construction...I am a member of an Aeronautical Society that are restoring the remains of two of our Mossies, from back in the 1940's 50's, one is a combat-veteran of RAF 487 [NZ] Sqn.; and they are being restored to make one static display....One hopes it could be built to fly again one day, perhaps.....the work others are doing worldwide are of great interest to me, and many others I guess, there's quite a following surrounding Mosquito Restoration......I have no consumate mechanical or electrical skills but thoroughly support endorse the crafts, my skills lie more in Art, Advertising and Design that can be useful to the overall Cause....
I've read alot about the Merlin, Griffon, Allison and some of the Radials, but recently read a book called ''The Whole Nine Yards'' by John King, the name of the book refers to the length of .50 ammo a P-40's guns take, and it's about the finding by NZ'er Charles Darby, of a P-40 up in PNG that he got to NZ and that eventually got restored as ''Currawong, of G-AC' of 75 RAAF Sqn. There is a good review of the Allison in the book, and also reference sources for more detailed data that been written....If anyone's interested, I can get the ISBN No., but P-40 restoration and the use of the Allison today is really growing, they're being used in Russian fighter restorations even....It's awesome the restorations that are being done now, a P-39 I saw recently was so 'mint,' as to seem fresh off the War-time assembly line......
All these engines from the War have their own fascinating aspects......

May I wish you ALL a very Merry Xmas and a safe and Happy New Year...


----------



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

the phrase "the whole nine yards" originates from WWI when we brits used machine gun belts that were 9 yards long, we would say "give them the whole 9 yards" meaning use all your ammo on them...............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 25, 2004)

Interesting! I never knew that.


----------



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

that's one hell of allot of ammo though..............


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the phrase "the whole nine yards" originates from WWI when we brits used machine gun belts that were 9 yards long, we would say "give them the whole 9 yards" meaning use all your ammo on them...............



I heard the same thing but for the B-17s.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2004)

evangilder said:


> The radials are the way to go if you going to do ground attack. They are way more durable.
> 
> The Merlines did have their issues, but they were better than the Allisons. Look at the Mustang with the Merlin versus with the Allison, way better with the Merlin.
> 
> Pumping raw fuel on a hot engine is not something that I would think is the wisest move. He got lucky. If he had gotten hit with a tracer just after priming, he'd light up like a Zero. I know combat has extraorinary circumstances and primimg versus capture was probably what came to mind. But I gotta be honest, the thought of that scares the bejeezus out of me!



The Allisons in most aplications had a single stage supercharger that could not pull the air that the two stage two speed supercharger of the Merlin. 

The Allisons in the P-38L were pulling 1,425 in METo and 1,750 in WEP and continued to produce those numbers past 30,000ft. The Merlin was pulling 1,650hp up to about 25,000 and was down to about 1,400hp by 30,000. The exact numbers can be found at the following web page: P-38(C.C.Jordon).

The Turbo-chargers are better at supplying consistent air flow over a wider range of altitudes.

There is no more danger of fire when adding primer fuel into the intake manifold - it just richens the mixture and the extra fuel keeps the Cylinder head temps down helping the situation out, but yes he was VERY lucky.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

I heard that the "whole nine-yards" thing was for a WWII fighter. I had assummed a .50cal belt and estimated a nine yard belt to be about 300 rounds (very rough estimation). Based off of that I guess the F4F Wildcat.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

If he's right, I couldn't be more impressed.


----------



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

who now??

and think about it, if you're the pilot of a single engined fighter with 6 belts of ammo, you're not gonna say "i'm gonna give 'em the whole 9 yeards" mostly because you wouldn't use all your ammo in one go, i think my explanation makes much more sence.....................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2004)

Well regardless of what plane was originally involved, if any, I still find it interesting.
I just never really thought about where the saying came from.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 26, 2004)

wmaxt, I will agree that priming an engine that had not taken any hits is fairly safe, doing it with an engine that has taken hits and not knowing the extent of the damage is very risky. You do however, also run the risk of an exhaust stack fire, which is normally not a big issue, provided it goes out. Continued priming with an exhaust fire can lead to some serious trouble! But at least in the mustang, the exhaust stack is visible from the cockpit. Interesting story, lucky pilot!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

The Ju-88 was the best multi role aircraft of the war, and I would say the best night fighter with the Blackwidow being right behind it. The Ju-88 could be used in just so many roles and was so diverse. Here are just the fighter/night figher versions.



> Junkers Ju 88
> 
> [This profile covers the fighter and attack variants of the Junkers Ju 88, bomber and reconnaissance variants will be covered separately.]
> By the middle of 1944, the night fighter force had become the strongest and most efficient arm of the Luftwaffe, comprising almost fifteen per cent of its first line strength. From May 1940 onwards, the appearance of ever increasing numbers of RAF bombers at night over Germany had forced the Luftwaffe to set up a powerful night air defence organisation which soon became involved in a bitter see-saw battle for supremacy in the night sky. The Junkers Ju 88 night-fighter was a key weapon in this crucial battle. From 1944 until the end of the war, Ju 88s equipped the vast majority of Nachtjagd units, and constant development of the airframe and of numerous electronic aids maintained its reputation as a formidable fighting machine until the very end.
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

No My favourite fighter in the 190D-9, which is what you asked me...

Favourite plane is the P.108, then the P-38 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Me-109G is my fav


----------



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

and there was no way the P-38 was more versatile than the mossie, the mossie could carry a turret, H2S bombing radar, american and british radars and two highball, the P-38 wouldn't have been able to carry any of them..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

The P-38 could be used in fighter, nightfighter, recon, and ground attack. Atleast that is the only roles I can think, they may have been more.


----------



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

yes but the mossie opperated in even more roles than that, there were 43 marks..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Oh I believe you that the mossie was more versatile. It was a larger platform and could be used in more roles than the P-38. However as for the Marks, a lot of the marks were the same role as the others, a mark is just a version. Like the Germans Bf-109V-1, Bf-109E-3, Me-109G-6, or the US P-51A, P-51B, P-51D. It just the latest upgrade or version. Dont take me wrong a lot of the Marks were for different roles however it did not suit over 40 different roles. There are not 40 roles that it could fill.


----------



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

yes that's true, it just makes the mossie sound better


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

I hear you.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

P-38 served more roles and theatres than the Mossie...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

I know it flew in more theatres but I cant think of how the P-38 flew in more roles than the mossie.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

I cant think of them all off-hand but I think it was more, and if not pretty much the same...


----------



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

ok could the P-38 carry:-

a turret?

H2S Bombing radar?

British and american radars?

two high ball?

a cookie?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

It probably could carry a cookie externally, if needs be. 
Several versions were modified to fit radar you know...
I reckon the P-38M could have been fitted with a rear gunner, but as the P-38 was primarily a superb fighter why would it need a turret...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

The roles of the P-38 that I can think of are: fighter, night fighter, recon, and ground attack. What else could it be used for, I may be wrong but I think thats about it. It was extremely great in its roles that it perfomed but I dont think you can do much else with it.


----------



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

damn i made a reply, why didn't it register!!!

ok, if either of the external pylons could take the weight of a 4,000lb bomb, it would unbalance the aircraft severely, being able to carry radar is very different to one aircraft being able to carry both british and american radar, the P-38M was cramped enough, it's be one hell of a squeze to get a rear gunner in there, and i'm talking about a 4 gun turrent able to bring it's guns to bear through 360 degrees, and there was no way it could carry H2S or highball, another thing, could the P-38 carry a searchlight??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

I am pretty sure it could carry a searchlight, but I dont know if it did or not.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

The P-38 flew in all the catagories the Mossie did including level bombing with and without Norden/radar. the big difference was that the SAME P-38 could do all those roles not just a purpose built aircraft like the Mossie.

The Mossie airframe was flexible but individual Mossies were not. With the exception of the pure recon P-38 they, each plane, could do all the things it needed to ie.

Air ambulance
Fighter
Level bombing
Skip bombing
Dive bonbing
Recon
Intercepter
Escort
Tank buster
Night fighter
Provisions/testing was made for these rolls
Skis for snow
Two torpedos
Floats

You can't lump these into smaller catagories because they require different technices and in most aircraft, different set up. The P-38s could do any mixture on any single day with any single aircraft.

The Mossie was a great plane but it was not more flexiblethan a P-38!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> .You can't lump these into smaller catagories because they require different technices and in most aircraft, different set up. The P-38s could do any mixture on any single day with any single aircraft.



Good Point.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > .You can't lump these into smaller catagories because they require different technices and in most aircraft, different set up. The P-38s could do any mixture on any single day with any single aircraft.
> ...



How do you isolate individual paragraphs in a quote?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Aha I just figured out the whole quote thing myself. As for the isolating when you quote something someone has written, just delete everything in the quote that you dont want to have in it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Example:



wmaxt said:


> .You can't lump these into smaller catagories because they require different technices and in most aircraft, different set up. The P-38s could do any mixture on any single day with any single aircraft.





wmaxt said:


> .You can't lump these into smaller.....single aircraft.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Duh.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

Or type

```
[quote="Name of user"]TEXT[/quote]
```


----------



## plan_D (Dec 28, 2004)

For the Mosquitos roles, put all those minus the skis (Skis for Snow isn't a role..  ) and then add Anti-Shipping. Seeing as the P-38 didn't actually do anti-shipping.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 28, 2004)

plan_D said:


> For the Mosquitos roles, put all those minus the skis (Skis for Snow isn't a role..  ) and then add Anti-Shipping. Seeing as the P-38 didn't actually do anti-shipping.



Yes, it did. It was the only fighter that could carry 2 torpedoes. They attacked axis shipping during the Battle of North Africa just after operation torch. They attacked ships, and air transports. The picture below shows the P-38 with 2 torpedoes. If that isn't anti-shipping, what is?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

I already knew it could carry torpedos. Air transports aren't ships...see, keyword 'AIR' . The Mosquito was doing anti-shipping in the Channel, North Sea, Atlantic...it did more Anti-shipping duties than the Lightning. The Lightning was hardly used.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Actually, it was used in North Africa against planes AND ships. It also was used quite a bit in the Pacific. I am not discounting the role the mosquito played, I am just pointing out that the lightning also did perform anti-shipping roles. Torpedoes aren't for AIR shipping, unless you are one hell of a shot!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

You might do, like drop it on them. It'd be an interesting kill. The Lightnings did do some anti-shipping but compared to the Mosquito, they did little.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Agreed, they didn't do a lot, but they did do some, and were quite capable. 

If there ever was an air to air kill with a torpedo, other than by accident, I'd like to shake that guys hand and buy him a beer!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

Even by accident, I'd like to shake his hand and buy him a beer. Hell, I'm impressed with that -262 pilot who dropped a Mustang with R4/Ms.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Definitely impressive. I am sure luck had soem hand in that though. If he did it twice, he's a maniac!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

Probably just wet himself and fired randomly into oncoming P-51s - "Mein GOD! Ich got ein" How the hell do you say got, in german?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

That is probably pretty close to the truth. Every now and again, someone gets a lucky shot. My German is probably worse than yours, so I won't fathom a guess.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

I'll just stick with got, it looks right - even if it isn't right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Probably just wet himself and fired randomly into oncoming P-51s - "Mein GOD! Ich got ein" How the hell do you say got, in german?



"Mein Got, Ich hab eine!"

I too did not think the P-38 could be used for anti shipping but it is true, I looked it up and found several websites that cover it. It was not much but still it fills the anti shipping role also.



> P-38s attack vessels off the northern Tunisian coast
> 
> P-38s attack
> ships off the north coast scoring a hit on one vessel
> ...



I too am beginning to lead to the P-38 over the mossie. I still the Ju-88's diverstity made it the best multi role aircraft. Not the best aircraft but the best at adapting to different roles. But I think the P-38 has the mossie beat on this one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

evangilder said:


> Agreed, they didn't do a lot, but they did do some, and were quite capable.
> 
> If there ever was an air to air kill with a torpedo, other than by accident, I'd like to shake that guys hand and buy him a beer!



I read an account once of a guy in a P-38 who shot down a Zero with a 500lb bomb...

He was bombing a Jap airbase, and totally missed and the bomb hit the water. Meanwhile, a scrambling Zero was taking off, and got caught in the blast of water the bomb had created and his plane ripped up.

Some kill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

Thats crazy talk about luck.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Yup


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

The more and more I read about the P-38, the more and more I like it.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

I heard that story once before as well CC. Real lucky shot. Do you get a confirmed kill for that? I would guess you would as it was a shootdown, so to speak. 

And yes, Adler, the P-38 was quite an airplane. That was the first airplane that I did a presentation for at the museum and so has some other nostalgia for me. I also think that was the first WWII airplane that I actually got to sit in the cockpit of. That's me in the P-38 for my avatar.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

Which mueseum do you work for.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Id love to sit in a P-38. Any plane would be good, but theres something about the cockpit of the P-38 that makes it appealing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I know as soon as I finish all of my private single engine liscensing I want to buy an old WW2 era plane even if it is only a T-6 Texan. There is something about flying around in those old piston aircraft that I love. I am going to have to get a Steerman also. One of my best friends has one and it was such a great feeling to fly in an open cockpit bi-plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

I wouldnt mind flying a TigerMoth. Or a Harvard.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

It is one of the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) chapters, in Camarillo, CA. If you want to check out our website, it's at:
http://www.orgsites.com/ca/caf-socal/

We currently have about a dozen aircraft, 7 are flyable and a few are in restoration. It's a nice crew. 

The P-38 cockpit was fairly roomy for a warbird, but I have to admit the seat is quite uncomfortable. The Zero was very cramped and if I were to fly it, which I probably never will, I would have to slouch down to keep my head from being directly against the canopy!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

Atleast you have the opurtunity to fly them that is awesome.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Nice site. Id love to go to a Warbird Museum. I think Next time I go to see my amily in Milton Keynes ill pop along to Duxford. 8)


----------



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

wow one day and it's moved on 3 pages, and there was no way the P-38 could do allot of things the mossie could.................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

From what I read so far it could. I would not have believed it either yesterday.


----------



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

could the P-38 carry:-

a turret? no

British and American radar? I've yet to see something that suggests it could

H2S bombing radar? No 

two highball? no

a cookie? no

A searchlight? possibly, but i bet it never did...............

and don't give me all that crap about roles, most of those involve no change to the aircraft, and you think that just because there were more marks of the mossie than P-38s the P-38 was more versatile because you could do more with one aircraft?? shit. pretty much all mossies were the same, as soon as we did something different with a mossie we gave it a new designation, that's the way we did it, most of the conversions were from a Mk.VI anyway, and surely if you count all sub-varients there's just as many P-38s..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

The P-38 could carry radar. How do you think it was used as a night fighter. The P-38 could carry torpedos and was used to sink ships, the P-38 could carry bombs. Tell me what a turret has to do with anything. I dont see how a turret keeps a P-38 from doing anything that a mossie can do. Dont take me wrong I think the mossie was a great aircraft but I still am starting to believe that the P-38 could do more and better. I certainly could outfly a mossie. Please dont take me wrong again I still think the Ju-88 was the most versetail aircraft, not the best but could be adapted the most, however I am starting to believe that the P-38 could do everything the mossie could do and better.


----------



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

yes i know the P-38 could carry radar, but that's very different to the same aircraft being able to carry both american and british radars................

alol the above points i mention because the mossie could do all of those, she was fitted with a turret, H2S, Highball, cookies, searchlight and different radar.....................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

But how does that change the fact that the Lightning could not do the same things. You just keep repeating that the mossie could have a turret and carry radar. What does a turret have to do with it and radar is radar in this sense. Who cares if it was British or American, it was a radar.



> P-38F First model to incorporate in wing pylons and could accomodate 1,000lbs of bombs, torpedoes, tanks or other stores.
> 
> P-38L:
> This model had a bomb load of 4,000 lbs of bombs or ten rockets. This model was often used in level flight bombing with formations being led by a Droop-Snoot conversion. (See below)
> ...


----------



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

i keep saying it because it proves how versatile the mossie was............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

It does not prove anything. All it proves is that you can put a mod to it. It is like adding a chin turret to the B-17. It ist just another piece of armament and a mod to it. And the radar how does that make it more versatile, a radar is a radar in this sense. Please tell me how it make it able to do more than a P-38. That turret would do nothing for it with a P-38 flying circles around it. And the turret does not change what the mossie can do.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

The point being made about the roles is that any P-38 could carry out any role with very little or no adaptation. The Mossie required a Bomber Varient, Fighter Bomber version and a Night Fighter version; whereas all P-38 models were fighters that just happened to be able to do pretty much anything. 

It could carry a bombing radar, but thats my fault you dont know this because Ive only mentioned the Droop Snoot P-38 a few hundred times...

The P-38 would have ben able to carry a cookie, albeit with an adapted bomb rack. But in theory, it can. Anyway, why would it need to carry a cookie? Thats a British bomb, used by the RAF. The Americans used American bombs used by the USAAF. 

Heres another point, the Mossie was a much newer plane than the P-38, what technology did it introduce? What did it pioneer? What did it do thats still seen today in modern planes?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

I will say this, the Mossie was an incredible airplane for one being made of wood. Okay, I guess I found something the P-38 didn't have,...a wooden airframe.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 29, 2004)

SSSSS, soon as I go off and do something, they're back bagging the Mosquito !!....Lanc was merely pointing-out they tried it with a turret, which is something they DIDN'T do with a P-38.....Anybody would think you could go wing-walking on a Lightning while it did barrel-rolls.....

Yeah, it was a great fighter.....but The Mosquito was a LEGEND. [full-stop.]

It did carry a torpedo [18 in] plus 2x 50 gal drop tanks, but it seemed pointless when you've rockets....I don't recall any P-38's working off Aircraft Carriers, like the Sea Mossie [with folding-wings....]

Remember, they tossed the P-38 at War's end....period

It's service was replaced by Merlin-engined P-51's in the PTO, towards the War's end....it was P-51's that escorted the B-29's over Japan....

The P-38's NF duties were late in the War, [boy, it surely didn't enhance it's looks, that big knob sticking-out...] and that was only because the P-61 was too slow...

Of the 7,781 Mosquitos built, they sure spread them around, they were in Russia at one stage, somewhere a P-38 didn't go....

First operational in Sept. 1941, last RAF operation in Malaya 1955....

ALL those variants, off three basic models......

RAF 23 Sqn. took part in the defence of Malta and in operations over Italy

They were the first twin-engined Allied aircraft to bomb Berlin, which did more to piss-off the Germans than a whole Group of P-38's.....

They were also a diplomatic passenger mail carrier doing the Leuchars-Stockholm run, bringing-back much needed ball-bearings [as already mentioned], but they did it in daylight, UN-armed....Naturally the Germans were incensed at that and set Fw-190's onto them, so they went at night after that.....Pretty extraordinary courage in such hazardous conditions....
- But the Bomber PR variants did that every day night.....Afterall, that's how the 8th AF [and Bomber Command] got it's pre-raid weather-forecasts, and after-raid photos,[along with the PR Spits reports.....] - The US had over 40 F-8's......In fact, they probably flew much higher than any P-38's, John De Havilland first flew it to 43,500 ft in late 1942, but successive variants went higher....

They set Atlantic-crossing records during the War and after, in late 1943 they went to the Far East and during 1944 made an aerial survey of the whole of Burma and photographed all the enemy seaports in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies....

- Postwar, they won Air races in the US [ex-US F8 Mossies], Survey work for oil in Tripoli, performed high-altitude photographic missions in Canada, USA, [GOT THAT !!!!], Mexico, Columbia, Brit. Guiana, the Dominican Republic and Kenya...and an Aussie variant was used to Aerial Survey the whole of Australia, completing that during 1953....

They still have the prototype model, at Salisbury Hall.....did they disc the original P-38 too ???

Not to mention the postwar service Mosquitos performed for 11 different country's, beyond RAF's last op in 1955....

COME ON GUYS, they are THE ''LEGEND''..... a l'il old idea in the early stages of a formidable World War, to use non-essential war craftsmen and materials to make a wooden aeroplane, that spawned a bloody LEGEND...
...and then they built a single-seat version that was virtually the fastest piston-engined aircraft in the World, at the time, and that went on to do good service too, in another l'il War...... they called that the Hornet, but I notice the USA have stuck that name to one of theirs now......you may want to call the next 'hot-rod' fighter you build ... the MOSQUITO !!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

> They still have the prototype model, at Salisbury Hall.....did they disc the original P-38 too ???



No, the XP-38 crashed...


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 29, 2004)

Kinda says it all then, doesn't it ??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Not really, they could have given the project up but no, they persisted. And im bloody glad they did 8)


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Actually, it did not crash because of any design problems. It crashed because the carburetors iced up on final approach to Mitchell field. That could happen to ANY aircraft.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm pleased you're pleased.....I'm REAL pleased they're presently giving the Mosquito a rebirth, a whole brand-new run of beautiful, awesome WOODEN Mosquitos, so that the LEGEND continues......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Or maybe because so many crashed theres no original ones left so they need to build more?


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 29, 2004)

Now you're just being nasty and petty........


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> SSSSS, soon as I go off and do something, they're back bagging the Mosquito !!....Lanc was merely pointing-out they tried it with a turret, which is something they DIDN'T do with a P-38.....Anybody would think you could go wing-walking on a Lightning while it did barrel-rolls.....
> 
> Yeah, it was a great fighter.....but The Mosquito was a LEGEND. [full-stop.]
> 
> ...



Sorry Gem, The P-38 never NEEDED a turret.
The Mossie did have carrier possibilities but was impractial - the P-38 had a variant designed for carrier use though it never got off the dwg board. The navy wasn't interested even if it was converted to radials.

The P-38 were the first (only?) fighter to fly the Atlantic operationaly. In the ETO and MTO the P-38's were normaly flown to their area of responsibility rather than being shipped.

The P-38 didn't go to russia because EVERYBODY them and they just werent enough. They did serve in the ETO, PTO, CBI Africa and the Aleutions.

The P-38 caused Galland to bring a number of his "Wild Boar" squadrons to daylite operations to combat the escorts when long range escorts were finaly being used.

The P-51 escorts were planes surplussed from the ETO and a political move.

The proto type P-38 crashed at the end of a trans continental record flight it had less than 15 total hours on the experimental FIRST aircraft of its kind. It should have stayed in sight of its home field until it was understood. It's normaly felt that this iresponsible political act held developement up 2 years.

The P-38s were scrapped because they were more expensive to opperate a political decision.

Lastly the P-38 were available for escort before the AAF was ready to admit it was needed and was officialy degraded as an excuse for not utilizing it better.

The Mossie was a great plane and contributed a lot but it was not more versatile than a P-38


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> Now you're just being nasty and petty........



I know, it was a joke. Im not denying the greatness of the Mossie...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

.....Anybody would think you could go wing-walking on a Lightning while it did barrel-rolls.....

Only when rolling to the right so the wing walker wouldn't get airsick!


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 29, 2004)

"The best aircraft in many different roles" How you boys can argue about this i'll never know...
The "Timber Terror" was the most versatile of course.

Photo-recon, bomber, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, intruder, trainer, pathfinder, target marking, torpedo-bomber, U-boat killer, day ranger, mine layer, and target tug.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

I don't know that all of this is necessary. They were both awesome airplanes and both filled many more roles than I think even the designers thought of. Is one better than the other? I don't think so.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> "The best aircraft in many different roles" How you boys can argue about this i'll never know...
> The "Timber Terror" was the most versatile of course.
> 
> Photo-recon, bomber, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, intruder, trainer, pathfinder, target marking, torpedo-bomber, U-boat killer, day ranger, mine layer, and target tug.



First in the Mossie the Bomber, fighter bomber, target marker/pathfinder(exactly the same thing), day ranger and intruder are all the same thing.

The P-38 was in to much demand to be used for U-boat patrols and towing targets.

I've never heard of a P-38 dropping mines but that was a naval thing, It could have if asked.

All other things were done of a normal basis plus dive bombing, skip bombing air ambulance, escort fighter, groung attack and could be set up for both skies and floats. Each of these require a different technique and in other aircraft either a different set-up or a dedicated aircraft.

The point I have to reinterate ANY P-38 (with the exception of the pure PR version) could do All OF THOSE THINGS (though there was a night fighter version late in the war and that was ADDED to everything else).

The bomber Mossie was not the same as the night fighter, the PR mossie or the attack Mossie and were not interchangeable. The Mossie was a Great Bomber and very versatile but it still couldn't match the P-38!


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 29, 2004)

> Is one better than the other? I don't think so.


Can i first say i haven't read all 14 pages of this thread....But if the stakes were your life, what aircraft would you take in to combat over deep and dark Germany in this type of role?..Photo-recon, Weather-recon, bomber surport, night-fighter?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> > Is one better than the other? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> Can i first say i haven't read all 14 pages of this thread....But if the stakes were your life, what aircraft would you take in to combat over deep and dark Germany in this type of role?..Photo-recon, Weather-recon, bomber surport, night-fighter?



The P-38 - F5, P-38L/M though I can't speak for the poor radar operator on long missions in the P-38M, I understand they were a little short on comfort.

How about bomber escort? P-38L

I'd still take the P-38L to drop up to 5,200lbs of bombs within 450 to 500mi and 2,000 to 3,000lbs at 800mi radius (1 300gal drop tank w/bombe-rockets).


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 29, 2004)

Come now, did you write that with your fingers and toes crossed  To be fair i'm a right ol' snob and know nothing about the P-38....So i'm going to read up about it, and "I'll be back" 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 29, 2004)

Well, with over 10,000 P-38's manufactured, they certainly spread them around too, but it remains that for my money, I feel the Mosquito pretty well did everything that was asked of it, and it did it all without any major teething troubles....it was 'economy' on wings at a time when everything was in short supply....All those variants were further developments based on the original theme of three basic design applications.

If the P-38 was to be expunged from service with all the 'accolades' it had gathered in an active WWII service of about the same timeframe it shared with the Mosquito, and also because of 'political expediency', it remained a great loss to the ongoing Allied Cause, as it was, with ongoing scraps like Korea developing....

Both aircraft shared the 'concentrated firepower' and both were exceptional at low or high altitude, although all the information I've managed to glean so far indicates the Mossie was easy and a delight to fly, in comparison to the P-38....and as far as mixing-it with single-eng/seat fighters, they were about the same as far as agility went, although I feel the Mosquito may have had an edge, as it had a greater wing area and wood flexes where metal tends to stress....De Havilland worked hard on that, and it breed a Legend....
They were both of around the same weight, tare and loaded, and both delivered impressive amounts of hardware.....

The Mosquito had a very good servicing record, not something these two aircraft had in common, but that may be that RAF Commonwealth servicing was a more intensive regime, whereas US servicing was more a case of if something stuffed-up, it would then be fixed, and this may have been reflected in the high loss-rate due to engine problems....The Mossie wasn't built to last an exceptional time in service, but being wood there wasn't a material shortage and they sustained and repaired easier...

Probably, in the final analysis, both felt the emergence of the 'Jet-age' and more powerful radials, to a degree, and the cost of one to the other realised a difference in that with melting-down aircraft at War's end, the Mossie wasn't high on that list, being wooden, and kept going until the early plywood glues started to come unstuck....that's been the predicament all these years later with the surviving ones....- If the majority of P-38's were just bulldozed and burnt where they were, that's really the difference between those of the UK, and the USA - Nothing is wasted in the UK and Commonwealth if it still has some use....Luckily there's 'Chino' and alot appears to have hung around there to reward the ardent restorer....but to all those P-38 fans out there, not many were P-38's unfortunately....To reproduce them now would be extremely expensive, and even though wood is getting pricey these days, for me it's a dream coming true that someone has got the nouse to figure-out how to rebuild the Mosquitos....There is huge support building, to get and keep both Merlins Allisons a-going, and it's a testament to the Vision some in the Warbird Fraternity have got.... 

I'm really of the belief that the DH Mosquito was the 'Best All-rounder', [probably 'cause I'm just stubborn too], but it certainly was the case as far as England Commonwealth were concerned....and I guess because as smaller nations, we don't have as much storage space, and a 'consumer-disposable' type attitude to all things; - If they stop working, we try to fix 'em again....

Whatever they cost brand-new, the DH Mosquito sure gave back value for money, in bullets, bombs, rockets and Victory.......


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

I'm still impressed with that writing.  

Who said the P-38 was in more theatres than the Mosquito? P-38 - CBI, Pacific, Europe, Med. Mosquito - CBI, Pacific, Europe, Russia. That's four each, by my count. 

There must have been something the P-38 was doing wrong if the US asked for Mosquitos in the Pacific. Anywho, Germhorse - you missed out that the Mosquito was the first aircraft to bomb Berlin in daylight. 

Also, it rained bombs on Goebbels parade.


----------



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

much to our ammusmant..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 30, 2004)

P-38s did fly in Russia. Shuttle missions by the 15th AF initiated in Italy, hit targets in Eastern Europe, refueled and rearmed in Russia, then hit Eastern Europe on the way back to Italy. Several of these missions were escorted by P-38s.

The P-38 carried (and successful dropped) 2 21in torpedoes (more and larger torps than the Mossie carried.

In terms of aircombat, the P-38F (no combat or dive flaps) could turn inside the P-51. The later versions were able to turn with the Spitfire. There is no way the Mossie could manage that. Nor could the Mossie match the P-38 in the vertical plane. In any sort of airfight, the P-38 held a huge advantage.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 30, 2004)

Thankyou, plan_D.....I did mention it a couple of posts back about Berlin...

I guess it's hard for some though, to accept that an aircraft that was conceived and built very quickly, out of plywood and balsa, had a coupla hairy-assed Merlins bolted-on and TWO chaps to fly fight, where-ever, when-ever and how-ever, to get their job done with legendary flair, could absolutely, possibly be better than anything that America built....even though the Brits gave them a few Sqn.'s worth of them because they were so good.....Next they will say the P-38 was SO sought-after, they couldn't do their own PR...????

It'll be a rainy day in hell before I concede the P-38 was a better aircraft than the All-rounder Mosquito....

That's why they made the Hornet, the P-38 would've been a wheelbarrow by comparison.....

To give the same blurry answer the US Admin still gives to any too-tough-to-answer questions, as to why they suddenly trashed P-38's at War's end in favour of the Mustang, another 'inline', albeit single-seater, after ALL the hoot n' holler about how great P-38's are, does not suffice....especially when the radials were in ascendency, prior to Jet aircraft....and as to P-38's being too 'war-weary'???...what wasn't by then....

The Mosquito lived-on [and will live-on] because it was a better All-rounder......................period


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Dec 31, 2004)

> Nor could the Mossie match the P-38 in the vertical plane. In any sort of airfight, the P-38 held a huge advantage.


It's no shame to say " Don't be scared to run away, because you live to fight another day" On it's terms the mosquito could take on anything German, except prehaps the Me 262. You cannot put the P-38 on the same pedestal as the 'Mossie'. I say this again, if the stakes were you life would you take a P-38 over Berlin in daylight?
How can you come to a conclusion the Mosquito was one of the best aircraft from WW2? Well, the Germans tried to copy it and failed! See the Ta 154.
They tried to beat it, and yes that failed too. See the Me 410. I think it's very fair to say the Luftwaffe never successfully dealt with the mosquito until the Me 262 came on tap. Can you really make this claim for the P-38. How many aces were there in the P-38 in ETO? How many German aircraft were shot down by the P-38?

Everything the Mosquito was asked to do it did with flying colours..It brought death to the German 'Tip and run' raiders, despite the high regard of the Me 410 or Fw 190. It was asked to go for the V-1s, again a job well done. It sunk U-boots. It could take on the He219 in it's own back yard.

It's ultimate accolad was the American's wanted it! Asked General 'Hap' Arnold.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

I wouldn't consider escorting bombers to Russia as actually being in the Russian theatre. If you're considering that, then the Mosquito was in the mid-east. As, if I remember correctly, they flew out to the CBI from Iraq.


----------



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

and lanc attacked the tirpitz in norway from bases in russia, does that mean they flew in the eastern european theatre??


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 31, 2004)

Further notes reveal that Hap Arnold was so taken with the Mosquito, he had the traffic stopped in Washington D.C. so Geoffrey De Havilland could put on a half-hour display to impress Arnolds High Command friends, when he had instigated this tour after first seeing it demo-ed in UK...He tried hard to bargain for some, even offering P-51's as a swap...He was turned-down on that, but the UK released Canadian-produced B-VII's [5] and 35 B.XX's, which were later succeeded by over a 100 PR XVI's and some T.III's for training...

Also, the President's son, Col. Elliot Rooseveldt commanded a USAAF unit in N.Africa equipped with P-38 F-4's, but had tried-out a B.IV Mossie, finding it was faster and had greater range....another one who got 'hooked' on them, and pushed for them for US service....

The 8th AF 25th BG, 653 654 BS's were the main users of them in the ETO...they returned them at War's end...[how nice...they scrapped their P-38's though...]

The Mossie was also the first to PR Berlin, 8th March 1943....

The Mossie also PR'd Peenemunde, 2nd June 1943, first discovering the V2 and on 28th Nov. that year, spotted the first VI launch-site in France, Mosquitos eventually accounting for 600 of the incoming VI's....

They not only shot the crap out of shipping, they were also used for anti- U-Boat work, cannons, rockets AND depth-charges being used....

No way was the P-38 comparable to the Mosquitos' vast range of services, even the un-armed PR's could accommodate attacks by Fw-190's AND 262's, they evolved their own 'corkscrew' manuoevre if they were bounced...Fw's didn't handle the rare air at altitude, and had to get up a l'il dive to gain on the Mossie...that was probably why they developed the Ta-152 series, especially the high-altitude model....

The Mosquito was the biggest pain in Germany's ass of any particular Allied aircraft....that was a stated fact....right from their debut.....

The P-51 was the greatest US fighter of the War, equipping all but one FG [P-47's of 56th FG was the only other...] by War's end in the ETO....
Basically, the P-38 was the US's first long-range escort fighter, but it was really a 'stop-gap' fighter that was replaced by P-47'S 51's.....

The DH Mosquito was THE BEST ALL-ROUNDER OF WWII......period


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 31, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> Further notes reveal that Hap Arnold was so taken with the Mosquito, he had the traffic stopped in Washington D.C. so Geoffrey De Havilland could put on a half-hour display to impress Arnolds High Command friends, when he had instigated this tour after first seeing it demo-ed in UK...He tried hard to bargain for some, even offering P-51's as a swap...He was turned-down on that, but the UK released Canadian-produced B-VII's [5] and 35 B.XX's, which were later succeeded by over a 100 PR XVI's and some T.III's for training...
> 
> Also, the President's son, Col. Elliot Rooseveldt commanded a USAAF unit in N.Africa equipped with P-38 F-4's, but had tried-out a B.IV Mossie, finding it was faster and had greater range....another one who got 'hooked' on them, and pushed for them for US service....
> 
> ...



I never said the Mossie was anything other than a fine aircraft, It's primary roll is as a bomber where it excelled. The P-38 was a fighter where it excelled. Better is relative. The P-38 was capable of a wider range of rolls with less aircraft modification than the Mossie. Your argument above is primarily shipping and PR work, both things the P-38 excelled at especialy the planes based on H or later versions.

The early P-38s in Africa didn't use external tanks often, once the newer models G/H for instance they flew alongside the Mossies in every respect.

*What everybody is missing here is that the two planes complimented each other doing a range of jobs other planes simply could not do. *

Everything the Mossie did the P-38 did or could do had the need existed (mines, patrol) and a couple more, like air ambulance. The P-38s shot a lot of shipping up, but as a fighter it's preasence as escort or attack was in more demand than patrol work. something the Mossie did because it was available for those tasks.

When Dolittle decided to go to P-51s, there were several reasons:
Cost incl maintenance the early P-38s had problems.
Quantity I think there were 7 P-38 F/Gs in the ETO and the P-51s were flooding in at that time - the P-38s were still single sourced, and still much in demand everywhere else. 
Political The P-38s were available when the bombers were being slaghtered. It would have been political suicide to admit it could do the job.

It was only stop gap in that there were never the numbers to do everything that was asked of it.

At wars end 70% of the aircraft the US had were destroyed, the last of the P-38s were destroyed in early 1950 (witnessed by Martin Caiden) again a cost/supply issue. 

The Mustang was an excelent aircraft but the P-38L was better in every respect except visibility and the P-51B/D carried a greater percentage of it's fuel inboard than the P-38L. and of course cost/maintenance. Cost is valid when your talking 30,000 planes and the need to have the very best is passed.

You are certainly entitiled to your opinion.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

The Mosquito was used as air ambulance too.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 31, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The Mosquito was used as air ambulance too.



I should have assumed that.  

If those guys could stuff an extra pilot in a P-51 and P-38 cocpits and fly them home I'm sure a way can be found to carry a wounded man.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

not just one, some mossies could carry 6 men- and get this, they were actually in the plane, not freezing their nuts off in stupid pods, what a novel concept...............

AND the mossie was used in the civilian world, was the P-38??


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 1, 2005)

After a very brief read up about the P-38, i'll have to agree with the Britsh opinion that was summed up at the time, that being "not likely to be of any use for anything except convoy escort and against the occasional unescorted bomber"

Sorry, the P-38 just did not cut the mustard in Europe. It had a inherent design weakness called aerodynamic compressibilty. How the hell could it do P/R work when the cockpit heating was nonexistent! The engines were a problem too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

ah another fighter for the mossie's side, good man, you realise however that now you've pleadged aligence to the mossie, you can't change your mind??


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 1, 2005)

I pledge to all things British ol' boy, don't you worry about that...God save The Queen \/ \/


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2005)

"...she ain't no human being!..."  

Oh sorry, I thought we were doing the Sex Pistols.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 1, 2005)

I can't help but wonder how many of these people criticizing the P-38 have ever read a single book on the plane?

Anyway, on the matter of cockpit heat, the P-38J an following rectified that problem. The vast majority of PR models (somewhere around 1,000) where developed from J and L models. Cockpit heating was simply not a problem.

The combat record of the P-38 over Europe has already been discussed repeatidly. Badly outnumbered, hindered by poor tactics, facing the cream of the Luftwaffe, and hamstrung by crap British fuels, the P-38 still managed to give better than it took over Europe. It dominated its opponents every where else. At the most critical point in the bomber offensive, the P-38 was the only aircraft capable of providing escort over the targets. P-47s could barely reach Germany and Spits couldn't even go that far.

Furthermore, the Mossie was TOTALLY outclassed by the P-38 as a fighter. The Mossie NEVER served as a pure fighter. That was one of the major roles of aircraft during WWII and the Mossie never even served it in.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 1, 2005)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> After a very brief read up about the P-38, i'll have to agree with the Britsh opinion that was summed up at the time, that being "not likely to be of any use for anything except convoy escort and against the occasional unescorted bomber"
> 
> Sorry, the P-38 just did not cut the mustard in Europe. It had a inherent design weakness called aerodynamic compressibilty. How the hell could it do P/R work when the cockpit heating was nonexistent! The engines were a problem too.



Those problems were fixed by the later J models and the L model was truly excelent. These two models made up more than half the P-38s produced also these problems affected only the early P-38s at high altitude in the ETO.

A Better Ballanced view of the P-38 can be found at the following:

"Planes and Pilots of WWII" web site articals "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel"
"The P38(C.C.Jordon)" web page
"P-38 lightning online" web page

There are asveral books out there that offer a balanced view and both the good and the bad. 

The early P-38s had problems partly because it was the first in many cases (Compressability for instance). When it came to escorts these problems were exaserbated by a job in an environment it was not designed for, and the political sin of bieng there when it was needed but not wanted AND it still did the job with a 4 German /1 P-38 kill ratio (P38(C.C.Jordon) web site) and a drop in bomber loss rate from 9/10% to 4/5% the P-51s never bettered.

If you want to research great just expand your search to get the whole story. The P-38 has been both trashed and exalted in the past 60 years. I have found " Official top" speed cited at 365 to 414, The slowest was actuly 395 The "castrated Lightnings", to 443 of the L model. Do your research I promise you'll be amazed esp. if you get the book on the P-38 by 'Warren Bodie' who not only researched the plane the usual way had access to Lockheeds private archives.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 1, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I can't help but wonder how many of these people criticizing the P-38 have ever read a single book on the plane?
> 
> Anyway, on the matter of cockpit heat, the P-38J an following rectified that problem. The vast majority of PR models (somewhere around 1,000) where developed from J and L models. Cockpit heating was simply not a problem.
> 
> ...



Right on!  

The other thing is the inaccurate information out there from the artificialy skewed performance figures and AAF scores to concetrating on the few (approx. 2,500 out of 10,000) early model planes with development problems (problems ALL the other planes had, they just didn't have to do them publicaly in combat) in the ETO.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 1, 2005)

Ultimately, I do agree with wmaxt's statement about both aircraft working together at all the tasks that needed to be done, and I also agree with the assertion that both aircraft were indeed very good at their respective duties.....

In this context, it is rather silly to claim one being better than the other, partly because, over these two aircraft in particular, the patriotic fervour of members to these forums is naturally going to over-ride any factual or fictitious technical data representative of the aircraft....and also the historical accounts of their respective 'Tours of Duty', both herald brave and notable actions of these two total diverse aircraft that held the distinction of both being active on similar duties in the various theatres....

There is no way I can concede to the Lightning, anymore than those 'Lightning-Lovers' will to us 'Mad on Mossies' Group......eh ???

Those of UK Commonwealth heritage whose lives have been uplifted by the Historical accounts of the Mosquito, some whose past family members and friends etc. who flew and fought in them, cannot negate the awesome Duty they did and the symbolism the DH Mosquito represents to them...

Alternately, those of our Friend and Ally, the USA, cannot really be expected also, to see the wooden Mosquito as being in any possible way superior to the all metal Lightning, that their forebears fought with Honour in.....

And I for one don't really get any pleasure finding myself 'het-up' and making disparaging remarks about the Lightning, because I have always liked it as an aircraft - Indeed, it is as distinctly unique in it's construction and characteristics, as the the DH Mosquito.....

While LG feels the Lightning was a 'pure' fighter, I feel the Mosquito was a pure fighter/bomber, and history recalls they both gave as good as they got, if not more.....

Where I openly feel the Mossie deserves this Title of 'Best All-rounder', we may find a mutual acceptance that the Lightning was the 'Best All-rounder US Aircraft', and the DH Mosquito the 'Best All-rounder British Aircraft', because gentlemen, there sure as hell wasn't any other Country that had anything as good as these two aircraft, and we know some tried to 'copy' their designs to combat their undisputed successfulness..........

Commez-vous, s'il vous plait...?? [Your comments, if you please?]


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2005)

Well stated and goo balance Gemhorse. I totally agree that both aircraft were great and did way more than they were originally designed for. The rose to the challenges and were both airplanes that their respective countries can be proud of. I don't think one side is going to change the other's mind as to which they feel is the best. I personally like them both equally and find the records of both aircraft impressive.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 1, 2005)

I will certainly agree with what Gemhorse as stated. The Mossie was well ahead of its time in many ways, but so was the P-38. 

As far as the P-38 is concerned, it is interesting to note that many other countries tried to develop twin-engined fighters before and during the war. Of all the types that saw service (Whirlwind, Bf-110, Me-210/410, Ki-45) none even came close to the abilities of the P-38.


----------



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

the whirlwind could hit 472mph, i fail to see how that doesn't compare to the P-38??

so anyway here's wmaxt's list of the P-38's roles



wmaxt said:


> Air ambulance
> Fighter
> Level bombing
> Skip bombing
> ...


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

what the hell is 'intruding' ]


----------



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

aircraft, often no mote than two at a time, would fly in low and fast over heavily occupied teritiory, find a target, attack, and get out before you have the chance to get jumped, you're not given a particular target.............


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the whirlwind could hit 472mph, i fail to see how that doesn't compare to the P-38??
> 
> 
> here a list of some of the roles the mossie could operate in.........
> ...



Many of these missions the P-38 did ie target marking (I just found that reference), or could have done if asked ie mine laying, carrier operations 
and some it could not ie ferry 6 people. There were also things the Mossie couldn't do ie escort.

The oil fields/refineries at Ploesti were bombed many times and ways the most effective raids were by P-38s.

What does that prove - nothing Mossies/P-38s are an apples/oranges comparison. 

There was a desparate need for long range fighters both escort and intercept/interdicting, attack, and on occasion self defending bomber. There were never enough P-38s to satisfy demand anywhere - even in the ETO after the P-38s were primarily attack aircraft. In it's main role as a fighter, it fought the best, at the worst odds and perservered, always giving better than it took.

The Mossie wasn't in desperate need anywhere spacificly allowing it to be built in different versions for different roles, in many of which it excelled. In it's main role, attack bomber, it had few peers.

Comparing them isn't realistic.


----------



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

it's best we leave the What ifs" out of this because we'll never know if it could, it's just more realistic this way.............



> There were also things the Mossie couldn't do ie escort.



so it was some other plane flying escort for the night bombers trying to keep the night fighters of their backs???

but i think you're starting to agree the mossie could operate in more roles??


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's best we leave the What ifs" out of this because we'll never know if it could, it's just more realistic this way.............
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I still mantain that each indvidual P-38 could do more jobs. Had it been desired the P-38 had the flexability to do other things. There is even a picture of a P-38 on skis in one of the threads here.

As a flexable bomber the Mossie is probably best. As a flexable fighter the P-38 is the best.


----------



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

the mossie was just as much a fighter as a bomber, and the mossie could and did operate in more roles..................


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the mossie was just as much a fighter as a bomber, and the mossie could and did operate in more roles..................



Says you!


----------



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

well all you have to do is lok at the list i posted................


----------



## Archangel (Jan 2, 2005)

I really think the best allaround plane of WW2 is the IL-2
i mean, its is/was a quite good heavy fighter, it was used as bomber, as nightfighter as recon's and this plane was quite hard to get down 

the big concurrent is the haviland mosquito (i think u call it "mossie", correct me if im wrong  ) le me say, i think they are even. on all different roles there were planes who were better as them, but this are the best alaround planes (the mosquito was much faster, and the IL-2 was harder to bring down (but 4 this, it was much heavier) )


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 2, 2005)

Hmmm, the Il-2 was renowned for it's ground-attack tank-busting roles, and as you say, was a 'heavy-fighter'..... 
The Russians had some others that perhaps came abit closer to this forum, a rare one that was probably closer to the Westland Whirlwind and would've been known as the MiG-5 if it had gone into serious production, a single-seat, twin-engined aircraft of wooden construction...Mikoyan Gurevich initially called it the DIS...Russian abbreviation for 'twin-engined escort fighter', it was first flown in 1941 and was also capable of torpedo and ground-attack duties...Powered initially by two 1,400 hp Mikulin AM-37 12 cyl. Vee liqid-cooled engines, it's armament comprised one 37mm cannonmounted in the abbreviated forward fuselage with 2x 7.62mm ShKAS machine-guns anda further four in the wing centre-section... Loaded weight was 17,770 lbs. and a max speed of 379mph and a range of 1,417 mls., an ability to climb to 16,400 ft in 5min 30 secs and a ceiling of 35,760 ft....They later tried it with 2x 1,700 hp Shvetsov ASh-82F radials, and changed the armament to include twin 23mm VYa cannons and two 12.7mm BS mgs, but they ended-up not going into major production....

Yugoslav designer Sima Milutinovic initiated a design in 1937 for a wooden constructed two-seat light bomber with 500hp Walter Sagitta I-SR 12 cyl. air-cooled engines with 20mm cannon and FN 8mm mgs...Called the Rogozarski R-313, it has surprisingly good characteristics, and was in line for engine upgrade to Merlins or DB 601's, taking a defensive part in the early German Invasion of Russia, but no firm decisions were made, and it drifted into obscurity..... 

Both these aircraft had tail assemblies like the Bf-110, but of note was their trying to create wooden aircraft of ply-type construction as the DH Mosquito became....

The Pe-2 and Tu-2 both complemented the great work done by the Il-2 during the Campaign, and have heard the Pe-2 referred to as the Russian 'Mosquito' somewhere........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

The IL-2 doesn't come anywhere close to either of these two aircraft.

472mph for a Whirlwind!?! Where on earth did you dig up that figure? Using one of the worst engines RR ever developed there is simply no way the Whirlwind could match the P-38. Total number of Whirlwinds produced was around 100, or roughly 1% of the P-38s produced. Also, the Whirlwind was strictly a low-level aircraft with a critical alituted of 15,000ft or so.

The Mossie was nowhere near the fighter the P-38 was. Simply look at the numbers and types of missions it flew. Where were the Mossies flying fighter sweeps? or CAPs? or daylight escorts? or intercepts? The Mossies rarely (if ever) flew true fighter missions.


----------



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

*Lightning Guy wrote:*


> The Mossie was nowhere near the fighter the P-38 was.


You really are starting to bat on a dodgy wicket now you know. The Mosquito was designed to get to A to B and back to A in the quickest and safest manor....It did that job rather well thank you.

I'm not here to mock American aircraft ok, but to say the P-38 is the "best all round aircraft" is plane crazy, excuse the pun.

From it's inception, the Mosquito was a wonderful aircraft. You can't say this about the P-38 can you? That old adage "If it looks right, it will fly right", stands true for the 'Mossie', but the P-38??

I know the P-38 is very manoeuvrable, i've seen one at a flying display, i can assure you i stood up and took notice, i did actually say "Wow" to oneself...The beauty of a Mosquito is, if it got in to trouble the pilot could say to himself "that's enough Hun, i'm off home" and open up the taps...It's true the later Mks of German aircraft 'on paper' were just as fast, or even faster, but the 'Mossie' was still hard to catch...Remember that other adage "Don't be scared to fly away" blah, blah.

I say the the P-38 was a poor aircraft in the ETO. But there are more authoritative people then me who will same the same. Eg,


> Poor cockpit heating in the H and J model Lightnings made flying and fighting at altitudes that frequently approached 12,320 m (40,000 ft) nearly impossible. This was a fundamental design flaw that Kelly Johnson and his team never anticipated when they designed the airplane six years earlier. In his seminal work on the Allison V-1710 engine, Daniel Whitney analyzed in detail other factors that made the P-38 a disappointing airplane in combat over Western Europe.





> American war planners hoped the long-range capabilities of the P-38 Lightning could halt this deadly trend, but the very high and very cold environment peculiar to the European air war caused severe power plant and cockpit heating difficulties for the Lightning pilots. The long-range escort problem was not completely solved until the North American P-51 Mustang


These quote are from the definitive *American* aeronautical museum called the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution.

It's a British trait to make do with the things you've got...You can't say this about the American's...They want the best!
The best...
Fighter bomber..P-47
Fighter..P-51 or Spit Mk14.
Photo-recon...Mosquito or Spit.
Anti ship....Beaufighter.
Nightfighter....Mosquito.
Light bomber...Mosquito.
The P-38 just doesn't hit the mark with me or the typical WW2 fighter fan...why is that i wonder?

The best all round aircraft is and can only be, the Mosquito!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

If you wanted to excuse the pun, why put plane...when it should have been plain? 

Best Fighter? You mean dogfighter, it's Spitfire Mk. XIV...the most important PR plane was the Spitfire Mk. IX it took more shots than any other PR plane in Europe.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2005)

Best allround plane in my opinion is either the Mosquito or the JU-88 both did a multitude of different tasks from anti-ship and bombing to being night-fighters. Both good allround aircraft but for the Mosquito is the best.


----------



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

> If you wanted to excuse the pun, why put plane...when it should have been plain?


Maybe i'm fick..Or your slow on the up-take....Plane = Airplane...Get it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> > Nor could the Mossie match the P-38 in the vertical plane. In any sort of airfight, the P-38 held a huge advantage.
> 
> 
> It's no shame to say " Don't be scared to run away, because you live to fight another day" On it's terms the mosquito could take on anything German, except prehaps the Me 262.



First of all the Me-262 was not tha maneuvarable anyhow. So ofcourse the mossie could out fly it. But as for the Germans not having anything I think you are wrong. The Fw-190 could outfly it and put a great fight for it. If it was a match for the Spitfire, P-38, and P-51 then it certainly was a match for the mossie. Dont take me wrong the mossie was a great plane but it certainly was not more versatile than the P-38. The Lightning could do everything the mossie could and outfly it. It would do circles around a mossie. It is not even a contest.


----------



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

*DerAdlerIstGelandet wrote:*



> The Fw-190 could outfly it and put a great fight for it. If it was a match for the Spitfire, P-38, and P-51 then it certainly was a match for the mossie.


Hey, butt out..This thread is not about the 190. Btw, i did say this, why you choose to ignore it?


> The beauty of a Mosquito is, if it got in to trouble the pilot could say to himself "that's enough Hun, i'm off home" and open up the taps...It's true the later Mks of German aircraft 'on paper' were just as fast, or even faster, but the 'Mossie' was still hard to catch





> It is not even a contest.


Why don't you stick to your army business, and i'll stick to my business  Iraq eh? My respect's to you, and stay safe chum.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

No, you're just 'fick'. When you say excuse the pun, you don't try to emphasis it by putting 'plane' instead of 'plain'. That's why you say EXCUSE, see? 

The Mosquito was more versatile than the -38. As this will go on forever, I'm going to go with Gemhorses idea - Mosquito "Best of British" - P-38 "US Best" . There is nothing solid to prove to the other side that one is better than the other...


----------



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

Don't listen to him people, he's a northern git  



> There is nothing solid to prove to the other side that one is better than the other...



Of course there is...Total missions flown, kill/loss ratio


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> Hey, butt out..This thread is not about the 190. Btw, i did say this, why you choose to ignore it?
> 
> Why don't you stick to your army business, and i'll stick to my business



Excuse me what is your problem. First of all the thread is about the best aircraft in many different roles and someone posted that the mossie could outfly anything that the Germans put in the air. I was simply posting that it was not true. Secondly mister I have 40 somethings posts here in this forum, what is my "Army Business" and what makes you think this your business?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

Kill/Loss ratio in terms of air combat was probably in favour of the P-38. As the Mosquito did more damage on the ground as a bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

That I will agree with. The mossie was a better bomber and ground attack and the P-38 was a better fighter. But the P-38 could do just about everything the mossie could.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

The Mosquito could do everything the P-38 could. See, it goes on and on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

Yes it does, so to get away from that. I think the best aircraft in many different roles was the Ju-88. It was certainly not the best aircraft, was certainly not the fastest, certainly not the most maneuverable but it very adaptable and could be used for anything.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

The Ju-88 was certainly the most versatile aircraft of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2005)

you think the -38 could do everything the mossie could?? may i suggest you read my list on the previos page..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

Your list does not tell me anything. Again what does a turret have to do with versatility and your radar thing still goes without saying anything, they both could carry radar. P-38 = fighter, night fighter, anti-shipping, photo recon, ground attack, bombing and much more. Mossie = fighter, night fighter, anti-shipping, photo recon, ground attack, bombing and much more. The P-38 could do everything the mossie could. The mossie was a better bomber/ground attack but the P-38 was a better fighter.

And G/C) Lionel Mandrake I am still waiting on a response from you about telling me to butt out and what my business is. Please do so.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 3, 2005)

not that list, i posted a rather large list of the mossie's roles and compared it to Wmaxt's list of the P-38's roles..................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

Oh okay, well that still does not say anything. The P-38 was designed as a fighter but was used in any role you can imagine so that it makes it just as versatile. For example the P-38 was never designed to carry torpedos and sink ships but they modded it and put 2 torpedos on it and it did it just fine. The mossie they had to make different versions to do the same things. Again dont take me wrong I really like the mossie and I think it was an excellent plane but the Lightning could do the same things. And as was said by Plan D this argument can go on and on.

And I am still waiting G/C) Lionel Mandrake.


----------



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

Your not the only one fighting battles you know...It seems if i'm going to discuss anything with you old boy, i will need to paste a few of these...     

And if you still don't get it.. Remember i'm a Englander! We exported many things around the world except it seems , humor.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2005)

Not true. I find you funny as hell.


----------



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

The cheque is in the post.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

Okay now. Yes you have lost me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Im still with the Lightning, and not because of my stubborn nature. I do think that the P-38 was more versatile. Everything I have read about the P-38 tells me that its more versatile. I have read Mosquito accounts and while it was a great aircraft, ultimately it isnt as versatile. And yes lanc, I have read your list.

Also, where did your speed claim on the Whirlwind come from?  320mph and you're much closer the mark. 472mph...?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

(G/C) Lionel Mandrake said:


> Your not the only one fighting battles you know...It seems if i'm going to discuss anything with you old boy, i will need to paste a few of these...
> 
> And if you still don't get it.. Remember i'm a Englander! We exported many things around the world except it seems , humor.



I am not fighting any battle with you. I just want you to explain yourself. What is my "army business" and what is your business so I may butt out of it. If you were making an attempt at humor then I do not mind and please forgive me for misunderstanding you. You Brits do have a dry sense of humor but if it was not humor you were after I would like for you to explain.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

And yes CC I am with you on the Lightning.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

I am of course, going with the Lightning. The Ju-88 was certainly very versatile and we could add it to the mix but we would simply end up with the same endless argument. The P-38 was clearly the most versatile of all America had to offer. The Mossie was the best of the British planes and the Ju-88 was the best of the Luftwaffe. Trying to determine a definitive answe to this question is probably impossible.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Lets chuck in the Petylyakov Pe2 for Russia as well; just for good measure


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

Well, I don't know as much about the Pe-2 but I don't feel it really belongs to the same class as the others mentioned. Still, it was perhaps the most versatile the Russians had.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Ive recently been reading about it and it is more versatile than I first though. Ill try to get some info on it in the near future.


----------



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

Dear DerAdlerIstGelandet,

I now understand why you were upset with me. I didn't at the time, but i do now..
I was teasing with you..And since English isn't your mother tongue and i'm a sporting Englishman, i did offer you a olive branch of peace, see here.



> Iraq eh? My respect's to you, and stay safe chum.



You kindly returned the jesture by saying this



> please forgive me for misunderstanding you


.
So lets drop it..Btw, i now need to make a peace offering to Plan-B....


----------



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

Sorry, I mean plan_D


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

Hard to make peace when you can get the man's name right.

The Pe-2 was versatile but I just don't feel it belongs with the others. For one thing, it lacked the performance of the other aircraft in this discussion.


----------



## (G/C) Lionel Mandrake (Jan 4, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Hard to make peace when you can get the man's name right.
> 
> The Pe-2 was versatile but I just don't feel it belongs with the others. For one thing, it lacked the performance of the other aircraft in this discussion.


Oh please.....Have i gotta explain the punch line before i tell it.....boom,boom.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Oh boy...getting my name wrong, it's a disgrace...I'm insulted! Or not...which ever I feel like being after this beer...YES, it is 7am!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Peace excepted, I was never really upset at you, I just did not understand. Lightning guy you are correct about the battle going on and on about which aircraft was more versatile. They all were and each had its weekness and advantages.

And CC here is some info on the Pe-2 for you.



> In order to understand something of the way aircraft were designed in the Soviet Union before the War a little explanation is needed here, since the design proces of the Pe-2 is the perfect role model.
> Vladimir Petlyakov was one of the best assistants of Andrei Tupolev at the TsAGI (Tsentral'nyi Aerogidrodynamichesky Institut - Central Aerodynamics and Hydrodynamics Institute) from 1921, and played a major part in the creation of many Tupolev aircraft. Tupolev was a strong believer in the use of metal structures, and Petlyakov became an expert in light alloy structures after learning the basics of this science with Junkers, which was the world leader in light alloy structures for aircraft during the 1920s. Up to 1935 Petlyakov was largely responsible for the light alloy wings of aircraft such as the TB-1 and TB-3, and in Tupolev’s absence on the USA learning about American design concepts was wholly responsible for the development of the TB-4 and ANT-20. In 1936 Petlyakov was appointed manager of the ZOK, which was the factory for special construction attached to the TsAGI, and as such more or less designed the ANT-42 that was later renamed as the Petlyakov Pe-8.
> In 1937 Petlyakov was arrested, possibly in relation to Tupolev’s similar arrest for allegedly selling the design of the VI-100 fighter to the Germans for transformation into the Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighter. Petlyakov was imprisoned at a special unit and given the assignment of designing a high-altitude fighter under the auspices of the KB-100 design brigade with A.M. Izakson as his assistant. Such was the success of the design, which finally appeared as the VI-100 and formed the basis of the Pe-2, that Petlyakov was released and installed as head of his own design bureau in July 1940. Sadly, Petlyakov was killed in January 1942 when the second Pe-2 off the production line, which he was using as the bureau’s liaison aeroplane, caught fire in the air and crashed. Petlyakov was succeeded successively by Izakson, A.I. Putilov and, from 1943, V.M. Myasishchyev who were thus responsible for all later Pe-2 developments. The Petlyakov Design Bureau was closed in 1946.
> 
> ...


It was a versatile aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Ta 8) Ive always like the Pe-2  And the Pe-8 Heavy Bomber, but thats another story


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

You can read up on the Pe-8 at the same website.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Wow thats a brilliant website... Good man for finding it!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

That's a great website. I have checked stats on his site several times. He has been pretty accurate so far.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

I havent seen it before, thats just the kind of site ive been looking for 8)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah, it's a great resource! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

I do a lot of searching, there is not much to do here in my spare time.


----------



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

i spend what amazingly little spare time i have researching/finding pictures of the lancaster...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

is that why you call yourself the lancaster kicks ass? wow that was hard to figure out. just kidding


----------



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

what can i say, i felt like doing something WILD whilst signing up all those years ago


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

It's a good thing your finger didn't slip, and you wound up hitting "l" instead of "k" at the beginning of "kicks".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

that would be funny


----------



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

how did you know my finger didn't slip and i was going for the "L"...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

then that would mean your finger slipped and it should say the lancaster licks ass


----------



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

you really didn't get that did you...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Yes I did he said
It's a good thing your finger didn't slip, and you wound up hitting "l" instead of "k" at the beginning of "kicks". 
implying that it was good that you did not accidently put a "l" instead of a "k"

and the you said
how did you know my finger didn't slip and i was going for the "L"............... 
meaning in a joking manner that you were going for the "l" but accidently hit a "k"

and I was implying that it should then say the lancaster licks ass
Did you get what I was saying?


----------



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

yes, may a suggest you learn a bit more about british humor


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

And I really must stop saying things like that.  ...  ...Nah!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

Btw CC, love the sig!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Not bad is it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah its great. And yes lanc I have always found Brit humor hard to follow.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

You're not alone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Maybe I should watch Monty Python some more.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Yes you should


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Maybe I will.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 4, 2005)

Thanks Adler for that excellent post on the Pe-2....I must admit that I'm not that knowledgeable on Russian aircraft...Our 'national' Warbird magazine here has been running a series on restored Russian fighters lately [ www.classicwings.com ] and it's been a great read, but I've not learned much on the Pe-2 until your post....

Pray keep safe over there, you're right on the coal-face of this war against the terrorists....

And also, I do agree that that's an excellent sig CC, really shows the size of those bombers.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

No problem if you go to the website it lists many aircraft from many different countries. It really is a neat site. I too dont know too much about Russian aircraft but I try to learn as much as possible.


----------



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

well that stirling was something of an exeption, she had extremely high undercarrage..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 5, 2005)

Yup, but thats because the conventional undercarriage had problems in test flights. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yup, but thats because the conventional undercarriage had problems in test flights. 8)



Actually it was because your Royal Air Force wanted it changed.



> As a result of its test flying of this prototype, however, the Royal Air Force requested greater wing incidence: Short had selected an incidence of 3° for the best possible cruise performance, but the RAF was more concerned with improved take-off performance and asked for the incidence angle to be increased to 6,5°. This was a major redesign, however, requiring time-consuming revision of the central fuselage, so the compromise reached was a considerable lengthening of the main landing gear legs to given a higher ground angle.
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/shorstirling.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Ah, the place I got that from wasnt a very reliable source so that explains it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

I dont know maybe my source was not very reliable, you could be correct. I just go by what I have read.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

I read what I put a while ago as well so I probably forgot what the actual truth is. You're probably right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Maybe I will see if I can find some more sources of info on it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

interestingly the reason she had such a small wingspan was so she could fit into RAF hangars, at the time with an opening of 100ft


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Is that why it was the worst of the 3 heavys, or because it was the first?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Yeah that is what I had read.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

one of the reasons she was the worst was her lack of ceiling due to too short a wingspan, along with other reasons including a bomb bay not able to carry bombs bigger than 2,000lbs, the largest in production at the time..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

I would probably say because of a number of reasons. One she was the first one built specifically as a 4 engined bomber by the British. Until you figure it out there will always be kinks in it. Secondly because the Royal Air Force wanted so many changes made to the original design.

Strengths:


Excellent structure, able to absorb massive damage 
Good handling during flight 
Excellent weapons load, but only for short ranges 
Adequate speed 
Excellent maneuverability, also called 'The fighter bomber'. 

Weaknesses:


Bad service ceiling 
Inadequate range when fully bombed up 
Unforgiving flight characteristics during take-off and landing


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

The Stirling and the Wimpy have to be my 2 favourite Brit bombers...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

she was moanouverable but still the least manouverable of the british heavies...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

I personally dont think she was all that bad, I happen to like her.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

her crews hated her, with a passion..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I personally dont think she was all that bad, I happen to like her.



Me neither, I love it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Probably because of its bad take off and landing performance and that fact that it had a poor cieling.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

she's always get you home though, but know were're just going round in circles.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Yeap same thing as with the P-38 and mossie stuff.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

exept this time we actually agree and the mossie's starting to win that argument.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Yep. 

Ok lets get on topic, try this one:

Best multirole single engine plane?

I say Fw-190A-8.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

I will agree with you on that. The Fw-190A-8 was a great multirole aircraft but another good one is the P-47.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

possibly the corsair................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Perhaps the Fairey Firefly deserves a mention too...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

the swordfish


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

I will agree with the Corsair but the swordfish?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

The P-47 can't make the list. It never served as a PR plane. The 190 deserves mention, the Corsair should be in their, perhaps the Spit (though it was poor at ground attack), and the P-51. It did start life (in the USAAF) as a dive-bomber after all.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

I think it comes down to the Fw-190A-8 and the F4U Corsair.... I Dont think any other single engine planes come close....


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 7, 2005)

I vote for the Corsair...

But just before we get into that, the Stirlings of No.7 Sqn. made the first landmark raid of 4 engined bombers, on 10/11 Feb. 1941 on Rotterdam...
Also, the Wellington was the first bomber to drop the 4,000 lb cookie, on a raid by No.'s 9 149 Sqn.'s in an attack on Emden, last night of March, 1941.....
So they did make a notable mark in history.....

The Corsair would've made an interesting difference if it had served in the ETO, I reckon.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=314&sid=5c9d77fc16025872dbe1eb67f86f2024

Theres some good points made about the Firefly here, So perhaps it should be in with a shot.

(Here you also see bronzewhalers posting prowess and some of my early, naive posts...)


----------



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

i really don't think the corsair could do anything that current planes couldn't do anyway..................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

I will have to go with the Fw-190. It could be used as a fighter, night fighter, ground attack, fighter bomber, photo recon, torpedo fighter, attack, tank buster and hell it was even used to carry the Mistel's. Here is a list of the non straight up fighter versions.



> Fw 190A-3/U4 Reconnaissance fighter, without the 2 x 20 mm MG FF, but with 1 or 2 Rb 12.5/7 cameras.
> Fw 190A-4/U1 Fighter-bomber (heavy) with 2 × 20mm MG 151/20 cannons and 2 × 1,102 lb (SC-500) 500 kg bombs on two ETC 501 racks.
> Fw 190A-4/U3 Fighter-bomber (medium) with 2 × 20mm MG 151/20 cannons, 2 × MG 17 guns, and 1 × 1,102 lb (SC-500) 500 kg bombs on one ETC-501 rack.
> Fw 190A-4/U3 Fighter-bomber (medium) with 2 × 20mm MG 151/20 cannons, 2 × MG 17 guns, and 1 × 1,102 lb (SC-500) 500 kg bombs on one ETC-501 rack.
> ...



So yes based of this, my vote goes for the Fw-190 as the best single engined aircraft of WW2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Yep i think im in agreement there. Yes, it has decided me.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I always loved the Fw-190. Random FACT of the day.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Same here, I think it was a marvelous aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

It was. What is also funny is British intelligence mistook it for captured Mohawks, when the first reports of a radial engined aircraft came back to Britain in June 1941.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Mohawk, I do not remember this aircraft. Who built it and what was it?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Curtiss P-36 Mohawk. The French had them, and British intelligence thought this was what the Germans were using...when in actual fact, it was a Fw-190.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Aha that is funny.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 7, 2005)

There is a world of difference between the P-36 and the Fw-190.

The Corsair had one major advantage over the 190 in versatility, carrier-capability. 

I've also noted that the Germans seem to built a specialized version for EVERYTHING. Do you guys think this helped or hurt their war effort?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Hmmmmmm.... It could go both ways.... I think that the constant retooling slowed down production, but in the end, it wasnt the # of craft flyable, it was the fuel to run em....


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 8, 2005)

I suppose that the Fw-190 had it in terms of ALL the variants they used, it was indeed the best of German craftsmanship, testimony to that is Flugwerk making new ones now [get your order in today!!!]...
- But my personal feeling is that with the Corsair first flying around 1940 odd, it did end-up surprising alotta folk with it's robust performance and durability, it's armament, ordinance-carrying and dogfighting ability, and it's overall tour of duty, as they didn't stop making them until 1953...

Both were superb, and a credit to both Rex Beisel and Kurt Tank respectively, [and lately, Flugwerk...]

Actually, it's hard to choose between them...I chose the Corsair purely on patriotic grounds......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

I dont think it hurt them really that bad. A lot of the specialized versions were actually just standard aircraft with field conversion kits. For instance the Fw 190F-8/R15 Torpedo-fighter, equal to the Fw 190F-8/R14, but with the standard 1 × BMW 801D-2 engine and a 3,086 lb (1400 kg) LT 1400 torpedo-bomb was just a Fw-190F-8 that was field converted with the conversion kit to make it a torpedo bomber. Yes they did make specialized versions two but I dont really think it hurt them. As stated fuel shortages hurt them the most.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> I suppose that the Fw-190 had it in terms of ALL the variants they used, it was indeed the best of German craftsmanship, testimony to that is Flugwerk making new ones now [get your order in today!!!]...
> - But my personal feeling is that with the Corsair first flying around 1940 odd, it did end-up surprising alotta folk with it's robust performance and durability, it's armament, ordinance-carrying and dogfighting ability, and it's overall tour of duty, as they didn't stop making them until 1953...
> 
> Both were superb, and a credit to both Rex Beisel and Kurt Tank respectively, [and lately, Flugwerk...]
> ...



That is awesome I just checked out the Flugwerk website. They are actually building Me-109's and Fw-190's for private use with modern built parts made to the manufactureres specifications. They also do restorations of actuall WW2 aircraft including the Me-109, Fw-190 and P-51. I wonder how much one would set you back?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

It was the radial engine that got them confused, LG. The pilots even said that it wasn't a Mohawk because a Mohawk couldn't handle like that. British intelligence had no clue about the Fw-190, so they carried on claiming they were just captured Mohawks.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I always loved the Fw-190. Random FACT of the day.





Me too, even more so now


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

i like it but i'm not it's biggest fan.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Is that primarily because the Fw-190 shot down well over 100 Lancasters????


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

I have always loved the Fw-190 especially the Dora but it is not my fav and my fav will never change. Me-109G series.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

no, it has more to do with the fact it's not british............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Bah....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

well what did you really expect from me??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> I suppose that the Fw-190 had it in terms of ALL the variants they used, it was indeed the best of German craftsmanship, testimony to that is Flugwerk making new ones now [get your order in today!!!]...
> - But my personal feeling is that with the Corsair first flying around 1940 odd, it did end-up surprising alotta folk with it's robust performance and durability, it's armament, ordinance-carrying and dogfighting ability, and it's overall tour of duty, as they didn't stop making them until 1953...
> 
> Both were superb, and a credit to both Rex Beisel and Kurt Tank respectively, [and lately, Flugwerk...]
> ...



These guys really do have something going. I just got back an email from them. Here it is.



> Dear Christopher,
> 
> thank you much for your intersting mail. As can be seen under the FW 190 button on our website, the cost for a complete Fw 190 kit is currently at Euro 555.000,- net, for more information please consult our website. The last remaining kit -out of twelve built sofar- can be obtained with immediate availability.
> 
> ...



And here is what the website says and some pictures of one that was sold to an American client .



> Most all of the common interest is drawn upon the FW 190 project which Flug Werk started in June 1996. The first short flight was done on July 22nd ’04 and we have made further on a row of very successful test flights.
> 
> As is natural with recreating such a complex aircraft, a few things needed fine-tuning, balancing and more investigation. To an extent of more than 95% we have achieved all of our design-goals without the need for any remedies.
> 
> ...



There currently is one kit left available until more are made and from what I can tell the performance is lagging from an original Fw-190 but still it is quite amazing and would be neat to own one. They are also currently starting a Me-109 factory line. They will make Emils and Gustavs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no, it has more to do with the fact it's not british............



What are you talking about?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well what did you really expect from me??



If its not a Lanc it sucks right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Not liking a plane because its not British is stupid...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

I agree if the plane is good then it does not matter who built it. I can understand the patriotic thing but you cant deny an aircraft of its greatness.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 8, 2005)

Hey Adler, awesome post on Flugwerk, man !...I'm wrapt you went and checked it out.- I first contacted Claus Colling about 18 mths ago, when I read somewhere about what he was doing...apparently some dipshits were emailing him and giving him a hard time. His partner had not long died from cancer, and getting the 'raw-prawn' from some yobbos out there really peeved me, so I emailed him to say I thought it was really great the work he was doing.....the Fw-190 is a truly remarkable aircraft of it's era, and I have consumate respect for ALL those involved in Warbird restoration. I look upon his aspect of work, exactly as I do for NZ's Glyn Powell, making new Mosquitos...Our Classic Wings magazine down here have been keeping us updated on both these developments....

Although I still vote the Corsair, as I said for patriotic reasons, it doesn't change my feeling about the superb engineering that have created some other aircraft..[even the P-38 !! ].... 
- What happened 60 years ago in WWII was sorted-out by an earlier generation of our respective countrymen, and one can honour their efforts on the respective Anniversaries....It's like some people won't buy Japanese because of the War, which to me is a little silly...I love my Nissan Skyline turbo, it's a well-made car and goes like snot...I love V8's too, and had a couple over the years, but fuel prices make them too expensive to run...I can still give 'em all curry in my Skyline as it's only a 2 litre, plus it sounds nice and drives real good...
- Just being involved in WWII aircraft is one of my interests, I try not to get too hysterically passionate about what's already past, the Russians fizz me abit by their past duplicity, but y'know, the world's ever-changing, got to move with it.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

I see things exactly the way you do. I have emense respect for those who are trying to restore or build new WW2 warbirds. It allows another generation to enjoy them. As for the people not wanted to let go of the past I can not stand that. As you said the world is changing and moving foward and we have to move with it. You dont see the US and England hating each other for the Revolutionary War do you? There are good people and bad people no matter where you go in this world and you just have to respect and understand there culture. Just learning a little bit about others cultures helps you understand them and you will see they are not much different from anyone else. As for the people sending bad emails to Claus, that is just ignorance. These people have nothing better to do with there time but push there own faults on others.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

Oh and as for Flugwerk, as soon as the Me-109 line is set up I am going to get me one of those Me-109G's!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

How cool would that be, to have your very own warbird! 8) Sure its a replica but only die hard plane fans will know that!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 9, 2005)

Who cares if it's only a replica, it's still really cool. Plus you know when you fly that in to an airport, people are going to come to check it out.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

Yup 8) And if they ever build a carrier plane (corsair or something) then you can fold the wings and taxi it home


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2005)

Be sure to use the Club, so it won't be stolen by some kids looking for a joyride!

I agree with evan. It may be a replica, but it's the next best thing to the real thing, and since they're not exactly being produced anymore...who cares?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

or you could do a flypast over a veterans meet, that'd be fun..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 9, 2005)

Hopefully, they're not veteran AAA gunners.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

good point, didn't think of that one........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

I have a mental image of vets going and getting into Cessna light aircraft and hunting him down, then as they get close pulling out a pistol and shooting him down, then doing victory rolls


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

I would not care if it is a replica, it is still a tribut to a bygone era and it would be better then flying the damn cessnas that I fly now. I am serious I am going to get me one eventually. Plus it is probably cheaper to maintain than an actual WW2 era plane, even though I would kill to have one of them too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

Well I hope you get one ASAP so I can pop over and have a go myself


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

Naw my wife would kill me if I speant our money on that instead of building our dream house.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 9, 2005)

Yeah, Claus mentioned the Bf-109's when I emailed him, I'm chuffed he's going to do the E G models, they're my favourite versions....Have to be a big Lotto win for me to think of getting any!! ....but it will be a buzz to actually see them on the Airshow circuit, sooner or later...the Fw's have been advertised down here for a little while now, hopefully some loaded Kiwis' bought one......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 9, 2005)

I wouldn't mind having a life-sized replica to augment my collection of (much smaller) diecast planes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

Or a half sized one for children to fly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

When I get back home I am going to go and visit the factory and check it out. Plus hey I have an AP liscense maybe I can get a part time job helping out with the construction. That would be more than just eneough for me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

Okay let me rephrase that maybe I can get a part time hobby job or something help fixing the latest ones that they have built and alread flown. I can not really build new planes with an AP liscense.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 10, 2005)

The replicas are great! There arn't enough real ones any more and there'll never be more. Lots of P-51 replicas here, several in serial production. What sucks (don't get me wrong the P-51 is a great plane, my beef is that it gets far more credit than it deserves)  is it's only real advantage in WWII was cost/buildability still exists today. The P-38 is so complex there are only a couple of replicas being built. 

Are there any Spit replicas out there?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

I am not sure if there are any spit replicas. I know I have seen one Me-109 and a Zero replica. Up until know I did not even know there were Fw-190's.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

Adler, you should look into the CAF when you get back. They have alot of cool old birds and are always looking for APs. Depending on the chapter you choose, you could have some really interesting birds. I think we currenly have 9 flyables and 2 in restoration in our chapter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

I have read a lot on the CAF and even seen them at some airshows. I think it would be awesome to work on them. It would be a great hobby.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Or a half sized one for children to fly



http://www.warfw190.homestead.com/



What was that?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2005)

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

It is! I have been with the SoCal wing now for about 4 years. They have so many things that you can help with. Having the AP, you can get right in and help. I don't, so I have assisted with airplane maintenance occasionally, but I usually work on displays, dust artifact and airplanes, give tours and give monthly presentations. I asked where the greatest need was and went to it. It happened to be the museum buildout and displays, so that's where I focus my efforts.

Seeing how you have a good knack for finding out things on the web, you would probably be good for helping with displays and giving presentations as well. You have a great backgroud for the CAF and I am sure that any chapter would be glad to have you aboard. You will not find a greater group of guys to hang out with. I like to take my 3.5 year old son down there regularly to see and meet some of the WWII vets and younger guys. I can't think of a better group of guys for my son to look up to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

That is pretty damn cool also.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

evangilder said:


> It is! I have been with the SoCal wing now for about 4 years. They have so many things that you can help with. Having the AP, you can get right in and help. I don't, so I have assisted with airplane maintenance occasionally, but I usually work on displays, dust artifact and airplanes, give tours and give monthly presentations. I asked where the greatest need was and went to it. It happened to be the museum buildout and displays, so that's where I focus my efforts.
> 
> Seeing how you have a good knack for finding out things on the web, you would probably be good for helping with displays and giving presentations as well. You have a great backgroud for the CAF and I am sure that any chapter would be glad to have you aboard. You will not find a greater group of guys to hang out with. I like to take my 3.5 year old son down there regularly to see and meet some of the WWII vets and younger guys. I can't think of a better group of guys for my son to look up to.



Sorry that pretty damn cool post was for the 1/2 scale Fw-190 being built in southern california. Anyways yeah I would love to do something like that, the only problem would be that me and my wife really have no plans on moving back to the United States. We plan to stay in Europe. Do you know if there are any organizations like that in Europe?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

Let me see what I can find out. I know that the CAF has a couple of supporter squadrons in Europe. There is a group in England that does aviation archeology and they have been digging up old bombers. They have another somewhere in the Northern part of Europe (Belgium, I think). You might also check with Erich, he seems to know alot of folks over in Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

Germany would be great! We live in Ansbach and plan on staying somewhere in Bavaria.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 10, 2005)

Hey evan, that's really awesome taking your son there as well....and I truly applaud your involvement in such a worthy cause. You're quite lucky in the respect that you still have have aircraft and some vets in there too, these gentlemen are getting real scarce these days, and their stories are well worth listening to...
Also, many thanks for those extra Bearcat shots....

The US had [has] bases in Germany, so it's quite possible there's groups operating there for Adler to check-out...There is a definite growth occurring of groups in Europe seeking-out and restoring WWII aircraft, I wrote to one about the time I wrote Claus, that are restoring Kurt Tank's first successful creation, the Fw-189....But while you're in Iraq Adler, there is still some restorable aircraft floating around from Sadaam's early regime I've heard about, some Sea Furies are still there I believe, he had quite a few good aircraft that have been abandoned, getting the remains out OK is one thing, finding parts worldwide may not be too hard, there's many into collecting and trading.....Good stuff guys !!.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

Building a P-38 replica wouldn't be too hard. The important thing with a replica is that the exterior looks like the original. The interior could be simplified.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 11, 2005)

Hey Gemhorse, I find it to be a fascinating and fun place to volunteer. Having a passion for aviation and history is nice, but joining and organization that is full of people with the same passion is awesome. I sometimes forget these guys are in there 80s when I see them walking around as spry as the younger guys, lifting heavy stuff, etc. We have annual dues to be part of the organization, but it's worth every penny. Just to get an opportunity to chat with a guy that has been there is amazing.

There is a Wing in Australia and another in New Zealand as well. These are CAF affiliates. 

Adler, the CAF wings in Europe are in France and Switzerland. I am sure there are other fine organizations within Germany that are probably doing something similar. Obviously, there are some things in German law that place some restrictions on certain parts of that history, but aviation is neutral, neither good nor bad. It is how and by whom it is used that makes it good or bad. I will ask around the museum and see if anyone knows of German organizations like ours. One guy down there is the son of a German aircraft worker that was bombed by B-17s during WWII, and he joined the CAF the very day he went in and saw the B-17! His son is a regular volunteer. We have a few Germans there, so I think they would know best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

I appreciate it that would be awesome. Any information would be great, I will also do a search on the internet and see what I can find.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 11, 2005)

I want evan's job! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

Yeah he has a great one. I would enjoy it just as a hobby.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Wait, it's not my full time job, though I wish it was! I just volunteer down there, and I pay to volunteer. So it's just a hobby for me. Funny, when I joined the air force with the guaranteed electronics, I got to pick from a list of openings. My first choice was aircraft electrical systems. Instead, I got radio relay! Now I support computer network test equipment. Oh well, guess it wasn't my path!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 12, 2005)

I know it isn't your full-time job, it was more a figure of speech.
I'd still love it though. 8)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah, it's pretty cool! The cool thing about the CAF is there is so much to do, you can find always find someting interesting. Beleive it or not, I am also the wing's computer operations officer as well. I try to keep that to a minimum because I am there for the airplanes. You guys thing YOU have old computers. They have some real dinosaurs down there!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

Are you still in the Airforce? I would pay to volunteer for the CAF.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

No, I have been out since 1988. The CAF has annual dues for the national charter and the local wings have dues as well. It's about $200 a year, but well worth it. You can check out their main HQ site at:
www.commemorativeairforce.org


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah I will, $200 is not a lot of money to spend on something you love anyhow.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Exactly! For the guys I have met, the stories I have heard and the things I have had a chance to see, it's worth WAY more than the $200.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Most deffinatly. Do you travel and do shows in other locations.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

I would like to, but I have a 3 year old son, so I don't travel with the air show crew these days. They do shows throughout the air show season and depending on the show, some or all of our flyable aircraft attend. The farthest east they tarvel is to Texas for the big show in Midland. I have yet to attend the arishow in Midland, but plan to do so when my son gets a little older. That is the main CAF show and it is the largest WWII airshow in the US, maybe the world. 

This past Midland show, Paul Tibbetts was there, and past shows have had some big names there, including Bob Morgan. That is the only show here where they fly the B-17, B-24 and B-29 at the same time! I have only seen that on video. It must be quite a site and sound to witness!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

When I lived in North Carolina they had a B-17 and a B-24 fly into Ashville Airport and it was quite neat. We got to go and climb through them and sit in the turrets and cockpit and stuff it was quite interesting.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

If they were flying together, it was most likely the ones that belong to the Collings foundation. The B-24 has 2 different paint schemes, one side is "Dragon and it's tail", the othe side is "All American". The B-17 is "Nine-o-Nine". I got to see those back in April. They are indeed something to see.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I think that was them but I could have sworn that one of them had a Schlitz beer theme as its nose art. Dont laugh this was taken from an actual nose art theme from WW2. It was a half naked woman with Schlitz beer. But I do know the B-17 was Nine O Nine. This was back in 1994.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

I would have to go back and look, but I think the woman featured on Dragon and It's Tail is holding a beer, now that I think about it. Let me check, I am sure I took a picture of that artwork.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

No, not there. I am not sure about the Schlitz art...Hmm..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I have pictures of it but unfortunatly they are not digital and I have them at home in Germany, when I get back I will scan them and post one for you to see.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

I'd be curious to see it. I know that some warbirds get touch-up on their artwork occasionally, and it could get modified. There was a 10 year span between when you saw it and I did, so there could have been some changes. Who knows!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah maybe. When I get home I will deffinatly get them scanned and sent to you. 
Just a question how far is your chapter from Big Bear Lake in California?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

I think its' about 2-3 hours or so, only a guess. It's a bit of a haul. Why?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

My friend is getting married there in April. I am going to try to fly there to go to the wedding and if it was close eneough I would come and check it out.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

I could get a better idea if I looked at a map. I will check for you and let you know. If you do plan on it, let me know and I will give you the VIP tour. We have stuff that isn't out on display that will blow your mind, including the only known Betty bombsight to survive the war!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah that would be really great. I really do hope to be able to make it to Cali in April. It would be a great trip just to see Cali, I have never been there before and neither has my wife. Plus if it is pretty close and within driving distance it would be great to come by and see what you have. I am sure it would be well worth the drive and great to see all history there.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

Well, I have extended that invite to everyone here. There is some great stuff. Depending on how much time you have, there is also a couple of amazing museums in Chino. Those are closer to Big Bear. Let me know as the time gets closer and I can see what we will have there at that time. That's at the beginning of the air show season, so it would be a shame to come out when all our planes are somewhere else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah but it would still be neat. I just have to see what the army has in store for me if I can even go to Cali.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

man you got i tlucks living so close to all those museums.....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

Indeed. I feel very fortunate to be able to see so much history so close by. Chino is about an hours drive for me. I will going out there probably in March and I will get tons of pictures, I'm sure!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

What are the big attractions in Chino?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

All of Cali is an attraction!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

Their list is here:
http://www.planesoffame.org/museum-aircraft.php

It should be a veritable drool fest! I don't know which I want to see first!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

chances are there's more there than there is in the whole south west of england


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

How am I supposed to know all of Cali is an attraction!?! I've never BEEN! I've never even been in America...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Ive never been to Cali either but from what I have heard it is just crazy there is so much to do, that is why me and my wife want to go there and drive up the coastal highway and just hit all the cities and attractions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

you wife's into aircraft too??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

That's a lot of aircraft at Chino, I NEARLY wet myself...for some reason, maybe it's all this beer...I'm whizzing with the door open and it...it feels good. 

Yeah...I imagine it would be fun, if I do go to America...you yanks need to give me a few days readjustment for the crazy culture...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> chances are there's more there than there is in the whole south west of england



You say that, but recently weve been treated to the best airshow ive ever seen in our maths lessons


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

What you do? Throw your maths teacher into the ceiling fan?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Nope, last Friday a Hercules flew very low overhead and was messing arround, and yesterday 4 Tornado's flew past 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you wife's into aircraft too??



No not really. When I get home though she is going to start her private pilot training so that we can both fly together and do some cross country flights together with out me having to do all the flying.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

We'll have airshows all the time soon, the 'Robin Hood' airport is opening in May, only a mile from my house.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

they have their uses.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

I hope women fly planes better than they drive cars...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

well they won't get destracted putting their muke up on in the rear view mirror.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

And spacial awareness shouldnt be a problem


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

and they can't stop if they see a shoe shop!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Women hope to change all that...scary thought!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

shoe shops are gonna have to make their own runways, think of all the extra money they'd make from women in planes...........


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 13, 2005)

Some of the best sailplane pilots are women. Thesupposition is that they have a finer senses and touch that lets them find use thermals better. Interesting notion eh!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's a lot of aircraft at Chino, I NEARLY wet myself...for some reason, maybe it's all this beer...I'm whizzing with the door open and it...it feels good.
> 
> Yeah...I imagine it would be fun, if I do go to America...you yanks need to give me a few days readjustment for the crazy culture...



The one thing I will warn you about though, American beer is like making love in a canoe, fuck-ing close to water! When I came back after three years over there, I downed a lot of American beer, didn;t get pissed and woke up with a raging hangover.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's a lot of aircraft at Chino, I NEARLY wet myself...for some reason, maybe it's all this beer...I'm whizzing with the door open and it...it feels good.
> 
> Yeah...I imagine it would be fun, if I do go to America...you yanks need to give me a few days readjustment for the crazy culture...







Try pissing off the roof...


Very fun...


[Probably more satisfying, as well...]


If a girl walks by and asks "Why?" just say "if you have to ask, you'll never know..."


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Oh, I know American beer is shit...

I see you're an old hand at pissing off a roof, GrG. I get satisfied with pissing with the door open "I'm whizzing with the door open, and I love it"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

I done it out my bedroom window once, damn it was cold that day....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Did it freeze before hitting the ground?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I done it out my bedroom window once, damn it was cold that day....



Ah-Ha!!  

I suspected you liked to pee out the window!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Yeah, I come across as that kinda person 

No it didnt freeze, lots of steam though...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Pissing out the neighbours cat?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

alas i have no comical urinating stories, i hang my head in shame.........


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

Actually, I think that's a good thing Lanc! I once found out that a fence was electrified when I urinated on it. That hurts like hell!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

just wanted to find out if it was on??


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

No, definitely not. I had no idea. After that, I just didn't pee anywhere near a fence, just in case!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

didn't you realise it was an electric fence?? i can't speak for the americans but our electric fences are very visible as electric.............


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

I was in the North woods of Wisconsin at the time. There was no sign at all. I think it is different today. But it was very rural there and I don't think too many people go where we were.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

That reminds of a Ren Stimpy episode, when Stimpy is playing that game "Don't whizz on the electric fence" - out of anger, Ren does...and it blows up, Satan says "So, you whizzed on the electric fence" ...people who have seen that episode will laugh..those that haven't...eh, you're unimportant.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

well over here electric fences are orange and you can see the wires........


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

Nope, not that one. It was just an ordinary fence, so I just drained the lizard. I sensed that something was amiss immediately. Damn near pissed all over myself trying to get away from it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

were you desparate to go??


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

Yup, my back teeth were floating.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

and in this wood, you couldn't find a tree??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 14, 2005)

I cringe! I cringe!  
Holy Jesus, the pain must have been...well...really painful!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

it's like when i said to CC the other day "but it would handle like..." aand i couldn't think of a good example so i ended up sayin "...sumit that doesn't handle that well"


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

I never said it was the brightest thing to do. Yes, a tree would have been a heck of a lot safer! And yes, it was painful. I had a tingle in my winkie, and it wasn't pleasurable!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well over here electric fences are orange and you can see the wires........



No they aint, its regular silver wire with several black clips on and it and signs saying "20000 volts! Danger of death". They aint orange.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 14, 2005)

Over here most electric stock fences are a single wire runnung between 6.8 and 24 volts. Enough to let you know You Really Dont Want to Pee on Me, but not enough to really hurt you.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 14, 2005)

On my grandfather's farm you could only spot the electric fences by seeing the plastic mounting points ever few posts. I could see how a mistake like that could be made, once!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 15, 2005)

I actually enjoy the feeling of mild electric shocks


----------



## evangilder (Jan 15, 2005)

Then give it a try CC. You will never think of doing it again, unless you're into that kind of thing...

I have no idea what the voltage was, as there was no sign denoting my impending danger (Obviously). It was over 20 years ago, so I don't know if it is the same type they use today or not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2005)

CC, i'll gladly take you to any farm and show you..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I actually enjoy the feeling of mild electric shocks



Kinky aren't we?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 20, 2005)

Just a bit  But nah i find it soothing


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

Hey to each there own man, I dont judge.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 20, 2005)

Yup, im sure there are certain things everyone does that are a little strange to everyone else 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

Oh I know there is, and that is what is great, every person is unique. If we all liked the same things and everyone was the same it would be boring wouldn't it?


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 20, 2005)

Having said that, I'm sure there a few 'specialist' clubs out there that cater for those tastes.    :redhotevil:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

I am sure of it too.


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 20, 2005)

Each to his own though!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

Exactly, I agree. If the rest of the world thought this way it would be a much better place!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> ...im sure there are certain things everyone does that are a little strange to everyone else 8)



I guess I'm the only "normal" person here then. :-"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2005)

yes of course you are.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2005)

Normal is as normal does.


----------

