P-38 or Mosquito?

[evangilder]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

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

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

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

 

[evangilder]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lesofprimus]

Is this plane there???

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[evangilder]

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

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

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

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Would your museum be Chino?

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

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[evangilder]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[evangilder]

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

 

[MichaelHenley]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NightHawk]

couldnt you do more Quotes ?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

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

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

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

great

superb

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

I know it was superb as a night fighter

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

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

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