P-38 or Mosquito?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have read about 50% of this thread and forgive me if this has been covered but I am running out of time tonight.
There was a question of which plane had the better armament, I have done the research and I have the answer.
P-38L
1 x 20mm (150 RPG)
4 x .50 (500 RPG)
Mosquito FB Mk.VI
4 x 20mm (150 RPG)
4 x 0.303 (500 RPG)
I worked out total projectile weights and while the P-38 carries 4% more by weight the FB Mk.VI carries four times as many explosive projectiles as the P38, I think that would give a destructive advantage to the FB Mk.VI.
Now as for my personal opinion, while the P-38 was a good Fighter / Fighter Bomber the Mosquito was an outstanding plane in many roles.
While there has been lots of discussion about stats and subjective opinions there has been one area that has been overlooked IMHO, that is how good the Mosquito was as a pathfinder aircraft, in this role it was a HUGE force multiplier, by marking targets accurately for the main force bombers of the RAF bomber command they proved themselves time and time again.
Now there has been much talk of P-38's out turning German fighters, and a lot of quotes by German pilots, what would be interesting to know is what they were flying, I doubt anyone would doubt that a P-38J25/L could out turn a BF-109G I would have a harder time believing that it could out turn a FW190.
There has also been a lot of talk about poor quality fuels in the ETO for the P-38's, but would the Mosquitoes not have had the same handicap?
In my considered opinion (and it is only mine) the Mosquito is the winner hands down.
There was a question of which plane had the better armament, I have done the research and I have the answer.
P-38L
1 x 20mm (150 RPG)
4 x .50 (500 RPG)
Mosquito FB Mk.VI
4 x 20mm (150 RPG)
4 x 0.303 (500 RPG)
I worked out total projectile weights and while the P-38 carries 4% more by weight the FB Mk.VI carries four times as many explosive projectiles as the P38, I think that would give a destructive advantage to the FB Mk.VI.
Now as for my personal opinion, while the P-38 was a good Fighter / Fighter Bomber the Mosquito was an outstanding plane in many roles.
While there has been lots of discussion about stats and subjective opinions there has been one area that has been overlooked IMHO, that is how good the Mosquito was as a pathfinder aircraft, in this role it was a HUGE force multiplier, by marking targets accurately for the main force bombers of the RAF bomber command they proved themselves time and time again.
Now there has been much talk of P-38's out turning German fighters, and a lot of quotes by German pilots, what would be interesting to know is what they were flying, I doubt anyone would doubt that a P-38J25/L could out turn a BF-109G I would have a harder time believing that it could out turn a FW190.
There has also been a lot of talk about poor quality fuels in the ETO for the P-38's, but would the Mosquitoes not have had the same handicap?
In my considered opinion (and it is only mine) the Mosquito is the winner hands down.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
The Mossie didn't have the same handi-cap because it was using geared and not turbo-superchargers.
As far as the Fw-190 is concerned, it's turn radius wasn't extremely impressive. It's roll rate was what made it stand out (but even then the P-38J-25/L could outroll it at high speeds). In 1942 a P-38F (without dive or combat flaps to improve turning ability) was tested against (among others) a P-51. It's turn radius was described as being equal or better than the Mustang's depending on altitude. Since the Mustang could turn inside the 190 and the (early, less maneuverable) P-38 could turn with a Mustang, it stands to reason that the Lighting could turn inside a 190.
As far as the Fw-190 is concerned, it's turn radius wasn't extremely impressive. It's roll rate was what made it stand out (but even then the P-38J-25/L could outroll it at high speeds). In 1942 a P-38F (without dive or combat flaps to improve turning ability) was tested against (among others) a P-51. It's turn radius was described as being equal or better than the Mustang's depending on altitude. Since the Mustang could turn inside the 190 and the (early, less maneuverable) P-38 could turn with a Mustang, it stands to reason that the Lighting could turn inside a 190.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
MikeMan said:
In the Med the P-38s had a 608 german/itallian kill for 113 P-38slost to ALL causes. The Sicilian Commander went to Galland with the complaint that his planes were totaly outclassed by the P-38.
In the ETO it's more muddeled and sad to say the P-38 suffered from a host of new problems including fuel, training, maintenance, experiance, proceedures and an evironment it was not designed for. It still had a 1.1 to 1 all losses kill ratio a 4 to one plane to plane ratio against the numericaly and experianced German Luftwaffe and the final few months in service as escorts with the P-38L the ratio was 20 to one, including G models and 190s.
The Early models had some handicaps at high altitudes but below 15,000ft they were great. The late J and Ls could fight anywhere at any speed with anybody!
Sources
Marten Caiden the Forked Tailed Devil
CC Jorden
P-38.onlone
Planes and pilots of WWII
and a few others.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Nice shots, plan_d!
Nonskimmer
Captain
Yeah, they are!
Panzer
Recruit
I think I am going to have to agree with plan_D on this argument; both aircraft were outstanding in their roles but both were designed for different purposes. I think I would have to say that the mosquito is the better over all aircraft. This is just as bad as trying to compare the spitfire and the P-51 mustang, both were great aircraft, but the mustang wasn't outstanding until the British switched out the engine…. Not a bad example of a great joint effort between two countries.
plan_D said:That's an F.6 in the picture, Archangel.
Look at the vast difference in tail, on the F.1.
I just say that the desighn of the Go229, was much more its time ahead as the desighn of the lightning in his years. i mean the Go229s desighn is used 4 one ot the most expensive planes in the world, the B-2 Bomber, wich still is operative. the planes with the lightning desighn arent.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
actually the B-2 draws more from Jack Northrop's XB-35 flying wing bomber..........
- Thread starter
- #514
cheddar cheese
Major General
ACTUALLY, whilst the B-2 was being designed, they looked at the plans of the Ho-229 and went to see the remains of one.
Actually there are designs on the Lightning that are still used today, which were first used on the Lightning. On top of that, the Go-229 never actually flew. The Lightning was an operational aircraft.
The ABS braking system was first used on the EE Lightning (Mechanical on the Lightning), Mach meter speedometer was first used on the Lightning, fuel cooling first used on the Lightning.
The ABS braking system was first used on the EE Lightning (Mechanical on the Lightning), Mach meter speedometer was first used on the Lightning, fuel cooling first used on the Lightning.
I't wasnt operational. so what? It only wasnt cuz germany lost b4 it could be operational.
ow, and about those brakes and stuff. why do you think the go-229 didnt had them? Yes, cuz it was developed much earlyer. it didnt needed a mach speedometer, cuz the engines of that time didnt have enough power to breack the speed of sound. and the abs-brackes? now is an aircraft good cuz someone added someting thats just developed?
but, if i use your arguing, the sr-71 is a much better plane as the lightning. i mean, its the first aircraft thet flew mach 3.5.. and it has been operational. (do you c what i mean? you cant just argue with that. you also have to look at the year/time it was developed
)
ow, and about those brakes and stuff. why do you think the go-229 didnt had them? Yes, cuz it was developed much earlyer. it didnt needed a mach speedometer, cuz the engines of that time didnt have enough power to breack the speed of sound. and the abs-brackes? now is an aircraft good cuz someone added someting thats just developed?
but, if i use your arguing, the sr-71 is a much better plane as the lightning. i mean, its the first aircraft thet flew mach 3.5.. and it has been operational. (do you c what i mean? you cant just argue with that. you also have to look at the year/time it was developed
)You don't have a clue, do you?
The initial discussion was the Spitfire compared to the Lightning in intercept duties. I stated that the Lightning was an advanced design for its time period, the Spitfire was not. I took into account periods of which these two aircraft were developed, but I still think the Lightning was better in its own time zone than the Spitfire was in its.
Then you start waffling about the Go-229, not making any sense what so ever apart from babbling about 'The design isn't everything, the design isn't everything'...what the hell are you talking about?!!
The mention of the 'brakes and stuff' was in reply to comment you made about nothing on the Lightning being used to this day. ABS-Brakes, Mach-meter and fuel cooling are all things that were first used on the Lightning, that are used on aircraft to this day.
My GOD, you don't even know what you're talking about. Do you? You just rattle off mispelt words, and complete grammatical NIGHTMARES you call sentences. And then try and hold down a discussion with me! What exactly are you talking about? Explain, go on. Explain to me what you are talking about? Are you trying to compare the Lightning to the Go-229? Trying to say design isn't everything, what are you talking about!?! In fact, design is just about EVERYTHING in a plane, that's what the freakin' plane is!!! You trying to say that I should take into account that the Spitfire was before the Lighting!?! I've already done that, then you start talking your crap...like you've got crap spewing from your brain to fingers, and it seeps out like puss from a ghoneria infected dick! My word. That is beyond belief. Look how easy you've made it for me to rattle on!
Now, I've calmed down, what in GODs name are you talking about!?!
The initial discussion was the Spitfire compared to the Lightning in intercept duties. I stated that the Lightning was an advanced design for its time period, the Spitfire was not. I took into account periods of which these two aircraft were developed, but I still think the Lightning was better in its own time zone than the Spitfire was in its.
Then you start waffling about the Go-229, not making any sense what so ever apart from babbling about 'The design isn't everything, the design isn't everything'...what the hell are you talking about?!!
The mention of the 'brakes and stuff' was in reply to comment you made about nothing on the Lightning being used to this day. ABS-Brakes, Mach-meter and fuel cooling are all things that were first used on the Lightning, that are used on aircraft to this day.
My GOD, you don't even know what you're talking about. Do you? You just rattle off mispelt words, and complete grammatical NIGHTMARES you call sentences. And then try and hold down a discussion with me! What exactly are you talking about? Explain, go on. Explain to me what you are talking about? Are you trying to compare the Lightning to the Go-229? Trying to say design isn't everything, what are you talking about!?! In fact, design is just about EVERYTHING in a plane, that's what the freakin' plane is!!! You trying to say that I should take into account that the Spitfire was before the Lighting!?! I've already done that, then you start talking your crap...like you've got crap spewing from your brain to fingers, and it seeps out like puss from a ghoneria infected dick! My word. That is beyond belief. Look how easy you've made it for me to rattle on!
Now, I've calmed down, what in GODs name are you talking about!?!
- Thread starter
- #518
cheddar cheese
Major General
I agree where you're coming from pD, but less of the obcenities please...
- Thread starter
- #520
cheddar cheese
Major General
You make a fair point 
