102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
In my opinion the Mosquito was better than p-38, 1 it was faster, 2, simple and quick to reapair, could be armed with any variety of weapons at a higher volume than the p38
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
102first_hussars said:In my opinion the Mosquito was better than p-38, 1 it was faster, 2, simple and quick to reapair, could be armed with any variety of weapons at a higher volume than the p38
102first_hussars said:In my opinion the Mosquito was better than p-38, 1 it was faster, 2, simple and quick to reapair, could be armed with any variety of weapons at a higher volume than the p38
the lancaster kicks ass said:not only is sheet matal a strageigic material but if an entire sheet had to be replaced the entire plane often had to be sent away to a fitting shop......
Glider said:Back to Topic, Wood is harder to repair but both planes complemented each other. If you wanted an airforce with the minimum number of aircraft types then you could do worse than.
P38
Mosquito
Pick a Heavy Bomber
Use the Heavy Bomber for long range AS
Pick a transport
And that should suffice for most purposes
I agree, that is all you really need.wmaxt said:Glider said:Back to Topic, Wood is harder to repair but both planes complemented each other. If you wanted an airforce with the minimum number of aircraft types then you could do worse than.
P38
Mosquito
Pick a Heavy Bomber
Use the Heavy Bomber for long range AS
Pick a transport
And that should suffice for most purposes
This is pretty much true!
I changed easier to harder to reflect Gliders next post without reposting it.
wmaxt
Parmigiano said:To save construction time the Mosquito fuselage was built in two half, and all the inside gear and components was fitted in each half fuselage. Then the two pieces were glued/nailed together in the centreline.
It is likely that change some failed component after the construction was a nightmare...
Parmigiano said:.. well, I don't believe that the maintenance procedure was to saw the airplane in two (!).
FLYBOYJ said:And how can I forget! I worked for a company where we converted DC-10s to MD-10s - basically put MD-11 avionics in a DC-10 and eliminated the flight engineer's position. To get the new avionics bay into the aircraft, THE ENTIRE LOWER NOSE WAS REMOVED FROM THE AIRCRAFT, ABOUT AND REPLACED WHEN THE NEW AVIONICS WERE INSTALLED!!!!
wmaxt said:FLYBOYJ said:And how can I forget! I worked for a company where we converted DC-10s to MD-10s - basically put MD-11 avionics in a DC-10 and eliminated the flight engineer's position. To get the new avionics bay into the aircraft, THE ENTIRE LOWER NOSE WAS REMOVED FROM THE AIRCRAFT, ABOUT AND REPLACED WHEN THE NEW AVIONICS WERE INSTALLED!!!!
Yup, I have a friend with Fed/Ex who has flown those very planes.
wmaxt