P-38 or Mosquito? (2 Viewers)

RonRyan85 · Apr 14, 2006

Gnomey said:
With tags like so:

Code:

[img.]http://www.ImageHostingOnline.com/image2.jpg[/img]

without the . after the first

Looks like this: [ATTACH=full]386925[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

Thanks Gnomey....I'm still screwing up .I'll try again.(The tags
as is from ImageHostonline work for me other places.:?:)

RonRyan85 · Apr 14, 2006

I guess everyone knows this already...but when you Google the
words: "Mosquito Bomber" you get all kinds of articles on the
airplane. I was also looking for a movie that featured the Mossie
and found two: "633 Squadron"(1964) and "Mosquito Squadron"(1969)
and someone who had seen both said to skip the 1969 one as all
or most of the good airplane film was taken from the earlier
film. Anyone see these two films?

Glider · Apr 15, 2006

wmaxt said:
Agreed. The P-38L not only did it but it did the job, whatever it was, on par with the best in that particular nich.

wmaxt

I thought this thread had finished ages ago. My personal summary goes like this.

As a day fighter then it has to be the P38.
As a nightfighter then its the Mossie. I know the USA had NF P38's but no one can claim it was a 'standard P38', it was also more than a little tight in the back nor was it as effective or widely used. The mossie was also a special built but it could be argued that it required less modification than the P38. It already had a crew of two and internal space for the electrics. However at the end of the day, they were both modifications.
As a GA its so close as to be a draw. Mossie had considerably more firepower, and the ability to carry rockets as well as 1000lb bombs internally whereas the P38 had extra performance, sufficient firepower and similar payload.
As a pure bomber the Mossie has it on range, payload and speed, plus the not insignificant fact, that it carried a bomb aimer and is far more likely to hit the target. The P38 could carry a bomb aimer but then it loses its guns and is also a special build. A standard P38 could carry the same payload certainly but this would all be hanging off the wings and have a significant impact on performance, both speed and range. It also lacked the ability to carry a 4000lb cookie and be far more likely to miss which defeats that object.

Thats my summary for what its worth.

wmaxt · Apr 16, 2006

Glider said:
I thought this thread had finished ages ago. My personal summary goes like this.

As a day fighter then it has to be the P38.
As a nightfighter then its the Mossie. I know the USA had NF P38's but no one can claim it was a 'standard P38', it was also more than a little tight in the back nor was it as effective or widely used. The mossie was also a special built but it could be argued that it required less modification than the P38. It already had a crew of two and internal space for the electrics. However at the end of the day, they were both modifications.
As a GA its so close as to be a draw. Mossie had considerably more firepower, and the ability to carry rockets as well as 1000lb bombs internally whereas the P38 had extra performance, sufficient firepower and similar payload.
As a pure bomber the Mossie has it on range, payload and speed, plus the not insignificant fact, that it carried a bomb aimer and is far more likely to hit the target. The P38 could carry a bomb aimer but then it loses its guns and is also a special build. A standard P38 could carry the same payload certainly but this would all be hanging off the wings and have a significant impact on performance, both speed and range. It also lacked the ability to carry a 4000lb cookie and be far more likely to miss which defeats that object.

Thats my summary for what its worth.

Actually range/payload are pretty equal and the bomb aimer in a Mossie had about as much equipment as the P-38 pilot had a gunsite. Your right the droop snoot was special build but had the norden sight and the flight dropped on Que more accurate that the Mossie system.

The night fighter aircraft had a radar added and a special canopy similar riggs had been set up the the field many times both temporary and permanent. Here is an interesting site about the P-38M night fighters which were considered better than the purpose built P-61s.
www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/combair015

Overall though I think one was a great fighter/bomber/photo plane, and the other was a great bomber/fighter/photo plane.

wmaxt

Glider · Apr 16, 2006

Do you have any stats for the performace of a P38 when loaded with bombs? I only know that the P38 was limited to 250mph when carrying 300 gallon drop tanks but that could have more to do with the design and size of the tanks. The clean speed of a P38 wasn't much faster than the loaded speed of a Mossie bomber and I would be suprised if the P38 only lost 10-15 mph with the extra drag of the bombs. PR Spitfires gained 5mph by changing the type of radio mast which is a heck of a lot smaller than lugging 4000lb of bombs around. Different plane I know, but the rules of aerodynamics remain static.

I also don't know the impact of carrying bombs instead of the drop tanks on range, but would be suprised if it matched a Mossie bomber.

I must also disagree with the comments about the accuracy of bombing. A specialised bomber with a trained bomb aimer is always going to be better than a fighter pilot aiming through a gunsite, unless you are talking about using a dive bombing technique. The Mossie was used on countless missions as a pathfinder, dropping bombs with great accuracy a long way from home. It was also used on pin point raids against specific targets sometimes on individual buildings in the middle of cities. I am not aware of the P38 being used for missions of this type. Using a buddie system of dropping on the release of another plane is not going to be as accurate, due to the inevitable scatter and of course useless at night.
The Norden bomb sight when it came into service was definately ahead of the game but the later RAF sights could give it a run for their money.

I do agree with your final statement 'Overall though I think one was a great fighter/bomber/photo plane, and the other was a great bomber/fighter/photo plane'
The P38 was without doubt a better day fighter and the Mossie a better bomber.

the lancaster kicks ass · Apr 17, 2006

do you not think the fact the mossie often bombed at street top level, even by night, made it accurate? and the british Mk.XIV sight was the accuracy equivilent of the Norden, it wasn't the accuracy of the norden that made it so famous it was more the computing side of it, and hey, atleast the bomb aimer could come out of the nose of the mossie for the rest of the fight and sit in the chair, as opposed to the very few droop snoots used where the bomb aimer had to lay prone the whole time ...........

cheddar cheese · Apr 17, 2006

When you go to sleep, do you sit in a chair or lay in a bed? Its the bed isnt it, beds are more comfortable, laying down is more comfortable Hell on long car journeys id give anything for a lay down

And to be honest, its hard to not be accurate at street top level.

Gnomey · Apr 17, 2006

Unless you are Italian...

I'd agree with you though CC, lying down is much better than sitting down and in the Mossie you have the choice of both...

pbfoot · Apr 17, 2006

at 240knots your doing about 400ft a second so it would be hard to hit a target a lo level

the lancaster kicks ass · Apr 17, 2006

i don't think lying prone for several hours in a cramp compartment was exactily ideal i doubt you'd get much kipp eather atleast the mossie bomb aimer could then help navigate..........

elmilitaro · Apr 17, 2006

good point.

lesofprimus · Apr 17, 2006

elmilitaro, fix ur siggy dude, its about ready to drive me nutzzzzz....

loomaluftwaffe · Apr 17, 2006

yeah, i mean Wurger even made a post for your siggy a week ago, and u just ignored it

cheddar cheese · Apr 18, 2006

the lancaster kicks ass said:
i don't think lying prone for several hours in a cramp compartment was exactily ideal i doubt you'd get much kipp eather atleast the mossie bomb aimer could then help navigate..........

Lightning pilots were so clever it didnt take 2 to navigate And the Droop Snoot looks pretty roomy to me, I reckon you could sit up if yo wanted too...

The back of the P-38M, THAT was cramped....

Glider · Apr 22, 2006

There were some comments about the room inside the droop nose of the P38. The following quote may amuse you all.

P-38L-5-LO Ser No 44-25605 was rebuilt by Hindustan Aircraft in India as a special VIP aircraft for a General Stratemeyer. The plane had a transparent nose, which made it look a lot like the "Droop Snoot" pathfinder Lightnings used in the European theatre. The General sat in a special seat inside the nose, and the inside walls of his "office" were lined with leather. There were even provisions for a built-in Thermos jug (I won't even ask what was IN the jug ). Sort of reminds me of General Dreedle in the movie *Catch 22*. Nowadays, if *Sixty Minutes* were to get wind of such an extravagance on the part of the military, heads would roll.

the lancaster kicks ass · Apr 22, 2006

you think that's extravigant? if you want i'll give you a link to all the ministerial use of the RAF's 32 (The Royal) squadron, and how much it costs, when they could hop on a civilian plane for a fraction of the price, it's rediculous............

and you think putting a seat in it makes it roomey? bearing in mind they would've taken the bomb sight out for that as well, well in the civilian transport mossies some even had a matress in the bomb bay so on long overnight flights you could get some sleep too.......

Glider · Apr 22, 2006

I think you will find that the mossies only had a matress, were unpresurised, unheated, without any windows and the passenger was given a flask with a hot drink. Not quite the same a special chair, windows, leather lined heated with a fitted flask for refreshments.

the lancaster kicks ass · Apr 22, 2006

of course they were bloody heated! and there where seats too.........

Glider · Apr 22, 2006

I found a couple of quotes on the topic. Note the double flight suits presumably to keep out the cold.

A perhaps unsurprising role for the Mosquito during wartime was as a high-speed transport. British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) flew a small number of Mk.VI's with their armament removed and a modified bomb bay converted to carry passengers in very cramped conditions. By the end of the war, some 520 round flights had been made to neutral Sweden by BOAC Mosquitoes.

A single B.IV and nine FB.VIs were assigned to this duty. They carried mail, including diplomatic documents; high-value cargoes such as Swedish precision ball-bearings; and the occasional passenger tucked away in the bombbay. The bomb bay was fitted with oxygen, a reading light, an intercom, and a bunk, and passengers were packed in wearing double flight suits, a life preserver, and a parachute. They were given reading material and refreshments to allow them to pass the time on the "ball-bearing" route

A variant of the PR.IV was supplied to BOAC as the prototype Mosquito courier-transport. 'Accommodation' for the two passengers was on their backs in the bomb bay.

helmitsmit · Apr 26, 2006

In a development point of view they did do a Interceptor Mossie, the Hornet. That would have knocked the lighting to bits! 4x20mm, cotra-rotating propellors, 4000hp, 475mph+ and a climb of 5000ft per minute!

P-38 or Mosquito? (2 Viewers)

Which was better?

De Havilland Mosquito

Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Airman

Attachments

Airman

Captain

Staff Sergeant

Captain

Major General

Major General

Globetrotting Surgeon General

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Senior Airman

Brigadier General

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Captain

Major General

Captain

Major General

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads