P-38 or Mosquito? (1 Viewer)

[cheddar cheese]

Thats not a Mosquito though is it...

P-38's had contra-rotating propellors too.

 

[plan_D]

As far as I'm aware contra-rotating props refers to the props being on the same screw, not two different ones. If this is the case, the Hornet nor the Lightning had contra-rotating props. I may be wrong. I know the Lightnings spun opposite ways, but it that was on two different screws.

 

[helmitsmit]

I think the term is handed? but I'm not sure

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

P-38's had contra-rotating propellors too

what you wanna biscuit? not only did it make maintenance a problem but having props spinning the same direction never seemed to affect the mossie.........

 

[syscom3]

Once the logistics issues of supplying parts for the P38 had been worked out, there never was an issue about left and and right hand engines.

Lanc, contra rotating props are a bonus for any two engined aircraft. The mossie would have had even better performance than it did had it had this feature.

 

[Glider]

I think the term is handed? but I'm not sure

Your correct. Contra rotating is very different to handed engines. Neither the P38 or the Mossie had Contra rotating props.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Once the logistics issues of supplying parts for the P38 had been worked out

you make it sound so simple getting spares for any part of any aircraft in WWII was often hard enough, even with the short distances over land in the UK orders took weeks and sometimes arrived wrong, there's a famous incident where airscrews where ordered, and an aircrew turned up because of a simple mix up, now imagine you're on an island thousands of miles out into the pacific, you think it's easy to just nip down to the manufactures to get that exact part you need for your P-38, not only that but you can't order a generic part, for some parts you have to be engine specific............

The mossie would have had even better performance than it did had it had this feature.

all i'm saying is there's were never any complaints about the mossie because of it.......

 

[helmitsmit]

The Hornet eventually did have handed propellers so the De Havilland designer must have seen it as an improvement, but not important nor major.

 

[syscom3]

Lanc, maybe the RAF had supply problems, but once the US had its logistics train in order, there never was a problem (except in CBI).

 

[plan_D]

The US had a massive supply problem in North-West Europe, actually. For weeks the Allied armies were still using the ports dragged across the Channel. And when on the German border all the armies had practically ran out of fuel. The destruction of France's excellent infrastructure had made supply columns miles, upon miles long. The trucks involved were using just as much fuel as they were delivering because the trains weren't running.

 

[syscom3]

The AAF didnt have many logistics issues in 1944. Maybe the RAF did, but not the AAF.

Hint..... look at the hundreds of AAF squadrons deployed around the world. All of them flew their planes regularly.

 

[plan_D]

You said the U.S. I was correcting you on the US issue. Precisely, the USAAF nor the RAF had supply problems except in the CBI in 1944. Although, the squadrons based in France did have to take priority of fuel delivery over everything else because, as I said, the supply problem was there for everyone in France. Few ports and no rail transport, it had to be rebuilt.

 

[syscom3]

I think it was Les that said "is the P38 a better fighter or the Mosquito a better bomber".

Still true and while its interesting to see the differences between them, theyre two totally different aircraft in two different roles.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

syscom operating so far away from home you're gonna have supply problems getting spare parts, they flew regular missions because there's more than one plane in a squadron, but chances are, you'll always get one plane that needs a spare of some sort, even if it doesn't ground it, let's face it, back then there was no next day delivery back then, the RAF got it sometimes because we were close, the americans had to wait a bit longer, and btw, that airscrews/crew incident was the americans

 

[helmitsmit]

Did any one do a muck combat between the two aircraft?

 

[syscom3]

If you look at aircraft dispatched per squadron per mission, each group always managed to put a hefty number of aircraft in the air. I dont think any squadron or group managed to have a 100% sortie rate.

Unlike the RAF, the AAF and USN in 1944 and 1945, there was a flood of aircraft, mechanics and spare parts available and having a large number of aircraft grounded due to a lack of spare parts was simply not happening.

 

[Jo3]

Hi guys,

I'm new, so i read this interesting thread.

I have read the 46 page, and I have tried to do a comparative table

P38

- better speed in clean configuration
- better dive
- better turn radius (?)
- better durability (aluminium doesn decay)
- better spare parts in the first period of WW2 (mosquitos are very few)

Mosquito
- better bomb payload (4000 lbs or 3000 lbs : 6x500 lbs)
- better speed with payload, thanks to internal bomb bay.
- semi stealth characteristics (The First Stealth Fighter: The De Havilland Mosquito - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com), so better tactic and strategic characteristics
- better instrumental navigation (bomber and fighter bomber variant)
- better armament (4x20 mm + 4x7.7 british)





Am I forget something?



I love both, so I do not vote.

 

[drgondog]

Hi guys,

I'm new, so i read this interesting thread.

I have read the 46 page, and I have tried to do a comparative table

P38

- better speed in clean configuration
- better dive
- better turn radius (?)
- better durability (aluminium doesn decay)
- better spare parts in the first period of WW2 (mosquitos are very few)

If by the last statement, you are referring to pre-1944, there were fewer P-38s than Mossie's (making the 'spares' claim dubious) and it is not entirely clear that a P-38 could dive faster while maintaining control until mid 1944. Durability may not have mattered as operational life of most P-38s and Mossies were less than 400 hours.

Mosquito
- better bomb payload (4000 lbs or 3000 lbs : 6x500 lbs)
- better speed with payload, thanks to internal bomb bay.
- semi stealth characteristics (The First Stealth Fighter: The De Havilland Mosquito - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com), so better tactic and strategic characteristics
- better instrumental navigation (bomber and fighter bomber variant)
- better armament (4x20 mm + 4x7.7 british)





Am I forget something?



I love both, so I do not vote.

You could argue that the P-38 was a better day fighter, and that it was used in CAS.. think those are the only two advantages you could claim for the P-38. All the night roles (bomber, night fighter,etc) recon, weather scout, low level/long range bombing against tactical and strategic targets would seem to favor the Mossie.

 

[Jo3]

If by the last statement, you are referring to pre-1944, there were fewer P-38s than Mossie's (making the 'spares' claim dubious) and it is not entirely clear that a P-38 could dive faster while maintaining control until mid 1944. Durability may not have mattered as operational life of most P-38s and Mossies were less than 400 hours.

You could argue that the P-38 was a better day fighter, and that it was used in CAS.. think those are the only two advantages you could claim for the P-38. All the night roles (bomber, night fighter,etc) recon, weather scout, low level/long range bombing against tactical and strategic targets would seem to favor the Mossie.

Thank you for your reply.

It is true : i think it must be done a distinction between various version of P38 and various versione of Mosquito and the time (and war situation) when this version are used.

I'm quite sure the mosquito (versione IV and XVI, and versione XI) is a perfect plane to do the right job (deep incursion) in the right time (1943/1944) at the right place (early FW 190 and Me 109 have got the same (maybe slightly better) max speed to the mosquito at sea level, but Mosquito is very elusive and hard to catch and find : it is made by wood , so it is hard to detect it by radar).

So in a 1943 Era, when only few airplane risks to fly over Berlin, the little speed demod did his job.


But if you compare Mosquitos in 1944/1945 Era, when air superiority was gained by English/American, when the war changes theatres of operation, and FW 190D outpass it in speed, the mosquito return to be a fast figther/bomber, but not ininterceptable.

It still remain a superb multi role aircraft for all WW2 time, with excellent characteristics.

 

[RENGLAND]

Hi all
First post.
I always have trouble with these types of comparisons. What's the better plane, who's the better hockey player, football player etc. I find it difficult to quantify "better". eg. A great quarterback would be a lousy DB. So who's the best player? Impossible to answer. When I get into these discussions it almost always boils down to who is your favorite. For me it is the Mossie. This is not an informed opinion but it just grabs me somehow.
Great site btw. I just stumbled on to it.
Randy