P-38 or Mosquito? (1 Viewer)

[Zipper730]

The only way to settle this thing is with facts & figures. There are some caveats that have to be mentioned right off the bat

1. Lockheed P-38
   • Was designed first and foremost as a day-fighter
     • Disclaimer: Some will immediately say it was an interceptor, but that was just an excuse to get around undesirable requirements. The people issuing the specs wanted a plane that was usable for both offense and defense, but had heavier armament (1000 pounds of armament as a starting point instead of 500, which was the rule), and more engine power (which lead to the desire for two engines, which was verboten with one crewman). A lieutenant cannot legally override a colonel or general, so they decided to call it something other than a fighter.
   • While it did other missions including reconnaissance, night-fighter, fighter-bomber, path-finder, and level-bomber (it might have also hauled a person in the nose once or twice), it was firstly a day-fighter.
2. De Havilland Mosquito
   • Was designed first and foremost as a bomber & reconnaissance aircraft: And I'm not totally sure the reconnaissance role was there for a purpose other than manufacturing a case for the aircraft's production if the Air Ministry wouldn't get attached to the idea of an unarmed bomber.
   • While it did quite a number of other roles including: Night-Fighter, Fighter-Bomber, Target-Tug, and even Transport, that was not it's primary mission.

I figure if one's to compare it, I'd compare the fighter variants of the P-38 to the fighter-variants of the Mosquito: Since I'm not sure if any Mosquito served as a day-fighter variant, the various night-fighter variants can be included. The general metrics of a day-fighter would include the following.

1. Time period: After all, there is no realistic point in comparing a P-40 to an F-22. The variants should be compared by time-frame.
2. Performance: This is basically subdivided into several areas
   • Speed
     • Level-Speeds: This should include the maximum overall speed, maximum cruise-speeds, and typical cruise-speeds. These should be factored, when possible, across the tactically useful altitudes. Ironically high-speed cruise is more useful a figure than the top-speed as this would be what you'd probably see when combat starts. These should be measured at weight figures typically seen at the start of combat. Don't factor in the speed of one airplane weighed down to the max with racks hanging off of everything, and drop-tanks with the other lightly loaded, and completely clean.
     • Dive-Speeds: This should both factor in airspeed and mach-number. I'm pretty sure the Mosquito would come out on top in regards to mach number, though the P-38's with dive-recovery flaps should be considered as mentioned. I wouldn't weigh it as much as an airplane that could achieve that mach number without them, as it's a sign of better wing-design (plus not all P-38's were fitted).
   • Acceleration: This subdivides into
     • Level Acceleration: This is pretty much self-explanatory, acceleration rate varies with speed and altitude. Some aircraft will out accelerate another at all altitudes, others just at some. The condition of the aircraft should be that typically seen in combat-trim.
     • Dive Acceleration: There are aircraft that don't have the highest dive-speeds, but can accelerate real fast in a dive and be on you before you can reach your peak dive speed. The Spitfire had an unbelievable maximum dive-speed (placard limit 0.85), but a P-47 might very well out-accelerate it in dives (placard limit was 0.745)
   • Altitude: This subdivides into...
     • Critical Altitudes: This should be factored with ram compression and equal power settings (i.e. normal rated, military, war emergency power)
     • Service Ceiling: As before
   • Climb-Rate: This subdivides into
     • Continuous Climb: Self explanatory
     • Zoom-Climb: Some aircraft don't have the best steady-state climbs but they can zoom-climb well (the P-47 comes to mind)
   • Roll-Rate: This subdivides into
     • Responsiveness: How quickly the rate of roll-builds from when the pilot moves the stick
     • Peak-Rate: Basically, if you throw the stick to one side and hold it there long enough, you reach a peak roll-rate.
   • Rate of Turn: This includes several areas of importance
     • Corner velocity: The CAS at which you can pull the maximum rated g-load. Predictably varies with altitudes.
     • Responsiveness: Some airplanes build up g-load / rate of turn faster than would others.
     • G-load: The P-38 was stressed for a higher g-load than the Mosquito
3. Armament: This includes rate of fire, ballistic accuracy, and weight of fire. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mosquito was better in this regard as it had 4 x 20mm.
4. Ease of Handling: Control forces, control harmony, stall & spin characteristics, engine-out characteristics, etc...
5. Human Factors: Cockpit layout, visibility, etc...

I'm not sure what you call this one, but I do remember it mentioned that, even before the maneuvering flaps were put in the P-38 had a decent rate of turn, but because of a poor-roll rate, even the P-47 would be able to beat it because it could bank into a turn fast.

 

[Glider]

Reliability plagued the Mossie.

As with the others I would like some stats to support such a comment

It had float bowl type carburetors which would malfunction during evasive aerobatic maneuvers, causing unrecoverable stalls.

Does this explain the single engine rolling climb that was done when the Mosquito was first demonstrated to the USA?

The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range, superior firepower, and better maneuverability.

Does this explain why the P38 was withdrawn from the fighting over Europe so quickly, why the USAAF had such heavy losses with the F5 they asked for PR Spits and Mosquito's to replace them?

The only advantages of the Mosquito were lower manufacturing cost and practical invisibility to the German radars of the time. In the latter sense, the Mossie may have been a superior solution for very specific bombing missions, but was inferior in every other performance metric.

The cruising speed of the Mosquito was much faster which is often more important than headline speed. Firepower 'are you serious' 4 x 20mm and 4 x Lmg trumps 1 x 20mm and 4 x heavy any day. Payload common payload was 2000lb on the FB version and it could carry it a lot faster and further than a P38.

 

[pbehn]

1. De Havilland Mosquito
   • Was designed first and foremost as a bomber & reconnaissance aircraft: And I'm not totally sure the reconnaissance role was there for a purpose other than manufacturing a case for the aircraft's production if the Air Ministry wouldn't get attached to the idea of an unarmed bomber.
   • While it did quite a number of other roles including: Night-Fighter, Fighter-Bomber, Target-Tug, and even Transport, that was not it's primary mission.

.

I think this are some common misconceptions here. The Mosquito wasn't designed as a P/R aircraft, I don't know that any WW2 aircraft was. But as soon as UK was at war it was realised P/R was needed and also how difficult it was. By the time the Mosquito was in production the RAF was desperate for P/R aircraft so desperate that the prototype P/R Mosquito flew operationally. as the war progressed the need increased for all sorts of reasons, when the USA became involved the need increased further not only to identify targets, evaluate damage, but also find which targets were covered in cloud and what the general weather was. The allied joint P/R effort in Europe was massive and unglamorous but vital in saving lives and as a force multiplier. The Mosquito was one of very few non USA aircraft used by the USA and they would have taken more than they did. There were many types of P/R aircraft, they were all high performance after the first years of the war, in a certain niche the P/R version of the Mosquito was the best.

The role of night fighter was completely dependent on RADAR that could be carried on an aircraft so you couldn't design a "nightfighter" in 1939, airborne RADAR was still completely experimental.

The role of "fighter bomber" has many aspects, if the object is to destroy enemy equipment and destroy aircraft that can destroy your equipment. In that the Mosquito saw of its main adversaries the Ju88 and Me110 by day and night over land and sea.

Maybe a better question would be how would the P-38 fare trying to stop Mosquito bomber and P/R and maritime strike operations?

 

[Glider]

Maybe a better question would be how would the P-38 fare trying to stop Mosquito bomber and P/R and maritime strike operations?

Excellent idea

 

[wuzak]

Let's get a few details straight.

The "dive flaps" fitted to P-38J's and L's from 1944 did not solve the compressibility problem. These were truly five brakes, designed to reduce acceleration in a dive so that the speed would not reach that where compressibility occurred.

The allowed dive angle at altitude was increased from 15 degrees to about 45 degrees. Not a match for most contemporary fighters.

If the P-38 had a range 60% greater than the Mosquito the 8AF could have escorted their bombers to Germany in early 1943.

To be fair to the P-38 it has to be noted that the majority (all?) P-38s were diverted to North Africa in support of the Torch landings in 1943.

A significant proportion of Mosquitoes weee produced with the single stage Packard Merlin, which featured an injection carburettor. Most, or all, 2 stage variants had an injection carburettor.

The FB.VI is not the appropriate Mosquito to compare to the P-38. The 2 stage NF versions were a better match. The NF.XIX would have been contemporary to the P-38J and the NF.XXX with the P-38L. The XIX and XXX had the universal radome, which was usually fitted with the AI,X (SCR720) radar, possibly the best AI radar of the war.

And, Zippier, the Mosquito was not deployed as a day fighter, though the possibility was explored (but rejected).

 

[Shortround6]

Does this explain why the P38 was withdrawn from the fighting over Europe so quickly, why the USAAF had such heavy losses with the F5 they asked for PR Spits and Mosquito's to replace them?

To be fair to the P-38 it has to be noted that the majority (all?) P-38s were diverted to North Africa in support of the Torch landings in 1943.

Wuzak is correct, all fighter P-38s were diverted to North Africa in Support of Torch. It would be about a year before P-38 fighters would appear in NW Europe again.

I don't know if a small contigent of photo recon planes stayed behind or were supplied during the time the fighters were in North Africa/Italy.

If the P-38 had a range 60% greater than the Mosquito the 8AF could have escorted their bombers to Germany in early 1943.

Early P-38s certainly didn't have any extra range over the Mosquito (only 300 US gallons internal) and the later ones while better (410 US gallons) were still going to come up short.
Mosquitos holding over 500 Imp gallons internal?
maybe you could get a P-38 to fly further than a Mosquito by hanging a pair of huge drop tanks on it but that is ferry range and not combat range.

 

[pbehn]

Wuzak is correct, all fighter P-38s were diverted to North Africa in Support of Torch. It would be about a year before P-38 fighters would appear in NW Europe again.

I don't know if a small contigent of photo recon planes stayed behind or were supplied during the time the fighters were in North Africa/Italy.


Early P-38s certainly didn't have any extra range over the Mosquito (only 300 US gallons internal) and the later ones while better (410 US gallons) were still going to come up short.
Mosquitos holding over 500 Imp gallons internal?
maybe you could get a P-38 to fly further than a Mosquito by hanging a pair of huge drop tanks on it but that is ferry range and not combat range.

You can hang 2 x 200 gallon tanks under a Mosquito too. The longest range Mosquitos had 1,592 gallons in internal and external fuel.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you, I didn't know the max capacity of the Mosquito. The P-38 (at least the late ones) maxed out at 1076 US gallons (two 330 gal under wing tanks).

 

[MiTasol]

Reliability plagued the Mossie.

To quote General McArthur on 16 July 1942

It had float bowl type carburetors which would malfunction during evasive aerobatic maneuvers, causing unrecoverable stalls.

Only until Miss Shillings Orifice was invented. It was fitted to all fighter command Merlins by the end of March 41 and fitted to all production Merlins starting early 41. Given the Mosquito did not enter production until 15 November 1941 that means this problem only affected a few prototypes.

The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range ....

But a Mosquito crew could fly maximum range operations day after day after day while the P-38 needed a break between long flights (unless each P-38 had many pilots).
To quote a USAAF Air Intell Report

The P38 ... had 60% greater range

From the F-8 and P-38 US Army Flight Ops Manuals dated 30 Jun 44 and Sep 44 respectively

• the USAAF F-8 Mosquito had a 2430 statute mile range with 887 USG fuel. The longest range Mosquito's had 1,592 gallons fuel which would provide the F-8 with close to double the range in the Ops manual.
• the P-38 Lightning had a 1560 stature mile range with 600 USG external fuel or 810 miles with no external fuel under the same operating condition of economy cruise
• This means the USAAF says the Mosquito has exactly three times the range on internal fuel and 36% greater range if the P-38 was carrying maximum fuel
• You will note that the Mosquito carries zero fuel that is not available in flight but the P-38 carries 50 gal internal and 5 gal in each drop.

The P38 had superior firepower

How do you conclude 4 x .50 MGs and one 20mm cannon is greater firepower than 4 x .303 MGs and four 20mm cannons?

The P38 had better maneuverability.

Again from the F-8 and P-38 US Army Flight Ops Manuals dated 30 Jun 44 and Sep 44 respectively

• Mosquito 3 three prohibited and one restricted manuouvre.
• P-38 - just read them and weep

I do not know what medication your doctor has you on but I would strongly suggest a change of both

 

[MiTasol]

The Mosquito wasn't designed as a P/R aircraft, I don't know that any WW2 aircraft was.

The Ki-46

 

[Shortround6]

I think there is a mistake and/or misinterpretation of the phrase "Allowance not available in flight"

It should not be zero for the Mosquito and while there very well may be 5 gallons in each drop tank that cannot be gotten out 50 gallons is way too high for the internal fuel.

That 50 gallons is supposed to cover starting the engines, warming them up, taxing, take-off and climb to some nominal altitude (like 5,000ft) and so there are 50 gallons not avaialabel for cruising (or anything else)

I don't know what a Mosquito would need to to do that but I doubt it would be significantly different.

It doesn't actually change anything, the Mosquito still has a much longer range.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

To quote General McArthur on 16 July 1942
View attachment 535598

While good points were brought up in the rest of your post, it's kind of funny how one of his subordinates (who ran the 5th AF) saw differently. Also, Mac mentions "operational experience to date," July 1942??? How many P-38s were in the PTO during that time? I wonder what Mac would have said after December 27, 1942? The rest is history...

 

[michael rauls]

Well ,while both extremely versitile one was designed to be a fighter and the other a bomber. Asking what's better the p38 or the Mosquito is, although less extreme, akin to asking what is better the p51 or the Lancaster.
I guess it would depend on theater and mission. If I were doing poto recon or anything by night in western Europe I'd definitely want the Mossie. If it was a long range fighter for the South Pacific I think I'd go with the Lightning. Just depends on what and where. At least that's the way I see it.

 

[MiTasol]

The P38 was faster, had 60% greater range, superior firepower, and better maneuverability.

Climb performance is also interesting

The USAAF puts the time to 20,000ft for the Mosquito as 8.6 min at 16,770lb (roughly equivalent to P-38 with no drops at 17,400) and 22 minutes at MTOW.

At 17,400 lbs (no drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 5 minutes to 15,000ft at combat climb - add a third to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7.5 mines to 20,000 in combat climb.
At 17,400 lbs (no drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 9 minutes to 25,000ft at combat climb - deduct 1/5 to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7 min to 20,000 in combat climb.

At 17,400 lbs, given that is a combat climb in an aircraft designed as an interceptor and the turbos are hard at work above 15,000 ft the difference in climb time is not great when considering that the bigger and far fatter mosquito was designed as a bomber and photo recon aircraft.

At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 8 minutes to 15,000ft at full climb - add a third to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7.5 min to 20,000 in combat climb.
At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 9 minutes to 25,000ft at full climb - deduct 1/5 to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 7 min to 20,000 in combat climb.


However, given the F-8 Mosquito is a PR aircraft it would always do ferry climb so we should compare ferrry climb performance and in that comparison the Mosquito wins hands down.

At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 14 minutes to 15,000ft at ferry climb - add a third to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 21 min to 20,000 in ferry climb boout the same as the mossie.
At 21,400 lbs (full drops) the P-38L/F-5B takes 40 minutes to 25,000ft at ferry climb - deduct 1/5 to very very roughly get to 20,000 and that makes the P-38 32 min to 20,000 in ferry climb, ten minutes slower than the Mosquito which does not even have turbos to boost its climb above 15,000 ft. Much slower than the bomber/PR aircraft.

 

[MiTasol]

While good points were brought up in the rest of your post, it's kind of funny how one of his subordinates (who ran the 5th AF) saw differently. Also, Mac mentions "operational experience to date," July 1942??? How many P-38s were in the PTO during that time? I wonder what Mac would have said after December 27, 1942? The rest is history...

I totally agree with you Flyboy about the aircrafts operational value later on but having worked on two P-38s I know they are a bitch to maintain and I would expect that to have continued to the bitter end because of the complexity in a compact package. A number of common jobs require a wing off to access a fuel or hydraulic component, even on the late L models. I saw a lot of other defects showing though some were probably shipping related like excessive tyre failures. There are many reports on tyres and other spares being dead on arrival due to being badly transported.

Mine is also a far more valid, and historically correct, comment than claiming all Mosquitos had the carb flooding problems when it was only the early prototypes engines that were not fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice or pressure carbs and thus flooding under high g turns. No production Mosquito was affected with the carb problem but McArthurs P-38 problems did exist in early operations at least.

Those who want to denigrate the Spitfire and Mosquito on moronic grounds always seem to like to shout about the VERY EARLY Merlins carbs while forgetting that some US and Japanese engines had the very same problem. Many American engines by then had the Stromberg pressure carbs so were immune and most German combat engines had fuel injection but in both countries this was not a universal situation. Who knows what the French and Italians and Russians had? I suspect float carbs in the early war years.

As others have pointed out the Packard Merlins all had Stromberg carbs and the later Merlins had a British pressure carb. My Merlin experience is almost purely Packard but others far more knowledgeable on Merlins than I will no doubt be willing and able to identify when these were introduced. I would suspect late 42 at the latest as if I remember right the Bristol Hercs had pressure carbs around then. Horribly complex beasties on the Hercs but definitely reliable.

I may be able to find the number of P-38s in the PTO at that stage - saw it only about a week ago in the 30,000+ pages of US archives I just received and was not particularly interested but should be able to find it again. It was many more than I expected and in a record that included LB-30's and an L-C1. I must admit to having spent an hour trying to find what the L-C1 was and eventually decided it was probably a typo. A surprising number of Curtiss Falcons arrived in Aus about the same time.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Looking through this thread I think many years ago I defended the P-38 to the death. Just to under LancasterKicksAss's skin...

 

[Shortround6]

McArthur's "experience" with P-38s was limited to a small number of F-4 photo-recon planes that first showed up April 7th 1942 with Flight A of the 8th Photo squadron. They had four planes. They started operations on April 16th.

" "B" and "C" Flights arrived at Camp Murphy, Melbourne, on 16 July 1942 aboard the S.S. Matsonia, and departed for Townsville on 27 July 1942. "
from https://www.ozatwar.com/8pr.htm

Strangely enough in Aug of 1942 Gen Kennedy is pleading with General Arnold for P-38s for the 5th Air force. But he didn't arrive until after McArthur wrote that memo.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I totally agree with you Flyboy about the aircrafts operational value later on but having worked on two P-38s I know they are a bitch to maintain and I would expect that to have continued to the bitter end because of the complexity in a compact package. A number of common jobs require a wing off to access a fuel or hydraulic component, even on the late L models. I saw a lot of other defects showing though some were probably shipping related like excessive tyre failures. There are many reports on tyres and other spares being dead on arrival due to being badly transported.

Mine is also a far more valid, and historically correct, comment than claiming all Mosquitos had the carb flooding problems when it was only the early prototypes engines that were not fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice or pressure carbs and thus flooding under high g turns. No production Mosquito was affected with the carb problem but McArthurs P-38 problems did exist in early operations at least.

Agree on some points and no doubt the P-38 had it's gestation issues, even in the PTO but MacArthur's comments in reality turned into hot air as General Kenny was the main focus of the deployment and probably the success of the P-38 in the SW Pacific.

Those who want to denigrate the Spitfire and Mosquito on moronic grounds always seem to like to shout about the VERY EARLY Merlins carbs while forgetting that some US and Japanese engines had the very same problem. Many American engines by then had the Stromberg pressure carbs so were immune and most German combat engines had fuel injection but in both countries this was not a universal situation. Who knows what the French and Italians and Russians had? I suspect float carbs in the early war years.

As others have pointed out the Packard Merlins all had Stromberg carbs and the later Merlins had a British pressure carb. My Merlin experience is almost purely Packard but others far more knowledgeable on Merlins than I will no doubt be willing and able to identify when these were introduced. I would suspect late 42 at the latest as if I remember right the Bristol Hercs had pressure carbs around then. Horribly complex beasties on the Hercs but definitely reliable.

And agree on all points

I may be able to find the number of P-38s in the PTO at that stage - saw it only about a week ago in the 30,000+ pages of US archives I just received and was not particularly interested but should be able to find it again. It was many more than I expected and in a record that included LB-30's and an L-C1. I must admit to having spent an hour trying to find what the L-C1 was and eventually decided it was probably a typo. A surprising number of Curtiss Falcons arrived in Aus about the same time.

The first P-38s reached the SW Pacific in April 42, when 4 F-4s were operated by the 8th Photo Reconnaissance Squadron, they were not armed. The First armed P-38 arrived in Brisbane in August 1942. They formed the 35th and 39th FS and were not operational until November. The 339th FS, 347th FG based on Henderson also received P-38s, their first mission was in November, 1942. The first real combat involving P-38s in numbers took place December 27, 1942 with the 39th FG. So going full circle, MacArthur was really talking out of his ass as there were only a handful of P-38s in theater at that time.

 

[MiTasol]

The first P-38s reached the SW Pacific in April 42, when 4 F-4s were operated by the 8th Photo Reconnaissance Squadron, they were not armed.

Yep - no date in archives documents so I will put a note on the page saying Apr 42 and details from Shortrounds post 777

The First armed P-38 arrived in Brisbane in August 1942.

Agreed - 34 arrived on the John Wise, one damaged and 15 allocated to 39th FS on Sep 17th. No records of where others allocated. All except 3 had 42-126nn serials

So going full circle, MacArthur was really talking out of his ass as there were only a handful of P-38s in theater at that time.

Absolutely though it would be nice to know who gave him that advise. Brereton? That may be in archives

By the way last night I found two more L-1Cs with serials and they were a conversion from 0-49As according to Joe Baugher's site. Obviously the L-C1 entry was a typo.

I am currently trying to read General Kenny's diary. Not General Kenny Reports but the actual diaries. They were microfilmed post war and are now available on CD with a five month lead time. If anyone wants a copy ask and I will contact the supplier to get permission to pass them on. I am confident the answer will be yes.

Unfortunately human error during microfilming has been a major problem. Those that microfilmed them obviously ranged from those who really cared to those who did not give a ****, deleting pages or whole files when they felt like it, photographing pages out of order, never changing exposure, not setting focus, etc. Despite the exposure and collating problems very interesting.

I intend to compare the diary with General Kenny Reports on several items such as his pleas to Washington to allow him to return worthless officers to the US rather than being forced to move them to multiple posts where they fail every time and his battles to get food given a higher transportation priority than spares and spares a higher priority than beer.

According to the microfilm index (obviously prepared before the documents were photographed because the frame numbers are on each page) the first diary roll contains

In reality Vols 1, 2 and 3 are missing, the index starts at Frame 1401, not 1862 and Vol 4 starts at 562 not 596.

 

[Shortround6]

Climb performance is also interesting

The USAAF puts the time to 20,000ft for the Mosquito as 8.6 min at 16,770lb (roughly equivalent to P-38 with no drops at 17,400) and 22 minutes at MTOW.

At 17,400 lbs, given that is a combat climb in an aircraft designed as an interceptor and the turbos are hard at work above 15,000 ft the difference in climb time is not great when considering that the bigger and far fatter mosquito was designed as a bomber and photo recon aircraft.

However, given the F-8 Mosquito is a PR aircraft it would always do ferry climb so we should compare ferrry climb performance and in that comparison the Mosquito wins hands down.

While interesting we are drawing conclusions without quite enough information.

Like what power levels was the Mosquito using? The US F8 being a Canadian built MK XX using Packard Merlin 31 engines?
Granted there were only 40 built so the pilot's manual might be a bit on the sketchy side, and/or copied from the English pilot notes?

On the P-38L the Turbos weren't really working all that hard at 15,000ft. The engines on the L used 8.10 supercharger gears instead of the 7.48 gears used in the P-38 F and G.
The L's also used the B-33 turbo instead of the early B-13. The combination was good for 54in of boost (about 12lbs) to 26,600ft with no RAM (and would actually pull 60 in/14.7lbs? at 25,800ft with no RAM).

P-38s "combat" climb was at military power which varied with which model P-38 (and which model Allison engines) however their "Ferry" climb also varied. The engines were run at 2300rpm and the allowable boost varied with the engine model, on the L's the boost was 35in (about 2 1/2 lbs) and was the maximum lean cruise setting. Something interesting is that the P-38L when heavily loaded (21,400lbs) would burn less fuel using the combat climb than when using the Ferry climb getting to a given altitude.

The max lean settings for the XX series Merlin seem to be 2650rpm and 4lbs of boost. I have no idea if these settings were used for the "ferry" climb of the F8 Mosquito or not.

We also seem to have a bit of a disconnect on the weight. A Mosquito at 16,770lbs is running awfully light, even for a photo recon plane. That is only about 3370lbs heavier than the tare weight for a MK IV bomber?

we seem to have a lack of numbers/facts and a lot of guessing.

The Mosquito may still come out ahead in some categories but lets try to use real numbers.