P-38 or Mosquito?

[MiTasol]

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

All I can find for numbers in the same format and layout with significant detail and using the same services SOPs are the USAAF TOs. I could look at RAF Pilots notes for both but then the manual layout is totally different and, as you know, the RAF APs are very sparse on detail at the best of times.

I do not know where the USAAF got its operating weights from but I would doubt they are inaccurate. The (very limited) weight data in the -1 and the -1 engine page are below. The complete manual is posted on the forum if you want further details but the whole document is only 36 pages so it is hardly comprehensive. The -2 is quite detailed but as always has no weight data.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for the engine chart.

as for the accuracy of the weights?

See; http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

for a chart on the P-39Q-1 that gives weights of 8100lbs, 7600lbs and 7200lbs.

8100lbs is correct (or close enough) for carrying either a 500lb bomb or 75 gallon drop tank, 7600lbs is close (30lbs over) for the plane clean, with ammo and 87 gallons of fuel.
7200lbs means either no ammo of any caliber (and no ballast) or only 20 gallons of fuel left in the tanks (or combination).
This last combination, while interesting to the pilot and "accurate" tells the pilot how long a runway he needs in such a condition or the difference in climb or some differences in other performance as the plane gets lighter. performance can be estimated depending on actual weight when it differs from the weights given in the table ((falls between).

Picking the lightest weight on the chart may mean a less than "combat" ready condition even if the plane will fly perfectly well in that condition/at that weight.

The weight "selection" is not consistent on the charts. P-40 chart/s is/are like the P-39 chart. the lightest weight given means there is something not in the airplane. The one for the P-40E lists one weight of 7500lbs, once you stick your 180lb pilot and 75-97lbs of oil into a 7665lb basic weight airplane you have 580lbs left for fuel and ammo (and a P-40E will hold 423lbs of ammo)

However the P-38L chart starts at 17,400lbs. I don't have the weight charts for the P-38L but for the J 17,400lbs covers the plane with full ammo (500rounds per .50 cal gun) and and nearly full tanks, including leading edge. (17,699lbs) using just 300 gallons of fuel and full ammo drops the weight to 17,009lbs. P-38s often carried 300 rounds per .50 cal gun and the weight savings was 240-250lbs.
The P-38L may well be several hundred pounds heavier than the J and I have no explanation as to why the lightest weight listed for the P-38L is for a more fully supplied plane (even if not max clean weight) than the lightest weight plane on the other two charts.

granted an F-8 Mosquito doesn't have to worry about ammo but if the plane weighs 21,000lbs max with 887 US gallons of fuel (carried by whatever means needed) then to get down to the 16,770lb figure you have to lose 4230lb of fuel or equipment (or crew?) as there is no ammo or guns. If you lose 4230lbs of fuel that is 705 US gallons and comparing a Mosquito with 182 gallons of fuel to a P-38 with even 300 gallons is a bit of a bogus comparison.

I would imagine (but could very well be wrong) that the F-8 would use the bottom line on the engine chart for a "ferry" climb. This chart doesn't say but 2650rpm and 4lbs boost was the common limit for two speed Merlins when running lean.
So for the "ferry" climb we have the P-38 using engines that are 3.6% larger but turning only 87% as fast(rpm) and operating at 92% of the manifold pressure. Not exactly a surprise that a lightweight Mosquito can climb well in comparison.

I admit I have made a few assumptions here, we don't have the actual numbers to back either of us up. I am not claiming that I am right or that you are wrong, only that there seem to be a range of possible answers (weights and power levels) that can skew the results if not looked at in a critical manor.

Pilots notes/manuals are great and I am not saying that the numbers are wrong (at least not in the sense that you exceed limits, either high or low, you won't be in trouble) but sometimes the weights used seem out of touch with the intended use of the plane. although knowing that even running with no ammo and little fuel trying to put a P-39 down on a wet jungle airfield is going to need a lot more runway than even a warm summer day on dry concrete

May help with the planning of auxiliary or emergency airstrips too. How long a runway do you need to get a repaired airplane running light off the ground to 'ferry' it to the main field only 10-30 miles away?

 

[Clean32]

wow i read some of the posts but there are to many, forgive me if i have repeated someone else's post.

firstly, one aircraft was a result of very poor political/military directions where the other was in spite of poor political/military directions.

the only similarities between these two aircraft is simply that they had two motors and a pilot.
In addition one was designed as an interceptor while the other was designed as a bomber.
So comparing the two raises a question in itself. to compare them head to head or as to how successful they were in there actual application?

we could come up with a simple answer by saying that the P38 while successful early in the pacific war was soon superseded. it was moderately successful in North africa and totally failed in europe. the mossie was very successful in Europe and very successful in the pacific and asia.

the mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor.

The P38 was a sturdy airframe but was inherently a poor design, a twin boom single tail created more aerodynamic and stability issues than any other airframe.
pilot servivablity was also poor, getting out in high slipstreams and missing the tail and an unfortunate habit of killing pilots. the mosquito demonstrated none of these folts.
The only disadvantage of the mossie i can think of would be a wheels up landing where if a prop broke off it could tale the legs off the pilot.

The nazis credited any german pilot who managed to shoot down a mosquito with 2 kills. this was not the case for the P38, i think it speaks volumes in itself.

Development. i see no point in quoting clime rates and air speeds at altitude. while one may have the advantage in one area the other gains that back somewhere else. advantages change back and forwards and each airframe and power plants were developed. But there is one very interesting point. the mosquito got more power it became faster. the P38 did not this is a result of the inherent issues with the airframe as mentioned before. in short it was just very dragy for high speed. for example the turbochargers exhaust directly up, at 90deg to the airflow. this hot gas actually produces drag where the mosquitoes twin or latter fish tail stacks actually increased thrust or at higher speeds the hot gasses filled a low pressure point that would otherwise produce drag.

Lastly, the P38 while on paper stacks up well but in reality it didn't. it could not climb on full power to 30 000ft, at 26000ft it had air inlet temp issues so any climb could not be continued.

American politics created the P38 with the insistence that any future aircraft motors would be turbo charged and NOT supercharged. this was a correct choice based on theory but incorrect once you have to take into account available metallurgy, heat and the extra plumbing involved. Its this plumbing that precludes its fitting to the P40 but then the P40 was also and old airframe to the point where it benefited a bit but not enough in fitting a packard merlin. the P38 was also not an economical intercepter. 2 motors, one which would have cost more than the actual airframe. compared with the cost of any other american f6f P47 p51 etc. redevelopment of oil and glycol coolers. some decent props. lifting the centerline of thrust. a decent intercooler instead of trying to use the wing etc would all have improved the P38 greatly. BUT the ARMY owned the motors and the P38 needed two of them.

Lastly it could not carry 4+ imperial Tons of bombs nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon. nor did it ever carry 6lb rockets


Based on that and its extensive post war use around the world from canada to australia africa and israel i guess the last nail is the fact that the american purchases and used mosquitos during ww2 both in europe and italy.

My vote is mosquito

Keep to shoot down any counter points.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

wow i read some of the posts but there are to many, forgive me if i have repeated someone else's post.

firstly, one aircraft was a result of very poor political/military directions where the other was in spite of poor political/military directions.

Can you validate that with PROOF? The P-38 was the only game in town with regards to it's performance at the start of the war. Need dictated it's production

the only similarities between these two aircraft is simply that they had two motors and a pilot.
In addition one was designed as an interceptor while the other was designed as a bomber.
So comparing the two raises a question in itself. to compare them head to head or as to how successful they were in there actual application?

agree to a point although the P-38 was a very effective fighter bomber where it was not only used for close ground support, but as a medium altitude bomber with a pathfinder aircraft.

we could come up with a simple answer by saying that the P38 while successful early in the pacific war was soon superseded. it was moderately successful in North africa and totally failed in europe. the mossie was very successful in Europe and very successful in the pacific and asia.

Early in the Pacific? There you're wrong. The P-38 was only being supplemented and slowly replaced during the latter part of the war - look at the operation history of the squadrons flying the aircraft, there were many P-38 units operating in the Pacific right up to VJ day. The first aircraft to land on Japaneses soil after the shooting stopped was a P-38. It was the only US fighter produced prior to the US entry right up to the end.

the mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor.

The mossie and hornet are two different aircraft - that's like saying the P-38 developed into the P-80 which BTW had about a 15% component commonality

The P38 was a sturdy airframe but was inherently a poor design, a twin boom single tail created more aerodynamic and stability issues than any other airframe.
pilot servivablity was also poor, getting out in high slipstreams and missing the tail and an unfortunate habit of killing pilots. the mosquito demonstrated none of these folts.
The only disadvantage of the mossie i can think of would be a wheels up landing where if a prop broke off it could tale the legs off the pilot.

Whilr the P-38 had issues with compressibility, it was well flown and produced more aces in the SWP than any other AAF fighter. The mossie had it's issues - wood aircraft don't last long and there were many DOCUMENTED issues Mossies coming apart, especially in hot humid climates

The nazis credited any german pilot who managed to shoot down a mosquito with 2 kills. this was not the case for the P38, i think it speaks volumes in itself.

Hmmm - can you validate that? The P-38 still had about a confirmed 1 to 1 ratio in the ETO - look at it's record in other theaters, especially the the SWP.

Development. i see no point in quoting clime rates and air speeds at altitude. while one may have the advantage in one area the other gains that back somewhere else. advantages change back and forwards and each airframe and power plants were developed. But there is one very interesting point. the mosquito got more power it became faster. the P38 did not this is a result of the inherent issues with the airframe as mentioned before. in short it was just very dragy for high speed. for example the turbochargers exhaust directly up, at 90deg to the airflow. this hot gas actually produces drag where the mosquitoes twin or latter fish tail stacks actually increased thrust or at higher speeds the hot gasses filled a low pressure point that would otherwise produce drag.

Again you're wrong - the P-38 was continually being developed and improved - look into the P-38K.

Lastly, the P38 while on paper stacks up well but in reality it didn't. it could not climb on full power to 30 000ft, at 26000ft it had air inlet temp issues so any climb could not be continued.

Again please validate that, there are many "clime rates and air speeds at altitude" as well as pilot reports that place this statement in the trash can.

American politics created the P38 with the insistence that any future aircraft motors would be turbo charged and NOT supercharged. this was a correct choice based on theory but incorrect once you have to take into account available metallurgy, heat and the extra plumbing involved. Its this plumbing that precludes its fitting to the P40 but then the P40 was also and old airframe to the point where it benefited a bit but not enough in fitting a packard merlin. the P38 was also not an economical intercepter. 2 motors, one which would have cost more than the actual airframe. compared with the cost of any other american f6f P47 p51 etc. redevelopment of oil and glycol coolers. some decent props. lifting the centerline of thrust. a decent intercooler instead of trying to use the wing etc would all have improved the P38 greatly. BUT the ARMY owned the motors and the P38 needed two of them.

Again you make these statements with references or validations to back up your claims. For being a twin ENGINE aircraft, nearly 10,000 were produced.

Lastly it could not carry 4+ imperial Tons of bombs nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon. nor did it ever carry 6lb rockets

No, but if carried two tons of bombs and could of carried one of these...

Based on that and its extensive post war use around the world from canada to australia africa and israel i guess the last nail is the fact that the american purchases and used mosquitos during ww2 both in europe and italy.

Mosquitos were used in theater because of need - they did do well. Post WW2 use of the Mosquito was not that successful as these aircraft eventually "fell apart." Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia used the P-38 for many years after WW2

My vote is mosquito

Keep to shoot down any counter points.

No problem there, you're an easy target.

 

[wuzak]

Lastly it could not carry 4+ imperial Tons of bombs nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon. nor did it ever carry 6lb rockets

Firstly, the Mosquito didn't carry 4+ imperial tons of bombs....ever.

(Also need to be more precise - 1 UK Ton/long ton is 2,240lb while 1 US ton is 2,000lb.)

4+ tons is what the Manchester, Halifax and Lancaster could carry.

The most a Mosquito could carry was 5,000lb. This was 1 x 4,000lb plus 2 x 500lb on the B.XVI.

Secondly, the P-38 did carry rockets - just not the British ones.

Lastly, the Mk.XVIII had a 57mm cannon.

 

[wuzak]

No, but if carried two tons of bombs and could of carried one of these...

View attachment 535725

I believe that is two torpedoes.

The mosquito's wing racks were only rated to 500lb, so the torpedoes couldn't be carried there.

The Sea Mosquito was able to carry one under the fuselage.

 

[wuzak]

Whilr the P-38 had issues with compressibility, it was well flown and produced more aces in the SWP than any other AAF fighter. The mossie had it's issues - wood aircraft don't last long and there were many DOCUMENTED issues Mossies coming apart, especially in hot humid climates

Mosquitoes served with the RAF well into the 1950s, in the Mid-East and far-East.

They also served a long time with Israel. I don't have access to my books so I can't give more than that at this time.

During the war there were some failures in the East, these being traced back to glue not suited for tropical climates. A different type of glue was substituted, resolving most or all of the difficulties.

 

[Glider]

I admit to being a little bemused by some of this. It looks impressive hanging two torpedo's under the early P38, but really, how far do you think they could carry them?

That said the P38 is getting some bad press from some of the posters. It clearly was a better daylight fighter than Mosquito and useful in a number of other rolls. The Mossie was better at other area's. If you want to intercept a bomber in daylight, take the P38, at night, the Mossie.

It's pretty obvious that that's the case and I don't think anyone can argue with this, so why not leave it at that?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Mosquitoes served with the RAF well into the 1950s, in the Mid-East and far-East.

They also served a long time with Israel. I don't have access to my books so I can't give more than that at this time.

During the war there were some failures in the East, these being traced back to glue not suited for tropical climates. A different type of glue was substituted, resolving most or all of the difficulties.

I think after the 56' they were pulled from service - somewhere there is a post about their use and the maintenance issues encountered while operating them.

At the end of the day I think we know that wood is not good for longevity. (discussed in depth on early threads)

 

[Clean32]

Can you validate that with PROOF? The P-38 was the only game in town with regards to it's performance at the start of the war. Need dictated it's production
agree to a point although the P-38 was a very effective fighter bomber where it was not only used for close ground support, but as a medium altitude bomber with a pathfinder aircraft.
Early in the Pacific? There you're wrong. The P-38 was only being supplemented and slowly replaced during the latter part of the war - look at the operation history of the squadrons flying the aircraft, there were many P-38 units operating in the Pacific right up to VJ day. The first aircraft to land on Japaneses soil after the shooting stopped was a P-38. It was the only US fighter produced prior to the US entry right up to the end.

The mossie and hornet are two different aircraft - that's like saying the P-38 developed into the P-80 which BTW had about a 15% component commonality

Whilr the P-38 had issues with compressibility, it was well flown and produced more aces in the SWP than any other AAF fighter. The mossie had it's issues - wood aircraft don't last long and there were many DOCUMENTED issues Mossies coming apart, especially in hot humid climates

Hmmm - can you validate that? The P-38 still had about a confirmed 1 to 1 ratio in the ETO - look at it's record in other theaters, especially the the SWP.
Again you're wrong - the P-38 was continually being developed and improved - look into the P-38K.
Again please validate that, there are many "clime rates and air speeds at altitude" as well as pilot reports that place this statement in the trash can.

Again you make these statements with references or validations to back up your claims. For being a twin ENGINE aircraft, nearly 10,000 were produced.


No, but if carried two tons of bombs and could of carried one of these...

View attachment 535725


Mosquitos were used in theater because of need - they did do well. Post WW2 use of the Mosquito was not that successful as these aircraft eventually "fell apart." Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia used the P-38 for many years after WW2


No problem there, you're an easy target.

correct the P38 was the only game in town at the beginning of the war. but even that differ as to what country you are from, for an american it 1942 to the british its 1939. so it would be correct to say it was the only american game in an american town at the start of america waking up to the war.
Availability in theater is not an indicator of successful performance it is just that and indicator of availability and it was the first airframe that the americans had, that could take it to the japanese in the pacific. again this is because it was available, there was nothing else. but that is not an argument for it being good! the fact that you could hang a couple of Bombs on it is hardly a point, the british hung bombs, cannon and rockets on all of there fighters at some stage.
correct the mossie and Hornet are different aircraft How ever they hold the same ethos. the P38 has no post war lineage.

can i validate that the Nazis credited two kills for one mozzie kill, yes i can. google is your friend and frankly, since it is such a well known fact i am surprised that you wish to push the point. maybe a bit one eyed?

you are correct the P38 produced more american aces than any other airframe. Keyword- American. theater Pacific in the early days when the japanese army and navy were able to provide so many targets. even by the time the americans got to europe the nazis could only produce a shadow of an effective air force as it did in 1939-1942

You are correct. the mozzie has some initial issues in asia. the glue being used was not suitable with the humidity and became unstuck. the canadian builds were not sealed well so rotted initaly and the australian builds used steel screws which would sweat creating rot. but these issues were identified and fixed. unlike the P38 having the tail fall off which was never fixed, well apart from just making it slower.

OK clime rates and air speeds. or speed at a given altitude. is not a comparable number. airspeed at a given air density is a better gage. so given the troposphere is lower. the further away you get from the equator, at height given in Feet is nether and indicator of airframe drag nor of air density in the manifold. just as airspeed is indirectly relative to grown speed and for the same reasons. this in part is why the p38 failed in europe.

Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, well yes but its not like they had a choice, it was more like an american attaboy nice little banana republic take out old and useless aircraft and be dam grateful for them as well, follows by an uncle same pat on the head. this example hardly improves your point.
Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

 

[GrauGeist]

The P38 was a sturdy airframe but was inherently a poor design, a twin boom single tail created more aerodynamic and stability issues than any other airframe.

Right...you mean like the Fokker G.I, Blohm & Voss Bv138, SAAB 21, Focke-Wulf Fw189, Northrop P-61, Gotha Go242, DeHavilland Vampire/Venom/Sea Vixen, Cessna 0-2 Skymaster and literally dozens of other military and civil designs?

but then the P40 was also and old airframe

By barely a year to the P-38's

nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon

The Mossie FB Mk XVIII (TseTse) carried a modified 6-pounder, which was 57mm.

the mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor.

While 20 nations operated the Mosquito during and after the war, 12 nations operated the P-38 during and after the war, the Honduran Air Force retiring the P-38 from service in 1965.

 

[Clean32]

Right...you mean like the Fokker G.I, Blohm & Voss Bv138, SAAB 21, Focke-Wulf Fw189, Northrop P-61, Gotha Go242, DeHavilland Vampire/Venom/Sea Vixen, Cessna 0-2 Skymaster and literally dozens of other military and civil designs?


By barely a year to the P-38's


The Mossie FB Mk XVIII (TseTse) carried a modified 6-pounder, which was 57mm.


While 20 nations operated the Mosquito during and after the war, 12 nations operated the P-38 during and after the war, the Honduran Air Force retiring the P-38 from service in 1965.

all of the airframes mentioned had high MK number stability issues but only the P38 and p 61 had bits falling off in a dive. well at least i have never read anything other than the p38 and p61 having structural issues due to compressibility.

the P40 may only be a year earlier than the p38. but then a P40 is a repowerd p36 first flight 1936. old by 1942.

Correct 57mm

I give no heed to the fact that some south american countries were forced to create an airforce using donated american surplus aircraft. this fact is way to political to have any influence on the question at hand.

 

[GrauGeist]

can i validate that the Nazis credited two kills for one mozzie kill, yes i can. google is your friend and frankly, since it is such a well known fact i am surprised that you wish to push the point. maybe a bit one eyed?

That's a load of crap...pure and simple.
The Luftwaffe method for awarding claims was one of three categories and none were "shared":
Abschuss (Destroyed)
Herausschuss (Seperated)
Endgualtige Vernichtung (Final Destruction)
And ONLY a confirmed Abschuss was credited - One Pilot: One Kill.

I do suspect, however, you're mistaking the point system introduced in 1944 that was used for awarding the Knight's Cross: 4-egined aircraft = 3 points, 2-engined aircraft = 2 points and 1-engined aircraft = 1 point.
But this had zero influence on their kill award. Zero.

And in regards to the "hand me downs" to other countries, they received Spitfires, P-51s, F4Us, Tempests, P-47s, F6Fs and so on.
So that point is invalid.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for the engine chart.

as for the accuracy of the weights?

See; http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

for a chart on the P-39Q-1 that gives weights of 8100lbs, 7600lbs and 7200lbs.

8100lbs is correct (or close enough) for carrying either a 500lb bomb or 75 gallon drop tank, 7600lbs is close (30lbs over) for the plane clean, with ammo and 87 gallons of fuel.
7200lbs means either no ammo of any caliber (and no ballast) or only 20 gallons of fuel left in the tanks (or combination).
This last combination, while interesting to the pilot and "accurate" tells the pilot how long a runway he needs in such a condition or the difference in climb or some differences in other performance as the plane gets lighter. performance can be estimated depending on actual weight when it differs from the weights given in the table ((falls between).

Picking the lightest weight on the chart may mean a less than "combat" ready condition even if the plane will fly perfectly well in that condition/at that weight.

The weight "selection" is not consistent on the charts. P-40 chart/s is/are like the P-39 chart. the lightest weight given means there is something not in the airplane. The one for the P-40E lists one weight of 7500lbs, once you stick your 180lb pilot and 75-97lbs of oil into a 7665lb basic weight airplane you have 580lbs left for fuel and ammo (and a P-40E will hold 423lbs of ammo)

However the P-38L chart starts at 17,400lbs. I don't have the weight charts for the P-38L but for the J 17,400lbs covers the plane with full ammo (500rounds per .50 cal gun) and and nearly full tanks, including leading edge. (17,699lbs) using just 300 gallons of fuel and full ammo drops the weight to 17,009lbs. P-38s often carried 300 rounds per .50 cal gun and the weight savings was 240-250lbs.
The P-38L may well be several hundred pounds heavier than the J and I have no explanation as to why the lightest weight listed for the P-38L is for a more fully supplied plane (even if not max clean weight) than the lightest weight plane on the other two charts.

granted an F-8 Mosquito doesn't have to worry about ammo but if the plane weighs 21,000lbs max with 887 US gallons of fuel (carried by whatever means needed) then to get down to the 16,770lb figure you have to lose 4230lb of fuel or equipment (or crew?) as there is no ammo or guns. If you lose 4230lbs of fuel that is 705 US gallons and comparing a Mosquito with 182 gallons of fuel to a P-38 with even 300 gallons is a bit of a bogus comparison.

I would imagine (but could very well be wrong) that the F-8 would use the bottom line on the engine chart for a "ferry" climb. This chart doesn't say but 2650rpm and 4lbs boost was the common limit for two speed Merlins when running lean.
So for the "ferry" climb we have the P-38 using engines that are 3.6% larger but turning only 87% as fast(rpm) and operating at 92% of the manifold pressure. Not exactly a surprise that a lightweight Mosquito can climb well in comparison.

 

[Clean32]

That's a load of crap...pure and simple.
The Luftwaffe method for awarding claims was one of three categories and none were "shared":
Abschuss (Destroyed)
Herausschuss (Seperated)
Endgualtige Vernichtung (Final Destruction)
And ONLY a confirmed Abschuss was credited - One Pilot: One Kill.

I do suspect, however, you're mistaking the point system introduced in 1944 that was used for awarding the Knight's Cross: 4-egined aircraft = 3 points, 2-engined aircraft = 2 points and 1-engined aircraft = 1 point.
But this had zero influence on their kill award. Zero.

And in regards to the "hand me downs" to other countries, they received Spitfires, P-51s, F4Us, Tempests, P-47s, F6Fs and so on.
So that point is invalid.

Oh a load of crap is it?? you have my sympathies

No country got the british Tempest after ww2 since they were all scraped with in months. but for the rest of the aircraft all being american gifted within the american sphere of influence. the variety of airframes lends to the argument that the P38 was not superior because of the fact

 

[Shortround6]

Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, well yes but its not like they had a choice, it was more like an american attaboy nice little banana republic take out old and useless aircraft and be dam grateful for them as well, follows by an uncle same pat on the head. this example hardly improves your point.

Love this one.

What were the Banana republics supposed to use for aircraft?

Brand new (expensive) P-80s, Gloster Meteors or DH Vampires?

Which had crap engine lives and rather severe maintenance issues?

And just what were they going to use them for? Aside from going to war with each other over the results of soccer matches most South American countries used their aircraft for internal policing and counter insurgence. the bandits/insurgents have few if any aircraft and few AA guns.

What ever aircraft they got were not going to protect them from American or British interference. An American aircraft carrier often had more planes than several South American countries put together.

Some South American Countries were still operating these in 1945

Or planes like then so the supply of WW II fighters, even if used, was more welcome than you are giving credit to.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

correct the P38 was the only game in town at the beginning of the war. but even that differ as to what country you are from, for an american it 1942 to the british its 1939. so it would be correct to say it was the only american game in an american town at the start of america waking up to the war.

So what's your point???

Availability in theater is not an indicator of successful performance it is just that and indicator of availability and it was the first airframe that the americans had, that could take it to the japanese in the pacific. again this is because it was available, there was nothing else. but that is not an argument for it being good! the fact that you could hang a couple of Bombs on it is hardly a point, the british hung bombs, cannon and rockets on all of there fighters at some stage.

Again you're talking in circles - at the end of the day the P-38 was good, VERY good, at least in all theaters except the ETO

correct the mossie and Hornet are different aircraft How ever they hold the same ethos. the P38 has no post war lineage.

Actually it does - the P-80. Although a different propulsion system was used, about 15% of the airframe used the similar or the same parts.

can i validate that the Nazis credited two kills for one mozzie kill, yes i can. google is your friend and frankly, since it is such a well known fact i am surprised that you wish to push the point. maybe a bit one eyed?

Then I suggest you post evidence of your babble if you want to continue to participate here

you are correct the P38 produced more american aces than any other airframe. Keyword- American. theater Pacific in the early days when the japanese army and navy were able to provide so many targets. even by the time the americans got to europe the nazis could only produce a shadow of an effective air force as it did in 1939-1942

So again, your point? The aircraft was assigned to complete a mission and it did so quite effectively

You are correct. the mozzie has some initial issues in asia. the glue being used was not suitable with the humidity and became unstuck. the canadian builds were not sealed well so rotted initaly and the australian builds used steel screws which would sweat creating rot. but these issues were identified and fixed. unlike the P38 having the tail fall off which was never fixed, well apart from just making it slower.

Again, you speak from Ignorance - yes the compressibility issue was never corrected but the aircraft was incredibly strong. P-38 pilots were trained to avoid compressibility. Once discovered during its early service, "the tail were not falling off" operational aircraft!

OK clime rates and air speeds. or speed at a given altitude. is not a comparable number. airspeed at a given air density is a better gage. so given the troposphere is lower. the further away you get from the equator, at height given in Feet is nether and indicator of airframe drag nor of air density in the manifold. just as airspeed is indirectly relative to grown speed and for the same reasons. this in part is why the p38 failed in europe.

Please spare me the elementary aerodynamics lesson, I'm a commercial pilot and been in the aviation industry for 40 years, you've said little to comprehend here

Honduras, ROC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia, well yes but its not like they had a choice, it was more like an american attaboy nice little banana republic take out old and useless aircraft and be dam grateful for them as well, follows by an uncle same pat on the head. this example hardly improves your point.
Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

Boy, you have a real attitude. "banana republic"? "uncle same pat on the head"? I suggest taking a deep breath before you expel more hot air as your participation here may be short.

 

[Shortround6]

No country got the british Tempest after ww2 since they were all scraped with in months. but for the rest of the aircraft all being american gifted within the american sphere of influence. the variety of airframes lends to the argument that the P38 was not superior because of the fact

You might be taken a bit more seriously if your posts weren't so riddled with mistakes.
It was the Typhoon that was scrapped within months,
Tempests were used into the 1950s and were used by India and Pakistan also into the 1950s after getting them in 1947/48.

 

[Clean32]

Firstly, the Mosquito didn't carry 4+ imperial tons of bombs....ever.

(Also need to be more precise - 1 UK Ton/long ton is 2,240lb while 1 US ton is 2,000lb.)

4+ tons is what the Manchester, Halifax and Lancaster could carry.

The most a Mosquito could carry was 5,000lb. This was 1 x 4,000lb plus 2 x 500lb on the B.XVI.

Secondly, the P-38 did carry rockets - just not the British ones.

Lastly, the Mk.XVIII had a 57mm cannon.

Yes quite correct, my statement was not precise. typing out of my head and not checking. how ever i do not completely hold to your numbers eather.
so lets start at the beginning with British Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 to which the mozzie exceeded

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No country got the british Tempest after ww2 since they were all scraped with in months.

India and Pakistan operated the Tempest.