Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Mosquito may still come out ahead in some categories but lets try to use real numbers.
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 productionwow 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.
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.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?
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the end.we could come up with a simple answer by saying that the P38 while successful early in the pacific war was soon superseded.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 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 commonalitythe mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor.
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 climatesThe 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.
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.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.
Again you're wrong - the P-38 was continually being developed and improved - look into the P-38K.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 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.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 you make these statements with references or validations to back up your claims. For being a twin ENGINE aircraft, nearly 10,000 were produced.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
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 WW2Based 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.
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
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.
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.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.
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?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.
By barely a year to the P-38'sbut then the P40 was also and old airframe
The Mossie FB Mk XVIII (TseTse) carried a modified 6-pounder, which was 57mm.nor was it ever fitted with a 52mm canon
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.the mossie was produced after the war and was further developed into the hornet. the P38 had no further development or any successor.
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.
That's a load of crap...pure and simple.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?
Oh a load of crap is it?? you have my sympathiesThat'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.
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.
So what's your point???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.
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 ETOAvailability 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.
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.correct the mossie and Hornet are different aircraft How ever they hold the same ethos. the P38 has no post war lineage.
Then I suggest you post evidence of your babble if you want to continue to participate herecan 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?
So again, your point? The aircraft was assigned to complete a mission and it did so quite effectivelyyou 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
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!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.
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 hereOK 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
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
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.
India and Pakistan operated the Tempest.No country got the british Tempest after ww2 since they were all scraped with in months.