Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I thought it had Merlin 60-70 series?
When did that first fly?The first production NF with 2 stage Merlins was the XXX.
When did that first fly?
So the P-38N would be a good comparison against it?Late 1943, early 1944. Not exactly sure.
Went into service about mid 1944.
?????P-38N
So the P-38N would be a good comparison against it?
Deleted
When did that first fly?
Let's not forget that early Lightning pilots were not given much in the way of training for combat in a twin-engine fighter and that the plane itself, especially early models, didn't offer much to ease the pilot's load (forgive me, I am not a pilot but remember reading about multiple steps pilots needed to take, in order to respond to hostile threats, that made the plane "less friendly" for inexperienced fliers and a handful for the experienced.I've seen lots of footage of 190s going down to Lightnings as well. The fact is, that the Lightning, outnumbered and hampered by poor tactics at the time, more than held it's own against both the 190 and the 109.
The more engines you have the longer range you'll have, so saying single seat is hiding the fact its a twin-engined plane. And I hope you all realise the more engines the more range, in most circumstances.
More engines gives you power which allows you to carry more fuel. Which in most cases is more than what is required to give you the same range of a single engined plane. 3,750 miles for a late war twin-engined plane isn't impressive when the single engined PR.XI was doing over 2000 miles on one engine.
You have to find a compromise obviously on amount of engines, size and design of plane, and fuel carried. But in WW2 mostly, more engines more range. So it's not surprising the F-5G could do almost double a single engined plane.
B-17 4 engines, 4 times consumption of the Mk.I Spitfire but it out-ranged it...why? Simple really.
Let's not forget that early Lightning pilots were not given much in the way of training for combat in a twin-engine fighter and that the plane itself, especially early models, didn't offer much to ease the pilot's load (forgive me, I am not a pilot but remember reading about multiple steps pilots needed to take, in order to respond to hostile threats, that made the plane "less friendly" for inexperienced fliers and a handful for the experienced.
After all, wich plane sank the Tirpitz ? I think it was a Spit, wasn't it ?
I may be wrong but exactly how many mosquitoes survive today in flying condition? Maybe there should be a sub-category called, "Rust vs Termites and carpenter ants."
That's good news. I had read not too long ago that there was only one airworthey Mosquito in existence.Four or five rebuilt in NZ with more on the way - others rebuilt in Canada from memory
That's good news. I had read not too long ago that there was only one airworthey Mosquito in existence.
It can do anything the P38 can do
The biggest bomb, Mossie 4000 lb cookie, P38 1000 lb, harder hitting guns, Mossie had multiple machine guns and 4 Hispano cannons being fairly average.
All fine examples, however the Mosquito wasn't heavily armed when used as a bomber.If you had to pick one aircraft to produce over the other, hands down the mosquito wins. It can do anything the P38 can do, maybe a bit slower etc and maybe less range (only when the P38 was equipped with external drop tanks, not too difficult to re-engineer something there for the Mossie but wasn't required for it's situation), but there was so much the mosquito could do that the P38 couldn't even attempt or be at a high disadvantage. The biggest bomb, Mossie 4000 lb cookie, P38 1000 lb, harder hitting guns, Mossie had multiple machine guns and 4 Hispano cannons being fairly average. The Mossie had a navigator on board, especially relevant for night or low level missions of the day. Lastly producing the Mossie had the advantage of using resources that were under much less demand from other war equipment.