Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Read the "Forgotten 15th" I think your mindset is affixed to operations from England, read about P-38 operations from North Africa and Italy.It's the P51 that was able to protect the B17's not the P38 and the P38 was around a long time before the P51 and had slightly more range. Lastly, it mattered less if a different variant was required to perform a different roll as there was a lot less aluminum available as opposed to wood, and a lot of piano makers with nothing better to do. As for climatic problems, again, just build another one if they lasted in combat that long.
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.
The thing is if you want to just produce the Mosquito instead of the P-38 you have to order it and the wood to make it before the Mosquito flew. The shortage of Aluminium was theoretical, future orders exceeded Aluminium production, but Aluminium and electricity production/generation was ramped up to cope. You dont produce wood, you select it and you rapidly run out of suitable trees in any particular location, especially for balsa wood.As a day fighter in the European theater where the Mossie operated I think the following quote should be taken into account, "General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it." Heinz Bäer said that P-38s "were not difficult at all. They were easy to outmaneuver and were generally a sure kill"." The P38 record high number of kills in the pacific were against aircraft with certain remarkable qualities, and certain other remarkable weaknesses, and no where near the numbers faced in the European theater, defeating them was more a matter knowing how to defeat them as opposed to the type of aircraft used. It's the P51 that was able to protect the B17's not the P38 and the P38 was around a long time before the P51 and had slightly more range. Lastly, it mattered less if a different variant was required to perform a different roll as there was a lot less aluminum available as opposed to wood, and a lot of piano makers with nothing better to do. As for climatic problems, again, just build another one if they lasted in combat that long.
In my opinion it was, apart from the role of fighting other single engined aircraft, the P-38 was designed as a fighter/ interceptor. The war threw up many roles that were not forseen or even possible when these two planes were first designed. Instead of using one or the other the military took the sensible decision of using both for the jobs they were most suited for. RAF bomber command used a P-51 for target marking on at least 1 occasion, because on that particular raid it was most suitable.Glad I didn't cast a vote. I would have thought the Mosquito would have been equal to the Lightning.
RAF bomber command used a P-51 for target marking on at least 1 occasion, because on that particular raid it was most suitable.
It was 617 I had in mind, I dont know how oftn they used it, but it was considered better in the location.617 squadron used a Mosquito for low level target marking for a while, then changed to a Mustang.
The thing is if you want to just produce the Mosquito instead of the P-38 you have to order it and the wood to make it before the Mosquito flew. The shortage of Aluminium was theoretical, future orders exceeded Aluminium production, but Aluminium and electricity production/generation was ramped up to cope. You dont produce wood, you select it and you rapidly run out of suitable trees in any particular location, especially for balsa wood.
The original argument was that there were a lot in the furniture industry, I think Goering elevated them to piano makers.Hmmmm,
A teak or Mahogany Mosquito????
Highly polished of course, by the piano makers?
I believe I will take mine in Red Oak, if you please.
With French Walnut wings
The places that supplied the woods for the Mosquito were specialised in that type of work. It is like a mining operation, you obviously start at places that have a lot of the type of trees you are looking for, but very quickly you have to go further into the forest, clear trees you dont want to get at ones you do, build rail lines and roads to transport the to somewhere to be cut and dried. To more than double Mosquito production wouldnt have been easy or cheap.Another favtor to consider, is the wood itself - you can't just go out, cut down a few trees and make an airplane.
The select wood has to be processed and seasoned before fabrication.
Depending on the wood type and volume of stock, it can take about a year (on average) to properly season.
So prepping an adequate supply of wood needs to be done in advance.
Mahogany Mosquito????
A WW2 airplanes life was about 6 months in service if it was lucky, during the BoB fighters were being produced at a rate of 500 per month, but the front line strength was never more than 700. F for Freddie completed more operations than any other allied bomber with 213 completed and it was a Mosquito. In honour of F for Freddie and her crew - The People's MosquitoAnd at the end of the day a wood airplane is not great to maintain and repair, as a matter of fact, they suck and i say that from experience.
My wife advises me that Fenders are better, she bought one in the 70s.Anyone who's ever hefted a Les Paul can tell you -- that will be one heavy aircraft!
My wife advises me that Fenders are better, she bought one in the 70s.
Her previous boyfriend was lead guitarist in a band, she bought him his choice of guitar, but that ended her largess with presents, she was very cool on the idea of buying me an Armstrong Rotax. He was actually a great guitarist, became a session musician in London then New York.De gustibus non disputandum. While I dig playing Strats, and do own one, I'm a Gibson guy -- an LP my #1 for fifteen years, and three SGs to round it out. In my mind's ear, that's the sound I want to make most.
If the music is good, no one cares about the gear, though. As it should be.
Her previous boyfriend was lead guitarist in a band, she bought him his choice of guitar, but that ended her largess with presents, she was very cool on the idea of buying me an Armstrong Rotax. He was actually a great guitarist, became a session musician in London then New York