P-38 or Mosquito?

Which was better?

  • Total voters
    116

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

There was a discussion on these a while ago. I posted documents showing that P-38 pilots got training time in P 38s when they arrived in Britain. P51 pilots flew P51s for the first time when they joined there squadron
 
The Mosquito was schemed as a fighter from the beginning.
From "The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-39"
"Air Ministry staff then immediately discussed with the company an operational requirement to support the development of a high-speed light reconnaissance aircraft on these lines. It was to be capable of easy conversion to a fighter, or to a bomber with a bomb load of 1,000 lb and fuel for 1,500 miles, or 2,000 miles at overload from a 900 yard takeoff. This project was to become the Mosquito."
The 2nd prototype was a fighter complete with armament. While the first batch of 20 was split between recon and bombers with 1 NF, the rest of the batch of 50 were mostly converted to fighters on the production line. The initial big production orders were for fighters with a few trainers and recon examples throw in. 300 fighters were ordered before a bomber order was placed.
The most produced variant was the FB VI. I'll have to find the production numbers but fighter versions far out numbered bomber versions.
 
Reluctant Poster said:
The 2nd prototype was a fighter complete with armament.
Click to expand...

Actually, the second prototype, W4051, was the PR.I prototype.

The first prototype, W4050, was configured as a light bomber. The fuselage sustained damage during taxiing trials on a rough field and was replaced by W4051's fuselage. This also led to the strengthening strake on the rear fuselage.

W4051 was then fitted with the first production fuselage, which delayed its first flight.

W4052, the F.II prototype, was the second prototype to fly because of the delay in W4051.



That was all true, but the production priorities changed a few times in getting there.

Also, not sure about them changing from B/PR to F on the line. The fighter versions had different fuselages.

The fighter and fighter-bomber types had a door in the left hand side of the fuselage for crew access, the bombers had an access door in the bottom of the fuselage.


Reluctant Poster said:
The most produced variant was the FB VI. I'll have to find the production numbers but fighter versions far out numbered bomber versions.
Click to expand...

Yes that is true.

But there weren't many pure fighters built. Except for a few F.IIs, all the fighters were night fighters, while the FB.VI was a fighter-bomber.

The A&AEE did some trials with an F.II or FB.VI configured as a long range day fighter, comparing it with single engine fighters - RAF types, maybe a captured Bf 109 (I can't recall for certain). It did not fare well.
 
Any proposals for the Mosquito as a "fighter" would be along the lines of being a better Beaufighter which was obviously considered to be a fighter because of its name.
 

Absolutely. I love the Mossie but the need to season the wood is a major factor that many ignore. I do not know the seasoning speed of balsa but for most wood the rule of thumb is one year for every inch of thickness. Given some of the balsa in the mossie far exceeds that you could easily run into a major problem. End grain balsa will have a different seasoning rate than long grain balsa and that may well be faster or slower.
 
The more you read about what was needed to make a Mosquito the more you realise that "wood" used to make them was not actually a plentiful resource and it doesnt lend itself easily to high volume production.
 
pbehn said:
The more you read about what was needed to make a Mosquito the more you realise that "wood" used to make them was not actually a plentiful resource and it doesnt lend itself easily to high volume production.
Click to expand...
There were plenty of highly skilled woodworkers. Bonus in this war situation i think.
 

March 1 1940 contract for 50 Mosquito bombers

June 10 1940 contract amended to 10 PR 1, 30 F II, 10 B IV

According to Mosquito the Original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft - Graham Simons

"..and there were 45 completed bomber/reconnaissance fuselages, 28 of which had to have their noses removed to be replaced by fighter types."

The Mosquito did serve as a long range day fighter over the Bay of Biscay for example (operation Instep). It was battling its equivalent in long range JU 88 fighters, which were attcking ASW aircraft.
 
GrauGeist said:
Um...no.
Geoffrey DeHavilland himself wrote to the air ministry pitching his concept as a light bomber that was fast enough that little or no defensive armament was needed.

He wasn't selling a fighter.
Click to expand...
In September 1939 DeHavilland went to the Air Ministry to pitch the light bomber version, however in November 1939 according to Martin Bowman in his book DeHavilland Mosquito:
"In November various long-range and escort fighter developments as well as bomber, fighter and reconnaissance versions were looked at and a conference was called with Wilfred Freeman to consider all the proposals."
He was selling fighters as well at the point.

According to William Green in Famous Bombers of the Second World War
" On its own initiative, however, DeHaviland team designed their aeroplane from the outset with provision for guns or cameras so that it could serve equally well as bomber, fighter or photo-reconnaissance aircraft……"

According to Simon in Mosquito the Original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft
"Chief Designer for DeHavilland, Ronald E. Bishop, already had his eye on basic versatility, for all the while during the design studies he made sure that there was always space under the floor for four 20mm cannon." I wish I could find my copy of the Wooden Wonder by Bishop to hear (read) it straight from the horse's mouth.

On March 1 1940 a contract for 50 Mosquito bombers was placed, however 3 months later on June 10 1940 the contract was amended to 10 PR 1, 30 F II, 10 B IV. And that's how they were completed. Obviously a fighter was in DeHaviland's plans all along. The next order was for 150 Mosquitoes of unspecified type was placed on December 30, 1940 but that was amended in April 1941 to 150 fighters with an additional 50 fighters added. Yet another 50 fighters were added. At this point there were 280 fighters on order with only the original 10 PR Is and 9 B IVs built.

Simon: "At last, in mid-July, a first mention of the bomber variant was made in the order schedule. It was now requested that the last ten PR machines in Contract 69990 be converted to unarmed bombers, together with the last 50 machines in Contract no 555, but was also stated that it was hoped these would have some form of fixed forward armament." Contract 555 was the order for fighters I previously mentioned, however the fixed forward armament sounds like a fighter bomber variant.

I have compiled the production numbers for the primary war time versions




2/3 of production were armed with 4 20mm cannon. The Mosquito was a fighter first and foremost.
 

Your original statement:

"The Mosquito was schemed as a fighter from the beginning"

This is not true!

Again, the Mosquito was born out of Air Ministry specification P.13/36 which called for a twin-engine, medium bomber. 1936!
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Your original statement:

"The Mosquito was schemed as a fighter from the beginning"

This is not true!

Again, the Mosquito was born out of Air Ministry specification P.13/36 which called for a twin-engine, medium bomber.
Click to expand...
Ah, but to paraphrase Macmillan "Events dear boy, events" In 1940 both Norway and France fell, allowing long range aircraft FW Condor and Ju88 to be stationed there, and in late 1940 the first airborne RADAR interceptions were made, the first "kill" by a Beaufighter was 5 days before the first flight of a Mosquito.
 
From our friends at Wiki - I left references and links in there, bolds from me...

Based on his experience with the Albatross, Geoffrey de Havilland believed that a bomber with a good aerodynamic design and smooth, minimal skin area, would exceed the P.13/36 specification.[16]​ Furthermore, adapting the Albatross principles could save time. In April 1938, performance estimates were produced for a twin Rolls-Royce Merlin-powered DH.91, with the Bristol Hercules (radial engine) and Napier Sabre (H-engine) as alternatives.[12]​ On 7 July 1938, de Havilland wrote to Air Marshal Wilfrid Freeman, the Air Council's member for Research and Development, discussing the specification and arguing that in war, shortages of aluminium and steel would occur, but supplies of wood-based products were "adequate."[nb 2]​ Although inferior in tension, the strength-to-weight ratio of wood is equal to or better than light alloys or steel, hence this approach was feasible.[12]​[16]​

A follow-up letter to Freeman on 27 July said that the P.13/36 specification could not be met by a twin Merlin-powered aircraft and either the top speed or load capacity would be compromised, depending on which was paramount. For example, a larger, slower, turret-armed aircraft would have a range of 1,500 mi (2,400 km) carrying a 4,000 lb bomb load, with a maximum of 260 mph (420 km/h) at 19,000 ft (5,800 m), and a cruising speed of 230 mph (370 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m). De Havilland believed that a compromise, including eliminating surplus equipment, would improve matters.[12]​ On 4 October 1938, de Havilland projected the performance of another design based on the Albatross, powered by two Merlin Xs, with a three-man crew and six or eight forward-firing guns, plus one or two manually operated guns and a tail turret. Based on a total loaded weight of 19,000 lb (8,600 kg), it would have a top speed of 300 mph (480 km/h) and cruising speed of 268 mph (431 km/h) at 22,500 ft (6,900 m).[13]​

Still believing this could be improved, and after examining more concepts based on the Albatross and the new all-metal DH.95 Flamingo, de Havilland settled on designing a new aircraft that would be aerodynamically clean, wooden, and powered by the Merlin, which offered substantial future development.[13]​ The new design would be faster than foreseeable enemy fighter aircraft, and could dispense with a defensive armament, which would slow it and make interception or losses to anti-aircraft guns more likely. Instead, high speed and good manoeuverability would make evading fighters and ground fire easier.[13]​ The lack of turrets simplified production, reduced drag and reduced production time, with a delivery rate far in advance of competing designs. Without armament, the crew could be reduced to a pilot and navigator. Whereas contemporary RAF design philosophy favoured well-armed heavy bombers, this mode of design was more akin to the German philosophy of the Schnellbomber.[19]​ At a meeting in early October 1938 with Geoffrey de Havilland and Charles Walker (de Havilland's chief engineer), the Air Ministry showed little interest, and instead asked de Havilland to build wings for other bombers as a subcontractor.[20]​

By September 1939, de Havilland had produced preliminary estimates for single- and twin-engined variations of light-bomber designs using different engines, speculating on the effects of defensive armament on their designs.[21]​ One design, completed on 6 September, was for an aircraft powered by a single 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) Napier Sabre, with a wingspan of 47 ft (14 m) and capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load 1,500 mi (2,400 km). On 20 September, in another letter to Wilfrid Freeman, de Havilland wrote "... we believe that we could produce a twin-engine[d] bomber which would have a performance so outstanding that little defensive equipment would be needed."[21]​ By 4 October, work had progressed to a twin-engined light bomber with a wingspan of 51 ft (16 m) and powered by Merlin or Griffon engines, the Merlin favoured because of availability.[21]​ On 7 October 1939, a month into the war, the nucleus of a design team under Eric Bishop moved to the security and secrecy of Salisbury Hall to work on what was later known as the DH.98.[22]​[nb 3]​ For more versatility, Bishop made provision for four 20 mm cannon in the forward half of the bomb bay, under the cockpit, firing via blast tubes and troughs under the fuselage.[24]​

The DH.98 was too radical for the ministry, which wanted a heavily armed, multi-role aircraft, combining medium bomber, reconnaissance, and general-purpose roles, that was also capable of carrying torpedoes.[20]​ With the outbreak of war, the ministry became more receptive, but was still sceptical about an unarmed bomber. It was thought the Germans would produce fighters that were faster than had been expected.[25]​ and suggested the incorporation of two forward- and two rear-firing machine guns for defence.[26]​ The ministry also opposed a two-man bomber, wanting at least a third crewman to reduce the work of the others on long flights.[24]​ The Air Council added further requirements such as remotely controlled guns, a top speed of 275 mph (445 km/h) at 15,000 ft on two-thirds engine power, and a range of 3,000 mi (4,800 km) with a 4,000-lb bomb load.[26]​ To appease the ministry, de Havilland built mock-ups with a gun turret just aft of the cockpit, but apart from this compromise, de Havilland made no changes.[24]​

On 12 November, at a meeting considering fast-bomber ideas put forward by de Havilland, Blackburn, and Bristol, Air Marshal Freeman directed de Havilland to produce a fast aircraft, powered initially by Merlin engines, with options of using progressively more powerful engines, including the Rolls-Royce Griffon and the Napier Sabre. Although estimates were presented for a slightly larger Griffon-powered aircraft, armed with a four-gun tail turret, Freeman got the requirement for defensive weapons dropped, and a draft requirement was raised calling for a high-speed, light-reconnaissance bomber capable of 400 mph (645 km/h) at 18,000 ft.[27]​

On 12 December, the Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, Director General of Research and Development, and the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of RAF Bomber Command met to finalise the design and decide how to fit it into the RAF's aims. The AOC-in-C would not accept an unarmed bomber, but insisted on its suitability for reconnaissance missions with F8 or F24 cameras.[28]​ After company representatives, the ministry, and the RAF's operational commands examined a full-scale mock-up at Hatfield on 29 December 1939, the project received backing.[29]​ This was confirmed on 1 January 1940, when Freeman chaired a meeting with Geoffrey de Havilland, John Buchanan (Deputy of Aircraft Production), and John Connolly (Buchanan's chief of staff). De Havilland claimed the DH.98 was the "fastest bomber in the world...it must be useful". Freeman supported it for RAF service, ordering a single prototype for an unarmed bomber to specification B.1/40/dh, which called for a light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft powered by two 1,280 hp (950 kW) Rolls-Royce RM3SM (an early designation for the Merlin 21) with ducted radiators, capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb load.[22]​[28]​ The aircraft was to have a speed of 400 mph (640 km/h) at 24,000 ft (7,300 m) and a cruising speed of 325 mph (525 km/h) at 26,500 ft (8,100 m) with a range of 1,500 mi (2,400 km) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m) on full tanks. Maximum service ceiling was to be 32,000 ft (9,800 m).[28]​

There is no doubt the Mosquito was eventually "sold" as a fighter but it began life as a bomber "from the get-go"​
 
It all just shows how in late 1939 and early 1940 the RAF didnt know what war it was fighting or what it wanted or needed. The navy were just finding out that they didnt know where German ships were on a day to day basis. The RAF were just finding out that they didnt know much about German industry and didnt know whether they were hitting targets that they didnt know what they looked like. The army would shortly discover that they didnt know that a huge German army would march through the Ardennes. In hindsight they should have ordered 2,000 aircraft, in 6 months time they were ordering the P-51 off the drawing board.
 
Reluctant Poster said:
2/3 of production were armed with 4 20mm cannon. The Mosquito was a fighter first and foremost.
Click to expand...

Note that almost all were night-fighters or fighter-bombers. Very few straight up fighter types.

These could not compete with single engine fighters, and could not replace the P-38 as a fighter.

And what was ordered by the RAF does not necessarily match what de Havilland actually conceived.

And all Mosquitoes had the bomb bay doors, though the fighter types had them in two parts.
 
Resourcing materials doesn't seem to have been that much of a problem when the numbers of each aircraft produced are looked at, especially when the later production start date of the mosquito is taken into account. Apart from that many keep mentioning the P38's a better long range fighter (or in my opinion just not as bad as the mosquito as a daylight fighter). Someone even mentioned that even if they weren't knocking down many enemy fighters, while the while the enemy fighters were on them, they weren't on the bombers, hmmm a little gem from Paton comes to mind, "the idea is not to die for your country, but the make the other guy die for his". Fighter aircraft performed only one of many purposes that aircraft were used for during ww2 and there is more than one way to skin a cat, for instance the English bombed at night. If you could only produce one or the other, the mosquito wins every time, purely because of it's versatility. It was easier to fly (took forever to open up the engines of a P38 in a hurry), it was easier to maintain (Merlins were used everywhere), it wasn't as expensive and used resources that were not as in demand so while some have bought up that there wasn't a shortage of aluminum it certainly cost more. As I've mentioned before having a navigator also expanded possible uses, night fighting, or check out the "Operation Jericho" raid as what it could do with daylight bombing. If they had guns, they carried at least 4X20mm cannon as a minimum, up to a full blown 57mm cannon. The list goes on and on. The effectiveness of any war machine i comes from a combination of ease of operation; ease of production; range of uses (versatility), cost, and performance. Using these rules, for example, show's that the Sherman tank was a very much more effective tank than the Tiger could ever be, check out the Sherman firefly as a really good reply to the Tiger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
_PabloSniper_
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, or F-35
Replies
5
Views
2K
FLYBOYJ
  • Locked
  • Poll
P-51 vs P-47
Replies
1
Views
1K
FLYBOYJ
C
  • Poll
How did you read your last aviation or history book
Replies
8
Views
2K
Glider
G
Menu
Log in
Register