P-38 or Mosquito? (1 Viewer)

[pbehn]

Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.

Most were pushed onto the fire dump when the weather delaminated them.

Well it isnt quite as simple as that is it, thats why the discussion has 51 pages.

Losing an engine near the ground on many types was a serious problem but not certain death.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.

Most were pushed onto the fire dump when the weather delaminated them.

1) References >

The only case where a stoppage was lethal at low level, was the Highball mosquito, as it has experimental 4 bladed props which were not feathering.... and
in that case, it was absolutely certain death to have a failure at low level.

2) Something like 99.99% of all WW2 aircraft were scrapped/destroyed/written-off, where do you think they`ve all gone...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.

Do you make this statement based on losing an engine on takeoff, cruise speed or max speed? The Mosquito, like the P-38 had excellent engine out characteristics if you were properly trained.

 

[wuzak]

The Mosquito, like the P-38 had excellent engine out characteristics if you were properly trained.

Geoffrey de Havilland Jr demonstrated the prototype Mosquito, W4050, with one engine shut down on several occasions. He may have done some simple aerobatics on one engine on those demonstrations.

 

[GrauGeist]

Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.

Just curious, but was this unique to the Mossie or would that also include the Bf110, KI-46, B-25, CA.310, A-20, G.1, Ju88, Whirlwind, KI-45, Pe-2, LeO 451, PZL.37, Me410, B-26, Blenheim, Ca.314, G4M, etc., etc., etc...

 

[WARSPITER]

Well in all cases if that engine fell on you ......?

 

[pbehn]

Just curious, but was this unique to the Mossie or would that also include the Bf110, KI-46, B-25, CA.310, A-20, G.1, Ju88, Whirlwind, KI-45, Pe-2, LeO 451, PZL.37, Me410, B-26, Blenheim, Ca.314, G4M, etc., etc., etc...

The Avro Manchester should certainly be on that list, it struggled to stay in the air one one engine with a full fuel and bomb load same for many early British types like the Beaufort.

 

[pbehn]

Well in all cases if that engine fell on you ......?

During the war my mothers school was hit by a crashed Wellington's engine, she was disappointed to find her lessons not cancelled.

 

[special ed]

Breda 88

 

[GrauGeist]

Breda 88

The BA.88 was so underpowered, that losing power to one engine almost guaranteed to see it go down, no matter it's altitude.

 

[buffnut453]

The BA.88 was so underpowered, that losing power to one engine almost guaranteed to see it go down, no matter it's altitude.

That's always assuming it could get off the deck in the first place. Engine failure when you're still on terra firma is pretty safe...ground loops excepted.

 

[special ed]

That's why I mentioned it.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Hey Shortround6,

re "Yes anti-knock compounds precipitated out of the fuel, they were heavy aromatic compounds, not lead compounds."

Did you mean "evaporated"? The aromatics (along with alkylates) are in solution with the other gasoline components, and will not precipitate out of solution.


edit: Hey buffnut453,

re "The J model's enlarged radiators were trouble-prone. Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems:Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems: Anti-knock lead compounds literally seethed out and became separated in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. . ."

Freeman did not know what he was saying. I assume that he was quoting someone, but whoever he was quoting was incorrect.


Hey anyone else,

re precipitation of TEL and/or British Avgas being the cause of the V-1710 problems

TEL (tetraethyl lead) goes into solution when added to gasoline and will not precipitate out, and it remains stable in a gasoline solution for at least 6 months. The reason lead is combined with tetraethyl (making it a liquid compound) is to allow it to go into solution.

The idea that TEL could precipitate out of the charge while traveling through the turbocharger (or supercharger) and degrading the running of the V-1710 is false. The stories of lead build-up being found in the intercooler system are false, at least if they are attributed to TEL precipitation. Regardless of the V-1710 apologist's myth to the contrary, TEL will not precipitate out on the way to the combustion chamber.

The lead in the TEL compound prevents/inhibits the ignition of gasoline by raising the temperature at which charge mixtures will combust. TEL is a liquid, and at the temperatures found in the intercooler system the TEL will not combust and leave atomic or molecular lead oxide - this is the gray or gray-yellow residue found on some components of the engine after combustion (ie valves, spark plugs, interior of the exhaust manifold) - and sometimes on the interior of the intake manifold (due to blowback and preignition through the intake valves).

The main source for degradation of WWII aviation gasoline was the break down over time, due to oxidation of the alkylates and aromatics (particularly if there is a fresh air source) and/or exposure to actinic* light. The proper sealing of the fuel storage units was a partial solution to the oxidation problem - but only partial due to various chemical processes that go on in the gasoline even without a fresh air source. The removal of optical sight glasses for the fuel levels was the primary way of preventing the breakdown due to actinic* light.

*actinic light is generally defined as in the blue frequency range and higher (ie into the ultraviolet range)

Also, I thought that it had been shown (on this website) that the P-38 never ran on "British gasoline" except for (possibly) a very limited period by the British A&AEE/RAE/AFDU when it (the P-38) was first tested by the Brits - and was actually operated by the USAAF using US made Avgas at least 99% of the time.

In my misspent youth we used to mix TEL with unleaded gasoline for my friend's boat with a 455 Buick with a 12 to 1 compression ratio. Didn't shake or stir it, it blended itself and it seemed to survive a BC winter without problems.
"Tetraethyl lead is a colourless liquid which is easily vaporised. This property of tetraethyl lead was important for its possible use as a fuel additive as it had to be miscible with the gasoline."

 

[GregP]

Which was better, at the moment i think the mossie, but i wont vote yet...

Better at what?

The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load.

As a fighter, the P-38 was far and away the better airplane, and more were built. You could put guns on a Mosquito, but it wasn't exactly agile when compared with a single-engine fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

A biggie: The Mosquito had the highest Vmc of any twin. If an engine failed below 165 mph, you were going straight in. By comparison, the P-38 was a docile machine around the patch.

Mosquito P-38L
B Mk XVI
Built ITotal): 7,781 10,037
Top Speed: 415 414
Climb fpm: 2,850 4,750
Range Radius Fighter: 450
Ferry range (miles): 1,300 2,600
Bombs: (pounds): 4,000 3,000

Speed was about a wash. P-38L was MUCH better fighter. The Mosquito was a better bomber. Neither was likely to supplant the other in its better roles. Both were very good airplanes, the P-38 especially after the initial faults were ironed out, and they were. The Mosquito, to it's credit, didn't have too many initial faults.

 

[buffnut453]

Better at what?

The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load.

As a fighter, the P-38 was far and away the better airplane, and more were built. You could put guns on a Mosquito, but it wasn't exactly agile when compared with a single-engine fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

A biggie: The Mosquito had the highest Vmc of any twin. If an engine failed below 165 mph, you were going straight in. By comparison, the P-38 was a docile machine around the patch.

Mosquito P-38L
B Mk XVI
Built ITotal): 7,781 10,037
Top Speed: 415 414
Climb fpm: 2,850 4,750
Range Radius Fighter: 450
Ferry range (miles): 1,300 2,600
Bombs: (pounds): 4,000 3,000

Speed was about a wash. P-38L was MUCH better fighter. The Mosquito was a better bomber. Neither was likely to supplant the other in its better roles. Both were very good airplanes, the P-38 especially after the initial faults were ironed out, and they were. The Mosquito, to it's credit, didn't have too many initial faults.

Great summary. I'd also propose that the Mossie was a better night fighter than the P-38. I'm sure others will contest that view but the simple fact that the USAAF brought on Mossies as reverse lend-lease says a lot (to me, at least).

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Better at what?

The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load.

As a fighter, the P-38 was far and away the better airplane, and more were built. You could put guns on a Mosquito, but it wasn't exactly agile when compared with a single-engine fighter by any stretch of the imagination.

A biggie: The Mosquito had the highest Vmc of any twin. If an engine failed below 165 mph, you were going straight in. By comparison, the P-38 was a docile machine around the patch.

Mosquito P-38L
B Mk XVI
Built ITotal): 7,781 10,037
Top Speed: 415 414
Climb fpm: 2,850 4,750
Range Radius Fighter: 450
Ferry range (miles): 1,300 2,600
Bombs: (pounds): 4,000 3,000

Speed was about a wash. P-38L was MUCH better fighter. The Mosquito was a better bomber. Neither was likely to supplant the other in its better roles. Both were very good airplanes, the P-38 especially after the initial faults were ironed out, and they were. The Mosquito, to it's credit, didn't have too many initial faults.

Arguably its best contribution (in Europe) was as a PR aircraft.

For anything else, there was nearly always something better available.

Its a bit iffy comparing bombloads like that as the 38 doesnt even have a bomb-bay, hence the speed will be
quite severely impacted when operating in that role.

 

[nuuumannn]

Arguably its best contribution (in Europe) was as a PR aircraft.

For anything else, there was nearly always something better available.

Yes, but I'd add night fighter to that as well (and just get rid of the "in Europe"). The RAF never operated a finer night fighter than the Mosquito in WW2. The Beaufighter was good, although the NF.II with its Merlins waaaay ahead of the rest of the airframe was a troublesome beast, leading to a high accident rate, and while the Hercules versions didn't offer the same pucker factor for their pilots, the Mosquito, from the NF.II had superior performance right off the bat. The value of the Mosquito of course was that the one airframe with minimal changes was able to do so many of those tasks it did very well indeed.

P-38L was MUCH better fighter.

Obviously. The P-38 was designed from the outset as a fighter, the Mosquito was designed as a bomber. It only became a fighter on the recommendation of the Air Ministry, certainly not by design. The PR and night fighter prototypes were the result of the Air Ministry concerned that de Havilland might have been exaggerating the performance figures as a bomber. Originally, the Air Ministry via Sholto Douglas wanted a DH.98 bomber prototype to be built with a tail turret because of this. The fighter specification for the Mosquito, F.21/40 didn't come until November 1940 and that was for "Home Defence, night fighting" - wording from the original specification, so barely a comparison with the P-38.

The contract to build the prototype, 1/40/DH was issued in March 1940 and is interesting as it places its reconnaissance credentials before its intended bomber usage, as "primarily to be suitable for long distance high and low altitude reconnaissance by day, and bombing by day and night", the latter wording about bombing almost as an afterthought. It was Freeman who talked them out of building the bomber prototype with the tail turret by gambling the prototype's performance against it. The second prototype was going to be a PR aircraft.

I get why people like to compare the two types, both being twins and used in a variety of roles, but they kind of defy comparison simply because of the disparity in original design purpose.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Great summary. I'd also propose that the Mossie was a better night fighter than the P-38. I'm sure others will contest that view but the simple fact that the USAAF brought on Mossies as reverse lend-lease says a lot (to me, at least).

The P-38 accomplished very little as a night fighter. Its victories at night can be pretty much counted on the fingers of one hand. To compare it to the Mosquito as a night fighter is ludicrous.
Attached are a couple of papers on the subject.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-38 accomplished very little as a night fighter. Its victories at night can be pretty much counted on the fingers of one hand.

That's because it entered service after Japan surrendered.

It was a capable platform, but never saw combat.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

That's because it entered service after Japan surrendered.

It was a capable platform, but never saw combat.

Hmmm there may have been reasons for that, when the British evaluated the P-38, the included a section on the viability as a night-fighter, they noted:
(The turbos are right on the same level as the pilots eye-line, to the sides, so this was a pretty big issue)