P-38 or Mosquito?

[Hot Space]

You have to admit though that you can't really compare the two as the P-38 was made as a Fighter and the Mossie as a Fighter-Bomber. Both were very good Planes, but in their own area's 8)

But the P-38 had the same diving problem lower down as well, m8.

Hot Space

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Technically the mossie was designed as a Bomber.

 

[Hot Space]

Yes, m8. And that's the difference. The D.H Hornet was fighter version shall I say of the Mossie, but the Mossie still comes out tops in some area's.

Hot Space

 

[Lightning Guy]

There was no problem with compressibility at low altitudes. As quickly as the P-38 accelerated, it took a little while for enough speed to build up for compressibility to occur. At lower altitudes, the P-38 wouldn't be in the dive long enough for this to occur. That is why you hear of very few instances of compressibility occuring in the MTO or PTO where combat was generally at medium to low altitudes. Furthermore, the onset of compressibility was delated by the thinner air at lower altitudes.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i doubt there was a version of a P-38 that could beat the 3,500mile range of a late war PR mossie??

 

[Lightning Guy]

F-5G - 3,750miles.

 

[MattyG]

P-38 was heavily armoured and could take a beating. But the Mosquito was quicker, lighter, more manouverable. Besides, I was born in Canada. De Havilland made the mozzie, gotta support the home side!

 

[Dan]

The "mossie" was basicly made from wood. now wood isn't a very good type of armor (heck i don't think it is armor) but the P38 as you all know is made from all american steel so the p38 was better than the "mossie" in the armor catagory

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

in armour yes, but the mossie could still take one hell of a beating, it took damage to th fusilage like a sponge.....................

 

[Hot Space]

I think what folk's are missing here is that the P-38 was a Fighter, chaps

Hot Space

 

[plan_D]

The Mosquito could take a beating more than most. It was a very durable plane, which is amazing being made of wood.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the fact that it was wood was what gave it allot of that durability, if it was a stressed metal skin, if you were hit it would leave a large rip/hole, but with the wood it onlt left a tiny where the bullet had gone straight trough.......................

I think what folk's are missing here is that the P-38 was a Fighter

so were some varients of the mossie...........................

 

[Lightning Guy]

There were no true day-fighter marks of the Mossie to go into service. The P-38 could outmaneuver the Mossie, outclimb it, and most marks could outrun in. In air-to-air, the P-38 takes the Mossie, no two ways about it.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i never said it didn't, but that's the only time a P-38 would beat a mossie, you have to admit that??

 

[kiwimac]

LG,

Air is thinner the HIGHER you go. So air at low altitiude is (comparatively speaking, this is a gas you know) 'thicker' than at height.

Comparing the Mosquito the P38 is like comparing apples and guavas, now if it were the beaufighter and p-38, thats different.

Kiwimac

 

[Lightning Guy]

Sorry, the 'thinner' should have read 'thicker.' My fingers were getting ahead of my brain.

The P-38 was markedly superior than the Mosquito in fighter roles. As a bomber, the P-38 could carry an equal load with similar performance. The Mossie probably was better, but the P-38 was close. As a photo-recon aircraft, I think the two were pretty much a toss-up. The performance of both was excellent but the F-5 could carry a wide number and variety of cameras and only required a single crewman.

 

[dead parrot]

I know I'm late to this, but my vote's with the Mossie. It was just in a class of it's own, not just performance-wise, but in terms of the missions it flew.

 

[Lightning Guy]

The P-38L outperformed any mark of the Mossie built.

 

[dead parrot]

To be honest, I am not an expert on the figures, but a random google gave me these figures for the PR.Mk 34, which was the final Mossie photo-recce version to see action in WW2:

Maximum level speed: 425 Mph (684 km/h)
Ceiling: 43,000 ft (13.105 m)
Range: 3,500 miles (5.633 km)

Which stacks up well against the P-38L:

Maximum speed: 414 mph
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft.
Range: 2600 miles

This wasn't a common mark, of course, but it does seem that SOME Mossie versions could at least match the performance of the P-38.

 

[Huckebein]

The P-38L outperformed any mark of the Mossie built.

Only in terms of the '38L having a higher actual 'performance'. The Mosquito 'out-performed' the Lightning in all roles except day fighter by the sheer diversity and effectiveness of the tasks it carried out. Oh, and the Fb VI was a day fighter variant, and don't say it wasn't 'cos it carried bombs - so did most other WWII day fighters, and what would you suggest they did with that bomb-bay space if not to offer bomb-carrying capability, given the already ample operational range for the ETO?

www.mossie.org

Quite a nice site, this; it has some nice stories of Recce-Mossie Vs '262 encounters.
8)

LG, think of it this way: if you had a fledgling airforce, and were required to pick as few aircraft types as possible to perform as many tasks as possible as well as possible in order to simplify production, you'd take the Mosquito every time. No matter that technically the '38 is a better day fighter, from a purely utilitarian point of view the Mossie, with the capability to excel at fighting, night-fighting, photo recconnaissance, strategic bombing, tactical bombing, carrier-borne strikes, anti-shipping strikes, anti-tank strikes (any Molins cannon that can sink a U-boat can take out a tank), and with the ability to carry large cargo/ passenger loads (up to 6 people were squeezed into a transport Mossie once) at high speed, knocks the P-38 for six.

Oh, and weren't the de Havillands English? I know de Havilland Canada still exists whereas the British company don't, but I think the Mosquito is still a British plane.