What if: Mosquito vs P-38

FalkeEins said:

..slight understatement there ....versions of the Mossie could carry a bigger bomb load than the B-17

Click to expand...

I don't know much about bombers, and that's not the first time I see this claim, and to be honest it's hard to believe in this claim.

Also I've checked on wiki (I know it's a very poor source) and it doesn't seem possible for a Mosquito to take more bombs than B-17 for the same distance.

So could someone provide some figures that would back this claim up?



I also agree with others that in daylight conditions and in dogfight P-38 is superior to the Mosquito.

michaelmaltby said:

And getting thumped by German cannon sitting in the P-38 must have been real comforting too

Click to expand...

I did make the point that it may well be academic but removed it - I'd still rather be in the P-38's office under those circumstances any day

Secondly, the pilot doesn't sit on the booms, if his booms break up, he may have a good chance of bailing out; with both cockpits getting a squirt I'm still with the P-38.

marshall said:

Also I've checked on wiki (I know it's a very poor source) and it doesn't seem possible for a Mosquito to take more bombs than B-17 for the same distance.

So could someone provide some figures that would back this claim up?

Click to expand...

Normal load for the B-17 when bombing targets in Germany was 3600lbs, whereas the Mk XVI had a bulged bomb bay that enabled a 4000lb cookie to be carried to similar targets. The B-17 could carry more bombs over a greater distance, but usually didn't.

Wood is a good construction material apart from in hot or humid environments. In terms of strength and stiffness/weight it compares very well with aluminium (obviously depends exactly what sort of wood). The laminate used for the Mosquito was fairly damage resilient and gave a nice smooth surface finish, no rivet heads poking into the airflow. Its not possible to say that aluminium is conclusively better for this type of aircraft.

red admiral said:

Its not possible to say that aluminium is conclusively better for this type of aircraft

Click to expand...

What about the way it breaks up?

Colin1 said:

What about the way it breaks up?

Click to expand...

Depends exactly what you mean. I doubt the durability of wooden laminates is very different to stressed skin dural.

red admiral said:

Depends exactly what you mean. I doubt the durability of wooden laminates is very different to stressed skin dural.

Click to expand...

I don't think wood has the same ductile properties as metal, in this case, aluminium; if the airframe has suffered major damage, wooden surfaces and bearers could well just snap. I look at the state of some of the heavies that made it back from a raid and I can't see a wooden ship, even of the same dimensions and construction, taking the same beating and making it back.

red admiral said:

Normal load for the B-17 when bombing targets in Germany was 3600lbs, whereas the Mk XVI had a bulged bomb bay that enabled a 4000lb cookie to be carried to similar targets. The B-17 could carry more bombs over a greater distance, but usually didn't.

Click to expand...

Quite interesting info on the topic

Re: Mosquito vs B-17

so it seems that this claim about Mosquito is a bit exaggerated.

Colin1 said:

I don't think wood has the same ductile properties as metal, in this case, aluminium; if the airframe has suffered major damage, wooden surfaces and bearers could well just snap. I look at the state of some of the heavies that made it back from a raid and I can't see a wooden ship, even of the same dimensions and construction, taking the same beating and making it back.

Click to expand...

The aluminium ribs could snap as well. For the same weight, you've got a lot thicker wood laminate. Although the material may be weaker, there is more of it, so the load able to be taken is fairly similar. You've also got a thicker section which is much better able to resist any bending exerted on it. The fibrous nature of wood means it doesn't suffer from stress concentrations around holes as badly as metals (e.g. bullet holes). There shouldn't be much difference between them.

I've got a Mosquito book (Mosquito at War, Chaz Bowyer- Ian Allen, '73) with plenty of pictures of badly damaged Mossies that made it back home. It doesn't seem that it was noted for any peculiar structural weaknesses. the P-38 was also a fairly tough machine, at least in regard to battle damage. Both types had the usual vulnerability common to liquid-cooled engined a/c.

For the sake of argument, it would be best to stick to FB versions of the Mosquito. The P-38M saw little action (None in the ETO), so any talk about the superiority of Mossie NFs over the Lightning in night combat is essentially irrelevant. Apples and oranges...

The Mosquito was designed as a light bomber, and tho the FB'S were very effective against German bombers, the fighter crews usually avoided dogfights with single-engine fighters. Most attacks on such a/c were a fast pass from ambush, and then a high speed bug-out. It did not possess the fast climb capability of the P-38, nor the high-speed roll and turn rate of the most widely produced Lightning models. It was not a match for single-engine German fighters in the dogfight.

The Mossie had the advantage in firepower, but whether it gave a practical advantage over the P-38 in fighter vs fighter combat is questionable. A concentrated burst from the P-38's quad .50's and 20 mm would kill a/c the size of the Mossie just as dead.

In ACM, the P-38 can do anything the Mossie fighter-bombers can. And then some...

JL

The thing about the Mosquito was that it was never intended as a daylight air superiority fighte, whereas the Lightning was. So the direction the discussion is going is bound to show the Mosquito as being inferior. Nevertheless ther are a couple of myths about the Mossie that need to be dispelled

Myth 1: The Mosquito was structurally weak because it was made of wood

wrong, wrong wrong. The Mosquito was as structurally strong as any all metal fighter of the day. It could pull as many gs as anybody, and could absorb as much battle damage as the next plane. Its wooden construction was in no way a weakness in this respect.

Where criticism could be levelled at it was the longevity of the airframe. Wooden frames dont last long....they tend to vibrate to pices quickly. But even here, the disadvantage was theoretical rather than actual. A P-51 had an average life expentancy of about 10 months in the ETO, guess what thats exactly the same as the Mosquito.

Myth 2: The mosquito could not dogfight with Single engined fighters.

Wrong again. The Mosquito is credited with at least 70 victories over FW190s alone, in daylihght, and approximately 140 at night. The Mosquito was not an ar superiority fighter....it was a multi role aircraft, so its fighter credentials are not going to be as impressive as the P-38, which was designed for this role. Nevertheless the P-38s success in the air over Europe are not as extensive as one might expect. In another thread someone able to answer this far more comprehensively than I stated that the P-38s in 1944 shot down about 240 or so LW fighters. If that is correct, thats not that many to crow about. I do know with greater certainty that the Mosquitoes in the NF role, in that same year, ahot down at least 600 LW Night Fighters. The Mossies assigned to the NF role in Eurpe never exceeded 140 in number....so that means on average each Mosquito shot down about about 6 or 7 enemy planes in its career

The Mosquito and the P-38 were comparable in their bombloads
The P-38L could carry 3200 lbs of bombs, whilst the FBVI carried only 2000 lbs. However the B MkIX carried over 4000lbs of bombs, and more to the point could carry this load all the way to Berlin. The P-38 could not match that

To try and deny the Mosquito its multi role capability is to deny the Mosquito of its chief advantage. Whereas the P-38 could do one or two things very well, the Mosquito could do more things, only pretty well. So which is the more valuable. An aircraft that can do a few things better, or an aircraft that can do a lot of things pretty well......

Might there be some resriction in the Mosquitos flight envelope or G loading that might restrict it's ability as a day fighter?

Like climb rate?

parsifal said:

Myth 1: The Mosquito was structurally weak because it was made of wood

wrong, wrong wrong. The Mosquito was as structurally strong as any all metal fighter of the day. It could pull as many gs as anybody, and could absorb as much battle damage as the next plane. Its wooden construction was in no way a weakness in this respect.

Where criticism could be levelled at it was the longevity of the airframe. Wooden frames dont last long....they tend to vibrate to pices quickly. But even here, the disadvantage was theoretical rather than actual. A P-51 had an average life expentancy of about 10 months in the ETO, guess what thats exactly the same as the Mosquito.

Click to expand...

We spoke about this on another thread but wood in the field is difficult to repair, requires extra training of maintenance personnel and is weakened by continual repairs, and I make these comments from working with wood aircraft.

As far as a life expectancy comparison of a P-51 to a Mosquito - are you factoring in flight hours and comparative numbers? "Months" don't mean anything - the benchmark or an aircraft's life span is measured in airframe hours.

Hi,

parsifal said:

To try and deny the Mosquito its multi role capability is to deny the Mosquito of its chief advantage. Whereas the P-38 could do one or two things very well, the Mosquito could do more things, only pretty well. So which is the more valuable. An aircraft that can do a few things better, or an aircraft that can do a lot of things pretty well......

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Perhaps the best thing about the Mossie was it being conceived as a private venture, and therefore there were no limitations/expectations placed on it by government contract.

What was designed was a versatile aircraft that could be easily adapted to many roles, all of which it performed quite well. And, at the time, England had a urgent need for such a versatile aircraft to fill the voids in its inventory.

river

FLYBOYJ said:

We spoke about this on another thread but wood in the field is difficult to repair, requires extra training of maintenance personnel and is weakened by continual repairs, and I make these comments from working with wood aircraft.

As far as a life expectancy comparison of a P-51 to a Mosquito - are you factoring in flight hours and comparative numbers? "Months" don't mean anything - the benchmark or an aircraft's life span is measured in airframe hours.

Click to expand...

Joe it was you and i that had that conversation. I agree with you. But people are trying to say that the Mosquito was also weak in the air. I dont believe that is the case, based on previous conversations that Ive had with people that flew the mosquito

In the air, the Mosquito was strong, incredibly strong. It was on the gtround that the problems arose

I just assumed that aircraft like the P-51 and Mosquito would be comparable in flying hours.....I suppose that a dangerous assumption......

parsifal said:

To try and deny the Mosquito its multi role capability is to deny the Mosquito of its chief advantage. Whereas the P-38 could do one or two things very well, the Mosquito could do more things, only pretty well. So which is the more valuable. An aircraft that can do a few things better, or an aircraft that can do a lot of things pretty well...

Click to expand...

Nobody is denying the Mosquito's versatility but you do seem to be robbing the P-38 of the same virtue, high-altitude escort, long-range interceptor (the Yamamoto hit), ground attack, recconaissance, night fighter, tactical bombing platform (the B-38 ) - in terms of versatility I don't think you could slip a bus ticket between them.

parsifal said:

...people are trying to say that the Mosquito was also weak in the air. I don't believe that is the case, based on previous conversations that Ive had with people that flew the Mosquito

In the air, the Mosquito was strong, incredibly strong. It was on the ground that the problems arose

Click to expand...

Who is?
If the Mosquito was 'weak' in the air the aircrews would have been the first to complain about it, assuming they survived to relate the shortcomings. My own reservations (ie in my own opinion) revolved around the impact of weapons on wooden surfaces/bearers compared with aluminium; alum perforates whereas wood tends to shatter into splinters. There are elastic properties in metals that wood doesn't have.

I didn't describe the Mosquito as weak, I have a healthy admiration for the Mosquito and its capabilities, simply that within the context of this thread, I'd prefer to be in an aluminium aircraft.

Fighter to fighter, I'd take the P-38 over the Mosquito

I think the P38 was a better day fighter then the Mossie but the Mossie probably excelled in all the other roles for a very simple reason the Navigator/Radar operator took much of the onus off the pilot for getting to the destination and finding the target

parsifal said:

Joe it was you and i that had that conversation. I agree with you. But people are trying to say that the Mosquito was also weak in the air. I dont believe that is the case, based on previous conversations that Ive had with people that flew the mosquito

In the air, the Mosquito was strong, incredibly strong. It was on the gtround that the problems arose

Click to expand...

Agree

parsifal said:

I just assumed that aircraft like the P-51 and Mosquito would be comparable in flying hours.....I suppose that a dangerous assumption......

Click to expand...

No worries - From what I understand about 500 hours was usually the max time on most WW2 deployed, multi engine aircraft more. Some of ww2 vets coming on this site may have some info on this. My wife's grandfather was flying a training mission on a B-24 with 1,100 hours when it had a gear collapse on taxi. The plane was scrapped. In today's world 1,100 hours is still considered pretty new.

At last - this thread is pulling in useful information.

There is another consideration I'd like to introduce to this thread although it is a thread in it's own right. Today we would call it user friendliness.
Many pilots have said that the Spitfire was a joy to fly, that it made average pilots BETTER. Same for the Hellcat - the "Ace Maker" - stable, forgiving, provided pilots with a margin of error.

Since most wartime pilots (at least prolonged wartime) are going to be AVERAGE - this characteristic of a plane is vital. (I have read that more Me-109 pilots died in training than in combat operations ... true...?)

We know that planes like the Typhoon and Tempest were challenging planes to fly. Likewise the Martin Marauder and the Beaufighter.

So ... you see where I'm going with this logic: Was the P-38 a platform that an average fighter pilot could achieve great results with - or - was it most effective in the hands of an expert like Dick Bong? Likewise for the Mosquito. Did it bring the best out of average pilots?

Anyone ....

MM

Not suprising when you consider how quickly the average WWII aircraft was destroyed in combat. The average heavy bomber did not even survive a combat tour of about 25 missions. Fighter aircraft typically did not fare any better.

These are the roles that the Mosquito was used for on a significant operational level:

PR (PR IV, but many others as well)
Ultra high altitude PR (eg mk 32)
Very Long range Recon (eg mk34)
Fighter/Fighter Bomber (eg FBVI, XXIV)
Anti-Tank Ship (specialised with 57mm Molins AT gun and extra armour) (Mk XVIII)
Anti submarine aircraft and maritime patrol (mod Mk XVIII and some Mk 22)
Long Range strategic Bomber (MkIV, IX,XVI, XX, XXIII, and other variants)
Long Range Night Fighter (MkII, XII, XIV, XIX,
Long range High Altitude Night Fighter (NF Mk 30)
LR ECM platform (converted Mk 30s mostly)
Long range Intruder (converted FB VIs, FB Mk 21s, Mk 26s, and others)
Land Based Torpedo Strike (TR Mk 33)
Carrier Based Torpedo Strike (TR MK 33)
Long Range Carrier Based Night Fighter and Strike (NF Mk 38)
Target Tugs (converted T Mk III)
Trainer (T Mk 29)

The Mosquito was the most adaptable airframe of any allied aircraft. The P-38 was a great aircraft, and a superior fighter, it was adaptable, but its record pales when compared to the Mosquito in this regard. The Mosquito continued in front line service until 1955. If that is not an impressive service record, I dont know what will convince you