What if: Mosquito vs P-38

FLYBOYJ · Jul 24, 2009

michaelmaltby said:
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

Some great questions.

Many WW2 aircraft would be a challenge to fly for pilots with several thousand hours let alone several hundred. IMO the urgency of war placed many pilots in aircraft and flying conditions that would be cringed upon today. I think the average US fighter pilot went into combat during WW2 with about 300 hours. Look how many hours a USAF fighter pilot has before he's let loose in an F-16, almost double and triple that.

Many successful aces who flew more complicated aircraft like the P-38 had some hours under their belts prior to the start of the war. Bong, McGuire, Gerbreski, etc. were well seasoned. There were many other highly experienced pilots who, for one reason or another never made it overseas, primarily because it was deemed that they were needed to train new pilots.

There was also a mindset that fighter pilots had to be young. I think this myth went away by the time the Korean War started, but again, I look at this for another reason why you saw pilots with just a few hundred hours flying Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

In the end, practice and experience makes perfect and personally I think all sides suffered by placing what is viewed in today's word "inexperienced pilots" in combat situations and yes, they did not necessarily operate their aircraft to the fullest of their capability - but they did get the job done!!!

Last point because we're talking about multi engine aircraft. There was not much emphasis on multi-engine training at the start of the war. An engine out on takeoff on most WW2 twin engine aircraft will kill a pilot quicker than any enemy. I don't think twin engine fighters were well received by most fighter pilots unless they were assign to them and learned to master the aircraft.

There have been posts about fighter pilots evaluating aircraft and cockpits and the P-38 was always at the bottom of the list for "layout." Well if you look at the cockpit of the P-38 and the layout of the instruments and controls, little has changed when compared to many twin engine aircraft today. I think those evaluation were done by single engine pilots prejudiced and intimidated by a twin engine fighter aircraft.

My 2 cents

davebender · Jul 24, 2009

An engine out on takeoff on most WW2 twin engine aircraft will kill a pilot quicker than any enemy.

So will an engine out on landing. That is what killed Helmut Lent and he was as good as they get.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 24, 2009

davebender said:
So will an engine out on landing. That is what killed Helmut Lent and he was as good as they get.

Engine out landings are second in this scenerio. You'll die quicker on an engine out on take off if you're slow to address the emergency or improperly trained.

Messy1 · Jul 24, 2009

michaelmaltby said:
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

I have read a story regarding the P38 that addresses your question. I am pulling this from my memory, so please bear with me. The author stated that it took a special pilot to make use of the P38, one who knew how to use it's advantages. A pilot who flew it and used the same tactics and flying style as a single engine fighter, would not be able get the most out of the plane. It took very good pilot to fly it effectively. You had 2 of everything to worry about in regards to the engines. It was a very complicated plane to fly from all my reading. The author also wrote that the plane was much more maneuverable than it is given credit for, and when flown correctly was more than a match for most anything when flown by the right pilot. the author claimed you could almost spin the plane on it's axis by increasing throttle on the outside engine of the turn you were turning into. I believe it was in a Flight Journal article. I think it was a hard plane to fly, I do not think a average pilot could get the most out of the plane. I do not think it brought out the best in a average pilot unless they were dropping down on their opponent and making firing passes from a higher altitude.

Maximowitz · Jul 24, 2009

I posted this video on another part of the forum some time ago, but a few of you might have missed it.

Mosquito Construction Reel

Enjoy.

drgondog · Jul 24, 2009

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

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

Fatigue is the great killer of airframe structures - Knowledge of aeroelastic effects and fatigue due to reversible loads and high frequency inputs was in its infancy during WWII.

Have no idea what materials properties Mossies had relative to reversible loads. Would think to look to materials degradation due to moisture and bonding failures from glue decomposition as questionmarks?

Maximowitz · Jul 24, 2009

I'm not adding anything to the debate (I know diddly squat about either aircraft) but if any of you are in or visiting the UK you could do worse than go here:

Mosquito Museum

I never even knew it existed....

Butters · Jul 24, 2009

drgondog said:
Fatigue is the great killer of airframe structures - Knowledge of aeroelastic effects and fatigue due to reversible loads and high frequency inputs was in its infancy during WWII.

Have no idea what materials properties Mossies had relative to reversible loads. Would think to look to materials degradation due to moisture and bonding failures from glue decomposition as questionmarks?

Wood excels at resisting fatigue. A mature tree is subject to literally millions of bending movements in its lifetime from wind forces. The cellular structure of wood has evolved to deal with this challenge by a complex composition of rigid and flexible components that give it tremendous resistance to the forces of compression, tension, and torsion along its longitidunal axis ( This varies of course,not only with species and individuals within the species, but also within the individual tree itself). that's why wooden boats and ships can handle the constant pounding of the seas for years on end.

Because wood is a structurally complex, and extremely variable(as opposed to metals), engineering with wood is inherently more complex than with metal structures. The strength of a wood component is dependent upon factors like grain. End grain, for example, is highly resistant to compression, but subject to fracture (splitting) Because wood is so variable, and because the properties of a component will differ depending on how it is milled, engineering something like a high-performance a/c from wood is a daunting task. Esp with the types of adhesives and glues that were available during the war.

Not to mention the problems with moisture...The first thing anyone who works with wood learns, is that wood MOVES. Something that has to be kept in mind all the time.

JL

Colin1 · Jul 24, 2009

Butters said:
Wood excels at resisting fatigue. A mature tree is subject to literally millions of bending movements in its lifetime from wind forces. The cellular structure of wood has evolved to deal with this challenge by a complex composition of rigid and flexible components that give it tremendous resistance to the forces of compression, tension, and torsion along its longitidunal axis ( This varies of course,not only with species and individuals within the species, but also within the individual tree itself). that's why wooden boats and ships can handle the constant pounding of the seas for years on end.

Because wood is a structurally complex, and extremely variable(as opposed to metals), engineering with wood is inherently more complex than with metal structures

Just some observations
A mature tree is still alive and during its lifetime, can and does constantly repair itself, the moisture inherent within living wood will certainly lend itself to the ductile qualities of the tree whilst stresses in the form of bending movements are imposed upon it; seasoned wood on the other hand, can for the purposes of fatigue, be considered 'dead'.

Are not the bending movements of trees predictable to a large degree, trees normally bend to and fro subject to wind forces in a quasi-periodic manner. The forces subjected on a fighter engaged in manoevres would be more random in nature and could be considered more violent, if shorter in overall duration.

Would you consider that a valid argument?

Butters · Jul 24, 2009

Only the few mm's under the bark are actually alive. And I think you're confusing ductility with elasticity. Wood is not a ductile material. It is intrinsically elastic and durable along specific axis. At least the types selected for building a/c components

Even kiln-dried wood normally has a fair amount of moisture, and any exposed wood, esp end-grain, will absorb moisture, so unless the wood is encapsulated in a waterproof coating (Like epoxy), it will eventually reach an equilibrium with the environment.

It doesn't matter whether or not the movement is periodic. The drawing of a wooden bow is very slow compared to the release. All that matters is that the force on the wood does not exceed its strength. The various attachment points of the components are probably the most critical design factors in a well-engineered wooden a/c. Just like a metal one...

JL

Maximowitz · Jul 24, 2009

Colin1 said:
Would you consider that a valid argument?

No. Each tree has a unique cellular structure and the moment it is cut down other forces come into play. Unless wood is correctly dried (kiln or otherwise) it is prey to shinkage and splitting. I've spent the last thirty years of my life playing with wooden things and unless the correct precautions are taken wood is a very volatile building material.

Waynos · Jul 24, 2009

The fuselage of the Mosquito was extremely strong, possibly more so than a metal structure, because there was no internal frame. The fuselage was made as a laminated shell in two halves, rather like the fuselage of a plastic model kit, and the grain of the wood was arranged spirally, and the layers arranged with opposing spiral, this gave immense strength and, as the load was dispersed over the entire surface, a hole in it was less critical than if, say, a major load bearing structure was severed, as could happen with a metal airframe, as there was much more area available to take the strain.

As has been pointed out , its real weak spot was in hot humid conditions, such as the pacific theatre, where not only might the wood rot, but also the glue would literally come unstuck. In ETO however there was no such difficulty.

Here is a photo which shows another aspect of the Mossies survivability. This aircraft of 464Sqn not only had a huge chunk of wing missing, but also only had one engine and few hydraulics, yet made it back to base and a successful landing. Testament to both plane and pilot I'd say.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 24, 2009

Maximowitz said:
I've spent the last thirty years of my life playing with wooden things and unless the correct precautions are taken wood is a very volatile building material.

BINGO!

drgondog · Jul 24, 2009

Waynos said:
The fuselage of the Mosquito was extremely strong, possibly more so than a metal structure, because there was no internal frame. The fuselage was made as a laminated shell in two halves, rather like the fuselage of a plastic model kit, and the grain of the wood was arranged spirally, and the layers arranged with opposing spiral, this gave immense strength and, as the load was dispersed over the entire surface, a hole in it was less critical than if, say, a major load bearing structure was severed, as could happen with a metal airframe, as there was much more area available to take the strain.

As has been pointed out , its real weak spot was in hot humid conditions, such as the pacific theatre, where not only might the wood rot, but also the glue would literally come unstuck. In ETO however there was no such difficulty.

Here is a photo which shows another aspect of the Mossies survivability. This aircraft of 464Sqn not only had a huge chunk of wing missing, but also only had one engine and few hydraulics, yet made it back to base and a successful landing. Testament to both plane and pilot I'd say.

I agree strength of Mossie.

Suspec that what is hidden in that picture is a forward spar and what appears to be an aft spar, which combined with ribs and skin would make a very durableand strong design.

If I were to guess on the design the spars are constant thickness beams rather than typical beam cap/shear web/beam cap designs of aluminum construction

Waynos · Jul 24, 2009

Thats right. The front and rear spars were built up from 1/2 inch thick laminated spruce planks, with spruce and birch ribs and stringers and then the laminated wing skin was double thickness on the top surface, single below.

Butters · Jul 24, 2009

Waynos said:
The fuselage of the Mosquito was extremely strong, possibly more so than a metal structure, because there was no internal frame. The fuselage was made as a laminated shell in two halves, rather like the fuselage of a plastic model kit, and the grain of the wood was arranged spirally, and the layers arranged with opposing spiral, this gave immense strength and, as the load was dispersed over the entire surface, a hole in it was less critical than if, say, a major load bearing structure was severed, as could happen with a metal airframe, as there was much more area available to take the strain.

As has been pointed out , its real weak spot was in hot humid conditions, such as the pacific theatre, where not only might the wood rot, but also the glue would literally come unstuck. In ETO however there was no such difficulty.

Here is a photo which shows another aspect of the Mossies survivability. This aircraft of 464Sqn not only had a huge chunk of wing missing, but also only had one engine and few hydraulics, yet made it back to base and a successful landing. Testament to both plane and pilot I'd say.

The method of fuselage construction that you describe is very similar to a method used in building modern wood-epoxy boats. The double diagonal cold-moulded technique results in strong, resiliant and lightweight hulls that are easily a match for fiberglas or metal boats. The method also makes it much easier to form complex compound curves than other techniques.

BTW, I'm a professional home builder/cabinet maker, and have also put in a few years as a boat builder. Unfortunately, I'm now very sensitive to epoxies, so I can only use them on an occassional basis.

JL

drgondog · Jul 24, 2009

Butters said:
The method of fuselage construction that you describe is very similar to a method used in building modern wood-epoxy boats. The double diagonal cold-moulded technique results in strong, resiliant and lightweight hulls that are easily a match for fiberglas or metal boats. The method also makes it much easier to form complex compound curves than other techniques.

BTW, I'm a professional home builder/cabinet maker, and have also put in a few years as a boat builder. Unfortunately, I'm now very sensitive to epoxies, so I can only use them on an occassional basis.

JL

epoxy can be nasty stuff - hopefully 'being sensitive' was the only damage?

I have fooled around with the stuff on boats, gunstocks, car bodies and R/C aircraft - have a healthy respect for it!

drgondog · Jul 24, 2009

Waynos said:
Thats right. The front and rear spars were built up from 1/2 inch thick laminated spruce planks, with spruce and birch ribs and stringers and then the laminated wing skin was double thickness on the top surface, single below.

The double thickness on top was a recognition that the major bending due to lift loads were taken out as compression in top skin/beam cap, whereas the bottom skin was in tension. (in general)

fastmongrel · Jul 26, 2009

A small test for those people who think a plywood airframe is weaker than an aluminium one.

take 2 sheets both the same size and weight 1 of duralium 1 of quality plywood support both sheets around the edge.

Pick up 2 lb 6 oz ball pein hammer and take turns in hitting both sheets with the ball end. I got through the duralium in 11 hits, after 11 hits on the ply it was delaminating and bulging on the underside and it had split from side to side but it was still in one piece. It took 2 more hefty blows to penetrate the ply basically I just punched a big piece of chewed up ply through the sheet.

A rubbish test that proves that I dont want anyone firing bullets at me no matter what the aircraft is built of but its fun smashing things up

Colin1 · Jul 26, 2009

fastmongrel said:
A small test...

I got through the duralium in 11 hits,

after 11 hits on the ply it was delaminating and bulging on the underside and it had split from side to side but it was still in one piece

So the alum perforated, the plywood split

If it's split from side to side then it's not in one piece. Now add load forces from an aircraft engaging in violent evasive manoeuvres.

I think some useful points have been made here concerning the viability of wood for airframes construction, I don't think that this was one of them.

What if: Mosquito vs P-38

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Major

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

Major

1st Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads