What if: Mosquito vs P-38

[Siegfried]

Hi,



I think the lowest loss rate of Allied bombers goes to the B26 Marauder. However, I am not sure if those stats would include the Mosquito, as it was such a versatile aircraft and calling it a bomber covers only a part of its operations. On the flip side of the coin, maybe they did include the Mosquito in those stats and included all variants under the generic name of "Mosquito".

river

My recollection is that the loss rates of B-26 vs Mosquito are about equal, around 0.6%. Having said that I don't think the B-26 deserves its good reputation. It neither opperated as deep into Reich terriotory as the Mosquito did and when it did opperate it was at a phase of war that the Luftwaffe was spread very thinly and in decline. A Lockeed Hudson wouldn't have done much worse.

On 0ccaision unescorted B-26's were intercepted by FW 190's the B-26's were totally shredded with loss rates of up to 20% in only a few minutes. Nothing can resist 4 x 20mm guns or worse 2 x 20mm plus 2 x 30mm guns at all. You need to avoid getting hit in the first place with that sort of fire power.

 

[Shortround6]

(I think it's fair to say from '45 - '65 the orthodoxy was as per the Mossie way, high fast as opposed to the later under the radar necessity of very low a lot more slow).

The generals who thought high and fast was the way to go didn't appreciate that the game had changed since WW II. Unless you electronics were better than the defenders, attacking bombers couldn't fly higher or faster than ground based missiles. Since bombers were taking longer to develop than either fighters or missiles the bombers almost never managed to actually outfly the defenders in those decades, no matter what the "next generation"promised. Good EW changed things enough to make it somewhat workable.

 

[Milosh]

Hornet construction which was similar to Mossie construction.

The de Havilland "Hornet" "Sea Hornet"

 

[Glider]

The generals who thought high and fast was the way to go didn't appreciate that the game had changed since WW II. Unless you electronics were better than the defenders, attacking bombers couldn't fly higher or faster than ground based missiles. Since bombers were taking longer to develop than either fighters or missiles the bombers almost never managed to actually outfly the defenders in those decades, no matter what the "next generation"promised. Good EW changed things enough to make it somewhat workable.

I wouldn't go along with this for the 50's and 60's. The Canberra is probably the best example of an aircraft that could and did fly over Russia with no losses. There was a TV series a couple of years ago about the unadmitted flights over the Soviet block and the most interesting was an interview with an RAF crew. They were asked to fly over a Russian research station they said yes and then found that it was only 50 miles from Moscow and they would have to do it in daylight. They did the misson and described seeing russian fighters trying to get to their altitude and failing, as well as some missile that were fired but were deflected by their counter measures.

Some RAF crews flew US aircraft but these did suffer some losses. I cannot remember the type, but it wasn't a usual one about the size as a Canberra but with four engines. Any ideas welcome from anyone

 

[tomo pauk]

RB-45, a recce version of B-45 Tornado?

 

[pbfoot]

I wouldn't go along with this for the 50's and 60's. The Canberra is probably the best example of an aircraft that could and did fly over Russia with no losses. There was a TV series a couple of years ago about the unadmitted flights over the Soviet block and the most interesting was an interview with an RAF crew. They were asked to fly over a Russian research station they said yes and then found that it was only 50 miles from Moscow and they would have to do it in daylight. They did the misson and described seeing russian fighters trying to get to their altitude and failing, as well as some missile that were fired but were deflected by their counter measures.

Some RAF crews flew US aircraft but these did suffer some losses. I cannot remember the type, but it wasn't a usual one about the size as a Canberra but with four engines. Any ideas welcome from anyone

watched the same show I believe which was aired on PBS , IIRC in the 50's the RAF was given the more daunting tasks in to recce work on the WARPAC using Canberras

 

[Kryten]

They couldn't very well put in any pictures of Mosquitos that were badly damaged that didn't make it home, could they?

An analogy could be made on the premise that dolphins are likely to help injured swimmers because there are stories told by said injured swimmers of dolphins pushing them to shore. For all we know, 99% of the injured swimmers encountered by dolphins are either pulled under or pushed out to sea, but we never hear about THOSE swimmers' experiences.

Likewise, some pictures of heavily damaged Mosquitos might represent the exception rather than the rule. We don't have pictures of a Mosquito burning up from a single 7.7mm incendiary round and crashing into the North Sea because only survivors were photographed.

Not the exception at all, the Mossie was reknown for returning with considerable damage, lots of photographs exist because so many aircraft were able to return damaged, in the same way B17's were, and the notion it would burn out due to incendiaries is also a misconception, many mossies suffered engine damage and fires in combat and still got back.
To understand the strength of the mossie you have to understand how sandwich construction works, one of the reasons modern airliners use sandwich composites is because the skins are bonded over a greater area, unlike a single metal skin which has to be perforated and rivetted to its former (thereby installing failure points), that means the skin is only attached in localised areas, damage in one position can and does lead to increased stresses in the attachment points around it, leading to fatigue failure, the wooden skins bonded to the balsa spacer not only localise damage they spread the load over a much greater area reducing fatigue and stresses. it also insulates heat much better than metals, especially thins metal skins. Mossies frames were treated with flame retardants apparently, and the aircraft was not known as being a fire hazard in flight in any contemporary reports I have seen.

also aluminium has a "memory" you can only stress it so many times before it cracks, the bonded wooden sandwich has very good stress resistance due to the area it is bonded over, but the down side is lifespan due to degradation in the older style bonding agents, this however was no real problem in ETO as the lifespan of the glues was greater than the expected operational life of the aircraft.

it's no accident that most modern aircraft use sandwich composites in thier construction, albeit with more modern materials and epoxies!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

also aluminium has a "memory" you can only stress it so many times before it cracks, the bonded wooden sandwich has very good stress resistance due to the area it is bonded over, but the down side is lifespan due to degradation in the older style bonding agents, this however was no real problem in ETO as the lifespan of the glues was greater than the expected operational life of the aircraft.

it's no accident that most modern aircraft use sandwich composites in thier construction, albeit with more modern materials and epoxies!

All very true but wood structures also loose resiliency when many repairs are done to a given area. Additionally wood repairs require a "cleaner" temperature controlled environment than working on metal aircraft. Back in the day there were still many mechanics around who were skilled in repairing wood structures.

 

[Kryten]

yeah thats true, I assume damaged areas were replaced rather than repaired back then? can't see it being practical or advisable to fillet in repairs to a wing etc?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yeah thats true, I assume damaged areas were replaced rather than repaired back then? can't see it being practical or advisable to fillet in repairs to a wing etc?

I think it would depend on the size of the damage. I do know most aircraft have a repair manual that would give limits for repairs, the Mossie being no exception. I've worked on some wood aircraft that have pretty precise limits for damage and repairs. I'm sure de Havilland came up with a methodology to assess repairs and their limits.

 

[buffnut453]

There were well-established procedures for repairing the Mossie's wooden structure. For example, there was a procedure for replacing substantial sections of the outer wing section. They basically cut through the wing spar and butt-joined the spar for the new wing section onto the old, with strength being provided by the wing surface panels. Amazing but apparently it worked.

 

[Kryten]

actually that makes sense if the skins were replaced at the same time, holes in skins will have an allowable size limit as Flyboy mentioned, you have to make some holes for controlls plumbing etc anyway, so theres a specified limit no doubt, as someone who used to build his own race car tubs out of alloy skins and honeycomb I would love to see the repair manual for this?

 

[parsifal]

Apologies guys in advance, have not read all the posts. Its been a while since i last visited this thread.

A few observations. Some comments have been made with regard to wooden construction and how it was basically inferior to all metal. Well, its worth noting that the mosquito was not wooden in the traditional sense. it was laminar construction, which conferred a great deal of strength on the airframe, in fact pound for pound it was superior to the metal construction of the time. Its something that many people have a great deal of difficulty accepting. a mosquito was actually stronger as an airframe than any comparable all metal airframe of its time. that means it could pull Gs and take damage better than its supposedly more modern counterparts.

mosquitoes were versatile. They could undertake a wide range of missions. The discussion in this thread seems to have concentrated on the fighter characteristics of the p-38. I will get to the cold hard statistics of the p-38 versus the mosquito in a minute, but if you had a force made up solely of mossies versus a force of nothing but P-38s (and lets compare apples to apples here....if you american enthusiasts are going to call up late war or post war P-38s, then it would only be fair to compare that to the DH Hornet, which was the contemporary of those types) the Mossie would win hands down because the Mossie can do stuff that the p0-38 can only dream about, and at ranges well beyond what the p-38 could do.

Finally it has been claimed that mosquitoes as fighters could onl;y operate safely at night. Not true. Like all TE fighters, the mossie was not as agile as the SE fighters in a turning fight. But turning fights are just one way to skin a cat, and the mossie enjoyed a great deal of success as a day and night fighter. It is credited with more than 600 air to air kills of German day fighters. some of those kills were at night, some by day, but thats a figure that cannot be dismissed or scoffed at all that easily.

all of this is not intended to denigrate the p-38. it was a capable, formidable aircraft. but some stuff has been bandied about, suggesting the Mossie was only good at night, had no chance agaist SE fighters etc that is just not supported by the known facts

 

[GregP]

I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.

The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.

I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.

For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.

 

[Siegfried]

I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.

The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.

I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.

For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.

The superior range and load carry capacity (not simultaneously I would suggest) would seem to come at the expense of external carriage of fuel and munitions which would spoil the penetration speed. The mosquito could carry its bombs internally and achieve substantial range. In addition it could carry Jettison tanks under the outer wings.

If a P-38 did actually carry external bombs they would slow it down enough to get within interception capabillity. As a night fighter there P-38's nose was too small to handle 9cm centrimetric radar, it had to wait for the smaller 3cm systems and then mounted on an external pod.

Given the Mosquitos advantage of ease of 2 crew, more volume for avionics, internal carriage it would be harder to give up.

As recon mounts the P-38 (F-5) would however be at no disadvantage.

Granted the turbo-allison has better fuel consumption

 

[wuzak]

I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.

The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.

I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.

For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.

It's a little unfair comparing a B.IV with a P-38J. Better using a B.XVI or PR.XVI.

The B.IV had the single stage 20-series Merlins, the B.IX, PR.IX, B.XVI and PR.XVI used the two stage 70-series Merlins. The XVI had a blower for cabin pressurisation.

The B.XVI had a top speed of 408mph when carrying a 4000lb "cookie". And it could carry it to Berlin. The P-38 could carry 4000lbs but not that far and not as fast.

Mosquitos were reknowned for their high cruise speeds - higher than se fighters certainly.

Overall the comparison between the two is unfair to both. The P-38 was a fighter that could carry a bomb load, and the Mosquito is a bomber which could be converted to a fighter.

 

[Glider]

I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.

The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.

I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.

For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.

What the P38 couldn't do was carry 3000lb of bombs nearly as far as the Mosquito, or nearly as fast. A Mossie carrying 4,000lb could top 400mph and the Mossie could carry that payload to Berlin. As a bomber the Mossie has it.

As PR machine its worth remembering that the 8th Air Force wanted PR Mossies or PR Spits in preference to the F5 P38. They received The Spit XI which was used on the more dangerous PR missions, the F5 being used for the other tasks. The loss rate of the F5 was much higher.

As a NF there is no question that the Mossie has it, equally as a day fighter the P38 rules.

 

[pbfoot]

I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.

The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.

I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.

For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.

read a book about a guy whu used both the P38 and Mosquito in his busuness of aerial surveys of the north , he preffered the Mossquito over the 38 because it was far easier to keep in the air (far less snags) particularly as he and his photo guy were resposible for the maintainence in places far away from normal facilities, His major complaint on the Mosquito was lack of hydraulic resovoir (vey scary with runaway prop) and he called the turbo or supercharge system of P38 very labour intensive . Can't really knock this guys opinions as he flew 1000's of hours in both

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

read a book about a guy whu used both the P38 and Mosquito in his busuness of aerial surveys of the north ,

He probably complained about the heater as well...

 

[GregP]

I KNEW I'd get some replies to the post above. Thanks!

The cruise speeds I see listed for the bombers are in the 250 mph range, with absolute maximum speeds in the 388 - 415 mph range, except for one PR version listed as 436 mph at height. The PR wasn't a bomber, and the fastest bomber I can find is listed at 408 mph top speed, which is hardly an operational speed on a mission. It MIGHT get that fast if desperately trying to run away from attacking fighters, but would never get that fast otherwise. The Mosquito pilots we have had give talks at our museum usually quote the high-speed ingress as about 350 - 360 mph unless they needed to go a bit faster for evasion. True, the Mosquito carried its armament internally and that is, indeed, a plus in the bomber mode.

Of course, the P-38 was never built as a bomber. It was a fighter and was superior to the Mopsquito as a fighter in every respect.

No question that turbochargers were higher maintenance than superchargers. The exhaust heat was the issue, and it still is today.

I'll concede the Mosquito makes a better bomber.