Best Aircraft in Many Different Roles Part II

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Reluctant Poster

I stand corrected. The important point is to realize is that in reality the P-38 did perform any more roles that a typical fighter such as an FW190, or for that matter, a P-51. Torpedo carrying and glider towing were interesting experiments, but that's all they were. The Drop-snoot was an evolutionary dead end.

Sure Stangs and 190s could perform attack roles, but the 51 could carry 2000lbs of ordnance and the 190F could only carry 2646lbs. That's a big difference. 190s had short range also. All this means is that the P-38 was better equipped for attack roles than the other mentioned A/C.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont believe the P-38 was better suited than a 190 for attack roles. The 190 was just as fast, just as maneuverable, and could take a hell of a lot more beating and was easier to fly than the twin engined P-38. A novice pilot could make more out of the 190 than the average pilot out of a P-38.

I am not saying the P-38 was not a great aircraft. She was marvelous. The 190 however could do everything the P-38 could and was a single engined aircraft vs. twin.

[Henk]

Yup, and she did not have the problems of frost on the windscreen as the P-38 had over Europe.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I dont believe the P-38 was better suited than a 190 for attack roles. The 190 was just as fast, just as maneuverable, and could take a hell of a lot more beating and was easier to fly than the twin engined P-38. A novice pilot could make more out of the 190 than the average pilot out of a P-38.

I am not saying the P-38 was not a great aircraft. She was marvelous. The 190 however could do everything the P-38 could and was a single engined aircraft vs. twin.

Good points, Chris - the 190 just couldn't lug a very heavy payload. She was an excellent ship too. Don't forget though, that 2 engines has some strong advantages over a single engine ship. The onvious one being that you lose one - you're still in business. Although, they were liquid cooled vs the 190s radial. I must admit I don't know a whole lot about attrition rates of 190s vs 38s in the ground attack role...

[spit_ace'43]

the mosquito gets my vote. Fast like a fighter, strong like a bomber, and wooden like the plane of a country losing the war.

[Seawitch]

I was thinking the same thing as I entered the thread! Also the Worlds first Stealth Aircraft surely?

[Reluctant Poster]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Sure Stangs and 190s could perform attack roles, but the 51 could carry 2000lbs of ordnance and the 190F could only carry 2646lbs. That's a big difference. 190s had short range also. All this means is that the P-38 was better equipped for attack roles than the other mentioned A/C.

Again the ability to carry 2 x 2000 lb bombs was an academic exercise with no real practical value. The AAF felt that the 500lb GP bomb was effective against almost all targets and hence standardized on it. Over 80% of the bombs dropped by fighter bombers in the ETO were 500 lb GP, less than 10% were 1000 lb GP with the rest including fragmentation, rockets and napalm. The puny little P-51 could carry 2 -500 lb bombs farther than the mighty P-38. P-38 - 260 miles combat radius vs P-51 - 325 miles. (from American Fighter Bomber by William Wolf)

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Reluctant Poster

Again the ability to carry 2 x 2000 lb bombs was an academic exercise with no real practical value. The AAF felt that the 500lb GP bomb was effective against almost all targets and hence standardized on it. Over 80% of the bombs dropped by fighter bombers in the ETO were 500 lb GP, less than 10% were 1000 lb GP with the rest including fragmentation, rockets and napalm. The puny little P-51 could carry 2 -500 lb bombs farther than the mighty P-38. P-38 - 260 miles combat radius vs P-51 - 325 miles. (from American Fighter Bomber by William Wolf)

I'm having a hard time trying to find range w/ particular bombloads for aircraft. Too bad I can't find the charts. I found one that stated 38 bombload of 3200 lbs w/ a range of 450 miles, while the 51 w/ a 2000lb load a range of 950 miles.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Good points, Chris - the 190 just couldn't lug a very heavy payload. She was an excellent ship too. Don't forget though, that 2 engines has some strong advantages over a single engine ship. The onvious one being that you lose one - you're still in business. Although, they were liquid cooled vs the 190s radial. I must admit I don't know a whole lot about attrition rates of 190s vs 38s in the ground attack role...

Actually the Fw-190G-3 could carry 3968lb of bombs. Thats just about as much as a P-38 could carry.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and you can't compare the payloads of a single engine against a twin engine, the payload of the P-38 is not something to write home about the P-38 was NOT a bomber (don't bother with the droop-snoots what's the point?) whereas the mosquito was a bomber and well proven in the role, bombing's about more than the mass you can carry, the cookie block buster is widely accepted to be one of the most successful bombs of the war which the P-38 couldn't carry let alone carry internally, what kind of bomber has can't take an internal payload? hence just one of the reasons the droop-snoots might as well be ignored, plus of course the useless strategy of everyone dropping the same time as the lead ship, if that's the case what's the point in being accurate?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And the only thing that was more versatile than the Mossie was the Ju-88 even though I think the P-38 was possibly just as versatile as the Mossie.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

oh boy, no good can ever come from both of us being online at the same time

I propose that in trying to become a jack of all trades the mossie became a master of more than the P-38, opinions?

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

oh boy, no good can ever come from both of us being online at the same time

I propose that in trying to become a jack of all trades the mossie became a master of more than the P-38, opinions?

That would depend on wheather you define it as an indivdual aircraft or by airframe. The P-38 as an aircraft could do a number of not really related things just based on load-out. The Mossie had a lot of variations allowing particular aircraft to do different jobs but those aircraft were not redily interchangeable.

Another consideration is that the British were more inclined to build aircraft for a specific purpose, the Mossie and even the Fw-190 were excelent aircraft and so was the P-38 but none of these aircraft are directly comparable in many ways and they were all very flexible.

The Radius of operation in the ETO was defined by the 8th AF who never really supported the P-38 to its fullest capability. In the ETO the radius of operation for a P-38J was defined as up to 450mi on escort missions. In the PTO That was where the F model was limit was. In the Pacific a 2300mi mission was flown by P-38's. In the ETO the 8th never did provide the bigger 300 gal drop tanks and with a 300 gal drop tank 2,000lb bomb it was still capable of 600mi radius. Also it has been reported that P-38's with additional pylons flew with 5600lbs, the arangement consisted of several smaller bombs. With that set-up a load of three 500lbs bombs and a 300gal tank could still make that 600 mi radius. This was done in the Pacific (sometimes with rockets to).

With the contenders we have a single "Best" is really unrealistic!

wmaxt

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Actually the Fw-190G-3 could carry 3968lb of bombs. Thats just about as much as a P-38 could carry.

I was trying to find references of this - it seems as though this was a special modification of certain G models to carry a single 1000kg, 1600kg, and 1800kg bombs. I couldn't find references of numbers of modified 190G's though.

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and you can't compare the payloads of a single engine against a twin engine, the payload of the P-38 is not something to write home about the P-38 was NOT a bomber (don't bother with the droop-snoots what's the point?) whereas the mosquito was a bomber and well proven in the role, bombing's about more than the mass you can carry, the cookie block buster is widely accepted to be one of the most successful bombs of the war which the P-38 couldn't carry let alone carry internally, what kind of bomber has can't take an internal payload? hence just one of the reasons the droop-snoots might as well be ignored, plus of course the useless strategy of everyone dropping the same time as the lead ship, if that's the case what's the point in being accurate?

I didn't know there was a rule barring comparison of planes w/ a different number of engines! Well said, we all agree the P-38 was not a bomber. Lanc, all I want is 1 post w/o touting the clear superiority of all things british!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'll give you a post where i'm not singing the praises of the British when wmaxt conceeds the versatility issue...........