What if: Mosquito vs P-38

[Shortround6]

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?

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

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.

[river]

Hi,

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......

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

[parsifal]

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.

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......

[Colin1]

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...

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.

...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

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

[pbfoot]

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

[FLYBOYJ]

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

Agree

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

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.

[michaelmaltby]

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

[davebender]

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.

[parsifal]

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 3
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

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.