|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 20, 2004 9:59:08 GMT -7
Since we beat the tar out of the Spit vs Corsair thing on Flightlines, how about a Mozzy vs Lightning combat?
While the P-38 is a striking looking bird & acknowledged performer, the Mozzy was an even more remarkable machine, both in construction & performance. --- That ought to start something interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jul 20, 2004 15:01:25 GMT -7
That may be true, but P-38's didn't delaminate and warp when the climate got too severe......  Gawd, I love a good airplane argument! |
|
Wayne
Story teller
Posts: 167
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 20, 2004 17:16:50 GMT -7
ya, but they can't fly at 50,000' either..... |
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 21, 2004 3:31:42 GMT -7
The warping/delaminating thing was adaptive deformation -- they grew their own camoflage -- it was caused by the casein glue being eaten by bacteria. The later versions with phenolic glue didn't taste so good.
I haven't heard of any 50,000' P-38s, but then neither have I heard of any P-38s that could carry the same payload as a B-17.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 21, 2004 5:43:50 GMT -7
The 2 were designed for slightly different roles that overlap. The lightning was designed as a heavy fighter the Mossy a fighter/bomber.
The lightning had better pilot visibility and had about twice the range.
I wonder how the 38 would have done with 2 merlins?
|
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jul 21, 2004 6:06:01 GMT -7
Probably about as well as the P-40 did. I don't think there were enough Merlins to go around as it was.
Eric brought up a good point regarding the different roles, but I have to ask...how many high scoring aces flew the Mosquito? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 21, 2004 6:26:03 GMT -7
You're right there was not enough Merlins to put in planes designed for it, much less adapt them in others especially when they were needed most.
I thought I read somewhere that it was supposed the Allison with the dual? supercharger performed better at altitude than the Merlin, but its been a while, I may have that reversed or confused with another.
|
|
Wayne
Story teller
Posts: 167
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 21, 2004 6:37:05 GMT -7
I was referring to the Spartan Mossies......
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 21, 2004 8:32:25 GMT -7
The range of the Mosquito XVI was 2450 miles, the P-38J was 2250. The service ceiling of the Mosquito XV was over 43,000' & the P-38J was 44,000'. Top speed of the Mozzy Mk 34 & 35 was 425 mph, & the P-38J --- 414 mph. The Mozzy could exceed 250 mph on one engine.
The Mozzy could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin -- equal to a B-17, but no escort was needed for the Mozzy.
As for top scoring fighter pilots using Mosquitoes -- you can start with John Cunningham.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 21, 2004 9:13:56 GMT -7
heheh, not to nitpick too much, the Mossy could carry 4000 lbs of bombs, but could it do it to Berlin, fight its way through fighters with external tanks and still come home? Not too likely IMO.
The B17 could carry over 9000 lbs of bombs, later it could carry more even if I remember right.
Keeping in mind the numbers are max for the particular spec, when you go to a combat load probably neither the armament or range is going to meet the maximum numbers for any aircraft.
Anyway getting back to the Lightning/Mossy thing, The mossy had many more varients than the Lightning did, it was probably a more versatile airframe. If you really wanted to compare apples to apples, you would have to pick the varients that were the most similar for intended use and then compare. For instance the 38 never had an internal bay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 21, 2004 9:52:42 GMT -7
No external tanks were needed for the Mozzie to reach Berlin with 4,000 lbs & the German air defence fighters had very little success in intercepting them. Mozzies with external tanks had ranges up to 3500 miles.
There were Mosquito varients that carried up to 6,000 lbs internally, & others that carried nearly 12,000 lbs in a bulged belly pod.
The B-17G could only carry 4,000 lbs as far as Berlin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 21, 2004 10:28:25 GMT -7
Well we may have conflicting info. The book I am reading from "British warplanes of WW2" Says the 2500 mile or so range was gained from external tanks with a internal bomb load on the bomber variant.
The Mossie was great plane, don't want to sound like I am knocking it.
|
|
Wayne
Story teller
Posts: 167
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 21, 2004 15:45:54 GMT -7
Hey! no fair looking at books...!!  Both had their merits, and we should be damned proud they both were on our side. |
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jul 21, 2004 16:02:23 GMT -7
Comparing a B-17 with a 4000 lb bombload to a Mosquito with the same payload is not exactly an even comparison. The B-17 had 2 more engines, 8 more crewmen and a whole lot more airframe to haul around.
It is interesting to note that the Israeli Air Force, who used Mossies post WWII were not too impressed with them, due to the inability of the airframe to take weather extremes and hold together. Does anyone know if they were used in the Pacific at all--I suspect not. It's also interesting that the Germans were frustrated to the point of envy at their inability to intercept the Mosquito, and at their inability to produce anything like it. Their idea, the Ta-154, was also called the Moskito. Hmmmm....
How do you armor plate wood?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Jul 21, 2004 16:14:23 GMT -7
err..I temporarily memorized it when I posted...don't that count?  |
|
Wayne
Story teller
Posts: 167
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 21, 2004 18:46:23 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 22, 2004 6:38:41 GMT -7
They were indeed used in the Pacific, & the initial deliveries suffered from the same problems encountered by the Israelis. As I noted previously, a phenol-based glue was subsequently substituted for the Pacific-bound mozzies & the fix worked. I suspect that the Israeli mozzies were European-theatre varients.
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jul 22, 2004 6:43:10 GMT -7
Eric, my sources are: "Aircraft of World War II" by Robert Jackson, "Aircraft of World War 2" by Bill Gunston, & "Sixty Years - The RCAF & CF Air Command 1924-1984", by Larry Milberry.
My memory is variable -- like my flying.
|
|
? how underhanded 