PDA

View Full Version : The REAL question. P-38, Mossy, or BF-110 in a fight?



Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 01:31 PM

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 01:31 PM

noshens
02-04-2004, 01:35 PM
I thought it was decided that bf110 has no chance against P38?

JG26Red
02-04-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yay1:
I thought it was decided that bf110 has no chance against P38?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats what i thought... lol, oh well... i suppose if the 110 got lucky and had a bunch of them guns on it, it could blow something up rather easy lol

lbhskier37
02-04-2004, 01:53 PM
I dont really think the BF-110 would have a chance. The only thing though is that if one of the other guys missed and overshot the 110 it could easily rip them apart with the huge firepower. I think a better one to stick in this comparison would be the ME-410, TA-154, or that Focke Wulf that lost the competition with the BF110 (kinda hypothetical because it was an early war plane, but if it wouldve been chosen over the 110 it wouldve probably made it in the war as long as the 110 and got corresponding powerplant upgrades to keep it competitive)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

F19_Olli72
02-04-2004, 02:11 PM
So the concensus is that whoever gets shot down in a P38 by a Bf110 online is a really crappy pilot? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

SpinSpinSugar
02-04-2004, 02:12 PM
I would say these aircraft are apples and oranges too, to be honest. The P38 is pretty unique in WWII in being designed from the outset as a twin fighter. The only other one I can think of off prior to about 1944 (off the top o'me head) is the Westland Whirlwind.

The Mossie was designed as a bomber, and just evolved into a multi-role craft due to it's innate qualities. It's close peers are the Ju88 and the Beaufighter, maybe the Mitchell.

The Bf110 I GUESS was designed as a fighter but it's role as Zerstorer (forgive the spelling if it's miles out) isn't really paralleled amongst Allied types.

In a dogfight therefore I wouldn't pin any money on anything but the P38, but if either of the other two caught you on the merge, you'd be dead. The Mossie version you're referring to (well, one of them, there were loads) packed four 20mm cannons and four machine guns in the nose. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers, SSS

lbhskier37
02-04-2004, 02:13 PM
well I guess you could get a kill with the gunner too. I have killed countless mustangs from the back of my stuka. If you have 2 stukas in formation on comms they can be a tough opponent online, so I suppose 2 110s would be a real potent opponent for people foolish enough to get near the rear.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

JG26Red
02-04-2004, 02:25 PM
i think the 110s biggest help in this game will be blowing up bombers, with the loadout from hell you can put on them iam sure you could down a few bombers at a time, as long as the buzzing escorts dont get to ya.. but hey, thats what 109s are for...

jagdmailer
02-04-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Who wins? The battle of the twings begins!!! I say the P-38 J/L over both will win hands down. The P-38 Vs Spit question is just lame in my openion. Lets compair twins too twins, apples and apples. Not apples and oranges.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage,

I think you are asking people to compare apple & oranges here.

Pretty obvious the P-38 would win in the hands of similar experience pilots.

JagdMailer

horseback
02-04-2004, 02:33 PM
Actually, the P-38/Bf-110 question has a bit of an ironic edge to it. The Bf-110 was conceived as a long range bomber escort fighter, while the P-38 was originally designed to a USAAF specification for a high altitude bomber interceptor.

Ultimately, each was more successful in the others' planned role.

To the original question, though, the P-38 was a much more capable pure fighter than the two competitors listed. The Mossie was a capable fighter bomber, but beyond a high speed hit and run, I wouldn't want to try to deal with a p!ssed off 109 or 190 in it. The P-38 could realistically stay and fight against whatever opposition it might generally face.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Korolov
02-04-2004, 02:33 PM
The P-38 is a real unique type. Its hard to find a axis fighter of equivalent design, aside from a few that weren't accepted by the RLM. Potential ones like the Fw-187 Falke.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

arcadeace
02-04-2004, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
I would say these aircraft are apples and oranges too, to be honest. The P38 is pretty unique in WWII in being designed from the outset as a twin fighter. The only other one I can think of off prior to about 1944 (off the top o'me head) is the Westland Whirlwind.

The Mossie was designed as a bomber, and just evolved into a multi-role craft due to it's innate qualities. It's close peers are the Ju88 and the Beaufighter, maybe the Mitchell.

The Bf110 I GUESS was designed as a fighter but it's role as Zerstorer (forgive the spelling if it's miles out) isn't really paralleled amongst Allied types.

In a dogfight therefore I wouldn't pin any money on anything but the P38, but if either of the other two caught you on the merge, you'd be dead. The Mossie version you're referring to (well, one of them, there were loads) packed four 20mm cannons and four machine guns in the nose. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers, SSS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put, I agree the P-38 is too unique. And just as you've implied, the other 2 have been built for roles too different for meaningful comparison.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

Bobsqueek
02-04-2004, 02:41 PM
hmmm

I reckon the mossie might win

itll be a close call between -38 and the mossie, with the mossie being a little bit faster(?) and out gunning it

Bremspropeller
02-04-2004, 02:41 PM
The Lightning clearly wins...but hey...the 110 has a backseat-gunner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

MachineII
02-04-2004, 02:43 PM
Yeah...I like the Mossy, and the 110, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig7.jpg

MrFenna
02-04-2004, 02:50 PM
In my OPINION the mossie!

Red_Storm
02-04-2004, 02:53 PM
Well, looking at America's war-history, the P-38 can't be the winner. Americans only shoot their own troops.

grinman
02-04-2004, 02:55 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gifMe too about mozzo(mozzie)

DeerHunterUK
02-04-2004, 02:58 PM
My heart says Mossie NF Mk II but my head says the P-38 J\L would win outright in this battle of the twin engine fighters.
So the P-38 is the winner IMHO.

No1_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

lindyman
02-04-2004, 03:22 PM
Hmmm... One single seat fighter to three twin seaters. Apples to apples... I think not.
_
/Bjorn.

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 03:48 PM
The problem is, how many single seat twin engine fighters in WWII made it into production, let alone combat? The aircraft I listed all had its fair share if air-2-air victories and were used as fighters. So, twin engine, fighters. All of them have those two traits in common.

Maj_Death
02-04-2004, 03:52 PM
I voted for the P-38 but I would gladly take the Bf-110 up against it. The P-38 holds the speed advantage but the Bf-110 could give it a good fight at lower speeds. The Mossy probebly wouldn't last long against either. The Mossy isn't a fighter though. It's no more a fighter than the Ju-88. Yeah technically they are fighters because they did do a little night fighter duty but there primary role was that of a light bomber. Thinking of which, I would take a Ju-88 against the P-38 but as most here already know, I'm nuts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

SECUDUS
02-04-2004, 03:57 PM
http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/il2pic/MosseyInfo.jpg?0.8780360545931246

Gibb, sometimes the twits get it right and the rest of the world try to...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

carguy_
02-04-2004, 04:01 PM
I dunno how was it in real life but I`d desperately keep Me110 from meeting with P38.Fithing them is Me109,FW190 job.

Therefore I think the question which plane would win 1v1 isn`t the case.

For me Me110 is strickly a bomber buster and THE plane LW boys have been waiting for so long.

Spot da bomber formation,bust 3/4 of the whole group and get the hell outta there.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Korolov
02-04-2004, 04:42 PM
Going to need a lot of luck or good tactics against bomber formations if you want to keep that 110 "cool". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Chuck_Older
02-04-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
Well, looking at America's war-history, the P-38 can't be the winner. Americans only shoot their own troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yamamoto would disagree, if he could
*****************************
the soldier boy, for his soldier's pay, obeys the sergeant at arms, whatever he says ~Clash

AaronGT
02-04-2004, 04:56 PM
what about a P38 and whirlwind
match up ? Both are single engined
twins

Given that the whirlwind had a short service history you would have to match it with an early p38

armament would favour the Whirlwind but I am not sure much else would

VonShlagnoff
02-04-2004, 04:57 PM
Wooden wonder every time, quicker and more agile, have you not seen the footage of the single engine test? It is quite amazing. And the lightning could never carry a 5,000lb egg. Irrelevent to this arguement I know but worth pointing out.

MiloMorai
02-04-2004, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VonShlagnoff:
Wooden wonder every time, quicker and more agile, have you not seen the footage of the single engine test? It is quite amazing. And the lightning could never carry a 5,000lb egg. Irrelevent to this arguement I know but worth pointing out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might want to check on that 5000lb.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Mossie could carry a 4000lb block buster.

Quicker??? Again, better dig out those stats and look again.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Look at the bombload as well.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Korolov
02-04-2004, 05:15 PM
The Whirlwind and Fw-187 would probably have been great contenders if they had been given a chance to succeed. They weren't and thus were never refined, model through model, to the best possible they could be.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

cuski
02-04-2004, 05:17 PM
Hmmmmmm... might as well add the Fokker G1.

MiloMorai
02-04-2004, 05:21 PM
Data from the Tank bio book.

Fw187V4 / Bf110B-0 / Bf109B-2

max speed: 500kph / 455kph / 465kph
ceiling: 9250m / 8000m / 8000m
RoC: 14.5m/s / 12.5m/s / 12.0m/s
Range: 900km / 635km / 530km

All using the Jumo 210G engine.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 05:23 PM
P-38's max loadout was around 5000lb. Im sure if it was configured differantly, it could have. The Mossy was a made to carry bombs, the P-38 was not. I consider that quite exceptional on the P-38's part.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VonShlagnoff:
Wooden wonder every time, quicker and more agile, have you not seen the footage of the single engine test? It is quite amazing. And the lightning could never carry a 5,000lb egg. Irrelevent to this arguement I know but worth pointing out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
02-04-2004, 05:23 PM
Ick, Fokker G-1 isn't even in the same class. Widely outmatched and aged even by early WW2 standards.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

SECUDUS
02-04-2004, 05:26 PM
Shame the Mossie's little brother was just that little bit to late...Now, that would have a sting to it's tale...Lol!

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

MiloMorai
02-04-2004, 05:31 PM
Gib, it should be noted that the Mossie with the 4000lb bomb carried NO guns.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif With guns, max was 2000lb.



Long live the Horse Clans.

cuski
02-04-2004, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Ick, Fokker G-1 isn't even in the same class. Widely outmatched and aged even by early WW2 standards.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so?

Max speed: 475km/h at 4100m altitude
RoC: 13.5m/s
Max. range: 1510km

Looks like a contender to me.

p1ngu666
02-04-2004, 05:54 PM
i thought the mossie was mostly the fastest thing in the sky
faster than all the lw stuff till 44 wasnt it?

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 05:57 PM
This is from one of my P-38 books.

"Westland Aircraft's design team tried to produce a viable high-altitude replacement for the failed Whirlwind. Powered by two Rolls-Royce Merlins of 1650 BHP each, with 50 percent more power it was about 30MPH slower then a contemporary P-38H. Rate-of-roll was dead slow, and it ran into compressibility at lower speeds then any P-38.It weighted about the same as a P-38J and the wing span was no less tan 18 feet greater then any P-38. Remember the chiding about the huge size of the P-38s and P-47s? What goes around comes around."

Vickers also tried a twin engine figher (Vickers Type 432) and also failed. Apperantly, the Brits could not put togeather a good twin engine fighter! There failed attempt was in 1942, P-38 beat it senseless and it was a 1938 design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
The Whirlwind and Fw-187 would probably have been great contenders if they had been given a chance to succeed. They weren't and thus were never refined, model through model, to the best possible they could be.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
02-04-2004, 05:58 PM
Wow. Thats rather interesting!! P-38 carried 4000lb of bombs, AND guns. OK. Mossie looses!

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Gib, it should be noted that the Mossie with the 4000lb bomb carried _NO_ guns.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif With guns, max was 2000lb.



Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MiloMorai
02-04-2004, 06:04 PM
Ah yes, the Welkin is what you speak of Gib.



Long live the Horse Clans.

DONB3397
02-04-2004, 06:24 PM
In WWII, I don't think it was a contest. P-38J outclimbed and probably out turned the 110, and it's forward firepower was superior.

In FB, who knows? Depends on the FMs, I suppose.

One problem full-real P-38 pilots may have is lateral visibility. The engines, booms and wings will block out a good chunk of the sky, make it essential that a pilot rock all the way through the mission. The good news, of course, will be rear visibility. Easy to check six in this a/c.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCdJZIABpBmmLZQo

F19_Olli72
02-04-2004, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
In WWII, I don't think it was a contest. P-38J outclimbed and probably out turned the 110, and it's forward firepower was superior.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hardly superior firepower, at least if the 110 has the 2xMk 108 + 2xMG 151/20 loadout
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Korolov
02-04-2004, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cuski:
How so?

Max speed: 475km/h at 4100m altitude
RoC: 13.5m/s
Max. range: 1510km

Looks like a contender to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you kidding? the Fokker G-1 has a max speed of 277mph, compared to 414mph for the P-38, 378mph for the Fw-187, and 360mph for the Whirlwind. Fw-187 has a 17.5m/s climb, P-38 about the same, with the Whirlwind lagging behind at the slowest, 6.6m/s. Even though the G-1 climbs faster than the Whirlwind, it still couldn't beat it's speed. The G-1 does have a good range, I'll give it that, but its not any better than the other three types.

Theres only so much a 1936 design can do.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

RedDeth
02-04-2004, 07:41 PM
p38 can go toe to toe with any 109,190, ki, italian plane etc. a wing of lightnings against a wing of mosquitos???? everyone needs to wake up. the p38 would roll them like they were drunks in an alley. p38 late models could turn with zeroes if it didnt have drop tanks. p38 was a fighter equivalent to the corsair and the p51. the mosquito wouldnt stand a chance against these planes.
and the bf110 would have been a flying target. easy kill.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

WhiskeyRiver
02-04-2004, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lindyman:
Hmmm... One single seat fighter to three twin seaters. Apples to apples... I think not.
_
/Bjorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right we must compare single seat twins. Hs129 or P-38. Which would win?

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

A.K.Davis
02-04-2004, 10:00 PM
F7F?

Do335?

Me-262?

There's some single-seat twins to compare the P-38 to. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

LeadSpitter_
02-04-2004, 11:21 PM
mossie
p38
bf110
me210

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

Old_Canuck
02-05-2004, 01:10 AM
Guess maybe I'll go down in flames with Oleg on this one but it seems the Mosquito would be lighter and faster against the P-38. It would be interesting to see how it turns out with two sim pilots of equal skills.

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

MiloMorai
02-05-2004, 01:19 AM
Empty weight of the FB VI Mossie's was ~6200kg while for the P-38J, it was ~5800kg.



Long live the Horse Clans.

tttiger
02-05-2004, 01:26 AM
Whoaaa...some of you need a trip to the history books....Well, I suppose that's why we're getting a P-80; the guy flunked history http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Mossie was not in any respect a day fighter. It was all about speed and being able to hit and run. NOT stay and fight.

You can boom and zoom with it, a bit. You can do a head-on against a LW plane in self defense (those 4x20mm and 4x.303 usually scare them off). But that's about it.

It was my favorite ride in WarBirds but the FBVI was a ground attack plane, not a fighter. In Day Ranger missions they hit a LW airfields...one pass as fast as they could go and then on to another target.

The 418 RCAF was the highest scoring Canadian squadron, and they flew Mossies, but almost all of its kills were either planes on the ground or night intruder missions (vulching) or knocking down V-1s. You would think a Canadian would know that....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mossies sometimes had escorts but the only plane that could match both their high speed and their incredible long range was the Mustang, so that was the only plane used as an escort.

It was also used extensively as an intruder, at night, without radar. The ground radar operators in England would watch the LW night fighters taking off to attack the Lancasters and vector the Mossies to the LW fields where they would fly below radar waiting for the LW planes to return and shoot them down while they were landing. Yes, that was indeed vulching and the Mossie was very good at it.

The Night Fighter versions also were used extensively with both forward and rearward looking radar (the radar screen was located behind the pilot, so the navigator had to sit backwards on his seat on his knees to operate it; very awkward). Very effective. But not as a day fighter.

They weren't built to fight. They were built to hit and then run like hell.

This is one airplane I know a great deal about, I commanded a dedicated Mossie squad in WarBirds for a long time and read every book I could find on it. Our tactics were authentic. And we NEVER used it as a fighter except in self defense when we couldn't run.

It's my favorite WWII plane but it's not a fighter and I don't think you'll find any literature saying it was.

Now, the P-38, THAT was a fighter, particularly the late Js. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

[This message was edited by tttiger on Thu February 05 2004 at 12:43 AM.]

Boandlgramer
02-05-2004, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
p38 late models could turn with zeroes if it didnt have drop tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why ?
any datas to confirm it?
or did you have an nice dream ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


btw. my list
1. P38
2. mossi
3. Bf 110

Boandlgramer
Ein Stück vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg

Bansai Potato
02-05-2004, 01:51 AM
Another floored comparison. Since when did two fighter aircraft meet on equal terms and engage each other.

I would say if i bounced your P-38 from 6 o clock high in a sopwith camel i'd still shoot you down, may have to take along dive to gain sufficient speed but you see what i am trying to say :-)

As for the comparison i'd say the Mossie could win just as easily as the P38, and whoever was talking about the firepower of the 110, what about the firepower of the Mossie 4 x 20mm canon and 4 x .303 machine guns all firing through the nose.

http://homepage.hispeed.ch/Ede_EAF92/EAF/24890632.92EastIndiaSquadronpersonnel.jpg

WOLFMondo
02-05-2004, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wow. Thats rather interesting!! P-38 carried 4000lb of bombs, AND guns. OK. Mossie looses!

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Gib, it should be noted that the Mossie with the 4000lb bomb carried _NO_ guns.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif With guns, max was 2000lb.



Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that cause the Mossie bomber varaints had glass noses for the bomb aiming equipment?

Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

Aaron_GT
02-05-2004, 03:12 AM
One thing we are assuming is that the fight
is in daylight.

The situation would be somewhat different,
I would imagine, if the fight was at night
as two seat twins with radar would have some
advantage. The amount of advantage that
radar would confer would depend on the version
and its minimum range, but an extra pair
of eyes would be rather helpful. I'd also
suggest that the position of the nose
guns on the P38 might produce more blinding
muzzle flash than just the 4 20mm cannon
on the typical Mosquito NF version, which
were tucked under the nose.

A Do-335/P38 match up would be interesting,
but I think that P38 development had somewhat
tailed off before the Do-335 came on stream.
Also the P38 would massively outstrip the
P38 in terms of maneouverabilty, although
whether that would help given the Do-335s
abililty to disengage at will is another matter.

Cajun76
02-05-2004, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
p38 late models could turn with zeroes if it didnt have drop tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why ?
any datas to confirm it?
or did you have an nice dream ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


btw. my list
1. P38
2. mossi
3. Bf 110

Boandlgramer
Ein Stück vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know the name of the ace, but he died because he didn't drop his tanks before engaging a Zero. But apparently is was common enough for experianced pilots to turn with a Zero. The P-38 had excellent elevator authourity, it's main disadvantage was roll performance in dogfights. However the L's boosted ailerons helped a great deal, and in a high speed turn, Zero's are not hot, either in elevator, or in roll.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

SpinSpinSugar
02-05-2004, 04:03 AM
Interesting post tttiger, thanks. I too have a vested personal interest in the Mossie. It'd be a blast to fly airfield raids in if it ever made it to FB. And to my eye it's got classic lines, graceful curves much in evidence. A close second to a Spitfire Mk.IX in the WWII beauty contest.

Comparing a P38 to a Mosquito is no more just than comparing one a Spitfire, you can carry bombs aloft in many Marks of those, too. In fact I think the only real heavy-ground-pounder-and-useful-fighter comparisons that would be even close are the other heavy single seaters, the Jug and the Typhoon.

Re: the mossie, yes, the dedicated bomber versions of the mossie had glass noses for the bombardier. Mossies carried out some of the most consistently accurate bombing of the war, either as low level raiders or pathfinders for squadrons of Lancasters. For that you need a navigator/bombardier.

It's versatility is unrivaled apart from that of the Ju88, which the Luftwaffe posse will gladly tell you had a similarly high number of applications. I'm looking forward to flying the Ju in FB when it arrives.

Hence the usual flaws are reached early in this "my plane is better than yours" thread. Apples/Oranges and Pears in equal measure. IF we are talking a sustained turn fight WITHOUT a bombload IN daylight where you AVOIDED being hit on the merge, I'd rather be sat in a P38 (although against a less skilled opponent, AI sniper rear-gunners in a Bf110 would come in handy).

However, any mossie driver worth his salt challenging an agile single seat fighter would have extended away, and be impossible to catch after the first pass, so the point is moot. It's a hypothetical that should never occur, even if the aircraft WERE on opposing sides.

The P38 is a practically unique single-seat twin fighter that due to it's high power-to-weight ratio could usefully loft a large amount of air-to-ground ordinance too. If I was heading off for some opportunistic CAS where it was likely I'd have to drop my ordinance and engage enemy fighters, I'd take the P38. If I was on a no-ordinance fighter sweep, I'd also take the P38.

For ANY FB application other than a turning dogfight or close air support, including opportunistic BnZ; legit vulching, bomber attacks; ground-attack; I'd choose the Mossie. An awesomely fast all-round bomber that had useful applications as an air-to-air platform.

If I had to knock the doors off a Nazi jail in a high-speed, low-level raid deep in enemy territory (go look it up), there's no contest. A navigator-enabled precision bombing platform par excellence.

Great planes, all. I love twins, and I'm getting at least two new ones in the AEP. Can't wait. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SSS

Boandlgramer
02-05-2004, 04:07 AM
Cajun 76
it was Thomas Buchanan McGuire.
he was one of the best american aces.

Boandlgramer
Ein Stück vom Paradies ist Mein Bayern. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg

fluke39
02-05-2004, 04:17 AM
to add to the mossie debate - yes it was a twin engined "fighter bomber" - but it was originally designed to be an unarmed day bomber - ie - it was not intended to have guns.
therefore comparing it to planes designed as fighters is a little unfair.

fluke39
02-05-2004, 04:19 AM
even though this was not designed as a pure fighter - but rather strike fighter - i think the beaufighter would have been a better example - if you wanted a british twin

Cajun76
02-05-2004, 04:33 AM
Thank you, Bg, I remember reading the account, just didn't recall the name. I voted for the P-38 myself, since the Me-110 was more of a gunboat and the Mossie was not a fighter vs fighter a/c, although it was put into that role on occasion. More often, but still rather rare was it being used as a bomber destroyer. What I consider most important, is that you need a specific model of Mossie to compete, where as a P-38 is multirole, without modifications. This, IMO, is a strength of many of the US a/c. So if I had one to choose, it would be the Lightning. As opposed to escaping with the Mossie, if a Fw-190 caught a Lighting by the tail, he'd then have a fight to deal with.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

DeerHunterUK
02-05-2004, 04:46 AM
I used to fly a Mossie FB Mk VI in EAW and got quite a few enemy fighter kills (mainly 109s) in it.

No1_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

KIMURA
02-05-2004, 04:46 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cajun76:


I don't know the name of the ace, but he died because he didn't drop his tanks before engaging a Zero. But apparently is was common enough for experianced pilots to turn with a Zero. The P-38 had excellent elevator authourity, it's main disadvantage was roll performance in dogfights. However the L's boosted ailerons helped a great deal, and in a high speed turn, Zero's are not hot, either in elevator, or in roll.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

OMG..........surely not. Late variant P-38J-25/L-5 were directed not to use their dive recovery flap for turns more than 90?, caused of the very dramatic lose of E. Also the lose of E was so dramatic that the Lightning became a sitting duck.

BTW McGuire encountered Ki-43 but NO Zero during his last DF and he was mad enough to fly stall manoeuvres vs. light weight Japanese designs.

VonShlagnoff
02-05-2004, 04:57 AM
Ok you made me get my books out, and it seems that the DH 98 Mosquito and the P38 J were fairly equal on performance to within 2 or 3 mph at altitude, eg Mossie FXV has four 303 mg and four 20mm cannon and an extra bloke has a top speed of 412mph and the P38 J with no external stores has a top speed of 414mph. Wow the decicive 2mph difference, I must pray towards seattle 6 times a day and give thanks for the freedom that I now have. IMHO you are always gonna be biased towards the aircraft that your country built, weather it was as good as what ever. But you have to admit that with only a 2 mph advantage the P38 is gonna have a tough time trying to shoot down the mossie which IMHO is more manoeverable, dont forget neither of them were dogfighters, the mossie was designed as a bomber, as in fly to the target and get home, the P38 was an escort fighter so that had to fly to the target and back and maybe fight some enemy a/c but not loiter or gain air supremacy, and it would nearly always have a height advantage.

MiloMorai
02-05-2004, 05:13 AM
NF.XV Fighter

Special high altitude fighter developed in only seven days from pressure cabin prototype PR.VIII with extended wing tips, reduced fuel tankage and four .303in machine guns in a blister under the fuselage. Only five built.

The FB VI was good for ~380mph. The NF30 was good for ~410mph.

http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito_var.htm
http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/Mosquito.htm



Long live the Horse Clans.

VonShlagnoff
02-05-2004, 05:27 AM
Was still a mossie though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif an it went to 43500 ft. My point was that in aircraft so closley it would be the pilots skill wot would win and not the a/c.

HellToupee
02-05-2004, 05:40 AM
a few 1946 mossies were good for 422mph

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

VonShlagnoff
02-05-2004, 05:49 AM
good point well presented

PBNA-Boosher
02-05-2004, 05:50 AM
I know! What about putting Maj. Bong, top scoring P-38 ace, vs. a Japanese pilot in a Ki-43 Oscar? Who's gonna win that?

Ankanor
02-05-2004, 06:07 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, who japanese pilot wold be so dumb to try a high speed turn when he knows that his ailerons and elevator "freeze" at high speeds?

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.
And most of them wear miniskirts...

xanty
02-05-2004, 06:10 AM
Hi all:

I think the Pe-3 is a more suitable competitor than the Bf110 or Mosquito.

Anyone?

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
02-05-2004, 06:33 AM
Hi,

A fundamentally unfair comparison.

Mossie was an excellent multi-role strike a/c (and also an environmental disaster!) so I suspect this is another 'my plane is better than yours' outing. On that note, why not have the Ju88 NF version in there, too? Was that stretching the comparison integrity a little too far?

Cheers,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

MiloMorai
02-05-2004, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Mossie was an excellent multi-role strike a/c (and also an environmental disaster!) so I suspect this is another 'my plane is better than yours' outing. On that note, why not have the Ju88 NF version in there, too? Was that stretching the comparison integrity a little too far?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why a disaster? Alumimum mining and proccessing is harder in the environment.

.................

The fastest Mossie was, most likely, the B MkIX reaching 437mph @ 29,000ft using Merlin 77s.



Long live the Horse Clans.

WooHooToYou
02-05-2004, 07:15 AM
I don't think it's fair to compare the Bf110, Mossy & Me410 with the P38.

The P38 was designed to be a fighter. It was designed with two engines because the USAAC wanted a fighter that could reach altitude quickly and Lockheed saw two engines as the best way of achieving a fast climb rate.

The other three where not designed to be air superiority fighters' in the same way as the P38.

Cajun76
02-05-2004, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cajun76:


I don't know the name of the ace, but he died because he didn't drop his tanks before engaging a Zero. But apparently is was common enough for experianced pilots to turn with a Zero. The P-38 had excellent elevator authourity, it's main disadvantage was roll performance in dogfights. However the L's boosted ailerons helped a great deal, and in a high speed turn, Zero's are not hot, either in elevator, or in roll.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

OMG..........surely not. Late variant P-38J-25/L-5 were directed not to use their dive recovery flap for turns more than 90?, caused of the very dramatic lose of E. Also the lose of E was so dramatic that the Lightning became a sitting duck.

BTW McGuire encountered Ki-43 but NO Zero during his last DF and he was mad enough to fly stall manoeuvres vs. light weight Japanese designs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'm quite sure that P-38s were directed not to engage in turnfighting of any kind, but that dosen't mean a confident, perhaps overzealous pilot might not try it. I didn't say any P-38, with just anybody at the controls. An expirienced guy can work the nose around on a regular pilot, but it appears McGuire underestimated his opponent, and taxed his a/c beyond its limits, to boot. These two sites, together seem to paint the picture a bit clearer.

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mcguire.html The Final Mission is near the bottom.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/mcguire.html

I agree with WooHoo, though I didn't say it as clearly as he. The comparision isn't really fair, and I think the P-38 would win in most situations and conditions.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Realfire_02.gif
Have you thanked a veteran today?

MiloMorai
02-05-2004, 07:38 AM
Can I introduce the Mosquito's little brother, the Hornet, into the mix?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hornet vs F7F vs 410



Long live the Horse Clans.

VW-IceFire
02-05-2004, 07:53 AM
I love the Mosquito but the P-38 is more of a fighter and the Mosquito is more of a high speed attack fighter or bomber. As far as I know, the Mosquito was never used in strictly day-fighter ops but always in a dual role capacity and in a sense providing its own escort to and from its targets.

I think if you were to have a race the Mosqutio I think would likely win (thats my impression based on what I've read) but if you were to have a fight between the two...I think the P-38 would have it here (assuming all other things were equal).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Brotrob
02-05-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mcguire.html The Final Mission is near the bottom.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/mcguire.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even this two Versions differ a bit, I can add a third one, but dont claim its more correct than the others, I just don't know which Source to trust :

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/mcguire/mcguire.htm


Have a nice Read,

BLUE_Brotrob

horseback
02-05-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cajun76:


I don't know the name of the ace, but he died because he didn't drop his tanks before engaging a Zero. But apparently is was common enough for experianced pilots to turn with a Zero. The P-38 had excellent elevator authourity, it's main disadvantage was roll performance in dogfights. However the L's boosted ailerons helped a great deal, and in a high speed turn, Zero's are not hot, either in elevator, or in roll.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

OMG..........surely not. Late variant P-38J-25/L-5 were directed not to use their dive recovery flap for turns more than 90?, caused of the very dramatic lose of E. Also the lose of E was so dramatic that the Lightning became a sitting duck.

BTW McGuire encountered Ki-43 but NO Zero during his last DF and he was mad enough to fly stall manoeuvres vs. light weight Japanese designs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dive recovery flap is located outboard of the booms, about mid wing, while the flaps used for maneuver are located on the trailing edges of the wings. Like the 'butterfly' flaps used in the Ki-43 Oscar and Ki-84 Frank, it was a Fowler type flap with an intermediate setting for lower speed maneuvering.

Experienced Lightning drivers could stay with a Zero or Oscar in a tight turn at speeds around 90mph, right at the edge of the stall, at least long enough to kill it. Loss of E was not a particular hazard for the P-38 in RL because of its outstanding accelleration, and the likelihood of help from squadronmates nearby.

A smart pilot wouldn't engage in a slow speed maneuver if he was outnumbered; he'd use his greater speed or accelleration to 'hit and git' in that case. McGuire wasn't mad so much as he was extremely aggressive, confidant, and highly skilled. His problem was that it only takes one mistake to kill you at treetop level, and he made it.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

NorrisMcWhirter
02-05-2004, 10:06 AM
Hi,

Indeed, aluminium production has heavy energy requirements. My point revolved around what was said in the book, "Mosquito: The Wooden Wonder", which I read the other week.

A similar quote was used here:

http://www.soarmd.org/BassNews/balsa.html

&lt;snip&gt;
"The use of balsa wood (Mosquito production is said to have devoured an entire Ecuadorian forest) ensured that any crashed Mosquito was quickly scavenged by model airplane builders"
&lt;/snip&gt;

Reflecting, and being pedantic, it doesn't say how large the forest was! Point taken, though, although I suppose it comes down to if *this* renewable source was actualy renewed!

Regards,
Norris



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Mossie was an excellent multi-role strike a/c (and also an environmental disaster!) so I suspect this is another 'my plane is better than yours' outing. On that note, why not have the Ju88 NF version in there, too? Was that stretching the comparison integrity a little too far?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why a disaster? Alumimum mining and proccessing is harder in the environment.

.................

The fastest Mossie was, most likely, the B MkIX reaching 437mph @ 29,000ft using Merlin 77s.



Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

WhiskeyRiver
02-05-2004, 10:55 AM
I believe the Mosquito was only stressed to 5g maneuvers while the P-38 was stressed to 7.5g in clean configuration(no external ordnance). The Mossie couldn't use differential throttle inputs to increases it's roll rate either. Still, DeHaviland built an excellent aircraft.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

VonShlagnoff
02-05-2004, 01:18 PM
n if it gets shot down over water the crew cn just paaddle the mosssie home http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Chuck_Older
02-05-2004, 02:50 PM
Whoever made that post on page 4, hey man, edit it! That pic is to flippin big. Nothing personal but I can't read any of the #^&*ing posts because of your pic



The P-38, according to anything I've read, had less than desirable elevator authority. Why? Because of the flight yoke instead of a stick.

If a P-38 turned with a Zero, ever, it was at high speed, where the Zero's large control surfaces worked against it and made rolling extremely hard.

Fowler flaps...I've heard arguments for and against their effectiveness.

As far as the P-38 being a good climber, if I recall, that reputation is not for ballistic climb by any means. It is sustained shallow climb, where the P-38 may retain high speed while still in a shallow climb, this gaining separation and altitude on it's opponent.

*****************************
the soldier boy, for his soldier's pay, obeys the sergeant at arms, whatever he says ~Clash

horseback
02-05-2004, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Whoever made that post on page 4, hey man, edit it! That pic is to flippin big. Nothing personal but I can't read any of the #^&*ing posts because of your pic



The P-38, according to anything I've read, had less than desirable elevator authority. Why? Because of the flight yoke instead of a stick.

If a P-38 turned with a Zero, ever, it was at high speed, where the Zero's large control surfaces worked against it and made rolling extremely hard.

Fowler flaps...I've heard arguments for and against their effectiveness.

As far as the P-38 being a good climber, if I recall, that reputation is not for ballistic climb by any means. It is sustained shallow climb, where the P-38 may retain high speed while still in a shallow climb, this gaining separation and altitude on it's opponent.

*****************************
the soldier boy, for his soldier's pay, obeys the sergeant at arms, whatever he says ~Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now you've done it, Chuck.

1) Elevator authority:From 'P-38 Lightning,' by Jeffery Ethell, "Oberleutnant Franz Stiegler, a 28 victory ace in the BF 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one coud do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone." COL Oliver B. Taylor, CO of the 14th FG in 1944, said this about maneuverability: "Generally, we found that the 38 could out-maneuver anything else, friend or foe, between about 18,000 and 31,000 ft (5,490 and 9,450m). Below 18,000, it was sort of a toss-up, except that very near the ground we could run Jerry right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could."

Ethell's book goes on to list the Lightning's climb as better than the Mustang's and the MK IX Merlin Spitfire, by a slight margin, listing them all in the 7 minutes to 20k ft range. Bong was often quoted as saying that the 38 "climbed like a homesick angel," and it was the best climbing wartime AAF fighter. Another source cites the P-38J-25-LO as climbing to 30,000 ft (9,150m) as 12 minutes flat. That ain't hay, my friend.

As for the yoke issue, answer me this: can you pull harder with both hands on a single stick between your knees, or do you get better leverage with both hands on a yoke? Check with someone who's lifted a few weights if you're unsure.

2) Turning with the Japanese fighters: Again from Ethell's book, John Tilley, a squadron mate of McGuire's, and an ace in his own right, "remembers that Mac was notorious for going 'round and round' with Japanese fighters. McGuire told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy '38 but he did it anyway with great success, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph (145kph)."

Later, Tilley is quoted as saying "Alright, so how come I got my second kill by turning a full 360 degree circle to the left, at low speeds, and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily, I think it was because the Jap and I both believed he could outturn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and 2 of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got in a jam. And I'm sure the Jap figured the usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph,and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good ol' counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control and into a spin, as with a single engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to really hit him hard. By the time we had completed 360 degrees of this turn he was a ball of flames and my aircraft was drenched with oil from his engine. I couldn't see a thing through my windshield so I had to ask a squadronmate to lead me home. Then I had to crank down the side window and reach around to wipe a clear spot on the windshield so I could see well enough to land the aircraft."

Out of the horses' mouths, my friend.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Xiolablu3
02-05-2004, 09:14 PM
This is a daft question, you may as well have put 'which plane do u like best out of these?'

Obviously the Mossie would win, it could leave the battle or come back at will as it is the fastest, therefore the others would be fighting on the Mossies terms.

Korolov
02-05-2004, 09:56 PM
'Till someone climbs high and dives upon the Mossie.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

DONB3397
02-05-2004, 10:37 PM
If I recall, this thread started with a poll. The results so far suggest that most people here believe the P-38 was the best of the twin-engined fighters.

Probably. But there are some references here that seem unsupported to me. For example - Turn fighting. I've read endless accounts of the Bong and McGuire competition and how they loved the Lightning. Don't have the books or articles at hand, but Bong generally avoided turning fights because the a/c rolled so slowly and visibility was restricted. Japanese pilots weren't afraid of the P-38 in a turning fight, according to Horikoshi in the book, "Zero;" they were fearful of the altitude advantage it held, and firepower. It hung out high above the Zeros and Oscars and Franks, and picked its fights. In Europe, Hub Zemke (after being transferred from the 56th FG to CO of a P-38 479th FG )liked the a/c's climb and speed, but was not impressed with it's turning characteristics. He was happy when his new group transitioned to the Mustang in a few months.

McGuire, on the other hand, got away with things no one else survived. He and "Mac" McDonald were able to anticipate and turn the plane successfully in combat, even though they told their pilots never to try it. McGuire's mechanics said he literally bent the wings (wrinkling the skin) by putting it through maneuvers it wasn't designed to do. In the end, he got into a head-on-head, tight, slow turning fight with a Ki-43 near Leyte, stalled and spun in from 1,000 feet.

So the P-38 climbed "like a homesick angel," topped 400+ mph at 40,000+ feet, carried a lethal punch and had great range. Several posters have mentioned it's diving problems and the fix, and a few have talked about its slow rate of roll...and very poor visibility. It may have been a better fighter, too, in warmer climes because of terrible cockpit heating and pilot discomfort. Still, it was clearly the best of the twin-engined "fighters" listed in this poll...but IMO not close to the really first rate fighters in Europe.

Oh yes and, Horseback, that yoke/weight-lifter argument...doesn't carry much weight(sic). Two hands on the yoke or two hands on the stick don't make much difference if the control surfaces and speed are equal. Some pilots liked one, some liked the other; it was a matter of familiarity and experience, I suspect.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCdJZIABpBmmLZQo

fluke39
02-06-2004, 01:32 AM
Good point Don

as several people have now stated, i have come to the conclusion this is a thoroughly daft question - the lightning would easily win as it is the only true fighter in the group. - to completely gainsay the original "motivation" of this thread i would have to say a more appropriate question would have been, and indeed was - which would win lightning or Spitfire -(and perhaps the 109 too) as both were designed as fighters and both within a year of each other - if not in the same year.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/angels_one_five/flukelogo.jpg

SpinSpinSugar
02-06-2004, 04:17 AM
Well quite fluke39, but within approximate terms of reference in terms of ground pounding potential and air-to-air, I still believe the P38 vs... question would better be aimed at other heavy multi-role fighters, like the P47 and the Typhoon.

It certainly doesn't sit as a contempary of the other aircraft mentioned in this thread, at least not the Mosquito, and I would kinda agree with Gib that it doesn't really sit with a Spitfire either.

But then the P38 is kind of unique in any regard, it's only other peers, like the Whirly and the Hornet, were never really developed.

Of the three, I'd still be flying the Mosquito the most were it available (especially if we had glorious twin Merlin audio), and bombing the hell out of things.

Cheers, SSS

MiloMorai
02-06-2004, 06:58 AM
Why have no VVS a/c been mentioned? ie. Pe-3.

Pe-3 vs Me410 ????



Long live the Horse Clans.

DONB3397
02-06-2004, 08:26 AM
Should the Beaufighter be included in any debate about twin-engined fighter-bombers?

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCdJZIABpBmmLZQo

Aaron_GT
02-06-2004, 09:22 AM
The Beaufighter was more of a strike
aircraft (developed from the Blenheim and
Beaufort) that was pressed into service
as a nightfighter

Chuck_Older
02-06-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Whoever made that post on page 4, hey man, edit it! That pic is to flippin big. Nothing personal but I can't read any of the #^&*ing posts because of your pic



The P-38, according to anything I've read, had less than desirable elevator authority. Why? Because of the flight yoke instead of a stick.

If a P-38 turned with a Zero, ever, it was at high speed, where the Zero's large control surfaces worked against it and made rolling extremely hard.

Fowler flaps...I've heard arguments for and against their effectiveness.

As far as the P-38 being a good climber, if I recall, that reputation is not for ballistic climb by any means. It is sustained shallow climb, where the P-38 may retain high speed while still in a shallow climb, this gaining separation and altitude on it's opponent.

*****************************
the soldier boy, for his soldier's pay, obeys the sergeant at arms, whatever he says ~Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now you've done it, Chuck.

1) Elevator authority:From 'P-38 Lightning,' by Jeffery Ethell, "Oberleutnant Franz Stiegler, a 28 victory ace in the BF 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one coud do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone." COL Oliver B. Taylor, CO of the 14th FG in 1944, said this about maneuverability: "Generally, we found that the 38 could out-maneuver anything else, friend or foe, between about 18,000 and 31,000 ft (5,490 and 9,450m). Below 18,000, it was sort of a toss-up, except that very near the ground we could run Jerry right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could."

Ethell's book goes on to list the Lightning's climb as better than the Mustang's and the MK IX Merlin Spitfire, by a slight margin, listing them all in the 7 minutes to 20k ft range. Bong was often quoted as saying that the 38 "climbed like a homesick angel," and it was the best climbing wartime AAF fighter. Another source cites the P-38J-25-LO as climbing to 30,000 ft (9,150m) as 12 minutes flat. That ain't hay, my friend.

As for the yoke issue, answer me this: can you pull harder with both hands on a single stick between your knees, or do you get better leverage with both hands on a yoke? Check with someone who's lifted a few weights if you're unsure.

2) Turning with the Japanese fighters: Again from Ethell's book, John Tilley, a squadron mate of McGuire's, and an ace in his own right, "remembers that Mac was notorious for going 'round and round' with Japanese fighters. McGuire told those under his command never to turn with an enemy fighter in the heavy '38 but he did it anyway with great success, particularly at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90 mph (145kph)."

Later, Tilley is quoted as saying "Alright, so how come I got my second kill by turning a full 360 degree circle to the left, at low speeds, and on the deck with an Oscar? Primarily, I think it was because the Jap and I both believed he could outturn me. I never would have tried to stay with him if there hadn't been 12 of us and 2 of them. I figured I could always holler for help if I got in a jam. And I'm sure the Jap figured the usual tight turn was his best bet when he didn't have enough air under him for a split-S. Miracle of miracles, the big old P-38 actually turned inside the nimble little Oscar. I was on the deck, in a vertical bank, the airspeed under 90 mph,and the yoke was bucking and shuddering in my hands. That turn was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. But without torque (good ol' counter-rotating engines) I didn't worry about 'snapping' out of control and into a spin, as with a single engine aircraft, so I was able to pull enough lead for my guns to really hit him hard. By the time we had completed 360 degrees of this turn he was a ball of flames and my aircraft was drenched with oil from his engine. I couldn't see a thing through my windshield so I had to ask a squadronmate to lead me home. Then I had to crank down the side window and reach around to wipe a clear spot on the windshield so I could see well enough to land the aircraft."

Out of the horses' mouths, my friend.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey, that's what those books and those people say, I can't debate it.

Hey man, you bring a lot of things to the Il*2 FB table, and I am not goinmg to debate yopu because I can't refute those things. That's what those books say, and that's what those people said.
But you don't have to treat me like I have no idea what I'm talking about, either.
I assume you know the difference between a yoke and a flight stick. Consider the mechanics of the two and then tell me that the yoke is better for elevator control. Now, I don't remember if the P-38 had hydraulic assist in the yole on any models, but let's assume it doesn't. How in the world would the yoke give an advantage over the stick?
McGuire was not an average pilot. But given the planform of the respective a/c's wings, and the surface area of the ailerons, I really have to beleive that there is more to the story you related about McGuire than simply 'the P-38 out turned the zero at slow speed'. There is more to it, or else I'm mistook!
US military doctrine based on US flight tests of captured Zeros was - never turn with a zero under 300 mph indicated airspeed.
I never said that the P-38 couldn't climb, I just said it was more known for a shallow climb at high speed.
I don't want to be at odds with you, but you maybe could have left out the 'now you've done it' and 'my friend' bits. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I definitely feel you're looking down your nose at me and, well, I can't say I care for it, because I'm not blowing smoke out my backside. This is from what I've read from real pilot accounts from flying the P-38 as well. Maybe the accounts I'm thinking of were from guys who couldn't fly the P-38, but there you go. I can't remember who it was that I am thinking of that was flying a Zero and gave his impressions, but I know I have the Warbirds Worldwide mag around somewhere, and this guy's opinion was: don't you dare turn with me.

Again, I hope I've misunderstood you here.

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash

horseback
02-06-2004, 12:33 PM
Don-

Sorry if it sounded like an insulting tone. I said pretty much what I would have said if we were in the same room, and maybe I didn't allow for the fact that you couldn't hear my mocking inflection, or see the grin on my face.

Let me address the issues in order, starting with the yoke issue. Your original comment about the yoke referred to elevator authority, and the reason that the yoke was chosen over the stick was that the early model 38s lacked hydraulic boost for the control forces, and the yoke conferred a greater mechanical advantage for moving the control surfaces. That is the same reason that heavier bomber and transport types also featured control yokes. The P-38 had, as Steigler and Taylor noted, very good elevator response.

Instantaneous climb in combat situations conferred a profound advantage over the LW fighters used to the P-40s or even Spit Mk Vs that comprised the usual opposition.

One other advantage the yoke confers is that it usually requires both hands on it when you make sharp pulls or turns on it; the tendency is to use one hand on the stick until the force required is obviously too great. This can put the pilot behind the curve in critical situations. Similarly, in the turn or climb, two hands on a yoke give greater power and control than one on a stick (at least in my opinion). I sure wouldn't want to try turning my car with a stick.

Turning with Japanese Fighters: McGuire's style was emulated by most of the pilots in his group, and they were often successful. Col Charles MacDonald was also notorious for this style of combat in the Lightning, and he had a lot of rising suns on HIS nacelle too(that would be the 'Put-Put Maru', a favorite subject of modelers and aviation artists).

You can believe that all of them deployed those Fowler flaps to the maneauver detent as soon as they committed to a stall turn-it was, like the 'butterfly' flaps on the Oscar & Frank, what made it such a tight turner. It was also a popular choice against the Luftwaffe, where the advantage was pronounced, especially because it was so unexpected from an aircraft of that size.

The prohibition against turning with Japanese fighters was instituted early in the war for ALL types, when the IJAF and IJN had a much higher average quality pilot than in the late war, when the P-38 J and L featured boosted controls, and American pilots had a much higher level of training specifically on the Lightning. It was a good general rule, and served to keep the Allied pilots cautious about their choice of tactics.

As you know from general life experience, 'blanket' rules are usually intended to keep the inexperienced among us from exceeding their capabilities. The general rule was aimed at the second lieutenants new to the type, not the captains and majors with hundreds of hours in type. Experienced pilots would be able to discern early the quality of their opposition, and use the appropriate tactics.

As earlier noted, the P-38 demanded a longer familiarization period to master it than any other Allied fighter, and probably any Axis fighter. For this reason, many experienced pilots with a lot of time in more conventional types thought they had the measure of the Lightning, and had a poor opinion of it. One can picture an RAF Wing Commander with 10-15 kills on his logbook sniffing and commenting "Well, it hardly handles like Spit, what?" British opinion of the Thunderbolt was equally negative.

I wouldn't take Zemke's opinion of the P-38 as Gospel, because he was already looking forward to the Mustang for his new group and discounting the Lightning (Which he admits in his autobiography, if memory serves). He didn't spend a lot of time in type, and his duties as CO would have cut into his non-combat flight time.

Taylor states flatly that the Lightning could out maneauver any Allied or ETO e/a between 18,000 ft and 31,000 ft, and German sources (I left out Steinhoff's quote, because Steigler was more pointed) as well as American, confirm it. The Lightning's problems in the ETO are associated with the F/G/H models, which were quite successful in the Med and the Pacific, but are specific to high altitudes and extreme cold. They were also largely solved by early 1944 with the J model, but the reputation in the ETO was already shot, especially in 8th Fighter Command.

As for what a Japanese ace would have to say, I would agree with him. He probably shot down a few Lightnings, and he's here to tell the tale. But if I'm an experienced Lightning driver with a few scalps on my belt, I'll know pretty quickly if I can turn with my opponent or not. I won't turn with the ace, but I might wax his wingman's backside, if the opportunity presents itself.

Hopefully, this will clarify my reasoning and the spirit of my response.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Chuck_Older
02-06-2004, 06:08 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I don't know where "Don" came from, but I'm not a Coerleone, lol. But I am assuming that is in response to me, horseback.

Thank you for re-stating your post. You're right, I couldn't tell if you were typing as you would talk, or if you were telling me something else. I'm glad we can simply tell each other what we're thinking instead of just continuing to misunderstand one another.

I guess my whole idea of how the P-38 really did in turns comes from my days at school, where the idea of fowler flaps as manuevering flaps was questioned in general. Your point about the counter rotating props may be the whole essence of the flaps' efficiency- as I recall, the argument was that the fowler flaps caused so much speed loss that a tight turn would result in a spin- I can't quite recall if we brought up counter rotating props and if we did why we didn't investigate the docile stall characteristics they can confer. Long time ago.
About the yoke, I can see your point easily, but what I am getting at mostly is that the way I recall it, the P-38's yoke has a system in which the yoke does not sit between the pilot's knees, rather the column is off-set to the right, making a yoke system that to my mind would necessarily reduce elevator "oomph". I don't recall that clearly, I could be wrong about the yoke placement, because I have here a photo of the cockpit of the Northrop NM-1 Jeep that makes me think I may be confusing the yoke on the two. I can clearly picture the bow-tie shaped P-38 control grip, but not the control column. I can't seem to find the book in which I have a very good pic of a lightning cockpit. In fact, I will go look right now before I finish this post.

OK http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Can't find the pic I want. BUT I did start reading in a book, "Little Friends" about the P-38 and manuevering. By chance, it concerns a Spitfire, too. Here is what a man named Royal Frey (odd name) says. He was former curator of the USAAF museum, as well as a P-38 pilot in the 20th FG, flying from Kings Cliffe:

"With it's inherent stability the P-38 was easy to fly...If you put it into an unusual attitude (within reasonable limits) ["once trimmed for straight and level flight"] it would waddle and oscillate around...and return to straight and level flight. This was because it's center of lift was above it's center of gravity, ie., most of the mass of the airplane was slung below a wiing having a large amount of dihedral. Other fighters of the era tended to drop off on one wing or other. [my italics of course] The P-38 had the famous Fowler flap, which, at half-extended position, greatly decreased turn radius at altitude, with very little additional drag. Incorporated into the P-38 for combat, this feature was given the name 'manuever flaps', and with it I actually turned with late-model Spitfires during 'rat races' [a practice in which, if I am right, friendly fighter pilots would bounce other friendly fighter pilots in mock attack passes] over England, and turned inside FW190s in action over Europe. Although the Lightning could turn very tightly once it got into a bank, getting it into the bank was another matter. Late K and L series Lightnings had aileron boost [I am assuming hydraulic here] but this feature came too late for those of us who took on the Luftwaffe deep inside Germany in late 1943 and early 1944. Because of the weight of the plane and the poor leverage of a control wheel compared to that of a control stick, the Lightning's roll rate approximated that of a pregnant whale. If we ever got behind a single engine fighter in a tight turn, all the other pilot had to do was flip into an opposite turn and dive, by the time we had banked and turned after him, he was practically out of sight."

!
I stand corrected on a number of points

*****************************
the sergeant will for, his sergeant's pay, obey the captain 'till his dying day~ Clash

horseback
02-06-2004, 08:16 PM
Chuck

First, let me apologize for the name confusion-I was posting (furtively) from work during a break from a remarkably tedious report, and had just finished talking with a co-worker named-oddly enough-Don.

The ability of the P-38 to turn tightly at remarkably low speeds without stalling and spinning out was at the heart of the disagreement. The key to this ability was the use of the Fowler flaps, set to the 8 degree 'combat maneauver' position, which greatly increased lift with minimal drag penalty. Stalling the P-38 resulted in a kinder & gentler (and controllable)stall than in a single engined plane, because with the counter-rotating props, the stall started at the center of the wings and worked its way outward, and since there was no torque, the aircraft didn't 'snap' into a roll and spin out.

About the yoke: The yoke column was offset, that is, it was in the shape of an inverted 'L', with the column set in the floor outside the pilot's right leg, and the steering wheel (which is what it looks like on the early models) centered above the pilot's lap. Looking at the photographs in the Detail & Scale Vol. 58, it's a very solid looking piece of metal, with what looks like a square cross section of about 2 or 3 inches on each side. I can't see it through the canvas boot, but I suspect a big honkin' hinge connecting it to the floor. I don't know for sure what Lockheed used, but I would have used steel at least 3/16th" thick in a square - tube(is there a better term for a hollow square dealie)?

Properly balanced and lubricated, there would be no twisting of the column or uneven pull exerted on either the pilots' back or the elevators. The aileron control was most likely an internal chain and gear setup similar in concept to the spade type grip used on British Hurricanes and Spitfires, that is, as the pilot exerted sideways force on the stick, the upper half of the 'stick' rotated a gear like a bicycle's sprocket, pulling the chain up on one side and eventually pulling the appropriate aileron controls to go up and down.

Properly geared, the result would be no slower than a stick, and with the yoke/wheel, was probably easier on the pilot, given the size of the plane and the speeds it was operating at. I acknowleged that the P-38F/G/H was sluggish in the roll, but the J/L models were given hydraulic boosting of the controls, and those models could roll with any of their American contemporaries. I think Frey was not taking into account the size and inertia to be overcome rolling a P-38, compared to that of the average single engine fighter half its size, and apparently, he didn't get an opportunity to take the J or L into combat (have you read "An Escort of P-38s?").

In fact, an immediate post war eval of the 190 D stated that its roll compared favorably with most American types, and was almost as good as the P-38J and P-80's rolls(not the P-47's!).

In late 1942 and 1943, the LW, as my quote of Steigler indicated, found that the roll-left-roll-right and dive move was the best way to escape a P-38, if he hadn't already nailed you. The P-38 groups in the Med operated pretty much alone at higher altitudes, because they were the only Allied fighter with the desired range and altitude performance, and rarely had the numbers normally associated with normal operations for groups or squadron strength because of the lack of spares and attrition, and yet they consistantly gave at least as good as they got, against some very experienced, more numerous (at those distances and heights) and technologically comparable opposition.

These were the P-38s the Germans got the bulk of their experience against, until the 20th and 55th FGs arrived in England just ahead of the first Merlin Mustangs in the late fall of 1943. These groups were issued their first J models around April '44, and from that point, I suspect the roll-left-roll-right and dive tactic was suddenly a bit harder to accomplish.

Now, about those rat races, older residents of Phoenix and other cities near the fighter training fields of the AAF will tell you that the rat races were not confined to England. It was a practice given unofficial encouragement as a means of polishing pilot skills through competition, although getting caught was frowned upon.

Bong first caught Gen Kenney's eye just before the war when his rat racing blew a San Francisco Bay area housewife's laundry off her backyard clothesline. He ended up assigned to the good woman's beck and call for a few days, helping with laundry and doing chores for her.

Now, of course, at least in the lower 48, the practice is limited to certain isolated areas. A good place to see them might be on the Arizona state highway that connects I10 and I-8 near Yuma. Very little laundry gets blown off lines these days, though.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

D-XXI
02-06-2004, 08:49 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
I would say these aircraft are apples and oranges too, to be honest. The P38 is pretty unique in WWII in being designed from the outset as a twin fighter. The only other one I can think of off prior to about 1944 (off the top o'me head) is the Westland Whirlwind.

Don't forget the Fokker G-Ia which was designed in 1935 and had also the twin boom configuration. It is said that de P-38 was inspired by the Fokker design. The Fokker did very well against the Bf-109 in the spare airbattles above Holland in may 1940.