phred's comment

RE: phred’s comment

The RAF rx 4 P-38. The First Three as you stated were Model 322, being AF106, AF108 and AF105. The RAF also Rx A P-38J in 1944 (I Believe) aircraft was 44-23517 and was transfered in Theatre

Buz

RE: phred’s comment

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-01-02 AT 11:11 AM (GMT)]Hi Phred,
No, I don’t take offence easily (Being a truck driver I’m naturally thick skinned!!). People who have a go at the Mosquito don’t usually have any idea about what it got up to, in the war. The thinking is: made of wood, 2 merlin engines, unarmed bomber & maybe they saw 633 Squadron at the movies or on TV! So I always make allowances, unless I feel in a particulaly wind up sort of mood!
I think the best comparison of the Mosquito FB would be to liken it’s role to that of the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, it would go after the heavies, but could cope well with the fighters that got through the Spitfire cover (I’m sure I’ll probably get shot down for that last statement!).
The Mosquito intruders would go after anything that moved, when over enemy territory, whether it be boats, trains, planes etc. However, they did give fighters, like the FW 190 a wide berth, unless they had a distinct advantage. Some of the operations that this aeroplane carried out were spectacular, to say the least. Amiens Prison raid, attacking the Shelhaus in Copenhagen are just 2 specialist raids carried out by Mosquito FB VI’s.
I also look at what the enemy (& your allies) think of a particular aircraft as to how good it was,for example, if a German pilot managed to shoot a Mosquito down, he was credited with a double victory ie 2 kills! That in itself shows just how seriously the German Authorites, viewed the Mosquito menace. There were also special squadrons set up to deal just with the Mosquito, using Me 262’s. So it shows, I think, how good this little aeroplane was, & the extremes the enemy were prepared to go to, to try & stop the Mosquito.
Good & fairly cheap books on the Mosquito – Osprey Combat Aircraft Series; No4 & No9 both on the Mosquito.
Mosquito interesting fact: 1st twin engined aircraft to land & take off from an aircraft carrier (also fully loaded with war stores on board!).

All the best,
Neilly

RE: phred’s comment

Neilly, I had time for some reading, and I found that in the Pacific the P-38 carried quite often and quite unofficially bombloads of 5200 pounds. Range still over 470 miles. And yes, the K-series had improved/strengtened wings.
I hope I have never insulted you or your beloved Mossie! Since I have no books about that interesting (that’s as far as I go….) airplane, I wonder if it performed the dual role of fighter bomber in the same action. Did it actually do so? Or was it or/or?
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

Thanks for the interesting way to tackle my ideas.
I think, speaking as a man who had the opportunity to travel much, that wherever you go, beauty is everywhere. Wether it is an attractive woman or an airplane with tantalizing lines. More beauty is found in the mind of kind women; the history and behaviour of some airplanes attract more interest than others.
My “lady Lightning” did well and had a very interesting history.
Like the P-39 and -40, when reading the development of them, understanding them, and their performance in several area’s was outstanding. They were not the best or the most versatile. There simply was nothing else to do the job they did. I love these three!
Hoping you all Forum-ers have a splendid time with the loves of your lives!

Fred

RE: phred’s comment

In a way I agree with you, Ant. However, it’s good to discuss different aircraft types, the pros & cons of how good certain aeroplanes are or were. The problem, & I’ve said this before, is getting people to say why they think one particular aircraft is better than others. The usual- it climes well! it dives better!! it turns better than!!! etc. with no technical data or evidense doesn’t cut much ice! I’ve tried acting as devil’s advocate to try & get sensible discussions going, but other forum users seem reluctant to do much research on their favourite aircraft etc. & argue their case.
As I know you usually do some research (well I assume so, from many of your answers), then I think you may understand what I mean. Apologies if this sounds a little presumpious, it’s not meant to be.

I hope everyone on this forum has a great Christmas & New Year.

Neilly

RE: phred’s comment

I think it’s about time we knocked these ‘best aeroplane’ discussions firmly on the head.As Chuck Yeager would say “It’s the man (person), Not the machine”.It really doesn’t matter how good a design is if the person flying it is no good,or the tactics are poor,etc.
As an example,what about the PZL P.11?This rather antiquated machine was the only frontline fighter available in numbers to the Polish air forces.Despite the apparent obsolescance of the design,the Poles still achieved a better than 1 for 1 kill ratio.Pretty impressive for aeroplanes that were outnumbered,outgunned and outclassed.
You can always argue that they might have done better with better aeroplanes like Hurricanes,but the fact is that they didn’t have them,so any other theories are pure speculation.
I think we ought to think more about the people flying the machines than purely the machines themselves.

RE: phred’s comment

Sorry to disagree, the most versatile aircraft of WW2 was the Mosquito, without a shadow of a doubt! I am very biased towards this aeroplane, but you only have to look at it’s list of achievements, it was a superb multi-role aircraft. I have had this arguement before so I’ll draw a line here, unless you wish to take the discussion further (then you can take the blame for me boring the others about the Mosquito!).

Merry Christmas to ALL
Neilly

RE: phred’s comment

Well, as I have not yet found reliable action reports, I better not claim or disclaim. Also, as an avid reader, I must remind you, that depending of the nationality of the author, well, you get my meaning!
This all started with my remark, that the P-38 was undervalued in the mag, and barroom tales go a long way.
The P-38 was most certainly the most versatile aircraft of WWII. In whichever role it operated, it did very well. Remember that it was originally designed as a pursuit plane: to kill bombers.
As in other parts of the forum the question is asked which aircraft was the best fighter-bomber, the answer can only be: the P-38.
I have been an aircraft engineer most of my working life, and I think I understand some of the workings of engineering and national pride. British made airplanes were often very original and futuristic. When it comes to build a profitable fleet, better shop somewhere else. No insult meant of course! It is one of the facts of life.
Think of the myth that the Spit won the Battle of Britain. It did not: it was the Hurricane. No problem, have it your way.
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

Nope!
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

Yes, I most certainly am! Are you from the US?

Neilly

RE: phred’s comment

Hi!
I searched that Mustang site, rather impatiently I admit, but did not find the comparing with the Lightning. Click where and then where?
Thanks!
Fred:*

RE: phred’s comment

Are you british?
🙂
I was just giving an example…..
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

From what I’ve raed about the Bulge it was Typhoons that save the day! As they did on many occasions, usually because they were within a few miles of the Front. Having read several reports on these actions, the US infantry could not speak highly enough of the RAF Typhoons coming to the rescue, when they were facing German Panzers, coming towards them. Nothing more demoralising for the German force- Typhoons coming out of the sky, firing rockets at them!
As for other aircraft action around D-Day, the Mosquito was probably one most active aircraft types, more so than the Lightening!
Neilly

RE: phred’s comment

O well, take a map. See what the range of nearly 900 kilometers covers. Once in France, I guess it was like delivering pizza’s to a starving crowd. I did not read up on all the actions, but when the fog cleared in the Bulge, a lot of the good work was in easy reach. With a bombload almost as big as the early B17. Like the man said…….
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

A case of compromise on the fuel load to gain extra bomb load. Any aircraft in this sort of catagory could claim the same extra bomb load if there wasn’t so much go-go juice in the fuel tanks! 450 miles ain’t much of a range, the tanks would be almost empty. No room for error!
Neilly

RE: phred’s comment

To complete the picture: Depending on the type more weight was carried.
The -L series would carry 3200 pounds, but on a shorter range: 450 miles, 290 kts at 10.000ft.
Long range cruising at 200 kts at 10.000 ft, its range would be 2600 miles!
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

>Shame, because it frightened the **** out of the Luftwaffe
>!!
As I mentioned in an other reply: The Forktailed Devil (translation of the german nickname) is also the title of a pocketbook I bought some 30-odd years ago. (US$ 1.95 !!!) was I thought out of print. Surprise: Amazon has it in the holiday sales ($11.95) Author= Martin Caidin.
I love it, because it describes the design and development problems in a very readable way. (no, this is not a paid for commercial)
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

Christer,
Good show! Sorry, I did not even know about “your” plane.
I came to like the reassuring sound of allied planes during wwII. I was of course most impressed with the shape of the -38, a rare bird. Living near Schiphol, Amsterdam Airport in those days I had a good view on what happened in the air. I was lucky to serve in an army unit with some good old stuff (AAA) like Willey’s jeeps etc and the old guns with extra’s. Liking planes (I even had an uncle who was a test pilot for the Fokker aircraft factory) I collected books and magazines. And as soon as I was able to understand some english, I attacked the extensive bookmarket. One of the first books was “The Forktailed Devil”, now out of print. I am employed by the national carrier as a manager nowadays, after some 20-odd years as an engineer. To work on piston engines is not my first love, give me a “clean” jet any time. To see, and to know about P38, P39 and P40 is something I hope to find more time for after retirement. Why those three? They did well against strong opponents. The 38 was the most advanced fighter of it’s day. The Mustang appeared only in 44, the Jug by the end of 44. So, I think I have every reason to admire this trio.
Fred

RE: phred’s comment

Fred,
everyone is entitled to his or her opinion of which is their favourite.
My favourite fighter of WWII isn´t even a fighter, it´s a photo recce, the Spit nineteen, and it should be adorned with the swedish crown markings. (Hey, don´t even start, I know it´s not american 🙂 )
My opinion is not based on performance only but, since I personally think it´s the best looking of them all, it´s my choise.

Happy holidays to You too!

Christer

RE: phred’s comment

A sobering thought for a Lightning buff who might stand corrected now. More or less overwhelmed by all your reactions, I try to reread my whole library in order to defend myself (and the P-38) in a day.
What I should have written, is that the Lightning in its tactical role, “ruled supreme”. A remark from Karl Kopp in “Der gabelschwanz Teufel” (= the forktailed devil) See Karlo.Kopp@aus.net
A nice story to finish for today:
I was having an enormous steak in a Miami restaurant. The couple at the next table were very friendly and we had coffee etc together afterwards. He served in the Aleutians as a P51 pilot. I read up a bit on that and I know he did not make up fancy stories. What impressed me though, was when he showed the difference in size of his legs. One was about 10 cm (4″) thicker than the other. ( no, he did not drop his pants; his wife had meassured it once and gave the figure) From pushing the rudder against the tremendous torque of that bloody machine….. That was 30 years after! Still trying to find a 38-jocky to show his legs.
Happy holidays!
Fred