Author Topic: Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data  (Read 1409 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« on: March 10, 2004, 01:40:13 AM »
All data from:

Mosquito

C. Martin Sharp & Michael J. F. Bowyer
ISBN 0 947554 41 6

The book is British and originally printed in 1967.  This edition was printed in 1995.  

Martin Sharp was the de Havilland executive responsible for liaison with the overseas factories, working throughtout with the designers, production engineers and pilots and was entrusted by the company to tell the story.



The greater bulk of wood, for a given strength, had advantages.  A stressed skin was thick, and therefore stiff without the need for much internal reinforcement, leaving clear spaces for the tanks, bombs, guns and equipment.  For lightness the wing was made of one piece from tip to tip, stressed to carry 82 tons.  It accommodated 10 tanks, 539 gallons, close to the center of gravity, their weight spread economically along the span.
Shell holes and bullet holes would represent a smaller percentage of the mass of a bulky wooden member; a shell fragment that might sever a strong metal member would scarcely weaken a thick, continuous wood shell or stout wood spar.  Active service soon verified this.  Buoyancy of wood was an advantage.  No higher fire risk was expected.

-page 35



More important was the Initial Handling Report 767 dated 3 March, of Boscombe Down pilots. 'The aeroplane is pleasant to fly', it read, 'Aileron control light and effective. Take-offs and landings are straightforward.  The aircraft stalls at 105 m.p.h. I.A.S. with flaps up, 90 with flaps down, and was flown at up to 320 I.A.S.' The best rate of climb in M.S. blower was 2,880 f.p.m. at 11,400 ft., and 2,240 f.p.m. in F.S. gear at 18,100 ft.
Top seed in F.S. gear was 388 m.p.h. at 22,000 ft. Estimated service ceiling was 33,900 ft. the greatest height reached being 29,700 ft. Tests were conducted at 16,767 lb.

-page 45



The mid-1942 plan envisaged the following useful range of variants at this stage of development, based on Merlin XXI 2 X 1,300 b.h.p. for take-off, plus 12 lb., 3,000 r.p.m. and 2 x 870 b.h.p. at 19,000 feet F.S. gear, plus 4 lb., 2,650 r.p.m., at the tankages shown:-

To increase fighter range two tanks, fitted behind the cannon in W4096 gave 151 gallons, a smaller 50-gallon tank being possible, with 2 X 250 lb. bombs, in the intruder.
At this stage a 'basic wing' was evolved, strengthened for heavier loads that were being visualized, and applicable with simple adaptation to all kinds of Mosquitoes.

-pages 58-59



APPENDIX 5
Mosquito Operational Performance and Loads

Versions fitted with Merlin 21, 22, 23, 31

CLIMB: Reccommended climb 2,650 R.P.M. +4 lb boost at 170 I.A.S.
Bombers reached 20,000 in about 22 minutes over 75 miles on 40 gallons of fuel.
Maximum rate of climb on 2,850 revs. +9 lb. boost had no effect on range but put strain on the engines.
CEILING: Operational ceiling of the fully loaded bomber was about 27,000 feet, homeward journey about 30,000.
CRUISE: Reccommended cruise speed was 220 I.A.S. to about 25,000 feet outward and 210 I.A.S. at 30,000 homeward. Air miles per gallon were about 3.1 outwards and 3.4 homewards. A.M.P.G. at 5,000 feet: 2.8, at 10,000 2.9, at 15,000 3.1.

RANGE: At economical cruising:

At high speed cruise:

These figures take into account using 20 gallons fuel for warm-up and taxiing, M gallons for climb to 5,000ft over 12 miles or 40 gallons to 20,000 feet over 75 miles or 52 gallons for climb to 25,000 feet over 100 miles.


Maximum level speed: Accurate top speed tests showed a variance of about 8 m.p.h.

Multiple ejector exhausts increased maximum level speed by about 12 m.p.h. T.A.S. Under-wing bomb reduced speed by about 15 m.p.h. T.A.S. 19,000 lb. weight, Merlin 25s, multiple exhausts gave the TR. Mk. 33 a top speed of 389 T.A.S. at 14,500 feet.
19,000 lb. weight, Merlin 25s, manifold exhausts gave the FB. Mk. VI a top speed of 378 T.A.S. at 13,000 feet.

-pages 437-438



I'll try to add more later, or answer questions if I can.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2004, 04:35:01 AM »
what does "useful" range means?
the total "there and back" distance or the range to the target, assuming you can return to your base of origin? (i guess the later but i'm not sure)

Bozon
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2004, 10:13:22 AM »
bozon,

I think that they are saying a "useful range" as in a useful variety.  They have a planned bomber, planned photo reconnaissance, planned fighter, planned fighter-bomber and planned long range fighter.  All useful to have.

Keep in mind though that most of those in the first table never made it in to actuality.  There is no Mosquito B.Mk V, PR.Mk V, F.Mk VI or LRF.Mk VI.  Only the FB.Mk VI made it to production and that mainly used Merlin 25s, not Merlin XXIs.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2004, 01:10:48 PM »
Mossie still catch on fire like it was flying around with a coating of lighter fluid under the paint?  

Haven't seen one in ages, but I haven't been playing much lately either.

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2004, 01:49:32 PM »
Yes unfortunatly...

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2004, 04:07:33 AM »
Here is one of the charts from the above book:


There are several things about this chart that I can't answer.  For one, what engines did HJ679 and HX802 have?  Mosquito Mk VI's were mostly powered by 1,625hp Merlin 25s, but there were a number that were powered by 1,230hp Merlin 21s or Merlin 23s.  This chart gives it a climb rate of 1,900ft per minute which is far, far lower than the Mosquito Mk VI in AH.  However I cannot see how an aircraft would lose 1,000fpm off of its climb rate while gaining 790hp, 3,233lbs, more streamlined cowlings and paddle bladed props.  Granted it seems to indicate that droptanks were carried for this test, but that climb rate still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The speeds are also quite different than the AH Mosquito.  In M.S. gear the Mosquito tested here is markedly faster at low altitude than is the Mosquito in AH.  However at higher altitude, when F.S. gear is used it is slower and seems to peak at 8,000ft instead of 13,000ft.

In this chart however it peaks at 13,000ft, just as the AH Mosquito Mk VI does:

And for comparison, the AH charts:


The text of the book also states that the Mosquito Mk VI topped out at 378mph at 13,200ft.

Thoughts?
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2004, 06:44:43 AM »
420mph+ at over 30.000ft is WICKED :-D

Has it ever been attempted to wring out the most out of a fighter Mosquito, optimized for low to medium altitudes? Any tests or figures on that?

I also would like to know if comparson trials exist and what FB pilots where supposed to do when bounced by Fw-190's and Bf-109's.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2004, 02:48:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hogenbor
also would like to know if comparson trials exist and what FB pilots where supposed to do when bounced by Fw-190's and Bf-109's.

Out run them if bounced.  If bounced without the room to run, try to manuever to survive any way possible I guess.

Remember, many FB.Mk VIs did not have the exhaust flame dampers like ours does and could outrun most German fighters.  Bf109G-10s, Bf109K-4s and Fw190D-9s were rare on the scale of things.  Their population and usage in sims distorts our perceptions of how it was quite a bit.

With 354mph on the deck a Mosquito FB.Mk VI will outrun any Fw190A and the Bf109G-6 while giving a Bf109G-6/AS of Bf109G-14 a very good run for it.

The prevalence of ultra fast aircraft in sims (as well as the damned useless exhaust flame dampers that our Mosquito has) make it a much less survivable aircraft than it was.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2004, 03:27:41 PM »
Hi Karnak,

>Mosquito

We've got some good Mosquito threads in the archive, too:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80665

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2004, 03:27:47 PM »
Hi Karnak,

>Mosquito

We've got some good Mosquito thread in the archive, too:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80665

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

« Last Edit: March 14, 2004, 06:48:26 PM by HoHun »

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2004, 03:41:05 AM »
Oooh, the thought of a mid war CT set-up with the Mossie without the flame dampers sounds appealing.

Not that I ever fly there with about 1 to 2 people on during my normal 'playing hours' but still...

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2004, 05:45:49 PM »
HoHun,

Can you explain the how M.S. gear and F.S. gear worked on HX802 in the above chart?  Is M.S. gear something that the Merlin 25 normally lacked?  How would that appy to a Mosquito powered by Merlin 25s with manifold exhausts?

Quote
Originally posted by hogenbor
Oooh, the thought of a mid war CT set-up with the Mossie without the flame dampers sounds appealing.

Not that I ever fly there with about 1 to 2 people on during my normal 'playing hours' but still...

Well, I fly the Mossie in the MA and another 10-15mph would be tremendously helpful there.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2004, 02:23:33 AM »
Quote
The prevalence of ultra fast aircraft in sims (as well as the damned useless exhaust flame dampers that our Mosquito has) make it a much less survivable aircraft than it was.


 Not if my NPA ever sees daylight.

 The Mossie, is in my NPA, among the top 10 fastest non-perked planes at deck.  

 ;)

 One can only dream, though..

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2004, 03:47:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak

 
Well, I fly the Mossie in the MA and another 10-15mph would be tremendously helpful there.


I fly it sometimes for fun but it feels... sluggish. Of course it is big and twin engined but it bleeds E like a stuck pig. Never understood that in a releatively heavy aircraft with such a power to weight ratio.

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
Some Mosquito durability, fuel burn and misc data
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2004, 08:28:39 AM »
Maybe the moss is completly porked in dm & fm?

Given that our moss is labeled as a Fighter Bomber (like the p38) would give me the impression that an empty moss would be able to hold its own against most fighters.

Has anyone got any pilot notes that state what OUR moss was like to fight in?