Why does the Mossie bleed so mauch energy in manuvers?

[Karnak]

I'm curious why the Mossie, an aircraft renown for being aerodynamically clean, bleeds energy like a stuck pig as so as it begins to manuver?

This is an aircraft that was going to have an airbrake to assist it in slowing down to attack because it decelerated so slowly.

(Incidentially, the airbrake was omitted because they found that lowering the landing gear had the same effect.  In AH doing so will damage the gear and leave you all draggy.)

[AcId]

and why does it yaw on take-off.....thought it had counter rotating props like the p-38.....I could be wrong, I am quite often. lol

[SELECTOR]

mossy did yaw on take off..

[Karnak]

Originally posted by AcId
and why does it yaw on take-off.....thought it had counter rotating props like the p-38.....I could be wrong, I am quite often. lol

Of the wartime Mosquitos, only the B.Mk XVI and PR.Mk XVI had counter rotating props, so far as I know.

I know for a fact that no wartime fighter Mosquito had counter rotating props and neither did the B.Mk IV, PR.Mk IV and B.Mk IX.

[Tilt]

Funny.........always thought that the Mossie gear was prone to damage if lowered ar speed.......... infact I thought it had quite a low gear down speed.

Got some reading to do..........

[AcId]

Thanks fellas, serves me right for 'thinking' lol

[Ecke-109-]

Isnt it the same with the 190A5?
As soon as you think:' Now i will move the stick', all the e is gone.
Ok, sorry i am highjacking...but this was my first thought.

Ecke

[MOSQ]

Karnak,
Our Mossie compresses at around 450. Doesn't that seem low? In all the reading I've done on the Mossie I don't recall any pilots complaining about early compression.
Do you have any info on when a real Mossie compressed?

And  a big thumbs up to HTC for fixing the range on the Mossie!

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Ecke-109-
Isnt it the same with the 190A5?
As soon as you think:' Now i will move the stick', all the e is gone.
Ok, sorry i am highjacking...but this was my first thought.

Ecke

A5, Depends on how hard you pull on the stick.
On the upside. It gets E back almost as fast as it looses it

[Karnak]

MOSQ,

I've never noticed a compression issue.  The problem I've had with speed is control surfaces being ripped off.

I have had it well past 500mph and managed to manuver without ripping the control surfaces off by being very gentle.  I didn't notice any compression.

I've thought that the control surface behavior was odd as no other aircraft in AH does it, but I've never commented on it as I have absolutely no data on that.


Keep in mind that in general in AH we all exceed the limits listed in the Pilot's Handbooks for these various aircraft.  But also keep in mind that those were not the absolute limits of the airframes, but rather the kind of limits used in peacetime to reduced accidents and reduce airframe wear.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Tilt
Got some reading to do..........

Tilt,  
Fidd has a real nice Video Tape on the Mossie.   He showed it to me.   It certainly showed the mossie to be very fine aircraft.  I dont remember if it had anything on the gear,  but it worth the watch if your visiting.

[Grimm]

If the Mossie was modeled as I believe it should.   It would be the UberPlane of the MA.  

Its an awsome machine.

[Karnak]

Tilt,

Page 56-57, Mosquito, C. Martin Sharp & Michael J. F. Bowyer:
The first turret fighter W4053 was flown out of Salisbury Hall field on Sunday, 14 September, and shed part of it's turret on the way to Hatfield.  George Gibbons flew the second, W4073, out of the same field 5 December, with a mock-up turret.  But soon this was removed and faired over at Boscombe Down.  The turret tests were over.  Having dual control W4073 was taken to 157 Squadron, Castle Camps, by Wg. Cdr. Slade on 17 January, 1942, to become a trainer.  The turret fighter was out, primarily because there could be no doubt of the effectiveness of fixed guns-given deceleration.
The first hopes for deceleration, when coming up behind an enemy aircraft, were pinning to the Youngman frill brake.  This had been tried on Spitfires.  It encircled the rear fuselage like a cake frill and was operated by a bellows and venturi.  Between 1 January and 1 August, 1942, the brake was tried in many forms, without gaps, with gaps, with chords of 10, 13 and 16 inches, but compared to lowering the undercarriage (despite door problems at high speed) it was not a worthwhile complication.

Page 20, De Haviland Mosquito, Martin W. Bowman, italics mine:
(Below)Below is a photo of a Mosquito with a Youngman frill with gaps.The first version of the segmented Youngman frill airbrake as fitted to W4052, the fighter prototype, when the aircraft was at Salisbury Hall.  The 'frill' could be could be opened by a bellows and venturi arrangement to provide rapid decleration during interceptions and was tested in a number of different forms between January-August 1942 but the idea was shelved when it was found that lowering the undercarriage in flight had the same effect.

Regarding the door problem.  Early Mosquitos had an issue where the undercarriage doors would be pulled partially open when the aircraft was at high speed.  This was solved, IIRC, in the second quarter of 1943.  This may be the door issue mentioned in the first quote.

[Ecliptik]

If the Mossie was modeled as I believe it should. It would be the UberPlane of the MA.

Without counter-rotating props, it'll never take the twin engine crown away from the 38.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Ecliptik
Without counter-rotating props, it'll never take the twin engine crown away from the 38.

I don't think that the Mossie would ever be the pure fighter of the P-38L (though the Mk.30 would give it a hard run), the earlier P-38s might not come out as favorable.

There is a reason the USAAF wanted Mossies (and PR Mossie F-8 to replaced the P-38 based F-5)