Author Topic: Bf110G-2 vs. Mosquito FB.Mk VI (Read 2195 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #60 on:** July 24, 2004, 02:27:36 AM »

AH has a Mk.VI and your chart shows the Mk.VI speed is very similar if not identical to AH's.

Karnak · « **Reply #61 on:** July 24, 2004, 01:27:41 PM »

The different exhaust stack is the difference between flame dampers and no flame dampers. Some Mk VIs had each kind.

The Merlin 25 was rated for +18lbs boost. There is no difference for 1943 or 1947. They are both powered by Merlin 25s.

The first TR.33s were converted Mk VIs. The one tested is, IIRC, one of those converted Mk VIs.

As to the prop, the main effect that had, IIRC, was low speed acceration. De Haviland didn't go with four bladed props on the Mossie after testing them in 1942 as the effect was not significant.

The navalized equpment would only add weight and make the TR.33 slower.

Yes, that is a FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s and flame dampers, just as in AH.

An example of a different aircraft is the A6M3 and A6M5. Same exact engine, but the A6M5 had ejector stacks and the A6M3 did not. The A6M5 did 353mph, the A6M3 did 332mph. Now, the A6M was a light aircraft so it will have more effect, but to claim there is no effect when there are many documents saying otherwise is silly. De Haviland claimed the flame dampers reduced the top speed of the Mossie by 10mph or so.

SELECTOR · « **Reply #62 on:** July 24, 2004, 01:43:55 PM »

you got to remember that in AH the planes are nothing like the real things.. the mossy was a fatastic plane loved by its aircrew who have written articals about it, that I have loved to read over the years... the 110 on the other hand was like a posting to the eastern front for its crews, who have gone into great detail why they hated the aircraft for anything other than night fighter..

i think a lot of people look at things through rose tinted glasses, but if you read some of the testimonials that both aircraft have you will come some ways to understanding what it must have been like to go into battle in a plane you had confidence in, or not..

as for what karnak is doing in trying to get some stats on the aircraft, i thank you for the trouble you are taking..

Widewing · « **Reply #63 on:** July 24, 2004, 03:43:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

MANDOBLE,

The Bf110G-2 is not the best jabo aircraft. When all things ar considered, the P-38L is superior. It does a bit less damage, but gets there faster and is far, far more survivable than the Bf110G-2. The Bf110G-2 is only the best if it has complete air superiority to work in and that is rare.

Well, the P-38 is very good (2,000 lbs bombs, ten rockets), as is the F4U-1D (2,000 lbs bombs, 8 rockets). But, the King of Jabos is the P-47D-40 at 2,500 lbs bombs and 10 rockets with a whopping 3,400 rounds of .50 cal ammo. Add to that far better outward vision. As to defending itself, when light, the P-47D-40 is remarkably agile, with a terrific rate of climb. It's good enough to threaten anything it meets Co-alt, and downright lethal with some E in the bank.

My regards,

Widewing

GScholz · « **Reply #64 on:** July 24, 2004, 08:58:18 PM »

Karnak, if you can find a speed/climb chart of a Mk.VI with the multiple ejector exhaust and some reference to that it was common on the Mk.IV I think Pyro would be more inclined to remodel it. A navalized version with different props and other equipment won't do it I think.

Edit: However, I'm more inclined to leave the Mk.IV as it is/was, and ask for a new model of a later Mossie with better performance. It would probably have to be a bomber though, since I can't find any later FB mark except the Costal Command XVIII with the 57mm cannon. most likely it was the high-blown bomber and recon marks that were the most successful in evading the LW since they were considerably faster than the FB.

Karnak · « **Reply #65 on:** July 24, 2004, 11:46:33 PM »

GScholz,

The different version of the FB.VI using the Merlin 25 aren't a matter of later or earlier. They both entered service in 1943. The FB.Mk XVIII that you mentioned was a regunned, uparmored FB.Mk VI using Merlin 25s with ejector stacks and those entered service in 1943 as well.

Oh, how I have tried to find a chart of the FB.Mk VI with the ejector stacks. All I have been able to come up with is what I have posted and some remarks from de Haviland about the odd one out not doing 370mph at SL as some pilots claimed, but that those claims were based on a known issue with some airspeed indicators.

I'll keep looking.

You are correct that the B.Mk XVI and PR.Mk XVI were the hardest to intercept due to their speed and the fact that they were usually at 25,000+ft. NF.Mk 30s weren't very easy to get either.

HoHun · « **Reply #66 on:** July 25, 2004, 06:51:45 AM »

Hi Karnak,

>Oh, how I have tried to find a chart of the FB.Mk VI with the ejector stacks.

I'd say the Mk 33 data probably can be applied to the FB 6, too.

Everything else identical, it would indicate that each Merlin 25 gained about 400 N thrust at maximum power, which seems quite plausible for that engine type.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

straffo · « **Reply #67 on:** July 25, 2004, 07:21:58 AM »

henning is that you I've seen flying yesterday ?