More 109 goodness

[Nashwan]

According to the A&AEE tests, the FB VI with Merlin 25 did 353 mph at sea level at 25 lbs boost, but that's with external tanks and ducted exhausts fitted.

The report notes that tests on other Mossies showed ducted exhausts reduced speed by 13 - 15 mph at 9 lbs boost.

The report notes speed is increased by 22 mph due to the use of 100/150 fuel.

I've also got a snippet of RAF figures for the NF XIX (Merlin 25s) that gives the speed at 2,000 ft as 377 mph without N2O injection, 394 mph with N2O.

[Angus]

How nice.
From Barbi:
"For people like Karnak, Angus or Squire, the Spitfire was just flawless, perfecto, best in everything. They`ll never change their mind."

Well Karnak pretty much sums this out, i.e. I pretty much agree with his listing.
That does not however put the 109 as the angel for the Problems are pretty much similar.
Such as....
Poor rollrate in the same period.
Insufficient firepower...in the same period even.
Even more sandwichboxed cockpit.
Even worse view to the rear.
Short endurance
Narrow landing gear.
Hight torque, - from 109D onwards (hehe, you want that quote, still have to translate it, - 109  taxiin and takeoff)

Anyway, on to Karnak.
Anything I red about the Mossies goes into the direction of the Mossie usually being able to outrun anything with a propeller.
My thought goes to the engines. There was a special emhasis on keeping the Mossie very fast, and those engines wore out quite quickly. (gradual power drops?) That was also a problem in the LW. So, maybe the Mossies in front line service were just a wee more fit in the muscle.
Makes me wonder, - if they had been contra-rot, how much faster would they have been?

[Karnak]

Angus,

We're dragging this far off topic, but the Mosquito B.Mk XVI had contrarotaing props like the P-38 and topped out at 416mph.  The NF.Mk 30 did not and topped out at 424mph.

GRUNHERZ,

As I understand it the Fw190 revision we're getting will reduce the Fw190A-5's climb rate, but put it over 350mph at sea level.  That will be nearly 20mph faster than the Mosquito In AH (and 40mph faster than the Mosquito in WarBirds 3).  If these speeds are accurate there is no way that a Mosquito could have excaped in a long chase on the deck as so many aircrews reported doing.

In actuall air combat the results are predictable.  I have the results of an Mosquito FB.Mk VI squadron engaging in a dogfight with a Fw190 squadron: 6 Mosquitos destroyed and 3 Fw190s destroyed.

[Angus]

Hey Karnak, nice info.
I remember of a recent account on these boards where Mossies escaped 190's on a deck run. From Denmark I belive.
Anyway, the anecdotes usually say:
Spitfire = Fast
109 = even faster
190 = faster yet
Mossie = Bloooooody fast

[Crumpp]

As I understand it the Fw190 revision we're getting will reduce the Fw190A-5's climb rate, but put it over 350mph at sea level. That will be nearly 20mph faster than the Mosquito In AH (and 40mph faster than the Mosquito in WarBirds 3). If these speeds are accurate there is no way that a Mosquito could have excaped in a long chase on the deck as so many aircrews reported doing.

Mosquito's were routinely intercepted in daylight incursions.  Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.

All the best!

Crumpp

[Glasses]

JAPWNED!

[Wotan]

Addi Glunz only shot down 3 Mosquitos. Does 3 mean 'several'?

His 28th and 29th kills came about 1 min apart on 28.3.43 south of Lille.

The were Mossies from 105 Sqn (RAF)

On 14.11.43 he shot down his 3rd and last. A Mosquito of 1409 Flt (RAF) 'near Lens'. It was his 45th kill claim.

Only the last could be considered 'morning' and was claim at 10:06.

The other 2 were around 6 pm in the evening.

None of them were over England.

Adolf "Addi" Glunz

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Mosquito's were routinely intercepted in daylight incursions.  Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.

I said nothing to contradict this.  An Fw190 diving from a bit of alt would clearly, and easily, over take a Mosquito.

That does not change the fact that on numerous occasions Mosquito aircrew reported having seen German fighters closing from astern, but being able to out run them after putting the throttles through the gate.  However, if the Fw190A-5 is remodeled to do 355mph on the deck the Mosquito Mk VI in AH will never have a chance in such scenarios as it is A) 19mph slower, B) has half the WEP duration and is C) a much less capable air-to-air fighter.  If this is historically accurate the Mosquito Mk VI should have been seen as a death trap by its aircrews.  Somehow it failed to be seen that way.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus

That does not however put the 109 as the angel for the Problems are pretty much similar.
Such as....

[/B]

Indeed some problems were similiar, some were invert images, ie. aileron/elevator control forces on the Spit/109.
What is common in them is that in the 109 these negative effects are far less pronounced than in the Spitfie.

Poor rollrate in the same period.

False, all acounts I have seen yet praise the roll rate characteristics. Beuvais explicitely says it was only 25% slower in roll than the FW 190... certainly it appears to be better than the Spitfire at higher speeds.

Insufficient firepower...in the same period even.

It was sufficient to shoot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in history. Insufficent compared to what? Pretty avarage firepower, equal to that of most US, UK or USSR fighter. And the MK 108 having insufficent firepower btw?  

Even more sandwichboxed cockpit.

Pictures that Guppy posted shows Spit pilots could barely close the canopy, so your statement is extremely doubtful.

Even worse view to the rear.[/]

False again, the Erla cabin provided BY FAR better rear view than the odd Malcolm hood of the Spit. Basically no rearview there. Wanna a qoute on earlier 109 hoods? Here`s one for 109D :

"Along with its delightful flight characteristics, the visibility in this Messerschmitt is all that a fighter pilot could reasonably ask. "

Here`s what he says on takeoff distances

"The take-off was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one-half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one-fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire."

From Major Al Williams' Test Flight With Bf-109D .


Short endurance

False, 6 hour endurance, WAY more than the Spitfire, longer ranged, too.

Narrow landing gear.

True - and the Spit`s was even more narrow.

Hight torque, - from 109D onwards (hehe, you want that quote, still have to translate it, - 109  taxiin and takeoff)

Torque was similiar as on other ww2 fighters - yes, that means high.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Nashwan
According to the A&AEE tests, the FB VI with Merlin 25 did 353 mph at sea level at 25 lbs boost, but that's with external tanks and ducted exhausts fitted.

[/B]

Was 25 lbs boost introduced to FB Mosquitoes in operational service or it was just an experimental plane? If yes, when?

The report notes speed is increased by 22 mph due to the use of 100/150 fuel.

[/B]

Is there evidence 150 grade fuel ever issued to Mosquito units, if yes, from when?

I've also got a snippet of RAF figures for the NF XIX (Merlin 25s) that gives the speed at 2,000 ft as 377 mph without N2O injection, 394 mph with N2O. [/B]

Was N2O ever introduced to nightfighter Mosquitoes in operational service or it was just an experimental plane? If yes, when?


From the books I have read, when the Mosquitoes were first introduced, they had TWICE the loss rate than Blenheims in daylight raids... Maybe that`s why most Mosquito sorties were at night, to hide from LW fighters as other RAF bombers were forced to after 1939?

[BUG_EAF322]

I smell leather groupies.

they stink like goulash

[Crumpp]

The other 2 were around 6 pm in the evening.

Let me clarify your confusion Wotan.

Adi volunteering for the Morning Recon flights has nothing to do with Mossies.

Facts are when the ground controllers could vector the FW-190 to visual ranges, they caught the mosquito.

The success of the Mosquito at penetrating German airspace has more to to with the difficulty of locating a single or double ship formation than it's performance.  Big Sky, small plane.

These problems are ten-fold at night or limited visibility.

Very rarely on those morning recon flights did Adi Glunz make contact.  Those flights were flown every morning by a small element and rarely intercepted as well.

Nothing to do with plane performance.  Everything to do with looking for a small plane in a big sky.

That does not change the fact that on numerous occasions Mosquito aircrew reported having seen German fighters closing from astern, but being able to out run them after putting the throttles through the gate.

Anecdotal.  Which German fighters and at what altitude?

If this is historically accurate the Mosquito Mk VI should have been seen as a death trap by its aircrews. Somehow it failed to be seen that way.

Depends on the role.  If the Mosquito tried to act like an airsuperority fighter and engage in direct combat then yes it would be a deathtrap.  Fortunately it was never used in this role.

I have no doubt that a Mossie at altitude and speed would be extremely difficult if not impossible for any fighter to climb up and catch given realistic visual ranges and ground control.  

Are we seriously trying to argue that the Mosquito should be a competative daylight airsuperiority fighter?  Frankly your fears about the FW-190 changes are completely unfounded.  The FTH airspeed does not change and in fact maybe reduced by a few MPH.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Very much agree. The same conclusion was arrived at on LEMB by others - the problem intercepting the Mossie had to do with the reaction time and problems vectoring the interceptors on an accurate interception course. For the same reason it was difficult to intercept any single fighter-recon plane of the war. Too fast, leaves too little time, too hard to find even if the vectoring is 100% perfect. But if intercepted the Mossie was unlikely to escape only due to performance - simply it could not afford to burn the engines running at full power and running out of fuel all the time... besides, it`s performance was below the single seater fighters - especially with bombs and external stores.

[MiloMorai]

LOL Barbi at it again.

quote:
"From the books I have read, when the Mosquitoes were first introduced, they had TWICE the loss rate than Blenheims in daylight raids... Maybe that`s why most Mosquito sorties were at night, to hide from LW fighters as other RAF bombers were forced to after 1939?"

How many of those Mossies were shot down by Flak compared to those shot down by fighters? And, losses dropped continually from then on which you failed to mention (so typical). Seems your uber LW was not up to the task,

Mossies from #105 and #139 had no trouble bombing Berlin, in broad daylight at the end of Jan 1943 for the loss of only one a/c. A 1000mi flying over enemy territory with the loss being in the target area. Goering was so mad he formed two special units, JG25 and 50, which had nil success. Make up any excuse you want for failure.

Oh yes Barbi, I would not mention the RAF BC going to night bombing for after being rebuffed, sent packing like a dog with its tail between its legs, during BoB, the LW went hiding at night for bombing.

[pasoleati]

Originally posted by Kurfürst


Was 25 lbs boost introduced to FB Mosquitoes in operational service or it was just an experimental plane? If yes, when?

[/B]

Well, if the Air Ministry Pilot´s Notes A.P. 2019E for "Mosquito FB VI, FB XVIII & FB 26" dated January 1944 is of any meaning, it must have been introduced not later than January 1944.