Author Topic: FiX THE MOSSIE! (Read 3888 times)

F4UDOA · « **Reply #45 on:** January 09, 2006, 11:51:32 AM »

Karnak,

What I am saying is that the climb time and climb rates listed on that chart do not add up as the same test. They are either exaggerated or just plain different for one another but those two graphs do not match.

One is for a average 1600FPM climb and the rates would indicate closer to 2500FPM average climb.

Karnak · « **Reply #46 on:** January 09, 2006, 11:55:46 AM »

It was obviously not designed as a light fighter like a Spitfire or Fw190. Be serious.

It was designed to fill multiple roles, one of which was that of a heavy fighter, much like the Bf110. However it was a far more successful airaft than the Bf110 as I am sure you are aware, but don't (and won't) admit.

Get this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0947554416/themosquitopage/202-4352435-1166202 and read through it.

Harry · « **Reply #47 on:** January 09, 2006, 12:04:00 PM »

You be serious and make up your mind. Was the Mosquito designed to be a fighter or not? A heavy long range fighter like the Bf-110 or P-38 perhaps? Or was it designed as the bomber and ground attack aircraft IT ACTUALLY WAS. You know a LOT of planes carried fixed forward armament, but that alone does not make them fighters. Despite the name the Beaufighter was not a fighter even if it carried guns. A lot of light and medium bombers carried FF guns like the B-25 and B-26, still they were not fighters.

Karnak · « **Reply #48 on:** January 09, 2006, 12:53:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
It was designed to fill multiple roles, one of which was that of a heavy fighter, much like the Bf110.

Bronk · « **Reply #49 on:** January 09, 2006, 01:28:57 PM »

off topic
Harry=Ottoj with new ip adress

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Bronk

KD303 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 09, 2006, 01:41:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
The 110 outperforms the Mossie because it was designed as a fighter. The Mossie was designed as a fast bomber. The 110 is significantly lighter than the Mossie, but has similar engine power. The Mossie otoh has better aerodynamics, being designed as a fast bomber. The Mossies closest German counterpart (in service, not performance) is the Ju-88 "Schnellbomber" with its many bomber and fighter variants.

Quote

Originally posted by KD303
It would be interesting to hear how these aircraft compared in real life, (beyond the obvious) from somebody who really knows about both aircraft - not some "googlestorian" with dodgey info from some geocities webpage.

Obviously didn't make my self clear.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #51 on:** January 09, 2006, 02:05:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
The Lanc has a smaller turning circle than most WWII fighters because it is so slow. To follow it a fighter will have to slow down to less than optimum turning speed. In daylight this would be meaningless of course, but at night with very limited visibility a simple turn would in most cases make the NF lose contact or force an overshoot. Once the NF has passed it will quickly lose contact and would have to use its radar to search and try to re-engage. This is why I find Milo's comment about Mossie NF maneuverability less than informed. Nightfighters don't need manuverability. They need speed, heavy guns and range. Which is why the Mossie, 110 and 88 made excellent nightfighters.

Thanks for pointing out harry/otto why a NF need to be maneuverable. The only one that is less than informed, is you.

Staga · « **Reply #52 on:** January 09, 2006, 02:12:55 PM »

Looks like many of you girls are having your PMS lasting for years

Harry · « **Reply #53 on:** January 09, 2006, 03:52:46 PM »

See Rule #4

Harry · « **Reply #54 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:14:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by KD303
Obviously didn't make my self clear.

You made yourself perfectly clear:

Quote

Originally posted by KD303
… I'm not qualified to comment beyond the very basic stuff …

Karnak · « **Reply #55 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:14:38 PM »

Well, for a "bomber" it did pretty well. The only like number, on like number fight I have read was a squadron of Mosquito FB.Mk VIs that encountered a squadron of Fw190As on the way back from a strike. The Fw190s came down on them and the end score was 6 Mossies lost for three Fw190s lost. A good trade for the Germans, but hardly the results bombers with no turrets would obtain. Much more like the results that heavy fighters vs single engined fighters produced throughout the war, no?

Mosquitos were hardly the Fairy Battles you make them out to be.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #56 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:20:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
See Rule #4

Huckles, the other half of the uber twins, was not good at comprehension either, harry. Are you upset with Issy, your good bud, getting the big boot by carrying on with his name calling?

You really don't know much about night fighting, do you?

Harry · « **Reply #57 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:22:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Well, for a "bomber" it did pretty well. The only like number, on like number fight I have read was a squadron of Mosquito FB.Mk VIs that encountered a squadron of Fw190As on the way back from a strike. The Fw190s came down on them and the end score was 6 Mossies lost for three Fw190s lost. A good trade for the Germans, but hardly the results bombers with no turrets would obtain. Much more like the results that heavy fighters vs single engined fighters produced throughout the war, no?

Mosquitos were hardly the Fairy Battles you make them out to be.

Yes the Mossie did very well indeed for a bomber, but unless you specifically look to the 110 for your heavy fighter comparison, then no, it did not do well as a fighter. The 110 was a piece of crap as a heavy fighter. The P-38 shined as a heavy fighter, and the FB Mossie’s performance and achievements pale in comparison.

Harry · « **Reply #58 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:27:42 PM »

See Rule #4

Karnak · « **Reply #59 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:00:41 PM »

P-38 isn't really a heavy fighter though. It is twin engined, but it is a single crew, relatively short legged fighter designed for the same mission profiles that the single engined fighters were designed for.

How would you describe the P-61 Black Widow? Clearly designed as a Night Fighter from the get go, yet in a recent thread there was a quote from a USAAF pilot who flew both it and the Mossie that the Mossie was the better Night Fighter.

Then there is the performance that something like the NF.Mk 30 had, which is quite comparable to the P-38's.

In addition to that if you look at RAF Fighter Command's post war squadron plans they are dominated by Mosquitos. Why would Fighter Command be gung ho for bombers?

Also look at the service record of the Mosquitos in Fighter Command service. Those are some of the most distinquished records of the war. You are reaching if you are implying that the Mossies had a second rate combat record at all.