Author Topic: FiX THE MOSSIE! (Read 3986 times)

Harry · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2006, 04:41:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Demonstrate that. The only person here who might know more about Mossies than I do, thus far, is Scherf. Your flipant one liner does not qualify you.

Well than you probably know that bombers and fighters have very different design requirements for stability and control. The DH98 is designed as a bomber capable of high speed and carrying a payload. It is very stable and almost flies itself (ask any DH98 pilot). This does not lend itself well for maneuverability. Most WWII fighters including the Bf-110 are designed on the verge of instability to increase maneuverability. The Bf-110 should be able to handle higher AoA than the DH98, but in return it should have much worse departure characteristics. The DH98 should be gentle in a stall, but as stated in "Annotated Pilot's Notes for Mosquito FB 6": "Deliberate spinning is prohibited and an incipient spin should be checked by immediate recovery action.", "At high speeds violent use of the rudder and large angles of yaw must be avoided."

The DH98 was designed as a bomber and therefore has the aerodynamics and balancing of a bomber, i.e. it's designed to fly in a straight line and be as stable as possible, not handle high AoA or extreme maneuvering. The Bf-110 was designed as a fighter.

Scherf · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:05:14 AM »

... must ... resist ...

Harry · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:21:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
In addition a Mosquito Mk VI with a light fuel load and no bombs or rockets has better power loading than the Bf110G-2 as I recall. The Merlin 25s each produce 1640hp and with the light fuel load it'll weigh about 16,500lbs.

This is true, but only in extreme cases. A fully loaded Bf110G-2 is about 1000lbs heavier than an empty DH98 FB.VI. So if the DH98 carries very little fuel and ammo it would have a slightly better powerloading. Hardly a fair comparison though, next you'll strap bombs on the 110

MiloMorai · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:34:13 AM »

Nice selective quoting Harry. It also says the controls were light and effective and care should be taken to avoid excessive accelerations in turns and recovering from dives.

The Mossie NFs could not have been that 'stable' with an impressive number of kills and not against the slow lumbering 4 motor bombers that the 110 took on.

Kev367th · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:47:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Not true. Some FB.VIs had them and some did not. It was common for a squadron to have both types so that it could use the dampered ones for night ops. The only ratio I have seen, and it was for one squad so who knows what others were, was about 2/3rds without the dampers and 1/3rd with them.

The problem I have had is finding performance data for the FB.Mk VI without the flame dampers.

None of the FB VI with rocket capability had flame dampers factory installed, only the early batch.
As ours can carry rockets, it shouldn't have the dampers.

Harry · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2006, 05:52:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Nice selective quoting Harry. It also says the controls were light and effective and care should be taken to avoid excessive accelerations in turns and recovering from dives.

Why should I point out that the controls were light? Light or heavy doesn't really matter when you can't use them aggressively at high speed. The Mossie would have been better served by heavy controls at high speed to offset its tendency to rip its control-surfaces off.

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Mossie NFs could not have been that 'stable' with an impressive number of kills and not against the slow lumbering 4 motor bombers that the 110 took on.

As usual your logic is flawed Milo. What sort of maneuvering would a nightfighter need to do? What kind of maneuvering would the Mossie NF need to do to shoot down Ju-88G's (the most prolific German nightfighter) at night? Any evasive maneuvering by the target (even by Lancasters) would normally throw off the attacking nightfighter.

Surely if the Ju-88 could do the job, the Mossie could do it too. After all they're both fast bomber designs.

Angus · « **Reply #36 on:** January 09, 2006, 06:13:36 AM »

"As usual Milo" from somebody with only 44 posts means that either the person has been reading the boards for a long time without posting, or the person is an old one ,perhaps formally banned.....

I smell something funny from your style Harry.....and it wouldn't be the first time I find out......

Angus · « **Reply #37 on:** January 09, 2006, 06:15:46 AM »

Here's one as well:
"Any evasive maneuvering by the target (even by Lancasters) would normally throw off the attacking nightfighter."

EVEN by a Lancaster is a bluff for the Lancaster was by far the nimblest heavy bomber. A 110 could not get a gun solution in the tightest turn.....

Harry · « **Reply #38 on:** January 09, 2006, 06:51:38 AM »

lol Angus, I think the B-29 was by far the better turner. It's a crime they didn't turn it into a fighter!

Angus · « **Reply #39 on:** January 09, 2006, 07:25:20 AM »

Never heard that one but an "empty" Lanc could both loop and turn like crazy. I actually first read that from some LW accounts, - 110 nightfighters had troubles staying in a turn ,and the "corkscrew" would throw them off from gun solutions.
BTW, the JU88 was told to be quite agile.

Ghosth · « **Reply #40 on:** January 09, 2006, 07:39:36 AM »

To get out of 110 flat spin.

Drop gear, flaps if you have time. Use either aileron trim or a hard rudder kick combined with nose down to foce the nose into the spin, then down.

Once the nose is down, gain speed, pull gear/flaps up, pull nose up GENTLY

Tested this extensively one night before a squad ops where we were flying 110s.
My squadmate prefered to use trim, for me it was easier/faster to use a strong rudder kick.

Either way you had to get gear down first, then push nose over & down.

After that it was very recoverable. Its possible to do this in as little as 2500 feet.
Although 3k is easier, less scary.

Harry · « **Reply #41 on:** January 09, 2006, 09:50:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Never heard that one but an "empty" Lanc could both loop and turn like crazy. I actually first read that from some LW accounts, - 110 nightfighters had troubles staying in a turn ,and the "corkscrew" would throw them off from gun solutions.
BTW, the JU88 was told to be quite agile.

I was being sarcastic of course

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.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #42 on:** January 09, 2006, 10:12:36 AM »

FYI,

That climb rate/Time chart is either measured in zoom climbs broken into segments or is wrong. Some of the climb times just don't match the rates.

Unless I'm not reading this properly it says 12.5 minutes to 20,000FT but the climb rate appears much faster.

So take 12.5 minutes = 750 seconds divide 20,000FT = 26.66 * 60 = 1600FPM average climb in Feet Per Minute. The Mossie doesn't even get down to 1600FPM until over 20K. This does not match.

Karnak · « **Reply #43 on:** January 09, 2006, 10:37:09 AM »

No, it doesn't. The climb chart can't be at WEP or even MIL power and match the weight of the aircraft and power of the engines in any way that I can see.

Harry,

The Mosquito was designed as a fighter from the ground up. Got it? Ok, again, the Mosquito was designed as a fighter from the ground up.

Ignore the specs they sold it on and look at what de Haviland considered. From the beginning they planned fighter versions as well as PR and bomber versions, always making sure that there was room under the cockpit floor for four 20mm cannon for example. It was designed to fill multiple roles from the start of actual design work. Initially they planned leading edge slats to improve it's manueverability, but did away with them when it proved to exceed their expectations in terms of manueverability. Repeated comments can be found about it's manueverability and there is a reason the RAF immediately saw its potential as a fighter once they got their hands on it for testing.

Unless you have some specific data I will have to go with the many books I have on the subject rather than your simplistic take.

Oh, and no, I would not weigh the Bf110G-2 down with bombs for my comparison. That would be silly. In AH I normally take 50% or 25% fuel and overloaded ammo with the Mossie, no bombs or rockets.

The last fighter to be designed to be unstable prior to the F-16 was the I-16. All WWII fighters were designed to be stable so that they pilots could actually fight in them. As I am sure you are aware many, many I-16 pilots died in crashes.

Harry · « **Reply #44 on:** January 09, 2006, 11:23:32 AM »

Which is why I said "on the verge of instability " and not "instable". I guess you have problems reading. And no, I'm not going to take your word for it. I guess you'll have to substantiate your claims that the Mosquito was designed as a fighter. If so DH did a shoddy job at it.