good plane to chase a mossie bomber from T.O.

[pembquist]

My question is what would be a good plane to try to chase that formation of mossies that just dropped while you were on the runway?  the formation is at about 12k when it passes overhead so you have to climb without losing sight and then chase it down.  Aside from the rocket and the jet what plane would be best for this?

[Karnak]

Well, you're lucky he is only at 12k, but even so I am not sure you're going to catch him unless he is going a long ways.  You could try a Bf109K-4, climb on WEP, level on WEP until it burns out, but you may run out of fuel before over taking the Mossies.  The P-47N would solve the fuel problem, but they don't climb so well.  This is all assuming he has a strait shot to friendly territory.  If he is deeper in, take off in a Bf109K-4 or Spitfire Mk XIV ahead of him and climb to his altitude before he reaches you, even if that means climbing in the same direction he is heading.

Most Mossie 16s will be above 20k, I fly it at 27 or 28k which basically makes me immune to last minute intercepts like you are asking about.

[Lusche]

Generally spoken, for such a scenario (high bombers over the base at at takeoff) the 109K is the best choice, as it offers the best climb performance (having 10 instead of 5 minutes of WEP is a significant advantage over the Spit 14)
But as Karnak pointed out, Mossies at 12k are pretty rare. I would call that a suicidal altitude for a bomber with no defensive armament whatsoever. There's actually a good chance someone already at altitude will kill the Mossie before you catch up.


However, if the Mossie flies at or near optimum altitude (~27k), you can forget it. Let me give you an example:

A Mossie carrying the 4k cookie bomb, but no external stores will fly at
-15K 377 mph
-20k 372 mph
-25k 385 mph
-30k 380 mph
with their optimum alt being 27k

Assuming an altitude of 25k: The 109K-4 takes 9 minutes to reach that altitude, during which the Mossie will have moved ~58 miles, thats over 2 sectors while the 109K has covered only ~22 miles over ground during the climb. If you took off while the Mossie was directly overhead, the bomber is now ~35 miles, about 1 1/2 sectors, ahead of you. Not taking into account the time the 109 needs to get up to speed, it would now take (theoretically) ~40 minutes(!) to catch up, during which the Mossie would travel another 10 (!) sectors

This shows that in case of a Mossie flying at or near optimum altitude, you either need to take off way ahead (giving the trend of just bombing a town center, this may be diffcult to impossible), or you need already to be airborne at alt and basically stumble over that mossie.

[Seanaldinho]

Personally i would take a pony D.

Good climb rate, take DT's if you think youll need them.

 

[Krusty]

Uhm... No and no.

The P-51s have mid-range to low climb rates, especially for a late-war plane. Definitely slower rate of climb than half the available planeset. They are fast only in top speed and accelerate rather slowly.

On top of that, the plane has massive loads of internal fuel. It will go upwards of 45 minutes or more on internal fuel alone. Taking drop tanks only slows you down, horribly kills climb rate (drag is modeled! As well as weight!) and will not get you any closer to a target.


So, I have to counter that by saying "No, the Pony is a terrible interceptor"

You want fast, you want quick climber. You want a late war monster. P-51 is not a monster.

109K, 109G14 (below 16-20k ish), tempest (if you can get it high enough), 190D, Ta152H (not the best climb but lots of WEP and gas and high alt speed).

Or, just up a jet. Climbs rather slowly, but it does so at almost 300mph IAS (285? I don't recall), so while you're going "up" slower you're closing the gap to the target much faster and crossing horizontal distance much better.

[Vudu15]

krusty you can just state reasons you have to chop people that make incorrect judgements (in your eyes).

[AWwrgwy]

krusty you can just state reasons you have to chop people that make incorrect judgements (in your eyes).

Krusty's points seemed pretty valid to me and not a personal attack in any way.

What's your excuse?



wrongway