Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on March 10, 2004, 01:40:13 AM
-
All data from:
Mosquito
C. Martin Sharp & Michael J. F. Bowyer
ISBN 0 947554 41 6
The book is British and originally printed in 1967. This edition was printed in 1995.
Martin Sharp was the de Havilland executive responsible for liaison with the overseas factories, working throughtout with the designers, production engineers and pilots and was entrusted by the company to tell the story.
The greater bulk of wood, for a given strength, had advantages. A stressed skin was thick, and therefore stiff without the need for much internal reinforcement, leaving clear spaces for the tanks, bombs, guns and equipment. For lightness the wing was made of one piece from tip to tip, stressed to carry 82 tons. It accommodated 10 tanks, 539 gallons, close to the center of gravity, their weight spread economically along the span.
Shell holes and bullet holes would represent a smaller percentage of the mass of a bulky wooden member; a shell fragment that might sever a strong metal member would scarcely weaken a thick, continuous wood shell or stout wood spar. Active service soon verified this. Buoyancy of wood was an advantage. No higher fire risk was expected.
-page 35
More important was the Initial Handling Report 767 dated 3 March, of Boscombe Down pilots. 'The aeroplane is pleasant to fly', it read, 'Aileron control light and effective. Take-offs and landings are straightforward. The aircraft stalls at 105 m.p.h. I.A.S. with flaps up, 90 with flaps down, and was flown at up to 320 I.A.S.' The best rate of climb in M.S. blower was 2,880 f.p.m. at 11,400 ft., and 2,240 f.p.m. in F.S. gear at 18,100 ft.
Top seed in F.S. gear was 388 m.p.h. at 22,000 ft. Estimated service ceiling was 33,900 ft. the greatest height reached being 29,700 ft. Tests were conducted at 16,767 lb.
-page 45
The mid-1942 plan envisaged the following useful range of variants at this stage of development, based on Merlin XXI 2 X 1,300 b.h.p. for take-off, plus 12 lb., 3,000 r.p.m. and 2 x 870 b.h.p. at 19,000 feet F.S. gear, plus 4 lb., 2,650 r.p.m., at the tankages shown:-
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/mosquito58.jpg)
To increase fighter range two tanks, fitted behind the cannon in W4096 gave 151 gallons, a smaller 50-gallon tank being possible, with 2 X 250 lb. bombs, in the intruder.
At this stage a 'basic wing' was evolved, strengthened for heavier loads that were being visualized, and applicable with simple adaptation to all kinds of Mosquitoes.
-pages 58-59
APPENDIX 5
Mosquito Operational Performance and Loads
Versions fitted with Merlin 21, 22, 23, 31
CLIMB: Reccommended climb 2,650 R.P.M. +4 lb boost at 170 I.A.S.
Bombers reached 20,000 in about 22 minutes over 75 miles on 40 gallons of fuel.
Maximum rate of climb on 2,850 revs. +9 lb. boost had no effect on range but put strain on the engines.
CEILING: Operational ceiling of the fully loaded bomber was about 27,000 feet, homeward journey about 30,000.
CRUISE: Reccommended cruise speed was 220 I.A.S. to about 25,000 feet outward and 210 I.A.S. at 30,000 homeward. Air miles per gallon were about 3.1 outwards and 3.4 homewards. A.M.P.G. at 5,000 feet: 2.8, at 10,000 2.9, at 15,000 3.1.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/mosquito4371.jpg)
RANGE: At economical cruising:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/mosquito4372.jpg)
At high speed cruise:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/mosquito4371.jpg)
These figures take into account using 20 gallons fuel for warm-up and taxiing, M gallons for climb to 5,000ft over 12 miles or 40 gallons to 20,000 feet over 75 miles or 52 gallons for climb to 25,000 feet over 100 miles.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/mosquito4381.jpg)
Maximum level speed: Accurate top speed tests showed a variance of about 8 m.p.h.
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/mosquito4382.jpg)
Multiple ejector exhausts increased maximum level speed by about 12 m.p.h. T.A.S. Under-wing bomb reduced speed by about 15 m.p.h. T.A.S. 19,000 lb. weight, Merlin 25s, multiple exhausts gave the TR. Mk. 33 a top speed of 389 T.A.S. at 14,500 feet.
19,000 lb. weight, Merlin 25s, manifold exhausts gave the FB. Mk. VI a top speed of 378 T.A.S. at 13,000 feet.
-pages 437-438
I'll try to add more later, or answer questions if I can.
-
what does "useful" range means?
the total "there and back" distance or the range to the target, assuming you can return to your base of origin? (i guess the later but i'm not sure)
Bozon
-
bozon,
I think that they are saying a "useful range" as in a useful variety. They have a planned bomber, planned photo reconnaissance, planned fighter, planned fighter-bomber and planned long range fighter. All useful to have.
Keep in mind though that most of those in the first table never made it in to actuality. There is no Mosquito B.Mk V, PR.Mk V, F.Mk VI or LRF.Mk VI. Only the FB.Mk VI made it to production and that mainly used Merlin 25s, not Merlin XXIs.
-
Mossie still catch on fire like it was flying around with a coating of lighter fluid under the paint?
Haven't seen one in ages, but I haven't been playing much lately either.
-
Yes unfortunatly...
-
Here is one of the charts from the above book:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/Mosquito6.jpg)
There are several things about this chart that I can't answer. For one, what engines did HJ679 and HX802 have? Mosquito Mk VI's were mostly powered by 1,625hp Merlin 25s, but there were a number that were powered by 1,230hp Merlin 21s or Merlin 23s. This chart gives it a climb rate of 1,900ft per minute which is far, far lower than the Mosquito Mk VI in AH. However I cannot see how an aircraft would lose 1,000fpm off of its climb rate while gaining 790hp, 3,233lbs, more streamlined cowlings and paddle bladed props. Granted it seems to indicate that droptanks were carried for this test, but that climb rate still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The speeds are also quite different than the AH Mosquito. In M.S. gear the Mosquito tested here is markedly faster at low altitude than is the Mosquito in AH. However at higher altitude, when F.S. gear is used it is slower and seems to peak at 8,000ft instead of 13,000ft.
In this chart however it peaks at 13,000ft, just as the AH Mosquito Mk VI does:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/MosquitoVI.JPG)
And for comparison, the AH charts:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/mossie6speed.gif)(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/mossie6climb.gif)
The text of the book also states that the Mosquito Mk VI topped out at 378mph at 13,200ft.
Thoughts?
-
420mph+ at over 30.000ft is WICKED :-D
Has it ever been attempted to wring out the most out of a fighter Mosquito, optimized for low to medium altitudes? Any tests or figures on that?
I also would like to know if comparson trials exist and what FB pilots where supposed to do when bounced by Fw-190's and Bf-109's.
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
also would like to know if comparson trials exist and what FB pilots where supposed to do when bounced by Fw-190's and Bf-109's.
Out run them if bounced. If bounced without the room to run, try to manuever to survive any way possible I guess.
Remember, many FB.Mk VIs did not have the exhaust flame dampers like ours does and could outrun most German fighters. Bf109G-10s, Bf109K-4s and Fw190D-9s were rare on the scale of things. Their population and usage in sims distorts our perceptions of how it was quite a bit.
With 354mph on the deck a Mosquito FB.Mk VI will outrun any Fw190A and the Bf109G-6 while giving a Bf109G-6/AS of Bf109G-14 a very good run for it.
The prevalence of ultra fast aircraft in sims (as well as the damned useless exhaust flame dampers that our Mosquito has) make it a much less survivable aircraft than it was.
-
Hi Karnak,
>Mosquito
We've got some good Mosquito threads in the archive, too:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80665
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Karnak,
>Mosquito
We've got some good Mosquito thread in the archive, too:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80665
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Oooh, the thought of a mid war CT set-up with the Mossie without the flame dampers sounds appealing.
Not that I ever fly there with about 1 to 2 people on during my normal 'playing hours' but still...
-
HoHun,
Can you explain the how M.S. gear and F.S. gear worked on HX802 in the above chart? Is M.S. gear something that the Merlin 25 normally lacked? How would that appy to a Mosquito powered by Merlin 25s with manifold exhausts?
Originally posted by hogenbor
Oooh, the thought of a mid war CT set-up with the Mossie without the flame dampers sounds appealing.
Not that I ever fly there with about 1 to 2 people on during my normal 'playing hours' but still...
Well, I fly the Mossie in the MA and another 10-15mph would be tremendously helpful there.
-
The prevalence of ultra fast aircraft in sims (as well as the damned useless exhaust flame dampers that our Mosquito has) make it a much less survivable aircraft than it was.
Not if my NPA ever sees daylight.
The Mossie, is in my NPA, among the top 10 fastest non-perked planes at deck.
;)
One can only dream, though..
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, I fly the Mossie in the MA and another 10-15mph would be tremendously helpful there.
I fly it sometimes for fun but it feels... sluggish. Of course it is big and twin engined but it bleeds E like a stuck pig. Never understood that in a releatively heavy aircraft with such a power to weight ratio.
-
Maybe the moss is completly porked in dm & fm?
Given that our moss is labeled as a Fighter Bomber (like the p38) would give me the impression that an empty moss would be able to hold its own against most fighters.
Has anyone got any pilot notes that state what OUR moss was like to fight in?
-
The HX802 curve above looks very much like a Mossie VI with Merlin 25s and 150-octane fuel (see other thread HoHun refers to).
I have no way of demonstrating / proving this however. Neil Stirling's your man on that one. I've based my "guess" on documents he posted over at Butch 2k's late & much-lamented WWIIAW board.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Hi Karnak,
>Can you explain the how M.S. gear and F.S. gear worked on HX802 in the above chart?
The gears worked in the standard way for a 2-speed supercharger. The curve looks simply unusual because very high boosts were used so that the M.S. (low) gear has a full throttle height of sea level (or less).
You'd not normally design an engine that way, it's the result of extending an existing engine's envelope.
>Is M.S. gear something that the Merlin 25 normally lacked?
No, it was a component of the standard Merlin 25. It shows in the Mk. 6 speed curve as well with a full throttle height of 5500 ft. (The higher altitude results from the lower boost used for these curves).
>How would that appy to a Mosquito powered by Merlin 25s with manifold exhausts?
The manifold exhaust create additional backpressure and kill part of the exhaust thrust, so they slow down the aircraft.
As a result of the previous discussion, I tried to match all of the Mosquito data I could find, but it seems contradictory.
Shooting from the hip, I'd say 360 mph @ sea level should be within reach for a Merlin 25/+25 lbs/sqin boost Mosquito VI with ejector exhausts.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
What speed would you guess for a Mosquito Mk VI, Merlin 25, ejector exhausts, +18lbs boost at sea level?
-
Hi Karnak,
>What speed would you guess for a Mosquito Mk VI, Merlin 25, ejector exhausts, +18lbs boost at sea level?
HJ809 got 332 mph with saxophone ducts and external tanks at +18 lbs/sqin/3000 rpm at sea level.
The Mk 6 in the above graph gets 337 mph, everything equal except that it carries no external tanks.
Assuming the Mk 33 in the above graph is identical to a Mk 6 in every regard except the ejector exhaust, that would give us a 344 mph sea level speed for the Mk 6, too.
The report on HJ809, on the other hand, mentions that B. IV DK290 gained 13 to 15 mph from ejector exhausts at just +9 lbs/sqin, so maybe the FB VI speed might even be 352 mph.
(I'm not sure whether the 5 mph loss for the addition of external tanks is realistic, though. A different value here would change the end result, of course.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
Thanks for the reply.
I have used the 10-15mph gain to guess it at 348-353mph based on the 338mph that HTC uses.
I really, really wish our Mosquito VI had ejector exhaust instead of manifold.
-
dunno if you guys have seen these before...
mossie notes (http://www.snarc.com/Military/wbnotes/mosquitofb6/)
AFAIK the flaming mossie got fixed a while back. I don't get set on fire half as much as i used to.
I quite like flying the mossie as a pure fighter, it's not bad at all. It does bleed E bad but that can be used to your advantage. Nothing like making someone blow right by you and lighting him up with 4 20mm. :) However it also accelerates poorly in level flight (the only real thing i dislike about it), however it does accelerates great in a dive.
I sure wouldn't mind an extra 10-15mph though.:)
I do love the mossie.:)
Edit: just notcied this look at a) does this means mossies could carry dt's + rockets?
(http://www.snarc.com/Military/wbnotes/mosquitofb6/mossie23.jpg)
-
thrila,
Yes, I usually use it in pure fighter mode as well. It is a lot more responsive than people usually give it. Only thing about diving is that if you don't watch your speed you're liable to lose major control surfaces when you try to pull up. I've managed to lose all control surfaces once, usually it is both elevators or both ailerons though.
I still catch on fire constantly though. I haven't noticed a change there.
I have the Mossie 6's handbook in PDF format.
EDIT:
Yes, in 1945 they equipped Mossie 6's with a two layer rocket launch system next to the drop tank. It was still four rockets under each wing.
-
i have to agree, the diving is a bit of a bugger. It dives so well but is handicapped by the fact it falls apart easily if you get too fast. I'm not sure if the top speed of which it falls apart is lower than most planes (it sure feels like it tho) or if it's just an illusion because it dives so darn well. I've lost control surfaces on many occasions when diving a con:( If i don't watch the speed and the cockpit begins to shake i daren't touch the stick. I throttle back and veeery slowly trim up.
I've shotdown some notable people when flying the mossie, i believe the fact that the mossie is under rated by many contributes significantly to my kills in it.
So they did have dt's + rockets, that's great.:) Wish we had that loadout in AH, it would be nice for long range raids. That could actually give the mossie a nice role in AH over other fighterbombers. Hopefully the fuel consumption issues will be looked at for AHII.:)