Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Furball on January 07, 2006, 09:23:15 PM
-
did a little test earlier... stall performances.
it seems that the A-20 has generous modelling, very gentle stall, can hammerhead immediately after takeoff with ease. WHY?
i try this in mossie, i just cartwheel out of the sky.
WHY is the mossie stall model so porked?
i try and snap roll the mossie, i enter a random flipping type stall that is unrecoverable, i do it in the A20 bomber and it just gently rubs it off.
Why is the mossie such a pig to fly? WHY is the A-20 so easy to fly?
Will upload film tomorrow, the A-20 even seems to accelerate on the runway faster than the Mosquito, which is just plain wrong.
-
Originally posted by Furball
it seems that the A-20 has generous modelling, very gentle stall, can hammerhead immediately after takeoff with ease. WHY?
MADE IN THE U.S.A. BA-BY! :aok
-
All US aircraft are known to be perfectly stable, unlike junk Brit aircraft or wobbly German aircraft.
(at least, in the world of AH, the most stable and easy to handle planes. are all US planes)
-
yup those spits , and 110s can be a handfull.
Bronk
-
There's various comments about Mossie stall characteristics in the FB.VI Pilot's Notes, which is circulating round the internet for free.
I have no idea under what conditions the real-life stall tests were done, or even what affects whether a stall is vicious or not.
I'm not an aeronautical engineer - but I play one on the internet.
I do get the impression however that empty drop tanks affect the propensity to spin almost as much as full ones.
-
The mossie has some bug related either to the combat trim or c.g. which was reported in the bugs forum.
Try turning on the combat trim and level the plane - it will tend to pitch up.
Bozon
-
Combat trim tends to do that with a ton of planes. Is this done to simulate pilot preference to give the a/c a 'light nose' in combat as some pilots did? Pry incorrect settings... I'd like no pitching at all.
I usually use it in a quick on/off fashion as a trim neutralizer. A bit annoying when combat trim forces a nose up attitude into eventual stall just after takeoff.
-
I use CT the same as you do. CT is not supposed to be a perfect trim but the mossie is the only plane in which it seems so far off.
The point is that it over trims you and will trim you right into stall conditions. With CT constantly on in the mossie, you need to counter intuitively push the stick forward in a zoom/high angle climb in order not to stall or flip over. This could be both the effect of a CT not scaled right or center of gravity too far to the back.
With CT turned off the mossie handles nicely at slow speeds (but do feel a little tail heavy), just need to be careful not to throw it violently over the edge.
On another issue, can some Mossie expert please tell if there was any forward armor to the mossie (armored glass and platings)? I seem to suffer a lot of pilot injuries from front quarter attacks even against tank mounted 0.3 guns.
Bozon
-
ok...
i was pretty drunk posting this thread, but i did so after testing the A-20 and Mossie in a H2H room. the A-20 it seems has no effect of torque modelled on it, i looked at engine startup and it looks like the props are not counter rotating.
the reason i tested it, was, after flying the mossie in MA and cartwheeling out of the sky twice while fighting a P-38.
the P-51 had an "unrecoverable below 8,000 feet"spin in RL and look how that does here ;)
-
Originally posted by bozon
On another issue, can some Mossie expert please tell if there was any forward armor to the mossie (armored glass and platings)? I seem to suffer a lot of pilot injuries from front quarter attacks even against tank mounted 0.3 guns.
Bozon
Yes our Mosquito should have. I do not know if it is modelled or not. the FB Mossies kept with the armoured screen, whereas the bomber mossies did not really need it and went with a more streamlined split screen.
FB Mossie with one piece armoured glass
(http://www.davidpride.com/Aviation/images/Lon_14.jpg)
B. Mossie with split screen
(http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/museum/dhaircraft/800/images/010%20DH.98%20Mosquito%20B35.jpg)
-
I also think the Mossie isn't right. I fly the Mosquito and the Me 110G quite a lot in the MA and it doesn't make sense to me that the 110 should outperform the Mossie in so many ways. I've looked at the specs of the actual aircraft and it doesn't seem to add up. I won't go into detail as I'm not qualified to comment beyond the very basic stuff (not that that stops people here from giving their "expert" views).
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. ;)
KD
-
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.
-
The Mossie has had that ridiculous tumbling tendency since it was introduced in AH. The 110 does the same, as it's FM is obviously based on the Mossie FM. I can't believe this issue is still to be fixed.
Here's a film of a Mossie tumble:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/anttruok/flipflops.ahf
-
Thanks for the info furball.
And another thank you for the pics or this gorgeous plane.
Bozon
-
Be nice to see an NF.30 (2x1700HP Merlins :) )or similar on the eventual remodel as well as a B IV.
Bozon few little known facts about the mossie -
a) Holds record for highest night time photograph during the war.
b) First twin engine to land on a carrier.
c) One Mossie holds the record for the most 'ops' of any aircraft in WWII.
d) It remained the fastest aircraft in Bomber Command until approx 1951!!
e) Last one built Nov 1950.
f) Last op Malaysia 1955.
No wonder Herman Goering said -
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.
The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?"
-
does the mossie do that horrible flat spin thing the 110 does? That just killed me in the MA now, I kill a spit then loop up to get on an f6s tail, chop throttle and drop flaps, then I snap stall and go into the flat spin of death.
-
Yup, it also has a nasty habit of almost flipping on its back pulling out of a dive.
-
Or tail sliding all the way down into the ground.
Harry,
You shouldn't talk about things you do not know about. The Mossie was sold to the RAF as a PR aircraft and initially concieved as a bomber. It was designed to do all three roles though. It was designed that way from the ground up even if the RAF wasn't aware of it.
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.
Without the flame dampers it should do about 350-355mph on the deck.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Harry,
You shouldn't talk about things you do not know about. The Mossie was sold to the RAF as a PR aircraft and initially concieved as a bomber. It was designed to do all three roles though. It was designed that way from the ground up even if the RAF wasn't aware of it.
The Spec B.1/40 was for a bomber a/c. On their own initative deHavilland also made provision for guns or cameras. The fighter version flew ~3 weeks before the PR version and months after the bomber version had flown. The first order was for 20 bombers and 30 fighters. Ten of the bomber version were built as PR a/c. The first operation was flown by W4055, a PR version.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Harry,
You shouldn't talk about things you do not know about.
I'm not. You are.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
b) First twin engine to land on a carrier.
Sweat, That one I did not know. I've never read about it operating from carriers (or was this just an experiment?). It was used by the navy yes, but from land bases in coastal defense duties.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Harry
I'm not. You are.
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.
-
Karnak, don't count Milo out his library is quite a line ;)
And Harry, who are you. Sound familiar?
-
That's true Angus.
No, Harry is not Kurfurst. He predates Kurfurst's departure.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Sweat, That one I did not know. I've never read about it operating from carriers (or was this just an experiment?). It was used by the navy yes, but from land bases in coastal defense duties.
Bozon
De Havilland Sea Mosquito TR Mk 33:
Variant of FB Mk VI evolved to Specification N.I5/44 for a carrier-borne torpedo-reconnaissance fighter/bomber.
Converted Mk VI with arrester gear made first deck landings on HMS Indefatigable, March 25, 1944. Second converted Mk VI in August 1945 had folding wing and two Sea De Havilland Mosquito prototypes with fixed wings flown in 1945 followed by first production TR Mk 33 on November 10, 1945, with Merlin 25 engines, folding wings, four-bladed propellers, JATO provision, four 20-mm cannon, underwing bombs as FB Mk VI and provision for two 500-lb (227-kg) bombs in rear bomb-bay in lieu of a 2,000-lb (908-kg) torpedo, bomb or mine externally under fuselage. Length increased to 42 ft 3 in (12.88 m) by ASH radar in nose.
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/sww2/dh98_tf/dh98-tf-3.jpg)
Further to record missions WW2 -
F-Freddie, Mosquito Mk IX LR 503. Total of 213 missions, tragically lost in an accident May 10 1945 Calgary, Canada.
The Smithsonian claims its B-26 "Flak Bait" is the record holder, but it only completed 202 missions.
Further to night photograph -
April 18 1944 over Osnabruck at 36000ft. Highest ever in the whole war.
Pretty good for a plane held together by glue and brass screws lol.
Current AH model just doesn't do justice to it.
Would hope for a -
B IV, FB VI (minus dampers which ours never had), plus one of the NF's on the remodel.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Or tail sliding all the way down into the ground.
oh I forgot about that little bit of joy. is that even possible in real?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
FB VI (minus dampers which ours never had)
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.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Or tail sliding all the way down into the ground.
Full throttle, rudder all the way to the right, stick forward and hold - usually gets the nose down in 5 seconds. Not a good manuver during battle...
Bozon
-
Multiple ejector exhausts added about 12mph apparently.
For Merlin 25 Mosquitos, I have seen these figures:
FB.VI with shrouded exhaust: 378mph @ 13,200ft, 361mph @ 5,500ft & 336mph @ s/l.
NF.XIX with shrouded exhaust: 378mph @ 13,200ft.
NF.XIII(exhaust unknown, guess multi): 394mph @ 13,800ft, 379mph @ 6,000ft & 350mph @ s/l.
TR.33 with multiple ejectors: 387mph @ 13,500ft, 372mph @ 5,500ft @ 344mph at s/l.
TF.37(exhaust unknown, guess multi): 345mph @ s/l.
-
Zeno's Warbirds has a manual for the FB VI, http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/DeHavilland_Mosquito_Pilot's_Manual.html
A couple of graphs
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Mosquito6.jpg )
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/MosquitoVI.JPG )
-
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.
-
... must ... resist ...
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
"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......
-
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.....:D
-
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! ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It was designed to fill multiple roles, one of which was that of a heavy fighter, much like the Bf110.
-
off topic
Harry=Ottoj with new ip adress
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
:noid :noid :noid
Bronk
-
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.
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.
:rolleyes:
-
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.
-
Looks like many of you girls are having your PMS lasting for years :huh
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by KD303
Obviously didn't make my self clear.
:rolleyes:
You made yourself perfectly clear:
Originally posted by KD303
… I'm not qualified to comment beyond the very basic stuff …
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
See Rule #4
-
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.
-
His text is familiar :noid
Anyway, I can dig up some text on the 110 tomorrow. It's in German and originates from no less than Werner Mölder's brother. I belive he may be alive still. Got this from the German fliegergemeinschaft.
Wait and squirm :D
-
Karnak, should interest you, checkout the movie -
http://195.231.246.70/agent/style/besat/Default.aspx?22691
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Karnak, should interest you, checkout the movie -
http://195.231.246.70/agent/style/besat/Default.aspx?22691
I get audio, no video. I don't have the right codec.:(
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I get audio, no video. I don't have the right codec.:(
You need macromedia flash player,
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&promoid=BIOX
It's well worth it!!!!
Harry - You do realise that most of the low level missions the Mossie is renowned for were carried out by a mixture of B IV and FB VI?
-
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.
If I recall correctly, one of the mossies crashed on takeoff, and two were shot down by flak.
As always, my four year-old daughter insists I include: :rolleyes: :cry :huh :rofl :eek:
Edit - Actually, now that I look, I can't find a reference for the one which is supposed to have crashed. Will have a look in Separate Little War, see if there's a reference.
-
The Copenhagen raid was both a success and a catastrophy, for one mossie crashed into a school building, and some two were mislead by the fire and dropped their bombs into it. 100 people dead. However, Gestapo's Archives destroyed, and I think some prisoners escaped.
The Aalborg raid was much better, leaving a hospital only a 100 metres from the target unscratched. There was a very succesful raid on Gestapo HQ in Oslo as well I belive, and on the IWM I saw a film which was a Gestapo HQ raid in the French countryside.
The narrative with the film is in Danish by the way ;)
-
Know what would be nice if there was a rhyme or reason for the mossie or the 110 to flatspin or tailslide.
Last night upped in my 110g2, with the bee on the nose to take out a low IB lanc, he must have been aroun 9k or so, as I am climbing through 6k I notice a dot on the ground under him about 2k off the gorund, I figure it might be a goon so I level and dive slightly. I get in vis and its another 110 coming in, I level about 3,5k and he goes for the HO, I pull up and try to get him to follow me in a spiral, He sprays and a hit takes out my starboard engine, but no matter I can outfly this dweeb on one engine, sure enough I do and stitch him nose to tail, suddenly as I level off from my attack, I stall while inverted and go into a tailslide maybe 2k of the ground. Grr I think I outfly this dweeb on 1 engine and the porked FM gets me after I kick his arse, anyways I manage to recover and start to level about 400 ft up, when it snaps again and goes into the flatspin. Luckily he crashed about 4 seconds before I did.
-
Originally posted by Harry
See Rule #4
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
See RUle #4
:rolleyes:
-
Furball, the slanderous nick goes back about 4 years or so to the old OnWar board.
So if harry is making a claim he was the first, then Kurfy has a new nick here. ;)
I don't let it get to me considering the source(s) of the slander.
-
Harry is not Kurfurst.
I don't know who he is, but he has expressed concern with and knowledge of things specific to Aces High, something Kurfurst never did. Not once.
Thus while he may be of like mind, he seems to have a more direct interest in AH than Kurfurst did.
-
maybe not... i am sure skuzzy and co would be able to tell if it was him if they really wanted him banned
-
Whether he is or is not, is irrelevant. Each handle on the BB will stand on its own merit, unless it is quite obvious the owner is trying to circumvent a ban from the board.
Let's stop the witch hunt folks. Leave that to us. :)
-
2 years ago a flight school was in AZ was shut down when 3 died doing an engine out stall in a twin that resulted in a flat spin. Bet they were as surprised as you were in you 110
-
I'm your shade account Skuzzy !
well ... how long will I survive ?
-
Can we put money on this? Try posting again :D
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #4
-
The name calling will cease.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The name calling will cease.
poopie head :furious
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That's true Angus.
No, Harry is not Kurfurst. He predates Kurfurst's departure.
Did he? That's the best news I've heard all year! :aok Was he banned or did he just leave?
Still can't get my mind around how fanatical he was about Germany in general and the 109 in particular. What even stranger is that he found it necessary to rant here, without even playing AH :( Would have liked to meet him irl just to see what he was like.
And yes, please remove the flame dampers. I almost never have troubles with spins and such btw, no matter what plane. Maybe I don't fly aggressively enough :D
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
And yes, please remove the flame dampers. I almost never have troubles with spins and such btw, no matter what plane. Maybe I don't fly aggressively enough :D
I really hope this can be done. Mosquito Mk VIs that operated during the day had multiple ejectors for two reasons. One, and the main one, was that performance was significantly better with the multiple ejector stacks than with the saxaphone duct. The other was that maintainance on the multiple ejector stacks was easier and less frequent. The ground crews greatly prefered the ejector stacks.
Given that AH's MA and CT for the forseeable future will be daylight settings it makes a lot more sense to have the Mosquito Mk VI use a daylight engine exhaust configuration.
-
And yes, please remove the flame dampers.
Hopefully, when Mossies are redone.
Bozon
-
When we're on it, I have nothing substantial in my library about the Mosquito.
What I'm most interested in is in flight trails in fighter configuration. Do these exist? I've seen tons of stuff here on most aircraft, and have quite a few good books myself. But nothing much on the Mosquito, performance trials, handling, that sort of thing. Any suggestions? (I belive Scherf mentions a good book in another thread). Linkt to on-line docs would be welcomed too.
-
website: http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/mossie.htm
-
Uh namecalling forbidden?
Well, I'll risk either a :
"See Rule #4" or
"See Rule #5"
When I say:
Justin_g !!!!! That was a very good mossie link you brought up. Been looking, and now I have one ;)
And....as a proof of Justin's merit, I hope this picture loads. Bloody awesome cockpit pics from Mossies on that site!
(http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/00_si/MP00MOS2.JPG)
-
Yippeeeee it worked.
Here is the link to the kiwiaircraft homepage:
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/aviation.html
Have a nice weekend folks ;)
-
http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/Mosquito.htm
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss.html
http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito.html
http://www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_DH98%20prodn%20list.txt
http://sres.anu.edu.au/associated/fpt/nwfp/mosquito/Mosquito.html
-
Hogenbor:
The best overall Mossie book is (appropriately) "Mosquito" by Martin Sharp and Michael J.F. Bowyer. (Going from memory for the first names, but it's definitely Sharp and Bowyer.)
Unfortunately, the book doesn't have particularly good performance graphs - there's a couple stuck in there without reference to context, weights, yadda yadda. Best doccos are in the British National Archives, AIR18/716, again going from memory.
I also think there must be some performance-related documents in the reference library of the Mosquito Museum. I'm a member, but have not had time, during my brief visits to the U.K., to set up any time to look.
-
Here's an interesting quote from the pilot's notes, taken from this page:
http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/mossie10.htm
(ii) Warning of the approach of the stall is given by the pronounced buffeting of the control surfaces, the onset of which can be felt some 10 knots before the stall itself. At the stall the aircraft pitches, the ASI fluctuates and the nose drops gently. There is little tendency for the wing to drop unless the control column is held back. Recovery is easy and normal in all cases.
Bozon
-
I love the mossie, i really wish i had the net back at my flat so i could fly one in AH.
I was watching old AH films this morning, in one of them i'm tangling with a spit and dadrabit is on vox saying "somebody go down and help thrila down there, he's in a mossie....oh nevermind, he got him". It made me smile.:)
-
Originally posted by thrila
I love the mossie, i really wish i had the net back at my flat so i could fly one in AH.
I was watching old AH films this morning, in one of them i'm tangling with a spit and dadrabit is on vox saying "somebody go down and help thrila down there, he's in a mossie....oh nevermind, he got him". It made me smile.:)
Trust me when I say Thrila is DAMN GOOD with that plane.
HIYA THRILA!!!!!!!!
-
Thrila's gunnery gives him the equivalent of "giant frikkin' lasers" on his mossie.
, ya bastard!
:D
-
frilla = teh suck.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
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.
Forget that, if you find yourself in a flatspin in a 110 kill the engines and push forward on the stick, as soon as the nose drops fire em back up and firewall the throttle. EZ as pie and works like a charm, I fly the 110 quite a bit and this has saved me many times, in some situations with very little alt.
-
If the Mossie was 'more successful' than the 110 - how come we only get the one version of the mossie in AH?
-
Thanks guys! I'll be back in June hopefully.:)
fruby is teh p00py!
-
The other viable marques are either dedicated nightfighters or high-alt uber-bombers(400mph+ @ 30k & 4000lb "cookie" bombload:D)
-
The mossie is an 'uber bomber' - cool.
OK - so it should be easier to add them then, even if they're perked.
...wait a minute, if they're bombers would we get 2 drones too?
Thought - bouncing bombs for taking out FHs/Towns from very low altitudes, very fast? :D
-
The smaller verison of the bouncing bomb (Hi-Ball) for the mossie I don't think was ever used.
-
You seem to be right. I was thinking of 'Highball'.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
The smaller verison of the bouncing bomb (Hi-Ball) for the mossie I don't think was ever used.
It wasn't used, much to the frustration of the 618 Sqn. pilots. At one point a sortie to attack Tirpitz in Norway was all ready to go, then scrubbed at the last minute. Originally, the idea was to attack Tirpitz at the same time as the dams, so as to maximize surprise.
"A Most Secret Squadron" has some really good information on this. There's also some bouncing bomb video links over on the IL-2 board. One is quite spectacular, as the test weapon veers off course to port - towards the camera!