Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: TheZohan on March 05, 2009, 07:33:25 AM
-
really nice seeing the different varients produced
http://books.google.com/books?id=XIEzBrBaS14C&pg=PA18&dq=Osprey+Publishing&lr=#PPA17,M1
-
Hehe, not many mosquito fans these days. Here is something for the few, excellent (including combat) footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cb6SmK_c2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7pNBSRkEiQ
If you have bittorent:
http://www.aviapedia.com/bombers/the-de-havilland-mosquito-film
This one has some dazzling footage of low level flying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KWZq2ZS_yY&feature=related
-
i was actually watching a movie the other day "the mosquito squadron" seem pretty good
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064699/
-
Mossie my fav twin eng plane
-
I love the Mossie, it is a highly under-rated aircraft. It is just too bad that it is held back a bit, regardless of how "little", with those blasted flame dampers/exhaust baffles on the engines (less than %20 of the Mk IV's had the exhasut baffles). Another 5-15mph (alt dependent) would allow the Mk IV to really shine. Currently, it is retarded and not even HTC will acknowledge as to the reasoning why.
The Mossie is out-weighed by the Bf110G-2 and its dual 30mm, dual 20mm (or quad 20mm), and its pair of 500kg bombs. The speed and menouverability of the Mossie come into play even more so when comparing the two. The Mossie retains E quite well, but dont cross the 400pmh mark in a steep dive bomb or else you'll compress or lose parts.
I'd like to see the version that carries the 6/500lb bombs or even the "cookie".
EDIT: I just watched all of the films posted by bozon and I didnt see a single exhaust baffle on any of them. ;)
-
You do know that all these Osprey books you are linking to are copyrighted.
All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, criticism or revues, as permitted under the Copyright, Design and patent Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission.
-
MiloMorai, those books are published on Google by Osprey themselves. Look on the right.
"Published by Osprey Publishing
Pages displayed by permission"
-
OK then.
-
Mossie...pffft.
always thought it was an unarmed bomber. :eek:
-
MiloMorai, those books are published on Google by Osprey themselves. Look on the right.
"Published by Osprey Publishing
Pages displayed by permission"
They're only experts at any rate. Just a taste.
:devil
wrongway
-
Mossie...pffft.
always thought it was an unarmed bomber. :eek:
No, that's a p-38 :noid
-
EDIT: I just watched all of the films posted by bozon and I didnt see a single exhaust baffle on any of them. ;)
Been suggested many, many times over to remove them!
a) The only Mossies with factory fitted flame dampers were the initial few batches. But they were unable to carry rockets, so ours isn't based on those.
b) They were fitted for night operations - we no longer have night!
-
If you look closely at pics of 8 Group Mossies, you'll see they didn't even use the baffles for night bombing sorties. There's pics of 105, 109 and 139 Sqn Mossies in mid-43 with the baffles, after that they seem to come off as a matter of course. "Mosquito" by Sharp & Bowyer says the visibility was reduced by making the stub exhausts of a narrow cross-section, and was more than paid for by the gain in speed.
-
The problem I have run into is finding actual test data for a non-lemon Mosquito without the dampers. It may not exist.
-
The only one I've seen (for the FB.VI) is a de Havilland test which was run in response to the problems whcih the A&AEE identified with the lemon test aircraft. (The non-lemon did the same speed with the saxophone exhausts as the lemon fitted with ejectors in the hands of the A&AEE. dH took the lemon back, cleaned it up, re-did the test and sent the results to Boscombe Downe.)
It's available at:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hj679-dh.pdf
-
The only one I've seen (for the FB.VI) is a de Havilland test which was run in response to the problems whcih the A&AEE identified with the lemon test aircraft. (The non-lemon did the same speed with the saxophone exhausts as the lemon fitted with ejectors in the hands of the A&AEE. dH took the lemon back, cleaned it up, re-did the test and sent the results to Boscombe Downe.)
It's available at:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hj679-dh.pdf
Yes, but even then the lemon performed below standard. As I recall, the clean up got it up to about a dampened Mossie's speed.
-
Hmmm, I think the non-lemon performed as expected with saxophone exhausts. The A&AEE put stub exhausts on the lemon, expected it to go 15 mph faster than the saxophone version, foiund that in fact it put up the same numbers.
dH took it back, found it went as expected, top speed aroud 384 mph at 12,400 feet, 19,100 lbs, with drop tanks (which knocked off 5 mph according to Sharp & Bowyer), Merlin 25s, ejector exhausts.
-
Hmmm, maybe I am reading the charts wrong. What speed did it get at low alt? I didn't see deck speeds there.
From what I have read, I'd expect a Mossie 6 with Merlin 25s and ejector stacks to do about 350 on the deck. I have been told as much by a Mossie pilot and the numbers all match up to support it.
-
I didn't see deck speeds there.
I thinik they did the test from full-throttle height in low-altitude gear (MS? FS? I can't recall just now...) upwards. dH got 372 mph at that level, A&AEE 354. In the higher gear, dH got 384, A&AEE 364. Both A&AEE and dH had wing tanks on, which again cost around 5 mph. All on HJ679, with ejector exhausts. A&AEE had a weight of 20,400 lbs.
-
according to this, and comparing to the HTC speed vs. alt plots, the speed peaks of the low gear is spot on: 372 mph at 6000ft. At high gear, the test data is a bit faster: 384 mph at 12.5 kft vs. 380 mph in HTC plot.
However, what this plot does not show is how the speed falls for low altitude. It is the deck speed that is important for the Mk. VI and where external drag can make a difference since engine power will not vary by much (boost, according to the plot before it, is 18lb/sqi at 6kft and should stay like that down to 0?).
It is also interesting that the external tanks reduce the speed by barely 4 mph.
-
according to this, and comparing to the HTC speed vs. alt plots, the speed peaks of the low gear is spot on: 372 mph at 6000ft. At high gear, the test data is a bit faster: 384 mph at 12.5 kft vs. 380 mph in HTC plot.
However, what this plot does not show is how the speed falls for low altitude. It is the deck speed that is important for the Mk. VI and where external drag can make a difference since engine power will not vary by much (boost, according to the plot before it, is 18lb/sqi at 6kft and should stay like that down to 0?).
It is also interesting that the external tanks reduce the speed by barely 4 mph.
I don't follow you on that. The 384 is with drop tanks, which lowered the speed by ~5mph in tests. That would make that test without drop tanks at 389mph compared to the 380mph of the AH Mossie.
-
Prime alts for speed are 8500ft and 15000ft for the AH2 Mossie. And someone point out to me where the charts say it will reach 380mph in AH2, I've not ever achieved 380mph in level flight at in my Mossie at any weight. The AH2 charts show less than 375mph max (371mph is the best I've ever achieved at 15k).
Without the exhaust baffles, the Mossie would have another 5-15mph speed depending on alt. Those are not someone's scribbling in those papers from Niel Stirling, those are official test docs from de Haviland. Why should HTC need anything else???
-
I don't follow you on that. The 384 is with drop tanks, which lowered the speed by ~5mph in tests. That would make that test without drop tanks at 389mph compared to the 380mph of the AH Mossie.
the red curve in the last plot of the posted pdf file is without tanks.
And someone point out to me where the charts say it will reach 380mph in AH2,
As you can see, the WEP line goes a little over over the 375 grid line. If you can achieve that in the game is another issue. Also note that the weight is HTC plot is higher that the posted test (in the title line)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/1/1b/Mossie6spd.jpg)
-
Thanks Bozon.
Can't say I ever got the AH Mossie up to that speed. As Karnak says, speed on the deck seems to be the thing, in AH that seems to be about 338, without wing tanks.. That's about what the A&AEE say, though they've got around 333 with external tanks fitted. All of that is for saxophone exhausts on HX809 or stubs on ("the lemon") HJ679.
Funny thing is, their test says it's for 95% takeoff weight = 20,400 lbs. I wonder where the AH 22,221 lbs comes from?
-
the red curve in the last plot of the posted pdf file is without tanks.
As you can see, the WEP line goes a little over over the 375 grid line. If you can achieve that in the game is another issue. Also note that the weight is HTC plot is higher that the posted test (in the title line)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/1/1b/Mossie6spd.jpg)
With WEP??? Yeah I saw saw that, I was wondering of their was chart somewhere I had not seen. I wouldnt even consider using the Mossie's WEP in any arguement of this nature. If the real thing moved along at 389mph without WEP then comparing AH2's misguided incarnation w/ WEP at 380mph is not the same thing.
-
So far as I know, the tests all show performance at the 5-minute engine limit, i.e. max boost. & revs, = WEP.
-
The max speeds in the test (with the wing tanks) were obtained with just a little over 17lb/sqi boost (last point on the plot, but they draw the line up to 18lb/sqi, so I am not sure how high they actually went). Now that I checked in the game offline, AH mosquito obtains only 14lb/sqi boost WITH WEP.
Posted before, but is worth another post - Mosquito VI ace pilot stories. Note how confident he was in their ability to outrun 190s and 109s unless they had alt advantage:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200406/ai_n9455871
According to gonzoville, our Mosquito can just about match 109F-4 and G-6 on the deck (with WEP) and is out paced by 109G-2. It is slower than all 190 models (in cluding A-5, the slowest) on the deck. Not to mention that the elevator controls feel like rubber bands, to the point where it is sometimes hard to stall the plane, while they were reported to be very responsive in the actual thing.
-
The max speeds in the test (with the wing tanks) were obtained with just a little over 17lb/sqi boost (last point on the plot, but they draw the line up to 18lb/sqi, so I am not sure how high they actually went). Now that I checked in the game offline, AH mosquito obtains only 14lb/sqi boost WITH WEP.
Posted before, but is worth another post - Mosquito VI ace pilot stories. Note how confident he was in their ability to outrun 190s and 109s unless they had alt advantage:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200406/ai_n9455871
According to gonzoville, our Mosquito can just about match 109F-4 and G-6 on the deck (with WEP) and is out paced by 109G-2. It is slower than all 190 models (in cluding A-5, the slowest) on the deck. Not to mention that the elevator controls feel like rubber bands, to the point where it is sometimes hard to stall the plane, while they were reported to be very responsive in the actual thing.
Um, the 190A-5 is not the slowest of the 4 we have. It can fly faster then both the "twins" (A-8/F-8), and can climb the best of the 4 as well. ;)
The Mossie was and is faster than both the 109E-4 and F-4, is dead on w/ the G-6, but slower than the G-2, G-14, and K-4. Throw in the different alts and the gaps will merge and veer apart. I dont hesistate for a minute of I know the E is simlar to "extend" vs ono of the 3 slower 109's, but vs the other more faster 109's I do my best to keep my nose between me and them.
One has to wonder how and why HTC does certain things, ESPECIALLY since they dont seem to explain topics such as the Mossie. I keep hearing that they adjust flight models when concrete and legit data is presented but yet AH2's Mossie has been shown time and time again to be questionable (even with the initial corrections and they STILL have not addressed the issue.
Why do they use a retarded Mossie (baffles/speed/handling/etc)? Why do they not make public statements or sticky threads in which they reply to justify their reasonings? It is one thing to berate and points fingers at them, but when one can point a finger at official D.H. info and ask "Why" to them, there is no response. So in turn.. threads like this one keep coming up.
Has there been any thought about making a thread for each individual aircraft and variants, class of aircraft "fighters, gv's buffs, etc", or other such centralized data base???
-
Well, they had a point when we had night, but as we no longer do, it all seems strange. There's enough photos of daylight FB.VIs with ejector stubs around from '43 onwards to back it up if needs be.
-
I just wish we flew them more. Once upon a time there was always Rook squadrons, or even put together missions, flying Mossies all the time. For the life of me I dont know why we quit doing it. Missions consisting of Mossies, typhoons, Temps, Spits, are not only lethal but also very fast.
The Mossie is, IMOHO, the best strike aircraft in the game.
-
One has to wonder how and why HTC does certain things, ESPECIALLY since they dont seem to explain topics such as the Mossie. I keep hearing that they adjust flight models when concrete and legit data is presented but yet AH2's Mossie has been shown time and time again to be questionable (even with the initial corrections and they STILL have not addressed the issue.
Why do they use a retarded Mossie (baffles/speed/handling/etc)? Why do they not make public statements or sticky threads in which they reply to justify their reasonings? It is one thing to berate and points fingers at them, but when one can point a finger at official D.H. info and ask "Why" to them, there is no response. So in turn.. threads like this one keep coming up.
HTC have their own priorities and considerations. What seems logical and simple to you may look different to them, given the larger picture. HTC does tend to fix flight models, but sometimes it takes a long long time as it falls down the priority ladder.
Demanding them to fix something usually does not work. I think it even causes an opposite reaction of resentment instead of sympathy. I certainly am in no position to make any demands. I am currently not a paying customer due to, lets call it "lack of FPS". I would like to return in the near future so I still care very much about the game. If you want something changed, a better course of action is to keep it on the surface, but without shoving it into their faces. This way, when they re-prioritize their tasks or take new decisions, your issue is not forgotten. If you managed to provide a lot of the needed data, it may even help to move the issue closer on the work schedule due to less required man-hours on their side.
For the mosquito, since its problems are not game breakers by any means (the arenas will not implode because of the missing 5-10 mph and anemic elevators), it will likely see no updates of any sort until the plane 3D model gets re-done or some system wide change happens that requires checking every model. When this about to happen, it would be good if mosquito threads are still popping up from time to time. Not whine threads, but any mosquito thread will do as a reminder that people want to see this fixed: pretty pictures threads, mosquito guides, posted videos and ahf files, historical documents postings and discussion are particularly good, etc etc. Before the previous center of gravity fix (that created a new problem - the rubber band elevator control) I tried to make sure that there will always be a mosquito thread in one of the major forums (Help, General discussion, Aircraft & Vehicles, wishlist ocasionally) on the first page. This is a one event statistics, but it worked - so this works 100% of the time :) Even if it doesn't work and in the meantime, we can certainly enjoy such threads.
-
I just wish we flew them more. Once upon a time there was always Rook squadrons, or even put together missions, flying Mossies all the time. For the life of me I dont know why we quit doing it. Missions consisting of Mossies, typhoons, Temps, Spits, are not only lethal but also very fast.
The Mossie is, IMOHO, the best strike aircraft in the game.
The Mossie cant make full use of its best asset: speed. Yeah, it is faster that the BF110G-2, but marginally so. As far as being the "best" strike aircraft in the game I think many will debate that the Bf110G-2 outshines the Mossie Mk 6 when it comes to hammering the ground. The only two advantages I see for the Mossie is its ability to carry 4/500lb bombs (4 dead tanks via ord) vs the Bf110G-2's ability to carry 2/500kg bombs and 4/50kg bombs (3 dead tanks via ord), and the Mossie's ability to extend and hold E. Otherwise the 110's dual 30mm, dual 20mm (or quad 20mm), is an awesome force.
FWIW, since I am not the type of player to always have the "best" in the air I take up the Mossie unless I am directed or inclined by sqd mates to take up the 110. It takes the 110G-2 two passes to take down a hanger (gun package only) and ditto for a Mossie (rockets and guns). The more seasoned player can do more with the Mossie (take down a hanger in 2 passes w/ rockets and guns, have 2 bombs for gv's, AND be able to fend off fighters), but the 110G-2 is a very easy aircraft that gets the hanger busting job done with minimal efforts.
-
I wonder where the AH 22,221 lbs comes from?
Found a Miniistry of Aircraft Production data sheet which gives the Maximum weight of an FB.VI as 22,258 with full internal fuel AND with 4x500-lb bombs. Same sheet gives initial climb on Merlin 25s +18 boost as 2,850 ft./min (it specifies that's with the bombs still aboard), top speed at 19,496 lb as 370 with wing bombs attached, 380 without, but no doubt with the bomb carriers still attached. Sharp & Bowyer say wing bombs reduced speed by 15 mph, so if one gains 10 mph by dropping the bombs, one is left with a 5 mph drop in speed due to the bomb carriers, same loss as incurred by the drop tanks.
Matches up neatly with the dH results of 384 top speed.
-
Now that I checked in the game offline, AH mosquito obtains only 14lb/sqi boost WITH WEP.
Different MAP data sheet gives +14 WEP as a Merlin 23. Sharp & Bowyer specify Merlin 25s were on the FB.VIs issued to 418 Sqn Sqns in mid-43.
In other words gimme my fargin Mossie!
:furious
-
and now, a quick word from our sponser...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDYAtdB6eHQ&feature=channel_page
thank you, carry on!
-
Different MAP data sheet gives +14 WEP as a Merlin 23. Sharp & Bowyer specify Merlin 25s were on the FB.VIs issued to 418 Sqn Sqns in mid-43.
In other words gimme my fargin Mossie!
:furious
The performance of the Mossie VI in AH matches the Merlin 25. The gauges match the Merlin 23.
-
and now, a quick word from our sponser...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDYAtdB6eHQ&feature=channel_page
thank you, carry on!
Now THAT's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
-
Found a Miniistry of Aircraft Production data sheet which gives the Maximum weight of an FB.VI as 22,258 with full internal fuel AND with 4x500-lb bombs.
Odd. I'll try to find some other sources to cross check.
-
Had a look at my original FB.VI CG chart (holy of holies) - it says 22,258 is all-up weight with 4x500s, full internal fuel AND desert gear!
At least it matches up with the MAP document.
More to the point, the MAP Merlin 25 docco says the Mossie climbs at 2,850 feet / min with full fuel and bombs (no mention made of desert gear), which is rather more than what the AHwiki chart shows.
Are the AHwiki charts accurate?
-
I'm loving this thread... :D
...even more evidence seems to be creeping out of the woodwork. I hope HTC has nightmares. ;)
-
Had a look at my original FB.VI CG chart (holy of holies) - it says 22,258 is all-up weight with 4x500s, full internal fuel AND desert gear!
All websites that I found till now (example: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss1.html#m7 (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss1.html#m7), and http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/dehamosqbfn.html#dehamosqbfn1 (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/dehamosqbfn.html#dehamosqbfn1)) give an empty weight of 14,300 lbs.
In game, an empty mosquito - 0 fuel and no ammo weights 16,474 lbs. This is about 2000 lbs over the given empty weight - could this be the 4*500s taken to be as part of the plane? On the other hand, loading it with 4*500, 100% fuel and the small (large) ammo load gives 22,221 (22354) lbs, so this seems about right (The AH empty weight + 622 lbs (max)ammo + 542 gal * 6 lbs/gal + 2000lbs bombs). Empty weight may not include things like oil, the pilots and sandwiches for the road that add up to 2000 lbs?
Anyone cares to test the max speed at 6000 feet with this loadout? and without the bombs?
Anyway, this means that the AH mosquito performance chart (22,221 lbs) is for a mosquito with 100% fuel, the small ammo load and 4 500 bombs. Not only this means weight, two of these bombs are on the wings and add much more drag.
Anyone cares to test the max speed at 6000 feet with this loadout? and also without the bombs?
-
I don't want 'em to have nightmares, it's not about that.
I guess I should post some of the stuff I've been referring to. Might try to upload to the AHwiki site for the Mossie.
-
All websites that I found till now (example: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss1.html#m7 (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss1.html#m7), and http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/dehamosqbfn.html#dehamosqbfn1 (http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/dehamosqbfn.html#dehamosqbfn1)) give an empty weight of 14,300 lbs.
In game, an empty mosquito - 0 fuel and no ammo weights 16,474 lbs. This is about 2000 lbs over the given empty weight - could this be the 4*500s taken to be as part of the plane? On the other hand, loading it with 4*500, 100% fuel and the small (large) ammo load gives 22,221 (22354) lbs, so this seems about right (The AH empty weight + 622 lbs (max)ammo + 542 gal * 6 lbs/gal + 2000lbs bombs). Empty weight may not include things like oil, the pilots and sandwiches for the road that add up to 2000 lbs?
Anyone cares to test the max speed at 6000 feet with this loadout? and without the bombs?
Anyway, this means that the AH mosquito performance chart (22,221 lbs) is for a mosquito with 100% fuel, the small ammo load and 4 500 bombs. Not only this means weight, two of these bombs are on the wings and add much more drag.
Anyone cares to test the max speed at 6000 feet with this loadout? and also without the bombs?
I will test it... it wontbe until tomorrow when I have time, but I'll get the job done. :) Film and all.
EDIT: To clarify, we need to have tested the Mossie at 6000ft w/ %100 fuel, small ammo package for guns, and both w/ and w/o the four 500lb bombs?
-
I was able to keep my eye open with some tape and so I went ahead and performed the test. I hope I did what was being asked, I wasnt sure about the specifics.
Here are the constants: I started at 10k from A22 in the TA, dove to 6k and cut throttle until I was appx 355mph and then went full throttle with no WEP. I always had %100 fuel and the large ammo loadout. I used auto pilot. When fuel was at 520 gal, I took the speed readings. The one thing I forgot to do was record weight.
Variables and speed results:
NO ORD: 353mph
2/500lb on wings: 343mph
2/250lb on wings: 345mph
2/500lb internal: 352mph
4/500lb bombs: 341mph
2/500lb internal w/ 8 rockets on wings: 345mph
I was surprised at the speed readings for the rockets. Those 8 rockets along with the racks are not as aerodynamic as either the two 250 or 500lb bombs. While lighter in weight by roughly 400lbs total, they have to create one heck of a disturbance in the Force... er I mean air flow.
-
I tested this as well.
At 22,221 lbs weight (100%+4*500lbs+small ammo load) - similar to the weight indicated on the HTC speed chart, at 6k:
341 - no wep
355 - WEP
Without the bombs (weight 20,221):
353 - no wep
367 - WEP.
It seems like the weight indicated on the HTC chart is wrong. It should be 20,221.
-
All of those speeds are about 10 mph slower than the MAP docco for the relevant condition (wing bombs on / off), which as noted above are themselves about 5 mph slower than absolute max due to wing bomb carriers.
I will try to get the MAP document up on the AHwiki site.
Edit - the docco is in these two files:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Image:MosquitoVIMerlin25a.JPG
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Image:MosquitoVIMerlin25b.JPG
These figures must I believe be for a Mosquito FB.VI with ejector exhausts - note that with a 5 mph speed loss for the wing bomb mountings (which remain after the bombs are dropped and are roughly the same size & shape as the wing tanks) these figures correspond very closely to those in the de Havilland tests.
Also note the climb rate given.
Will try to get the CG chart stuff up.
Thanks to "drover" and the RAF Museum Hendon for the original.
-
*rubs hands together* :D
Awesome info... lots of concete stuff being presented. Lets only hope that this thread is being watched... with extreme interest and a positive light... by HTC and Co. One can only hope. :aok :)
FWIW, I also tested max speed with no ord, no ammo, and I burned off as much fuel as possible, with only 10 gal left in the tanks the best level speed I could get at 8500ft (the lower of the 2 "prime" alts[8500ft and 15k] was 373mph. I'll test the same parameters at 15k and see what I get. I'll post the info right here.
-
Evidently, people are only able to edit their post once?
Anyways... I tested the Mossie with no extra weight. I took it up to 15k, went level, fired all the ammo, and just let it ride. I went 3 sectors out and 3 back on %25 fuel and took speed and weight readings as the fuel got real low.
15k alt, no ord, no ammo, no WEP:
30 gal left = 16650 lbs and 379mph
10 gal left = 16533 lbs and 379mph
1 gal left = 16480 lbs and 379mph
-
I have to say I'm now as confused by the climb numbers as by the speed numbers. The AH charts have (by hook or by crook) the same weight as the MAP docco, but the AH climb results are lethargic compared to the 2,850 ft/min (at max weight) given by the MAP.
-
1 gal left = 16480 lbs and 379mph
Thanks for that, Loon - in that case the AH empty weight is about 240 lbs too heavy. MAP says 16208, but that's with all oil gone and I don't know if AH models this. With all 283 lbs of oil still aboard but all bombs dropped, fuel burned off and ammo pooped into space, I get 16,241 lbs empty.
Will post the CG chart when I get round to it, maybe my spreadsheet too.
So, currently, the AH Mossie is too slow, climbs too slowly, is too heavy - anything else?
-
240 lbs out of 16200 is pretty negligible and can be attributed to what "empty" actually means. The definition gets fuzzy when you get to the equipment carried n the plane (w/o oxygen, how many radios, the weight of the pilots and their equipment, other survival equipment...)
-
I'm not too concerned with 240lbs. It shouldnt make hardly a difference. I also did some testing on the differences in weights and speeds for the aircraft at 8500ft w/ both the hvy and lt ammo loadouts... almost nothing to make mention of, really.
Also, if you look at the difference in speeds between the "no ords" vs the 2/500lbs internal you'll see that there is only 2-3 mph difference in top speed at 6000ft. That is 1000lbs more weight and that only cuts back the speed by 2-3mph. I dont think a near empty weight difference of 240lbs or so would make too much of a performance impact.
With that being said, that weight could be linked to something that causes the problem... like those rinky dink EXHAUST BAFFLES? :D
-
I thinik they did the test from full-throttle height in low-altitude gear (MS? FS? I can't recall just now...) upwards. dH got 372 mph at that level, A&AEE 354. In the higher gear, dH got 384, A&AEE 364. Both A&AEE and dH had wing tanks on, which again cost around 5 mph. All on HJ679, with ejector exhausts. A&AEE had a weight of 20,400 lbs.
:huh :huh Airplanes with gears? :huh :huh
:P Note to self.... got to wishlist and request reverse for my Pony. :D
-
Not hard to understand as the supercharger had 2 gear ratios > one for low/medium altitudes and the other for high altitudes. :eek:
Never heard of 2 speed, 2 stage superchargers?
-
:huh Nope, I don't believe so. I'm sure your right, just thought it sounded funny,lol. :aok
-
Do we have the weight values for the FB MkIV with the baffles on, or is that the data we're still searching for? I cant imagine the extra weight penalty being worth anywhere near the drag penalty.
I'm trying to find the printed info that shows the speeds of the Mossie FB MkIV w/ the baffles, I had them saved but deleted them evidently.
-
I believe there's a B.IV test with & without the saxophone exhausts over at Mike Williams' site, WWII Aircraft Performance I think it is.
The FB.VI stuff with/without gets us back to the whole "lemon" issue. The aircraft tested by Boscombe Down with stub ejectors was on two occasions not as fast as it was expected to be and is even described in one report as "not representative of the type." That was the aircraft which dH took back and re-tested, and which topped out at 384.
I'ts not just the external baffles though, more the exhaust gas vessel itself. I once posted a graphic here of how the thing worked, will see if I can find it again.
-
The last flying mosquito showing its feathers, a short while before it stopped flying.
What a beauty :salute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGwfNrnWsc&feature=related
-
The last flying mosquito showing its feathers, a short while before it stopped flying.
What a beauty :salute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGwfNrnWsc&feature=related
Awesome... thx for posting. :aok
-
She does turns that I could not copy in AH....
-
?
-
more eye candy anyone?
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/Hellmarch_V1.wmv
the shape, the sound, the guns...i'm in love and have been for some time.
-
more eye candy anyone?
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/Hellmarch_V1.wmv
the shape, the sound, the guns...i'm in love and have been for some time.
Very cool video! I haven't spent much time in Mossie's lately.... Think I may have to spend a tour in one...
Thanks
-
S! Dave. Just remember, if someone is foolish enough to open fire head-on and you can't avoid it, It's worth shooting back in this bird and also moraly justified :D
-
S! Dave. Just remember, if someone is foolish enough to open fire head-on and you can't avoid it, It's worth shooting back in this bird and also moraly justified :D
:aok
Upped a Mossie for the first time in quite awhile last night. Only had time for one sortie before FSO, managed three kills before they got me. I had forgotten how absolutely fantastic that gun package is!
-
more eye candy anyone?
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/Hellmarch_V1.wmv
the shape, the sound, the guns...i'm in love and have been for some time.
Friggin' awsome!
-
you're right She is awesome, ty sir.
now all keep your hands off her, shes mine i tell you, all mine.
-
you're right She is awesome, ty sir.
now all keep your hands off her, shes mine i tell you, all mine.
C'mon now Batty,didnt ur Mom teach ya to share???
Can I atleast look at it once and awhile... :devil
-
ok morf, but you have her back by midnight, ya understand?
-
Added (at long last) my CG table and chart stuff to the Mosquito page. Note that the All-Up-Weight links up to that stated on the MAP document (non-overload condition, no desert equipment).
-
more eye candy anyone?
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/Hellmarch_V1.wmv
the shape, the sound, the guns...i'm in love and have been for some time.
Finally got to watch that one. Very nice, makes me want to resubscribe and roll Mossies again. Love watching Mossies destroy "superior" fighters.
My final sortie in AH was in a Mosquito, in which I downed, in sequence, an La-7, P-51D and Spitfire Mk VIII, all of which started with moderate to server E advantages on me. I wish I'd filmed it.
-
Thank you Karnak, I'm happy to ignite those urges in someone. Sounds like you'll have quite an act to follow with that target line up. Perhaps when the new terrain comes along it might swing the balance for you.
-
Finally got to watch that one. Very nice, makes me want to resubscribe and roll Mossies again. Love watching Mossies destroy "superior" fighters.
My final sortie in AH was in a Mosquito, in which I downed, in sequence, an La-7, P-51D and Spitfire Mk VIII, all of which started with moderate to server E advantages on me. I wish I'd filmed it.
I can sympathize with that. I am also on the sidelines due to lack of a computer that can run the game. I still watch some of my mosquito and P47 films and take a mossie to an occasional offline flight where occasional plunges of FPS to signle digits is not too bad. Such clips makes my fingers itch to reach for the wallet and buy a third computer just for AH... and then quit my job to have time to play... :cry
-
I dunno - I'm considering spamming the board with photos of FB.VIs with ejector exhausts from various points in time.
All in an effort to get the bloody saxophone exhaust performance (night) replaced by ejector exhaust performance (day).
Sad, yes, I r teh sad.
-
I dunno - I'm considering spamming the board with photos of FB.VIs with ejector exhausts from various points in time.
All in an effort to get the bloody saxophone exhaust performance (night) replaced by ejector exhaust performance (day).
Sad, yes, I r teh sad.
Quite understandable. The Mosquito in AH does not live up to its historical reputation, not even close to it. If it were to be judged based on how it does in AH it would be seen as mediocre at best. It is particularly silly that the dismal Bf110 is seen as such a better aircraft.
The reasons for this are varried, a few that stand out to me are:
- Density of enemy aircraft coupled with the frequency of aircraft faster than the Mosquito
- Performance modeled with flame dampers, shaving 10-15mph off of its top speed, the difference beween being slower than the Spitfire Mk XVI and faster than it, for example
- Arbitrary building and ground structure durabilities that render the Mosquito's payload inadequate
-
more eye candy anyone?
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/Hellmarch_V1.wmv
the shape, the sound, the guns...i'm in love and have been for some time.
That was great, thanks mate.
-
This is HX965, EG-C of 487 Squadron, a (nominally) New Zealand unit in 2nd Tactical Air Force. The picture was taken on 3 October 1943, ahead of the squadron's first Mosquito operation the continent, carried out in cooperation with 464 Squadron, their Australian counterparts. The two squadrons attacked a power station supplying St. Nazaire and Brest, using the lov level/shallow dive technique first used by the B.IVs of 105 and 139 Squadrons.
Note the stub exhausts for this daylight operation (up 13.00, down 15.30 according to the 464 Squadron ORB, which is available online via www.naa.gov.au).
This aircraft continued to fly (though not always with front-line units) until lost in the Bodenplatte attack.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/487oct43b.jpg)
Photo from Imperial War Museum site.
-
This here is HX913 of 464 Squadron, photo taken in late 1943.
Again note the ejector exhausts.
By the end of December '43, 464 Squadron was sending aircraft against V-1 sites in daylight. The ORB I referred to in the previous post has this aircraft up 08.40, down 10.50 on 23 December 1943, flown by (then) S/L "Daddy" Dale, who later led 21 Squadron in the attack on the Amiens prison, and was lost to flak over Holland in 1945 at the age of 39.
What with the sorties against the sites, followed by the fighter sorties to combat the incoming missiles, the V-1s do seem to have absorbed a lot of the Allied air effort.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/464late43.jpg)
Photo is freely available at this resolution on the IWM site - zoomed in to show stub exhausts.
-
Truly, I love the sound of my own voice, but I can't see how to delete the dreaded double-post.
-
.
-
More stub exhaust spam, this time LR275 SY-B of 613 Squadron, taken in January 1944.
613 started by going after V-1 sites in daylight, and along with some later night interdiction stuff, was involved in a number of other daylight operations, against SS/Gestapo bad guys in France around the start of August '44, in support of the Arnhem landings, and notably delivering explosives and incendiaries at zero feet against the Dutch Central Population Registry in the Hague on 11 April 1944.
There are similar pics to this one (ie. with stub exhausts) of LR366 SY-L, which participated in the Hague raid, flown by F/L V.A. Hester.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/613a.jpg)
Pic from Scale Aircraft Modelling Combat Colours Number 5 - no source given.
-
That is a better shot. Much clearer photo. Pretty airplane too. ;)
-
Yeah, sorry about the resolution on the other ones, however the advantages of the IWM shots are the official nature they convey, the added details which are sometimes on the site, the fact I can tie the 464 ones back to an ORB entry, and sometimes they are stuff one doesn't see elsewhere.
There's another fuzzy IWM shot I'm going to post later of 21 Squadron Mossies raiding an occupied airfield in daylight - smoke and dust rising from bomb strikes, detonations going off in the background, a 109 parked on the field and a trailing Mossie banking away with doors open - speed, daylight, action all come through.
(Heheheh, can't see the exhaust stubs on the trailing aircraft though...)
Naturally, IWM wants $$$ for the full-size versions, my Mossie budget doesn't run to that.
-
Well, if we're on the subject of the IWM and 464 Squadron anyway, here's two more of the Museum's shots of the squadron.
These two were taken on 25 February, 1944, a week after the epic raid on Amiens.
The ORB describes two operations that day, both against V-1 sites, one in the morning (up 11.35, down 13.25) and one in the afternoon (up 16.30 down 18.15). Once again, note the stub exhausts for the daylight operation (insert flogging dead horse gif here).
The aircraft in the foreground of both shots is identified by the IWM as MM403, likely coded SB-V. It was flown on the morning mission by Captain Andy Wakeman, an American who'd initially flown with the RAF before transferring "back" to the USAAF. He was sadly lost just after D-Day in a takeoff accident in a different aircraft.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/25Feb44.jpg)
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/MM403.jpg)
Again, IWM photos from their site.
-
Meh, can't help myself.
Here's the airfield raid shot I mentioned above.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/Gael.jpg)
Photo taken from Karnak's Mossie as Scherf banks away, LW Orange last night.
Actually, no. It wasn't all V-1 sites in daylight. This is from April 1944, as Mosquitos from 21 Squadron attack hangars at Gael airfield in France.
Just one of my favourite Mosquito shots.
There's another shot from the same series, showing a (37mm?) flak gun firing just behind the tail of the aircraft taking the shot, with dust rising from a delayed-action bomb strike rising next to the gun tower...
-
this may be a dumb question but why 5 stubs not 6 for a V12 engine?
-
this may be a dumb question but why 5 stubs not 6 for a V12 engine?
The sixth one couldn't be fit in due to the position of the radiator, so the last two cylinders on each side share a stub.
-
I was thinking that.. Strange then that they used the same size stub for double the thruput.
-
The sixth one couldn't be fit in due to the position of the radiator, so the last two cylinders on each side share a stub.
True up to a point. The stubs for the Merlin 2x series FB.VIs ended up this way after initial experience in '42 and early '43 with the daylight bombers and recce machines.
Karnak mentioned earlier in the thread that the day bomber squadrons had aircraft with stubs instead of baffles, in order to gain back 10 or 12 mph. Here's one of them, DK336 GB-P of 105 Squadron, taken before Operation Oyster, the attack on the Philips works at Eindhoven, on 6 December 1942.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/peteroyster.jpg)
From memory, 627 Squadron retained the six-stub configuration on the B.IVs it had for low-level marking from April '44 onwards. Will check.
-
No indeed, the (low-level marker/bomber) 627 Sqn. fellows had the 5 stubs.
The Mosquitos equipped with two-stage, two-speed Merlins (recognisable by the additional intake immediately below the spinner) all had six stubs. This includes the Bomber boys - it was judged that the greater speed was worth the possibility of the exhaust flames being seen, though the early night bombers had the baffles, of which more later.
-
This thread is awesome. Lots of great information. Lots of info I hope HTC and Co. are paying attention to (or hopefully already knew and is planning to implement and thereby correcting the Mk IV anomaly AH2 currently has). ;)
:pray
-
I never really had much appreciation of the Mossies until a few months ago. When I flew the Mossie, I was blown away by its versatility! Its got great performance up high and down low. The gun package is also very nice, especially when taking out enemy bombers and strafing bases and strats.
I have a bias in the P47. That, of course, is my favorite "all-around" plane, due to its ability to bomb, escort, and just about everything else. But the Mossie is stands right beside the P47, IMHO. If the P47 isnt an option, I go for the Mossie as my plane of choice!
-
Versatility is the Mossie's strength, still, performance at altitude is weak on the Mk VI due to low blown engines.
-
It helps to know your opponent - there are altitudes at which the Mossie's Merlins function better relative to others - look for the "trough" in speed performance on the AH performance graphs. Hang around those altitudes (or get down to them fast) if in trouble.
-
Yeah, I spent a lot of time at 13,000ft.
-
I've posted this before guess it bears repeating why I'm whining about stubs in the first place.
It's not just the external baffles which slow the Mossie down, it's the saxophone exhausts below.
You can see in the 464 Squadron pics from 25 Feb 44 where these have been removed, ahead of *cough* daylight operations.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/saxophone.jpg)
-
Yeah, I spent a lot of time at 13,000ft.
8500ft and 15,000ft are the best 2 alts for speed in the AH2 Mossie. I like breaking the dar ring at 8500ft and full speed (roughly 360mph), diving down to 3000 to 4000ft halfway into the dar ring towards the enemy base and getting to 440 or so mph (still safe, no airframe creaking), and dropping a pair of ords, fuel depots, or the dar and extending for a second pass. Many times, if the ack doesnt land a shot into an engine I'll be long gone before anything can catch me.
The thing is, even though the Mossie performs well it still isnt up to par and guys like Sherf and Co. make legit arguements for unleashing the Mossie so it may perform at the level it is supposed to.
-
Pretty amazing account(s!) of the loss to friendly fire of a USAAF Mossie here:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=16846&page=2
AND here (scroll down to the end of the page):
http://103rdcactus.com/bio/410/410D/410D%20H%20K%20Brown/hkbrown10.htm
-
Scherf,
I noted that you see the chart our Mossie is based on as being tested with DTs on whereas ours is modeled with that speed without DTs. What deck speed do you see as correct for a Mossie VI with Merlin 25s at +18lbs boost with saxaphone ducts and no DTs? Mossie VI with Merlin 25s at +18lbs boost and ejector stacks? Mossie VI with Merlin 25s at +25lbs boost and ejector stacks?
I just want to know if you see the same speeds I do as I did not see the DTs on the chart ours is based on.
-
My favorite altitude, for attack, is about 8,000' . Last night I was in my Mossie at about 8k, buzzing along about 360 mph without WEP, and thinking all was right with the world. You can basically outrun all but 2 of the Spits at those Alts., just about the entire Jap set, and probably at least 1/2 the fighters in the game.
So anyway I have 2 Mossie movies IB from Amazon, "maybe you have seen them"? "Mosquito Squadron" and "633 Squadron". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYG7edf7RcQ&feature=related
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QndLmfp6Y5w&feature=related
Got wood yet oh 'ye fellow Mossie freaks? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQNzQf6_aJs&feature=related Well lets bring it down a notch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl8KSdcdv1g&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl8KSdcdv1g&feature=related
And my favorite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cb6SmK_c2g&feature=related I love the shots of the Norwegian fiord attack. I can just imagine what the poor schmuck N'atzi sailor was thinking when these Mossies dove in on his ship. Its where I love flying the Mossie most in the game, in the canyon raids with the steep mountains, where the bird can use her incredible zoom.
-
Hey Rich:
The second vid in your second post starts with one of the 487 Sqn Mossies on the 9 October 1943 raid I referred to earlier in the thread.
I think the fjord raid is at Nordgulen, certainly this photo at the Australian War Memorial site would suggest so:
http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/SUK13677
That link has the raid being undertaken during January 1945, however I believe it was actually 5 December 1945. The Banff wing strikes (including Nordgulen) are described in some detail on this site:
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/sorties.html
This German site describes the damage caused:
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/44-12.htm
The translation for the Nordgulen attack is: "34 Mosquitos of the 143. , 235. and 248. Sqn. RAF (” Banff Strike Wing “) attack the 1st northbound part of the convoy BE-1075-AL in the Nordgulenfjord and damage the freighters Tucuman (4621 BRT), Magdalena (3283 BRT) and the ammunition transporter Helene soot (993 BRT). Protection by flakships V 5102, V5305 and V 5306."
As I've not spammed the thread with "stub exhaust" pics for a while, here's another. Caption speaks for itself (a "Noball" was an attack on a V-1 site).
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/464Apr25_44.jpg)
The squadron was at the time flying about 1/3 of its sorties in daylight, hence the *cough* stub exhausts (dead horse flogged).
The Australian National Archives have done an amazing job of digitising WWII-era records, including squadron Operations Record Books. Here's the relevant page from the 464 Squadron ORB. CHL Foster, the gent mentioned in the pic above, flew on this raid in LR383 (if you right-click and save as, then zoom in, it's actually quite legible, despite the way it appears here):
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/Apr25_44.jpg)
Karnak - I still have to check the charts re: your question - can't remember off the top off me head again which was the "dog" aircratft, and what condition it was tested in when.at what weight. I think the drops accounted for around 5 mph or so.
-
great film clips :aok
-
The squadron was at the time flying about 1/3 of its sorties in daylight, hence the *cough* stub exhausts (dead horse flogged).
Keep flogging. It may not get back on its feet, but we just want it to flip over.
-
whats the mossie like at roping people?
-
Outstanding Sherf. Thank you. :salute
I never tire of watching Mossie Vids or pics. Im a tad bit mad for the plane, a remarkable chapter in aviation history.
Hey Rich:
The second vid in your second post starts with one of the 487 Sqn Mossies on the 9 October 1943 raid I referred to earlier in the thread.
I think the fjord raid is at Nordgulen, certainly this photo at the Australian War Memorial site would suggest so:
http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/SUK13677
That link has the raid being undertaken during January 1945, however I believe it was actually 5 December 1945. The Banff wing strikes (including Nordgulen) are described in some detail on this site:
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/sorties.html
This German site describes the damage caused:
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/44-12.htm
The translation for the Nordgulen attack is: "34 Mosquitos of the 143. , 235. and 248. Sqn. RAF (” Banff Strike Wing “) attack the 1st northbound part of the convoy BE-1075-AL in the Nordgulenfjord and damage the freighters Tucuman (4621 BRT), Magdalena (3283 BRT) and the ammunition transporter Helene soot (993 BRT). Protection by flakships V 5102, V5305 and V 5306."
As I've not spammed the thread with "stub exhaust" pics for a while, here's another. Caption speaks for itself (a "Noball" was an attack on a V-1 site).
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/464Apr25_44.jpg)
The squadron was at the time flying about 1/3 of its sorties in daylight, hence the *cough* stub exhausts (dead horse flogged).
The Australian National Archives have done an amazing job of digitising WWII-era records, including squadron Operations Record Books. Here's the relevant page from the 464 Squadron ORB. CHL Foster, the gent mentioned in the pic above, flew on this raid in LR383 (if you right-click and save as, then zoom in, it's actually quite legible, despite the way it appears here):
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/Apr25_44.jpg)
Karnak - I still have to check the charts re: your question - can't remember off the top off me head again which was the "dog" aircratft, and what condition it was tested in when.at what weight. I think the drops accounted for around 5 mph or so.
-
whats the mossie like at roping people?
thrila told me once that was his favourite move in the mossie.
Then again, he could a) fly, and b) shoot, in stark contrast to myself.
-
Thrila was flying an expert mossy years ago. I remember one fight (over 4 years ago) I was in a typhoon and could not believe i was beaten so quickly by his mosquito. It's huge for heavens sake, how good could it be? Thrila's inspirational mossy flying got me interested only to discover thrila was a massive dweeb! What an uber aircraft! It was love from then on, thank you thrila :D
-
And now, so far as I know, he's "gone navy". Can ya believe it?
I mean, rum, sodomy and the lash.
Maybe he's just after the rum.
-
haha cheers for the kind words guys. I haven't flown the mossie as my main ride for the past couple of years, i felt like a change and switched to something very different- the 109-g14, since then I regressed back to my spitdweeb days. :D I'm currently flying the tiffie a fair bit in anticipation of the update. When the mossie is updated i can guarantee that i'll be flying it as my main ride for a long time, it'll be just the excuse i need.
I'm still here scherf, my entry date has been pushed back to the sept 7th with my medical on july 1st. I think the lash is gone the way of the dodo, but at least i get to look forward to the other two. :lol
-
Heheheh
:salute
-
haha cheers for the kind words guys. I haven't flown the mossie as my main ride for the past couple of years, i felt like a change and switched to something very different- the 109-g14, since then I regressed back to my spitdweeb days. :D I'm currently flying the tiffie a fair bit in anticipation of the update. When the mossie is updated i can guarantee that i'll be flying it as my main ride for a long time, it'll be just the excuse i need.
I'm still here scherf, my entry date has been pushed back to the sept 7th with my medical on july 1st. I think the lash is gone the way of the dodo, but at least i get to look forward to the other two. :lol
I sure hope they update the mossie real soon. Its a great plane, and its due for a serious update.
-
Been a while since I spammed the thread with ejector exhaust pics, so here's another one.
According to Sharp & Bowyer's "Mosquito", the Mossies of 2nd TAF wound up their major daylight operations on 26 May 1944 (having started on 3 October 1943), they'd flown 155 daylight operations, totalling around 1,600 sorties, with a "Failed to Return" rate of a shade over 2%.
Bear in mind that Night-Fighter squadrons had been sending radar-less Mosquitos over the Bay of Biscay from December '42 onwards, and over occupied Europe from February '43. (The first daylight "Intruder" I've come across was by a 23 Squadron aircraft on 8 December '42). These all pre-dated the FB.VI, so were flown on F.IIs.
So, this time, it's a Coastal Command aircraft. Coastal Command (apart from the recce squadrons) received FB.VIs starting in February 1944, beginning with 248 Squadron. Try as I might, I can't find a picture of anything other than the 6-lber Mk.XVIII "Tsetses" from 248 Sqn from this period.
So, this particular Mossie is HR118 of 235 Squadron, on 18 July 1944. The aircraft itself was flown by F/L Noel Russell, who would on 11 January of 1945 claim two 109s shot down in a daylight battle at low level over Norwegian waters.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/HR118.jpg)
Note the *cough* ejector stubs for the daylight operation. *cough*
Don't have access to the 235 Sqn Operations Record Book, however here's one from the same period from 235's sister Squadron, 248. Note the times stated - more of those *cough* daylight ops again.
*cough*
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/248orb.jpg)
Karnak - still owe you an answer, just want to compare a couple of data points, but I'm tending to a shade over 350 flat out for the ejector craft at nil feet.
-
I was thinking about this today while at work. As best I can tell, the climb rate for the AH Mosquito VI is about right. The flight model feels about right. The only thing off is the speed and it seems that plenty of evidence has been supplied to show the speed should be in the 350-355mph range at sea level. I would think that HTC would be able to model that with the data now.
-
Heya:
I mentioned earlier, I think the initial climb is about 300 feet / min too low, for the same weight.
Also, the drop tanks seem to knock off 10-12 mph at zero feet, which is about twice as high as it should be, though the speed loss was about that miuch at higher altitudes.
-
Tried again, can' get beyond about 2,530 feet per minute for initial climb - should be 2,850 at full weight and bombs (same as I tested) on Merlin 25s.
Also, there's an AFDU report on Mike Williams' site which says the Merlin 25 Mossie could accelerate to full speed from 250 mph to full speed in 1.5 minutes - ours takes closer to 2, indeed it's still accelerating at around 3 mins, though only just..
That said, the E6B says we're getting +14lbs on WEP, not the +18 which the Merlin 25s developed.
So, I dunno. Quite apart from the saxophone exhaust issue, the AH Mossie still strikes me as a touch asthmatic in the climb etc.
Ah, one more thing. In the previous post I inidcated that 248 Squadron was the first to get Mosquito VIs. I see on clower examination that 333 Squadron had VIs by December 1843 at the very latest, so at least 3 months earlier than 248. Used them aggressively too, of which more later.
-
So, I dunno. Quite apart from the saxophone exhaust issue, the AH Mossie still strikes me as a touch asthmatic in the climb etc.
Do you also feel that the elevators are very anemic? or is it just me?
My guess is that they were tuned with the wrong center-of-gravity of previous versions and now that the CG was moved forward, it is harder to pitch up - to the point that you can pull full deflection on the stick without stalling, almost like with stall limiter on (it is off). We have asthmatic and anemic mossie. At least it didn't catch Herpes.
I see on clower examination that 333 Squadron had VIs by December 1843 at the very latest, so at least 3 months earlier than 248. Used them aggressively too, of which more later.
Now that is impressive. The mosquito was really ahead of its time. :P
-
Heheheh, good catch.
Going through some old files for a mate who needs to refer to them - mind-bogglingly depressing (all that work, for nuttin', I tell ye, nuttin') so trouble concentrating...
:frown:
I really don't know about the elevators, I manage to stall / black out fairly regularly....
-
Bozon I think I'd asked you already but.. Does it still feel wrong to you when you trim the elevators?
-
I agree bozon, to me it feels as if stall limiter is enabled. I can trim elelvator full up, enter a loop at 200mph and pull the stick all the way back into my stomach to perform continuous loops. moot, do you mean that even with full trim it feels like full deflection of the elevators can't be achieved?
-
Can't think of anything to contribute to the elevators debate beyond this - chart of control surface sizes and movments from the FBVI manual:
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/movments.jpg)
-
I think the issue with climb may be connected to the fact we (apparently) have Merlin 23s, not Merlin 25s.
The Mosquito Merlin 23 data card from the Ministry of Aircraft Production which I have says the max boost is +14 at low levels, +16 at high levels, same as we have in AH. The Merlin 25 card just has +18, as does the Pilot's Notes for the M25 Mossie.
The data card for the Merlin 23 Mosquito says initial climb of 2,400 feet / min at max load (including 4x500 lb-ers), the card for the Merlin 25 version says 2,850 feet / min with the same load. The max speed is slightly higher for the M25, but it develops it at a much lower level in low gear, 1,000 feet lower in high gear.
Sharp & Bowyer say specificially that 418 Squadron, 605 Squadron and 23 Squadron, the first to receive the FBVI, all had 25s from the start, and that 2nd TAF began converting from Merlin 23s to Merlin 25s in late 1943. I'll dig out the exact quotes later to be sure.
So, we've a weaker engine version, in addition to the flame damper issue.
-
I don't think so, scherf. I think it is simply a case that HTC has the gauges displaying Merlin 23 data while the engines produce Merlin 25 power. If they were producing Merlin 23 power the performance would be a lot worse as the Merlin 23 produced significantly less power.
-
I think if the mossie was improved much further it would have to be perked. If HTC did upgrade the mossie it would be a real shame not to include a couple of different models to choose from. :pray
-
I think if the mossie was improved much further it would have to be perked. If HTC did upgrade the mossie it would be a real shame not to include a couple of different models to choose from. :pray
It hardly sees any use now. 350-355mph on the deck and an extra 300fpm climb is not going to turn it into an F4U-4.
-
No, I agree with that. Speaking personally only, I find the her to be in the top 5% best fighters in the game already! Those few extra mph would be great, no doubt. I still think the current mosquito is one of the most underrated planes we have.
-
I don't know exactly what we have now, naturally, but initial climb seems to be too low and full throttle height in low gear too high for the Merlin 25. The MAP data cards suggest there was little difference in top speed at full throttle height, but that the altitude in question dropped with the 25s, hence more power/climb available at takeoff.
Checked the quote in Sharp & Bowyer - "418 Squadron at Ford was in May, 1943 equipped with Mk.VIs, fitted with Merlin 25s to increase low-altitude speed." Table at the end of the chapter also confirms the intruder squadrons were the first to get the Mk.VIs. 487 Squadron of 2nd TAF was, according to the same source, informed on 5 November 1943 that its Merlin 23 aircraft were to be replaced by others powered by the superior Merlin 25s."
-
No, I agree with that. Speaking personally only, I find the her to be in the top 5% best fighters in the game already! Those few extra mph would be great, no doubt. I still think the current mosquito is one of the most underrated planes we have.
I cant find it now, but Lusche posted a speed chart recently which I found interesting. IF we get the extra 15mph on the mossie it would make faster over a fair few of the fighters it cant out run now. Which of course you've all been saying, but it was nice to see it in graphical form.
-
I put the Merlin 23 data card for the Mossie up on the AHWiki site, just for shoots and giggles. Bear in mind performance numbers are for full fuel and full bombs, which will include 5 mph off for the wing bomb carriers.
-
Been a couple of days since I spammed the thread, so here's another graph.
It shows the results of the test of a B.IV fitted with saxophone exhausts (which we have) vs. ejector exhausts (which all good children want).
The full test docco is available, I believe, on Mike Williams' excellent site:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/stubgraph.jpg)
-
Yup, that speed boost is about what I have been saying the boost would be.
-
For fun, I modded moot's Me410 speed chart from the 210/410 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261828.105.html) thread in the Wishlist forum with what I think is a basically correct speed chart for a Merlin 25 powered Mosquito Mk VI with ejector stacks.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3664362438_6d2a44bcb3.jpg?v=0)
-
Nobody had any comments about my estimated speed chart?
-
It looks like extra thrust the mossie could really use? :)
-
No escape for a scared spit16 at 13k if it had that performance..
What strikes me is how awesome the p38 really is.
-
Keep in mind the P-38L has more powerful engines and weighs less than the Mosquito VI.
-
Nobody had any comments about my estimated speed chart?
I think the "non-WEP" curve should have a full-throttle height higher than that achieved with WEP, Karnak. The charts I've seen all seem to suggest that WEP boost not only increases speed, it lowers the altitude with which top speed is achieved, relative to lower boost settings.
-
Keep in mind the P-38L has more powerful engines and weighs less than the Mosquito VI.
Top that off with counter-rotating props! :aok
-
I think the "non-WEP" curve should have a full-throttle height higher than that achieved with WEP, Karnak. The charts I've seen all seem to suggest that WEP boost not only increases speed, it lowers the altitude with which top speed is achieved, relative to lower boost settings.
It didn't have a non-WEP chart. That was a dampered Mosquito and an Mosquito with ejector stacks, both at WEP.
-
Ah, got ya.
-
Is the original curve from a Mossie with drop tanks on or off, sorry, can't make that out from the scale.
-
It is the AH2 Mosquito curve. I seem to recall that was with tanks on according to your data.
-
Heya:
Let me have a look, work up a curve of me own with reasons etc.
In the meantime, here's HP904, an FB.VI of 333 Squadron, a Norwegian unit which did armed recces up and down their native coastline to identify shipping targets for the other Coastal Command squadrons, which 333 then led to the attack point.
Note the *cough cough cough* stub exhausts for the *cough, cough cough hackgaspcough ..... well, you know.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/HP904.jpg)
and here's what the aircraft was up to around the time this pic was taken (note the presence of bad guys):
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/HP90428sep44.jpg)
My little daughter insists I include: :noid, :x and :furious
-
Golightly is such a great name for a mossie pilot. Hawthorne is pretty good too. Lucky devils
-
Heheheh: Noticed that myself.
Came across a crew the other day:
Pilot name = Wood
Nav name = Leafe
I kid you not!
Not at all bad for a "Timber Terror" crew!
-
In the book Aces High, there is one listed with the name of....Blackadder. :rock
Anyway, 190's sighted, and shaken, not stirred:D
-
No, I agree with that. Speaking personally only, I find the her to be in the top 5% best fighters in the game already! Those few extra mph would be great, no doubt. I still think the current mosquito is one of the most underrated planes we have.
Batty,I thought that was "our little secret".... next thing I know you'll be spreading around stuff about MoP....
:noid
:salute
-
i'm sorry morf! i dont know what i was thinking :uhoh
-
Does anyone have information about the exploits of mosquitoes in Fleet air arm? TF33 and TF37 were VI variants with folding wings for carrier operations and ability to carry torpedoes, but I never heard of their combat record - neither as fighters nor as torpedo bombers.
-
I'm pretty sure they didn't see action, bozon.
-
I would really like to know if we have any hope of the dampers being taken out of the flight model or are we just beating a dead horse?
-
Even a dead horse will move a little if you beat it hard enough. We only need to move it an inch.
-
Eventually its going to get remodeled. Maybe then.
The Mosquito Mk VI was powered by two Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, first the 1250 hp Merlin XXI and then the 1650 hp Merlin XXV. It's maximum speed was 380 mph at 13,000 feet fully loaded. It could do over 400 easily without bombs. It's range was 1205 miles, 1705 with extra fuel tanks. The Mk VI fighter/bomber was the most numerous version made. The Mosquito was the fastest operational aircraft of the 2nd World War until mid-1944. The Mk VI was armed with the standard 4+4 in the nose, with an additional bomb load of 2 250 lb bombs in the rear of the bomb-bay and two more on pylons on the wings, in-board of the engines. It first flew in 1943.
The upgraded Night Fighter Mk XXX was powered by the 1710 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 76 engines giving it a maximum speed of 416 mph and a range of 1159 miles. It had the standard 4+4 armament in the nose. It first flew in 1944
http://www.rodanair.ca/mosq.html
Just an example. The web is full of reports on the speed of the MK-Vls with the Merlin 25s. The general number most often qouted is 380 mph at around 13,000'.
-
I knew I'd seen the "speed reduction with drop tanks on = 5 mph" data somewhere. Found it on Mike Williams most excellent site:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/tankspeed.jpg)
Sharp & Bowyer give a 5 mph loss for the wing bomb carriers, which needs to be taken into account when looking at the speed quoted in the Ministry of Aircraft Production data card for the Merlin 25 Mosquito, which I've posted on the AHwiki.
Can provide page number reference for the Sharp & Bowyer quote at some point.
I'll use this info and put together a "composite curve" based on the speed gain from dropping tanks and from using the stub exhausts.
As for the dead horse, heheheheh, I've used the phrase meself, but I imagine the AH folks have had other priorities for the past little while, also for the immediate future too.
-
...
Just an example. The web is full of reports on the speed of the MK-Vls with the Merlin 25s. The general number most often qouted is 380 mph at around 13,000'.
Yes, but also note that it says 380 mph at 13,000 feet fully loaded. This means bombs too.
-
Yes, but also note that it says 380 mph at 13,000 feet fully loaded. This means bombs too.
That commonly quoted number also doesn't specify dampers or ejector stacks.
-
There really wasnt any comparable airplane, built by anyone, to the Mossie in WW-2. That in itself is a clear statement of its superiority. I remember once reading that the original test Mossie was clocked at 392 mph during a flight test in 1940. Think about that? "In 1940".
Hap Arnold was mad for it but the rest of the Yank air corp command thought it wouldnt hold up cause it was made of wood. Not only could the Mossie deliver the cookie but it also tested out able to carry insane weights. They once flew it successfully while it was weighed down with 8 or 10k I dont remember which.
In actual combat the real life Mossie was far more capable then what we have modeled in AH. It carried a bigger bombload, a more versatile load, and did so faster. While I love the one we have in the game let us hope when its remodeled it will also be updated.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/mosquito-2.jpg)
-
There really wasnt any comparable airplane, built by anyone, to the Mossie in WW-2. That in itself is a clear statement of its superiority. I remember once reading that the original test Mossie was clocked at 392 mph during a flight test in 1940. Think about that? "In 1940".
Hap Arnold was mad for it but the rest of the Yank air corp command thought it wouldnt hold up cause it was made of wood. Not only could the Mossie deliver the cookie but it also tested out able to carry insane weights. They once flew it successfully while it was weighed down with 8 or 10k I dont remember which.
In actual combat the real life Mossie was far more capable then what we have modeled in AH. It carried a bigger bombload, a more versatile load, and did so faster. While I love the one we have in the game let us hope when its remodeled it will also be updated.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/mosquito-2.jpg)
I salute to that! Two engines are ALWAYS better than one! :salute
-
Meh - anyone know how to convince Excel to put altitude as the left-hand axis and speed as the bottom axis, a la AH speed charts? Can't seem to get there using the default buttons.
-
Did you try changing the source cells' orientation?
-
yup, tried arranging speed by alt in both rows and columns.
Must be easy, when you know how.
-
I can't remember how I'd gotten around that. I'll let you know if I do. It is a PITA.
-
Cheers.
-
Meh - anyone know how to convince Excel to put altitude as the left-hand axis and speed as the bottom axis, a la AH speed charts? Can't seem to get there using the default buttons.
I ended up using Microsoft paint for making the graphs, since excel couldn't cope with the somewhat random data of speeds at alt.
I did write an application in (cough) Spectrum-basic for the calculation of speed at alt between alt-bands as in a graph but ended up with MS paint.
Drop me an email and I'll mail back to you the format I used.
Cheers ;)
-
Thanks Angus.
I may have tracked down a way to do it, but can't check until Dell's minions bring me a new power converter...
Will post later.
-
Figured it out - have to assign to X and Y values to each individual series in the "source data" dialog box. More later.
-
OK, tried to get some numbers together. The graph is a touch "off" on the Y-axis due to mine own difficulties with Excel.
The original tables I've copied from are all available on Mike Williams' wonderful site.
First is the Boscombe Down test of HX908. They tested it to compare the performance of 150 octane fuel at +25 lbs boost to regular fuel at +18 lbs boost. The curve for the regular fuel speeds is at 95% of takeoff weight, with external tanks on and using saxophone exhausts.
HX809 is the starting point as the other FB.VI tested by Boscombe Down, HJ679, was described as being not representative in its tests there. I've used de Havilland's (not Boscombe Down's) tests of HJ679 as a reality check, though the Boscombe report for HJ679 does have useful information re: relative speeds with tanks on and off.
I'm trying to get from the speed curve from the HX809 tests (carried out with drop tanks attached and saxophone exhausts) to a speed with no tanks and with the ejector stub exhausts, then check it against another actual test.
So here's the HX809 test curve (note it's te left-hand one which is relevant; +18 lbs boost. The other, faster one is for +25 lbs boost, which requires 150-octane fuel, which is "another fine mess."
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/hx908test.jpg)
The next step is to "add back" the speed loss from having the external drop tanks attached. Here's the relevant test numbers from HJ679 (see above). The average speed loss is 5 mph (5.1 mph if you want to pick nits), growing much larger at higher altitudes. I believe these were 50-gal tanks.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/tankspeed.jpg)
The full test with the full range of speed diffrences at altitude is on Mike Williams' site - report for HJ679.
The next step is to find a value for the speed loss associated with sexophone vs. ejector stubs. I've posted the resulting graph on here before. The exact numbers for the speed loss for the range of altitudes tested is here, again from Mike Williams' site. Test was done on DK290, a B.IV, with max +9 lbs boost. The Merlin 25s on the FB.VI can use +18 lbs boost - I'll leave it to greater minds to speculate on whether there'd be any real difference in speed gain as a result.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/dk290stubs.jpg)
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/dk290table.jpg)
Average speed gain for changing the exhausts across the range tested is 15 mph, 15.4 mph for nit-pickers.
So, then I put together a graph containing the original HX809 test, then a curve for the gain from dropping tanks, then a curve from the gain from using the stub exhausts, then a curve for an aircraft with no tanks and stubs, using the raw numbers from the tests. It's as near as dammit to simply adding 20 mph to the HX809 speeds.
To check for reality, I then put on a curve for another FB.VI, HJ679, as tested by de Havillands with no drop tanks and with stub exhausts. (Boscombe Down, as noted above, had complained that HJ679 was not performing as expected, so dH took it back and ran some more tests, which confirmed it had been about 15 mph too slow at Boscombe. The test data from dH for HJ679 with no tanks and stubs is from April '43, before the aircraft went to Boscombe).
As you can see from the orange curve, my calculations give a result which is very close to dH's, in fact mine are a few mph on the conservative side. There's only one data point with any real difference, and mine is lower than dH's). As dH tested HJ679 at 19,000-odd pounds, instead of 21,000-odd, this may account for the difference.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/Scherfspeed.jpg)
So, I get a deck speed of 352 mph, overall best TAS of 383 mph.
-
Very nice, scherf.
Thanks for the effort you are putting into this.
-
No worries Karnak - here's hoping...
:D
-
Great Find Scherf :aok
-
Great stuff Scherf!!
now if only we can get the MkVI fixed and a glass nose type,well I wouldnt complain if a MkXVIII was added for some "extra" fun value,maybe the Mossie would see more use.
ps: Lets keep this MoP thing quite guys....
:noid
-
Heheheheh:
Oh and don't forget I still think the initial climb on the AH Mossie is well short of what it should be, 2,850 feet/min with a full load.
I've put all my original doccos (except those found on Mike's site) on the AH Wiki.
-
Scherf,
I've always thought the Mossie's OTD speed was 15 to 18 mph too slow and the climb about 300FPM or so to low.
But for some reason,I thought we didnt have a true Mk6 but more of a mixed bag Mossie.
I seem to recall back then several A/C in game were like that,109G10 comes to mind.Lets hope once HTC sorts out this new update that they upgrade all the old AHI planes to AHII standards.
The Tiffie was shown some LUV,maybe the Mossie's next. :aok
Not to Hijack but an Me410 and Mossie package would make things real interesting. :pray
:salute
-
Heya:
Yeah, Me 410 vs Mossie would be interesting, think Mossie would turn tighter, depending on the usual factors of course.
I reckon initial climb is around 400 ft/min short. I can only get about 2,400 - 2,500 instead of 2,850.
:salute
-
Well I wont argue with your climb figure,thats for sure,I was only estimating in both climb and speed.
I've had several different figures for both these,dependant on source. I'm sure you know what I mean Scherf!
I wasnt thinking Mossie vs 410 but now that you brought it up.... :devil
There's some LW reports I'll be sorting through to find just this sort duel.Thats when I find the time!
:salute
-
The reports I have are all rather one-sided....
:salute
-
Just give us MK103s and we'll take care of that :devil
-
Heheheh.
Don't know if the Mossies ever encountered the ZG 76 lads - think I only have references for KG 2, KG 51 and one (two?) of the recce units.
-
If you ever find a hint of why that one (at least one anyway) pilot removed the gunner position and equipment from his 410, or how it affected the plane, I'm all ears :)
/hijack
-
Removing the defensive gun barbettes was done on a number of versions, most notably the high-altitude bomber interceptor which needed the space for the GM-1 bottles.
-
Opps,
Look what I started..... :devil
Atleast it's keeping the thread active.... without beating the horse. :lol
-
Heheheh,
I'll see if I can't find another "stubs" pic and return the thread to my original whine...
:D
-
Here ya go.
This is RS625 of 143 Squadron.
It's got stubs AND rockets AND drop tanks!
(Pilot's notes say the tanks had to be dropped before the rockets were fired, can't think why....)
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/rs625.jpg)
-
Scherf:
Here's a question for you,ever notice the dorsal fillet on the Hornets??
Much like the ones added to the B17 or P51,I wonder why it wasnt added to the Mossie?
BTW,that pic is sweet,has a calm purposed effect about it,oh and do I see foofighters attached?? :devil
-
Why were the ejector stubs angled downward so much outboard of the engine? There was no radiator to protect there. Even on the inboard side it seems drastic to angle the stubs down that much.
-
Why were the ejector stubs angled downward so much outboard of the engine? There was no radiator to protect there. Even on the inboard side it seems drastic to angle the stubs down that much.
Wouldn't want that wing leading edge getting all crispy.
-
Sure, but the angle looks extreme for that. Must be wasting half or more of the exhaust thrust.
-
woderfull pic Scherf :aok
-
Sure, but the angle looks extreme for that. Must be wasting half or more of the exhaust thrust.
"up" thrust would help too I'd think as it would reduce, slightly, the lift required of the wings and therefor the parasitic drag.
-
Parasitic drag has nothing to do with lift. Drag caused by lift is called (lift) induced drag. At high speed induced drag is an almost negligible part of total drag. Unlike parasitic drag which is proportional to the square of the airspeed, for a given lift, induced drag on an airfoil is inversely proportional to the square of the airspeed. In other words if you double the speed the parasitic drag increases four times, while the lift induced drag is reduced to a quarter of what it was.
-
Parasitic drag has nothing to do with lift. Drag caused by lift is called (lift) induced drag. At high speed induced drag is an almost negligible part of total drag. Unlike parasitic drag which is proportional to the square of the airspeed, for a given lift, induced drag on an airfoil is inversely proportional to the square of the airspeed. In other words if you double the speed the parasitic drag increases four times, while the lift induced drag is reduced to a quarter of what it was.
Quite right. I had a mental hiccup it seems.
-
Happens to everybody.
For anyone still wondering, here's a nice picture of what I'm on about:
(http://adamone.rchomepage.com/drag_vs_speed.gif)
As illustrated, parasitic drag is the limiting factor for speed. The faster you go the less relevant induced drag gets.
-
Sure, but the angle looks extreme for that. Must be wasting half or more of the exhaust thrust.
Hot air rises thus giving extra lift under the wing. :) ;)
-
:lol
-
Scherf:
Here's a question for you,ever notice the dorsal fillet on the Hornets??
Much like the ones added to the B17 or P51,I wonder why it wasnt added to the Mossie?
BTW,that pic is sweet,has a calm purposed effect about it,oh and do I see foofighters attached?? :devil
Yeah, I've wondered about that, I think there were comments that the Mossie needed more fin when one engine was out, especially at low speed.
The Hornet fillet is pretty substantial; my best guess (and it's no more than that) is that a similarly-solid fillet would have pushed the Mossie's CG too far back. It was fairly far back (IIRC) with bomb-bay tanks and wheels up, so...
Not that any of that prevented Mossies from getting home "on one" from all manner of nasty far-flung places.
-
Scherf:
I was trying to "start" something...LOL
I'd read that,yes they knew there was a problem and the fillet or a fillet would help.
But,it would have disrupted production and they just couldnt afford that so it was left to the hornet design to prove whether the fillet was "worth it".
The Mossie drivers were told to be easy on the rudder or this mosquito would bite!
:salute
-
In flying the mossie recently I can proudly say I do not flatspin it anymore :) FLAPS ARE YOUR FREIND! if you get blow 180 put flaps out or else!
-
In flying the mossie recently I can proudly say I do not flatspin it anymore :) FLAPS ARE YOUR FREIND! if you get blow 180 put flaps out or else!
Could you plz explain why? The mossie flies perfectly well at 180 mph ithout flaps deployed.
:salute
-
It flys perfectly fine at 180mph when level, but if your vertical and drop below 180 your in for some dirt yogurt.
-
You must be doing something wrong Belial. You can come out of a vertical hung as long as it'll go without coming down out of control.
-
Would you mind giving me some mossie training then Moot? It's my new favorite plane and I would like to be the best I can be in it.
-
Sure, I can show you the basics. But for the last 5-10% I'll have to direct you to someone who flies it regularly. Tomorrow (fri. 14th) around 9am would work.
-
I work 7am-3pm sometimes 7pm, I cant make that schedule <S> anyway.
-
I'm fairly free up till sept 1st. Let me know when you're free and we'll see what works.
-
Long time since anything mossie was posted.
Here are the best Mosquito films from the Films & Screenshots forum, all of them by Mechanic:
Hellmarch & Mosquito:
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/Hellmarch_V1.wmv
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/Mosquito_movie.wmv
and two versions (director's cut?) of a short film:
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/30sec.wmv
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/30sec2.wmv
-
thanks bozon S!
I had forgotten the 30 seconds ones, they were from krusty's 30second monthly comp from a long time ago. Some guys made some really cool 30 second clips for it. Re-downloading them now :D thanks again.
-
Sorry it's been a while since I spammed the thread with assorted Mossie pics.
Couple interesting ones here, both with the ejector exhausts.
This is one of the RAAF's No.1 (Attack) Squadron's Mossies, taken out in the Far East around March or April 1945. There's some debate over where the pic was taken, either Labuan or, interestingly, Clark Field in the Philippines, where the aircraft seems to have been dispatched for comparative trials. No, I've not found any trace of the actual trials themselves. One of the details which supports the Clark Field theory is that feathered port propellor - the aircraft suffered an engine failure while up there.
This one started life as HR336, built in the U.K. and then transferred out to Australia.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/FarEast.jpg)
This next one was taken in Patricia Bay, on Canada's west coast, (I believe it's now Victoria airport) where some Canadian-built fighter-bomber Mossies (such as KA133, pictured here) were retained to combat the threat of Japanese fire balloons. There were a number of scrambles, but no shoot-downs so far as I know. Apparently the nose marking is in red, according to Ian Thirsk's book.
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/MSN/mhuxtable/PatBay.jpg)
I believe Bob Jen's B.35 restoration project is now, coincidentally, out in Pat Bay itself, as part of the program to return it to the air.
-
Hmmmm nice aircraft pron!!
Would love to see a colour pic of that RCAF bird. :aok
:salute
-
Nice Mossie pictures. I always like the pictures with the thicker props, like paddle blades.
-
Apparently the thicker props were better with the higher-power engines, with the needle prop blades responding more quickly to throttle changes.
That's how I remember it anyway, but caveat emptor, I am not trained in these engineering thingies.
-
Dunno what's up with the pics - are you guys just seeing red Xs? That's all I'm getting here, though the directory seems to working OK when I open my FTP proggie...
-
Dunno what's up with the pics - are you guys just seeing red Xs? That's all I'm getting here, though the directory seems to working OK when I open my FTP proggie...
I saw them yesterday, but they aren't showing today.
-
Here is an interesting document I found on mossie.org. A combat report of two mosquitoes on day ranger mission: jumping a group of JU52's, wrecking havock on an airfield and out running two FW190 on the deck. An interesting day for them I imagine.
(the scan quality is pretty bad)
http://www.mossie.org/squadrons/combat_reports/AIR_50-146-1.gif
http://www.mossie.org/squadrons/combat_reports/AIR_50-146-2.gif
-
great read bozon :aok (although hard cus its scanned in 1 bit :rolleyes:)
interesting to note they dropped gear to dump speed attacking the slow 52s, the report doesnt make this sound out of the ordinary.
-
interesting to note they dropped gear to dump speed attacking the slow 52s, the report doesnt make this sound out of the ordinary.
It wasn't really. The airbrake that was going to be on the fighter Mossies was deleted when tests showed that the same effect could be achieved by merely lowering the landing gear.
-
Not sure what's happening with the pics, might be bandwidth, though I can still manage the webspace.
Will have to phone support, I guess, o joy. "Velcome to Telstra, you're speaking vid Jim-Bob. Can I be confirming dat your computer is having been plugged in?"
-
i was actually watching a movie the other day "the mosquito squadron" seem pretty good
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064699/
Mosquito Squadron was a real cheap B movie made in 1969. It even used old footage from the earlier 1964 movie "633 Squadron", which starred Cliff Robertson.
633 Squadron was clearly a much better movie. It had one of the most rousing musical scores of any war movie I have ever seen. In fact, George Lucas has readily admitted that his inspiration for the climatic battle to destroy the Death Star at the end of "Star Wars" was totally inspired by the climatic battle at the end of 633 Squadrons. The only difference is that they were going through Trench Canyons on the Death Star, instead of flying through narrow fjords in Norway.
The climatic battle of 633 Squadron is on You Tube if you would like to see it. Check it out at the link below, and you will clearly see that George Lucas totally ripped it off for Star Wars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2xHydbw8mQ
(http://www.moviegoods.com//Assets/product_images/1020/193305.1020.A.jpg)
(http://i1.fc-img.com/CTV02/Comcast_CIM_Prod_Fancast_Image/3/540/1218140261465_20_633Squadron_mif_640_320.jpg)
-
Actually, this video below provides CONCLUSIVE proof that the Death Star battle in Star Wars was a ripoff of the climatic battle scene in "633 Squadron".
You really cannot argue against this. Although you can laugh!! :x
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZq-tlJTrU&NR=1
--
-
'633 Squadron' is a good book series too.
-
Notice no exhaust shrouds.
-
I havent seen it for years but I remember preferring Mosquito Squadron (the V weapon threat just seems a bit more interesting than a heavy water plant or whatever 633 is about):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFkBCtQ9qEQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFkBCtQ9qEQ)
plus it has the always excellent Charles Gray :aok
-
I havent seen it for years but I remember preferring Mosquito Squadron (the V weapon threat just seems a bit more interesting than a heavy water plant or whatever 633 is about):
Neither movies were based on true stories. Both never happened.
What would make an interesting flick, in my opinion, would be the true story of Bombing 617 squadron, which was also known as the "Dam busters" due to their famous attacks on dams in the Ruhr valley. They equipped these Lancasters with special 12,000 lb Blockbuster bombs to attack the V1 launching ramps.
If you did not already know, Peter Jackson ( who made the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the awesome re-make of King Kong ), is currently hard at work remaking the old "Dam Busters" movie.
So we are FINALLY going to get a WII air war movie with absolutely state of the art digital special effects. That alone should be pretty cool. :)
Jackson had a brand new exact replica Lancaster build in China from scratch, to make this movie.
Here is a New Zealand TV news report, about this ultra secret Lancaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7pGmqkzGhA
--
-
Twin Engine, nice find.. They're making 10 of them. Wow..
-
Ive always wondered... can a Mossie out turn a P38?
-
Ive always wondered... can a Mossie out turn a P38?
With the 38's flaps out? Doubt it. I have out turned La-7s when I was on fumes, but it is a close thing. Turning really isn't the Mossie's strong point.
-
Ive always wondered... can a Mossie out turn a P38?
On equal terms? no. Also, if this is at very slow speeds, the P-38 flaps and no torque make a big difference.
-
Twin Engine, nice find.. They're making 10 of them. Wow..
I wonder what they will do with all of these brand new Lancasters once the movie is completed?
I guess original Lancasters are way too valuable to use in making a motion picture.
--
-
I think "Just Jane" is due to / has already been used to make some taxying sequences.
-
Ive always wondered... can a Mossie out turn a P38?
Easily. The 38 turns rather poorly and can be out turned by much of the plane set. Even with flaps.
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/
-
Seems some people say the Mossie outturns the Lightning while others say its the latter. Whats it going to be? Lol. I guess Ill have to test out the Mossie myself to see the results.
-
Or you could just click the link in my previous post.
-
Or you could just click the link in my previous post.
I did. It shows radius but not rate.
-
True. Nevertheless the Mossie does out turn the P-38, and so does the 110G and A-20G and I think even the Ju 88A. The P-38 really does not turn very well at all, and experienced 38 drivers will keep it in the vertical where it has significant advantages over these other planes.
-
Looking at the AKUAG charts, the 38J has a turn rate of 19~20 dps, compared to the mossies 16~18..
-
Yeah, that will make little difference. The Mossie will turn inside the 38.
-
... Unless the Mossie still has that elevator authority problem at low speed?
-
Well I flew the Mossie last night and made some notes:
The mossie has the ability to outturn the P38, but only in certain circumstances. The Mossie must have some E going into the turn first of all. Since there is engine torque, you must turn to the left for better results. Also, in the flat turns, you will notice a very unstable gun platform, and adding some rudder makes it much worse. In conclusion to this, the mossie is at a disadvantage due to the wallowing of the nose, and slow elevator response. Rudder response is also very very slow when going over 400 mph.
All that the P38 has to do is either turn to the right, or utilize the vertical. In this fashion, the Mossie will be like a shark on its belly- immobilized. With the P38 having no torque issue, and stable gun platform, it has the ability to flop right over and pounce on top of it. Also the 38 has awesome rudder respone (likely the best in game) and can change direction quickly with a little input. P38s will also be able to pull out of a stall without breaking a sweat. But for the Mossie, prepare to ride the joystick!
DieHard, I looked at those charts in the link that you gave me. While the information is fairly accurate, it can be misleading. I have found that just because the Mossie has a tighter turn radius does not mean that it is superior in a turn fight. P38s have better E retention in turn fights than the Mossie. So it will have an advantage.
To sum it up- dont get in a turn fight in a Mossie! Keep your E and learn to manage it. But if you do get in a sticky situation, be very careful with using rudder. Just like the Brits said "If you use too much rudder, the Mosquito will bite!"
-
First of all the question was not if the Mossie could out fight the P-38, but if it could out turn it. It can. I also noted that an experienced 38 driver would use the vertical. Second, better E retention is not an advantage in a turn fight. Quite the contrary; the plane that can dump E the quickest will win the initial positional advantage.
-
Second, better E retention is not an advantage in a turn fight. Quite the contrary; the plane that can dump E the quickest will win the initial positional advantage.
That is not a turn fight. If that was true, P47 was the best turn fighter in the game. Just thinking about moving the stick drops you from 350 to 250 mph, and it is generally true to all E fighters. The classic turn fighters (spits, zero etc.) have very good E retention. The mosquito have problems dumping speed at high speeds. I am not sure if this is true retention or just lack of elevator authority, because it used to slow down quite fast before its FM was "fixed" (not including the 300 to 0 + flat spin in 0.01 seconds).
The mosquito yaw instability is torque effects, or so I believe. Wings level, pushing and pulling the stick induces secondary yaw motion. The few real twin engines beechcrafts I few in we easily thrown into this gentle yaw pendulum motion with every little adjustment of the controls. P38 is spared due to the counter props.
-
That is not a turn fight. If that was true, P47 was the best turn fighter in the game. Just thinking about moving the stick drops you from 350 to 250 mph...
And that's one of the P-47's deadliest moves against unwary opponents. Dumping E and turning around faster than most would believe possible. E retention is an advantage in an E fight. In a turn/stall fight it is arguably a disadvantage because you can't slow down to your best corner speed faster than your opponent.
-
And that's one of the P-47's deadliest moves against unwary opponents. Dumping E and turning around faster than most would believe possible. E retention is an advantage in an E fight. In a turn/stall fight it is arguably a disadvantage because you can't slow down to your best corner speed faster than your opponent.
It has next to nothing to do with corner speed. The advantage of quick slowdown is reduction of the turning radius. This is a geometric effect and has little to do with the actual turning rates, which is why E-fighters use it so well. It is typically used at speeds where all planes can pull the same G loads, hence similar turn rates, so it matters even less. If you control the fight geometry, turn rates matter little, at least until the fighter with better sustained turning and/or radius gains the control back and can change it. Once you managed to place yourself inside the other's circle, his superior turning rate will not help and he has to either slow down to change his circle, or go out of plane so your circles are no longer on the same plane. Dont think two co-centric circles, imagine two circles with displaced center and different radius. At this stage it is not a turn fight since the E fighter will not be doing full circles, not even 180 - he will reverse/roll and the general pattern of the fight will be twisting along a linear path.
-
If both aircraft are able to pull the same G then the slowest one will have the best turn rate in degrees per second and the smallest turning circle. Everything else being equal, the plane that can dump speed the fastest will turn inside the other. Corner speed is the slowest speed where the aircraft is still able to achieve maximum G.
Aircraft traveling at the same speed and pulling the same G will have the same rate of turn and same turn radius. Doesn't matter if it is a Tiger Moth or the Spruce Goose.
In general terms:
Turn Rate = G/Velocity
Turn Radius = Velocity/turn rate.
At 200 mph a plane will have twice the turn rate and a quarter of the turn radius of the same plane at 400 mph, assuming it pulls the same G at both speeds.
Above corner velocity all aircraft are equal in turning performance assuming same speed and G limits. If maximum achievable G is equal then the only variable that determines turn rate and radius is velocity.
-
Above corner velocity all aircraft are equal in turning performance assuming same speed and G limits. If maximum achievable G is equal then the only variable that determines turn rate and radius is velocity.
I boldfaced the important part. If your plane looses E fast, you will slow down right past your corner speed and then your G load is lift limited instead of structure/pilot limited. This happens so fast that the little increase in turn-rate does not have enough time to build into any significant angle difference, hence giving you no real advantage. The turn radius on the other hand does not require a long integration time to make a difference. Since the speed is high, the absolute distance between the diverging flight paths which are no longer on the same circle increase quickly. It only takes a small relative position change to make it hard, or even impossible for the plane with larger radius to point ahead of you (when defending), or change your angle advantage (when pursuing).
This is the famous "geometry cheat" or the "it is impossible your P47 out turned my spitfire, HAXOR!!!". With instantly reduced much smaller turning radius you can make a 90 degree turn and point to where the other guy will be after a 180 degree turn. He out-turned you by 90 degrees (twice your turn rate) and still ends up infront of your guns. This is what "cutting the corner" means.
-
I boldfaced the important part. If your plane looses E fast, you will slow down right past your corner speed...
Nonsense. The corner velocity of most WWII fighters is around 250 mph. The plane that slows down faster will gain the initial positional advantage.
(http://www.netaces.org/mastermerge/merge1/pic4.gif)
-
Is this a vertical or horizontal drawing? In the vertical you will cross the corner speed even faster.
In any case, your drawing demonstrates my point. The blue plane gets the shot opportunity because his circle is smaller, not because he pulled almost twice the red's angles. The latter just changes where he will get his shot, not if. Even if blue was turning so slowly that he would only make it 2/3 of the way to where the first shot opportunity is indicated (~120 deg turn), by the time that red has made it to the top (~210 deg turn), he would still get his shot. Given a G load, the radius goes like the square of the speed, while the turn rate is inverse, but proportional to the speed. The radius changes much more dramatically when the speed drops and continues to shrink even past corner speed.
-
Vertical. If maximum achievable G is equal then the only variable that determines turn rate and radius is velocity. Turn rate and turn radius are mathematically interlocked at same G; if you half the rate you quadruple the radius. If two aircraft merge head on at the same speed and both pull up into a half-loop at 6 G's, the plane with the least E retention will turn inside the other like in the illustration I posted earlier. That's why throttle control is very important in a head on merge; cut power pull half-loop, full power to stay near corner speed for the second half loop. If you're lucky or good (or both) you get two shot opportunities, and at worst you end up on the enemy's six. However he will have more E coming down, but you will have two shot opportunities and the positional advantage.
The old F6 duel between Wadke and Morph is a textbook example of superior throttle management and dynamic use of turn rate and radius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V85wiixIePk
Too bad the sound was removed.
-
Very good fight, but again I see the piloted plane flying slower and pulling a lot less angles than its opponent. The other plane is practically flying circles around the much slower and wallowing F6 that sits inside his turn radius.
I see this discussion is going no where.
Anyway, back to Mosquito issues:
I got my hands on a like-new copy of "Terror in the starboard seat" by Dave McIntosh. Half way through it and it is excellent.
-
Very good fight, but again I see the piloted plane flying slower and pulling a lot less angles than its opponent. The other plane is practically flying circles around the much slower and wallowing F6 that sits inside his turn radius.
The whole point of turn fighting is to get inside your opponent's turning circle. That's where the shot opportunities are and your opponent is forced to keep turning outside you or present his six. Morph clearly had the most shot opportunities in that fight... and won.
(http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f15strikeeagle/046_1.jpg)
-
Been a while, so it is time for some more Mosquito fan fun.
Recently I was doing some reading about the exploits of coastal command "Banff wing". The mosquito as a fighter was mostly used as a night fighter. Low alt day raids by Mosquito fighters were surprise attacks that prayed on unsuspecting flying or ground targets and rarely stayed to dogfight. However, coastal command had quite a few "massive" day missions that ran into 109/190 interceptors and classic WWII dogfighting action followed. The mossies were doing pretty well, especially considering that they were the "defenders" and that dogfighting is not #1 on the mossie pilots training schedule.
This website has a brief description of all sorties flown by the Banff strike wing:
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/sorties.html
Starts slow and really picks up pace on December 1944. Here are two of the most epic engagements with 109s and 190s. The second even includes a Tse-Tse mosquito firing the 57mm in air to air engagements (also reported in other engagements, but I don't think it hit anything):
December 26 1944.
On December 26, 1944 a shipping strike was laid on into Leirvik Norway following a sighting of shipping in the harbour by outrider aircraft of Norwegian Squadron 333 Outrider. F333 reported {A}2 Merchant Vessels stationary on east side of the harbour. Another MV was reported close in to the north side of the harbour.. Four aircraft of 143 Squadron piloted by Flight Lt. Brown, Flight Sgt. Smooleners, P.O. Symons and Flying/Officer Norman Smith, .attacked the ships.
"F" F/L Browne attacked the ships [A} firing Rockets in pairs, scoring 2 dry hits [above water line] and 4 wet hits [ below water line]. P/O Symons attacked MV [A] with salvoes of rockets scoring 2 dry hits and 6 wet hits. Flak was reported from the ships and the shore. Vessels A and B were left in flames and sinking.
On breaking off the attack at 1412, two forces of enemy aircraft were encountered, approximately 12 FW 190's and a mixed force of 12 - 109's were seen approaching from the south five to ten miles away. The Banff Wing were in loose formation after the attack on the ships. F/O Smith made a head on attack on the ME 109's firing a two to three second canon burst from six hundred to seven hundred yards. Smith was then attacked by two ME 109's, which opened fire from one thousand yards. Smith turned steeply to starboard and gave a three second burst at two hundred yards with canon and machine gun and headed for the coast of Norway. P/O Symons attacked an FW 190 at six hundred yards height one thousand feet with MG, all canon ammunition having been expended during attack on shipping. He continued to fire down to three hundred yards when he overshot the E/A. The E/A climbed to make a second attack but lost speed presumably due to damage received from Symons primary attack. Symons made a second attack but then was head on to the concentration of the enemy aircraft. Heavy strikes were estimated to have hit the first E/A and one E/A was seen on fire but it was impossible to state that this was the E/A that "Y" had attacked. One aircraft of 235 Squadron failed to return and one E/A was destroyed and one E/A was seen to be on fire.
January 11 1945.
Mixed strike force of fourteen Mosquito’s from Banff and eighteen Beaufighters from Dallachy flew an armed strike to Flekkefjord to attack shipping reported there. Whilst preparing for the strike they were intercepted from the North by approx. six ME 109s and FW 190s, while at the same time at Lister airfield a similar group of fighters took off and attacked the formation from the South. Luring the engagement various dog fights ensued which finished when the enemy fighters climbed into cloud cover. Three enemy fighters were seen to be shot down, Flight Lieutenant M. Russel DFC, and another Mosquito crew sharing a claim in destroying a ME 109. A further German fighter was claimed as a probable. The strike wing lost two aircraft, a Beaufighter and Mosquito "M" of 143 squadron, which did not return from the strike although it was ‘not seen to be shot down’.The crew of this plane were; Flight Sergeant P.C.L. Smoolenaers (Belgium) and his navigator Flight Sergeant W.W. Harris (RAAF) both reported missing. This was one of the rare occasions when, the six pounder ‘Molins gun’, of the MK XVIII (Tsetse) Mosquito’s belonging to 248 squadron, was fired in air—to—air combat, normally it was used for anti—shinning strikes.
-
Wow, quite some tales there!
Anyway "Flekkefjord" is a place in S-Norway where I once passed through. I recall the name, for I was ill from heavy drinking the night before, and had to stop there to throw up.
People of Flekkefjord: please forgive me for leaving that mess in front of the local supermarket :devil
-
Not sure if this has been posted before - Coastal Command raid film, think it's Nordgulen.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=23542
Typical commentary of the period, lots of "giving the Hun a jolly good thrashing." No wonder Dad left the U.K.
Mossie in opening shot has STUB EXHAUSTS FOR DAYLIGHT OPERATIONS, though his tailwheel has malfunctioned.
My little daughter insists I post this fellow: -> :banana:
-
This was one of the rare occasions when, the six pounder ‘Molins gun’, of the MK XVIII (Tsetse) Mosquito’s belonging to 248 squadron, was fired in air—to—air combat, normally it was used for anti—shinning strikes.
molins kill :rock
-
molins kill :rock
There may have been one other: 10 March 1944, 248 Squadron got into a dogfight with Ju 88s. One of the Tsetse pilots fired four shells at a Ju 88 and claimed to have seen his target's port engines torn from its mountings, the unfortunate 88 then spinning down into the sea. Other 248 Squadron pilots claimed a further two Ju 88s destroyed and a probable, however Chris Goss says only one Ju 88 was lost.