Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RASTER on February 07, 2010, 05:31:51 PM
-
Been piloting the AH version of the Mosquito for a few weeks and I am not happy with the representitive speed. It was reported that the Mosquito was at one time the worlds fastest aircraft. Those that disagree should try and change the Wikipedia.
In AH the majority are piloting 109's / 190's / P51's / La 7's and Spitfires. These planes seem to have a speed advantage on the Mosquito while the Mosquito was reportedly ( "easily" ) capable of over 400mph. (there are many sources). However, like many of the top planes in AH, these speeds were conditionally short bursts with particular combinations of settings and elements. However, having been chased down by most of the German pursuit fighters, I feel like a fat man running up hill and it simply can't be correct according to a large percentage of historical reports which favour the Mosquito not only being a fast bomber but a faster fighter. In fact the P38 has been described as the American Mosquito. And what is the comparison. Certainly the Mosquitos Rolls Royce Merlin engines were consider superior to the P38 Allisons. The wings are of similar length with the Mosquito being slightly higher. The Mosquito because of its cold molded construction had the very smoothest surface which as you may know, a riveted surface can take 15mph from the top speed of an aircraft.
Add to this the number of Mosquitos made during the war (6000 plus) and the very very few ever shot down ( in the few hundreds ) even though the type of combat they engaged in would indicate the number would be greater. In AH, with no bomb load, I find it impossible to outrun most of the planes I encounter. How can that be historically correct when the historical numbers indicate so few were pursued to their demise by the 109/190 fighters.
How is this explained when we know that Germany had a strong network of Radar. They knew when the bombers were coming and had time to intercept. We are told that the Mosquito pilots liked to fly in low at tree top level. So how does that tally up when so few were shot down. Simple, you can't shoot a plane that you cant ketch. As you know in AH that combination is certain destruction. So, its on the table again, EITHER THE 109 /190 SPEEDS ARE TO HIGH OR THE MOSQUITOS SPEED IS REPRESENTED AS LOW.
-
The issue is a lot more complex than that.
The Mosquito's speed in AH is correct for a Mosquito FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s running on 100 octane fuel with flame dampers for night operations.
The speeds of the other aircraft you mentioned are also correct in AH.
Some Mosquitoes could do over 400mph at altitude. Examples would be marks like the B.Mk XVI and NF.Mk.30.
You also need to look at the year that the Mosquito was the fastest. For example, when the Mosquito FB.Mk VI was introduced in mid-1943 it was the fastest warplane in the world, at low altitude, when it had ejector stacks. Many of us Mossie fans have been trying to get the flame dampers removed and for the flight model to be redone with ejector stacks when the Mossie is updated graphically, but even then it will not be the fastest airplane at low altitude in a world of 1944 and 1945 monsters.
Here is my prediction of the Mosquito Mk VI with ejector stacks. The yellow line is the Mosquito in AH, the yellow line with the red border is the Mosquito Mk VI configured for daylight operations with ejector stacks:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3664362438_6d2a44bcb3.jpg?v=0)
-
First of all, it is necessary to understand that during the war there were two distinct “families” of Mosquitoes, with different Merlin engine marks fitted to the different families.
The early variants were powered by single stage, two speed Merlin 20 family engines (21, 23 and 25s off the top of my head).
With these engines their max speeds topped out at about 360-385 mph, depending on the exact engine type and external fittings, armament, weight, drop tanks ect, ect, ect.
The Merlin 20 engine types were fastest at low to medium altitudes, with altitudes for best level speeds ranging from 14,000 to 22,000 feet. Sea level speeds ranged from 310 mph to 355 mph, getting progressively faster during the war as more powerful engines with higher permitted boost ratings were allowed.
The second “family” were powered by the two speed, two stage Merlin 60/70 engines (61, 71, 72, 73, again IIRC), and were introduced later in the war (early to mid 1943 if memory serves correctly).
These were more specialised for high altitude work, with typical best speeds of 395-415 mph at 24,000 to 29,000 feet.
The Mosquito in Aces High is a FB VI, a fighter bomber with a top speed of about 375 mph
Secondly, the combat environment in flight simulators is not necessarily the same as that in the real world. Mosquito pilots could, and did, outrun enemy single seat fighters (FW 190s/Bf 109s) in level flight, at both high and low levels. But considerations such as endurance, weather, engine condition et al are unimportant in a flight simulator, whereas they are very important in the real world.
Even though the Mosquito was fast, there was no guarantee that it could simply outrun its opponents. There are multiple accounts of Mosquitoes being overhauled by German fighters in a stern chase and shot down, particularly at lower altitudes. There is even a German account of an FW-190 having its base bombed by Mosquitoes, taking off in pursuit and then shooting down the bomber after a chase.
As the war progressed, the relative performance of the Mosquito at low altitude was overhauled by progress with German fighters. Where the Mosquito came to be almost immune, and where Merlin 60/70 powered marks spent most of their time, was above 25,000 feet and at night.
If a Mosquito is cruising at excess of 330-350 mph (twice what a Lancaster or B-17 would cruise at), at 27,000 ft or higher, then the problem for German interceptors is massively multiplied. Not only do they have half (or less) of the time to track, predict and locate the target of a Mosquito bomber, they then have to get their fighter up to that altitude, which generates another penalty in terms of time, and also in fuel burnt (and hence range to intercept).
This is where the Mosquito was in its element.
With the FB Mk VI, a low-medium altitude fighter-bomber, the interception picture is a little easier for its opponents. Additionally, the performance differential is in favour of the German aircraft, particularly once the later G model 109s and the FW 190A5 are introduced.
-
By 1945 the mosquito was not faster than the fastest fighters. Not even the high alt bomber models which were faster than the fighter models. In 1943 the situation was very different. Also, our definition of "fast" is a little misleading: The top level speed is one thing, cruise speed is another. Even in its early days, the top level speed was only just enough to outrun 109s/190s.
The removal of the flame-dampers will make a big difference for the MK.VI at low alt - it will not make it fastest, but it will move it significantly up the rank and past the agile turny wiggly fighters it has little chance to beat if caught on the deck. The cruise speed was the real asset of the mosquito and in that department it was the top plane till the end of the war. This aspect is down-played in AH since everyone fly about on full throttle and start crying if the fuel burn multiplier forces them to throttle down. In reality, the cruise speed of mosquito on long range sorties was higher than the escorting fighters. This forced the mosquitoes to slow down for the escorts to keep up and shortened their range. The mosquitoes rarely got close escorts since day operations was not their main mode of operation anyway. Exceptions were photo-recce missions, shorter range special missions (escorted by typhoons), or coastal command strikes. In the latter they were sometimes escorted by P51s, but often had to slow down for the Beufighters anyway. Eventually they were just escorting themselves.
-
"Examples would be marks like the B.Mk XVI and NF.Mk.30."
We just needz some new models like the endless variety of one-oh-nine! Nein! NEINs das vier haben.
Dankey scheetz.
Infidelz.
-
The P-38 the "American Mosquito"? Never heard that one before.
ack-ack
-
The AH Mosquito at sea level reads a maximum cruise speed of 327-328. There is so much controversy regarding all the data but if Karnak is near correct, 327 in 1943 does not sound like a world record holding speed. In 1943, at altitude the Spitfire was doing 408mph.
As Karnak has also pointed out the issue is complex. In the pilots handbook these things become evident. Some of the top speeds are quoted as cruise for fuel economy, then there are notes on overheating at certain throttle and auto blowers and some 5 minute limits on certain combinations of elements. These things are common to most aircraft and honestly, durability is a big factor. Just refresh your memory on what modified Reno mustang engines put out for Horse Power. These same ww2 engines could put out 4000hp no problem, but try to cross the Atlantic with that type of engine, which many Mosquitos did unsuccessfully in some cases. There is no indication that I have read yet which identifies the engines which produced the worlds fastest aircraft being any less reliable than those ferried from Canada.
The AH Mosquito is not the only Mossie that seems slow. I have flown the Warbirds Mosquito too and it also was slow but the AH 'wooden wonder' is the slowest. Certainly as Jabberwoke has reported, Axis pilots have shot down a few Mosquites in straight pursuit. There could be any number of reason why two or three are reported downed in this way and Jabberwoke knows it, but none of this may have anything to do with speed but more with engine failure or essential components being damaged by ground fire as one would expect on a airfield attack.
Two things are evident, there isn't a decent Mossie to be flown anywhere online and for the same reason a pilot cant find a decent B29 either. 109's , 190's, Spits and Mustangs are found everywhere and have been for years. Everyones favourite, but try to find two that pilot anything similar from one sim to another. With all the fuge packing, why not error on the side which supports history rathar than tries to write in exceptions. No this plane is slow...not fast.
-
Last time I tried WB the Mosquito Mk VI was powered by Merlin 21s and couldn't break 320mph on the deck using WEP. The AH Mosquito VI does 337mph using WEP on the deck, which matches the charts that I have for a Merlin 25 powered Mosquito VI with flame dampers at +18lbs boost. The model is correct, for what it is, I just want the dampers taken out of the model.
I do have quite a few books on the Mosquito in particular and this is not a subject I speak on casually or with a lack of sources.
-
The AH Mosquito at sea level reads a maximum cruise speed of 327-328. There is so much controversy regarding all the data but if Karnak is near correct, 327 in 1943 does not sound like a world record holding speed. In 1943, at altitude the Spitfire was doing 408mph.
What speed was the Spitfire doing at sea level? ;)
Do you know the best altitudes for speed in the Mosquito? Hint, sea level is not one of them.
Here are some wartime comments from the Air Fighting Development Unit on the Mosquito VI with Merlin 23 engines at +14 lbs boost, conducted in March 1943:
Performance: “The aircraft fitted with Merlin 23 engines was capable of about 317 mph at sea level when flying as an Intruder or Fighter/Bomber with bombs on. With bombs gone, the speed is about 322 mph and as a fighter without bomb racks about 327 mph (+14 lb. boost in all cases).
Full throttle heights at 14 lb. boost are about 9,000 and 17,000 feet for M.S. and F.S. gear respectively. Al these heights the following approximate speeds are obtainable for the fighter without external racks:-
9,000 feet 368 mph
17,000 feet 380 mph
The Intruder with bombs on is about 10 mph less than these figures and with “bombs-gone” about 5 mph lower.
By comparison with the latest obtainable figures, the FW.190 and Me.190G2 are more or less the same speed at sea level, the Mosquito is faster than both at 9,000 feet but slower than the Me. 109 at 17,000 feet, and only a little faster than the FW.190.
The RAF at this point of the war was still considerably underestimating the max level speeds of German single engine fighters, based on its earlier tests of captured German fighters.
The report goes on to assess the Mosquito against the Spitfire Mk V, Mk IX, Mk XII and the Typhoon:
Low altitude - The Mosquito was outpaced by all the above types except by the Spitfire V, and was out-climbed by all of them. In manoeuverability, the single engine fighters were able to throw the Mosquito off their tails and get on the Mosquito themselves, while the Mosquito was unable to disengage whenever a fighter got into position astern
So, the RAF considered that the Mk IX, Mk XII and Typhoon could outpace the Mosquito at low level.
Top speeds for the Mk IX at sea level were 330-335 mph at sea level (LF IX with Merlin 66). Top speed for the Mk XII at sea level were about 345 mph. For the Typhoon about 340 mph (+7 lb. boost) or 355 mph (+9 lb. boost),
Top speeds for the FW 190 A5 were about 345-350 mph at sea level. The 109G-2 had top sea level speeds of about 325 mph (Kennblatt shows 525 kph).
-
Jabberwock,
You realize the Mosquito Mk VI with Merlin 25s, by far the most common engine right from the start, could do 350-355 on the deck, right?
-
Speed was highly dependent on equipment fit and external condition. Bombs, racks, drop tanks, exhaust system, antenna, ect could result in as much as a 20 mph difference in speed at sea level.
A more historically realistic figure is 340-350 mph with +18 lbs Merlin 25s in Fighter Bomber configuration with tanks and and no saxophone exhausts. Maybe a pure day fighter, with no external racks or tanks, would be up at 355 mph at sea level, but I do wonder how common just such a configuration would be in late 1943/early 1944, when the Merlin 25 got cleared for +18 lb. boost.
Merlin 25s at +18lb. weren't producing quite as much power as Merlin 60 family engines at the same level of boost fitted to later Mosquito marks, which struggled to hit 345 mph at sea level.
-
Jabberwock,
Sorry, but you are in error. The NF.Mk 30, the fastest production Mosquito at 430mph, couldn't break 430mph on the deck. Down low the Merlin 25s produce more power than the high blown Merlins. The 350-355mph on the deck speed for a Mosquito FB.Mk VI is for one with ejector stacks, +18lbs boost and no external stores, though the bomb/DT hangars would still be there.
-
Not sure what level the Buzz bombs flew at but it was not exceptionally high. With a speed of approximately 360mph it would be impossible for a Mosquito as described by the preceeding data to keep up with one let alone ketch one from miles away. Absolutely impossible to ketch a Buz bomb at night if the information presented here concerning flame arrestors is not anything but misleading. It is without a doubt that Mosquitos were used to pursue, overtake and destroy the Buz Bombs along with a few very fast planes which were modified for the task. This includes the P51, which also needed special tuning. The modifications may not have been necessary in the Mosquito according to this excerpt, its accuracy is as doubfull as any other.
The Tempest fleet was built up to over 100 aircraft by September. Also, P-51 Mustangs and Griffon-engined Spitfire XIVs were tuned to make them almost fast enough, and during the short summer nights the Tempests shared defensive duty with de Havilland Mosquitoes.
It was without a doubt a very fast airplane and AH does not reflect this in the slightest...in fact, if only to find the truth, AH should include the V-1 in its simulation only to make it more obvious what the P51 could not do (without special tuning )and what the Tempest and Mosquito could. And what is so typical of this outrage is that the German war records are claiming their V-1 was traveling at a maximum cruise speed of 400mph....this is a typical outrage that simply cant be overlooked.
-
First, the V1 interceptors, Spitfires, Mustangs and Mosquitoes all, were running on 150 octane, not 100 octane. A Mosquito Mk VI on 150 octane would do about 375mph on the deck. They also did not use flame dampers on the V1 interceptors. What would be the point?
Second, all of the Merlin powered V1 interceptors used dives to get adequate overtake speed. Only the Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV and Meteors would run them down in level flight.
-
AH Mosquito would fall apart before it would get anywhere near the speeds needed to dive with success on a V-1. So the Spitfire 14 was the fastest plane in the world then?
-
AH Mosquito would fall apart before it would get anywhere near the speeds needed to dive with success on a V-1. So the Spitfire 14 was the fastest plane in the world then?
Not remotely true, though I do think it sheds parts when it shouldn't. I have many times taken it past 480mph, which is far, far faster than the short dives after V1s would have reached.
Remember, the Mossie on 150 octane is faster than a V1, the dive is just to speed the overtake up.
The Spitfire Mk XIV on 150 octane will do about 390mph on the deck, as I recall. That is slower than the Tempest Mk V using 150 octane on the deck and far slower than the Meteor or Me262.
-
Jabberwock,
Sorry, but you are in error. The NF.Mk 30, the fastest production Mosquito at 430mph, couldn't break 430mph on the deck. Down low the Merlin 25s produce more power than the high blown Merlins. The 350-355mph on the deck speed for a Mosquito FB.Mk VI is for one with ejector stacks, +18lbs boost and no external stores, though the bomb/DT hangars would still be there.
I never claimed any Mosquito could exceed 430 mph on the deck, I think out wires are getting crossed as I don't get that assertion from re-reading what I posted (or, indeed, even mentioned the figure).
Any wartime (or other) testing evident to support the assertion that the Mk VI with Merlin 25s at 18 lb. boost could do 350-355 mph at sea level? From my reading of Rolls-Royce engine hp charts, the Merlin 25 is just pipped by the two speed, two stage Merlins at low altitude.
I could be wrong, and most of my Mosquito data is on another computer at the moment, but the fastest sea-level tests speed I have seen for the FB Mk VI was are 354 mph with a Mk VI with Merlin 25s at 24 lb. boost (admittedly with ducted exhausts and 2 x 50 gal drop tanks) and 361 mph from a RAAF document, but the condition of the aircraft (exhausts, stores, tanks), is not given.
Best performance in RAF testing at + 18 lb. boost at sea level was 333 mph (again ducted exhausts and 2 x 50 gal drop tanks), while RAAF testing with a FB Mk VI gave a sea level speed of 340 mph with a Merlin 25 at + 18 lb. boost, again condition unknown.
I'm disinclined to believe that the saxophone exhausts cost the Mosquito 15-25 mph. More like 8-15 mph.
I'd also check that the NF Mk 30 is the "fastest production Mosquito", as testing I have seen suggests that it struggled to make 400 mph with Merlin 72s, and only about 10-15 mph better with Merlin 113s. I believe that the NF 30 was slowed somewhat by flame dampers on the exhausts.
The PR Mk 34 or B Mk 35 seem to me to be the fastest production Mosquitos, at approximately 432 mph, with the Merlin 114 and stores out.
I'm not trying to get into an argument over Mosquito performance, I was just trying to correct what I saw as ignorance over the Mosquito's relative performance to S/E fighters from the initial poster, and the losses it suffered at low altitude (which were actually quite high during daytime operations). In my experiance, the superiority of the Mosquito in speed is often mis-represented (or over-inflated) by many enthusiasts, and then they are disappointed when they are overhauled by enemy fighters in a stern chase.
-
Low level operations always produce much higher loss rates, due to two main factors. 1) The primary cause of increased losses is to ground fire. 2) The other cause of increased losses is that you are ceding the altitude advantage to the enemy.
The Mosquito Mk VI was marginally faster than the Fw190s and Bf109s in service when it was introduced in mid 1943. Numerous encounters confirm this. The speed advantage was not so much that the Mosquito was remotely immune to interception.
Of course later Bf109s and Fw190s are significantly faster on the deck than the Mk VI, or any other Mosquito, was.
As for documentation, RAE tests found that it was capable of accelerating from a cruise to maximum speed to pull away from a Spitfire Mk XII, the fastest Spitfire at low altitude then in service (340-345mph), before the Spitfire could gain a favorable firing position if the Mosquito spotted the Spitfire if it were no closer than 800 yards and 1000ft above when the Mosquito went to +18lbs boost.
Here are two older posts, one by scherf and one by myself, explaining Mosquito Mk VI speeds. (my post will be in the following post, too many characters to post both in this message) It is a messy issue.
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.
-
I know many of you think the persistent fuss a few of us make about the Mosquito using saxophone ducts compared to ejector stacks is silly and that the speed gain doesn't matter. I disagree with that position and would ask you to imagine how P-51D fans would take it if the Mustang topped out at 352mph on the deck, or how gracefully Bf109K-4 fans would take a top speed of 352mph on the deck. I remind you of the reaction to the Bf109G-14 being 10mph slow on the deck. 15mph is nothing to sniff at, particularly in an aircraft which relies on speed for success and is being used in an environment filled with speed demons.
On that note, I submit this set of data that I believe strongly supports the idea that we have sufficient data for HTC to boost the Mosquito VI's speed when the 3D model is redone.
Report No. 74 on the Tactical Trials - Mosquito VI tested Mosquito VI No. HJ.666 which was powered by Merlin 23s fitted with ejector stacks. The addendum, which I will transcribe in full, tested Mosquito VI No. HJ.821 powered by Merlin 25s fitted with ejector stacks. The addendum is as follows:
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________________
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. 74 on TACTICAL TRIALS - MOSQUITO VI
INTRODUCTION
A Mosquito VI, No. HJ.821, has now been made available by No. 418 Squadron by arrangement with Headquarters, Fighter Command. This aircraft differed from the one used for the earlier trial only in having Merlin 25 engines instead of Merlin 23 and was flown in the same condition. The relative performance with fighters near the ground was investigated.
TACTICAL.
Performance.
2. The aircraft was flown both with and without the long range external jettison tanks. It is thought that only about 5 m.p.h. is lost by fitting the tanks when operating at low levels.
3. Full throttle heights are about 5,000 ft. in M.S. gear and 12,000 ft. in F.S. gear. No actual speed measurements can be quoted as the position error for this aircraft was unknown.
4. When cruising fairly fast (2300 r.p.m. + 4 boost) near the ground, the Mosquito was "jumped" by a Spitfire XII (Griffon IV) which is the fastest mark of Spitfire at low altitude in use at present. It was found that provided a good watch was kept, it was possible to pull away from it before it could close to range to shoot effectively. This of course depended considerably upon the height from which the Spitfire was attacking and the range at which it was first observed, but at the Mosquito's fast cruising speed the Spitfire usually had difficulty in positioning itself to attack and was seen in time. Even if not seen till 800 yds, and about 1,000 ft. above, it was possible to accelerate and pull away if the Mosquito was opened up to full power (3,000 r.p.m. + 18 lb. boost) immediately. The indicated airspeeds were 250 m.p.h. for cruising and 340 m.p.h. at full power.
5. The Mosquito accelerates from 250 m.p.h. to full speed in 1½ minutes. If height allows, the acceleration can be helped by a slight dive through 500 - 600 ft., in which case this speed can be reached in one minute from fast cruising. The hight must, however, be lost slowly.
6. The climb has also improved considerably at full power so that the Mosquito can pull up from low level into a cloud 2,000 ft. above it in less than 30 seconds from fast cruising. Near the ground the rate was approximately 3,800 ft. per minute in a steady climb.
CONCLUSIONS.
7. The Mosquito VI with Merlin 25 engines is slightly faster than the Spitifre XII at low level. On intruder work with good search it should accelerate away from the majority of enemy attacks.
8. The good climb at full power allows the Mosquito an excellent chance of reaching cloud cover quickly.
AFDU/3/20/46
4th August, 1943
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________________
What can we infer from this report? We can, in my opinion, infer that the Mosquito VI HJ.821 did something like 350mph on the deck. The report says 340mph was indicated, but it also says the position error was unknown so speeds could not be quoted. According to the performance chart for the Spitfire XII ( http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XII.html ) the Spitfire XII does ~345mph on the deck. If the Mosquito VI was out running it slightly that would put the Mosquito VI at about 350-355mph. This number is right in line with both de Haviland's claims and pilot claims as to the speed obtained by their Mosquito VIs. It would also put it right in the region expected if 15mph were gained by replacing the saxophone ducts with ejector stacks when compared to the charts we have for a saxophone ducted Mosquito VI, which put it at 338mph on the deck. This chart:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/Mos4saxejperf.JPG)
demonstrates in hard numbers the performance gain of a Mosquito IV with Merlin 21s going from saxophone ducts to ejector stacks and gives the 15mph gain in speed claim a basis in hard fact.
In summary, we have the following pieces of evidence:
1) Hard numbers for a saxophone ducted Mosquito VI.
2) Hard numbers for the speed gain of a Mosquito IV going to ejector stacks.
3) Hard numbers for the Spitfire XII.
4) A tactical report in which a Mosquito VI with ejector stacks slightly outruns a Spitfire XII, a number which exactly matches the data in points 1, 2, and 3.
This very strongly indicates that a deck speed of 350-355mph and a F.S. gear altitude speed of 390mph would be an accurate model of the Mosquito VI's speed with Merlin 25s and ejector stacks.
Sources:
Mosquito; C. Martin Sharp & Michael J. F. Bowyer, ISBN 0-947554-41-6
Mosquito B. Mk. IV DK.290 Comparitive level speeds with ducted saxaphone and multi stub exhausts A. & A.E.E. Boscombe Down (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf)
Mosquito VI Tactical Trials at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
Spitfire XII at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
-
I'd post a lnk to the thread we had a while back, where I uploaded a ton of official testing stuff. Telstra (ptui!) has unilaterally canned my webspace, so the links no longer work.
Sorry.
Either way, the prototype on Merlin 61s in mid-42 (basis for "fastest in service" claim) does not equal F.B.VI on M25s in 1945.
Edit - Does photobucket allow hotlinking?
-
"4) A tactical report in which a Mosquito VI with ejector stacks slightly outruns a Spitfire XII, a number which exactly matches the data in points 1, 2, and 3."
It has no relevance unless you know exactly what XII that was. Could well be the worst aircraft in the squadron.
Looking at the speed diagrams would indicate 330mph NOE.
DK290 also had the smooth glass nose i.e. no gun openings for .303s or 20mms so it may have less drag than the fighter config.
The trials were flown with 19.700lb as corrected standard load but that is in bomber config? For a fighter version that would be around 17000-18000lb?
-C+
-
"4) A tactical report in which a Mosquito VI with ejector stacks slightly outruns a Spitfire XII, a number which exactly matches the data in points 1, 2, and 3."
It has no relevance unless you know exactly what XII that was. Could well be the worst aircraft in the squadron.
Looking at the speed diagrams would indicate 330mph NOE.
DK290 also had the smooth glass nose i.e. no gun openings for .303s or 20mms so it may have less drag than the fighter config.
The trials were flown with 19.700lb as corrected standard load but that is in bomber config? For a fighter version that would be around 17000-18000lb?
-C+
The difference in drag would not affect the speed increase from the exhaust thrust any more significantly than the increased exhaust thurst of the Merlin 25 over the Merlin 21 would. We still end up with the same 350-355mph on the deck estimate. That speed matches all known data points. No other speed does so.
-
It seems the concept of a bomber faster than fighter is difficult for some to grasp but it was not a new concept. Two early 1930s German light bombers, the Heinkel 70 and Dornier 17, and the Russian Tupolev SB-2, were faster than their contemporary fighters and proved almost impossible to intercept during the Spanish civil war. Once again the history does not seem to coincide with the representitive statistics being put forward. The first operational flight, in September 1941, demonstrated that the Mosquito, on a photo reconnaissance mission over southern France, simply outran the German Me-109 fighters sent to intercept it, leaving them behind at over 400mph.
And about the test results that are being presented...I want to point out that there are exceptions to official reports, and you might do well to consider this, I am quoting Group commander Donald Bennett "At a meeting at the Air Ministry on the subject, Bomber Command and the Air Ministry both very strongly opposed the adoption of the Mosquito.They argued that it was a frail wood machine totally unsuitable for Service conditions, that it would be shot down because of its absence of gun turrets, and that in any case it was far too small to carry the equipment and an adequate Pathfinder crew. I dealt with each one of these points in turn, but finally they played their ace. They declared that the Mosquito had been tested thoroughly by the appropriate establishments and found quite unsuitable, and indeed impossible to fly at night"
And take careful note these published tests were done " by the appropriate establishments" and read and understood by Bomber Command and the Air Ministry. We look back and say, well what blundering idiots. But we fail to see ourselves making the same mistake. Common sense would tell you that something does not jive here.
-
Raster, I think that you may be taking the historical records a bit too seriously. The information you are providing us is dated in early to mid war time of WW2 (1940-43). The Mosquito at that time was a marginally faster machine. But in 1944 and 45, you begin to see other aircraft beat the Mossie in the speed/manueverability category.
You must realize that in the Late War Arena, your Mosquito is going up against the likes of P51s, 109Ks, LA7s, and among other later war rides. The Mosquito cant outrun these late war machines. If you want a more historical feel, I suggest Mid War Arena, where the Mossie is a bit more competitive. I do, however, agree that the Mossie could use an overhaul. I personally would like HTC to create an early war bomber variant, along with a late war fighter variant. The current version in game just doesnt do full justice for the Mossie right now.
-
Lemme test if I can get some images to appear.
Here's as far as I got for demonstrating what an FB.VI on M25s and +18 with no drop tanks and stub exhausts would look like. If it works I'll re-post the whole explanation, with snippets re: speed differences.
(http://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/scherfspeed.jpg)
Hoo-fargin-'ray, it works.
Will try to reconstruct the whole post below.
As for the first sortie in '41, yes the Mossie outran intercepting fighters. No, I've never seen any claim that it did so at over 400 mph. I have Don Bennett's book upstairs and am familiar with the quote. In terms of the mathematics of modelling performance, it's a massive So What. The AH boys have to go off what can be demonstrated using original docs where possible. "Modelling by Anecdote" won't get anywhere.
-
Modelling by Anecdote" won't get anywhere.
Thats very true Scherf, but there must be something we dont understand which places the Mosquito slower than history represents it.
I want to quote Canadian Mosquito pilot and air ace Russell Bannock because I am a Canadian and (sadly) of the few planes made in Canada the Mossie was one of them. I saw my first V1 rocket on June 16, 1944,” he recalled at the ceremony, “over the English Channel below me at about 500 feet. I thought it was a burning aircraft.” “Mosquitos were the only plane able to do night patrols, carrying radar in the nose.” They were also fast, capable of more than 400 miles per hour, but even then, he said, they learned they had to attack from about 10,000 feet to get enough speed to intercept the low-flying missiles. He added, “We, (the Allies) were lucky that they didn’t get launched until near the end of the war.”
-
I've heard you can't trust the history channel, but I watched a nice documentary on the mosquito before flying it and I was very disappointed. In AH its wings fall off with very light enemy fire. It's ENY reflects it's standing in the game. I still enjoy flying it when the ENY is low, mostly in attack mode. Personally I think it is misrepresented in the game & historical accounts are accurate, but what do I really know? :salute
-
Here's my reconstructed post on FB.VI speeds below.
As for Russ Bannock's account, I've no doubt that the NF.30s he flew on 406 Sqn could have done 400 mph at altitude. But it's precisely for the sake of historical accuracy that test documents, not anecdotes have to be used.
Believe you me, if I could find a test for a 400 mph level-speed FB.VI, I'd post it.
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://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/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://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/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://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/dk290stubs.jpg)
(http://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/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://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/scherfspeed.jpg)
So, I get a deck speed of 352 mph, overall best TAS of 383 mph.
-
I have a copy of Tech.Note. No. Eng. 316 AVIA6/5817.
This covering methods of increasing the speed of WW2 RAF Fighters in order to intercept V1,s increased boost, ejector exhausts, NO2 etc.
The Mossi NF XIX (Merlin 25,s) is listed as gaining 15 mph by the use of exhaust thrust. The speed at 3,000ft 348mph +18lbs boost, 377mph full throttle (approx +24lbs) and 394mph full throttle and NO2.
Just for interest. Speeds at 3,000ft.
Temp V Sabre IIa +9lbs 390mph +11lbs 414mph
Mustang III V-1650-3 +18lbs 373mph
Mustang III V-1650-7 +25lbs 416mph full throttle 421mph
Spit XIV +18lbs 372mph, +21lbs 393mph and +25lbs 410mph
Spit VIII +18lbs 346mph +25lbs 381mph and full throttle 387 mph
-
You are aware are you not that the Merlin engine only weights approximately 1500lbs and that the Mosquito was stressed skin. The skin was an ultra smooth laminate of Balsa wood. (take off 15mph for non reflective paint) It was a little larger than a P38 and you are giving speeds with a weight of approxmately 20000lbs with drop tanks added. Balsa weights only 170kg/cu m. while aluminum can be 1000kg/ cu. m. You would have us believe this plane weighed more than a P38 at 12500lbs (5800kgs) The added wind resistance loss of the drop tanks of 5mph. Come on the Mosquito was only marginally bigger and what about the loss in velocity. You trying to tell me the drop tanks removed 5 mph while the added size reduced the speed by 100mph? Wish I had more time....
-
Raster,
The empty weight of a Mosquito is indeed higher than that of a P-38. It was not just made of balsa.
-
I have a copy of Tech.Note. No. Eng. 316 AVIA6/5817.
Thanks for that Neil. If I can get myself organised this morning, I'll PM you a link which may be of interest, though you may already have it.
-
Raster,
The empty weight of a Mosquito is indeed higher than that of a P-38. It was not just made of balsa.
I bet that just the second pilot with all his accessories would be a few good hundred pounds. Though de Havilland saved a few lbs on putting less armor around the navigator than the pilot. I remember McIntosh complaining about this (Terror in the starboard seat).
The overall weight of a wood contraction was similar to that of metal for similar strength. That was the claim by de Havilland. However, the wood skin offered a few advantages to internal structure: since the skin is much thicker and less flexible than aluminum, it requires less support from the internal structure leaving more usable internal volume.
In Mosquito by Sharp & Bowyer the development section gives the impression that while top speed was of interest, de-Havilland were much more concerned about maximum cruise speed - that is the fastest speed sustainable over a long distance. "Speed" for then was how long it takes to make a round trip to Berlin, not where the IAS needle pegs. As a "fighter" it is considered first and foremost a night-fighter. There, interceptions tend to be long and ninja style - the target is un-aware till the last moments. Both as a (night) bomber defender and (to less extent) as the interceptor, planes could not fly all the time on full throttle. Fast cruise was the typical practical speed.
The initial idea for the mosquito came from calculations of maximizing range*payload/trip time. This brought de-Havilland to realize that the optimum is achieved (at the available technology) in a twin engine setup and that defensive turrets reduce this so much that they are not worth it.
-
Some might find this interesting,
"Mosquito Aircraft Production at Downsview"
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=exhibit_home&fl=0&lg=English&ex=00000192
-
I expect most of us could calculate the weight of the Mossie given the time. The Mosquito aircraft had a fuselage which because of its aerodynamic configuration allowed it to be larger than other aircraft of smaller size but with equal wind resistance. This shape, then including the wings was without features such as rivets which allowed it to be larger than other aircraft but with equal wind resistance. The Mosquito aircraft also because of its balsa wood cored plywood did not have the "tin canning" effect which is caused by the elasticity of the thin metal sheets on the entire surface but most noticeable on the upper wing surfaces to deform causing parasitic drag. These properties effective reduce the wind resistance signature and its component of drag to a degree making the Mosquito appear to be much smaller than other metal aircraft virtually spilling over with with parasitic drag elements.
The last time I read the total unloaded weight of the Mosquito, I made a few calculations and what do you know, my memory must be bad. It is known that wood per unit weight is often stronger than metal and is used in some aerobatic aircraft because it does not fatigue in an innocuous way. The Mosquito was a true stress skin aircraft. In a metal aircraft the stressed skin is produced using an increased number of metal bulkheads. However, in the Mosquito birch was built over a balsa wood core to produce a thin truss box section with a few longerons built in. The structure then required only a few bulk head sections. This allowed the fuselage to be much larger than a metal aircraft of smaller size but with the same strength and weight. You could calculate this if you had the time. The flaps were also plywood. The exception was the ailerons being made of metal, not fabric.
I would sure like to know how you get 20000lbs unless you fill the plane with water.
-
Mosquito FB.Mk VI weighed a little over 14,000lbs when empty.
-
If you want a 400 mph FB.VI that's lighter than the P-38, you're passing into the realms of fantasy.
If you want to see how to get to 20,000 lbs, go look at the FB.VI CG table I posted on the AH Wiki.
Seriously, none of this stuff is made up.
-
Why was the Mosquito so fast...add to that the design of the radiators which were protected by the engines. They served to keep the standard Merlin engines cool but unlike other aircraft, they produced lift, not drag. If you CAN'T understand how all these advantages work out to the amazingly high fudge packed speed of 328mph then whats wrong with ya. This was the fastest plane in the world when it was introduced and amazingly as time went on they aircraft got more HP...and while the P38 didnt get the amazing paddle propellors which would have put it in outerspace, the Mossquito did...oh what a fudge yer cooking.
-
Raster,
Have you even read any of Scherf's or my posts? They may be long, but read them. They don't lie.
-
Yes I'm working on them considering all the time spend fabricating them I guess I should push along faster. Some good stuff and thanks. While I'm here, note the radiator flaps controled airspeed and they were effective enough when fully opened to help the pilot break out of a dive, this effect is not modeled in AH and perhaps that should be on my wish list. Add to that the use of the guns on the Mosquito would also break it out of a compression dive....and so on. This following illustration must be of the exhaust system.
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=display_original&lg=English&fl=0&rd=94042&ex=00000192
-
Please dont feed the trolls.........
:airplane:
-
This following illustration must be of the exhaust system.
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=display_original&lg=English&fl=0&rd=94042&ex=00000192
That is, for obvious reasons, the saxophone ducting that stops both the exhaust flare and the thrust effect that ejector stacks supply.
-
Raster I still cant work out exactly what your point/question is. do you have a specific issue with the AH mossie model?
-
reading rasters post is like bashing my head against a wall.
-
Some might find this interesting,
"Mosquito Aircraft Production at Downsview"
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=exhibit_home&fl=0&lg=English&ex=00000192
Some pretty interesting info in there, thanks for sharing <S>
-
i'm with you raster, the mossie needs to be pimped!
we can all agree that it needs to be unleashed from the shackles HTC has put it in.
-
"at sea level"
That's the rub - the top speed quoted in the history books was achieved at the aircraft's engine(s) optimum altitude, which was rarely, if ever, sea level but rather higher. The example I know best is the Seafire Mk.II, which was essentially 'a Spitfire V with a hook' and employed a Merlin engine with a supercharger capacity far better suited to flying and fighting at 15,000 feet plus. When it was discovered that the early Seafire could barely catch a Ju88 at low level, the supercharger capacity was reduced and the engine optimised for best performance between sea-level and 10,000 feet. With 'clipped' wingtips as well, the top speed increased more than sufficiently to give the next saucy Ju88 to attack the fleet a very nasty fright; described as 'clipped, cropped and clapped' by RAF pilots who knew no better, Fleet Air Arm fighter jockeys just loved the L.IIC Seafire.
Same with the Mossie. The FB.VI is OK for its dedicated task - but it ain't a winner when it's trying to substitute for a NF.30 hunting Bf110G nightfighters at altitude.
:cool:
-
"at sea level"
That's the rub - the top speed quoted in the history books was achieved at the aircraft's engine(s) optimum altitude, which was rarely, if ever, sea level but rather higher. The example I know best is the Seafire Mk.II, which was essentially 'a Spitfire V with a hook' and employed a Merlin engine with a supercharger capacity far better suited to flying and fighting at 15,000 feet plus. When it was discovered that the early Seafire could barely catch a Ju88 at low level, the supercharger capacity was reduced and the engine optimised for best performance between sea-level and 10,000 feet. With 'clipped' wingtips as well, the top speed increased more than sufficiently to give the next saucy Ju88 to attack the fleet a very nasty fright; described as 'clipped, cropped and clapped' by RAF pilots who knew no better, Fleet Air Arm fighter jockeys just loved the L.IIC Seafire.
Where to start???
The Seafire IIc had it's Merlin 46 replaced with a Merlin 32, it wasn't reduced or optimised, it was an engine change! This happened very early on during Seafire IIc production. Only the first 2-3 months production was with the Merlin 46, after that the 32 was fitted AS STANDARD. All the original batch were then re-fitted with the 32 also.
Clipped, cropped and clapped refers to the late model clipped Spitfire Vc with an +18lbs Merlin 55M, (also fitted to Seafire L.III) and could in no way refer to an L.IIc.
[edit] You are correct in that the reason for the engine change was the IIc sucky low alt performance.
-
i'm with you raster, the mossie needs to be pimped!
we can all agree that it needs to be unleashed from the shackles HTC has put it in.
The initial batches of FB.VI Mossies had flame baffles/dampers fitted at the factory, but they couldn't carry rockets.
By the time rockets were an option all FB.VI Mossies were delivered sans flame dampers, and they were only fitted as required.
We don't have night = no need for dampers, get rid of them.
-
Completely!
As I would love a night moving over the world of AH, it will be a while before that, and in the meantime, day aircraft and day equipment should be the norm.
That said, the Mossie could do with a facelift, and another mark or two ;)
-
[snip] there isn't a decent Mossie to be flown anywhere online
That's crazy talk, the AH mosquito is a murderer's plane and more than a match for the majority of the planeset here. That is of course....if you know how to fly it and don't rely on speed to survive. If you get a faster mosquito you wont be any better at flying it, you will just be able to escape more often when things don't go to plan. Try some ACMs in the current AH mossie, fly it for more than a few weeks. I have flown it almost exclusively for over two years in AH and i can tell you it is a very decent mossie.
-
I'm not even a shadow of the mossie pilot Bat is (I take it up only once in a while) and I have repeatedly landed 8-kill sorties, coming back to the field bruised and battered but alive. As it is in AH, it's no spitfire, but it's a lethal killer, for sure!
-
That's crazy talk, the AH mosquito is a murderer's plane and more than a match for the majority of the planeset here. That is of course....if you know how to fly it and don't rely on speed to survive. If you get a faster mosquito you wont be any better at flying it, you will just be able to escape more often when things don't go to plan. Try some ACMs in the current AH mossie, fly it for more than a few weeks. I have flown it almost exclusively for over two years in AH and i can tell you it is a very decent mossie.
come on bat you would make a bicycle with cardboard cut out strap on wings fly better than it should. Examining the quality of the pilot is no reason to deny the wish of an accurately modeled daytime, un-flame dampered beast mossie!
Unleash the speed :D
-
What was the undamped mossie "cruise speed"? Not the full-frickin-throttle AH milpower, but surely fairly fast.
I ask because I'm curious about historic mission speeds vs AH FFT usage.
-
What was the undamped mossie "cruise speed"? Not the full-frickin-throttle AH milpower, but surely fairly fast.
I ask because I'm curious about historic mission speeds vs AH FFT usage.
That would depend on the range of the mission. I'd have to do some specific research on the subject though. The RAF's tests seem more focused on top speeds. The following line is from the section of the tests I quoted earlier:
"4. When cruising fairly fast (2300 r.p.m. + 4 boost) near the ground, the Mosquito was "jumped" by a Spitfire XII..."
It seems that a fast cruise might be +7 or +8lbs boost. The speed should be 10-15mph faster than the Mossie in AH does on the same settings. If I can find my pilot's handbook I'll post more detailed information, but I am not sure it will supply expected speeds, just the boost and rpm settings that should be used.
-
What was the undamped mossie "cruise speed"? Not the full-frickin-throttle AH milpower, but surely fairly fast.
I ask because I'm curious about historic mission speeds vs AH FFT usage.
Intruder/ranger mission were navigating at 280 mph (iirc) for most of the way. These are the low alt, long distance runs. High alt mosquito bombers were faster and recons even faster. On many missions the total average speed (total travel distance divided by time from takeoff to landing) was over 300 mph for such missions.
Sharp & Bowyer give a few record breaking missions for these stats. I'll see if I can find it.
-
It was indeed a fast cruiser, which gave the LW a hard time jumping it. After all, the twin engined fighter-bomber was cruising faster than the one engined fighters. If the contact was anything else than a "jump", the mossie would have a good chance simply running away.
There was an account somewhere on the boards regarding Mossies outrunning 190's over the north sea. Karnak?
-
Ok, here is what the pilot's handbook says:
44. Cruising
(i) For any required airspeed, the maximum weak mixture boost (+7 lb./sq. in.) together with the lowest practicable r.p.m. provide the most economical conditions.
|(ii) When cruising at low r.p.m. the engines should be cleared every 30 mins. at +12 lb./sq. in. boost and 2,850 r.p.m. for 30 secs.
(iii)At any height the speed for maximum range is 170 knots at a weight of 17,000 lb. but below 6,000 ft. (my guess, the first digit is obscured, but looks most like a six to me) this speed can only be obtained and an uneconomical boost setting, even when using minimum r.p.m. Speed should therefore be increased to approximately 200 knots.
(iv) Fly with the supercharger gear change switch in the MOD position, unless the recommended airspeed cannot be obtained without exceeding 2,650 r.p.m., when high gear should be engaged by switching to AUTO.
45. Flight planning charts
The recommended cruising speeds ANMPG and GPH curves for a mean weight of 17,000 lb. and 20,000 lb. at sea level. 10,000 ft. and 20,000 ft. in low gear and at 25,000 ft. in high gear are on pages 30 to 33.
The charts that are on the following pages show fuel consumption at various RPM settings and list cruise speeds between 170 and 240 knots at sea level, 200 and 290 knots at 10,000ft, 210 and 300 knots at 20,000ft and 220 and 305 knots at 25,000ft.
On page 36 it lists the following limitations for the Merlin 25:
MAX. TAKE-OFF: low gear; 3000rpm; +18lbs boost
INTERMEDIATE 1 HR LIMIT: low/high gear; 2850rpm; +9lbs boost; 125 degree coolant; 90 degree oil
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS: low/high gear; 2650rpm; +7lbs boost; 105(115) degree coolant; 90 degree oil
OPERATIONAL NECESSITY 5 MINS. LIMIT: low/high gear; 3,000rpm; +18lbs boost; 135 degree coolant; 105 degree oil
That is about all that I see in the pilots handbook that is relevant to cruising.
-
There was an account somewhere on the boards regarding Mossies outrunning 190's over the north sea. Karnak?
I have read several accounts of FB.Mk VI's simply out running German fighters that tried to intercept them at low altitude, both Bf109s and Fw190s.
-
That's crazy talk, the AH mosquito is a murderer's plane and more than a match for the majority of the planeset here. That is of course....if you know how to fly it and don't rely on speed to survive. If you get a faster mosquito you wont be any better at flying it, you will just be able to escape more often when things don't go to plan. Try some ACMs in the current AH mossie, fly it for more than a few weeks. I have flown it almost exclusively for over two years in AH and i can tell you it is a very decent mossie.
Bat, you're talking to this guy! Snippet courtesy of AKAK.
I for one am interested Midway and if I am impressed with your expertise I will probably tell you. However, I doubt you can teach me anything.
If I may suggest you set this up correctly. You could do the whole thing on a Sunday afternoon. Post it, have the folks sign up and register for the specific date and time. Get their emails, send out printed material outlining the manuevers, make up a short program and demonstration, expect each pilot to show you the manuevers correctly preformed, then make sure those who have registered are given a written exam. If these pilots pass your written and online test then you email each of them a certificate of successfully completed training. Or a certificate of failure if thats the kind of pilot they are. However, as I said, I doubt you are the one who would be able to competently teach how to pilot the P38 effectively. Your training and your certificate are only as good as you are. In my opinion, your gunnery is excellent, your pilotage only average. If you have the balls to prove yourself competent to train, then ok, I will humbly sign up as your student to pass or fail by your measure.
RASTER
-
rgr that JR. Just voicing my opinion that the mossie we currently have is infact very capable in the late war arena....I gotta try to reach him on this matter!
Bruv, I agree with you there (apart from maybe the cardboard bit :p) and yeah a new mossie would be great, I just couldnt take my baby being insulted in that way by Raster :cry
-
It was indeed a fast cruiser, which gave the LW a hard time jumping it. After all, the twin engined fighter-bomber was cruising faster than the one engined fighters. If the contact was anything else than a "jump", the mossie would have a good chance simply running away.
There was an account somewhere on the boards regarding Mossies outrunning 190's over the north sea. Karnak?
I posted such one anecdote on one of the older mosquito threads.
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
-
rgr that JR. Just voicing my opinion that the mossie we currently have is infact very capable in the late war arena....I gotta try to reach him on this matter!
Don't waste your time on RASTER but if you're a masochist, you can find him in the TargetWare forums along with the other 4 TW flyers sitting around posting in a forum for a game that no longer is available.
ack-ack
-
AckAck, i think it was just a wonderful find on your half. I just had to repost it.
-
That's crazy talk, the AH mosquito is a murderer's plane and more than a match for the majority of the planeset here. That is of course....if you know how to fly it and don't rely on speed to survive. If you get a faster mosquito you wont be any better at flying it, you will just be able to escape more often when things don't go to plan. Try some ACMs in the current AH mossie, fly it for more than a few weeks. I have flown it almost exclusively for over two years in AH and i can tell you it is a very decent mossie.
Here is a man who needs to be flying in the upcoming scenario The Final Battle!
Mechanic, are you flying in it? They have a beautiful, new, fresh Mossie just for you if you do! :salute
-
I would like to Brooke, is it possible to be a walk on? I'd hate to sign up officially and then not be able to make it, I have quite unpredictable weekends usualy.
-
I would like to Brooke, is it possible to be a walk on? I'd hate to sign up officially and then not be able to make it, I have quite unpredictable weekends usualy.
Absolutely it's possible to be a walk-on. Send a PM to Husky01 (BearKats) -- I'm sure he'd be thrilled to have you flying the wonderful Mossie for as many frames as you can make it.