Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on April 27, 2010, 02:45:17 AM
-
I am very happy to see the new shots of the updated Mosquito Mk VI. As I am sure it is no surprise, based on my posting record, I am particularly interested in the fact that it has ejector stacks in place of the current AH Mosquito Mk VI's flame dampers. I am sure HTC will still model it with Merlin 25s as that was, by far, the most common engine for Mosquito Mk VIs and, so far as I know, all rocket enabled Mosquito Mk VIs were Merlin 25 powered. My question would be if the flight model is being adjusted to match the presence of the ejector stacks and if so will the performance look something like what Scherf and I hashed out in the last big Mossie thread?
I am also curious about the ability to change damage models based on hangar choices. Obviously when you take a six gun P-47 it has a slightly different damage model than an eight gun P-47. Does this ability extend to adding and removing armor? In other words, could you do a Mosquito Mk XVIII by making the 57mm Mollins gun a loadout option that also added 800lbs of armor, increasing the cockpit and engine armor levels in the damage model?
-
Your big day is drawing near! :)
-
It is but tempting to hope there might be more variants....
-
Assuming it's as easy as Karnak says, I find it hard to believe HTC wouldn't take the opportunity to add another variant just by modelling a new gun and changing the armour values.
-
Yes, no, no, respectively.
-
Yes, no, no, respectively.
Thanks for the response, Pyro. That was pretty much what I was expecting, but based on the comments in the "New Mossie" thread I thought it would be a good question to ask about the capabilities of hangar options. It is good to hear that the flight model will match the undampered graphics.
Mossie unleashed! :rock
-
I never understood why there are not currently more models of the Mossie as are the Spitfire and Hurricane.
-
How it looks to me reading this and I hope I am wrong :pray
"I am very happy to see the new shots of the updated Mosquito Mk VI. As I am sure it is no surprise, based on my posting record, I am particularly interested in the fact that it has ejector stacks in place of the current AH Mosquito Mk VI's flame dampers. I am sure HTC will still model it with Merlin 25s as that was, by far, the most common engine for Mosquito Mk VIs and, so far as I know, all rocket enabled Mosquito Mk VIs were Merlin 25 powered" (Question 1 answer yes?). My question would be if the flight model is being adjusted to match the presence of the ejector stacks and if so will the performance look something like what Scherf and I hashed out in the last big Mossie thread? (Question 2 answer no :frown: :?)
I am also curious about the ability to change damage models based on hangar choices. Obviously when you take a six gun P-47 it has a slightly different damage model than an eight gun P-47. Does this ability extend to adding and removing armor? In other words, could you do a Mosquito Mk XVIII by making the 57mm Mollins gun a loadout option that also added 800lbs of armor, increasing the cockpit and engine armor levels in the damage model? (Question 3 answer no?)
That is kind of how I would interpret the answer which is not then a source of great joy. Looks like same Mossy only a bit prettier but no faster. Just a make over. :frown: :frown:
-
There are three question marks and three answers. It should be a no-brainer...
-
There are three question marks and three answers. It should be a no-brainer...
There are 4 questions, because the first one is broken by the "...and if so..." into two questions and the second paragraph has two question marks.
Pyro is playing with our minds
-
The first question is just a conditional question. A simple version would for example be "If you change the flight model, will it be like what Scherf and I hashed out?" A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
(http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/2/10/13/grammar-nazi-27477-1265824890-17.jpg)
;)
-
The Merlin 25 comment in my OP was not a question, it was a statement.
-
The first question is just a conditional question. A simple version would for example be "If you change the flight model, will it be like what Scherf and I hashed out?" A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
Since the answer to the first part "Will the FM change?" is "yes" the "... and if so.." condition kicks in and requires a separate reply to the second part.
It could be:
1. "Yes the FM will change" + "yes, it will be everything Schref hoped for and more".
2. "Yes the FM will change" + "no, it will be identical to that of the C47".
3. "No the FM will stay as it is" - this does not require a second answer.
:headscratch:
-
"AND if so"... I completely overlooked the "and" in there. You are indeed the better grammar nazi; I salute you sir! ;)
-
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to believe we are getting an updated Mossie VI that will do ~350-355mph on the deck. :P
-
"AND if so"... I completely overlooked the "and" in there. You are indeed the better grammar nazi; I salute you sir! ;)
I am glad we agree. I was about to have you thrown into a punctuation camp.
;)
-
So having debated my grammar and Pyro's response, do you concur with my interpretation of Pyro's response?
-
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to believe we are getting an updated Mossie VI that will do ~350-355mph on the deck. :P
Ditto. One can look at many of the previous threads on the Mossi' that show printed information on more correct speed charts. The current AH version is 5-15 mph slower depending on the altitude, either by fault of the nifty flamer dampers or by implementing a hybrid figure from a multitude of speed charts.
I really hope the Mossi is truly reborn into the beast it was in the real deal. While the current version is no slouch it certainly is not living up to its legend, that is for sure. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :pray Superfly and Greebo look to be doing a fine job on the eye candy, the lines are looking real smooth! :salute
-
So having debated my grammar and Pyro's response, do you concur with my interpretation of Pyro's response?
I do
-
I am surprised Kenne hasn't started a thread, or found his way in here, to whine about a fighter than only had 4396 kills and 5160 deaths total in the last completed tour getting development time from HTC. :p
-
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to believe we are getting an updated Mossie VI that will do ~350-355mph on the deck. :P
I hope it is at least 8-15 mph faster than the old one. That seems like the best outcome but I have my suspicions :noid
TBH I had given up on this one and was surprissed when everyone assumed because the dampers wern't in the screen shots the performance would be any different. However I was very pleasantly surprissed when HTC sorted the spit 14 so :headscratch:
-
Yarbles,
If you reread that thread you'll notice that most of us Mossie fans only say that it is a possible change. That is one of the reasons I started this thread, to try to get clarification.
Assuming it is modeled without the dampers, I will be curious to see how the usage and K/D ratio changes on it in the late war and mid war arenas. Without the dampers it will be the fastest twin engine piston aircraft down low and very noticeably faster than the Bf110G-2.
-
Yarbles,
Assuming it is modeled without the dampers, I will be curious to see how the usage and K/D ratio changes on it in the late war and mid war arenas. Without the dampers it will be the fastest twin engine piston aircraft down low and very noticeably faster than the Bf110G-2.
I will use it allot more :x and amybe you could help with some idea how to aim the bombs to kill GV's when I use the same method as I do in the typhoon and Hurri I have very little success.
Anyway fingers crossed still on this one I will be genuinely chuffed if it gets a performance mod of the kind I think it warrants.
-
I am not an expert with bombs at all, though I prefer them to the rockets because the rockets leave those draggy rails behind.
Historically many FB.Mk VIs didn't carry bombs much, if at all. If you read Dave McIntosh's "Terror in the Starboard Seat" he had this to say about the bombs:
"Just a practice run first," he said. We ran along the length of the bridge, about 500 feet above it.
Sid said he thought he could do better. He went around again and did another practice run. By this time, a Jerry regiment could have fled across it. On the third run Sid said, "This is it, boy."
He allowed for lead time and everything else in the book. We were dead over the bridge, slow speed, bomb bay doors open, bomb fused. Sid pushed the bomb release. I looked back, expecting to see girders and roadway flying through the bomb-lit night. Instead, the damn thing squibbed off in a field on the far bank.
We never carried another bomb.
That was their one and only attempt to bomb anything their whole tour.
As you can see, it is not at all far fetched to sortie the Mossie with no ordnance hanging from it.
-
So having debated my grammar and Pyro's response, do you concur with my interpretation of Pyro's response?
Sounds plausible.
I am hyped enough about this to risk a low level intruder flight into the wife ack on a mission to get a new computer. If indeed the mossie is getting an overhaul this would be the end of a low intensity, but very long marathonic campaign, started in the days of the center of gravity bug.
Assuming it is modeled without the dampers, I will be curious to see how the usage and K/D ratio changes on it in the late war and mid war arenas. Without the dampers it will be the fastest twin engine piston aircraft down low and very noticeably faster than the Bf110G-2.
Yes, it will help a lot but it will not affect K/D to make the mossie stand out in any way. It will still straggle on defense for being a very large target and there are still plenty of late war rides to make escaping difficult.
I hope HTC also look into the elevator authority issue. Since the center of gravity was fixed, they feel rubbery and ineffective to the point that sometimes you can pull the stick all the way back without stalling the plane. The move of the CoG forward countered the moment of the elevators so now they cannot produce enough "downward" force, or at least this is how it feels. Does anyone else feel the same thing?
Last but not least, I hope that in the new model, the speaker in the ceiling is not forgotten. That is my favorite part in the whole plane. A plane with a built in sound system - how cool is that? I suppose the box behind the seats is the CD-changer, but it could be the beer cooler. I am not sure.
-
I can't say I have noticed that, but then again, I haven't flown much since the CG was fixed.
As to the K/D ratio not being changed. I think it will be, but not all that much in the MA. The speed will, potentially, allow it to run from things like Ki-84s, P-38s and Spitfire XVIs that it currently cannot. In mid-war I think it will change its K/D ratio by a larger margin as this change will make it something like the second or third fastest aircraft in the arena down low. P-51Bs will be faster and perhaps La-5FNs.
-
That was their one and only attempt to bomb anything their whole tour.
418th was a specialized intruder squadron as I am sure you know and I remember only two such squadrons. They had little use for bombs, but other VIs did use bombs more. I will try to find some references later today.
Oh yes, in mid-war it will be a menace.
-
418th was a specialized intruder squadron as I am sure you know and I remember only two such squadrons. They had little use for bombs, but other VIs did use bombs more. I will try to find some references later today.
Yes, of course that is true of 418. None the less, Mossie VIs did sortie even in other units without ordnance. It was not all that uncommon for some of the VIs to be carrying bombs and others to be clean acting as fighter escorts for the ones with bombs in low level operations. I was not trying to imply that carrying bombs was rare for Mossie VIs as it most certainly was not. I was just pointing out that using it as a fighter is also appropriate.
-
Yes, no, no, respectively.
Can we ask for a bit more clarity on what this means??
please :)
-
I hope HTC also look into the elevator authority issue. Since the center of gravity was fixed, they feel rubbery and ineffective to the point that sometimes you can pull the stick all the way back without stalling the plane. The move of the CoG forward countered the moment of the elevators so now they cannot produce enough "downward" force, or at least this is how it feels. Does anyone else feel the same thing?
Yes. This is, as of now, the mossies biggest handicap if you want to use it as a fighter.
-
Yes, no, no, respectively.
I love you, man.
-
The Mossie flight model was pretty much stripped down to the studs and redone. It's now Merlin 25, +18 psi, no flame dampeners. I think it's very close to Scherf's emergency speed curve, it follows the same data and logic.
-
:O I think Im going to have to dedicate myself to the Mossie. :devil
-
Thanks for the clarification, Pyro. :D
-
Here is Scherf's chart that I think Pyro is referring to:
(http://s937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/scherfspeed.jpg)
All credit for the chart to Scherf.
Edit:
That Pyro referred to Scherf's data and logic makes me wonder if we won't see a slight boost to climb rate as well.
-
Exams are done, Mosquito's almost updated...
It's a good day.
-
The Mossie flight model was pretty much stripped down to the studs and redone. It's now Merlin 25, +18 psi, no flame dampeners. I think it's very close to Scherf's emergency speed curve, it follows the same data and logic.
Was there a crate of superb scotch delivered to HTC involved in this?
Is it time to start the party?
:x :cheers: :rock :banana: :joystick:
-
The Mossie flight model was pretty much stripped down to the studs and redone. It's now Merlin 25, +18 psi, no flame dampeners. I think it's very close to Scherf's emergency speed curve, it follows the same data and logic.
Metal studs or wooden studs?
-
Metal studs or wooden studs?
:rofl :rofl
-
Since Mosquito questions are being answered here, I would like to ask a few.
How are you pros out there going to deal with F4U-4's, La-7's and the likes? We all know twin-engine aircraft are bleeding bate for these LW piranhas.
Final question: What variants are these? They look like FB. VI's with 4-bladed props. Definitely single-impeller Merlins.
(http://www.hvkk.tsk.tr/PageSub/CokluOrtam/FotoGaleri/GaleriImages/tarihi_ucak/DeHavilland%20Mosquito%20FB%20Mk.IV.jpg)
-
Sorry - double post.
-
Don't recall the mark number off hand, but I think it was TR.32 or TR.33. Those are Sea Mosquitoes for carrier operations unless there was another four bladed, Merlin 25 Mossie that I haven't heard of.
As to the faster fighters, same as before, just with a little more E to work with. They are hard fights, but I've won more than I've lost. Generally I try to keep the fight fast where turns are G limited, not aircraft limited, and out fly the bad guy. I've also been know to dive the Mossie (it accelerates faster in a dive than any single engined fighter I know of) and then pull hard into a blackout. Most enemy aircraft try to follow that, they want the easy, twin engined fighter bait, and do a better job of predicting where we'll each be when we come out of the hard turn.
Also, the current FM Mossie will out turn an La-7 if the Mossie is on fumes. Carrying over 3,000lbs of fuel gives quite a wide range of turn performances for the enemy to be aware of.
-
Adendum: The four bladed props didn't change top end performance, they shortened the takeoff run, important for CV ops.
-
It's a shame the Sea Mosquito wasn't needed too badly. Had the RN really had the opportunity to fight in the PTO as much as the USN, I think we would've been much impressed by the Sea Mossie and later Seafires.
In regards to the fighting styles against LW monsters, I see your point, Karnak. In terms of its turn performance, I forget that it's got slotted-flaps to help it out. The extra performance will undoubtedly help its turn rate too. I suppose a LW Mosquito NF.30 could be deadly too, if not much heavier (hint hint, HTC).
-
Don't recall the mark number off hand, but I think it was TR.32 or TR.33. Those are Sea Mosquitoes for carrier operations unless there was another four bladed, Merlin 25 Mossie that I haven't heard of.
As to the faster fighters, same as before, just with a little more E to work with. They are hard fights, but I've won more than I've lost. Generally I try to keep the fight fast where turns are G limited, not aircraft limited, and out fly the bad guy. I've also been know to dive the Mossie (it accelerates faster in a dive than any single engined fighter I know of) and then pull hard into a blackout. Most enemy aircraft try to follow that, they want the easy, twin engined fighter bait, and do a better job of predicting where we'll each be when we come out of the hard turn.
Also, the current FM Mossie will out turn an La-7 if the Mossie is on fumes. Carrying over 3,000lbs of fuel gives quite a wide range of turn performances for the enemy to be aware of.
I agree, a well flown Mossie can be quite deadly and very capable to get kills in the right hands.
-
SgtPappy,
Sea Mossies would be fun, but they didn't make it in time for WWII. The Royal Navy really got neglected on procurment. They either had to use adapted RAF planes like the Seafire or American aircraft.
As to the NF.30, it only did about 320mph on the deck as its engines were optimized for higher altitudes where it could do about 430mph at best alt. Weight wise it shouldn't be too different, replacing the .303s and ammo with AI X radar and losing the bomb bay. NF.30s did get used during the day as well, and some carried 500lb bombs under each wing for ground strikes.
I agree, a well flown Mossie can be quite deadly and very capable to get kills in the right hands.
The Mossie also has the advantage of making an error on the other guy's part almost instantly fatal due to sheer firepower.
-
That Pyro referred to Scherf's data and logic makes me wonder if we won't see a slight boost to climb rate as well.
:pray
-
Since Mosquito questions are being answered here, I would like to ask a few.
How are you pros out there going to deal with F4U-4's, La-7's and the likes? We all know twin-engine aircraft are bleeding bate for these LW piranhas.
Final question: What variants are these? They look like FB. VI's with 4-bladed props. Definitely single-impeller Merlins.
(http://www.hvkk.tsk.tr/PageSub/CokluOrtam/FotoGaleri/GaleriImages/tarihi_ucak/DeHavilland%20Mosquito%20FB%20Mk.IV.jpg)
Those are FB.VIs of the Turkish Air Force, post-war.
Edit - That's a beautiful pic, and one I'd not seen before. Thanks for posting.
Dealing with F4U-4s and La-7s will be the same as before - depends on the respective pilots. Thrila and Bat will clean up against pretty much anyone, I should just be able to hold my own against noobs.
-
Honestly, I was not expecting the Mossie to be redone so thoroughly. We have asked for it to be changed, but none of the other aircraft that were graphically updated to AH2 standards have ever received more than tweaks to their flight models, if even that much. Further, with the relatively recent CG tweak the need to revise the Mossie's flight model seemed to have receded.
I was hoping for this level of attention for the Mossie from HTC, but I really wasn't expecting it.
I am extremely pleased to say the least.
-
Seconded!
-
Third-ed?
I suppose that there were too many 'well-informed whines' if you will, to the point that the Mossie was fixed entirely.
Or Pyro could be pulling our legs, knock on wood :D
-
How are you pros out there going to deal with F4U-4's, La-7's and the likes? We all know twin-engine aircraft are bleeding bate for these LW piranhas.
Like with any other plane: HO, gang bang and stick-stir :joystick:
We need the mosquito so we can look pretty when you do it.
-
Fourthed :x
So the next question is when?
I am already flying the existing Mossie mor ein anticipation.
-
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops." Hermann Göring
-
Like with any other plane: HO, gang bang and stick-stir :joystick:
We need the mosquito so we can look pretty when we do it.
-
Can't wait to check out the new Runsquito. :joystick:
-
Can't wait to check out the new Runsquito. :joystick:
It won't be that much faster. Basically, at lower altitudes, it is being promoted from the lower end of the D speed grade to the lower end of the C speed grade up with things like the Fw190A-8, Spitfire Mk XIV, Yak-9U and La-5FN, but still behind the P-51D, Bf109K-4, Typhoon of the B grade and Fw190D-9, F4U-4, La-7 and Tempest of the A grade.
-
Honestly, I was not expecting the Mossie to be redone so thoroughly.
Funny thing is, I had a hunch. :) Mainly because of the CoG and other problems. All in all, I think it's great Pyro completely redid it!
-
It won't be that much faster. Basically, at lower altitudes, it is being promoted from the lower end of the D speed grade to the lower end of the C speed grade up with things like the Fw190A-8, Spitfire Mk XIV, Yak-9U and La-5FN, but still behind the P-51D, Bf109K-4, Typhoon of the B grade and Fw190D-9, F4U-4, La-7 and Tempest of the A grade.
Yeah, as you said, it will climb up a healthy 11 spots from currently 30th fastest to 19th fastest. More importantly, it will outrun or closely match planes that right now can run her down and then beat in a dogfight. Spit 16, Ki-84, P-38s and F4Us come into my mind. A major portion of the current MA population will be much less of a worry.
-
Yeah, as you said, it will climb up a healthy 11 spots from currently 30th fastest to 19th fastest. More importantly, it will outrun or closely match planes that right now can run her down and then beat in a dogfight. Spit 16, Ki-84, P-38s and F4Us come into my mind. A major portion of the current MA population will be much less of a worry.
Funny thing is... the Mossi was meant to be able to do that (hit-n-run more so than stand-n-fight). The Mossi's trump card should be its speed. Get in, drop the targets, and get out.
I doubt it will make the short list of "runner" planes.
-
For those who don't know they were not just built in England.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3mGOLmWWbg
-
Oh, no, definitely not.
Many of them were built in the exact place I used to volunteer, in Toronto. Nearly a third of Mosquito production was over the pond, here in Canada and the only thing I will have trouble parting with on the current Mossie is the small, proud maple leaf emblem on the Navigator's side of the nose.
Hopefully someone will make a new, Canadian skin for the Canucks! It would go great with a re-vamped version of Bozon's "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder..." thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,206568.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,206568.0.html)
-
Sights and sounds of what SgtPappy's referring to are here:
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm_v2.php?id=exhibit_home&fl=0&lg=English&ex=00000430
SgtPappy - are they still making progress on the Lanc out there? The only time I got to the museum, there was a wee Scotsman working on it, bringing back memories of his youth when he flew them.
-
SgtPappy,
I imagine we'll be seeing a 418 skin really soon after release. I'd use it as well.
-
Sights and sounds of what SgtPappy's referring to are here:
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm_v2.php?id=exhibit_home&fl=0&lg=English&ex=00000430
SgtPappy - are they still making progress on the Lanc out there? The only time I got to the museum, there was a wee Scotsman working on it, bringing back memories of his youth when he flew them.
Yea, the Lanc's still being worked on... it'll take another 9 years max, they say. The Scotsman was Philip Gray. It was awesome to be in the presence of that man every weekend. He told us a lot of his epic missions into Germany.
Right now, the Lanc's looking better than before. The tail turret has been installed, the mid-fuselage is in position and the entire section from the nose to just behind the cockpit canopy/roof has been refurbished. THere's a lot more work to do though. If you're able to come down in May, don't miss the Wings and Wheels event: http://www.wingsandwheelsfestival.com/home.html (http://www.wingsandwheelsfestival.com/home.html)
Sure wish we could have a Mosquito fly in though. But there's a helluva lot more to see too!
Karnak,
I'd be very grateful for a skin like that! I'm sure the aircraft will be popular for skin-makers.
-
Wow, I got in late to this thread.......... But I digress........
Forget the Aussie's....... The MapleLeaf's had good wood and made a fine Mossie!
For those who don't know they were not just built in England.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3mGOLmWWbg
-
Hey, I would never forget the Aussies :P They built a good amount of their own Mosquito FB's as well.
I think it's actually a shame we don't hear much about the Mosquitoes in the CBI/PTO. Apparently the gluing process used in some factories didn't hold up in the humid temperatures there (Wiki states these factories were Standard Motors and Hatfield). Still, I'm sure they did some good work worth hearing in the Far East. If anyone has information on that topic, please post pictures and articles!
(http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af339/AaronJamesDS/Misc/RAAFMosquito.jpg)
EDIT: Picture wasn't showing; Spelling
-
Yes, of course that is true of 418. None the less, Mossie VIs did sortie even in other units without ordnance. It was not all that uncommon for some of the VIs to be carrying bombs and others to be clean acting as fighter escorts for the ones with bombs in low level operations. I was not trying to imply that carrying bombs was rare for Mossie VIs as it most certainly was not. I was just pointing out that using it as a fighter is also appropriate.
Well when we get my Beaufighter, you Mossie drivers will have to fly high cover on the run to Norway :)
-
Well when we get my Beaufighter, you Mossie drivers will have to fly high cover on the run to Norway :)
That would be fun. Big British twins vs. the Luftwaffe.
Even more fun if they add the Ju88C-6 to be used as an opposition fighter. :D
(Well, might not be all that fun for the Ju88s. :P )
-
That would be fun. Big British twins vs. the Luftwaffe.
Even more fun if they add the Ju88C-6 to be used as an opposition fighter. :D
(Well, might not be all that fun for the Ju88s. :P )
I can see it now. A nice map with high cliffs and Fjords. Shipping tucked in with lots of flak guns. Norway based 109s and 190s. RAF Mustangs covering the Mossies and Beaus going in on the deck.....
Ahh well, one can dream :)
-
Quesiton:
What are ejector stacks...?
-
Look at the photo of the Mosquito on this page. On each engine, you can see the exhaust stubs. Those are ejector stacks. If you launch AH and grab a Mosquito and look at its engines, you will see that area of the engine cowling is covered up, under it would be a device that resembles a saxophone that cools the exhaust gasses and prevents the flare from being visible.
On aircraft with ejector stacks they can receive up to about 10% of the engines power as thrust due to the exhaust gasses being directed.
For example, the only powerplant change from a 332mph A6M3 Zero to a 350mph A6M5 Zero is the addition of ejector stacks to direct the exhaust to the rear, causing forward thrust.
-
Look at the photo of the Mosquito on this page. On each engine, you can see the exhaust stubs. Those are ejector stacks. If you launch AH and grab a Mosquito and look at its engines, you will see that area of the engine cowling is covered up, under it would be a device that resembles a saxophone that cools the exhaust gasses and prevents the flare from being visible.
On aircraft with ejector stacks they can receive up to about 10% of the engines power as thrust due to the exhaust gasses being directed.
For example, the only powerplant change from a 332mph A6M3 Zero to a 350mph A6M5 Zero is the addition of ejector stacks to direct the exhaust to the rear, causing forward thrust.
... but in the case of our beloved Mossi Bf Mk VI, the addition of the ejector stacks/flame dampers creates more drag to offset any benefit "thrust" it may receiver. Statistics show less than %20 of the Mossi FB MK IV has the flame dampers installed. *goes to dig out source*
-
SmokinLoon,
I recall Kev (I think) posting that about 2/3rds of Mossie FB.VIs had the ejector stacks. I don't know what you are saying about them causing more drag, or what you mean about "jector stacks/flame dampers" as usually a slash in that context is used to separate two things that are equivalent and in this case you are using it as a separator for things which are opposite.
The ejector stacks provide thrust but produce exhaust flares, the flame dampers hide the exhaust flare but also remove the thrust effect from the exhaust.
-
I'm looking forward to the bomber Mosquito to do low-level NOE intruder missions - but I'm stuck for targets. There are no bridges, radars are inside heavily defended airfields (suicide for low level attacks), and the HQ needs too much ordnance. There are no rail marshalling yards and the roads and rail are indestructable. I suppose the barracks in VHs are possible, but they're tactical. <sigh>
-
There are plenty of pilots out there willing to attack heavily-guarded emplacements with you. With the B-25 and new Mosquito, I'm sure these people will gladly fly into danger in numbers.
Plus, there's always ship-sinking. In all my days of AHII, I find nothing more exciting than sinking enemy ships with 3 of my best pals, armed with some rockets and bombs. Then dogfighting our arses out of the ensuing battle, of course.
-
I'm looking forward to the bomber Mosquito to do low-level NOE intruder missions - but I'm stuck for targets. There are no bridges, radars are inside heavily defended airfields (suicide for low level attacks), and the HQ needs too much ordnance. There are no rail marshalling yards and the roads and rail are indestructable. I suppose the barracks in VHs are possible, but they're tactical. <sigh>
If you've got bombs, it almost certainly isn't an Intruder operation. :P Intruders and Day Rangers were, basically, deep fighter sweeps in which you'd also shoot up targets of opportunity. Intruder operations being at night and Day Ranger operations being during the day. The most common targets seem to have been flying aircraft, parked aircraft and trains.
-
I'm looking forward to the bomber Mosquito to do low-level NOE intruder missions - but I'm stuck for targets. There are no bridges, radars are inside heavily defended airfields (suicide for low level attacks), and the HQ needs too much ordnance. There are no rail marshalling yards and the roads and rail are indestructable. I suppose the barracks in VHs are possible, but they're tactical. <sigh>
Found this that I posted in November 2003 regarding an AH Mossie Intruder run my son and I flew. They're out there :)
"Had one of those flights that can suck me into the computer flights last night. I guess I just want to say thanks to the AH folks for making it possible.
It was late and my son and I were flying. He suggests that we try and see if we can fly a Mossie run like the Intruder flights we've read about in the history books. With the present map with all the hills and valleys, it added to the incentive as it allowed us to run on the deck through those valleys as we tried to run in to the Bish Radar.
Most of the flying time was just running 50 feet off the deck through those hills, nearly scrapping the ridges and the trees. As we got closer to the target, flak suddenly opened up from a train that was running on the tracks off to our left. My son was out front navigating the run and I could see his Mossie almost jump from getting startled by the flak. He jinked through it while I swung wide to avoid it before turning back on the run to the radar station still on the deck. We still hadn't seen any bad guys as the target came into view.
Still on the deck we raced through the ack, jinking to throw off the aim and unloaded our bombs on the target. We then raced back out of the flak, taking the occasional hit and turned for home. Naturally with a train on the tracks to the south of us, we had to take a crack at it.
Still on the deck we raced back towards the train. Once again my son was in the lead and he started firing while getting hammered by the flak that eventually downed him. I figured what the hell, and took my shot, only to check 6 and see a 163 diving on me. For the first time I rose above 50 feet trying to get out of the way of the 163 that was way too close. No luck as his cannons sawed off my wing and in I went.
Even though we both bought it in the end, the joy of that flight had us both hand flying and talking about it for a long time afterwards. A goofy way for a father and son to spend an evening I suppose, but it did, for however short a time, suck us into the cockpits of those two Mossies and at least in our imaginations gave us a small taste of one of those WW2 Mossie intruder runs."
-
That's the sort of mission that sounds like real fun - and one the Mossy excelled at. Now if we can just take out a railway marshalling yard ...
-
SmokinLoon,
I recall Kev (I think) posting that about 2/3rds of Mossie FB.VIs had the ejector stacks. I don't know what you are saying about them causing more drag, or what you mean about "jector stacks/flame dampers" as usually a slash in that context is used to separate two things that are equivalent and in this case you are using it as a separator for things which are opposite.
The ejector stacks provide thrust but produce exhaust flares, the flame dampers hide the exhaust flare but also remove the thrust effect from the exhaust.
Im speaking of the flame dampeners. The current Mossi in AH has them due to the ejector stacks, yes? It wouldn't have the dampers if it didnt have the stacks, a good conclusion to draw?
The dampers, according to the multitude of information available in previous threads and what little I've seen in sources, A: provide restricted airflow from the exhaust, and B: create more drag. Those 2 combined were enough to reduce the speed of that hybrid of Mossi, at least according to AH and the 1 chart I've seen with the afor mentioned attributes.
-
Not really, no. The current AH mossie is modelled with an exhaust system that looks like this:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/saxophone.jpg)
Robs the airplane of exhaust thrust, at the very least.
The "ejector" stubs on the new mossie allow the exhaust gases out more directly, which boosts speed.
-
SmokinLoon,
I recall Kev (I think) posting that about 2/3rds of Mossie FB.VIs had the ejector stacks. I don't know what you are saying about them causing more drag, or what you mean about "jector stacks/flame dampers" as usually a slash in that context is used to separate two things that are equivalent and in this case you are using it as a separator for things which are opposite.
The ejector stacks provide thrust but produce exhaust flares, the flame dampers hide the exhaust flare but also remove the thrust effect from the exhaust.
Only the initial batch of FB.VIs came from the factory with flame dampers fitted as standard. These also couldn't carry rockets.
All FB.VI's that could carry rockets, left the factory without flame dampers. They were fitted at squadron level if and when the need arose.
-
For those interested, a Mosquito thread with Epic Win is here:
http://www.mossie.org/forum/read.php?1,4355
Restoration news, a first-hand account of a dramatic and tragic raid and, above all else, input from one of the originals.
:salute To Bob and all the all-American boys who risked all.
-
Great link,
had it in my favs for along time,but never looked at the forum before!
:salute
-
Yep, there's some real experts over there, I'm an amateur by comparison.