Bozon

In “terror in the starboard seat” RCAF 418 sq. definitely had “personal” planes, but that was not rigid. On one mission MacIntosh mentions specifically that they took a different plane because “their” usual plane was having a major engine overhaul, and also their usual crew chief Hal was not there to great them because he went with the plane. On another occasion he mentions a banter between pilots where one of them bragging that his plane is the fastest in the squadron, which makes little sense unless he had “his” plane. I am sure there are more indications in that books for crews usually flying specific planes.

Too bad, if I could choose between the two, I’d rather have the Typhoon. It was a much more significant aircraft in the war, and was much more successful than the credit it gets.

I thank you for your opinion of my opinion.

Pilots/crews did a lot more significant unofficial modifications to their planes than this. Robert Johnson famously stated that his chief made modifications that allowed Johnson to over boost his P-47 to 70” MAP. Planes back then were hand made and each had its own “character”. I remember a Mirage III pilot that said even these jets were still individuals and he had his preferred tail number, even though this was not “his” plane like in WWII where pilots usually flew the same plane and had the same ground crew (not always, it didn’t work like that in US Navy). The “3G” shouldn’t be taken too literally. The elevator got progressively stiffer but did not peg at 3G. What the ADFU reporter meant was probably that above 3G the stick was uncomfortably stiff and maybe the pilot needed 2 hands to pull harder. Still, if the pilot felt like ADFU that this limits his ability to maneuver in combat I believe (let me stress again, just my opinion since this is may be a too minor a detail to be mentioned in books) he would have adjusted it.

That is just an opinion because it is so easy to adjust, that I cant imagine a pilot not asking his crew chief to do it if he didn’t like it. This is not even a “modification” to the plane - more like one step above adjusting the friction on the throttle.

That inertia weight can be seen in this vid by Kermit Cam. It is a simple mass at the end of a level that is connected to one of the control cables pulleys. When you pull G the weight increases and the lever applies a greater torque on the pulley in a direction that is the same as when the pilot is pushing the control column forwards. I am pretty sure that the size of the mass was customizable and that pilots adjusted it to their liking. Starting at 11:47 : The tour is nice, though Kermit's mosquito looks as if a hobo was living in it... Mosquitoes did have a high rate of structural failures. This was the greatest problem of wood as a construction material - not that it was weak, it was not, on average, but: 1. The variance of structural strength was large. 2. The properties of the wood vary with treatment and environment conditions. The result of #1 is that while the average mosquito was very strong, the wide distribution of strengths meant that some fraction of the population was prone to failure (while some were exceedingly resilient). Metals on the other hand are much more predictable in their properties and much easier to manufacture to a very tight specification. Take the same beam cut and carved from two different trees in different forests and treated by different sawmills, and the difference in their properties (mass density, stiffness, ability to flex without breaking, etc) can be quite different. I think I already mentions in some thread here that the mass density of Balsa may vary by as much as a factor of 6! Such things make it extremely difficult to manufacture planes with the exact same qualities to match a spec. The result of #2 is that the climate and how the aircraft was treated added to the variance of #1 even more, increasing the fraction of the population that is likely to fail. Heck, even the glue will behave differently at different conditions. Again, the average mosquito had no problems, but a tail of the distribution was at a high risk and it was not easy to tell where your plane is on this distribution, and thus how many G's you may pull without snapping. The official limits would tend to include the weakest of the distribution, so most air frames could go well beyond the limit - but it is a gamble. The Israeli mosquitoes had a high rate of structural failures - these were air frames that were already a few years old and arrived from different places over the world, so some had their wood at a different condition than others. Then the Mediterranean sun dried and deformed the wood even more, and one could no longer put a reliable limit on the stresses they could take.

Yes, the props are slightly forwards relative to the fuselage, this is easier to notice when observing directly from above. A two-stage charger is not necessarily better than a single stage, as long as the single stage is able to maintain the required boost. The fighters and fighter bombers did not operate at 30k, so they did not need it - especially the FB.VI that rarely got over 10k. The PR and bombers did fly high. Later NF models like the NF.30 also used 2-stage Merlins.

The two-stage chargers Merlins were installed a little more forward of the wing than the single stage Merlins. As a result, there was room for a 6th exhaust stub. The variants with a single stage Merlin had 5 stubs because the 6th was thought to be too close to the wind leading edge and may damage it. Merlins 21, 23 & 25 used in the FB.VI were single stage, hence 5 stubs.

The casing if the bomb is more than just an envelope to hold the explosives inside. If the bomb has a delayed fuse it must be able to withstand the impact with the ground and not get completely mangled. The weight of the casing also includes the shrapnel that the bomb will produce, so a high capacity bombs produces a bigger bang, a stronger blast wave, but less shrapnel mass than a lower capacity bomb of the same total mass. So, it is a matter of a balance between the damage of blast and shrapnel.

Would you like to see 4000 lbs explode in slo-mo?

Like all (AFAIK) Merlin driven props, they are rotating clock-wise from the pilots point of view. This means that they induce a counter-clock ("left") roll as torque increases. edit: Also, left yaw on takeoff runs. It also means that flying on just the left engine or just the right engine is different.

They could also carry 700 (175 rpg) of 20mm. When intruder operations started with the NF.II some were loaded with 220 rpg, though I don’t know if the FB.VI ever carried that much.

Aces High FMs are much better and there the Mosquito is a beast. OK maybe not a beast, it is the beauty, but it is doing OK even against later fighters.

Yes of course in MP most of us do not follow historical tactics - often time not even logical tactics… I for one will be throwing it into dogfights, because this is what I do, not because it makes sense. Sure, I’ll die a lot, but if I go down flaming, I want to go down in the most gorgeous plane in history. As for historical tactics and the cloud cover - the fear of day rangers was to be caught in a prolonged dogfight. Even if they win, they still need to be able to fly 400 miles to get home, and you don’t want to do that at full throttle all the way with enemies on your tail, while additional fighters are being vectored in to intercept you. An equal fight with 50% chance of winning (where losing means dying/being captured) is not good enough. This is a huge attrition rate. From interviews with veterans, day rangers were briefed to attack fighters only when they had the advantage, being surprise, numerical, or position, and to disengage the moment the advantage is lost. A low cloud layer offers a quick way out of the fight, and combined with an initial advantage increased the chances of RTB to a point where risking an attack on a fighter was worth it.

@Robi-wan, that ADFU initial report used the worst possible FB.VI, with Merlin 23s max +14 boost and I suspect exhaust flame dumpers as well. The fact that it was out-paced by all except Spit-V really makes you wonder. The later trial that @Krupi attached tested a much better Merlin 25 with +18 boost and that one out-paced a Griffon Spit XII which was used to run down 190As that were doing low level attacks on the coast of Britain. ADFU has several reports that make you wonder about their judgment. Their 3G comment is super odd - the plane would not see action if it could only pull 3G coming out of a dive or in a defensive break turn. You should read their report about the P-47 trials. They absolutely hated that plane, and it ended up all right, so did the Mosquito.

The initial shot shows a pilot and navigator, but all the other shots that I could notice show only the pilot and an empty seat next to him. Shots taken at different development stages? Awesome vid by the way! Very well put together. Hat off to whoever made it.

Low gear peak speed is at 12-13k altitude, high gear peak is at 23k. However, you don't want to be above 12k anyway. Merlin 25s are heavily optimized for very low altitude. In relative performance terms, the lower you are, the better you are relative to other fighters, so that 385 mph at 23k is a completely irrelevant number - your playground will be at 5k or less. Deck speed should be slightly above 350 mph on WEP (+18 boost), which was amazing in 1943, but in DCS we will face 1945 Luftwaffe birds - both the 190D9 and 109K are faster at all altitudes, less so on the deck but the gap gets really big if you try to go much above 10k alt. 190A8 is just about as fast as the Mossie on the deck, and both are pretty close at the relevant altitudes. In terms of performance as a fighter, don't expect it to be a Spitfire. On the other hand, everyone expect it to be a dog and they are in for a nasty surprise. An FB.VI without bombs and less internal fuel than what is required to fly from England to Berlin and back, will have a lower wing loading than all the LW birds we have. In terms of power loading it is about equal to the P-47/190A8 depending on fuel loads of course. The stall speed is lower than all 190s and the roll rate at dogfighting speeds, while not stellar is quite adequate. I have only played with FB.VI in one other game/sim that has very good flight modeling and there the FB.VI will eat any 190D9 or 190A8 that will try to turn with it at low altitudes. I made a living there from 190/109/P51s etc that disrespected the Mossie as a fighter and went in for what they perceived as an easy kill. The 190D9 are dangerous if they play it safe and keep to BnZ you from advantage. In a many-on-many dogfight, situational awareness and firepower are the main requirement for success, more than turning or top speed - historically SA was greatly boosted by having a navigator/observer, often not relevant in DCS (unless you plan on multi-crew regularly). Firepower allows you to cash-in on a gun solution and finish the fight with one burst. Not having to follow the opponent in prolonged turns and slowly peck at him to pieces is huge. 4 Hispanos in the nose, plus excellent over-the-nose view (no engine, no prop there) will make even high deflection shots possible and deadly.

After a thorough examination of the offer, researching the subject, consulting with experts, meditating, and some more reflecting I decided to pre order. Nahhh, I just instantly clicked the link and threw my credit card at the screen

Haha, nice Real footage and DCS looks very much alike. Getting some teasers feels my heart with optimism.

A piece of nostalgia here for me (from another game). I didn't realize it has been 6 years already since I made this flic. I miss Mosquito action so much. Not much longer to wait... not much...

“Post order” - now that is a brilliant marketing term: “We offer a special post-order deal on the P-51D Mustang! Post order today and get a 20% discount on this already released 7 year old module!”

Now that you mention it, all pictures of mosquitoes with rockets that I recall are of coastal command squadrons. There is only one reference to rocket use in 2nd TAF by Sharp & Bowyer (that I noticed) - they mention that 305 Sq. fired rockets on three nights in July: first fired on 25-26 July against trains in Normandy, and on nights of 27-28th and 30-31st (page 251). It does seem that rockets were very rarely used by mosquitoes outside of coastal command. Thank you, I did not realize it was so rare. Maybe this has something to do with mosquito operations as fighter-bombers being mostly at night? Maybe rockets were blinding the pilots and so they preferred to use bombs?

Thanks @Robi-wan this is really good info! So basically you say that these sources that mention more than 18 XVIIIs incorrectly count some other mosquitoes. I can certainly believe that a mosquito listed as “missing from night intruder” (MM427) was not an VI that was converted to XVIII. Good job sorting out the inconsistencies between the sources

How about an AI bomber version?

True, these are 18 numbers that were produced as XVIII (I did not check the registration numbers one by one). I also have excel sheets with lots of mosquito statistics (not compiled by me, I am not that type) that show 18 XVIIIs. Those are probably all come from the same sources (Sharp and Bowyer, etc). I am trying to find where I read about a few FBVIs that were converted and thus appear in the production lists as FB.VIs. There was a great demand for VIs and thus DH were allowed to produce only a handful of XVIII’s at the expense of VIs (according to Sharp & Bowyer). It is possible that a handful of additional VIs could be spared at a later time and thus were converted after coming off of the production and being registered as VIs. I’ve never seen registration numbers, but this is the reason that some sources claim 23 or 27 total XVIIIs instead of 18. Again, I am not the type to keep lists of such things and I can’t tell how reliable these claims are.