Bozon

How do you know that?

I don’t think that this was a weight issue. It is probably more of an issue of not being able to effectively deploy both weapons. The Mollins was a pretty accurate weapon and in an attack run they would target specific locations on the ship and attempt to release several rounds (fire rate about 1 per sec) in one run. This required too much concentration to be able to fire the rockets at the same time. In reports I’ve read none were able to fire all their 6 pounder ammo even when making multiple passes. The great thing about the rockets is that you can salvo all of them, front load all your damage potential - and bug out of the way for the mosquito behind you to do the same. This is incompatible with a long steady attack run with the Mollins. With Coastal command the rocket toting Mosquitoes and Beau’s would go in first, then the tse-tses, and finally Torbeaus if they had any.

When FB.XVIII entered service they mostly did operations over the bay of Biscay. After the breakout from Normandy they shifted most of their operations to the north sea, and eventually under the Banff strike wing when it formed in late 1944. While 18 FB.XVIII were produced under this version tag, about 9 more came off of the production line as FB.VI and immediately converted to FB.XVIII. This creates some confusion regarding the exact number of XVIII’s that saw action because in most lists they appear as FB.VIs. Yes. FB.XVIII is basically a converted FB.VI (as mentioned, some started out as FB.VI). The changes were only what was needed to carry the Mollins BFG instead of the Hispanos, plus some more armor.

It means nothing. He covered 100% of all possible outcomes - either you will be surprised or won’t, within an unknown time span between weeks and months…

I don’t see why we can’t have early/late Anton variants like the P-47D30 has. Another thing that will make A-8 a better fighter is the ability to remove the outboard guns. They are great against bombers but an overkill against fighters for the performance hit you get (based on other sims, so pinch of salt).

I don’t know where you read such a thing, but even if it were possible, why would they do this? If a mission required taking 4 bombs in the bay, then a bomber mossie would have been assigned in the first place. While B, PR, NF, and FB mosquitoes share the same basic airframe there are differences. It is not as simple as remove the cannons from FB.VI and you get a bomber variant. I doubt FB.VI came out of the factory installed with useless mounts for bombs (plus cables and other required modifications) in the front of the bomb bay. I may be wrong, but it makes little sense.

As far as I know, B.XVI were coming out of the factory with the bulged bomb bay and were the main variant to carry the cookie. Bomber variants did not use the Merlin 25s which were optimized for too low altitudes. Early FB.VIs did use Merlin 21s and 23s same as most B.IV, but the vast majority of FB.VIs had the 25s that were far superior in FB.VI’s missions profiles.

Yeh, I thought that was odd too. Ohh pretty please with sugar on top make this true Anyway, I was looking for pictures of the FB.VI doors to see if something is bulged there and came across this gem: https://www.brickmania.com/dh-98-mosquito-fb-mk-vi-wwii-twin-engine-fighter-bomber/ Yes, it’s a totally awesome lego mosquito with retractable gears, functional bomb bay doors, and two crew members… If they get this in stock again, I know what my next toy will be…

Shush!… Damnit, now you’ve jinxed it…

The Mosquito was so against the fashion of the moment of 4-engined, all metal, heavy bombers with defensive guns, that bomber command could not wrap their head around de Havilland’s idea. The book “Mosquito” by Shap & Bowyer (aka the Mosquito bible) describes very well the thinking process and experiments by which DH arrived at the twin-engine unarmed bomber concept. There was a method and meticulous calculations behind it, not just a vague dream, and this is why DH were so convinced that it would work. What I find ironic is that while the mosquito is hailed as the unarmed bomber, more heavily armed night-fighters and fighter-bombers were built than unarmed bombers and PR models. In the grand scheme I would rate the actual significance of the night-fighters and the fighter-bombers to the war before the bombers. The PR mosquitoes would easily rate 1st in “contribution to the war effort per airframe”.

As far as I know Balsa tree is not native to the UK and was imported from the Americas. So some wood had to be imported too. It is not that there was a huge starvation to aluminum. There was some to go around, but it was monitored and rationed, so you could get aluminum just maybe not as much as you’d like and at a short notice. The wood was easier to get as much as you needed and when you needed it, without going through much bureaucracy. The work force and means of production were probably the narrower bottleneck (I am guessing). All the metal workers were employed making everything from small fire arms through tanks to ships. Aluminum in particular takes special skills, apart from the usual iron/steel works. The wood workers on the other hand were not engaged much in wartime production and the demand for pianos was at a low…

A huge stash of original de Havilland blue prints has been recovered about 4 years ago. This includes all the technical drawings for every mosquito variant, plus some other de Havilland types. I don’t know if ED had any access to this material, but it is out there. www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-40873628.amp https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/secret-mosquito-180967119/

@razo+r @grafspee Thanks, I see. So, to sum this up with simple thumb rules: Normal operation: keep 2550 rpm and do not exceed 42” (stay in the green). When needing more power (go beyond the green), first adjust to 2700 rpm, then up to 52”. Should be able to operate like this for extended periods (combat). Push up to 64” (with water) for short bursts only after #2. Going back to normal: reduce map to 42”, then 2550 rpm. I’ll try to follow this and see if I continue to force-land my Jugs on hedgerows all over Normandy… p.s., these forced landings really made me appreciate the details on this map. My last engine cut brought me onto a farm. There was an ancient tractor parked there, and when I opened the canopy I could hear birds sing.

OK, so according to the thread linked above, the problem is that I spend too much time between 42” and 52”, which is limited to 15 minutes. But what does that mean? 15 min total for the entire sortie? Like a timer ticking down? Or is there a cooldown? i.e., If I climb for 10 minutes at 52”, then cruise 10 minutes at 42”, do I have only 5 minutes left to use 52” again, or more? not according to the table linked above There it is:

I can manage the engine heat just fine. The problem is with hidden limitations that involve “X time above RPM 2550” / “Y time man. Press. over 52”” etc. - I can’t seem to manage those. End up ditching almost every sortie that lasts over 20 minutes. I keep my engine at 2500 rpm at all times. Boost lever is coupled to the throttle. Temperatures are in the blue ALL the time. I hardly ever go over the 52” line, but I do spend quite a bit between 52” and the green area of manifold pressure. Is this my problem? If I push the RPM to full the engine gets destroyed in 60 seconds. If I do occasional bursts of full throttle + water the engine survives quite a bit, but still ends up coughing and dying (maybe because I also touched the rpm) - the engine starts to cough when temperatures are still in the blue, and then start to shoot up. I thought the limits were about 15 minutes at 2650 rpm and 5 minutes above 52” man. Are these summed total for the entire sortie, or is there a cooldown? Is there some indication as to how long I can still keep my rpm at 2650? Or man press above 52”?

Releasing a sub-par Mosquito module would have been much more catastrophic, especially for us Mosquito fans. A high fidelity mosquito sim is extraordinarily rare. We don’t get any alternatives, so the one we get is better done right, and 6 months of delays is nothing within the total time of decades I’ve been waiting for something like this. ED probably should check themselves how/why they got to announce the near EA of the mosquito and only then realizing that it needs a redo, but this is their internal issue and has nothing to do with us customers - we did not pay advancement for the development. We have yet to see the result, but I give ED some credit for taking such a decision to redo the external model - it must have cost them a lot of money, and both ED and us can only hope that this was worthwhile. Getting the best module possible is a common interest and time is not a big factor in this.

+1 that. I prefer to have the models that represent the type at its contemporary peak. The latest & greatest model is usually an attempt to extend the life of an obsolete airframe as a 2nd or 3rd rate combat aircraft. F-13 would be my choice as well.

De Havilland’s construction was different from what was done with other wooden or partially wooden planes. It was not easy to copy either, especially the glue they used - the Germans tried and failed. There was no magic about it - it contributed to lowering the drag by resulting in very smooth surfaces without any rivets. The end result was also not “stronger than a metal construction for the same goal design”. The reason is simple - planes are designed for spec. If your design is stronger than required, it will be toned down to save weight or space. Wood naturally offers some advantages and some disadvantages in the way it absorbs battle damage vs. metal. This kind of construction was not continued much after the war for several reasons. First as planes became supersonic, heat was more of an issue and the fabric covered wood was ill suited to handle the heat. Second, wood is a “living” material, which means that over time it deforms and changes properties. Wood construction clearly does not age well, and as time progressed planes were expected to serve longer and longer. Lastly, wood is ill suited for modern production where everything is standardized - the same kind of wood varies significantly from tree to tree and from forest to forest. The mass density of balsa wood may change by as much as factor of 6 - de Havilland tried to minimize the variance by carefully selecting the wood logs they used to have densities within a narrower range, but this is nothing like the uniformity you get from metals.

The fabric was glued on top of the wood. This is different from the classic wood and fabric construction of older planes where there was no wood skin - the fabric covered the wooden spars and ribs to form the skin. If you want a very detailed description of the mossie construction you can find one here: http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Mosquito/Mosquito_Av_4405-06_DA.html

Not an issue, the wood skin is very thick and rigid. Fabric skins had issues at high speeds.

.

The wood construction was not “lighter” than metal by any significant amount. To achieve the same strength as a metal beam, you need about the same mass of wood, but the wooden beam will be of much more volume. Wood behaves differently from metal when it comes to structure - wood has fibers that make it behaves differently to different directions of stress. So, to achieve strength in a specific direction you need to orient the fibers correctly. Also, the required thickness of the wood makes it more resilient to compression - the implication was that the wood “skin” on the wings and fuselage contributed significantly to overall structure strength - like a rigid exoskeleton. Stretched aluminum skin on planes also provides some strength, but that thin skin only helps vs. stretch and provides nothing against compression. The strength provided by the thick skin allowed de Havilland to reduce the number of ribs inside the wings and free more volume inside. Against battle damage, the wood construction proved to be very resistant. An armor piercing bullet that hits a metal rod/spar will usually dent it an compromise its strength - these were usually made like hollow tubes to achieve higher strength, but that only works as long as the shape is not damaged - a kink may lead to a critical collapse. With a thicker wood spar, the bullet will pierce and come out the other side - some of the fibers will be damaged, but others will spread and close again after the bullet. The overall size of the bullet hole is small relative to the thickness of the beam. The result is that the beam is slightly damaged and lose only a little of its strength, and in no danger of a critical collapse. Oh and about the drag - the mosquito skin has no rivets. This means less drag, where other planes tried to reduce this rivets issue by flushing them, or filling the spaces around them with wax.

If you want a bomber mossie then for our mid-44 and later roster the B.XVI would be the most fitting. It entered service in December 1943 and replaced some of the B.IV - it was quite similar to the B.IV but better optimized for high alts with a pressurized cockpit, and could carry the 4000 lbs cookie.

It amazes me that the only 2 jets that are “must-buy-day-1” for me, the Mirage III and F-4 Phantom are not even in the road map for DCS. OK the Mirage III is probably not that popular for the US market, but the Phantom?! That thing will probably sell at least as well as the F-14 or better. For the next few years all Mirage III fans will have to settle for the F-1. I know that it looks weird - Mirage F-1 looks like someone took apart a Mirage III and then tried to put it back together without the instructions. But it is a Mirage and it is still from the age when planes were flown by pilots and not by computers. If Kfir will make it to 3rd party module, I’ll sure buy that as well. Unlike the F-1, the Kfir developers at least had Dassault’s (stolen) plans when the were putting it together, so the Mirage III ancestry is very clear.