Jump to content

Mosquito removable Hispanos


RG2021

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, does anyone know if we will be able to remove the 20mm Hispano cannons in the Mission Editor to afford more space in the bomb bay? I think I read somewhere a while ago that the models with the 20mm cannons mounted in the bomb bay could be removed in order to allow for a higher bomb capacity. Is this true, and if so, will it be implemented? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bozon said:

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.


You can hang more ordinance externally if you feel you need to.

 

As you say you probably could remove the Hispanos but why would you bother when you can task squadrons with B variants instead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn’t it be cool if we were given both versions…

  • Like 2

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's been said that ultra low-level navigation is no walk in the park; sure DCS has a host of gaming assists that users can use to render the navigator superfluous, but for those of us who wish to fly as authentic as possible a good nav can - and will - be an essential asset in not only navigating around those areas full of nasty things that could very well snuff your virtual life from it's virtual existence, but also getting you to the right spot to drop your bombs at the right time, whilst they concentrate on dodging topiary and architecture.

 

You tried map reading and correcting navigation errors or wind drift whilst also flying at 50ft?

 

The one thing that most DCS flyers don't tend to worry about is Time on Target; you go out, dice with some Air Defences, blow something up and go home. In reality, military missions are often coordinated so as to saturate or distract Air Defences and Time on Target is a critical parameter to ensure the strikers are able to exploit a window of opportunity.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

And it's been said that ultra low-level navigation is no walk in the park; sure DCS has a host of gaming assists that users can use to render the navigator superfluous, but for those of us who wish to fly as authentic as possible a good nav can - and will - be an essential asset in not only navigating around those areas full of nasty things that could very well snuff your virtual life from it's virtual existence, but also getting you to the right spot to drop your bombs at the right time, whilst they concentrate on dodging topiary and architecture.

 

You tried map reading and correcting navigation errors or wind drift whilst also flying at 50ft?

 

The one thing that most DCS flyers don't tend to worry about is Time on Target; you go out, dice with some Air Defences, blow something up and go home. In reality, military missions are often coordinated so as to saturate or distract Air Defences and Time on Target is a critical parameter to ensure the strikers are able to exploit a window of opportunity.

 

What would be good is if ED implemented some form of VFR planning tool so say you (the nav) could work out headings, speed, distance, and therefore timings, track lines etc on a map of whatever DCS map you will be flying on for the mission. Then once in the aircraft have access to your flight plan in the cockpit via a window that you can bring up at the press of a key, and be able to scroll the map around within the window. Perfect for VFR navigation. Now this tool would be great for a Mosquito nav to have, the pilot wouldn't have to worry about navigating at all as the second crew member could effectively do all this during a mission.

 

Using the F10 map is a bit of a cheat as it gives you your position (no point in navigating to headings etc when you have what is essentially a GPS!) and it's also, for me anyway, a big immersion killer. Not realistic at all.


Edited by bart
  • Like 3

System :-

i7-12700K 3.6 GHz 12 core, ASUS ROG Strix Z690-A Gaming, 64GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3200MHz, 24GB Asus ROG Strix Geforce RTX 3090, 1x 500GB Samsung 980 PRO M.2, 1x 2TB Samsung 980 PRO M.2, Corsair 1000W RMx Series Modular 80 Plus Gold PSU, Windows 10. VIRPIL VPC WarBRD Base with HOTAS Warthog Stick and Warthog Throttle, VIRPIL ACE Interceptor Pedals, VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus Base with a Hawk-60 Grip, HP Reverb G2.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bozon said:

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.

 

You have to remember that this was WW2, fighters were often used as ground attackers and bombers were occasionally mounted with tank guns to be ground attackers as well. Yes, you could just use a bomber version, but the FB has permanent .303s, so it could still moderately protect itself without the 20MMs. I’m not saying that it’s all too practical, I’m saying it’s possible, or so I read, but again, I could be wrong. I do think it’s plausible though.

7 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Absolutely - FB & B please…!

 

Oh, and if the B works out, then a PR should be a small extra stretch…


A B version would be awesome! I think it would be a moderately safe “taste tester” for the controversial practicality of bombers in DCS. A lot of people seem to think that bombers would be boring, but I think if ED decided to pull the trigger and make a B model that it would be minimal risk for them. Minimal risk, high reward. If people enjoy having a B model Mosquito, then ED would know that people would possibly like a B-17 or B-24 etc.


Edited by RG2021
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, RG2021 said:

 

Minimal risk, high reward. If people enjoy having a B model Mosquito, then ED would know that people would possibly like a B-17 or B-24 etc.

 

 

Yeah... nah.

 

In the daylight missions typically undertaken by B.Mk.IV Mosquitos during 1942-43 they were flying low and in small numbers if not alone (the Eindhoven Phillips Raid excepted), bombing typically from low altitude.

 

A very different kettle of fish from the long range, high altitude strategic bombing technique of the B-17/24s. 

 

Then the maps we have are just too limiting for proper heavies.

 

Crikey, it took the real heavies an hour+ to get assembled then even more to climb to altitude. Can you imagine people flying for an hour and a half just to get to cruise altitude? 

 

Then there's the resources it would take to develop; not just one engine, but 4. Not just one cockpit but (usefully) at least 6... 

 

No, as much as I'd like to have a go in a DCS grade B-17, I just don't see it.

 

If we ever see a level WW2 era bomber in DCS, it'd likely be a medium and I would bet a B-25, probably a J as it would sit happily in ETO and PTO, plus it would be much better suited to the tactical air power pyrview of DCS WW2 air ops.

 

Even so, I don't hold out much hope.

 

 

By the way, this fizzle of there being a potential bomber Mossie variant is pure fiction. There is zero chance; the closest variant to an FB.Mk.VI in terms of engines and 3D model would be a B.Mk.IV and even then the differences are huge; different cockpit, with bombardier position; different canopy; different avionics; different control column; the bomber and fighter bomber variants were structurally different, the former having stronger wing structure to cope with the heavy manoeuvres it was going to be subjected to whilst loaded; and yes, whilst the engines might be single stage Merlins they are still different enough to warrant further remedial work to bring to the correct boost settings.

 

Would ED really do all this work for free, for an aircraft which would be obsolete in any WW2 setting we currently can create? The B.Mk.IVs opponents were Fw 190A-3/4 or Bf 109F-4/G-2 not A-8s and K-4s. It would make very little sense.

 

No, if we are getting any further variant it'd be the FB.Mk.XVIII.

 

Maybe one day we might see an NF.Mk.XII or XIII. And that would be cool but would also require a lot of fleshing out in the WW2 assets to make viable night missions.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RG2021 said:

A B version would be awesome! I think it would be a moderately safe “taste tester” for the controversial practicality of bombers in DCS. A lot of people seem to think that bombers would be boring, but I think if ED decided to pull the trigger and make a B model that it would be minimal risk for them. Minimal risk, high reward. If people enjoy having a B model Mosquito, then ED would know that people would possibly like a B-17 or B-24 etc.

 

 

I don't think flyable bombers in DCS is controversial at all. Lots of people want them. Maybe people who don't understand what makes bombing fun and have never tried it think bombers are bad. 

 

There are plenty of people who mostly do ground attack and there are entire squads that devote themselves to bombing. 

 

Flyable bombers add an entirely new and fresh set of opportunities and activities in flight sims. Planing flight paths to avoid/evade the enemy, bomber formations, low level navigation, adjusting bomb load for specific missions and organising fighter escorts.

 

Escorting AI bombers is boring compared to escorting players who can communicate and use different tactics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

You have to remember that this was WW2, fighters were often used as ground attackers and bombers were occasionally mounted with tank guns to be ground attackers as well. Yes, you could just use a bomber version, but the FB has permanent .303s, so it could still moderately protect itself without the 20MMs. I’m not saying that it’s all too practical, I’m saying it’s possible, or so I read, but again, I could be wrong. I do think it’s plausible though.


I’m speculating here, but the idea of swapping out gun fits in a swing role type of approach seems pretty unlikely…

 

Each squadron would have had a particular role - not just the aircraft, but crew training as well.  

The Hispanos may have been removable for maintenance / repairs / replacement, but to change roles would have required a lot of work and seems unlikely.  The F / FB versions had a flat screen for gun sighting, whereas the B versions had a streamlined split screen, and of course the plexiglass nose for bomb aiming.  De Havilland may have taken individual airframes for trial fitting various mods at there Hatfield plant, but seems less likely that this would have been at a squadron level.  
 

Quote

By the way, this fizzle of there being a potential bomber Mossie variant is pure fiction. There is zero chance; the closest variant to an FB.Mk.VI in terms of engines and 3D model would be a B.Mk.IV and even then the differences are huge; different cockpit, with bombardier position; different canopy; different avionics; different control column; the bomber and fighter bomber variants were structurally different, the former having stronger wing structure to cope with the heavy manoeuvres it was going to be subjected to whilst loaded; and yes, whilst the engines might be single stage Merlins they are still different enough to warrant further remedial work to bring to the correct boost settings.

 

Agreed on all counts… but the “fiction” of a B model has been sparked by an ED Newsletter comment about the bulged bomb door mod (as a “mod”, only a B.IV or B.IX feature)

 

I’d love the FB.VI to mount the Molins in a future FB.XVIII (we have the Type VIc as a target 😉)

 

But I’d also love to see a future B or PR model👍
 

ETA - For anyone in the UK, or planning a visit to the UK… I’d strongly recommend visiting Salisbury Hall.  It’s where the Mosquito was designed, and they have a bomber version (B.35), fighter bomber (FB.VI) and this absolute beauty:

61FFF881-FEC9-4447-8FF8-AF8FBCBA58E5.jpeg


Edited by rkk01
Image added
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The De Havilland Museum isn't that far from where I live, and apparently it's the only place in the world that has 3 examples of the Mosquito under one roof, and I've yet to visit!!

 

Definitely going to make a point of going later this year.

 

Yeah, this whole bulged bomb bay door thing has me confused too. Don't really know what to make of it all, but hopefully all will be revealed soon...

System :-

i7-12700K 3.6 GHz 12 core, ASUS ROG Strix Z690-A Gaming, 64GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3200MHz, 24GB Asus ROG Strix Geforce RTX 3090, 1x 500GB Samsung 980 PRO M.2, 1x 2TB Samsung 980 PRO M.2, Corsair 1000W RMx Series Modular 80 Plus Gold PSU, Windows 10. VIRPIL VPC WarBRD Base with HOTAS Warthog Stick and Warthog Throttle, VIRPIL ACE Interceptor Pedals, VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus Base with a Hawk-60 Grip, HP Reverb G2.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call Fenrir, only a short run of 18 Mk XVIII. 

 

Sounds like they might even have taken part in flight's over Normandy? 

 

I thought they were always stationed at Banff. 

Just now, rkk01 said:

Now that would be good - and explain the bulge…

 

Did the FB.XVIII retain the engine / fuselage of the FB.VI donor?

Yes, the first was a modified VI the others purpose built apparently. 

 

IIRC the biggest change was strengthen up the area around the gun. 

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Krupi said:

 

Sounds like they might even have taken part in flight's over Normandy? 

 

I thought they were always stationed at Banff. 

 

 

Over Normandy? I think unlikely, though very much in patrolling the Western Approaches during the campaign. They were based at RAF Portreath in Cornwall, as were most of the Coastal Command Mosquitos; with the fall of France the reason for these units to patrol the Bay of Biscay evaporated and they were moved North to join and expand the Banff wing.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

The one thing that most DCS flyers don't tend to worry about is Time on Target; you go out, dice with some Air Defences, blow something up and go home. In reality, military missions are often coordinated so as to saturate or distract Air Defences and Time on Target is a critical parameter to ensure the strikers are able to exploit a window of opportunity.

That was one of the most enjoyable aspects of a sim that cannot be mentioned, f 16 of us briefing and getting our tasking orders complete with time on target.

Flying in low, dodging round the various air defence zones, keeping an eye on the TTG so it did not demand large changes of power if you were coming in late and then hitting the IP on time and a speed up to 500kts for the bombing run over target.

As I and my wingman were lining up from our ip to the runway we were about to bomb, we could see the flight ahead of us dropping their stick of bombs on one of the cross runways while the SEAD aircraft were taking out the AAA around the airfield, fantastic sight seeing all the explosions going off all around the target airfield.

Ah the joys of connecting via modem to the one guy that had a T3 line and was hosting us connecting via a mixture of ISDN(myself) and 56k modems. 

  • Like 1

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

Over Normandy? I think unlikely, though very much in patrolling the Western Approaches during the campaign. They were based at RAF Portreath in Cornwall, as were most of the Coastal Command Mosquitos; with the fall of France the reason for these units to patrol the Bay of Biscay evaporated and they were moved North to join and expand the Banff wing.

 

 

Sorry I meant patrolling the seas around Normandy 

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Krupi said:

Good call Fenrir, only a short run of 18 Mk XVIII. 

 

Sounds like they might even have taken part in flight's over Normandy? 

 

I thought they were always stationed at Banff. 

Yes, the first was a modified VI the others purpose built apparently. 

 

IIRC the biggest change was strengthen up the area around the gun. 

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.

 

21 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Now that would be good - and explain the bulge…

 

Did the FB.XVIII retain the engine / fuselage of the FB.VI donor?

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.


Edited by Bozon
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The few Molins Mosquitos do seem to have seen a fair amount of action been effective and popular with crews. It appears there was a rockets faction and a BFG faction within the RAF and the rockets faction won.

 

Presumably rockets and Molins would have been too heavy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TSETSE took out a few Ju88 with the Molins as well, I read an account where one of the Ju88 engine was completely shot off it's mount 😬 

 

We need water bomb physics, for skip bombing and this when using the RP3.... 

 

"It was discovered that if the rockets were fired at a shallow angle, near misses resulted in the rockets curving upwards in seawater and piercing the targets below the waterline." 


Edited by Krupi

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...