Expected Mossie performance vs current plane set

[Bremspropeller]

18 hours ago, Bozon said:

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.

 

Your poinion is...inaccurate.

[Bozon]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Your poinion is...inaccurate.

I thank you for your opinion of my opinion.

[grafspee]

Let me show you something which change a lot, this is from pilot's notes mosquito FB.6

Looks like FBVI have nor trouble with high G accelerations

I think that mosquito was builds in multiple variants, i can see that in low level bomber variant factory want to limit pull acceleration due to expected heavy bomb loading, but in CAS variants high G pull out was must have thing. I may be wrong here  Just my thoughts.

It could be changed based on what kind of task mosquito was doing by ground crew, if it was low level bombing ground crew would increased weight of elevator counter blance to ease pilots gentle flying.

Edited August 20, 2021 by grafspee

[rkk01]

From what I have read, RAF crews did not typically have their own aircraft…

I think that is more of a US approach that has entered WW2 aviation lore. Looking at ORBs and reading memoirs it seems that crews were allocated an aircraft for each mission, depending on which crews were rostered and which aircraft were serviceable…

 

In those circumstances, a pilot tinkering with the controls set up would seem at best a talking to and at worst lethal

[Mogster]

28 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

From what I have read, RAF crews did not typically have their own aircraft…

 

I find that hard to believe.
 

When you read pilots memoirs they seem to be flying the same aircraft, sometimes with personally applied names, decoration, kill tallies. 

[rkk01]

Maybe it’s something that varied from squadron to squadron or group to group.

 

In particular, I think much more likely on a fighter squadron - one individual pilot / one aircraft, and I can readily believe the ground crew could make some “personal adjustments”.

 

On a British bomber squadron…?  I’d be interested in what others’ research has thrown up…. Certainly there are many wartime photos of aircraft with “raid count” bomb tallies, which indicate 1 crew / 1 aircraft, but equally the RAF also seemed much more “buttoned down” in terms of personalisation, with many images of absolutely standard aircraft markings.  Maybe some COs were sticklers for discipline and uniformity.

 

On a more practical note, not every crew flew on every raid, with some being rested, on leave etc.  Every serviceable aircraft would still be indispensable for the war effort

[Mogster]

2 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Maybe it’s something that varied from squadron to squadron or group to group.

 

In particular, I think much more likely on a fighter squadron - one individual pilot / one aircraft, and I can readily believe the ground crew could make some “personal adjustments”.

 

On a British bomber squadron…?  I’d be interested in what others’ research has thrown up…. Certainly there are many wartime photos of aircraft with “raid count” bomb tallies, which indicate 1 crew / 1 aircraft, but equally the RAF also seemed much more “buttoned down” in terms of personalisation, with many images of absolutely standard aircraft markings.  Maybe some COs were sticklers for discipline and uniformity.

 

On a more practical note, not every crew flew on every raid, with some being rested, on leave etc.  Every serviceable aircraft would still be indispensable for the war effort

Here’s the flight log of R5868 the RAF museum’s Lancaster. Although the crew does change and it’s taken up by various people you can see it’s often flown by the same pilot/crew for periods of time suggesting it was a preferred or personal aircraft. 

 

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/74-A-12-Avro-Lancaster-R5868.pdf

[Robi-wan]

21 hours ago, rkk01 said:

From what I have read, RAF crews did not typically have their own aircraft…

 

In a few squadrons I looked at for Jun 44 (think high tempo Ops) there is a pattern of flying the same airplane. Not all squadrons recorded what specific airplane crews were flying. Here are a few ORBs that you can check crew and aircraft flown. I picked names at random and picked a few particular airplanes in each squadron.  I wanted to check what airplanes Seid and MacIntosh flew, but 418 Sqn did not keep record of that.

 

AIR 27-2117-34 is 613 Sqn

AIR 27-1672-68 is 305 Sqn

 

 

 

 

AIR-27-2117-34 Jun 44.pdf AIR-27-1672-68 Jun 44.pdf

[Morat]

On 8/21/2021 at 5:56 AM, rkk01 said:

Maybe it’s something that varied from squadron to squadron or group to group.

 

In particular, I think much more likely on a fighter squadron - one individual pilot / one aircraft, and I can readily believe the ground crew could make some “personal adjustments”.

 

On a British bomber squadron…?  I’d be interested in what others’ research has thrown up…. Certainly there are many wartime photos of aircraft with “raid count” bomb tallies, which indicate 1 crew / 1 aircraft, but equally the RAF also seemed much more “buttoned down” in terms of personalisation, with many images of absolutely standard aircraft markings.  Maybe some COs were sticklers for discipline and uniformity.

 

On a more practical note, not every crew flew on every raid, with some being rested, on leave etc.  Every serviceable aircraft would still be indispensable for the war effort

If you read this rather fascinating book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Luck-Lancaster-operations-killed-action-ebook/dp/B00FOGG2HU

it's clear that the a/c had raid markings which related to the a/c rather than the crew. That particular Lanc managed 107 missions before it was retired. It was flown by many crews, some of whom flew it for many missions, but not every crew flew every mission and not every plane was serviceable for every mission so there was a great deal of swapping about.

In short, no crew "owned" a particular a/c but some did seem to have preference that was indulged to an extent.

[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.

[71st_AH Rob]

On 8/20/2021 at 5:30 PM, rkk01 said:

From what I have read, RAF crews did not typically have their own aircraft…

I think that is more of a US approach that has entered WW2 aviation lore. Looking at ORBs and reading memoirs it seems that crews were allocated an aircraft for each mission, depending on which crews were rostered and which aircraft were serviceable…

 

In those circumstances, a pilot tinkering with the controls set up would seem at best a talking to and at worst lethal

This jives with my memory of my uncle's log book (must follow up on what happened to my promised copy) , he completed three op tours, well two and 21 missions on his third that ended with an eventful jaunt to Berlin on Halifax's.  I was going to build a model of "his". Either the one he flew the most or the one he was shot down in and was surprised to find out how many different a/c his crew flew on operations as well as how many personnel changes there were during a tour.

 

My father was on the way to an operational Mosquito squadron, the VE Day arrived before he got to it so can't shed any light on wartime mosquito squadron policy on personal aircraft but common sense would lead me to believe that with more crews than a/c, servicibiliy rate of 75% say, it was not possible or practical to assign an a/c to a crew but you could assign two crews to an a/c.  

[Krupi]

This is especially true for Bomber Mosquitos as they went over Germany twice a night with a different crew for the second jaunt. 

[Nealius]

If crews being assigned their own aircraft was actually a thing in the USAAF, it most likely was only for the fighter squadrons. My great uncle was in the 401st BG and all their records are online. 

 

Of his 31 sorties, he flew 17 different aircraft and four "unknown." The specific aircraft he flew the most only accounted for 13% of his sorties, and wasn't "his." 

 

Looking at records of the aircraft he flew, the airframes averaged 90 sorties if they survived until the end of the war. There's no record of an "owner" crew being assigned to any aircraft. Looking at the 91 mission logs for one of the aircraft he flew, "Crew A" flew 28%, "Crew B" flew 19%, and the remaining 53% was split among 34 different crews unequally. 

[Krupi]

I am currently reading Albert Smiths Autobiography "Mosquito Pathfinder", he was a navigator for the RAF and from his account his crew were assigned a particular aircraft, a Wellington MkIII, which they appear to have flown the majority of the time unless damaged.

 

They were then assigned a more powerful MkX to replace the original MKIII but they didn't take the aircraft with them when the crew were posted to a different squadron in Africa. 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Krupi

[Quadg]

As the mossie is a shnellbomber.

you should not compare it to the fw190 or ME109.

you should compare it to the JU-88 (the best of the German shnellbombers).

whatever the JU-88 can do the mossie can do better. (night fighter, bomber, photo recon, anti shipping)

As it was arguably the best shnellbomber of the war.

it was also the bomber with the highest survival rate in bomber command.

and a bane to u boats and shipping in costal command. Armed with rockets and cannon. (the 4 cannons could make a burning wreck out of a unarmoured steamer in one pass)

 

the Germans were disgusted with the mossie because they went all in with the shnellbomber concept.

to the British the fast bomber was a side project. And they still got the best one.

 

As to the roll when you lose an engine. when Eric "winkle" brown first landed a mosquito on a carrier (first ever landing of a twin engine on a carrier). this was one of his greatest fears.

losing an engine and going into a death roll on short final. his aircraft did have experimental props though, (that could not be feathered) so they could greatly reduce the approach speed for the landing.

he came in with low airspeed, a high angle of attack and very high RPM and floated it in on the props. engine failure was very likely.

the landing speed (99mph) was below the wings stall speed (110mph). (99mph was the maximum strain the wooden body could take catching the tail hook)

you can find the video on youtube.

amazing man was "winkle" brown.. 

flew everything produced by everyone.. 487 different aircraft types. many without even reading a manual.

And I struggle with the small number in DCS

[TWC_SLAG]

“I think the Mosquito should be regarded more as a Fighter bomber than a Fighter.“

 

It should also be regarded as a nightfighter.   Hint hint.

[Bremspropeller]

6 hours ago, Quadg said:

whatever the JU-88 can do the mossie can do better. (night fighter, bomber, photo recon, anti shipping)

 

The Ju 88 can carry 50-100% more bombload, can dive-bomb and can carry torps.

A Ju 88 with the FuG240 and comparable two-stage/ three speed superchargers is right up there with a late war NF Mosquito.

 

Fun Fact: Winkle liked the Ju 88 and Roland Beamont did, too.

 

Easy with the generalisations.

[Krupi]

Well.. It could carry more but that is externally which impacted the performance. The climb was pretty poor for all versions compared to even the Bomber Mossie. 

 

The Ju88 was an impressive aircraft but it isn't that fast compared to the Mossie, at least looking at the bomber version. The night fighter was quite fast but the bomber was only able to attain speeds with GM-1 which so it couldn't be maintained. 

 

I would love to see a Ju88 or a Me410 in DCS. 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Krupi

[Bozon]

7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The Ju 88 can carry 50-100% more bombload, can dive-bomb and can carry torps.

A Ju 88 with the FuG240 and comparable two-stage/ three speed superchargers is right up there with a late war NF Mosquito.

 

Fun Fact: Winkle liked the Ju 88 and Roland Beamont did, too.

 

Easy with the generalisations.

Post war mosquitoes carried a torpedo. It was not required during the war.

 

A higher bomb load does not give you much if you get shot down. JU88 night bombing of Britain was almost completely stopped because of Mosquito night fighters.

 

No Ju88 was even close to a late war mosquito night fighter (the most numerous model was NF.30). The biggest problem that late NF mosquitoes faced was that they were too successful - the Luftwaffe could not sustain its bomber losses and stopped raiding Britain at night. For this reason Beaufighters NFs had more kills that Mosquito NFs even though the latter were considered as much better and completely replaced the Beaus in that role. When a plane is good it gets kills, when a plane is superior it gets none because no one will face it.

 

[grafspee]

Title should be changed to The Mossie : An unexpected journey

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, Bozon said:

Post war mosquitoes carried a torpedo. It was not required during the war.

 

The 88 could carry two and earlier.

 

4 hours ago, Bozon said:

A higher bomb load does not give you much if you get shot down. JU88 night bombing of Britain was almost completely stopped because of Mosquito night fighters.

 

It was stated the Mossie could do everything better. I pointed out an area where the 88 does better by at least 50%.

Night bombing of Britain was almost completely stopped for other reasons.

 

4 hours ago, Bozon said:

No Ju88 was even close to a late war mosquito night fighter (the most numerous model was NF.30).

 

If you sling on comparable engines and give it a comparable radar-set, yes the 88G was right there. Comparing apples to apples.

 

4 hours ago, Bozon said:

The biggest problem that late NF mosquitoes faced was that they were too successful - the Luftwaffe could not sustain its bomber losses and stopped raiding Britain at night. For this reason Beaufighters NFs had more kills that Mosquito NFs even though the latter were considered as much better and completely replaced the Beaus in that role. When a plane is good it gets kills, when a plane is superior it gets none because no one will face it.

 

The list of reasons why Luftwaffe night-bombing of Britain failed is a lot longer and way more complex than just RAF night-fighters.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[TWC_SLAG]

Let’s hear it for the Mosquito nightfighters.

 

Come to think of it.  How about a nightfighter version of the Beaufighter?

[Mogster]

32 minutes ago, TWC_SLAG said:

Let’s hear it for the Mosquito nightfighters.

 

Come to think of it.  How about a nightfighter version of the Beaufighter?

Beaufighter would be good generally, and modelling wise it’s like a big fighter with the single seat cockpit. Cannons, bombs, RPs, torps, lots of fun. Useful for the PTO also.

[some1]

Well, I just tried to dogfight an AI Veteran Mosquito in Fw-190A8 and he outclimbed and outturned my airplane, able to fly in circles around the poor Anton.

Then I set up a 4 vs. 4 AI Mosquitos versus Doras and the Mosquitos killed all four enemy fighters at a cost of one airframe. 

 

The plane is a killer. At least when flown by AI. 

[razo+r]

Well, dont compare with AI. We all know they can do things a human can never achieve with the same plane.