Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Magic Mossies
Aussiegunneragain    7/11/2010 9:01:10 AM
There was a thread on here a few years ago put up by a fellow named Shooter, who was trying to make the argument that the Dehavilland Mosquito was a strategically insignificant aircraft which should never have been produced for the RAF, because it represented a waste of engines which could have better been used in Avro Lancasters. Shooter, an American, had a hobby of trying to diss any non-American type that had an excellent reputation (the Spitfire was another favourite target) and most people here told him he was being a clown with that being the end of it. However, the thread has stuck in the back of my mind and made me wonder whether in fact the Mossie, despite its widespread usage in a variety of roles, was in fact underutilised in the daylight strategic bombing role? It did perform some very important low level raids such as the daylight raid on the Phillips radio works (along with Ventura's and Bostons - far less Mossies were shot down)in Holland during Operation Oyster. However, I can't find many references to the Mossie being used for the sort of regular high altitude daylight strategic bombing missions that the B-17 and other USAF daylight heavies conducted. Consider its characteristics: -It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs all the way to Berlin which meant that you needed three mossies to carry a slightly larger warload than one B-17 did, which upon this basis meant more engine per lb of bomb in the Mossie. -However, the Mossie was hard to catch and was more survivable than the Heavies. The latter only really became viable with the addition of long-range escort fighters, something that the mossie could have done without. -It only required two crew versus ten on a B-17. Without intending to be critical of the USAF daylight heavies, because they were one of the strategically vital assets in winning WW2, I am wondering whether had the RAF used the Mossie in the role at the expense of night bombing operations in Lancasters? I have read accounts that suggest that the later were not really directly successful in shutting down German production, with the main contribution being that they forced the Germans to provide 24/7 air defence. If they had used Mossies more in the daylight precision role is it possible that the impact that the fighter-escorted USAF bombers had on German production might have been bought forward by a year or so, helping to end the War earlier? Another idea that I have is that if Reich fighter defences had started to get too tough for unescorted Merlin powered Mossies on strategic daylight missions, that they could have built the Griffon or Sabre powered versions that never happenned to keep the speed advantage over the FW-190? Up-engined Fighter versions of the Mossie would also have probably had sufficient performance to provide escort and fighter sweep duties in Germany in order to provide the bombers with even more protection. Thoughts? (PS, in case anybody hasn't worked it out the Mossie is my favourite military aircraft and my second favourite aircraft after the Supermarine S-6B ... so some bias might show through :-). I do think it has to rate as one of the best all round aircraft of all time based on its merits alone).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 1:42:15 PM
The fact that the mission profiles chosen for the two forces, RAF-USAAF resulted in two vastly different tonnage profiles should be expected and is easily explained.
2. The two planes had about the same ability to lift a heavy load. ( 18,000-17,600 pounds) 
only difference being that the Lancaster could carry it internally whilst the B17 couldn't and as such lost range and speed , in fact anything over 10000lbs was impractical as a warload and was pure paper exercise whilst the Lancaster could and did carry 12000lbs+ to targets as distant as the longest mission undertaken by B17s (which only carried 4000lbs)

3. The B-17 could carry more fuel.
why? if it was more efficient why did it carry more fuel when it couldn't carry as much to the furthest targets?
 
4. The B-17 was the one with the better EEW/MTO, L/D, higher aspect ratio and more efficient engines.
more efficiency? those engines were overstressed and overworked on the E/F/G model
 Given the above facts we can make several conclusions;
1. If the mission profiles had been the same, the B-17 could have carried more weight of bombs to a farther range.
as the B17 could not physically carry those bombs this shows this is wrong, and that the Lancaster could and did take more further than the B17 so this makes two errors in that statement
 
2. If the Lancaster had been required to fly the B-17's mission profile, it could not cary as many bombs as far!
ok take this apart, the longest range mission undertaken by the B17 was the FW plant outside Danzig a mission flown at 21000ft and they carried 4000lbs apiece - the RAF bombed Danzig with Lancaster at 19000ft with 14000lbs, the Lancaster could achieve 21000ft with 12000ft and reach this range, so that's you wrong again,
the B17 was incapable of reaching that range  at higher altitude not a problem with the Lancaster in fact the Lancaster actually had longer missions with 12000lbs loads
 
3. The Lancaster was not cappable of reaching B-17 cieling because of the lack of high efficiency-high altitude supercharger system, it's higher EEW and lower Aspect Ratio wings.
true the B17 could climb higher but it generally didn't, the USAAF policy was to bomb between 21 and 24000ft not at the 35000ft you claim, the Lancaster wasn't designed for this altitude as the RAF had tried bombing from this altitude and decided it was a waste of time, when you get that high you had crew issues and altitude sickness something passed onto to the US and lead design changes to the B29
 
so the B17 was a higher altitude day bomber and the Lancaster was medium altitude night bomber different aircraft for different roles yet you insist that the B17 was better despite the USAAF changing to lower altitude night bombing
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Three reasons.   3/7/2013 1:59:51 PM
1. The Wrights didn't like thin air. Overheated.
2. Loft. Above 25,000 feet  the B-17 had some trouble with 'heavy' bomb loads (I think it was yaw with 6000 lb+ bomb loads, I could be wrong, need to check.) 
3. Norden bomb-sight  was almost useless above 21,000 feet as too much left/right drift error as the bombs took too long to fall. (More than 25 seconds)
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 3:08:14 PM
Are you aware that the Norden was not actually that good, the Sperry was actually superior, the Norden was hyped, all that secret stuff was bollocks as one of the design team was a German spy and the Germans had the plans for it in the 30s even the USAAF had declassified it to just restricted access rather than top secret.
(the Germans thought it too inaccurate for their use!)
 
even the British sight was as good if not better
 
Norden tried to get the Sperry cancelled and refused to use the superior Sperry autopilot
 
the Norden was also unreliable and difficult to use being electro mechanical as opposed to the Sperry all electric sight
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/7/2013 11:53:47 PM

Just about mean take off weights and engine efficiencies, we can discount every other false statement he made based on his lies. B.
Just to put the facts straight; I never quoted "Mean" Take Off Weights! Ever! I listed MTOs and OLTO weights! So you got caught in this lie! Which "Engine efficiencies"? The ones from the Mossy Pilot's manual that lists "Air Miles Per gallon", or the ones from Janes All The Worlds Aircraft and-or Janes All the Worlds Aircraft of WW-II? You tell me exactly which of my posts were lies! I've caught you right out on this post, so put up or shut up!
So, you lied here and many other times before, so post the listing of my posts that state the things you say, or man up and admit that it is your own faulty understanding of what I did in fact wrote!
As we used to say when we were kids; "Caught your head in the door!"
Just to be absolutely certain that we ALL understand what was said, here is the quote from the first three pages of charts in the FB6 Pilot's Manual posted here by ??? I wish I could remember.
At Sea Level, 210 Knots TAS, Low Blower, 2020 RPM, 2.42 Air Nauticle Miles Per Gallon, or 82 GPH and 20,000 pounds all up weight.
At 10,000' Altitude, 226 Knots TAS, Low Blower, 2020 RPM, 2.86 ANM/G, or 78 Gallons per Hour and 20Klbs AUW.
At 25K' altitude, 248 Knots TAS, High Blower, 2,240 RPM, 2.925 ANM/G, or 84 G/H and 20Klbs!
I then posted a "Typical Flight Profile/Plan" showing the typical fuel used in gallons to start the engines, taxi to the runway and do the Mag checks, take off, climb to altitude, cruise to the target at the above numbers, drop the bombs, RTB, let down, land, taxi, shut down and the remaining fuel in the tanks as "Emergency Reserve"!
But because you all skoffed at those numbers I challenged you, any of you, to post your own numbers of what those flight plans should look like, but so far NONE of you has been able to do that.
I do not know if it is beyond your skills, or the mathmatics power of your brains, but NONE of you has had the lack of MUMPOISE to get it done!
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/8/2013 12:16:39 AM

why? if it was more efficient why did it carry more fuel when it couldn't carry as much to the furthest targets?
Because it could fly to farther ranges! Fuel is fungable, just like bombs.
4. The B-17 was the one with the better EEW/MTO, L/D, higher aspect ratio and more efficient engines.
more efficiency? those engines were overstressed and overworked on the E/F/G model
If they were so over stressed, how do you explain that there were so many more B-17 missions flown 640K to 608K in half as many years? Right! Y es, more efficient. Being over stressed, is an oppinion, but the facts remain, it was faster on less horse power, flew to longer ranges and did so under more demanding conditions!
 Given the above facts we can make several conclusions;
1. If the mission profiles had been the same, the B-17 could have carried more weight of bombs to a farther range.
as the B17 could not physically carry those bombs this shows this is wrong, and that the Lancaster could and did take more further than the B17 so this makes two errors in that statement
  It is the reciprocal of this question that is important. If the Lancaster had to off load enough bombs to be able to climb the the typical altitude3 of the B-17, it would have had less bombs on board! Or if the lancaster had to off load enough bombs to fly to the same ranges at the same altitudes, it would not be able to cary any bombs at all!
2. If the Lancaster had been required to fly the B-17's mission profile, it could not cary as many bombs as far!


ok take this apart, 
  None of this matters because the missions you comp are not the same. Secondly, most of the sources I have seen show both a much lower altitude and a much lower bomb load. Instead of cherry picking specific raids, explain why the Average bomb load of the Lancaster during the ENTIRE WAR was just under 8,000 pounds per mission! 608,000 tons of bombs divided by 156,000 sorties is just under 7,795 pounds per mission! This is the real number of bombs per mission, not the cherry picked values you site! From this number you have to explain why and how they would be able to reach higher altitudes and longer ranges in the daylight hours to be able to have "Comparible" missions!
Lancaster actually had longer missions with 12000lbs loads
  Again, for every mission with 12,000 pounds up, it had to fly a mission with less than 4000 pounds of bombs to come out at an AVERAGE of 7,795 pounds per mission! That is what you do not seem to under stand! Explain it all away any way you like, but those are the Official RAF numbers and they do not lie!
3. The Lancaster was not cappable of reaching B-17 cieling because of the lack of high efficiency-high altitude supercharger system, it's higher EEW and lower Aspect Ratio wings.


t rue the B17 could climb higher
Thank you for this admission!
One last time; How do you explain the simple fact that the AVERAGE bomb load for all 156,000 Lancaster missions was less than 7,795 pounds per sortie?

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    The Sperry had its problems too...   3/8/2013 12:47:40 AM
OBNW.
 

Are you aware that the Norden was not actually that good, the Sperry was actually superior, the Norden was hyped, all that secret stuff was bollocks as one of the design team was a German spy and the Germans had the plans for it in the 30s even the USAAF had declassified it to just restricted access rather than top secret.

(the Germans thought it too inaccurate for their use!)

 

even the British sight was as good if not better

 

Norden tried to get the Sperry cancelled and refused to use the superior Sperry autopilot

 

the Norden was also unreliable and difficult to use being electro mechanical as opposed to the Sperry all electric sight

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    The Sperry had its problems too...   3/8/2013 1:02:37 AM

Just about mean take off weights and engine efficiencies, we can discount every other false statement he made based on his lies. B.





Just to put the facts straight; I never quoted "Mean" Take Off Weights! Ever! I listed MTOs and OLTO weights! So you got caught in this lie! Which "Engine efficiencies"? The ones from the Mossy Pilot's manual that lists "Air Miles Per gallon", or the ones from Janes All The Worlds Aircraft and-or Janes All the Worlds Aircraft of WW-II? You tell me exactly which of my posts were lies! I've caught you right out on this post, so put up or shut up!



Example: When you quoted your LOADED numbers for the B-17 at takeoff, you IDIOT! MTO.

As for the Mossie you still haven't used the RIGHT tables, again you IDIOT .


So, you lied here and many other times before, so post the listing of my posts that state the things you say, or man up and admit that it is your own faulty understanding of what I did in fact wrote!


As we used to say when we were kids; "Caught your head in the door!"
Just to be absolutely certain that we ALL understand what was said, here is the quote from the first three pages of charts in the FB6 Pilot's Manual posted here by ??? I wish I could remember.
At Sea Level, 210 Knots TAS, Low Blower, 2020 RPM, 2.42 Air Nauticle Miles Per Gallon, or 82 GPH and 20,000 pounds all up weight.


You didn't remember that it was in KNOTS and you said MILES you LIAR?

Also 72-76 g/h.

At 10,000' Altitude, 226 Knots TAS, Low Blower, 2020 RPM, 2.86 ANM/G, or 78 Gallons per Hour and 20Klbs AUW.


At 25K' altitude, 248 Knots TAS, High Blower, 2,240 RPM, 2.925 ANM/G, or 84 G/H and 20Klbs!


I then posted a "Typical Flight Profile/Plan" showing the typical fuel used in gallons to start the engines, taxi to the runway and do the Mag checks, take off, climb to altitude, cruise to the target at the above numbers, drop the bombs, RTB, let down, land, taxi, shut down and the remaining fuel in the tanks as "Emergency Reserve"!


And you did it WRONG. You chose the wrong fuel mix settings and wrong flight profiles, speeds and altitudes. In fact you LIED that you did the work at all.

B.

 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       3/8/2013 1:46:44 AM
Shooter has been banned from at least eight forums that I know of.
 
He's persistent, if nothing else.
 
The heaviest load for the B-17 I can find any record of is 8,000 lbs (8 x 1000 lb). It was carried by the 91st Bomb Group to Nienburg in 1944.
 
I've never seen any record of the B-17 carrying a 4,000 lb weapon bomb internally. There is a provision in the armourers maual for a 4000 lb AN-56 carried externally, but no record of its use, as far as I'm aware.
 
The AN-56 is way to big to fit internally in the B-17's bomb bay, especially with the tail. Check out this picture from the US explosives manual:
 
 
Given the rarity of the weapon in US service, dropping a 4,000 lb light case weapon would have been  quite an even for a B-17 crew. Somehow, I think it would rate a mention.
 
On the Mosquito, the RAF and the RAAF both give 1370 miles range with 4000 lb internal bombload for the Mk IX onwards.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/8/2013 3:47:51 AM
why? if it was more efficient why did it carry more fuel when it couldn't carry as much to the furthest targets?
  Because it could fly to farther ranges! Fuel is fungable, just like bombs.
4. The B-17 was the one with the better EEW/MTO, L/D, higher aspect ratio and more efficient engines.
more efficiency? those engines were overstressed and overworked on the E/F/G model
If they were so over stressed, how do you explain that there were so many more B-17 missions flown 640K to 608K in half as many years? Right! Yes, more efficient. Being over stressed, is an oppinion, but the facts remain, it was faster on less horse power, flew to longer ranges and did so under more demanding conditions!
 
have you seen the average life expectancy of a wright on a B17? IIRC its about 250 hours, bombs re only fungable if you can carr them and the B17 was saddly lacking in that, and befoe the Tokyo tanks the B17 had to give up half the bomb bay for enough fuel for targets like berlin - yes the Lanc could carry full bomb loads to tose same targets how do you explane that? or the fact that the Lanc took 10000+ loads furthe than ANY B17 raid?

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/8/2013 3:54:22 AM
1. If the mission profiles had been the same, the B-17 could have carried more weight of bombs to a farther range.
as the B17 could not physically carry those bombs this shows this is wrong, and that the Lancaster could and did take more further than the B17 so this makes two errors in that statement
  It is the reciprocal of this question that is important. If the Lancaster had to off load enough bombs to be able to climb the the typical altitude3 of the B-17, it would have had less bombs on board! Or if the lancaster had to off load enough bombs to fly to the same ranges at the same altitudes, it would not be able to cary any bombs at all!
2. If the Lancaster had been required to fly the B-17's mission profile, it could not cary as many bombs as far!


ok take this apart,
  None of this matters because the missions you comp are not the same. Secondly, most of the sources I have seen show both a much lower altitude and a much lower bomb load. Instead of cherry picking specific raids, explain why the Average bomb load of the Lancaster during the ENTIRE WAR was just under 8,000 pounds per mission! 608,000 tons of bombs divided by 156,000 sorties is just under 7,795 pounds per mission! This is the real number of bombs per mission, not the cherry picked values you site! From this number you have to explain why and how they would be able to reach higher altitudes and longer ranges in the daylight hours to be able to have "Comparible" missions!
Lancaster actually had longer missions with 12000lbs loads
  Again, for every mission with 12,000 pounds up, it had to fly a mission with less than 4000 pounds of bombs to come out at an AVERAGE of 7,795 pounds per mission!
 
OK you find a SINGLE Lancaster missions with a bomb load of 4000lbs? you cant can you not a single one, yet you revert back to this numbe time and time again becuase it supeficially agrees with you, if you did the research you would realise that it was not the whole story but ypu wont will you? because you are too important to actually investigate the facts
 
That is what you do not seem to under stand! Explain it all away any way you like, but those are the Official RAF numbers and they do not lie!
 
But they do not tell the truth either as has been pointed out, and as the RAF claim the AVERAGE WAR LOAD of the Lancaste was 10500lbs ish then that indicates that thier is something in these numbes that is not being explained, but will look at it NO you just cherry pick your own fugures
 
3. The Lancaster was not cappable of reaching B-17 cieling because of the lack of high efficiency-high altitude supercharger system, it's higher EEW and lower Aspect Ratio wings.


true the B17 could climb higher
Thank you for this admission!
Never said other wise, but as the operating height was significantly lower then its a far less an issue

One last time; How do you explain the simple fact that the AVERAGE bomb load for all 156,000 Lancaster missions was less than 7,795 pounds per sortie?
 
educating pork is looking attractive right now
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics