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
45-Shooter       3/12/2013 12:31:07 AM

if you look at the figures it is clear that the US had far more bomber available late in the war  They carried less weight of bombs, so had to fly more missions to amass over 60% more total bomb tonnage as the RAF! 1Mt to 1.6Mt total bomb tonnage in Europe!    
As did the RAF-BC! Look at the list of planes availible by date! So, if you take all mission during the entire war as the base population and factor in casualties and effects, it is clear that the RAF-BC came off much the worse.
just deduct the light and medium figures I did, but you did not notice. Here are the pertenent numbers, well rounded; 300K missions and 640Kt of bombs for the B-17 Vs, 156K Lancaster missions at 610Kt of bombs for at the very least twice as many casualties to the RAF-BC!

and its not per day as that's misleading as this would result in a number much less than one
  No, it's a metric; planes availible times the number of days they were availible. It works both ways and points up two very pertenent facts; B-17s flew >291K missions Vs 156K missions as lancasters.

the Memphis Belle when doing the warbond tour only averaged 300 hours between engine replacement, yet the 150 hour figure for the merlin was not replacement but for service which was an in airframe operation
  I could make the same point! Merlins almost never reacher their TBO WO premature service. Can you think of any other reason why Lancasters were not able to fly as many missions per plane day as B-17s?
The Wright Cyclone was TBO'd at over 800 hours as shown on millions of sorties in B-17s, C-47s F4s, etc!
if you had read the 15ton flying fortress you would have found that it was not the case
  Not all of them and even if they only lasted 300 hours, it was still more than twice what was done with Merlins. But the F4 was a fighter plane and they were traditionally much harder used and stressed. (Particularely in the Navy from Carrier Opps!)

Post war, much derated Merlins were TBO'd at 3-400 hours! See Janes all the worlds Aircraft 1949.
who is using the cyclone in service certainly not in DC3 or C47s that's for certain
Design and development; The R-1820 Cyclone 9 entered production in 1931. The engine remained in production well into the 1950s. They stopped making Merlins in 1950.

The R-1820 was built under license by Lycoming, Pratt & Whitney Canada, and also, during World War II, by the Studebaker Corporation. The R-1820 was at the heart of many famous aircraft. Just for starters.

Applications
 

That let them fly twice as many missions per any given time.
no it doesn't as clearly shown the USAAF had twice the number of bombers so would only need a similar  availability rate to achieve the 2:1
  This is a clearly flawed argument! While the number of plane-days coresponds to the bomb tonnage in at least nice round numbers, IE there are the same number of plane-days per ton of bombs dropped for both forces, but in order to do that, the B-17s had to fly twice as many missions per plane-day as the Lancasters.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/12/2013 12:56:45 AM


Note that the very first page has a statement from an old timer teacher, parraphrasing; "I never had one quit, or ice up in 25,000 hours."
Wrights on a DC-3.
I note that this DC-3 has the wrights OBNW says were never there.
 
Lots of neet stuff there, inc the TBO of 500 hours for the R-1820. Note that the Merlin never reached this level of performance. 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 3:43:08 AM
it happened whilst the B17 missions were all cancelled as being to dangerous for little end result (the smaller 9000lbs versions that did get used clearly showed that)  oh and the Grand slam Lancaster did have a tail turret and a crew of 5 that flew all the way there and back not bailing out as soon as it reached altitude so I would say it was a bit different would you?  and 800miles as the crow flies is not exactly short is it even the longest raid of the Aphrodite op was only half that (the targets weren't actually that far apart)
  But it is not 800 miles as the crow flies! Have you failed to understand after all this time that range is the absolute still air distance the plane is capable of flying while dropping the bomb(s) at the half way mark? After subtracting the emergency reserve of at least 45 minutes, if not twice that, the form up and distance lost in turns and climb, the true radius of action, IE, the distance from base at which they can actually drop a bomb on something is typically about 35-40% of those 800 miles! Ie, an "Effective" Range of 280-320 miles. Not so impressive when it is spelled out like that is it. That is the single largest differance between American and British "Range" figures!

rubbish made up numbers, the fact is that it is approximately 380 miles from Lincoln to the targets of the Grand Slam and its  < 370 from the Norfolk airbases the Aprohdities opereated from to tieir targets so botom line is that a Grand Slam bomber flew further than the radio control bomb and was successfull which the B17 wasn't
oh and as the Aprodities carried less HE than a Tallboy it makes the B17 even less successfull
 
then how do you explain that Lancaster flew further with bomb loads of 4x that of the B17 did on its longest mission?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 3:53:40 AM
I highlighted the last in red as it is still being used in Coml flight schools. But many thousands of them are still in use,
while the number of Merlins still running is numbered in the Dozens.
sorry but what has a trainer aircraft to do with it? if anything it shows that the Cyclone was a second tier engine if it was relagated to training duties,
 
That let them fly twice as many missions per any given time.
no it doesn't as clearly shown the USAAF had twice the number of bombers so would only need a similar  availability rate to achieve the 2:1
  This is a clearly flawed argument! While the number of plane-days coresponds to the bomb tonnage in at least nice round numbers, IE there are the same number of plane-days per ton of bombs dropped for both forces, but in order to do that, the B-17s had to fly twice as many missions per plane-day as the Lancasters.
 
so you now admit that a B17 had to fly 4 missions to match 1 mission of the Lancaster does not imply that the B17 was better just more numerous

 
and as you had suffcient crews to rest one whilst flying the aircraft with the other that allows foe increased sorties, as does short ranged attacks that keep the engine hours down, but of course you have your opinion and mear facts will not effect that
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 4:09:08 AM
Note that the very first page has a statement from an old timer teacher, parraphrasing; "I never had one quit, or ice up in 25,000 hours."
and how many of those hours were used turbocharged engines on heavy bombers over europe at high altitudes?
talk about not getting it, I have said and repeat that the B17 engines were unreliable, the fact that in a civilian passenger plane they were reliable means nothing
 
Wrights on a DC-3.
I note that this DC-3 has the wrights OBNW says were never there.
and just which post do I say there were never wrights on a DC3? I do say there were never wrights on a C47 but I guess the little fact that they have DIFFERENT classifications doesn't mean much to you does it?
 the fact that EARLY DC3 used wrights but all later DC3's and ALL C47 used P&W's

 
Lots of neet stuff there, inc the TBO of 500 hours for the R-1820. Note that the Merlin never reached this level of performance. 
 
rearly? never reached 500 eh, maybe you should check what the engine life on a Lancastrian was
 
and as 500 TBO was the norm for Fighter aircraft fitted with the merlin (except US P51 with water injection they dropped to 150 TBO)
 
and the according to my source the B17 virtualy never had an engine last to TBO and often were in the teens
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/12/2013 11:41:12 AM
25000 hours of air flight in  different planes at different times, does not mean the same engine ran 25000 hours.
 
It means one pilot had 25,000 air hours and did not have an R-1820 in the many planes he flew at that time quit on him. Exception does not prove the rule.
 
Studebaker recommended teardowns ~ 450 hours.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/12/2013 2:35:29 PM

  But it is not 800 miles as the crow flies! Have you failed to understand after all this time that range is the absolute still air distance the plane is capable of flying while dropping the bomb(s) at the half way mark? After subtracting the emergency reserve of at least 45 minutes, if not twice that, the form up and distance lost in turns and climb, the true radius of action, IE, the distance from base at which they can actually drop a bomb on something is typically about 35-40% of those 800 miles! Ie, an "Effective" Range of 280-320 miles. Not so impressive when it is spelled out like that is it. That is the single largest differance between American and British "Range" figures!
rubbish made up numbers, the fact is that it is approximately 380 miles from Lincoln to the targets of the Grand Slam and its  < 370 from the Norfolk airbases the Aprohdities opereated from to tieir targets so botom line is that a Grand Slam bomber flew further than the radio control bomb and was successfull which the B17 wasn't
  Yes, most of this is true, but it also agrees with my statements also. IE the radius of action was LESS than half the Range. ( 380 of 800 miles.) But the part that you are forgetting is that those missions were flown in early 1945 and there were emergency air fields in France where they could have landed since the mission was planned WO Reserves.
oh and as the Aprodities carried less HE than a Tallboy it makes the B17 even less successfull
  While the Aprodities were out and out failures, no rational person could think that the 20,000+ pounds of HE carried by the stripped B-17 was less explosive power than a 22,000 pound bomb with a 3.5" thick steel case that only had 9,140 pounds of HE inside it. For those of you from Rio Linda, that is much less than half, 45% as much explosive.
then how do you explain that Lancaster flew further with bomb loads of 4x that of the B17 did on its longest mission?
  Because those Lancaster missions were both shorter and flown at lower altitudes than the longest B-17 missions which were at a range that the Lancaster could not match empty. The Trondhiem raid, just under 2,200 air miles on the route actually flown, counting climb but not formation and 912 miles great circle distance. While that 912 miles great circle distance is something that it was certainly possible for A Lancaster bomber to fly, forming up a squadron and bombing in unison would be absolutely impossible to duplicate AT THAT TIME! And possibly at any time in the future when improved variants with larger tankage and a maximum range of 2,530 miles were availible, not counting that it would entail the formation/planes flying long distances over enemy held territory both before and after dropping the bombs and the reduction/loss of the emergency fuel reserves for long distances over water. Right!

As a basic fact, even early F modles with the Tokio Tanks could fly >3,400 miles, witch is 870 miles, or 34.4% farther than the longest range the late modle Lanc was able to fly.

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/12/2013 3:30:59 PM
Ferry range is not effective combat radius, as measured by air hours.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 3:54:40 PM
rubbish made up numbers, the fact is that it is approximately 380 miles from Lincoln to the targets of the Grand Slam and its  < 370 from the Norfolk airbases the Aprohdities opereated from to tieir targets so botom line is that a Grand Slam bomber flew further than the radio control bomb and was successfull which the B17 wasn't      
  Yes, most of this is true, but it also agrees with my statements also. IE the radius of action was LESS than half the Range. ( 380 of 800 miles.) But the part that you are forgetting is that those missions were flown in early 1945 and there were emergency air fields in France where they could have landed since the mission was planned WO Reserves.
 
firstly that is untrue normal reserves were maintained as the majority of the flight was over water, in addition the 380 miles is as the crow flies not the actual route taken
 
oh and as the Aprodities carried less HE than a Tallboy it makes the B17 even less successfull      
  While the Aprodities were out and out failures, no rational person could think that the 20,000+ pounds of HE carried by the stripped B-17 was less explosive power than a 22,000 pound bomb with a 3.5" thick steel case that only had 9,140 pounds of HE inside it. For those of you from Rio Linda, that is much less than half, 45% as much explosive.
 
problem is that the 20000lbs was the double Aphrodite that was to carry this and that was never flown, the ones used actually had less than 10000lbs on board
 
then how do you explain that Lancaster flew further with bomb loads of 4x that of the B17 did on its longest mission?      
  Because those Lancaster missions were both shorter and flown at lower altitudes than the longest B-17 missions which were at a range that the Lancaster could not match empty.
 
this is untrue and not only do you know it but have been shown many time, the longest B17 mission was the fw plant near danzig and danzig was bombed numerous times by Lancaster with a lot bigger bomb loads than 2000lbs
 
The Trondhiem raid, just under 2,200 air miles on the route actually flown, counting climb but not formation and 912 miles great circle distance. While that 912 miles great circle distance is something that it was certainly possible for A Lancaster bomber to fly, forming up a squadron and bombing in unison would be absolutely impossible to duplicate AT THAT TIME! And possibly at any time in the future when improved variants with larger tankage and a maximum range of 2,530 miles were availible, not counting that it would entail the formation/planes flying long distances over enemy held territory both before and after dropping the bombs and the reduction/loss of the emergency fuel reserves for long distances over water. Right!
 
and it was well beyond a B17 ability to drop a significant bomb load, for the LAST TIME the longest B17 mission was DANZIG and was easy reached by Lancasters

As a basic fact, even early F modles with the Tokio Tanks could fly >3,400 miles, witch is 870 miles, or 34.4% farther than the longest range the late modle Lanc was able to fly
.more rubbish the early F models didn't have the Tokyo tanks and those later ones that did didn't have the facility for bombbay tanks yet you are quoting range for an aircraft with both as the Lancaster was flow from Canada without additional tankage then I would say you are wrong again
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/12/2013 6:28:10 PM

no it doesn't as clearly shown the USAAF had twice the number of bombers so would only need a similar  availability rate to achieve the 2:1 nOT AT ALL, THEY DID NOT HAVE "tWICE AS MANY PLANES" ONLY ABOUT 80% MORE. D,BOTBBTCLMA!
  This is a clearly flawed argument! While the number of plane-days coresponds to the bomb tonnage in at least nice round numbers, IE there are the same number of plane-days per ton of bombs dropped for both forces, but in order to do that, the B-17s had to fly twice as many missions per plane-day as the Lancasters.
so you now admit that a B17 had to fly 4 missions to match 1 mission of the Lancaster does not imply that the B17 was better just more numerous
No, we know for a fact that the B-17 flew ~291,000 sorties. We also know that the Lancaster flew about 156,000 missions. So if we devide 608,000 tons by 156,000 sorties we get just under 8,000 pounds per trip. Then if we devide the 640Kt by the 291,000 missions, you get about 4,400 pounds per trip. The RAF-BC lost just over 55,000 crew Killed in Action. The USAAF lost just under 50,000 including fighter and transport pilots. So the B-17 flew less than twice as many missions in less than 10% more bomber-days! That is that there were so many planes availible on so many days and those numbers are less than 10% apart. Because heavy bombers can not fly more than one mission per day, AND the fact that there was LESS than 10% MORE Bomber Days availible to the B-17, It had to be roughly 70% more reliable! Since niether plane could fly in bad weather, that is a wash.
 and as you had suffcient crews to rest one whilst flying the aircraft with the other that allows foe increased sorties, as does short ranged attacks that keep the engine hours down, but of course you have your opinion and mear facts will not effect thatI have addressed those conserns. There is no significant differance in the total miles flown per mission between the RAF and the USAAF! None! The fact that the B-17 had to fly 291,000 missions mean that the engines had more hours running, more start up and stop cycles, more tempurature cycles into colder stratispheric air and twice as many hours to get damaged by enemy fire! Yet they still flew 291K Missions to 156 K Missions! In only 10% more plane days!
 
 

291,000 sorties vs 156,000 sorties. 640,000 tons to 608,000 tons. Almost the same number of Plane days. One of these two records is for a plane that was very reliable and the other that was marginal at best!

 
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