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       3/23/2013 8:39:36 AM
YES! Absolutely! The wing's natural pivoting moment is down in front. The elevator is there to stop that. Therefore it has very much more power to lift the nose, and or cause a pitch up change in attitude. That is why it is no big deal to oppose a pitch down moment. 
Then explain why CofG tolerance is greater to the rear than to the nose?

yet you claim it wasn't?    if up pitch was that critical do you not think that anything that would effect it was not checked? and why if up pitch was fatal and down pitch easy controllable did the design team not ensure that any bomb hangs would be neutral or nose down?
     Then you tell me why they built a 33' long bomb bay?    
because it was designed as being able carry torpedoes as well as bombs, also long bays are were the standard on British bombers, so CofG changes were hardly a new thing
 
But this is where you fail again! the next to last row can be controlled,
Yes but it would have been NOTICABLE just like the fuel tank on a P51 yet they allowed an extra row beyond it! to use your expression "get real"
Were you able to find the blue prints with the bomb rack inspection port in the floor? I thought not!
I didn't even try, actual Lancaster blueprints are not afaik available online, and the artist exploded drawings of the Lancasters are far to big a scale to show them however they are there as many stated in documents and personnel recollections

oh now convenient that all the crew that survived Lancaster loses all came from ones that didn't suffer this problem and none from aircraft that did Sounds reasonable to me!
your joking right?
 Given the possible and sudden PIO and near instantainious destruction of the plane caused by excessive aft CoG, it sounds entirely possible to me!
then you are thick
How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.
  I can explain that those crews were flying into the worst flak concentrations of the war, against the best night fighter  force of the war
that we have disproved
Really? Just when was that supposed to have happened?
so you discount it yet have no idea and obviously not bothered to check
 
That is B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and ALL of the smaller Medium Bombers too!
talk sense
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were bomber crews!
Does not look like official US figures agree by almost 100% more
 
 You base this on the fact that the USAAF lost about the same number of planes, but those losses were 80% less dangerous to their crews because the RAF's targets were so much more dangerous? RIGHT! This is silly on it's face!
what that attacking heavy defended targets results in bigger losses? why is that silly? or that getting out of any plane in the middle of the night is more difficult? or that unlike daytime a lack of reference points means that crews were often unaware that they were crashing? or that the far closer ranges of night fighter cannon attacts resulted in more sudden losses or that flak hitting a bomber with 14000lbs of HE and Incendaries can cause a bigger explosion than one carrying 4000lbs on mainly HE
 
When a RAF Heavy went down, less than 11% of the crew escaped, IIRC! What kind of catastrophic event could cause thye plane to explode so quickly that no-one gets out? 
Shows how little of the night air war Shooter actually understands
! The Criticle dimention was the size of the Horizontal Stab and Elevator and their distance from the CoG! So you have missed this entirely!
No you have provided NO evidence that this was a issue only your feeling that it should be, so I will go with the designers and history which at this time does not seem to regard your idea as even worth considering

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/23/2013 8:58:39 AM
The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.
The Barrel Roll is a positive G maneuver! How does this demonstrate ability to survive a NEGITIVE G maneuver?
and why does it matter? you say this as if the b17 could survive a negative G manoeuvre, face it the Lancaster could survive manoeuvres that would a have pulled wings off a B17 

 
really, from this you get that, I have read reports of B17 popping wing rivets on  normal bombing take offs but I don't assume that its means structural failure, this just shows your bias, you immediately assume its means the worst, despite the fact that the bomber in question managed to avoid the night fighter drop it bombs and return to base      
-Yes! Exactly! If there are rivits being poped by excessive loading, the plane is close to destruction!   
OK then that meas that B17 should never have flown as their are reports of them popping rivets on takeoff 
Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
Why not? It is a positive G maneuver and almost any polane CAN do it!!!    
you are a joke, if you honestly believe this you are showing exactly how little you know, not all aircraft can perform a barrel roll and for a big aircraft to do it is unusual and is a sign of a good design which is why it is so noteworthy
 
  
again you refer to something that whilst might have been possible was NEVER done and was not even considered possible by all who flew B17s,     
Read about the first Demo flight of the 707 Boeing Airlinner!
sorry when did the B17 become the 707? here was I thinking that the 707 was a jet from decades later where is your source for a B17 roll? have you seen what a Vulcan can do? yet I am not claiming that because a Vulcan can do something that the Lancaster could do it

So on one side we have documented evidence of it happening and on the other we have YOU, no contest with your support then it makes it certain that it was not possible to roll a B17
No, on one side we have your oppinion and on the other we have real live pilots who have barrel rolled real live air craft!
yet most 707 pilots refused to believe that someone could roll one until shown the film, most pilots of heavies are more aware of what can and cannot be done, I have a relation who flies C130s for the RAF and I will trust his word over yours

Sorry I made a stupid assumption, I assumed you were talking about BOMBERs not fighters, Can you please provide a test report of a BOMBER that states the controls as anything but satisfactory,        
Try the early models of the B-17!  
What the ones that report controls as being borderline for acceptance?      
then I decided to look up the reports on the spitfire just in case, and well what do you know they state that the controls were Satisfactory! again shooter making a claim that he had not researched and hoped would back his statement.        
In what I am told by many here is the BEST book on the Spitfire, which by the way has many quotes of test pilots, etc... uses words like "Superlitive" "Excellent" "Great" and "Extraordinary"! Right!   
Source! because this is a lie, Alex Henshaw who tested more Spitfires than anybody else never used such word in OFFICAL documents, he did say these things in interviews and in conversations (and even his book) but if you read his actual test reports he states "satisfactory"
 
     Go ask any pilot about what kind of maneuver a barrel roll is!    
 
I did, My relation who flies C130, his view was that in a 1940s vintage aircraft a barrel roll was pushing the envelope and would certainly be banned if in peacetime because of the stress it exerts on the airframe, to do it with a full bomb load he reckons would require a something special in both plane and pilot
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/23/2013 12:09:58 PM
I just showed you the difference between an aileron roll and a barrel roll, and this is the nonsense you write?
 
I expected you not to know much, but this exceeds the depth of your ignorance I expected.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1103/dogman/aileronbarrelroll.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1103/dogman/aileronbarrelroll.jpg" width="655" height="543" alt="" />

Note the vector force change on the wings and how important tail pitch up/down control to nose point is?



Absolutely! Note that to do this maneuver, you have to have back force on the stick and positive "G" on the plane as a whole! That is why it is the stunt of choise for large planes like the Lancaster, B-47 and 707 Airlinner!

This is what Shooter does not understand. 
Everything he says about the 'barrel roll' is... fundamentally  wrong. 
No, this is absolute proof that niether of you two knows what you are arguing about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_roll

A barrel roll is an aerial maneuver in which an aeroplane makes a complete rotation on its longitudinal axis while following a helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. It is sometimes described as "a combination of a loop and a roll". The g-forceis kept positive(but not constant) on the object throughout the maneuver, commonly between 2–3 g, and no less than 0.5 g.[1]

Aviation

In aviation, the maneuver includes a constant variation of aircraft attitude (nose orientation) in all three axes, and at the midpoint (top) of the roll, the aircraft is flying inverted, with the nose pointing at roughly a right angle to the general path of flight. The term "barrel roll" is frequently used, incorrectly, to refer to any roll by an airplane (see aileron roll). Most often, a barrel roll refers to a helical roll around the relative forward motion of the aircraft, in which the nose ends up pointed along the flight path. It is performed by doing a combination of a roll and a loop.[2]

Outside of aerobatic competition, the Boeing 367-80 and Concorde prototype were barrel rolled during testing. The Boeing 367-80 (707) was rolled twice by Tex Johnston in an unauthorized maneuver while demonstrating the aircraft to the International Air Transport Association over Lake Washington, Seattle. Concorde was rolled multiple times by her test pilots, including Jean Franchi and Brian Walpole.[3]Avro test pilot Roly Falk rolled the Avro Vulcan during a display at the 1955 Farnborough airshow, gaining height during the manoeuvre.[4]


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 6:37:52 PM

YES! Absolutely! The wing's natural pivoting moment is down in front. The elevator is there to stop that. Therefore it has very much more power to lift the nose, and or cause a pitch up change in attitude. That is why it is no big deal to oppose a pitch down moment. On the other hand, getting the CoG to the right place is checked and verrified long before the plane ever starts to turn a prop. 
yet you claim it wasn't?    if up pitch was that critical do you not think that anything that would effect it was not checked? and why if up pitch was fatal and down pitch easy controllable did the design team not ensure that any bomb hangs would be neutral or nose down?
Just a guess? I think they did not know it would be a problem, just like they thought their torpedos would work. I think that untill there were 100,000 bomb shackles in service, they had no idea that a few of them would fail.
RAF losses were so high because of the targets they were assigned, easy targets = low loses, hard targets = high loses
Just taking the numbers of planes lost, not where they got lost, why did so few crew escape RAF-BC Bombers? 
the B26 had the lowest losses of all uSAAF aircraft, why because they were used against tactical targets and heavily escorted, when the actually met resistance they suffered horribly
One more time. Seperating the loss rates from the mix and only considering how many crew escaped from each damaged plane; Why does the RAF-BC come off so far behind? 
   
Before they try to fly it! in conditions it could reasonably expect to encounter That is also the point! That is NOT a reasonable expectation!
but it is you yourself admitted in an earlier post that bomb hangs are common and to be expected so having a bomb hang on the last row would have been anticipated yet their is no record of it being highlighted as an issue
You are obviously confused about the time line of the problem! First, they design and build the plane, then they test the CoG of the finished aircraft, after that, they fix the CoG if required. Only then do they test fly it. After they test fly it and it meets expectations do they order it into production. Only after that, when 100,000 bomb shackles are in use do they find out there is a problem!
 
NO!, the criticle dimention was NOT the LoA of the bomb bay! The Criticle dimention was the size of the Horizontal Stab and Elevator and their distance from the CoG! So you have missed this entirely!
so what you are saying is not that the hang of a bomb was an issue but that it had insufficient vertical control to counter the hung bomb, Pretty much hits the nail on the head! again so such reports exist and the CofG of the Shackleton was approximately in the same place so any turning force would be similar yet they used the same control surfacesAfter looking at the Wiki page on the Lancaster that has a overlay of the three British Heavies, I find it incredulus that you could make this claim. While the three planes have similar looks, even to the twin end plate rudders on two of them, they are no more alike than a VW and Mercedies Benz!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 6:57:02 PM

I didn't even try, actual Lancaster blueprints are not afaik available online, and the artist exploded drawings of the Lancasters are far to big a scale to show them however they are there as many stated in documents and personnel recollections
A link to some would be nice, just one would be acceptable.
Given the possible and sudden PIO and near instantainious destruction of the plane caused by excessive aft CoG, it sounds entirely possible to me!
then you are thick

How else can you explain the >55,000 RAF-BC losses? Lancasters alone accounted for more deaths than the entire USAAF heavy bomber's crew losses.

I can explain that those crews were flying into the worst flak concentrations of the war, against the best night fighter  force of the war So you claim that night fighters are as dangerous as day fighters? RIGHT! So dangerous that 1/8th as many Nighyt Fighters are more dangerous that eight times as many day fighters who have no trouble seeing what they are shooting at! If this was even remotely so, why didn't the RAF-BC choose to operate in the broad day light where it would have been so much safer? RIGHT!
That is B-17s, B-24s, B-29s and ALL of the smaller Medium Bombers too!
talk sense
I am, the entire USAAF lost about 52,000 crewmen. Of that 52K, a little under half were bomber crews!
 
You base this on the fact that the USAAF lost about the same number of planes, but those losses were 80% less dangerous to their crews because the RAF's targets were so much more dangerous? RIGHT! This is silly on it's face!
 
When a RAF Heavy went down, less than 11% of the crew escaped, IIRC! What kind of catastrophic event could cause the plane to explode so quickly that no-one gets out? 
Shows how little of the night air war Shooter actually understands
I would counter with the idea that the Lancaster has two problems. 1. They flew so much lower than American heavies during the day that they took much higher losses to flack. 2. It was a much less robust plane and succumbed to much less damage than even the B-24! As a seperate issue, it only had the very porest escape system.
The Criticle dimention was the size of the Horizontal Stab and Elevator and their distance from the CoG! So you have missed this entirely!
No you have provided NO evidence that this was a issue only your feeling that it should be, so I will go with the designers and history which at this time does not seem to regard your idea as even worth considering

Fine by me. Why don't you come up with a theory that explains why the RAF lost so many more crew and planes per sortie than the USAAF? 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 7:17:48 PM

The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.
The Barrel Roll is a positive G maneuver! How does this demonstrate ability to survive a NEGITIVE G maneuver?
and why does it matter? you say this as if the b17 could survive a negative G manoeuvre, face it the Lancaster could survive manoeuvres that would a have pulled wings off a B17 
Maybe! I do not know what the exact load limits of either plane is! What I do know is that no Lancaster RTB'd with half as much damage to it as any of a hundred B-17s and a few B-24s!
Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
Why not? It is a positive G maneuver and almost any polane CAN do it!!!    
you are a joke, if you honestly believe this you are showing exactly how little you know, not all aircraft can perform a barrel roll and for a big aircraft to do it is unusual and is a sign of a good design which is why it is so noteworthy
No, it is you who do not have a clue! Did you even look at the article I re-posted about exactly what and how a barrel roll is done!
 
Read about the first Demo flight of the 707 Boeing Airlinner!
sorry when did the B17 become the 707? here was I thinking that the 707 was a jet from decades later where is your source for a B17 roll? have you seen what a Vulcan can do? yet I am not claiming that because a Vulcan can do something that the Lancaster could do it

So on one side we have documented evidence of it happening and on the other we have YOU, no contest with your support then it makes it certain that it was not possible to roll a B17
No, on one side we have your oppinion and on the other we have real live pilots who have barrel rolled real live air craft!
yet most 707 pilots refused to believe that someone could roll one until shown the film, most pilots of heavies are more aware of what can and cannot be done, I have a relation who flies C130s for the RAF and I will trust his word over yours
I know someone who has done a barrel roll in a C-130! I have seen the film/video! Ask your pilot of C-130s about that!
 
Source! because this is a lie, Alex Henshaw who tested more Spitfires than anybody else never used such word in OFFICAL documents, he did say these things in interviews and in conversations (and even his book) but if you read his actual test reports he states "satisfactory"
Nobody ever stated those things about Lancs in press conferances, why not? Go ask any pilot about what kind of maneuver a barrel roll is!
I did, My relation who flies C130, his view was that in a 1940s vintage aircraft a barrel roll was pushing the envelope and would certainly be banned if in peacetime because of the stress it exerts on the airframe, to do it with a full bomb load he reckons would require a something special in both plane and pilot
Maybe! I suspect that the Pilot's Manual for the B-17 was a great deal more detailed than that of the Lancaster given to the first crews to fly it in service! Boeing is famous for their documentation. I've never heard of a Pilot's Manual for an early Lancaster published before it was put into service!
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 7:18:09 PM

The Lancaster was barrel rolled at slow speed during a test flight.
The Barrel Roll is a positive G maneuver! How does this demonstrate ability to survive a NEGITIVE G maneuver?
and why does it matter? you say this as if the b17 could survive a negative G manoeuvre, face it the Lancaster could survive manoeuvres that would a have pulled wings off a B17 
Maybe! I do not know what the exact load limits of either plane is! What I do know is that no Lancaster RTB'd with half as much damage to it as any of a hundred B-17s and a few B-24s!
Note that the Flying Fortress cannot be safely barrel rolled with a bomb load?
Why not? It is a positive G maneuver and almost any polane CAN do it!!!    
you are a joke, if you honestly believe this you are showing exactly how little you know, not all aircraft can perform a barrel roll and for a big aircraft to do it is unusual and is a sign of a good design which is why it is so noteworthy
No, it is you who do not have a clue! Did you even look at the article I re-posted about exactly what and how a barrel roll is done!
 
Read about the first Demo flight of the 707 Boeing Airlinner!
sorry when did the B17 become the 707? here was I thinking that the 707 was a jet from decades later where is your source for a B17 roll? have you seen what a Vulcan can do? yet I am not claiming that because a Vulcan can do something that the Lancaster could do it

So on one side we have documented evidence of it happening and on the other we have YOU, no contest with your support then it makes it certain that it was not possible to roll a B17
No, on one side we have your oppinion and on the other we have real live pilots who have barrel rolled real live air craft!
yet most 707 pilots refused to believe that someone could roll one until shown the film, most pilots of heavies are more aware of what can and cannot be done, I have a relation who flies C130s for the RAF and I will trust his word over yours
I know someone who has done a barrel roll in a C-130! I have seen the film/video! Ask your pilot of C-130s about that!
 
Source! because this is a lie, Alex Henshaw who tested more Spitfires than anybody else never used such word in OFFICAL documents, he did say these things in interviews and in conversations (and even his book) but if you read his actual test reports he states "satisfactory"
Nobody ever stated those things about Lancs in press conferances, why not? Go ask any pilot about what kind of maneuver a barrel roll is!
I did, My relation who flies C130, his view was that in a 1940s vintage aircraft a barrel roll was pushing the envelope and would certainly be banned if in peacetime because of the stress it exerts on the airframe, to do it with a full bomb load he reckons would require a something special in both plane and pilot
Maybe! I suspect that the Pilot's Manual for the B-17 was a great deal more detailed than that of the Lancaster given to the first crews to fly it in service! Boeing is famous for their documentation. I've never heard of a Pilot's Manual for an early Lancaster published before it was put into service!
 



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/25/2013 8:55:48 PM
Until this one, Shooter, understands force vectors his comments should be ignored.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Simple facts.   3/25/2013 11:44:29 PM

Until this one, Shooter, understands force vectors his comments should be ignored.
The CoG is located ahead of the CoP in order to maximize natual stability. In order to eliminate the consequences of a uncontrolable departure, the front of two aerodynamic surfaces must always stall before the second. In conventional AC this means the CoG must be located slightly ahead of the CoP, thus Conventional AC have a larger portion of the aceptable CoG Range behind the desired Point! The consequences of that are should something cause the CoG to become out of that range, there is no possible way to save the plane short of computer control making continous adjustments to the control surfaces! Note that the F-16, which we all know was the first of these types of plane into service, had to have it's Elevators enlarged to add additional stability to over come a combination of lower polar moment of inertia and slower control responce than expected, after it entered into wide spread service.
Such things happen even now in the current times. Twice! Look up PIO and the F-22. Watch the video. If we can make those kinds of mistakes with the most expencive aircraft system in history, don't you think it just might be possable for Avro to have screwed the pooch way back then?

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/26/2013 12:16:14 AM
But baudet (liar) you just said a few posts ago that ailerons were more crucial to point than elevator control in pitch. You said this. Now you contradict yourself. Further, you non-thinking non-comprehending person, I was NOT talking about center of gravity when I noted force vectors affecting lift.
 
Your incomprehension about aircraft instability is further demonstrated when you confuse control issues with center of gravity placement and assert backwards. 
 
 
I have no use for such ignorance.
 
 
 
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