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       4/11/2013 2:56:46 AM
 
ok I will, firstly lets look at what we are comparing to

A B17G (nned to be a G to have Tokyo tanks No, the "Tokyo tanks" started about half way through the F Model.
No whilst some F had tokyo tanks it wasnt standard fit untill the G model
 
 so that they can carry more than 3000lbs) Wrong again. The raw lifting ability of all later variants with the big rudder was in excess of 12,000 pounds of bombs, plus full internal fuel, oil, crew, guns and ammo. actual maximum range mission 1200 miles with 6000lbs,
Without tokyo tanks you needed the bomb bay tanks to raech even as far as Belin and bomb bay tanks meant that the bomb load was reduced to 3000lbs that is a sitorical fact
 
Once again, you ignore the form up, climb to altitude over England and the true range, but instead insist on using the range from an actual mission that did include ALL of those things! no form up no opposition While this may have been the actual range, it is certainly not the longest and it does include the climb to altitude, formation form up and jogs in the flight line to target!
I am stating facts about the actual longest raid performed by B17 during WW2 so your little excusion intoi fantasy doesnt apply, the facts of the mission are as stated so you cannot add fictitous milage to allow for somethiong they didnt do
 
But in the real world it didnt the Lancaster carried more bomber further, this is a fact of history and you cannot avoid it by trying to fiddle the numbers, the Lancaster even flew to the same targets late in the war in daylight and dropped larger loads at similar altitudes.
 
You are absolutely right! The Lancaster never did fly an equivalent mission to the thousands that the B-17s did every day of the week.
In 44/45 they performed the same dayligh missions as the B17, it was the B17 that didnt attack the difficult targets the Lancaster did (and that most of the B17 missions were relatively short ranged affairs

Even on the raids you mention, very late in the war, they flew un-opposed, with heavy fighter escort and at significantly lower altitudes that the B-17s that went on the same missions. The RAF SBSU report also stated they flew in a "Ragged formation resulting in excessive bomb scatter" "that resulted in few bombs, if any on target"!
Strange as reports from the bomb survey I have seen agree with reports from other sources that the RAF accuarcy was far better than the USAAF, in fact in daylight mission supporting the advancing troops the RAF was always the force of choice, the ground troops had a saying
When the germans come over we dive for cover, when the RAF come over the Germans dive for cover and when the USAAF come over we ALL dive for cover, it wasnt for nothing that the USAAF was known as Eisenhower's Luftwaffe
 
So, if who ever posted that copy of the Lancaster flight manual will repost that link, I'll compute a real flight plan, using those numbers and charts from the book, because I know that what they show will not come close to what the equivalent B-17 could do!
you are a joke you caim something then when challenged you hide behind not knowing where the source is, but we know how appaling your memory is and yet you expect us to belive you remembered it correctly? and we also know your maths is somewhat lacking

  I was hoping that you would step up and give it a try instead of just blowing more smoke up our collective arses, but it felt so good that I was reluctant to stop.
 
Excuse me? but as your reputation here and on every other site you have frequented is for being a braggart and a liar, someone who makes up information to support incorrect assumptions and someone who cannot grasp that they are wrong despite EVERY BOBY telling he so, as you accuse me of blowing smoke? ok find some one on here that will support you in that claim, go on find someone or retract that slander
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/11/2013 3:11:29 AM
 
Not a FATAL problem, it is ONLy you that claims it was sufficient to cause the loss and yet you have provided no evidence and cannot explain why this is no evidence of it occurring http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uvEo6q280x0
That was caused by an incorrect feedback loop in the Compute control flight systems and is about as realvent to this disscussion as the Titantic hitting the Iceburg

No its you clutching at strwas on a disproved argument and their is no evidence that either causes brought sown the plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uvEo6q280x0
 
That was caused by an incorrect feedback loop in the Compute control flight systems and is about as realvent to this disscussion as the Titantic hitting the Iceburg

Which of the two parts of this problem are you talking about? PIO, or aft excursion of the CoG? One is caused by the pilot, or more exactly a lack of pilot skills which depending on the severity, may be beyond any pilot's skills and the other is beyond all pilot input!
and the fact that neither is a likely cause is beyond your skill to understand
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uvEo6q280x0
  That was caused by an incorrect feedback loop in the Compute control flight systems and is about as realvent to this disscussion as the Titantic hitting the Iceburg
  
No, this statement shows that you have no clue aboutt how any of this works, or how severe it can be!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uvEo6q280x0
  
excuse me but if that had happened at altitude they the result would have been different (no ground to hit at 18000ft)

  I haven't, I admit it, that is why I asked those that do, and thjier opinion is that you
are taking total trash
  Give me the name of any pilot who thinks that Aft CoG excursion is survivable in all but the most extreme cases! Like the one in the film!
That wasnt a CoG excursion but a control loop failure
 
This was not even that bad. So get that pilot to make his statement on the record here, because after reading his last bit about 4X the weight not being beyond the limits, I KNOW he is an idiot, or a fiction made up by you!
no you are the idiot who thinks that it would cause failure, do you believe that if a dozen passengers on a 747 all moved to the tail from the nose the 747 would crash?
1000lbs not only would not cause a crah but is also well within the limits of the trim tabs to control

 (hinted at yes numerous times but never provided) and as this is being rubbished by professionals I will go with their opinion over yours
much aft CoG excursion does he think it would take to make the average Lancaster un-flyable?
I dont know as there is not enough evidence on the Web to make an estimate, all that can be said is that it is unlikely that any convenntional load was enough to cause it
 
 .
Name this person! His claim, if he is not made up out of whole cloth, is absolutely insane! No plane ever made or flown can survive an AFT CoG excursion of 4000 pounds 13 feet behind the CoG Datum of a 37,000 pounds EEW aircraft!!! None, never ever in history! So get this "Pilot" to post in his own words this malarkey, or never post it again as your own BS!
 
What? you post yopur continous BS that is unsupported are unsupportabled throwing idiot figures around and endlessly repeating them even after they have been disproved and you have the nerve to post the above!
 
I have stated my case and as you are incapable of providing any counter other than to get offensive it will be the last on this subject until you can provide a shread of evidence to support your BS
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/11/2013 3:12:30 AM
And how does an issue with the DH relate to  a non issue with the Lancaster? it doesnt it is you clutching at straws
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/11/2013 4:58:10 PM

are taking total trash
  Give me the name of any pilot who thinks that Aft CoG excursion is survivable in all but the most extreme cases! Like the one in the film!
That wasnt a CoG excursion but a control loop failure
That does not answer the question! Give me the name of ANY pilot who thinks an AFT CoG excursion of that magnatude is survivable!
This was not even that bad. So get that pilot to make his statement on the record here, because after reading his last bit about 4X the weight not being beyond the limits, I KNOW he is an idiot, or a fiction made up by you!
no you are the idiot who thinks that it would cause failure, do you believe that if a dozen passengers on a 747 all moved to the tail from the nose the 747 would crash? Not at all, but if 1/36th of the total mass of the inflight 747's worth of passengers did that, yes, the plane would be lost and there is nothing the pilot(s) could do! So name the pilot stupid enough to make that statement, or admit you made him up out of whole cloth! 
1000lbs not only would not cause a crah but is also well within the limits of the trim tabs to control
Now I know for absolutely certain that you are stuffed like a Christmas Turkey with you know what!
 much aft CoG excursion does he think it would take to make the average Lancaster un-flyable?
I dont know as there is not enough evidence on the Web to make an estimate, all that can be said is that it is unlikely that any convenntional load was enough to cause it
Wow, I was able to find several instances when much lighter loads in proportion to that discussed brought down planes! My favorite is the one where the pilot leaves his suite jacket laying on the horizontal stab while doing the walk around and then tries to take off! His suite jacket! Look it up to see what happened!
 .
Name this person! His claim, if he is not made up out of whole cloth, is absolutely insane! No plane ever made or flown can survive an AFT CoG excursion of 4000 pounds 13 feet behind the CoG Datum of a 37,000 pounds EEW aircraft!!! None, never ever in history! So get this "Pilot" to post in his own words this malarkey, or never post it again as your own BS!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/11/2013 5:00:26 PM


And how does an issue with the DH relate to  a non issue with the Lancaster? it doesnt it is you clutching at straws
Only because the instantaneous destruction of the DH-108 was caused by the same problem! IE, aft CoG and, or PIO! That is all!


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/13/2013 12:33:35 AM
Only an utter fool would so claim this stupidity.

The DH 108 was a pure delta with not any independent pitch control aside from ailerons.   



And how does an issue with the DH relate to  a non issue with the Lancaster? it doesnt it is you clutching at straws

Only because the instantaneous destruction of the DH-108 was caused by the same problem! IE, aft CoG and, or PIO! That is
all!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/13/2013 11:31:53 AM

Only an utter fool would so claim this stupidity.

The DH 108 was a pure delta with not any independent pitch control aside from ailerons.   
The DH-108 was not a "Delta" winged Aircraft at all. It was technically a "Swept wing", tailless, with rudder on boom aircraft. It did not use "Ailerons" for pitch control, it used conventional "Elevators" to drive the pitching moment, which when combined with the Ailerons  to form "elevons" which surfaces then provided both control functions, either independently, or combined.
And you call me stupid????



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/13/2013 6:12:33 PM
Since it was lost to compressibility issues (the wings tore off) and not center of gravity issues, I can call your utter nonsense, what it is stupid and foolish. 
 
Also you misuse terms.The elevon IS a specialized airleron hinged to move either in tandem or opposition. 
 
Only an utter fool would so claim this stupidity.

The DH 108 was a pure delta with not any independent pitch control aside from ailerons.   
The DH-108 was not a "Delta" winged Aircraft at all. It was technically a "Swept wing", tailless, with rudder on boom aircraft. It did not use "Ailerons" for pitch control, it used conventional "Elevators" to drive the pitching moment, which when combined with the Ailerons  to form "elevons" which surfaces then provided both control functions, either independently, or combined.
And you call me stupid????



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/15/2013 10:04:20 PM


 
Also you misuse terms.The elevon IS a specialized airleron hinged to move either in tandem or opposition. 
Again, your ignorance is showing! Elevons and Ailerons are hinged to swing up and down in IDENTICLE FASSION to each other! The trick is how they are moved, not how they are hinged! To provide "Pitch Control" they move up and down together. To provide "Roll Control" they are moved up and down differentially! Note that because they must perform BOTH functions at the same time, they provide less of either force when commanded to both roll and pitch at the same time! That is less roll and less pitch at the same time than if either in put was done by itself.
 
 

Only an utter fool would so claim this stupidity.

The DH 108 was a pure delta with not any independent pitch control aside from ailerons.   
The DH-108 was not a "Delta" winged Aircraft at all. It was technically a "Swept wing", tailless, with rudder on boom aircraft. It did not use "Ailerons" for pitch control, it used conventional "Elevators" to drive the pitching moment, which when combined with the Ailerons  to form "elevons" which surfaces then provided both control functions, either independently, or combined.
And you call me stupid????









 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/16/2013 1:11:59 AM
I laugh at you. In order to roll a plane. the airlerons either increase or decrease lift. in tandem wings in opposite force vectors. Elevators PUSH together down or up as they disrupt air flow. Elevons can do EITHER You  are so ignorant, you cannot explain this in simple English, and when you try to correct me you get it so fundamentally wrong? If this does not prove that you do not know how planes work...
 
All I can say is that you cannot be serious or taken seriously. you must write a joke? Nobody is that utterly foolish?




 
Also you misuse terms.The elevon IS a specialized airleron hinged to move either in tandem or opposition. 
Again, your ignorance is showing! Elevons and Ailerons are hinged to swing up and down in IDENTICLE FASSION to each other! The trick is how they are moved, not how they are hinged! To provide "Pitch Control" they move up and down together. To provide "Roll Control" they are moved up and down differentially! Note that because they must perform BOTH functions at the same time, they provide less of either force when commanded to both roll and pitch at the same time! That is less roll and less pitch at the same time than if either in put was done by itself.
 
 

Only an utter fool would so claim this stupidity.

The DH 108 was a pure delta with not any independent pitch control aside from ailerons.   
The DH-108 was not a "Delta" winged Aircraft at all. It was technically a "Swept wing", tailless, with rudder on boom aircraft. It did not use "Ailerons" for pitch control, it used conventional "Elevators" to drive the pitching moment, which when combined with the Ailerons  to form "elevons" which surfaces then provided both control functions, either independently, or combined.
And you call me stupid????









 
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