# Was the De Havilland Mosquito a good fighter?



## rousseau (Dec 18, 2010)

In terms of my understanding, Mosquito original was a light bomber. In same way and some time it used to be as night fighter since radar equipped in its nose. But is it a qualified fighter for air combat?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2010)

If I may suggest that you ask the question in the main sub-forum (WW2 Aviation), so more people would join in?


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2010)

Working on the bais you are talking about air to air day combat it depends what you are facing. Any equivalent single engined fighter would hold all the aces as would a P38. However against most other twin fighters being used in daylight then the Mosquito was very effective.


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2010)

Where was the Mosquito used as a day fighter except over the Bay of Biscay? Late model Ju-88s would be the likely competition in that area.


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2010)

It was only over the Bay of Biscay where it was used as a day fighter and even here care was needed, as for a time Fw 190 were used by the Germans.


----------



## timmy (Dec 19, 2010)

rousseau said:


> In terms of my understanding, Mosquito original was a light bomber. In same way and some time it used to be as night fighter since radar equipped in its nose. But is it a qualified fighter for air combat?



I have always been interested in this subject. It was the fastest aircraft of
the war up to 1944. Great firepower, outstanding range so why was it never
used as a fighter. I always thought that if it was flown like a P47 in dive and
zoom tactics it would have been competitive against single engined fighters
But it seems the RAF didn't think so..

Anyhow it always makes me wonder why Dehavilland took so long to come up 
with the smaller Hornet. Now I'm sure that plane could mix it with the fighters


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2010)

It lacked agility for a day fighter and it had too many blind spots. As mentioned earlier as a fighter it was no match for a single seat or P38 fighter in climb, dive or acceleration.


----------



## rousseau (Dec 19, 2010)

The most strongest rival the Mosquito will facing is He-219 I think, but what Timmy said is right, so remain the only reason to blame the Mosquito wasn't a fighter suitable to a2a combat would be its made of wood possibly?
Notice we have to use same rule to measure different objects, when we discuss Japanese fighter we always say they like tinder or sth inflammable.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 19, 2010)

It isn't what the aircraft is constructed from, actually. The Hurricane was cloth and wood behind the engine area. 

In regards to the Japanese aircraft, the main problem with the Zero and others was that the fuel tanks were not self-sealing. One well placed burst of fire across a Zero's wings and you can let the fire do the rest.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 19, 2010)

rousseau said:


> The most strongest rival the Mosquito will facing is He-219 I think, but what Timmy said is right, so remain the only reason to blame the Mosquito wasn't a fighter suitable to a2a combat would be its made of wood possibly?
> Notice we have to use same rule to measure different objects, when we discuss Japanese fighter we always say they like tinder or sth inflammable.



A few Bf 110 and He 219 were adapted at unit level to hunt the Mosquito at night.

A specially prepared Bf 110 G-4 of II./NJG1, G9 + FS, flown by Oblt. Dietrich Schmidt scored a victory over a 109 Squadron Mosquito IV near Kleve in the early morning of 14th January.

Such victories were rare, most of the time all the Luftwaffe aircrew got was a nasty dose of altitude sickness.


----------



## davebender (Dec 19, 2010)

de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't think so. Prior to 1944 we are talking about the Mosquito FB Mk VI fighter-bomber. Powered by two 1,460hp Merlin 21s or two 1,635hp Merlin 25s. Top speed was supposedly 368 to 384 mph. By 1943 most fighter aircraft could exceed this speed.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 19, 2010)

Didn't Mosquitos fly day intruder missions over Norway and Denmark late in the war? If they did, they may have engaged German single engine fighters.


----------



## Airframes (Dec 19, 2010)

Nope, they flew specific, low-level raids, such as those against Gestapo HQs in Aarhus, Copenhagen and Oslo, with fighter escort from RAF Mustangs. These Mosquitos were the FBVI variant - Fighter Bomber. This type was intended from the outset to be fast, armed strike aircraft, which would at least have some margin of self defence, they were _not_ intended to be fighters in the true sense. The only Mosquitos which were classed as 'fighters' were the Night Fighter variants, with the FBVI etc as Night intruder, and daylight strike, a role in which they were extremely successful, from Norway to the Bay of Biscay, in coastal and shipping strikes, as well as key targets in mainland Europe.


----------



## davebender (Dec 19, 2010)

> Didn't Mosquitos fly day intruder missions over Norway and Denmark


I'm glad you brought that up.
Bob Braham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bob Braham was the top scoring RAF Mosquito pilot. On June 25, 1944 his Mosquito FBVI was shot down by a German Fw-190 over Denmark. A good example as to what happens when a Mosquito pilot gets cocky and decides to dogfight with day fighters.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 19, 2010)

Airframes and davebender,

Thank you for the clarification and correcting my mistake. I also didn't know about Bob Braham being shot down on a day mission.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 19, 2010)

The RAF didn’t think that the Mosquito was particularly good as a day fighter.

The AFDU did tactical trials of the F/B Mk VI in Mar-1943. The aircraft was fitted with Merlin 23 engines, allowing +14 lbs in combat boost, so was a little down on the speed and climb that can be expected of a Merlin 25 equipped example, but the results generally stand. 

The aircraft was found to be nice to fly, with well balanced controls and effective ailerons. However, the inertial weight on the controls meant that “forces over 3G are very difficult to impose and detract from the general manoeuvrability as a fighter”. It was found to be tail heavy in a dive. 

Elevator control at 450 mph IAS was “very heavy” but aileron control was “quite light”.

The aircraft was flown against the Spitfire V, IX and XII and the Typhoon IB.

Low altitude

It was found to be outpaced at low altitude by all fighters except the Spitfire Mk V. All S/E fighters were able to throw the Mosquito off their tails and get onto its tail themselves. The Mosquito was found to be unable to disengage whenever a S/E fighter got into position behind it. 

However, its evasion was considered “particularly good”, making it difficult for fighters to get easy shooting solutions. The aircraft was easy to corkscrew and could weave easily, even at high speeds.

The exception to being out-turned and out-manoeuvred was against a Typhoon flown by “an inexperienced pilot”. However, "when the Typhoon, which has a turning circle similar to the FW 190, was well flown, it could make matters almost as difficult for the Mosquito as the Spitfire”.

Medium altitude:

Similar results to low altitude tests. There was a better chance for the Mosquito to escape though. It accelerated in a slight dive faster than the S/E fighters. Time to max speed from fast cruise was two minutes. The Mossie could lead the fighters on a stern chase and sometimes avoid combat outright using a slight dive. Best speed was at about 9,000 ft.

High altitude

The manoeuvrability of the Mossie was much diminished over 25,000 ft and aileron control “feels comparatively mushy”.


Enemy fighters

It was also flown against a captured 190A (probably an A3) and a 109G2.

The aircraft was found to be around about as fast as the enemy fighters near sea level, faster than both aircraft at 9,000 ft but slower at altitude, particularly against the 109 which was much superior over 17,000 ft. The Mossie was 700 ft/sec slower in initial climb than the 190A, and 1000 ft/sec slower than the 109G2 in climb. This deficiency increased with altitude. 

Overall assessment

It was judged that the Mossie was not a good day fighter against S/E types. If in contact with enemy fighters it was “unable to go on the offensive and must content itself with defensive tactics”.

It was not judged to be expected to behave as a fighter against enemy S/E types. 

It was considered “only able to be offensive against enemy bomber type aircraft”. It “cannot take on enemy single seater fighters effectively”.

It was also considered to be a poor aircraft for bomber escort and would “probably be a liability to a bomber force”.


Single seater

Interestingly, the AFDU converted their Mossie to a single seater and took out about 1,500 lbs of equipment from it (dropping all up weight to 18,800 lbs) and removed the inertia weight from the controls. The results improved the climb and manoeuvrability of the aircraft. Rate of climb shot up to over 3,000 ft/min for the first few thousand feet. 

The consideration was that while the aircraft was “unable to be really effective against a Spitfire” in slow turns a lighter smaller version of the Mossie (ie the Hornet) could probably out-turn the Typhoon and “certainly” out-climb it. It was considered that it could “probably deal well with the typhoon of FW 190 class of fighter, especially by out-climbing them.”


With Merlin 25s:

The ADFU later tested a Mk VI with Merlin 25s against a Spitfire XII. It was found that the aircraft could outrun the Mk XII at ground level. Even if the Mk XII was 800 yards behind and 1,000 ft above, the Merlin 25 outfitted Mosquito VI could accelerate from a fast cruise and pull away.

The RoC was also significantly improved, starting at 3,800 ft/min. The aircraft could go from fast cruise at sea-level into a 2,000 ft cloud base in about 30 seconds. 

It was considered able to accelerate away from the majority of attackers. From a fast cruise top speed was hit in about 1 1/2 minutes (about 30 seconds better than with Merlin 23s).


----------



## Airframes (Dec 19, 2010)

Gp. Cpt. Pickard was also shot down and killed, by two Fw190s, during the daylight attack on the Amiens prison, in February 1944.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2010)

Thanks for the info, Jabberwocky.


----------



## timmy (Dec 20, 2010)

davebender said:


> de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> I don't think so. Prior to 1944 we are talking about the Mosquito FB Mk VI fighter-bomber. Powered by two 1,460hp Merlin 21s or two 1,635hp Merlin 25s. Top speed was supposedly 368 to 384 mph. By 1943 most fighter aircraft could exceed this speed.



My Bad

Meant to say fastest in the RAF...well it was according to this article 

de Havilland Mosquito


----------



## Glider (Dec 20, 2010)

Very interesting. Love to see a comparison of the Merlin 25 aircraft with the P38, let alone the single seat Mosquito.
Its easy to see why the Luftwaffe had a hard time intercepting these aircraft. If the Mosquito saw them coming, then they had a devils own job catching them.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 21, 2010)

davebender said:


> I'm glad you brought that up.
> Bob Braham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Bob Braham was the top scoring RAF Mosquito pilot. On June 25, 1944 his Mosquito FBVI was shot down by a German Fw-190 over Denmark. A good example as to what happens when a Mosquito pilot gets cocky and decides to dogfight with day fighters.



I believe Braham claimed two 190s shot down in similar circumstance on earlier intruder sorties.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2010)

mossies like all te fighterrswere hard presswd when faced by a competent pilot in a se fighter in daylight.

nevertheless they enjoyed considerable success against se fighters mostly at night, but also by day.i recall they shot down something like 600 me109s and or FW190s from 1943 to the end of the war, for the loss of just over a hundred of their own. I dont have the source for that information just at hand, but will try and dig it out if I can remeber where I saw it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 21, 2010)

How did the Mossie compare to similar twin engine aircraft like the Me 110/210/410 twins and the Ju88.


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2010)

It appears to me the Me-410 and Mosquito were evenly matched as both light bombers and for daylight aerial combat. The Me-410 was not used as a night fighter so that issue is moot.

The Ju-88G probably holds the all time world record for number of aerial victories at night. That doesn't prove it superior to night fighter versions of the Mosquito but I wouldn't bet against the world record holder.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2010)

As a day fighter the Ju88 was outclassed by the Mosquito. Over the Bay of Biscay which is the one place they met over a period of time, the Ju88's were ordered not to engage the Mosquito unless there was no alternative.

The above is quoted in either The Bloody Biscay or Conflict over the Bay.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 21, 2010)

parsifal said:


> mossies like all te fighterrswere hard presswd when faced by a competent pilot in a se fighter in daylight.
> 
> nevertheless they enjoyed considerable success against se fighters mostly at night, but also by day.i recall they shot down something like 600 me109s and or FW190s from 1943 to the end of the war, for the loss of just over a hundred of their own. I dont have the source for that information just at hand, but will try and dig it out if I can remeber where I saw it.




From my reading N/F Mosquitos probably only achieved about 800-900 kills from 1943 to the end of the war, the majority of which were against twin engine types.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2010)

Jabberwocky said:


> From my reading N/F Mosquitos probably only achieved about 800-900 kills from 1943 to the end of the war, the majority of which were against twin engine types.



Be fair, most of the German bombers and Nightfighters were twin engined. You can only shoot down what is sent up against you.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 21, 2010)

Only 800-900? Seems to be a decent number to me.


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

davebender said:


> I'm glad you brought that up.
> Bob Braham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Bob Braham was the top scoring RAF Mosquito pilot. On June 25, 1944 his Mosquito FBVI was shot down by a German Fw-190 over Denmark. A good example as to what happens when a Mosquito pilot gets cocky and decides to dogfight with day fighters.



Dave Bender 

The date 'Bob' Braham DSO Two Bars, DFC Two Bars, AFC was shot down was significant (compare to the normandy landings) He was not shot down by A Fw190 he ditched his plane after a combat with 2 Fw 190s at least one of which was piloted by a recognised expert and ace (Robert Spreckles). The link you provided says Braham downed a Fw 190 so what is your opinion of that individual combat "cocky german idiot in decrepit FW190 tries to better supperior twin engined bomber" In 15 Ranger missions he downed 9 enemy aircraft. Ranger missions were specifically to keep pressure on the LW to stop them being redeployed to Normandy. If any USAF Mustang pilot shot down 9 enemy planes on 15 missions then was forced to ditch after being jumped by 2 FW 190 he would be a respected ace but being a Canadian flying in the RAF he gets the handle "cocky mosquito pilot". 

The LW in Normandy were outnumbered by about 11 to one in aircraft and 3 to 1 in single engined fighters but still the LW managed to down allied planes on a ratio of two to one . 'Bob' Braham DSO Two Bars, DFC Two Bars, AFC in his converted bomber did a damned sight better than most allied airmen in kills.

This thread is about the mosquito as a fighter, the mosquito was never a fighter it was a bomber 'Bob' Braham DSO Two Bars, DFC Two Bars, AFC did not take part in a mission to prove or disprove a preposition on a thread and I am damned sure he was much more aware of a mosquitos strengths and weaknesses than any contributor to this or any other forum.

The mosquito was a bomber acting in a fighter bomber role, at its introduction it could out run any allied and german fighter (no question). Later a german fighter may have been faster depending on the plane but intercepting a plane which is only 50mph slower requires a huge amount of airplanes. When you compare performance compare a single engined bomber (mustang spitfire typhoon) with a significant bomb to a mosquito carrying its bombs internally. One mosquito is equal to a flight of single engined fighter bombers which the LW couldnt ignore....THAT IS WHAT COCKY Bob Braham was doing, tying down the LW. 

If you are going to quote wiki, quote it dont miss quote it and completely mis represent the situation 'Bob' Braham DSO Two Bars, DFC Two Bars, AFC was one of the most decorated airmen in the RAF/RCAF he deserves better than "cocky mosquito pilot". Since the consensus of forum experts has proved the mosquito to be crap in daylight combat 9 kills in 15 missions makes him a flying genius.

I note that no one has challenged your comments and one poster has even congratulated you for enlightening the situation.

You cant even read or quote a wiki page, what are your credentials to call 'Bob' Braham DSO Two Bars, DFC Two Bars, AFC a cocky mosquito pilot?


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

davebender said:


> de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> I don't think so. Prior to 1944 we are talking about the Mosquito FB Mk VI fighter-bomber. Powered by two 1,460hp Merlin 21s or two 1,635hp Merlin 25s. Top speed was supposedly 368 to 384 mph. By 1943 most fighter aircraft could exceed this speed.



The biggest speed problem for allied fighters at lowish altitude was the V1 bomber the only planes capable of catching a V1 in level flight were the Tempest and Meteor The tempest got the highest kills and the mosquito the second.......if a mosquito only did 384 MPH how was that?


quote wiki
The Tempest fleet was built up to over 100 aircraft by September. Also, P-51 Mustangs and Griffon-engined Spitfire XIVs were tuned to make them almost fast enough, and during the short summer nights the Tempests shared defensive duty with de Havilland Mosquitoes. There was no need for airborne radar; at night the V-1's engine could be heard from 16 km (9.9 mi) away or more, and the exhaust plume was visible from a long distance. Wing Commander Roland Beamont had the 20 mm cannon on his Tempest adjusted to converge at 300 yd (270 m) ahead. This was so successful that all other aircraft in 150 Wing were thus modified.

In daylight, V-1 chases were chaotic and often unsuccessful until a special defence zone was declared between London and the coast, in which only the fastest fighters were permitted. Between June and 5 September 1944, the handful of 150 Wing Tempests shot down 638 flying bombs, with No. 3 Squadron RAF alone claiming 305. One Tempest pilot, Squadron Leader Joseph Berry, of No. 501 (Tempest) Squadron, shot down 59 V-1s, and Wing Commander Beamont destroyed 31.

Next most successful were the Mosquito (623 victories),[15] Spitfire XIV (303), and Mustang (232). All other types combined added 158. Even though it was not fully operational, the jet-powered Gloster Meteor was rushed into service with No. 616 Squadron RAF to fight the V-1s. It had ample speed but its cannons were prone to jamming, and it shot down only 13 V-1s.[16] These were the first air combats between two jet-powered aircraft in history, although that achievement is usually ascribed to the battles between manned jet aircraft during the Korea War in the fall of 1950.

In late 1944 a radar-equipped Vickers Wellington bomber was modified for use by the RAF's Fighter Interception Unit as what would now be described as an Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft.[17] It operated at an altitude of some 4,000 feet (1,200 m) over the North Sea to control Mosquito fighters intercepting He 111s flying from Dutch airbases for airborne launches of the V-1.


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 21, 2010)

From when the mosquito was designed it was proposed by its designers that it would be 30MPH faster than a spitfire, based on what was known then about thrust drag and wetted area. This turned out to be true it was faster than a spitfire and at introduction all LW fighters. After introduction its speed is just a function of what engines were fitted and it was only ever a fast agile bomber, in its fighter bomber configuration 4 cannon and 4 MGs firing on one axis got everyones respect. The mosquito was never developed as a fighter which IMO was an oversight but as it was it was a formidable plane.


It has been posted that Mosquitos had escorts on missions, ALL bombers had escorts for the simple reason that a bomber (whatever it is) needs an escort because you cannot perform a precision bombing run with even one enemy interceptor in the region, a bomb run is a perfect target.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 21, 2010)

Because not all Mosquitoes are alike. 

The top level speeds of the aircraft varied greatly, with equipment, fit, engine type, external stores and even the type of paint job. Early F II did around 358 mph (ducted exhausts, matt paint, Merlin 21s) to 370 mph (multi stubs, revised radar antenna, gloss paint). Mid war bomber versions (Merlin 21/23s, standard paint, multi stub ejectors) improved this to 385 mph. Very late in the war the final versions could top 435 mph (multi stub ejectors, Merlin 100 series engines, stores out, tanks dropped)

The Mosquito had exclusive province against V1's at night. That's why they scored such a large number of V1 kills. 

Against V1's the aircraft had the boost of the engines increased, typically raised from +18 lbs to +21/23 lbs and fuel was switched to 150 octane to allow higher boost levels. The RAF also used NoX injection, delivering an additional 150 hp per engine, in some instances.

Anti ‘Diver’ Mosquitoes typically had strengthened noses and additional armour for the engines (because the V1 was a flying bomb and tended to spray nasty framgements all over the place), the .303s were removed (cutting weight and drag), night exhaust shrouds were removed in favour of multi-stub exhausts, radar aerials removed and the gaps in the aircraft frame were waxed and smoothed. These modifications could add anwhere from 10-25 mph in extra speed.

Most anti-Diver Mosquitoes were typically late productions FB Mk VI, NF Mk XII/XVIIs with Merlin 23/25s or NF Mk XIXs with Merlin 25s. 

At the typical operating heights of a V1 (2000/3000 ft), these aircraft had top speeds of 330-345 mph.

Boosting the engines and the other modifications added another 20-30 mph for the aircraft, putting top speed at anywhere from 340-375 mph at these altitudes.

Mosquitoes would typically patrol at high cruise speeds at 5000-6000 ft. When a V1 was spotted – easy to do thanks to the exhaust plumes – they would go to full throttle and enter a gentle dive to overhaul to bomb. Mosquitoes would typically open up at 400 yards, double the distance they engaged fighters at, as there was a great fear of fragments from the flying bombs.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 22, 2010)

My db shows about 1360 air-to-air claims by Mossies of all types, exclusive of V-1s. I've about 90 claims for 190s, around 35 for 109s.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 22, 2010)

cocky pilot said:


> It has been posted that Mosquitos had escorts on missions, ALL bombers had escorts for the simple reason that a bomber (whatever it is) needs an escort because you cannot perform a precision bombing run with even one enemy interceptor in the region, a bomb run is a perfect target.



Cocky,

Really liked your post about Braham - I agree entirely. However, the above statement needs some clarification because the earliest Mosquito missions were unarmed bomber variants flown by 105 and 139 Sqns in low-level intruder missions during 1942. These missions lacked any fighter escort but they were highly successful (see "Low Attack" by John deL Wooldridge). 

I know this thread is about the Mossie as a fighter not as a bomber but. let's face it, how many other aircraft designed as bombers achieved what the Mossie did? The simple fact that the Mossie in FB role could stand a fighting chance of inflicting losses on the Luftwaffe's fighters is testimony to the quality of the design. No, it wasn't as in the straight fighter role as an aircraft dedicated for that particular mission in the late-war period, but give me a Mossie over any of its contemporaries for the role it WAS designed to fulfill.


----------



## davebender (Dec 22, 2010)

> Mosquito had exclusive province against V1's at night.


I expect Mosquito night fighters attacked the He-111H22 launch aircraft. They would have a tough time catching a 400mph V1 missle flying @2,500 feet.


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2010)

They did catch some of the V1's at night, numbers vary as to how many were shot down but the highest I have found was 471.

The Royal Air Force - History


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 22, 2010)

"Aces High Vol 2" gives a total in excess of 500 V1s shot down by Mosquito units. It doesn't break out how many of these were shot down at night although only one unit, 605 Sqn, was not night-fighter equipped (it had FBMkVIs) which accounted for 71 V1s - take from that what you will. Some 23 pilots became "Diver" aces on Mosquitos. 

One wonders whether Davebender ever has anything positive to say about a British-designed aircraft!


----------



## davebender (Dec 22, 2010)

> One wonders whether Davebender ever has anything positive to say about a British-designed aircraft!


Why? The Mosquito is one of my favorite WWII era aircraft. A great light bomber and night fighter. IMO the RAF should have given the Mosquito program a higher priority.

The Mosquito was not a good day fighter nor should anyone expect it to be. It wasn't designed for that role. That's what Spitfires were for.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 22, 2010)

davebender said:


> I expect Mosquito night fighters attacked the He-111H22 launch aircraft. They would have a tough time catching a 400mph V1 missle flying @2,500 feet.



The release height of the V1 from the He111s of KH54 was 1500'.

It was found that the Beaufighter was the better a/c as it handled better at lower speeds than the Mosquito. (the He111 climbed to release altitude at 110mph and released at 150mph) The Mosquito units raised a stink and the Beaus were pulled off He111/V1 interceptions.

To combat the He111/V1s, the British set up possibly the first AWACs. The Wellington would orbit about 30mi. off the Dutch coast in a race course pattern with the n/f in trail. When a target was found the Wellington would then vector the n/f to the target where the n/f's radar would take over the intercept.

see FlyPast April 1987


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2010)

cocky pilot said:


> From when the mosquito was designed *it was proposed by its designers that it would be 30MPH faster than a spitfire*, based on what was known then about thrust drag and wetted area. This turned out to be true it was faster than a spitfire and at introduction all LW fighters. After introduction its speed is just a function of what engines were fitted and it was only ever a fast agile bomber, in its fighter bomber configuration 4 cannon and 4 MGs firing on one axis got everyones respect. The mosquito was never developed as a fighter which IMO was an oversight but as it was it was a formidable plane.
> 
> 
> *It has been posted that Mosquitos had escorts on missions,* ALL bombers had escorts for the simple reason that a bomber (whatever it is) needs an escort because you cannot perform a precision bombing run with even one enemy interceptor in the region, a bomb run is a perfect target.



Just curious - what's your source for that???


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2010)

Milosh said:


> The release height of the V1 from the He111s of KH54 was 1500'.
> 
> It was found that the Beaufighter was the better a/c as it handled better at lower speeds than the Mosquito. (the He111 climbed to release altitude at 110mph and released at 150mph) The Mosquito units raised a stink and the Beaus were pulled off He111/V1 interceptions.
> 
> ...



The Wellington AWACS was tried but was quickly withdrawn as it didn't work due to a lack of range on the Radar. A second attempt was undertaken suing a B24 but that had the same problem


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 22, 2010)

davebender said:


> Why? The Mosquito is one of my favorite WWII era aircraft.



Simply based on your comments about Braham and the ability of the Mosquito to intercept V1s.


----------



## FlexiBull (Dec 22, 2010)

Cocky Pilot

"ALL bombers had escorts for the simple reason that a bomber (whatever it is) needs an escort because you cannot perform a precision bombing run with even one enemy interceptor in the region, a bomb run is a perfect target."

Big word ALL. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

Way off line with this one chum. As a gut feeling I would hazard a guess that more raids by bombers went ahead WITHOUT fighter escort than with! And as far as having an escort over the target area, that was a luxury only afforded to a few.

Don't remember many fighter escorts for the RAF night raids over Europe from '39 through to '45.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 22, 2010)

Glider said:


> The Wellington AWACS was tried but was quickly withdrawn as it didn't work due to a lack of range on the Radar. A second attempt was undertaken suing a B24 but that had the same problem



Not according to the article. It was because the air launchings ended on Jan 13 1945.

correction: was KG53 not KG54.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 22, 2010)

cocky pilot said:


> From when the mosquito was designed it was proposed by its designers that it would be 30MPH faster than a spitfire, based on what was known then about thrust drag and wetted area. This turned out to be true it was faster than a spitfire and at introduction all LW fighters. After introduction its speed is just a function of what engines were fitted and it was only ever a fast agile bomber, in its fighter bomber configuration 4 cannon and 4 MGs firing on one axis got everyones respect. The mosquito was never developed as a fighter which IMO was an oversight but as it was it was a formidable plane.
> 
> 
> It has been posted that Mosquitos had escorts on missions, ALL bombers had escorts for the simple reason that a bomber (whatever it is) needs an escort because you cannot perform a precision bombing run with even one enemy interceptor in the region, a bomb run is a perfect target.



4 October 1944
German U-boats had been forced out of the Biscay ports following the Allied liberation of France and Bergen was one of several Norwegian ports now being used as the forward operating bases for the U-boats. The pens at Bergen were being enlarged with an influx of German technicians and a large labour force. 93 Halifaxes and 47 Lancasters of Nos 6 and 8 Groups were dispatched to attack Bergen, most of the aircraft being allocated to the pens but 14 Halifaxes and 6 Lancasters were ordered to bomb individual U-boats known to be moored in the harbour. *12 Mosquitos of No 100 Group acted as a long-range fighter escort. *The raid appeared to be successful and only 1 Lancaster was lost. 7 bombs hit the U-boat pens, causing little structural damage because of the thickness of the concrete roof, but the electrical-wiring system in the pens was completely put out of action. Nearby ship-repair yards were seriously damaged. 3 U-boats were damaged by the bombing but they did not sink. 3 other small ships were hit; two of them sank and the third the German auxiliary Schwabenland, had to be put in dry dock for repair.

RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

Check through that site you will find many instances of the Mossie as fighter escort. and most Mossie FB missions were escorted by.....other Mossies.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 22, 2010)

davebender said:


> I expect Mosquito night fighters attacked the He-111H22 launch aircraft. They would have a tough time catching a 400mph V1 missle flying @2,500 feet.



They did shoot down a number of launch aircraft, once the launching sites in France had been overr-run. The standard tactics against the V-1s fired from France was a dive, though the first one shot down by a Mosquito came after the Mossie turned through 180' to chase it.

Sharp and Bowyer say 470-odd shot down by the seven "full-time" anti-diver squadrons, another 150 or so by Mosquitos from other squadrons.


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2010)

I admit that it was my understanding that when the raids were escorted, Mustangs and Typhoons were the normal escorts on Mosquito bomber missions.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 22, 2010)

Glider said:


> I admit that it was my understanding that when the raids were escorted, Mustangs and Typhoons were the normal escorts on Mosquito bomber missions.



They were but if you check that site, there were a few - more than afew - instances where Mossies escorted Mossies. There was even one mission where Blenheim fighters escorted Blenheim bombers. Didn't work out so well.


----------



## davebender (Dec 22, 2010)

Now that really highlights German resource availability vs British resource availability during the final 6 months of the war.

V1 cruise missiles cost 5,090 RM ($2,036) each. I wonder what seven Mosquito squadrons cost?


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 22, 2010)

davebender said:


> Now that really highlights German resource availability vs British resource availability during the final 6 months of the war.
> 
> V1 cruise missiles cost 5,090 RM ($2,036) each. I wonder what seven Mosquito squadrons cost?



And that was only the Mosquitos. There were also Spitfires, Tempests etc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2010)

davebender said:


> Now that really highlights German resource availability vs British resource availability during the final 6 months of the war.
> 
> V1 cruise missiles cost 5,090 RM ($2,036) each. I wonder what seven Mosquito squadrons cost?



How many of the Mosquitos were still functioning at the end of the campaign?

How many Mosquitos were lost compared to the 470 or so V-1s they shot down?

How much did the infrastructure to launch the V-1s cost (which couldn't be used for anything else, unlike an airfield that could host an assortment of aircraft.) 

While it did cost more to defend against the V-1 than it did to build and launch them the difference isn't what is suggested by Mr. Benders post.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2010)

Sorry, replied to the wrong post....I was responding to the following

_Now that really highlights German resource availability vs British resource availability during the final 6 months of the war.

V1 cruise missiles cost 5,090 RM ($2,036) each. I wonder what seven Mosquito squadrons cost? '_



Err no...this does not include the vast sums of money essentially wasted on the germwans in their rocket development program. I have the figures at home, and the costs were astronomical......and out of all proportion to any likley damage they may have been able to inflict.

By comparison, the mosquito essntially used non strategic materials, and off the shelf technologies to produce a true war winning peice of machinery.....the situation is exactly the opposite to the position you are taking....right up until the end of the war, the germans commanded superior resources to anything the british could engage.....it was simply that the british made far better use of their resources, and employed them in strategies suited to Britians war situation....


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> By comparison, the mosquito essntially used non strategic materials, and off the shelf technologies to produce a true war winning peice of machinery.



The wood for the Mossie still had to be imported from North and South America. It wasnt homegrown and anyway Britain was desperately short of wood and had no suitable forests to produce the materials needed. I am not quite sure of the definition of strategic material but it wasnt something that was lying about and not being used. 

Still a brilliant use of available resources, making a set of concrete moulds and a load of woodworking tools (oversimplification I know) has to be easier than building or importing rolling mills, stamping presses, drills and jigs.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 23, 2010)

".... V1 _cruise missiles_".

That's a bit of a stretch isn't it Dave? 

As for resource allocation ... "5,090 RM ($2,036) each" + countless *slaves* working in caves.

MM


----------



## davebender (Dec 23, 2010)

> vast sums of money essentially wasted on the germwans in their rocket development program


What does the German rocket program have to do with the pulsejet powered V1 cruise missile?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2010)

same deal....the germans basically wasted their research and development programs in many cases, on projects that would bear no tangible the foreseeable future. the V1s, and the V-2 programs were within those categories...if ever there was a total waste of money, these have to be considered prime examples


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2010)

Glider said:


> I admit that it was my understanding that when the raids were escorted, Mustangs and Typhoons were the normal escorts on Mosquito bomber missions.





Njaco said:


> They were but if you check that site, there were a few - more than afew - instances where Mossies escorted Mossies. There was even one mission where Blenheim fighters escorted Blenheim bombers. Didn't work out so well.


I think what we're looking at here is not so much as a traditional escort in the case of fighters escorting heavy bombers and protecting a combat box, but rather dedicated aircraft providing "top cover" for fighter bombers going in on a tactical operation. In Vietnam you had F-4s escorting F-4s as well providing cover while the F-4s loaded with bombs struck targets.

Blenheims escorting Blenheims!?!?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 23, 2010)

FLYBOYJ
Blenheims escorting Blenheims!?!? :eeeeek:[/QUOTE said:


> Doesn't that simply provide more targets for a turkey shoot?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Doesn't that simply provide more targets for a turkey shoot?


----------



## riacrato (Dec 23, 2010)

parsifal said:


> same deal....the germans basically wasted their research and development programs in many cases, on projects that would bear no tangible the foreseeable future. the V1s, and the V-2 programs were within those categories...if ever there was a total waste of money, these have to be considered prime examples


V-1 and V-2 are about as much the same deal as battlecruisers and submarines.


----------



## davebender (Dec 23, 2010)

That is a scary thought. The raid commander must have been desperate.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2010)

riacrato said:


> V-1 and V-2 are about as much the same deal as battlecruisers and submarines.



Read the post....its got nothing to do with similar technologies. its about wasted resources on pointless and useless research projects, at least in terms of delivering any tangible benefits to the germans for the foreseeable future. In 1944, for example, the germans spent RM 12,000,000,000 on R&D for the Luftwafdrfe alone, and more than half of this was spent on the experiment5al rocket and jet programs.

Put all the spin on this issue that you like, it cannot, and does not alter the basic truth....the germans managed their available resources very poorly, and at the forefront of that profligate waste are projects like the terror weapons.


----------



## davebender (Dec 23, 2010)

The Me-262 jet program was a success. Just a few months too late to matter. But that was rather difficult to predict when RLM began funding jet engine development during the summer of 1939.

Not that this has anything to do with the de Havilland Mosquito.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2010)

davebender said:


> The Me-262 jet program was a success. Just a few months too late to matter. But that was rather difficult to predict when RLM began funding jet engine development during the summer of 1939.
> 
> Not that this has anything to do with the de Havilland Mosquito.



Ther4e are a lot of people who would not agree with that. Despite the huge amounts of money spent on its design and development, as you say it6 arrived too late to make any difference. However, even this is a stretch of the truth. It suffered from poor engine life, and had other problems that reduced its operational readiness rate to virtually zero....big white elephant is a term that seems appropriate.

its relevant to the mosquito debate, because issue was raised about the cost effectiveness of the mosquito. if ever there was a case of the pott calling the kettle black, this is one of those occasions


----------



## Njaco (Dec 23, 2010)

davebender said:


> That is a scary thought. The raid commander must have been desperate.



1 August 1940

The task to bomb the airfield near Cherbourg was given to RAF No. 56 Sqd (Coastal Command) based at Thorney Island using Blenheim IV bombers, and these would be escorted by RAF No. 236 Sqd (*Long range Blenheim fighters*). Ground crews loaded up the thirteen Blenheim bombers with the required bomb loads while ten Blenheim fighters were prepared and placed at readiness. The Blenheims of RAF No.236 Sqd were now taking off. The Blenheim bombers of RAF No.56 Sqd had taken off a little earlier and the Blenheim fighters were to rendezvous with them just prior to the French coast and strafe the Cherbourg aerodrome after the bombs were dropped by the bombers. The forecast given to the crews was that conditions would be fine with good visibility. The Blenheim fighter escort was to take off in three waves, with five minutes separating each wave and the last wave of four was to stay clear of the target area and stay off the French coast covering the withdrawal of the others. But all was not to go according to plan. The forecasters had got it all wrong as heavy low cloud covered the entire French coast around Cherbourg. The leading three Blenheims led by F/Lt R.M. Power missed the Cherbourg Peninsular completely and overtook the Blenheims of RAF No.56 Sqd and flew deeper into German-held territory before deciding to return to base. A break in the cloud appeared just as the Blenheims of RAF No.56 Sqd neared the coast. They were on course and the aerodrome on the peninsula could be seen and they commenced their bombing run. Not far behind were the second wave of three Blenheim fighters led by S/L P.E. Drew. RAF No. 56 Sqd managed to drop their bombs successfully causing considerable damage amidst heavy flak and machine gun fire from aerodrome gun emplacements. S/L Drew led with Australian P/O B.M. McDonough and Sgt R.C. Smith at about 50-70 feet strafing the airfield and gun batteries. Many of the batteries were hit, fires started to follow explosions as hangars and buildings were hit, aircraft in the open were either destroyed or damaged. For the RAF the mission seemed to be a success. But it was short lived. Some of the Blenheim bombers of RAF No. 56 Sqd were hit as they pulled out of their bombing run. Sgt Smith's aircraft received a number of hits as his low level strafing run sustained further damage to the aerodrome. He pulled out on completion, turned and headed back across the Channel losing contact with the others. One of the Blenheims of RAF No. 56 Sqd failed to return. It was piloted by the squadron commanding officer Wing Commander Weld-Smith. Two Blenheims of RAF No.236 Sqd also failed to return.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 24, 2010)

"... the Germans managed their available resources very poorly, and at the forefront of that profligate waste are projects like the terror weapons."

The rocket and buzz bomb projects were in Albert Speer's management 'portfolio' . The Me 262 was NOT. It was in Milsch's domain.

Speer like the 'V Weapon' program because it was POLITICAL - with mystic appeal to the German population - and very suited to domestic propaganda. (Source: Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction)

Doesn't THAT tell you something about Nazis priorities? 

MM


----------



## Airframes (Dec 24, 2010)

Good info on the Blenheim raid Chris. But one thing - 56 Squadron was a fighter squadron in Fighter Command, equipped with Hurricanes at the time.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 24, 2010)

Well, well, some sources!! Thanks Terry!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 24, 2010)

Dyslexic I am!!!! Found it. Supposed to be RAF No. 59 Squadron.

The Battle of Britain - 1940 / August 1st - August 10th 1940


----------



## Airframes (Dec 24, 2010)

Ah, that makes more sense! 59 Sqn were an Army Co-operation unit (not Coastal Command), mainly involved in reconnaissance, but from July to October 1940 were tasked with bombing operations on Channel ports etc.
Dyslexia lures KO !


----------



## riacrato (Dec 25, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Read the post....its got nothing to do with similar technologies. its about wasted resources on pointless and useless research projects, at least in terms of delivering any tangible benefits to the germans for the foreseeable future. In 1944, for example, the germans spent RM 12,000,000,000 on R&D for the Luftwafdrfe alone, and more than half of this was spent on the experiment5al rocket and jet programs.
> 
> Put all the spin on this issue that you like, it cannot, and does not alter the basic truth....the germans managed their available resources very poorly, and at the forefront of that profligate waste are projects like the terror weapons.


And you just link the Fi 103 to a huge figure without having any clue whatsoever how much the program in question actually costs. You just automatically assume it must've been a huge waste because after all it's German. Yeah, some researcher you are. The means employed for countering Fi 103 attacks very likely exceed the costs for that program itself.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 25, 2010)

riacrato said:


> And you just link the Fi 103 to a huge figure without having any clue whatsoever how much the program in question actually costs. You just automatically assume it must've been a huge waste because after all it's German. Yeah, some researcher you are. The means employed for countering Fi 103 attacks very likely exceed the costs for that program itself.



i have some idea of its cost, but feel free to elaborate if you have any additional information. As to my ability to research, what basis do you have for saying that. As to the statement about me assuming it to be a failure just because it was german....not true, there were many German successes at efficiency, like the MP-38. If you have information that suggests the Germans were more efficient in their production processes, and in their expenditure of resources please feel free to make them known. But i think it more than a little hypocritical to argue my post lacks detail, and then make statements that the costs of the allied defenc were greater than the cost of the Fi103 program without any substantiation. Please post your sources, or at least reasoning for making that statement, if you are going to criticise my lack of detail.

Now, claearly you want facts and figures on which to base your assessment....why was the V-1 an inherent failure, and what makes me think its development cost was high?

Research on the basic technology began as far back as 1928, and the Luftwaffe began serious research and development in 1936. A second development team was added in 1940, and a third in late 1942. A new facility was built for its research and development, as part of the peenmunde complex.

New factories were built to facilitate its construction. more than 24000 were built in 1944 and about 10000 in 1945. 

For this outlay, the V-1s managed to kill 46000 people, and render homeless about another 130000. There were almost no military casualties. 

Each V-1 required 550 manhours, approximately, and basic production costs were RM 5090, exclusive of transport, construction of launching facilities, fuel, or any other operational cost. A full flak regiment was used to protect the launching sites, for example...

Now, of those 34000 missiles, about 22000 were launched, and about 5000 actually hit a target. A rough estimate of accuracy is therefore, about 25%. So each hit by these weapons , exclusive of operational costs was RM20500 per hit. This cost also does not include the research and development costs. Your right that i dont have a full figure on what the R&D costs were, however just one aspect can be reported, and shows this element to be a significant factor in the final costings.....approximately 4000 were expended in development, which in basic costs alone, add RM20000000 to the production costs.

Still confident that it was a cost effective program?????

A P-51 cost $60000 and was had an average service life of about 10 months. It required a pilot, which added say $30000 to the cost of the aircraft. It might undertake say 4 sorties per month (if anyone has better figures, would love to hear). So a P-51 with its pilot, might be good for around 30-40 missions, or a cost per mission, in terms of unit cost, and like our V-1 assessment, exclusinve of operational and deployment costs, of around $2500 per mision. Now lets get that straight....your attempting to argue that a mission cost of RM20500+ is more cost effective than a mission cost of $2500 (on the assumption that the cost of operating the FC aircraft intercepting the doodlebugs were similar to operating a p-51...). I beg to differ. I think the cost of the German terror campaigns were much higher than the cost of a conventional fixed wing campaign. If we wanted to turn this around and try and estimate just how many airacraft the germans sacrificed to have these weapons, we arrive at a figure of around 8000 aircraft, give or take. Personally if I was in the german camp, i would rather have had another 8000 aircraft than the V-1s in my inventory....

Now, to your last statement about how it cost more for the defences than it would cost for the attacking apparatus. On this issue, I can agree with....except the logic is hopelessly flawed. Whereas the V-1 program had but one purpose and was produced from scratch for that purpose, at enromous cost to the germans, the British defences were put in place to meet a multitude of threats, and possessed an inbuilt flexibility to meet those threats. Mosquitoes attacking V-1s in the defence of London today, might do just that on day1. on days 2 they might interecept a force of german bombers attempting the same stunt, on Day 3 they might escort a force of bombers over germany, and so on. moreover the defences in Southeasst England did not represent any special outlay, or any denial of the forces over the frontlines. They were there to defend south east eangland, and they did that. The doodlebug attacks did not add, substantially to that standiung cost. As you should be able to see, therefore, your reason detre inarguing the higher cost in thye defences is inherently flawed


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 25, 2010)

Parsifal I think your casualty figures for the V-Weapon Blitz might be wrong a couple of sources I have give V-1 total casualties in Britain at approx 22,000 of which deaths were approx 6,200. V-2 casualty figures are approx 9,500 of which deaths were approx 2,750.

Oops just read your post again and I realise now you werent specifying British casualties.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 25, 2010)

Zaloga puts much lower production costs for the V-1 (~350 hours), so likely your number is from the beginning of the program. Second: Where's the maintenance costs for maintaining a squadron of P-51s including staff, airfields, transport logistics, fuel... Where would Germany take another 8000 pilots from. Would the additional planes need more airfields and equally more flak defenses? Where does the figure of 30000 $ training costs for a pilot come from. Where does the number of 20500 RM per hit come from.

Sorry that you don't care about the costs for defense against these attacks, but how do you evaluate a weapon intended to essentially produce terror and havoc without taking that into account? So I'd say your logic is hopelessly flawed. The defenses were not tailored to meet V-1 attacks? Who are you kidding. The thousands of defense sorties would've been flown without the V-1 being present? Yeah right.

I should also add that the US intended to use massive amounts of reverse engineered V-1s in their bombardments of the Japanese main islands as a preperation of the invasion that never happened.

And for the record: I never claimed the program to be particularly cost-effective or having a comparable effect as the Mosquito. But to put it in the same ballpark as the V-2 and claim it to be a huge waste is beyond reality. It had no tactical impact but a significant strategic and psychological one. It enabled germany to keep at least minimal pressure on allied air defenses (who flew about 3-4 sorties for every launch and lost iirc several hundred pilots) at a time of critical resource and manpower situation... for the cost of almost no aircrew lost and much less fuel per ton of ordinance than any conventional bomber campaign they could've fielded. It was all in all probably a zero-sum game.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 25, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Zaloga puts much lower production costs for the V-1, so likely your number is from the beginning of the program. Second: Where's the maintenance costs for maintaining a squadron of P-51s including staff, airfields, transport logistics, fuel... Where would Germany take another 8000 pilots from. Where does the figure of 30000 $ training costs for a pilot come from. Where does the number of 20500 RM per hit come from.
> 
> Sorry that you don't care about the costs for defense against these attacks, but how do you evaluate a weapon intended to essentially produce terror and havoc without taking that into account? So I'd say your logic is hopelessly flawed. The defenses were not tailored to meet V-1 attacks? Who are you kidding. The thousands of defense sorties would've been flown without the V-1 being present? Yeah right.
> 
> I should also add that the US intended to use massive amounts of reverse engineered V-1s in their bombardments of the Japanese main islands as a preperation of the invasion that never happened.



No, my source for production costs, is the average cost..... For items, the initial costs are much greater at the beginning of of a production run than at the end. A prime example of that is the Tiger tank. overall it cost about RM312K per copy, however in 1942 the average cost was closer to RM750K per copy. I suspoect Zaloga may be quoting the end of war costs, when the germans were producing them much more cheaply than at the beginning. 

With regard to maintenance costs, I havent included them for either piece of equipment. I do know that an entire flak regiment was assigned to protect the V-1 launching sites , and an unknown number of technicians. Both fixed wing and unmanned RPVs have maintenance costs. and fom expereience there isnt a lot of difference in the cost of either to each other. We can start to factor these additional costs into the equation, and it might make a difference, but not by much, because both items have a maintainence cost.

Whereas a loss of an aircraft over enemy territory would mean almost certain loss of the pilot as well, the loss of an aircraft over friendly territory can safely assume at least a 50% return rate on the pilot. Provided the Germans acted defensively, and used their aircraft over friendly territory, they might need 2-3000 more pilots, not 8000. Fuel is a problem, but actually less so than trying to provide fuel for 34000 V-1s.


Its not that I dont care for the costs of defence against V-1s, or that my logic is hopelessly flawed, but many of therse costs would have arisen anyway. If the british defences were not flying against V-1s, they would have been flying against other targets, either defensively, or offensively. The difference in the costings for the british force of fixed wing aircraft and the RPV force fielded by the germans is the inherent flexibility of the allied force. Having decided to build these defences they had the mobility and the versatility to be used in any number of ways. General Piles defences for example...many of these were transferred to NW Europe for other duties after the Terror campaign over England fizzled out. Same argument for the airborne components....they could, and were, moved to other battle areas, once the threat passed. The maintenence costs dont really count in this costing, because the forces are there anyway, and can be used for other things. The V-1 force cannot be used for any other purpose, its far too specialized.


As for the claim of reverse engineered V-1s for the US, I have no doubt that they considered this, but like all things, considering is not the same as actually doing. I am not saying, incidentally, that long term, the V-1 concept was not without merit....they are a precursor to modern cruise missiles, but these really were not effective until twenty or thirty years after the war. I dont recall their extensive use during the Korean war for example


----------



## parsifal (Dec 25, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> Parsifal I think your casualty figures for the V-Weapon Blitz might be wrong a couple of sources I have give V-1 total casualties in Britain at approx 22,000 of which deaths were approx 6,200. V-2 casualty figures are approx 9,500 of which deaths were approx 2,750.
> 
> Oops just read your post again and I realise now you werent specifying British casualties.



I just did a quick check of the casualties from the terror campaigns, so you might be right....ther was a report by a US colonel that gave these figures, so they may be too high......


----------



## riacrato (Dec 25, 2010)

parsifal said:


> No, my source for production costs, is the average cost.....


I'd like to see that calculation. Original research or taken from a historian?



> With regard to maintenance costs, I havent included them for either piece of equipment. I do know that an entire flak regiment was assigned to protect the V-1 launching sites , and an unknown number of technicians. Both fixed wing and unmanned RPVs have maintenance costs. and fom expereience there isnt a lot of difference in the cost of either to each other. We can start to factor these additional costs into the equation, and it might make a difference, but not by much, because both items have a maintainence cost.


What experience on unmanned or manned aircraft and their maintenance do you have if I may ask? I find it highly unlikely that costs for the launching sites were anywhere near the costs of keeping airfields for thousands of aircraft operational.



> Whereas a loss of an aircraft over enemy territory would mean almost certain loss of the pilot as well, the loss of an aircraft over friendly territory can safely assume at least a 50% return rate on the pilot. Provided the Germans acted defensively, and used their aircraft over friendly territory, they might need 2-3000 more pilots, not 8000. Fuel is a problem, but actually less so than trying to provide fuel for 34000 V-1s.


 Pulse jet runs on simpler fuel and are by nature among the most efficient engines. And again: Germany didn't have enough trained pilots as is. May I again ask where the 30000 $ figure for pilot training comes from. 



> Its not that I dont care for the costs of defence against V-1s, or that my logic is hopelessly flawed, but many of therse costs would have arisen anyway.


Perhaps, but it's hard to tell how much. Certainly not those of the over 44,000 sorties flown. 



> they would have been flying against other targets, either defensively, or *offensively*


 In other words: against German soil... hmm, might that be a benefit?



> The V-1 force cannot be used for any other purpose, its far too specialized.


It is a flying bomb that costs about 5% the man hours of the contempory Bf 109 (pilot not included) and considering the time in the war had at least that %-age in effect, but likely even more.




> As for the claim of reverse engineered V-1s for the US, I have no doubt that they considered this, but like all things, considering is not the same as actually doing. I am not saying, incidentally, that long term, the V-1 concept was not without merit....they are a precursor to modern cruise missiles, but these really were not effective until twenty or thirty years after the war. I dont recall their extensive use during the Korean war for example


I don't recall assault rifles being or atomic bombs being used either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 25, 2010)

OK folks - this thread is about the Mosquito, not the V-1. We've been off subject for a while now. If you guys want to continue to discuss this, start a V-1 thread.


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just curious - what's your source for that???



The quote about the projected mosquito performance comes from the mosquito home page based on the de havilland design team calculations in fact on the first trial the prototype was 23 MPH faster than a similar engined Spitfire.

Of the famous mosquito raids I have read about all precision bombing had escorts to subdue flak and keep off interceptors where range allowed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

cocky pilot said:


> The quote about the projected mosquito performance comes from the mosquito home page based on the de havilland design team calculations in fact on the first trial the prototype was 23 MPH faster than a similar engined Spitfire.



Is it in a flight manual or in an aircraft specific document? I've worked on programs where design team members came up with tons of calculations but when the aircraft actually flew their calculations turned into toilet paper.


cocky pilot said:


> Of the famous mosquito raids I have read about all precision bombing had escorts to subdue flak and keep off interceptors where range allowed.



Precision Bombing - you bombed from specified altitude without any deviation from heading with one or more aircraft in the formation carrying a high altitude bomb sight (like a Norden). Any specifics on those raids made my Mosquitoes?


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Is it in a flight manual or in an aircraft specific document? I've worked on programs where design team members came up with tons of calculations but when the aircraft actually flew their calculations turned into toilet paper.
> 
> 
> Precision Bombing - you bombed from specified altitude without any deviation from heading with one or more aircraft in the formation carrying a high altitude bomb sight (like a Norden). Any specifics on those raids made my Mosquitoes?



No it was proved as I said in the first flight of the mosquito which was faster than the spitfire in service at the time. The RAF especially Dowding were extremely sceptical of claims that bombers would be faster than fighters he had seen the speed of fighters eclipse bombers many times. The Blenheim when introduced was one of the fastest planes available and within a few years was a sitting duck.


I am talking about precision bombing not concentrated area bombing with 1000 bombers in formation using a norden sight. Precision bombing is hitting an individual building like a gestapo headquarters or a prison wall. Unfortunately it also means precisely bombing a French school when a bomber clips a lamp post hits the school and the SOME of the following planes see the school as the target. Or alternatively precision bombing to put the Berlin radio off air while Mr Goering was giving an address


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

cocky pilot said:


> No it was proved as I said in the first flight of the mosquito which was faster than the spitfire in service at the time. The RAF especially Dowding were extremely sceptical of claims that bombers would be faster than fighters he had seen the speed of fighters eclipse bombers many times. The Blenheim when introduced was one of the fastest planes available and within a few years was a sitting duck.


Show me an actual document and I'll believe this, till then just hear-say...



cocky pilot said:


> I am talking about precision bombing not concentrated area bombing with 1000 bombers in formation using a norden sight. Precision bombing is hitting an individual building like a gestapo headquarters or a prison wall. Unfortunately it also means precisely bombing a French school when a bomber clips a lamp post hits the school and the SOME of the following planes see the school as the target. Or alternatively precision bombing to put the Berlin radio off air while Mr Goering was giving an address



OK - to the USAAF "precision" bombing usually meant "Daylight Precision Bombing."


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Show me an actual document and I'll believe this, till then just hear-say...



This is recorded in Martin Bowman's "de Havilland Mosquito" (Crowood Aviation series) which draws on comparative tests between the Mosquito and the Spit MkII undertaken at Boscombe Down.


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Show me an actual document and I'll believe this, till then just hear-say...
> 
> 
> 
> OK - to the USAAF "precision" bombing usually meant "Daylight Precision Bombing."



Show me an actual document of an allied or german fighter being able to catch a mosquito when it was first introduced. The speed of an airplane is in direct relation to the load it carries and so the debate is interminable. However even if the LW had a speed advantage of 30/40 MPH in their fastest planes that means they could only intercept (possibly) a plane flying over their field because the mosquito is at altitude and the interceptor isnt. By the time the interceptors are at altitude the mosquito is gone and its a long chase with only 30/40 mph advantage. On raids on polands oil fields the mosquitos had to throttle back (ie waste fuel) to keep pace with their slower mustang escorts which couldnt afford to waste fuel.


I will find the link for the mosquitos initial performance


seems buff nut has found it


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Show me an actual document and I'll believe this, till then just hear-say...



Sorry, which part are we talking about? The design part or the flight tests part?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> This is recorded in Martin Bowman's "de Havilland Mosquito" (Crowood Aviation series) which draws on comparative tests between the Mosquito and the Spit MkII undertaken at Boscombe Down.



Thanks for the referance



cocky pilot said:


> Show me an actual document of an allied or german fighter being able to catch a mosquito when it was first introduced.


Well the first operational mission of the Mosquito was in Sept 20, 1941 and my sources show it was a F. Mk I with a top speed of about 390 mph. P-38s and F4Us were already flying faster although a PR prototype reached 439 mph in July 1941, so its going to depend whether you consider the performance of the prototypes. I might add that the He 100 was faster as well, although never placed in full production.



cocky pilot said:


> The speed of an airplane is in direct relation to the load it carries and so the debate is interminable.


Agree...



cocky pilot said:


> However even if the LW had a speed advantage of 30/40 MPH in their fastest planes that means they could only intercept (possibly) a plane flying over their field because the mosquito is at altitude and the interceptor isnt. By the time the interceptors are at altitude the mosquito is gone and its a long chase with only 30/40 mph advantage. On raids on polands oil fields the mosquitos had to throttle back (ie waste fuel) to keep pace with their slower mustang escorts which couldnt afford to waste fuel.


Agree as well


cocky pilot said:


> I will find the link for the mosquitos initial performance



Thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

mhuxt said:


> Sorry, which part are we talking about? The design part or the flight tests part?



see post 40


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 30, 2010)

Flyboy as evidence I introduce the mosquito which performed the most missions over enemy territory F for freddie did over 200 missions and as an aside a TV comentator kenneth wolstenholm .

A Mosquito B.IX also holds the record for the most combat missions flown by an Allied bomber in the Second World War. LR503, known as "F for Freddie" because of its squadron code letters, GB*F, first served with 109 and subsequently 105 Squadron of the RAF. It flew 213 sorties during the war,[12] only to crash on 10 May 1945, two days after VE Day at Calgary airport during the 8th Victory Loan Bond Drive, killing both the pilot Flt. Lt. Maurice Briggs, DSO, DFC, DFM and navigator Fl. Off. John Baker, DFC and Bar.


Wolstenholme started his career as a journalist with a newspaper in Manchester, before joining the RAF, and from 1941 onwards flew 100 missions over Germany and won the DFC and bar as a bomber pilot. Based at RAF Massingham in Norfolk, he flew Blenheims with 107 Sqn, before joining Bomber Command's 8 Group Pathfinders flying Mosquitos.


wolstenholme flew 100 missions over Germany and yet is most remembered for saying "they think it's all over, it is now" In the 1966 soccer cup final


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

cocky pilot said:


> Flyboy as evidence I introduce the mosquito which performed the most missions over enemy territory F for freddie did over 200 missions and as an aside a TV comentator kenneth wolstenholm .
> 
> A Mosquito B.IX also holds the record for the most combat missions flown by an Allied bomber in the Second World War. LR503, known as "F for Freddie" because of its squadron code letters, GB*F, first served with 109 and subsequently 105 Squadron of the RAF. It flew 213 sorties during the war,[12] only to crash on 10 May 1945, two days after VE Day at Calgary airport during the 8th Victory Loan Bond Drive, killing both the pilot Flt. Lt. Maurice Briggs, DSO, DFC, DFM and navigator Fl. Off. John Baker, DFC and Bar.
> 
> ...


All good, but from your original post (post 40)

"it was proposed by its designers that it would be 30MPH faster than a spitfire"

Well if you look at the speed of the FIRST operational Mosquito, that never really happened unless you want to include prototypes into this discussion.

As far as the escorts? More "top cover" than traditional escorts as if escorting a flight of heavy bombers. I think your point was made there.


----------



## cocky pilot (Dec 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All good, but from your original post (post 40)
> 
> "it was proposed by its designers that it would be 30MPH faster than a spitfire"
> 
> ...



I think you will find that mosquitos could out run their opposition, since goerings quotes are allowed for proving the superiority of the P51 then look up goerings quotes about the Mosquito. Of all the planes in the allied armoury that really got him pissed the Mustang and Mosquito were at the forefront but a mosquito could drop a bomb right on his head (or on his radio transmitter). The Mosquito was a bomber in design and was so fast it was used as a PR aircraft by both allied forces. I dont say that other planes wernt also good planes but I do say none could drop a useful bomb load accurately and escape like a mosquito could. Maybe a P38 was slightly faster or a Corsair....but could they drop a 4000IB cookie. A corsair or lightening had a long range, but how far carrying bombs? The corsair was the best at what it did, and so was the mustang but also so was the mosquito they just did different things. It just happens that both the Mustang and Mosquito were especially good at pissing off Mr Goering.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

cocky pilot said:


> I think you will find that mosquitos could out run their opposition, since goerings quotes are allowed for proving the superiority of the P51 then look up goerings quotes about the Mosquito. Of all the planes in the allied armoury that really got him pissed the Mustang and Mosquito were at the forefront but a mosquito could drop a bomb right on his head (or on his radio transmitter). The Mosquito was a bomber in design and was so fast it was used as a PR aircraft by both allied forces. I dont say that other planes wernt also good planes but I do say none could drop a useful bomb load accurately and escape like a mosquito could. Maybe a P38 was slightly faster or a Corsair....but could they drop a 4000IB cookie. A corsair or lightening had a long range, but how far carrying bombs? The corsair was the best at what it did, and so was the mustang but also so was the mosquito they just did different things. It just happens that both the Mustang and Mosquito were especially good at pissing off Mr Goering.



Understand that when a Mosquito was carrying a 4000 pound bomb, it wasn't flying close to 400 mph either.......Or 300 mph... But both the P-51 and Mossie did piss off Goering.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 30, 2010)

Which is a good thing in any right-minded person's book (pissing off Goering, that is)!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Which is a good thing in any right-minded person's book (pissing off Goering, that is)!



Yep - hey, Galland did it well!


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> see post 40



The part you've bolded in post 40 is about the designers' claims for 30 mph faster than a Spit. The figure given in the Mosquito "bible" by Sharp and Bowyer is 20 mph faster than the Spit, presented to the Air Ministry in 1939.

The book later states that by February of 1941, the speed differential over the contemporary Spitfire had been confirmed as around 20 mph, hence the sudden spurt of official interest.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Understand that when a Mosquito was carrying a 4000 pound bomb, it wasn't flying close to 400 mph either.......Or 300 mph... But both the P-51 and Mossie did piss off Goering.



I think you're wrong ther - Mossies didn't fly flat out all the time, same as any other aircraft, but the XVI could do 400 when it needed to. The Air Ministry data card for the XVI gives a max speed at mean weight and 26,000 feet at 397 mph, 406 with no wing bombs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

mhuxt said:


> I think you're wrong ther - Mossies didn't fly flat out all the time, same as any other aircraft, but the XVI could do 400 when it needed to. The Air Ministry data card for the XVI gives a max speed at mean weight and 26,000 feet at 397 mph, 406 with no wing bombs.



And what does it give with a max fuel and internal load at maneuvering speed (Va)? Point being it was was not dropping a 4000 pound bomb at 397 mph.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 31, 2010)

I think I once saw a test report for the XVI which had it at 386 mph at 95% of max takeoff weight.

Which is rather nearer to 400 mph than not close to it.

And rather better than 300 mph, too.

Edit - Sorry, correct word is "close", not "nowhere near."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

mhuxt said:


> I think I once saw a test report for the XVI which had it at 386 mph at 95% of max takeoff weight.


Let's see it - I think I once saw bigfoot, could have been the light.


mhuxt said:


> Which is rather nearer to 400 mph than not close to it.
> 
> And rather better than 300 mph, too.


But will it perform to Va if you have a clue what that is and deliver its bombs at that speed.


mhuxt said:


> Edit - Sorry, correct word is "close", not "nowhere near."


No, in my part of the world it is *nowhere near*. Quit while you're ahead, you don't want to piss me off.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 31, 2010)

Actually, I edited my post precisely to avoid pissing you off. Your post #91 said "Understand that when a Mosquito was carrying a 4000 pound bomb, it wasn't flying close to 400 mph " and I initially mis-quoted you as saying "nowhere near."

It's report A. A.E.E. report 767 J, and I have it upstairs. Will scan and post a link once my family cease their traditional family argument. And the max speed is 383 mph at 95% of takeoff weight.

Will see if I can find what Sharp Bowyer say re: max speed with bomb doors open.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

mhuxt said:


> Actually, I edited my post precisely to avoid pissing you off. Your post #91 said "Understand that when a Mosquito was carrying a 4000 pound bomb, it wasn't flying close to 400 mph " and I initially mis-quoted you as saying "nowhere near."


OK


mhuxt said:


> It's report A. A.E.E. report 767 J, and I have it upstairs. Will scan and post a link once my family cease their traditional family argument. And the max speed is 383 mph at 95% of takeoff weight.


And please see if that is a "normal" take off weight to include max fuel or payload which might include a 4000 lb bomb with less fuel.


mhuxt said:


> Will see if I can find what Sharp Bowyer say re: max speed with bomb doors open.


I'm sure they won't say bomb runs were conducted at 400 mph.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

Max speed bomb bay doors opened - 305 knots. "Va" - 19,000 pounds max...

From the pilot's notes, page 39. Although 305 knots is the max speed you can open the bomb bay doors, I doubt bombs were dropped at that speed.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> OK.



Cheers. Don't wish to incur the Ban Stick but Mossie performance is close to my heart.



FLYBOYJ said:


> And please see if that is a "normal" take off weight to include max fuel or payload which might include a 4000 lb bomb with less fuel.



The 95% of takeoff weight is given as 24,000 lb. According to my computer, that's 25,263 at takeoff. Sharp Bowyer give max all up weight as 25,400. Can calculate up from the B.IX CG table, correcting for the higher tare (14,910 vs 14,464)

I'm sure they won't say bomb runs were conducted at 400 mph.[/QUOTE]

Can't right now, wife threatening me with hot oil as part of traditional family argument.


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Max speed bomb bay doors opened - 305 knots. "Va" - 19,000 pounds max...
> 
> From the pilot's notes, page 39. Although 305 knots is the max speed you can open the bomb bay doors, I doubt bombs were dropped at that speed.



Are those the B.XVI notes, or the FB.VI notes from January 1950? The bomb door speed didn't change from wartime conditions, but FWIW, the dive speed limitations for the FB.VI were higher in wartime.

Anyway, the CG chart for a B.IX (same engines as the XVI) configured for the 4,000 lb. load and two 50-gal wing tanks gives an all-up weight of 24,570. As noted, the XVI tare was 446 lb higher, for a total of 25,016. The 8 Group Mosquitos went off to Berlin in that configuration, so, yes, the test weight is realistic.

Speaking of 8 Group, according to the appendices in Sharp and Bowyer, they recommended a max takeoff weight of 25,200 for the cookie and 597 gallons fuel (indicating 2x50-gal tanks). The Group also gave max speed at 28,500 as 408 mph before the target, 419 mph after leaving it.

Different appendix in same source gives economical cruise speed for the XVI as 320 mph at 25,000 feet, 350 mph at 30,000 feet. So, if it wanted to, the XVI was capable of dropping a cookie from an economical cruise, without having to reduce speed.

All this in an attempt to demonstrate that, in contrast to what's been posted, when a Mosquito was carrying a 4,000 lb bomb, it was capable of getting close to 400 mph, and indeed it cruised in that condition in excess of 300.

Again without wishing to incur the wrath of the Ban Stick, if what was actually meant is that Mosquitos didn't bomb at 400 mph, well, with respect, those are different goalposts from post 91, and not what I originally responded to.

I can try to scan in the A.&A.E.E. report if you/others still wish to see it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 31, 2010)

Would that 305kt limitation be indicated airspeed or true airspeed?


----------



## davebender (Dec 31, 2010)

Wasn't the Spit Mk II being replaced by the Spit Mk V by the time the Mosquito entered service?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

mhuxt said:


> Are those the B.XVI notes, or the FB.VI notes from January 1950? The bomb door speed didn't change from wartime conditions, but FWIW, the dive speed limitations for the FB.VI were higher in wartime.


 Its from a FB 6


mhuxt said:


> Anyway, the CG chart for a B.IX (same engines as the XVI) configured for the 4,000 lb. load and two 50-gal wing tanks gives an all-up weight of 24,570. As noted, the XVI tare was 446 lb higher, for a total of 25,016. The 8 Group Mosquitos went off to Berlin in that configuration, so, yes, the test weight is realistic.
> 
> Speaking of 8 Group, according to the appendices in Sharp and Bowyer, they recommended a max takeoff weight of 25,200 for the cookie and 597 gallons fuel (indicating 2x50-gal tanks). The Group also gave max speed at 28,500 as 408 mph before the target, 419 mph after leaving it.
> 
> ...



You made my point


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Would that 305kt limitation be indicated airspeed or true airspeed?



Indicated - when an airspeed restriction is placed on an aircraft due to a configuration change (lowering flaps, landing gear, opening bomb bay doors) AFAIK its always shown as indicated and some of those speeds have markings on the airspeed indicator.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You made my point



Flyboy,

I think we're confusing 2 separate performance attributes - the speed at which bombs can be dropped and the maximum speed at which an aircraft can fly with a full bomb load. I think mhuxt has done a reasonable job of justifying his statements re the Mosquito's performance in the latter case. 

The requirement to fly straight and level from the IP to the target makes any bomber vulnerable (even today!). The Mosquito's speed would be used either before or after the target run if enemy fighters were encountered. If the Mosquito was engaged during the target run, the pilot would typically abort the attack and seek to defend against the enemy fighter, although I suspect point defence of a target would be left to AAA (ie defending fighters would be warned to keep away for fear of "friendly fire"). Hence the bomb door limiting speed is a different argument from the one mhuxt was supporting with his max speed evidence.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> I think we're confusing 2 separate performance attributes - the speed at which bombs can be dropped and the maximum speed at which an aircraft can fly with a full bomb load. I think mhuxt has done a reasonable job of justifying his statements re the Mosquito's performance in the latter case.
> 
> ...



No, his point is understood and he showed the configuration where the aircraft was able to carry a 4000 pound bomb with fuel load and achieve maximum speed while arriving at target. With that said in that configuration you are limited to what types of maneuvers you are doing and your economical cruise speed is reduced (I should have mentioned that earlier). I believe you're going to find configuration limitations common through out all models.


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Jan 1, 2011)

I love the mossie.. made from wood.. radar had troubles picking it up.. very good for recon and bomb missions.

as a fighter it lacks with a good turn capacity due its structural build.

But with the airspeed build up it could easily engage and zoom out if not successful. 

thats my opinion.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 1, 2011)

"..... as a fighter it lacks with a good turn capacity due its structural build.

But with the airspeed build up it could easily engage and zoom out if not successful. "

A V-1 killer.

MM


----------



## III/JG53_Johann (Jan 1, 2011)

yepz.. as i also posted  But it can zoom away.. but it would be harder to redo the attack if not successful.. you are almost forced to break off.. in bad weather.. you are.. because you will almost lose visual or completely because you have to take enough distance from adversary to make a slow turn.. (because when you tight turn.. you may loose hight advantage and sertain loose airspeed) the two most important things to be a good dogfight pilot.. hight advantage and airspeed. = speed = life.. 

So for me its not a fighter aircraft.. it can do a devastating blow by is armament but not the maneuver capacity of a normal fighter aircraft. (in my opinion).

And dont forget.. when you have a fighter as target.. it can easily outturn the mossie.. so for me it still remains recon, low level bomber -> strafing  AND a goof aircraft to take down enemy bombers..

Shame it lacks a machine gun mounted to the rear of the aircraft. because the navigator in my opinion deserves a gun!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

III/JG53_Johann said:


> yepz.. as i also posted  But it can zoom away.. but it would be harder to redo the attack if not successful.. you are almost forced to break off.. in bad weather.. you are.. because you will almost lose visual or completely because you have to take enough distance from adversary to make a slow turn.. (because when you tight turn.. you may loose hight advantage and sertain loose airspeed) the two most important things to be a good dogfight pilot.. hight advantage and airspeed. = speed = life..
> 
> So for me its not a fighter aircraft.. it can do a devastating blow by is armament but not the maneuver capacity of a normal fighter aircraft. (in my opinion).
> 
> ...



Spoken well from someone who's never flown a REAL airplane.


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 1, 2011)

I have in the past helped various folks model the FB.VI for simulations, in terms of wing area, median chord, weight and moment of various components, power at various altitudes, etc. etc. ad infinitum amen.

Assuming the modelling is at least relatively accurate, the FB.VI turns fairly well, but ain't much at climbing away from said slow turns.

The low-level boys of Coastal Command seem to have been able to give pretty much as good as they got from JG 5, though tangling with SE fighters was something to be avoided wherever possible.

Remember CC had Mossies with Merlin 25s optimised for low-level grunt and tended to go in numbers sufficient to support one another, though that wasn't the case for the armed recce Norwegians of 333 Sqn.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 2, 2011)

I have read many times that the Mossie was hard to detect with radar but surely with 2 big lumps of metal hanging off the wings and 2 big props spinning radar would have been able to spot it. Does anyone have any info on the radar cross section of the Mossie and was it any different in the real world to an equivalent size aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> I have read many times that the Mossie was hard to detect with radar but surely with 2 big lumps of metal hanging off the wings and 2 big props spinning radar would have been able to spot it. Does anyone have any info on the radar cross section of the Mossie and was it any different in the real world to an equivalent size aircraft.



Actually that was true, even with the props turning. The Plywood construction did absorb some of the radar energy. If I'm not mistaken the Mosquito was one of the first aircraft to use an IFF system because of this.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 2, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually that was true, even with the props turning. The Plywood construction did absorb some of the radar energy. If I'm not mistaken the Mosquito was one of the first aircraft to use an IFF system because of this.



I believe IFF was in use by the RAF long before the Mosquito entered service. IIRC fighters during the Battle of Britain were IFF-equipped to enable the radar sites to distinguish between friendly and hostile formations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> I believe IFF was in use by the RAF long before the Mosquito entered service. IIRC fighters during the Battle of Britain were IFF-equipped to enable the radar sites to distinguish between friendly and hostile formations.



I do remember reading somewhere that the Mosquito did not use a "standard" unit because of its low RS. I have some book packs up, I'll have to go through them to find this info.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 2, 2011)

Perhaps the references to the Mosquito carrying the first IFF for the RAF are in fact mixing up the fact that the mosquitoes were the first British aircraft that carried appartatus that could trigger German IFF systems, and thereby trigger the position of the german plan....Wiki had this to say about the issue...

_The world's first IFF, FuG-25a "Erstling" (English: "Debut"), was developed in Germany in 1940. It received the radar frequencies on 125 MHz (Freya radar) and 550-580 MHz (Würzburg radar). To start the identification procedure, the ground operator switched the pulse frequency of his radar from 3,750 Hz to 5,000 Hz. The airborne receiver decoded that and started to transmit its code. Before departure, 2 mechanical keys of 10 bits each were inserted into the shown reader. The IFF transmitter worked on 168 MHz with a power of 400 Watt (PEP). Unfortunately for the Germans, British intelligence were able to build their own IFF transmitter, called "Perfectos". When mounted into a RAF Mosquito, it could trigger the FuG-25 and therefore betrayed the position of the nightfighters. To avoid that, the FuG-25 had to be switched off very often._


----------



## cocky pilot (Jan 2, 2011)

FlexiBull said:


> Cocky Pilot
> 
> "ALL bombers had escorts for the simple reason that a bomber (whatever it is) needs an escort because you cannot perform a precision bombing run with even one enemy interceptor in the region, a bomb run is a perfect target."
> 
> ...



Flexibull Please accept my appologies I was lost in the subject of the thread, I meant all precision daylight raids (the discussion I was having was about the precision mosquito daylight raids) I was referring to the few not the many, targetting a specific building in daylight makes a sitting duck of the bomber to fighters and ground fire.


----------



## cocky pilot (Jan 2, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just curious - what's your source for that???



Flyboy

It is the common narrative for the mosquito based on the weight wetted area thrust and other factors. It was twice the weight twice the power and twice the wetted area but had radiators in the wing leading edge, a mid wing configuration which was theoretically better than a spitfires low wing and had a laminated wood finish which didnt have rivets (even flushed ones). I am not an aerodynamacist but I dont have to be. The air ministry didnt believe the claims and it was panned on the other side of the pond too. Nobody believed the claims until they were proved.

It is easy to overstate claims for an airplane, the Mosquito gave the luftwaffe a big surprise when introduced. There are so many marques that it is difficult to compare one with another and same for its adversaries but generally it required the best of the luftwaffes planes to intercept it throughout its career. Towards the end nitrous oxide powered 109s and Me262s had a clear speed advantage but before that the best interceptors didnt. 30/50 MPH is a decisive advantage in a combat but it is the absolute minimum required to intercept, bearing in mind the range of radar at the time and the number of airfields. In WW2 BoB terms the mosquito was as fast as as a JABO 109 but had the bomb load of a Ju88.


I found this which I found interesting. The various Merlin engines are often quoted for BHP/altitude I didnt realise the weight changed considerably
from 
Scoopless Mustang 
The Story of Anson Johnson's Race 45 and Where it is Now 

With no funds left, Johnson went back to Miami to come up with a program to improve his aircraft’s speed. In his mind, he knew he had the proper aircraft, but the -3 Merlin wasn’t the optimum engine for racing. After some research, Johnson sought out and bought a Merlin -225, a lighter version of the engine normally found on the de Havilland Mosquito. The -225 was a single stage, dual speed blower Merlin with a 1,620 hp rating at 3,000 rpm. It was also 240 pounds lighter that the 1,380 hp dual stage -3 Merlin. Other engine modifications were made to increase horsepower. Johnson was well on his way in the quest for speed.

also discussing the mosquito aerodynamics I found this
Airplane aerodynamics and performance By Jan Roskam, Chuan-Tau Edward Lan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2011)

cocky pilot said:


> Flyboy
> 
> It is the common narrative for the mosquito based on the weight wetted area thrust and other factors. It was twice the weight twice the power and twice the wetted area but had radiators in the wing leading edge, a mid wing configuration which was theoretically better than a spitfires low wing and had a laminated wood finish which didnt have rivets (even flushed ones). I am not an aerodynamacist but I dont have to be. The air ministry didnt believe the claims and it was panned on the other side of the pond too. Nobody believed the claims until they were proved.
> 
> ...



All great info CP and I'm aware of the shock the Mosquito gave the Luftwaffe at its introduction as you had an aircraft flying over Germany that couldn't be intercepted "at a standing start." If you do look at the speeds of the first Mosquitoes, they were fast, very fast, but there were aircraft capable of catching the aircraft 1. Depending if it was already airborne and had good vectors to perform a proper intercept and 2., the model of the Mosquito (which it seems the PR was really the one that gave the Luftwaffe worries as it was the lightest and fastest model of the early mosquitoes), so I think we have to put into perspective which model and what time frame to really substantiate the 30 mph claim. The fastest speeds of the Mosquito (which would have substantiated this claim) were recorded by the prototypes.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 3, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Understand that when a Mosquito was carrying a 4000 pound bomb, it wasn't flying close to 400 mph either.......Or 300 mph...



The experience of the LNSF (8 Group) contradicts this.

They observed that the Mk XVI with a 4000 lbs cookie in the bomb bay achieved a maximum speed of 408 mph inbound to the target and 419 mph outbound from the target (See Sharpe and Bowyer).

The same aircraft could cruise continuously above 350 mph TAS, fully loaded with a 4000 lb bomb and external tanks, when above 25,000 ft. 

Range cruise was conducted at 230-270 mph ASI, depending on distance to target. 230 mph ASI at 25,000 ft would give a TAS of about 295 mph. 250 mph would give 315 mph, 270 mph would give a TAS of 340 mph.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2011)

I don't know the exact performace of the Mk XVI but I do know that the Mk IX at max overload weight with two 500lb bombs mounted externally had a max speed of about 390mph. With this in mind, 400mph plus certainly sounds feasible on the more powerful Mk XVI with an internal 4,000lb bomb and without the drag of the eternal bombs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> The experience of the LNSF (8 Group) contradicts this.
> 
> They observed that the Mk XVI with a 4000 lbs cookie in the bomb bay achieved a maximum speed of 408 mph inbound to the target and 419 mph outbound from the target (See Sharpe and Bowyer).
> 
> ...



Depending on "where or when" on your numbers proves my point.

What really mattered in the end is the speed they were able to "safely" open their bomb bay doors.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depending on "where or when" on your numbers proves my point.
> 
> What really mattered in the end is the speed they were able to "safely" open their bomb bay doors.



Going back to posts 101,104 and 107 you stated that the speed limitation for opening the doors was 305 knots and also stated that this was indicated airspeed. 
I believe that 305 knots works out to 350mph at sea sea level ?
350mph IAS at sea level works out to what true airspeed at 25,000ft ?

Now the accuracy may have been terrible, there may have been a problem with bomb separating from the aircraft at high speed but it doesn't look like the bomb door speed limitation would be much of a problem in level flight to me. 
Am I missing something?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Going back to posts 101,104 and 107 you stated that the speed limitation for opening the doors was 305 knots and also stated that this was indicated airspeed.
> I believe that 305 knots works out to 350mph at sea sea level ?
> 350mph IAS at sea level works out to what true airspeed at 25,000ft ?
> 
> ...



Yes you are - as you mentioned just because you can open the doors at the speeds indicated in the Pilot's Notes doesn't mean you're going to bomb at those speeds. That's just a limitation placed on the airframe. I don't have data on bomb delivery speeds but I doubt they are going to be close to those mentioned speeds. But 350 mph IAS would vary depending on airpressure and temperature. Also consider winds aloft, but it would be higher than 350 mph.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Going back to posts 101,104 and 107 you stated that the speed limitation for opening the doors was 305 knots and also stated that this was indicated airspeed.
> I believe that 305 knots works out to 350mph at sea sea level ?
> 350mph IAS at sea level works out to what true airspeed at 25,000ft ?
> 
> ...



SR - at 25,000ft the IAS would be 234mph for a TAS of 350mph for STP and no head/tailwinds

it varies as the Sqrt(RHOalt/RHOsl) which for 25K is .6698

I forgot - the stagnation pressure at 350mph TAS at 25,000 feet is ~ 140 psf - obviously a high Q load. I have zero idea what the Mossie restrictions were for their bomb bays but they sure didn't want to lower gear or flaps in that range..

Note - this is an airspeed where incompressible flow theory starts to break down and the ridiculous claims of "I was doing 650mph chasing the bugger' were due to serious side effects of comprssible flow on pitot tube/instrument readings 

But I am sure you already knew that..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2011)

Bill, the human...


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bill, the human...



Oh no, Joe - that device was the greatest aviation supplement until Global Nav. I lost that, my logbook and bunch of other stuff in a fire a long time ago.


----------



## DougE (Apr 22, 2011)

I know next to nothing about aircraft, but my dad, who turns 90 this year, flew as navigator on Mosquitos out of Harrington on missions for the OSS as part of Operation Red Stocking. He swears by this plane which they took to 30,000 feet on night runs over Germany and France. He flew in other bombers as well, but clearly felt this was an extraordinary machine. I'll point him to this forum and he can explain why himself.


----------



## A4K (Apr 22, 2011)

Be great to hear what he has to say DougE! (Welcome to the forum too!)


----------



## barney (May 1, 2011)

Pilot's Notes - De Havilland Mosquito FB 6


----------



## mhuxt (May 5, 2011)

DougE said:


> I know next to nothing about aircraft, but my dad, who turns 90 this year, flew as navigator on Mosquitos out of Harrington on missions for the OSS as part of Operation Red Stocking. He swears by this plane which they took to 30,000 feet on night runs over Germany and France. He flew in other bombers as well, but clearly felt this was an extraordinary machine. I'll point him to this forum and he can explain why himself.


 
Hiya,

<S> to your Dad. If he's not already done so, see if he's willing to share his experiences with a fellow named Norman Malayney, who is the most enthusiastic and faithful chronicler of the USAAF Mosquito effort.

You can find him at The Mosquito Page (see the forum page), or I can give you his email if you like.


----------

