# Mosquito versus the German fighters



## helmitsmit (Jun 18, 2007)

I am interested in finding the comparitive speeds between the mosquito and the german fighters. Particually at specific altitudes and with either the low or high blown merlin. 

Also, I have heard many reports about the mossie being hard to escort because it cruised too fast! Any coments welcome!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 18, 2007)

helmitsmit said:


> I am interested in finding the comparitive speeds between the mosquito and the german fighters. Particually at specific altitudes and with either the low or high blown merlin.
> 
> Also, I have heard many reports about the mossie being hard to escort because it cruised too fast! Any coments welcome!



Depends on the mark of Mossie, its engine and associated equipment.

Early Mosquitos (MKs I - VII, and the later NF and FB variant) had single stage Merlin 20 family engines.

Top speed initally was in the order of 365-370 mph, with Merlin 21 or 23 engines. These were usually Bombers (Mk IV) or Night Fighters (NF Mk II), and typically had the early saxophone exhausts, which cost between 5 and 10 mph, depending on height.

Early marks with single stage Merlins had a high speed cruise of between 325 and 340 mph, at 15,000 - 19,000 mph.

The early marks of Mosquito recieved a lot of refinements in performance over the years of the war. B Mk IVs maxed out at 360 mph with Merlin 21s and matt paint. The RAF found they could get 10 mph by using a smooth gloss paint, so switched over. They then went to Merlin 23s with multi stub exhausts, and increased the rating on the engine from +12 lbs to +14 and then +16. Eventually, after many modifications, the B MK IVs could do 380 mph with bombs on board and 385 mph with bombs gone.

Late war night fighters with single stage Merlins could get up to about 390 mph. There is even a RAE report of a Mk XIX with Merlin 25s tested at 394 mph at 2,000 feet with No2 and 377 mph without. Some Mossies were also modified for V1 chasing and their engines were boosted to +23 lbs using 150 octane fuel, and could do 355 mph on the deck. 

Later Mosquito variants usually had two stage Merlin (60 family) and were significantly faster at much higher altitudes.

Typically, they performed at the 405-415 mph maximum speed range, usually at 24-27,000 feet. 

Maximum cruise was between 350 and 370 mph, at anywhere from 20,000 to 31,000 feet, depending on the exact mark of two stage Merlin it was fitted with. Very late marks, could even high speed cruise at 390 mph, at 32000 feet


----------



## helmitsmit (Jun 18, 2007)

yeah i know, i was just interested in the combat situation when being chased by the german fighters.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 18, 2007)

Looking at Jabberwocky's specs, I would guess the Luftwaffe probably wasn't going to catch a Mosquito if they didn't have an altitude advantage on them (or knew well in advance that they were coming-which amounts to the same thing as an altitude advantage). Speeds were just too close.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 18, 2007)

Is it true that the Luftwaffe awarded a pilot that shot down a Mosquito with TWO kills instead for one?


----------



## Erich (Jun 18, 2007)

Lucky :

no they did not

Tim :

yes the 109AS had to have an altitude advnatage to drop down on Mossie NF's or the LSNF in which they were successful at times.

with the advent of the Me262A-1a of Kommando Welter, it did not matter, the Mossie always lost. All of this will be in our book

E ~


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2007)

interesting and great airframe.

If only the Brits could fill all the orders, Bud Peaslee would have selected the Mossie as the 8th AF Scouts instead of the Mustang. Would have simplified training and operations over the P-51 and P-38.

First, it cruised much faster and had all the range needed. Second as a two person crew you could put an experienced navigator on board - without having to qualify a bomber pilot who was also an experienced navigator as was required to be a Scout in a Mustang.

Last, it would have been easier to train a B-17 or B-24 pilot to fly a Mossie than it was to 're-train' multi engine to single engine fighter like a 51. 

So, the compromise was to mix re-trained bomber pilots to lead, skilled fighter pilots to fly wing ,in future Mustang Scout Weather/Force Recon missions to end of war.

At the 355th, home of Eperimental (Peaslee) Scouts and 2nd Scout Force all bomber pilots had to interview and be checked out by my father (the Deputy Gp CO of 355th) after too many were killed in the transition with both AT-6 and P-51. 

Probably would have had a better safety record with the Mossie. I know I voted C-47 for contribution overall, everywhere but I think this beast was the Best Airframe built after WWII started.

If I had to pick two a/c to start and finish WWII with, the Mossie and the Gooney bird would be my choices.

Regards,

Bill

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 18, 2007)

It's just another one of those myths then Erich? I was just asking because I heard it on a program about the Mosquito that I was watching. 

Cheers!


----------



## Erich (Jun 18, 2007)

propaganda goof Herr Goeb. wanted to institute a special award for downing a Mossie. Fact was as they were flying recon ops that single engine day fighter units like JG 1 and JG 11 were intercepting them on a mildly regular basis, as JG 300 the III, gruppe was also doing this in early 1944 the special 10th staffel was given the task of intercepting them and nothing else used in the eve's over the Reich while a new day 10th staffel was put back in III. gruppe for flight with Mustangs and heavy bombers. NJG 11 S/E 109's also were on anti-Mossie duties until the switch over to hunting RAF heavies as their success were very marginal. Kommando Welter was derived from the above, Kurt testing several prop and jet jobs to see what he thought was suitable until he came up with his somewhat successful Kommando on the single seat 262. no special award, it was the duty of the pilot and he was given a kill as he would receive whether day or night upon confirmation


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 19, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Is it true that the Luftwaffe awarded a pilot that shot down a Mosquito with TWO kills instead for one?



I think you may mix it up with victory points awarded (only in west), which were not the same as 'kills' awarded. In the LW, it 1 shot down aircraft was always 1 'kill'. 

There were also a pointing system, which awarded different point based on damaging the enemy aircraft or shooting it down, and how many engines it had 1, 2 or 4. Based on that a Mosquito (a twin engine) would worth more 'points' than a Spitfire (a single engined fighter), and a B-17 4-engine more than a Mosquito.

However these points had a meaning only with regards of the militiary awards decorations handed out, like the Iron cross etc. There was no special points for a Mosquito, you got the same as for any other twin engine.

The Rumanian air force OTOH was awarding multiple kills for multiengines.


----------



## Erich (Jun 19, 2007)

Kurfürst sometimes yes and sometimes no. during latter part of 44 when everything broke down for the LW many kills-claims and reports were lost and then not even credited unless it was privately posted in the pilots/crews flugbuch


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I think you may mix it up with victory points awarded (only in west), which were not the same as 'kills' awarded. In the LW, it 1 shot down aircraft was always 1 'kill'.



What "west' air force are you referring to that awarded multiple awards of any kind for the destruction of one aircraft? Certainly not the RAF or USAAF.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 20, 2007)

Best answer by Erich; only LW plane(s) that could catch a Mosquito in a tail-chase were the Me 262, 163 and He 162, but the 163 didn't have the endurance. A Ta 152 would be able to catch a Mossie at altitude, but it might take a while.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2007)

drgondog said:


> What "west' air force are you referring to that awarded multiple awards of any kind for the destruction of one aircraft? Certainly not the RAF or USAAF.



He is saying that the Lufwaffe awarded points in the West as in West Front.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2007)

The mossie if you ever listened to the crews cruised at about 240 knots its a good speed for making the engine last and at 240 its easy for the nav to do his plotting of position using the old formula of distance = time x rate or 240 mph equals 4 miles a minute.


----------



## merlin (Jun 21, 2007)

I do not recall if it was Spaatz or Eaker, but one senior US Air Force General, issued an instruction to his fighter pilots, banning them from 'racing' with 'Mossies' when returning from missions. Apparently it was bad for morale being passed by them!!


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The mossie if you ever listened to the crews cruised at about 240 knots its a good speed for making the engine last and at 240 its easy for the nav to do his plotting of position using the old formula of distance = time x rate or 240 mph equals 4 miles a minute.



I am reading a book on the History of 2 Group that used Mossies in the daylight raids over Europe and Germany.
They tended to cruise at 270 - 290 mph and it was this that they felt gave the Germans the biggest difficulty in interception. From Radio intercepts from the Y service it became clear that the Germans did their intercept calculations based on a cruising speed of 250 mph. This went on for about 9 months before the Germans twigged what the real figures were.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> I am reading a book on the History of 2 Group that used Mossies in the daylight raids over Europe and Germany.
> They tended to cruise at 270 - 290 mph and it was this that they felt gave the Germans the biggest difficulty in interception. From Radio intercepts from the Y service it became clear that the Germans did their intercept calculations based on a cruising speed of 250 mph. This went on for about 9 months before the Germans twigged what the real figures were.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> I am reading a book on the History of 2 Group that used Mossies in the daylight raids over Europe and Germany.



What book is that glider? Looking for some additions to my library.


----------



## Glider (Jun 22, 2007)

The book is a second hand one that I found on Holiday. Its written by Michael J. F. Bowyer and called '2 Group RAF A Complete History 1936-1945.'

The book is over 500 pages and the detail is extrordinary. For example as you would expect there are a number of photo's of aircraft in them. However, what I have never seen before, is in the caption for most of the aircraft includes the dates when it entered service and when it was destroyed, struck off, whatever.

If your interested they seem to average out at about 9 months in front line service, which for a WW2 aircraft is longer than I expected.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 22, 2007)

Thanks for that - it was on my list but I'll move it up in priority.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 22, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Best answer by Erich; only LW plane(s) that could catch a Mosquito in a tail-chase were the Me 262, 163 and He 162, but the 163 didn't have the endurance. A Ta 152 would be able to catch a Mossie at altitude, but it might take a while.



... and apart from these planes, the FW 190A, Bf 109G etc. Either could quite easily catch them if they were vectored onto the target correctly. As noted by others, the problem Mosquito interception caused was the same as with any target cruising at higher speeds like JaBos or fighter recces. It gave less time frame for interception, making ground control's job more difficult.

Neither it could afford to run at high powers for long time, as it would risking blowing up the engine or running out of fuel before returning to base. When the Mosquito was first entered combat, it had _twice_ the loss rate other RAF bombers in the daylight. Ever wondered why Mosquitos mainly bombed at night - because they were _faster_ than the Luftwaffe's _daylight_ fighters, right? Nightfighters OTOH were slower twin engines, being burdened with lots of extra equipment, like flame dampers, radar, extra cannons and lost quite a bit of their daylight version's speed due to that.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 22, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> When the Mosquito was first entered combat, it had _twice_ the loss rate other RAF bombers in the daylight.



The evidence doesn't really bear this theory out.

May 31 - 5 sorties, 1 loss to light flak (20% loss rate for the month)

Jun 1 - 2 sorties, 1 loss to unknown causes,
Jun 18 - 3 sorties, no losses
Jun 20 - 3 sorties, no losses
25 Jun - 8 sorties, no losses
26 Jun - 4 sorties, no losses (5% loss rate)

1 Jul - 1 sortie, no loss
2 Jul - 6 sorties, 1 loss to FW 190s, 1 to light flak
11 Jul - 6 sorties, 1 loss to pilot error (hit a house on low level mission)
14 Jul - 6 sorties, no losses
16 Jul - 4 sorties, 1 loss to flak
21 Jul - 6 sorties, no losses 
22 Jul - 1 sortie, no loss
23 Jul - 4 sorties and 3 aborts due to weather, no losses
25 Jul - 5 sorties, no losses
26 Jul - 3 sorties, no losses 
28 Jul - 6 sorties, 1 loss to unknown causes
29 Jul - 3 sorties, no losses
30 Jul - 4 sorties, no losses
31 Jul - 1 sortie, no loss (6.4% loss rate for the month)

Aug - 54 sorties, 4 losses (7.4% loss rate for the month, 2 to fighters, 2 to flak)
Sep - 58 sorties, 3 losses (5.2% loss rate, with 2 attributed to fighters, 1 to flak)
Oct - 97 sorties, 5 losses, one to fighters, one attributed to navigational error, one flak, two unknown (5.2% loss rate)
Nov - 28 sorties, 3 losses all to naval flak (10.7% loss rate)

From Dec onwards, the Mossies operated both daylight and night time sorties.

Overall loss rate for first six months of daylight operations was 6.7%, which is high, but not twice the average daylight loss rate of BC at the time (which was about 4.6%), and certainly not due to German fighters causing problems. 

Of the 22 Bomber Command Mosquito losses in the period, I can only find 6 directly attributed to enemy fighters by the RAF, while 10 were to flak and two to pilot error. The four losses to unknown cause could go to either flak, fighters or pilot error, leaving flak as probably the single largest killer of Mossie pilots in the period before they switched to mixed day/night operations.

However, that all said, this is just information for the inital operational period for the Mossie, before it got significantly more important to the war effort of the UK. Mosquitos flew well in excess of 50,000 bomber / fighter bomber sorties during the war, so 330 sorties in six months is to small a sample to really be statistically significant.


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2007)

as to night losses of the Mossies you will find that out from the LW side of things next year when Dr. Boitens massive book on the Nachtjagd is published.

the truth is the Bf 109G-6/AS and later G-14/AS could take on the mossies of the LSNF and shoot them down as well as Mossie fighters. We have the documentation for our book

I must add that in the earlier part of the war that the nuisance raids on Berlin made quite a propaganda scare of the Third Reich leadership so much so that Goebbels and staff pressed Fat man to do something about it and the anti-Mossie units were created. JG 50 "tired" during the day and were unsuccessful, 10.(N)/JG 300 with 109G-6/AS and also 1./NJGr 10 much more so and the result of this led to Kurt Welter establishment of his private gang - Kommando


----------



## Glider (Jun 22, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> ... When the Mosquito was first entered combat, it had _twice_ the loss rate other RAF bombers in the daylight. .



I must also question this statement. Looking at the stats for 2 Group in 1944 the stats are
Mossies (Day) 1732 sorties, 1320 successful, 17 lost to flak, 1 to fighters, unknown 11. total loss ratio 2.2 percent.
Mossies (Night) 9899 sorties, 8877 successful, 4 lost to flak, 0 to fighters, unknown 73. total loss ratio 0.9 percent

*Note.* I did the loss ratio on successful missions, not missions flown the normal method.

So whilst they did have fewer losses at night I don't think a loss ratio of 2.2% is high and definately not twice the loss ratio of other bombers.



> the truth is the Bf 109G-6/AS and later G-14/AS could take on the mossies of the LSNF and shoot them down as well as Mossie fighters..



Maybe this should be reworded
'the truth is the Bf 109G-6/AS and later G-14/AS could take on the mossies of the LSNF and shoot them down as well as Mossie fighters, *but didn't'*

The real question is, why didn't they?


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2007)

but you are mistaken 10./JG 300 was successful against the LSNF and in one case against a day fighter Mossie. At present they are listed in JG 300 volume 1 bei Lorant/Goyat and will be in much longer length in our Moskito-jagd über Deutschland and of course the kills in Kommando Welter. One case we were able to get the German pilot in a small reunion with the radio op living in Canada, the pilot did not make out of his burning Mossie sadly


----------



## Glider (Jun 22, 2007)

Erich said:


> but you are mistaken 10./JG 300 was successful against the LSNF and in one case against a day fighter Mossie. At present they are listed in JG 300 volume 1 bei Lorant/Goyat and will be in much longer length in our Moskito-jagd über Deutschland and of course the kills in Kommando Welter. One case we were able to get the German pilot in a small reunion with the radio op living in Canada, the pilot did not make out of his burning Mossie sadly



No doubt the odd mossie was shot down as no one is saying that they were bullet proof and I do not doubt that some of the unknows are due to fighters, but nowhere near enought were shot down to make any difference. The loss ratios are almost trivial compared to other aircraft involved in the conflict.

I have no access to the german figures but I would be suprised if the loss ratios of the German planes were less than those of the Mossies.


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2007)

Glider I am in total agreeance, it did not make any difference as Berlin was repeatedly annoyed by Mossie bombings into April of 45. Losses were minimal to the wooden crate, the Germans rarely got a chance to jump on them and if so it was only 1-2 at a time the Mossie formation if we want to call it that just simply ran off to their homefield(s).

from an earlier post of mine the day-time trials against the Mosquito were a joke, JG 50 scored a fat 0 and was turned over to encounter US day time 4 engine bombers.........

4./NJGr 10 stationed in Holland during 1944 hoped it could catch Mossies en-route to Germany with their Fw 190A-8's ~ they failed every time...


----------



## Glider (Jun 22, 2007)

Kurfurst. Can I ask you to say where you obtained your figures and support your statement?


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 23, 2007)

Just out of curiousity, how did the Ju 88 nightfighters fare against the Mosquito? Were there any occasions on which a Junkers shot down a Mossie? I don't think the Ju 88 would be fast and agile enough to catch a Mossie...


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> I must also question this statement. Looking at the stats for 2 Group in 1944 the stats are
> Mossies (Day) 1732 sorties, 1320 successful, 17 lost to flak, 1 to fighters, unknown 11. total loss ratio 2.2 percent.
> Mossies (Night) 9899 sorties, 8877 successful, 4 lost to flak, 0 to fighters, unknown 73. total loss ratio 0.9 percent
> 
> *Note.* I did the loss ratio on successful missions, not missions flown the normal method.



Source for the figures...? 



> So whilst they did have fewer losses at night I don't think a loss ratio of 2.2% is high and definately not twice the loss ratio of others bombers.



I think you've missed the part in my post which says 'when introduced'. You quoted loss figures for 1944. I am quite sure the Mosquito was introduced into combat much earlier.

Anyway, if you want to boast about loss rate figures, there are plenty of aircraft enjoying similiar or better loss rates as the Mosquitos at night, take a look at here and scroll down. http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/thtrloss.gif

That's a 0.53 % loss rate on _daylight sorties_ the East in 1944, 'twice as good' as the Mossie during the _night_ over the Reich, but I very much doubt that's because Stukas and Heinkel's kept outrunning Soviet fighters in 1944, or were covered to teeth by cemented Krupp armor..




> Maybe this should be reworded
> 'the truth is the Bf 109G-6/AS and later G-14/AS could take on the mossies of the LSNF and shoot them down as well as Mossie fighters, *but didn't'*
> 
> The real question is, why didn't they?



A game with words, now that proves a lot... here's my version

'The truth is the Bf 109G-6/AS and later G-14/AS could take on the mossies of the LSNF and shoot them down as well as Mossie fighters, *but there are some on this board who just can't bear the idea of his favourite nuisance bomber  could be and have been shot down like any other bomber'*

Second thing I don't quite get is what the importance of the night sorties thing. Night mosquitos were introduced after Bomber Command realized Berlin is just a too tough, and largely for propaganda reasons, they've created the light nightly strike force of mosquitos in 1944 that performed militarily insignificant, politically motivated nuisance raids on Berlin, the only questionable gain being enjoyed by the British propaganda ministry. They could have a headline that they've 'bombed' Berlin this night, again. Even if in reality it meant single aircraft dropping single high capacity bombs from high speed and high altitude without the slightest chance of hitting any specific target.

Waste of resources if you ask me, and the sensible German LW commanders must have thought the same, there were never any significant resource spent of combatting non-significant threats like the Mosquito. The Nachtjagd kept concentrating grinding the heavies, which were doing the real damage to cities anyway. Which is the answer to your question _WHY. _


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Source for the figures...?


My source is 2 Group RAF ISBN 0 571 11460 1 Appendix 10, your source for the claim of twice the loss ratio of other bombers, is what?




> I think you've missed the part in my post which says 'when introduced'. You quoted loss figures for 1944. I am quite sure the Mosquito was introduced into combat much earlier.


No 2 Group Mossie squadrons became fully equipped with these aircraft in Oct 1943. The figures I gave were for 1944 but I have a breakdown for the first three months of 1944 if that’s better.

Mossies (Day) 1195 sorties, 7 lost to flak, 1 to fighters, unknown 9. total loss ratio 1.4 percent.
Mossies (Night) 244 sorties, 0 lost to flak, 0 to fighters, unknown 6. total loss ratio 4 percent

In addition I can say that Bomber Command lost 62 mossies to all causes (including non operational losses) in the whole of 1943. I am afraid I don’t know the number of missions but 62, little more than 1 a week doesn’t seem excessive. Its worth noting that a large proportion of these would have been flak and unknowns. (source The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 page 164)



> Anyway, if you want to boast about loss rate figures, there are plenty of aircraft enjoying similiar or better loss rates as the Mosquitos at night, take a look at here and scroll down. http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/thtrloss.gif
> 
> That's a 0.53 % loss rate on _daylight sorties_ the East in 1944, 'twice as good' as the Mossie during the _night_ over the Reich, but I very much doubt that's because Stukas and Heinkel's kept outrunning Soviet fighters in 1944, or were covered to teeth by cemented Krupp armor.. .



Sorry but I must be having a thick moment. Can you explain to me how you arrived at a loss ratio of 0.53% for daylight sorties over the East from the link provided?



> A game with words, now that proves a lot... here's my version
> 
> 'The truth is the Bf 109G-6/AS and later G-14/AS could take on the mossies of the LSNF and shoot them down as well as Mossie fighters, *but there are some on this board who just can't bear the idea of his favourite nuisance bomber  could be and have been shot down like any other bomber'* .



Interesting choice of words but you still haven’t addressed the problem, if they could shoot the Mossies down by day or night, why didn’t they. It’s a simple question devoid of emotion and still waiting for a reply.



> Second thing I don't quite get is what the importance of the night sorties thing. Night mosquitos were introduced after Bomber Command realized Berlin is just a too tough, and largely for propaganda reasons, they've created the light nightly strike force of mosquitos in 1944 that performed militarily insignificant, politically motivated nuisance raids on Berlin, the only questionable gain being enjoyed by the British propaganda ministry. They could have a headline that they've 'bombed' Berlin this night, again. Even if in reality it meant single aircraft dropping single high capacity bombs from high speed and high altitude without the slightest chance of hitting any specific target.
> 
> Waste of resources if you ask me, and the sensible German LW commanders must have thought the same, there were never any significant resource spent of combatting non-significant threats like the Mosquito. The Nachtjagd kept concentrating grinding the heavies, which were doing the real damage to cities anyway. Which is the answer to your question _WHY. _



Suggest you read up on the conflict a bit more. As for insignificant, thousands of missions each of which carried the same bombload as a B17 can hardly be called insignificant. Unless you call the B17 an insignificant nuisance bomber, which I doubt. 

Plus they were ideal for pathfinding, recce, Photo Recce and weather reporting ahead of the main raids often alone, many hundreds of miles inside German territory and a number of other high risk tasks made them a valuable target, one the Germans tried hard to stop. Special units were formed and versions of fighters developed just to stop these happening and still they continued with low loss ratio’s.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> My source is 2 Group RAF ISBN 0 571 11460 1 Appendix 10, your source for the claim of twice the loss ratio of other bombers, is what?
> 
> No 2 Group Mossie squadrons became fully equipped with these aircraft in Oct 1943. The figures I gave were for 1944 but I have a breakdown for the first three months of 1944 if that’s better.



... why restrict Mosquito losses to No 2 Group and 1943...? Mosquitos were present with No 2 Group from November 1941, No 105 Sqn being the first to equip.

Osprey's combat a/c No 4, page 10 (Marin Bowman). It notes Mosquitos flying high flying missions in 1942 had losses comparable to Blenheims flying low altitude missions a year before, and the Mosquito was considered to be removed from production at all.

I recall the loss rate information was from here, but I don't have it handy to recheck. Amazon.com: Great Book of World War II Airplanes: Books: Rh Value Publishing



Glider said:


> Mossies (Day) 1195 sorties, 7 lost to flak, 1 to fighters, unknown 9. total loss ratio 1.4 percent.
> Mossies (Night) 244 sorties, 0 lost to flak, 0 to fighters, unknown 6. total loss ratio 4 percent



Meaning they knew that 1 was lost to fighters, and they had no idea in 15 cases what hit them at all...



> In addition I can say that Bomber Command lost 62 mossies to all causes (including non operational losses) in the whole of 1943. I am afraid I don’t know the number of missions but 62, little more than 1 a week doesn’t seem excessive.



Well more information would certainly be welcome. If only small numbers were deployed, then 62 losses are not slight at all, then there's the mission profile (I guess patrolling the Atlantic for example was a rather safe place away from 109s/190s - just an example) and the number of sorties made.



> Its worth noting that a large proportion of these would have been flak and unknowns. (source The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 page 164)



You seem to have hard time accepting that unknowns can be due to by being hit by a fighter before you realize what's happening and report it.



> Sorry but I must be having a thick moment. Can you explain to me how you arrived at a loss ratio of 0.53% for daylight sorties over the East from the link provided?



Wrong link !  

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Scroll down.



Glider said:


> Interesting choice of words but you still haven’t addressed the problem, if they could shoot the Mossies down by day or night, why didn’t they. It’s a simple question devoid of emotion and still waiting for a reply.



There's no problem. There are just rhetorics from you.

The question wheter Mosquitos can be intercepted by Bf 109s or FW 190s is a technical one - plotting possible Mosquito max level and cruise speeds vs. contemporary enemy fighters and see the results. Results show the Mosquito was considerably slower than either. Do that and come back when you're ready. You can't answer that with mere rhetrorics, I am afraid.

A better question, why Mosquitos operated at night... when they could outrun Luftwaffe fighters anyway, or so you suggest. Would not it be easier to bomb in the daylight?



Glider said:


> Suggest you read up on the conflict a bit more.



Suggest you drop the big attitude because if you're wrong, you'll look very silly.



> As for insignificant, thousands of missions each of which carried the same bombload as a B17 can hardly be called insignificant. Unless you call the B17 an insignificant nuisance bomber, which I doubt.



The Mosquito is no-where near the class of a heavy bomber. 
It's light bomber with a very limited bomb load, and yup, some late war versions were converted to carry a single, thin walled bomb which is pretty much useless to any purpose other than busting the roofs of civvy houses.

What military worth that has, tell me. The FB VI was a useful light bomber and interdiction aircraft. The B XVI et co doing the Berlin runs were little more than a high profile nuisance OTOH, an expensive handkerchief Harris put in front of his bloodied nose in early 1944...



> Plus they were ideal for pathfinding, recce, Photo Recce and weather reporting ahead of the main raids often alone, many hundreds of miles inside German territory and a number of other high risk tasks made them a valuable target, one the Germans tried hard to stop.



It doesn't appear that they tried hard, nor there seems to be any special in these tasks at all. Yep the Mossie did that, as did other planes during the war.



> Special units were formed and versions of fighters developed just to stop these happening and still they continued with low loss ratio’s.



Really? Can you name a few of these special units and fighter types, I am dying to hear of them... I guess you want to name a high altitude 109s, but you'd need to understand high altitude 109s existed before Mosquitos.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 23, 2007)

Max bombload of a Mosquito: 4,000lb in one single bomb.
Max bombload of a B-17: 17,600lb (over a short range)
6,000lb was a normal bombload for a long range mission
Sources were: Aircraft of World War II by Kenneth Munson; The illustrated Dictionary of Fighting Aircraft of World War II and Mosquito in action part 1 squadron/signal publications


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> ... why restrict Mosquito losses to No 2 Group and 1943...? Mosquitos were present with No 2 Group from November 1941, No 105 Sqn being the first to equip..



Because these are stats that I have and can quote



> Osprey's combat a/c No 4, page 10 (Marin Bowman). It notes Mosquitos flying high flying missions in 1942 had losses comparable to Blenheims flying low altitude missions a year before, and the Mosquito was considered to be removed from production at all.



Interesting and I didn't know this. Did they quote numbers. 

Re 105 squadron they received seven Mossie PR 1.
W4065 lasted 6 months
W4066 lasted 26 months
W4068 lasted 6 months
W4069 lasted 6 months
W4070 lasted 9 months
W4071 lasted 10 months
W4072 lasted 8 months
They then moved on to Bomber MkIV. I do not know how many missions they flew but to last a minimum of 6 months in front line action alone on PR misions is quite an achievement. 



> Meaning they knew that 1 was lost to fighters, and they had no idea in 15 cases what hit them at all...



I doubt that you have ever flown at night, I could be wrong. No it means that 15 were lost but the cause was unknown, by no means the same thing. 



> Well more information would certainly be welcome. If only small numbers were deployed, then 62 losses are not slight at all, then there's the mission profile (I guess patrolling the Atlantic for example was a rather safe place away from 109s/190s - just an example) and the number of sorties made.



I make it 5 squadrons equipped with Bomber Mossies in mid 1943. One month on average for a plane flying deep into enemy areas is very good. As for mission profiles the mid atlantic wasn't the place for Mossies.



> You seem to have hard time accepting that unknowns can be due to by being hit by a fighter before you realize what's happening and report it.


Wrong again. The loss ratio's mentioned are for all losses. No doubt some were caused by fighters and flak. However in the entire war for all types and nations flying at night accidents were a major cause of loss.





> Wrong link !
> 
> http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
> 
> Scroll down.


 
Thanks I did. I notice the bit where it states that the West was a far more dangerous place to operate than the East. We are of course talking about the West, over Germany, the most heavily defended area in the world, by day and night, hundreds of miles behind German Lines. Not I suggest the same as the East where there were almost no German long range missions of any kind against a weaker opposition.



> The question wheter Mosquitos can be intercepted by Bf 109s or FW 190s is a technical one - plotting possible Mosquito max level and cruise speeds vs. contemporary enemy fighters and see the results. Results show the Mosquito was considerably slower than either. Do that and come back when you're ready. You can't answer that with mere rhetrorics, I am afraid.


I think this is the main difficulty between us. You are looking at it as a technical issue. Plane A goes so fast, its faster than plane B, therefore it can shoot it down.
My position is this only happened on very rare occasions. More than 99 times out of a 100 the Mossie completed the mission without being shot down by a fighter. Such was the cruising speed of the Mossie it was very difficult, almost impossible, for the fighter to get into a position to intercept. If it did then there was every chance that it didn't have the fuel for a long tail chase as the mossie had a much longer range. I try to look at what actually happened instead of what could have happened and the actual experience i.e. loss ratio's prove this beyond any doubt.



> A better question, why Mosquitos operated at night... when they could outrun Luftwaffe fighters anyway, or so you suggest. Would not it be easier to bomb in the daylight?


This has been addressed. Most of the night missions were in support of the Heavy bombers. Weather was a day and night operation, Target Marking a night operation, spoof raids a night operation. Some such as PR were mainly done in daylight plus of course the precision raids.



> The Mosquito is no-where near the class of a heavy bomber.
> It's light bomber with a very limited bomb load, and yup, some late war versions were converted to carry a single, thin walled bomb which is pretty much useless to any purpose other than busting the roofs of civvy houses.


The Mossies had the same bombload as a B17 to Berlin from the UK. Re the comment about destroying buildings, well that is what the British Heavy bombers did most of the time so the Mossie followed the same pattern. Factories, enginering works, power stations were buildings as were other major economic targets. 



> It doesn't appear that they tried hard, nor there seems to be any special in these tasks at all. Yep the Mossie did that, as did other planes during the war.


Name one plane that flew on a regular basis over Germany in daylight in 1943 let alone 1942 on PR, Recce, Bombing Missions with such a loss ratio. Or if you prefer a German plane over all parts of the UK



> Really? Can you name a few of these special units and fighter types, I am dying to hear of them... I guess you want to name a high altitude 109s, but you'd need to understand high altitude 109s existed before Mosquitos.


Certainly. 
If I can quote Erich earlier in the thread 
4./NJGr 10 stationed in Holland during 1944 hoped it could catch Mossies en-route to Germany with their Fw 190A-8's ~ they failed every time...

HS 219B was supposed to be a Mossie catcher. The 410 was tried and the TA154 was inspired by the mossie. Re the High Altitude 109's I know they existed but didn't achieve much or even anythng at all.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 23, 2007)

The type of mission the Mosquito flew would also affect the losses they didn't fly in large groups and if they did it would be at lower levels . It would be very hard to scramble any aircraft to intercept a lo mission or even a small gaggle up high. Picking up a radar target on a small formation would be dicey at best let alone vectoring an interceptor on to it


----------



## Hop (Jun 23, 2007)

> yup, some late war versions were converted to carry a single, thin walled bomb which is pretty much useless to any purpose other than busting the roofs of civvy houses.



Actually the Mossies used large numbers of the 4,000 lb MC (medium capacity) bomb, which had less explosives and more casing than the thin walled HC "cookies".

To quote Tony Williams from another forum:



> Not only was there a massive incendiary bomb using the cookie's casing, but as I posted before there was also the 4,000 lb MC bomb (effectively, a GP type) intended for attacking "substantially-constructed industrial complexes and shipyards from low level" (I am quoting from 'Bombs Gone'). "Trials indicated that it had good penetrative qualities even from 100 feet, achieving craters 14 feet deep and 54 feet wide". In practice, it was more frequently dropped from high altitude, from which its penetration capabilities were presumably even better. "However, the Group 8 Mosquitos used them most effectively at low level during 1944-45, fitted with 11-second delay (fuzes) to allow an adequate escape time."


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 23, 2007)

> That's a 0.53 % loss rate on daylight sorties the East in 1944, 'twice as good' as the Mossie during the night over the Reich



Kurfurst, you may need to recheck your maths re LuftWaffe daylight loss ratios, your out by a factor of 10....

9,760/186,004 = 5.37% loss rate (NOT 0.537%)


Bomber Command Moquito losses on Night Bomber operations from May 1943 to May 1945 were 108 losses and 88 additional write offs after return, in 26,739 effective sorties.

196/26,739 = 0.7% loss rate, with a 0.4% loss rate for crews, or about 1 in every 250 sorties.

Given that Mossies dropped, on average, 2,101 lbs of bombs per mission, thats about 525,250 lbs of bombs dropped per crew lost.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 26, 2007)

Christ, where to start?

First, don't expect numbers from the Osprey reference given. There are none. In fact, it's not even Bowman's research, it's a quote from a vet. Furthermore, he specifically limits the time period to three months in the summer of '42, July to September. He also says that the Mossie ops "were far more ambitious than Blenheim ops, but casualties were lower."

I can't speak for whatever rumours he encountered on squadron during the period in question, however at the end of July '42 the Ministry of Aircraft Production was at de Havilland's door to stress the need to ramp up production.

Night Mossies were not a response to the Battle of Berlin, which began in mid-November 1943. 109 Squadron made its first night sorties in December 1942. 105 and 139 Squadrons raided Berlin 5 times at night before the end of May '42. All up, 1,000 night Mosquito sorties had been flown at night into Europe before the Battle of Berlin even began. 

Nor was the Cookie Mossie a response to the Battle of Berlin. The original instruction for development came in April 1943. By June the conversion was capable of carrying GP, MC and HE 4,000 lb.-ers.


----------



## Glider (Jun 26, 2007)

mhuxt said:


> Christ, where to start?
> 
> First, don't expect numbers from the Osprey reference given. There are none. In fact, it's not even Bowman's research, it's a quote from a vet. Furthermore, he specifically limits the time period to three months in the summer of '42, July to September. He also says that the Mossie ops "were far more ambitious than Blenheim ops, but casualties were lower."
> 
> ...



Thanks for this, much appreciated.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 26, 2007)

Just as a tidbit of info, Staffelfuhrer Peter Crump of 10./JG 54, flying an Fw 190D-9, dove on a diving Mosquito, PR Mk XVI from 540 Squadron RAF, on 11/11/44 and blew it apart, disintegrating across the south edge of Oldenburg...

Mossies didnt always get away...


----------



## Erich (Jun 26, 2007)

Karl Mitterdorfer also shot down 2 Mossies of the LSNF flying a Bf 109G-6/AS at night in September 44, and I am reluctant to share anymore except this exciting story will be in our book for the future 

Schwarmführer E ~


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2007)

Erich said:


> Karl Mitterdorfer also shot down 2 Mossies of the LSNF flying a Bf 109G-6/AS at night in September 44, and I am reluctant to share anymore except this exciting story will be in our book for the future
> 
> Schwarmführer E ~



PLease let me know when this book is out. It looks like a cert for my Christmas list


----------



## MAV_406 (Jun 27, 2007)

it dosnt matter what any of you say the Mozzie had the looks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2007)

And that has anything to do with the discussion?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2007)

MAV_406 said:


> it dosnt matter what any of you say the Mozzie had the looks.


*NO!*


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 27, 2007)

Apparently, because of it's wooden cosntruction, it wasn't picked up on radar screens as well as all metal aircraft of a similar size. That may have been a part of the reason for difficulty of interception.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 27, 2007)

Those props cause a pretty fair radar signature


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 27, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Those props cause a pretty fair radar signature



I agree; and there were some "stealth" experiments during WWII in which they tried constructing an airplane completely out of wood (except, of course, for the engine) and the reduction in RCS was negligible.


----------



## marlin (Jun 29, 2007)

drgondog said:


> interesting and great airframe.
> 
> If only the Brits could fill all the orders, Bud Peaslee would have selected the Mossie as the 8th AF Scouts instead of the Mustang. Would have simplified training and operations over the P-51 and P-38.
> 
> ...



*****************************************************

Mosquito aircrew certainly had the highest survival rate of any Allied aircrew in WW2.
Re the Mossie versus German aircraft. I was fortunate to work as unpaid secretary for Group Captain John ("Cat's Eyes) Cunningham for the last few years prior to his death three years ago. he told me that when late in the war the Luftwaffe started using FW 190's to make single bomb nuisance raids on the South coast of Britain, he had to cruise with a significant height advantage to be able to catch any 190's he was then vectored onto. I remember that one -190 he caught, and gave a short burst into the fuselage just behind the canopy, dived so violently that the pilot was thrown out of his straps and through the canopy breaking his arm. The pilot was so adamant that no RAF aircraft could have caught him and that it must have been a lucky flak hit, that John drove up to the German's POW camp near York and told him otherwise !
marlin


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 29, 2007)

Good one!
Read a story once about a B-26 crew that had heard about the Mosquito when they were first being produced and came across one over England, they had a race of sorts.
The B-26 was pounding along, throttles through the firewall when the Mossie came screaming past, inverted and one one engine!


----------



## helmitsmit (Jul 1, 2007)

Like that story. I heard one:

A Mossie was taxiing when a Halifax land on it! Sounds funny but I can't find pictures! Most have had a strong undercarrige. Unfortuneately, i can't find any info about the squadron or even the airfield.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 2, 2007)

helmitsmit said:


> Like that story. I heard one:
> 
> A Mossie was taxiing when a Halifax land on it! Sounds funny but I can't find pictures! Most have had a strong undercarrige. Unfortunately, i can't find any info about the squadron or even the airfield.



Off track slightly. These two Ansons 'collected' each other, *mid-air*, and managed to land 'piggy-back' style, safely. The only injury involved a crew member from the lower Anson who suffered back injuries from bailing out prior to the landing.
Brocklesbury, NSW, Australia, 29th September 1940.


----------



## helmitsmit (Jul 2, 2007)

A little off track but never mind! Interesting!


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2007)

Truth is always stranger than fiction


----------



## helmitsmit (Jul 2, 2007)

Absolutely! 

Anyway back to Mossies and its opponents, I heard that the proclaimed mossie killer ie He 219 isn't quite what it was suppose to be. Apparently, although everywhere says 414mph, it struggled to do 380mph. It had to be stripped down a lot to specifically chase Mossies. And then it only managed 404mph. However, it was a vast improvement over Me 110s or Ju88s.


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2007)

you guys need to go to the best night fighter thread and read everything on it and you will get your answers about the He 219 Uhu. The Mossies with I./NJG 1 scored a total of 12 Mosquitos none of them were stripped down. The Mossie chaser A-6 never went into production. 109G-6/AS had a better track record for mossie killing than any He 219 of NJG 1 in 1st and 2nd gruppes


----------



## helmitsmit (Jul 2, 2007)

I thought that that might be the case I heard a couple of reports of Me109s at night doing the Nighterfighters job. 

I just thought of an interesting development, Mossie with Griffons. That would have been the medium/long range heavy bomber that the mossie perhaps wasn't as mentioned earlier. It would have taken a bit of designing but might have been fantastic.


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2007)

helmitsmit said:


> I just thought of an interesting development, Mossie with Griffons. That would have been the medium/long range heavy bomber that the mossie perhaps wasn't as mentioned earlier. It would have taken a bit of designing but might have been fantastic.



It was fantastic, it was called the Hornet. OK it had 2000HP merlins not Griffons but its close enough.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 2, 2007)

Agreed, Glider. The last piston-engined fighter in RAF service and it was truly amazing, just a pity there's none left.


----------



## Seawitch (Jul 5, 2007)

Hi all
Am I correct that a PR Mosquito was the worlds first Jet victim?


----------



## helmitsmit (Jul 5, 2007)

The hornet wasn't really in the same league, it was a fighter/fighter-bomber. Normally with one man crew, and didn't have a bomb bay. 

I am talking around the lines of a scaled up Mossie.


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2007)

Its an interesting idea but the British had already decided that the Jet was the future. To this end they decided in 1944 that the replacement for the Mossie would be a Jet Bomber and that resulted in the Canberra.

For once an example of a correct decision, carried through to completion.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 5, 2007)

Seawitch said:


> Hi all
> Am I correct that a PR Mosquito was the worlds first Jet victim?



Certainly the first claim by a jet was for a Mossie, however the aircraft involved got away. 

I *believe* (so don't take my word for it, perhaps someone else can put me straight) that the first actual loss to a jet was a PR Spitfire.


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2007)

*Erich,*

How well did the special purpose He-219's in reality perform against the Mosquito ? 

And how did the various other German night fighters perform against the Mosquito ?

I know std. procedure for the German night-fighters was to hit the bombers and then run, trying to avoid any contact with the Mosquitos, but sometimes there were some head on clashes - but I only know of a few - some went well for the German night fighters, some didn't.


----------



## Erich (Jul 8, 2007)

mark I think you are right though I am going to have to look into the fall kills-claims by the test Kommando and JG 7.

Soren arg !

~ not sure, but there was no special He 219 A-6, only a projection. Standard A-0's and A-2's brought down a total of 12 Mossies but on the other hand and I would have to look it up He 219's did not fare well against RAF intruders if they did not have rear warning radar. The Ju 88G-6 that had it as standard seemed to do the best to get out of the range of the Mossie 20mm's, the Bf 110G-4 units in most cases got creamed unless they were fitted which was getting into spring of 45 with rear warning defenses.

Actually from what I have found it was more by accident that the German twin engine NF got on the tail and shot down Mossies. On the other hand special anti-Mossie 109's of 10.(N)/JG 300 it was another story, frequently missing their foe due to ground control tagging them to late to catch the RAF craft, but the staffel was instituted for just that - to attack Mosquitos LSNF or NF's. Kommando Welter of course was the real off-shoot of the 109 unit performed well considering the numbers of 262 flown at night which were few and the result for the overall effect in the war was nil, only to somehow boost civilian morale in and around Berlin


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2007)

Erich said:


> mark I think you are right though I am going to have to look into the fall kills-claims by the test Kommando and JG 7.
> 
> Soren arg !
> 
> ...



Roger that Erich.

How about direct fights between He-219's and Mossies, could you research some incidents and or the usual out-come. I bet everyone would appreciate it, I know I will  

How many losses of He-219's did the LW sustain ?

The Ju-88G-6 -7's performed well against the Mossie you say ? Any shoot downs ?

As for the few Me-262b-1a1's deployed, they gave the Allies a licking, no doubt, a very effective night-fighter.

PS: Have you got info on how well the few Ju-388 night-fighters performed ?

I only just recently became very interested about the night-fighting over Germany and I must say its a very interesting subject, I definitely understand your interest in it as-well.

Many thanks


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2007)

Btw, since there are many sources claiming different figures I'd like to ask wether the Ju-88 G-6 could really do 425 mph on MW-50 ? Other sources claim around 405m mph on MW-50.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 9, 2007)

Quotes from a book I'm reading atm called Bomber Crew:
Luftwaffe fighter pilot Peter Spoden: "They were far superior to what the German fighter pilots had. They were faster, more manouverable, and the radar was much better. We were terrified of the Moaquitoes. Towards the end of the war we had a warning system, an acoustic detector. The sound increased when we were near a Mosquito. Then we turned off and went away. We were afraid of the Mosquitoes, particularly when we landed. The Mosquitoes waited over the German air bases and we had huge losses."

Wolfgang Falck: "That aeroplane was too fast, flew much too high and was far too difficult to catch with radar. It was a superb aircraft. When the Mosquitoes arrived, all we could do was shake our heads. The Mosquito was unique."


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 9, 2007)

One just wonders why it had to operate during the night like the other RAF bombers then... why no regular daylight Mosquito raids on Berlin. 

Oh, sorry I forgot, the Mosquito was another 'invincible'.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 9, 2007)

No plane is invincible, unless it's an SR-71 
Well, the target marking Mossies had to fly at night because they were marking for the main bomber stream, this being done at around 1,00ft.
Mossies of the LNSF were used for diversionary raids to draw LW atention away from the intended target. 
PR and FB Mossies flew around the clock.


----------



## Erich (Jul 9, 2007)

you are correct mossie man to a point. many aces of the LW nf force never saw a mossie......strange you say ? yes very true. I know Peter S and his word is truth from his point of view while in NJG 6.

Soren: I'm going to make short quick responses as I am feeling quite ill today in this heat. last mention of 425 - yes 

no Ju 388's nf operational.

He 219 will be covered in a work that is forthcoming and I am not allowed to mention more than what I have. losses and kills, first person accts will be included.

yes their were kills by the Ju 88G-6 crews over Mosquito NF's. I would have to dig them out but again this is also for one of my personal works in progress.

Kommando Welter Me 262 twin seater only scored 1 Mossie kill the rest and it is covered in our book on the Moskito-jagd were shot down by Me 262A-1a's

sorry to be so brief


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 9, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> No plane is invincible, unless it's an SR-71
> Well, the target marking Mossies had to fly at night because they were marking for the main bomber stream, this being done at around 1,00ft.
> Mossies of the LNSF were used for diversionary raids to draw LW atention away from the intended target.
> PR and FB Mossies flew around the clock.



Which brings us to the point, operational circumstances had a lot to do with losses and interceptions. Diversionary raids were often not bothered to be intercepted, if the defense figured it out, and the defense had the heavies as primary targets, and if that Ju 88 is pounding the Lancs at 4000 meter, he sure as hell won't pound the wooden wonder you're sitting in at at 9000m.. and btw the guy in the the JuJu is doing the tactically correct thing, shooting the down the more vulnerable aircraft that can do more damage.

It would be well worth to see and compare the loss record of Mossies operating in daylight and night as bombers, the ones as the main target force and as diversionary raids, FB mossies vs PR mossies. 

Tactical circumstances far outweight technical ones IMHO. There are no wonder planes.


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> It would be well worth to see and compare the loss record of Mossies operating in daylight and night as bombers, the ones as the main target force and as diversionary raids, FB mossies vs PR mossies.
> 
> Tactical circumstances far outweight technical ones IMHO. There are no wonder planes.



This may jog your memory, I posted this earlier in the thread.

I must also question this statement. Looking at the stats for 2 Group in 1944 the stats are
Mossies (Day) 1732 sorties, 1320 successful, 17 lost to flak, 1 to fighters, unknown 11. total loss ratio 2.2 percent.
Mossies (Night) 9899 sorties, 8877 successful, 4 lost to flak, 0 to fighters, unknown 73. total loss ratio 0.9 percent

To remind you no one has said the mossie was invincible, just that it did its job with a much lower loss ratio than any other plane.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 9, 2007)

Glider said:


> To remind you no one has said the mossie was invincible, just that it did its job with a much lower loss ratio than any other plane.



It didn't.

The B-26 had something like a 0.5% loss rate (it usually operated in daylight), the the avarage loss rate of LW's combat planes in 1944 on the eastern front was 0.7%.

In both cases it's considerably lower than the Mosquito daylight figures you gave (2.2%), even compared for the noctural operations (0.9%).

Thing is, neither the LW on the Eastern Front, neither the B-26, or the Mosquito got these loss rates because they had/were absolute super planes. The Eastern Front was huge, and B-26s and Mosquitos didn't draw as much attention from the LW as Lancasters and B-17s.

There was no 'wooden wonder', except in the propaganda ministry's leaflets.


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> It didn't.
> 
> The B-26 had something like a 0.5% loss rate (it usually operated in daylight), the the avarage loss rate of LW's combat planes in 1944 on the eastern front was 0.7%.
> 
> ...



I think I need to jog your memory again, posted earlier in the thread.

'Thanks I did. I notice the bit where it states that the West was a far more dangerous place to operate than the East. We are of course talking about the West, over Germany, the most heavily defended area in the world, by day and night, hundreds of miles behind German Lines. Not I suggest the same as the East where there were almost no German long range missions of any kind against a weaker opposition'

Unless you are saying that short range missions over the Eastern Front where Germany often had local air superiority, is as dangerous as Flying over Berlin and other parts of Germany hundreds of miles behind the German lines.

As for Wooden Wonder, would you settle for Unique as per Wolfgang Falck: "That aeroplane was too fast, flew much too high and was far too difficult to catch with radar. It was a superb aircraft. When the Mosquitoes arrived, all we could do was shake our heads. The Mosquito was unique."


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2007)

PS as for the B26 which was a very good medium bomber, how many flew over Berlin and what was their bombload at such a range?


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2007)

Erich,

No worries, you take all the time you need, you can write a more thurough response when your feeling better again. 

I wish you a quick recovery.


Btw, you say the Ju-388 didn't go operational as a night-fighter, but I understand from reading about it that a few were certainly ready and even went on trial with the LW:


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 10, 2007)

Glider said:


> I think I need to jog your memory again, posted earlier in the thread.



I think you just need to put up with the facts, my friend, and I really have no time nor inclination to enter into a for fanboi discussion.. 8)


----------



## Glider (Jul 10, 2007)

I do put up with the facts and they were your facts, what differs is the interpretation. 
Your version depends on you believing that short range missions over the Eastern Front where Germany often had local air superiority, is as dangerous as Flying over Berlin and other parts of Germany hundreds of miles behind the German lines. 
Your version also depends on you forgetting the part about the West being far more dangerous than the east, that was after all mentioned in your quote.

I rest my case


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> Btw, you say the Ju-388 didn't go operational as a night-fighter, but I understand from reading about it that a few were certainly ready and even went on trial with the LW:



I think he is referring to Operational status. Trials, testing and so forth are not classified as operational.


----------



## Soren (Jul 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think he is referring to Operational status. Trials, testing and so forth are not classified as operational.



Yes I know, I just pointed that it was ready and it did see some service with the LW. But no it didn't go fully operational.


----------



## Erich (Jul 11, 2007)

it was not ready for operations as there were too many problems with the engines and pointed wings. non success in the armament trials and there were plenty of experiments with heavy 3cm Mk 103 cannons and heavier yet. the a/c was out of balance and would not serve a useful purpose for a long pointed wing high altitude twin engine a/c. It was being beaten out by the ever short range Me 262A to engage the Mosquito, the Ju 88G-6 was suitable enough and had proven itself from November 44 onward


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2007)

Which means it was not ready....


----------



## Erich (Jul 11, 2007)

exactly the a/c had continual wing spar failures, it was suppose to have cabin heating which did not work also


----------



## Glider (Jul 11, 2007)

I think continual spar failures would worry me more than a little.


----------



## Simon Addinsell (Jun 14, 2013)

Glider said:


> Because these are stats that I have and can quote
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You list the numbers of 105's first Mossies. [W4065/6/8/9/70/71 4072]My father Ft/Lt Paul Addinsell, flew most of them, but I see from his log book that on 17th Dec 1941 18th April 1942 he flew W4064. He was shot down in W4069 on 16th July [POW]


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 14, 2013)

Hi Simon,

Do you have any details about your father's last operation? All I have is that his Mossie was brought down by flak near Wilhelmshafen. Did the crew ditch on the water, or did they make it back over land? Did they come down straight away, or were they able to continue for a bit?

I'd be most interested in hearing any details you have.


----------



## altsym (Jun 14, 2013)

wrong thread


----------



## stona (Jun 15, 2013)

Erich said:


> with the advent of the Me262A-1a of Kommando Welter, it did not matter, the Mossie always lost.
> E ~



And how many Mosquitos were actually shot down by that unit?...... I don't mean those claimed!
Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 18, 2013)

Kurfürst said:


> One just wonders why it had to operate during the night like the other RAF bombers then... why no regular daylight Mosquito raids on Berlin.
> 
> Oh, sorry I forgot, the Mosquito was another 'invincible'.



From Adolf Galland's Book "The First and the Last" (pages 213 and 214):

_A special chapter was the fight against the Mosquito, Britain had developed and all purpose aircraft woth so extra ordinary performance, whose activities over Germany caused a lot of trouble. The twin engined De Havilland had a speed which none of our fighter aircraft could approach. By day it flew on reconnaissance at high altitude, but it also performed bombing missions, and had a very precise bombsight called Oboe (which was actually a radio based navigation system). It was also successful, at little cost, in nuisance raids at night.

Until we were able to send up the Me-262 jet fighter we were practically powerless against the Mosquito.

Like their namesake they became a plague to our Command and the population. 

Our fighters could only catch them when we dived on them from a much greater height during an attack, temporarily achieving higher speed. But as the Mosquitos already flew at a great height, the manoeuvre could only be performed when the approach of the aircraft was discovered early enough and if it could be passed from one radar station to another.
Here there were difficulties: firstly our radar network by by no means without gaps and, secondly, the Mosquito was built of wood, so the little 'bird' only gave a faint signal on our sets.

These were the facts which one simply had to accept for the time being.

Anyhow, with this aircraft alone the German war industry could not be hit decisively; there was no danger that we might lose the war on account of the Mosquito. 
It was for quite different reasons the Goering went mad about out inability to stop these raids.
In daytime they flew without loss and went wherever their mission took them; at night they chased the population out of their beds. The latter, who were justifiably annoyed at this, started to grumble: 'Fatty can't even cope with a few silly Mosquitos.'

Ignoring me, Goering recalled two experienced group leaders from the East and ordered them to clear up this daily nuisance in one way or another.

Two strengthened squadrons were formed specially for this purpose, bombastically called the 25th and 50th fighter groups. These aircraft were 'hotted' up by all sorts of tricks, and special methods of attack were worked out - without avail.

As far as I know, neither of these units ever shot down a Mosquito. They were dissolved in autumn 43, and I was able to use the aircraft in the general defence of the Reich._

Adolf Galland, General der Jagdflieger


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 18, 2013)

Boy that one killed the thread.... hopefully killed the idea that 'more advanced' (until the 262) German planes swept Mossies from the air .. they didn't and couldn't. By day, let alone night.

In the other Mossie thread, I quoted the Banff strike wing which could (and did) fight with 109s and 190s by day (FB VIs with Merlin 25s) ... and come out about even. In actual real dogfights. You took on a F or FB with a lot of concern. Bob Braham (the great night fighter ace) out turned a 190 in a day dog fight and shot it down (then got over confident and tried it with 2 of them, held his own with one, the other shot him down, hence the importance of wing men).

As for the Ju-88 series .. fine plane as it was, well lambs to the slaughter basically. Again in the other thread I quoted the Banff wing coming across a bunch of them ... 2 88's (actually probably 188s) got back and were scrapped. Quoted afterwards (post WW2) was the German commander who told a British RAF person (who served on the Banff wing) about the day 'he lost a wing of 88s".

It could hold its own with the German SE fighters of the time in a fight, or could avoid them mostly and was comprehensibly superior to any of their twins.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 18, 2013)

The last thing many German twin or single engined plan's pilots ever saw (except at night) :


----------



## Kryten (Jun 18, 2013)

I have "A separate little war" about the Banff wing, very good book!

Don't think it's realistic to say the Mossie held it's own against the German SE fighters, they certainly weren't totally outclassed, but tactical situation was the deciding factor, I doubt many Mossie pilots tried turn fighting with them, bounce and away with their high speed seems to be order of the day, which was successful on many occasions!
They do seem to have held a considerable superiority over their German twins however, one example is in Separate little war when two Mossies attacked four Me110G2's downing three, they caused the Germans major problems over Biscay too.

Excellent aircraft , but not really a dogfighter in that sense!


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 18, 2013)

Kryten said:


> They do seem to have held a considerable superiority over their German twins however, one example is in Separate little war when two Mossies attacked four Me110G2's downing three, they caused the Germans major problems over Biscay too.



... and then there was this lone Me 110 pilot who was attacked by six(?) Spitfires and he still nailed three of them... so perhaps the RAF should have replaced Spits with Mosquitos for air combat, since the 110 beats the Spit, the Mossie beats the 110? The RAF certainly did not think so this would true for many combats... a few perhaps, yes. But you cannot draw much conclusion from these single combats. 80% of it was/is about who having upper hand in the beginning, who approached enemy without notice for easy shot, who makes mistakes first, who exploits those..


----------



## Milosh (Jun 18, 2013)

Summary from Mankau/Petrick, "Messerschmidt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410. Die Messerschmitt-Zerstörer und ihre Konkurrenten"

Timeline:

24.05.1940: GL announces that 1000 DB601N engines are to be produced until 01.01.1940.

31.05.1940: Of the 1000 engines, 350 engines have to be considered reserve engines. Thus, only the series production Me 109F can be equipped with the engine. An introduction into Me 110 production at a later date is to be considered.

07.06.1940: New program shows Me 109 and Me 110 equipped with DB601N.

12.07.1940: Generalstab decides that the existing DB601N engines are for now to be installed in the Me 110 exclusively.

19.07.1940: The currently available DB601N engines are required for conversion of the Me 110 in front-line operations. This means an end to further conversions of the Me 109 (of which so far, one group has been converted). The Me 109F series retains the DB601N engine. New-production Me 110 retain the DB601A as before.

26.07.1940: Generalstab opposes further conversions of Me 110 aircraft to DB601N engines except for the groups currently under conversion.

09.08.1940: For the conversion of a total of 3 groups of Me 110 and the already completed conversion of one group Me 109, a monthly total of 70 engines is required for 30 replacement aircraft Me 110, 10 replacement aircraft Me 109. An additional 30 engines are allocated for the reserve engine pool. As currently 280 engines are used in operations, this equates a 10 % reserve.

30.08.1940: It is requested from LC 3 to built a reserve of 45 engines (September), 35 (October), then 30 engines each month until a total of 180 engines is reached.

27.09.1940: Chef Generalstab decided to sustain 4 groups of Me 110 with N engines. 40 of DB601N engines are ear-marked for the reserve pool for these groups. The remaining engines are to go into the reserve pool (1/3) and into Me 109 (2/3).

18.10.1940: It is impossible at the time to convert more than the one existing Bf 109E group to DB601N, and it's not expected to be possible before 01.12.1940. Currently the DB601N engines go to: 1) new production Friedrichs, 2) new production Me 110 to sustain the existing four groups, 3) into 40 new production Emils to sustain the existing one group, 4) into the reserve engine pool for 1 - 3.

26.10.1940: Until the end of October, 1100 - 1200 DB601N engines were delivered. They are installed in the four existing Me 110 groups and the single existing Me 109 group, some reconnaissance aircraft of the Aufklärungsgruppe Ob. d. L., plus 130 reserve engine pool. The rest of the engines went into Me 109F and Me 110 production. The production of DB601N-engined Me 110s is to be channelled into night fighters, for which a constant strength of 120 is demanded.

06.11.1940: Generalstab requests more Me 109 with DB601N-engines. In order to free the required engines, the Generalstab accepts that two month's worth of Me 110 production are delivered with DB601A exclusively (November and December production). The engines thus freed are to go to 1) remaining Bf 109E production, 2) III./ZG 26 Erprb.Gr 210. II./ZG 26 and II./ZG 76 are given low priority or have to swap their engines for DB601A if required.

22.01.1941: The Leitender Chef-Ingenieur has considered the fuel situation and suggest to possibly convert the Me 110 to DB601A engines. The Generalstab lists the operational aircraft with DB601N engine by 01.01.1940 as follows:

Me 109E-1: 16
Me 109E-3: 1
Me 109E-4: 59
Me 109E-6: 1
Me 109E-7: 34
Me 109E-8: 2
Me 109F-1: 5

Me 110C-1: 4
Me 110C-4: 40
Me 110C-5: 12
Me 110C-7: 14
Me 110D-0: 18
Me 110D-2: 20
Me 110D-3: 8
Me 110E-1: 176
Me 110E-2: 14

He 111P: 8
Do 215: 68

(Apparently, the fuel situation made it difficult to keep the DB601N in operation, and at least Me 110 production was ordered to go back to the DB601A predominantly while the DB601N was phased out in favour of the DB601E.)

The above was done by a poster on another board.


----------



## Kryten (Jun 18, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> ... and then there was this lone Me 110 pilot who was attacked by six(?) Spitfires and he still nailed three of them... so perhaps the RAF should have replaced Spits with Mosquitos for air combat, since the 110 beats the Spit, the Mossie beats the 110? The RAF certainly did not think so this would true for many combats... a few perhaps, yes. But you cannot draw much conclusion from these single combats. 80% of it was/is about who having upper hand in the beginning, who approached enemy without notice for easy shot, who makes mistakes first, who exploits those..


That's a bit silly really,
That was a simply an example from the quoted book, not a one off either, the appearance of the Mosquito in Coastal Command made life considerably more difficult for the Germans over Biscay for instance, it held a considerable speed and firepower advantage over the German twins, being very successful on Intruder and Day Ranger operations over the Continent!


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> ... and then there was this lone Me 110 pilot who was attacked by six(?) Spitfires and he still nailed three of them... so perhaps the RAF should have replaced Spits with Mosquitos for air combat, since the 110 beats the Spit, the Mossie beats the 110? The RAF certainly did not think so this would true for many combats... a few perhaps, yes. But you cannot draw much conclusion from these single combats. 80% of it was/is about who having upper hand in the beginning, who approached enemy without notice for easy shot, who makes mistakes first, who exploits those..



Only 2, dear Tante Ju, and then Jabs? craslanded his 110 and ran because he thought that that was his only chance to survive. He guessed that the other Spits would not allow him to use his head-on tactics after they had just seen how good shooter he was. But I agree that 110G wasn't hopeless against Spits, I know a couple examples of that


----------



## nincomp (Jun 18, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> 80% of it was/is about who having upper hand in the beginning, who approached enemy without notice for easy shot, who makes mistakes first, who exploits those..



This pretty much agrees with the "Most pilots shot down did not see the enemy coming" thread. Although it is true that some of the best pilots could achieve unexpected performance from their planes against enemy ones, the preferred tactic for success has almost always been "dive from out of the sun at an unsuspecting enemy."


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2013)

nincomp said:


> This pretty much agrees with the "Most pilots shot down did not see the enemy coming" thread. Although it is true that some of the best pilots could achieve unexpected performance from their planes against enemy ones, the preferred tactic for success has almost always been "dive from out of the sun at an unsuspecting enemy."



Maybe not fully relevant with heavy fighters, both 110 and 88 had rear gunner to look out the dangerous rear sector and 88 had even a third pair of eyeballs.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 25, 2013)

Kryten said:


> I have "A separate little war" about the Banff wing, very good book!
> 
> Don't think it's realistic to say the Mossie held it's own against the German SE fighters, they certainly weren't totally outclassed, but tactical situation was the deciding factor, I doubt many Mossie pilots tried turn fighting with them, bounce and away with their high speed seems to be order of the day, which was successful on many occasions!
> They do seem to have held a considerable superiority over their German twins however, one example is in Separate little war when two Mossies attacked four Me110G2's downing three, they caused the Germans major problems over Biscay too.
> ...



Have a read of it again. There are several reports of dogfights. Bob Braham famously shot down a 190 in a turning fight in the day (then tried to do it with 2 another time, held his own but got shotdown by the wingman).
At that low level the FB VI it could hold its own, with pilots being trained properly of course.

The speed differential was very close, the warning time was very short and almost always with poor weather in low cloud. So for a 109 or 190 to engage it couldn't be a bounce from the sky, it had to be a dogfight.
They did notice that when the Luftwaffe got more 190s they were more aggressive than when the had 109s.

Just like the USN pilots in the Pacific, the Mossie pilots learned how to do it, It was fast and agile enough to avoid being easily taken out by an attack and their own wingman (or others) then could get into play.
And that firepower, 4x20mm and 4x.303, took no prisoners.

In the early days of the Banff wing, the Mossie crews were the escorts for the Beaufighters.

As for the German twins they had nothing that could live in the air when a Fighter or Fighter/bomber Mossie was around, day or night, until the jets.


----------



## Kryten (Jun 25, 2013)

You may want to read this report on the effectiveness of the Mosquito as a day fighter http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf 

Mossie was a great plane, could and did engage single engine fighters in the right circumstances, but it would not be your preferred option, that's why Coastal Command started deploying Mustangs as escorts to the strikers!


----------



## vinnye (Jul 29, 2013)

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I have just seen a documentary called "The plane that saved Britain ; The Mosquito".
Now I think that is a bit of a stretch, but some excellent footage, interviews and recollections of the Mossie at work.
One role I never knew of until I watched this footage was the U boat hunter. Equipped with a 57mm (6 Pounder) cannon, the Mossie was a potent weapon !

As far as going up against the LW single engined fighters - not really a good move unless you were in an advantageous position, probably why the RAF sent two Typhoons as escorts per Mossie on the Amiens raid!


----------



## beitou (Jul 29, 2013)

I saw the same programme but didn't quite understand what handling problems the mosquito had that caused it to be so dangerous to the crew?


----------



## altsym (Jul 29, 2013)

Wow. Why did the RAF bother with any other plane? Two mosquitoes was more then enough to win the airwar. 
<sarcasm>.


----------



## vinnye (Jul 29, 2013)

Hope you enjoyed it Beitou.
It was not a handling problem as such, it was the fact that the merlin engines had a carb rather than fuel injection.
This meant that some manoeuvres such as a sudden nose down, or roll could cause fuel supply to cut off or even flood the engine and cause power loss. If this happens with both engines at the same time could be fatal.


----------



## Glider (Jul 29, 2013)

This might be of interest
Air Accidents Investigation: De 501355


----------



## parsifal (Jul 29, 2013)

I think one of the most significant complements on the Mossie capability was from the germans themselves, that sang its praises, and if my memory serves me, wanted to copy it. That says volumes about what the germans thought of the wooden wonder.


----------



## davebender (Jul 29, 2013)

P-51s won the air war. If you don't believe it watch The History Channel.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 29, 2013)

I dont know who said two mosquitoes won the air air war, and I dont know who said the Mustang won the air war. both statements are equally false.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 30, 2013)

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the blanket statement the P-51s won the air war was a case of IRONY. Citing the History Channel as a reference is a bit of a give-away. But if you didn't catch it, don't be too hard on yourself - Americans are famous for irony the way Australians are famous for sobriety.


----------



## vinnye (Jul 30, 2013)

I do not recall anyone saying that the Mosquito won the air war.
In my post I said that I had seen a documentary called "The Plane that saved Britain".
I think even that is an over simplification / exaggeration of biblical proportions!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 30, 2013)

vinnye said:


> Hope you enjoyed it Beitou.
> It was not a handling problem as such, it was the fact that the merlin engines had a carb rather than fuel injection.
> This meant that some manoeuvres such as a sudden nose down, or roll could cause fuel supply to cut off or even flood the engine and cause power loss. If this happens with both engines at the same time could be fatal.



Surely the engines would have at the least been fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice if not the later pressure carbs.


----------



## vinnye (Jul 30, 2013)

From the accident report;
n deference to the age of the aircraft, the display pilots never intentionally applied negative g,
although reduced positive g(ie less than 1 g) would have occurred to varying degrees. Apart from g
loadings experienced on the aircraft centreline, each carburettor might be subjected to greater or
lesser accelerations due to engine vibration, turbulence, sideslip, and rolling motion about
the aircraft longitudinal axis. For example, the left carburettor could experience reduced or negative
g if a roll to the left were initiated, or a roll to the right arrested, while the right carburettor would see
positive g. The movement of the fuel within the floatchambers ('slosh'), and in consequence the
float behaviour, therefore is a function of complex dynamic conditions. In the event that the
combined dynamics of the aircraft and float chamber fuel mass caused the floats to be forced
towards their fully depressed conditions,then it is likely that the ensuing restricted fuel flow
could cause a loss of engine power, as the residual fuel in the chamber would last only a few
seconds. Although it could not be concluded that this caused a power loss, it was considered that the
as-found adjustment states of the carburettors were capable of producing it under certain conditions.
The fact that the restriction of flow in the left carburettor was more severe than the right (based upon
the results of bench testing one chamber from each carburettor),might indicate a greater
susceptibility of the left engine tocut. Nevertheless, the number of variables involved in creating a
restricted flow condition also suggested that actual occurrence could be of an unpredictable nature.
This might explain why the symptoms could not be reproduced following the Lille incident,when
the pilot deliberately put the aircraft through a series of reduced g manoeuvres.
The Merlin's reputation for cutting under negative g conditions had endured since the beginning of
the Second World War. Curiously,the fact that a successful carburettor modification had been
developed(and incorporated on the subject aircraft) to remedy the problem had largely been
forgotten.


----------



## Kryten (Jul 30, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Surely the engines would have at the least been fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice if not the later pressure carbs.



from the crash report-


The SU company, in conjunction with the Royal Aircraft Establishment(RAE), developed a
modification which led to the 'RAE Anti g Carburettor'. Both carburettors in G-ASKH were found
to be of this type

nothing to do with neg G on the carb as per the original merlins in spits, report focuses on power loss on the left engine during the wing over.


----------



## redcoat (Jul 30, 2013)

In truth, the Mosquito was considered by a RAF to a 'Hot' aircraft, normally a delightful aircraft to fly but if flown recklessly it could be a handful. It also suffered from what all powerful twin engined machines tended to suffer from, troubles with asymmetric power , a loss of power from one of the engines on take off or landing could be highly dangerous.
For these reasons the RAF tended to use experienced pilots for flying the Mosquito.


----------



## beitou (Jul 30, 2013)

vinnye said:


> Hope you enjoyed it Beitou.
> It was not a handling problem as such, it was the fact that the merlin engines had a carb rather than fuel injection.
> This meant that some manoeuvres such as a sudden nose down, or roll could cause fuel supply to cut off or even flood the engine and cause power loss. If this happens with both engines at the same time could be fatal.


yep got it now. The only thing I disliked about the programme was the presenter was very keen on throwing adjectives and superlatives around, I can understand his liking the mosquito and his enjoyment of the flight but I would loved to have heard more from the bods who restored and flew it themselves.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 31, 2013)

beitou said:


> yep got it now. The only thing I disliked about the programme was the presenter was very keen on throwing adjectives and superlatives around, I can understand his liking the mosquito and his enjoyment of the flight but I would loved to have heard more from the bods who restored and flew it themselves.



I watched it last night on catch up and I wasnt impressed the presenter even got some basic facts wrong. Nice pictures and dull words.


----------



## Koldstream (Dec 1, 2018)

Lucky13 said:


> Is it true that the Luftwaffe awarded a pilot that shot down a Mosquito with TWO kills instead for one?


Actually it is absolutely true. I know that this is an old post...but the answer needs to be redressed.
Is the Mosquito the greatest warplane of all?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2018)

Koldstream said:


> Actually it is absolutely true. I know that this is an old post...but the answer needs to be redressed.
> Is the Mosquito the greatest warplane of all?



I’m pretty sure that is a myth that the telegraph is reporting. The Luftwaffe awarded one kill, and one kill only.

Well not really a myth, just misinformation...


----------



## Milosh (Dec 1, 2018)

Koldstream said:


> Actually it is absolutely true. I know that this is an old post...but the answer needs to be redressed.
> Is the Mosquito the greatest warplane of all?



The Germans awarded points for shot down a/c. Luftwaffe Score System This was in addition to actual scores of a/c shot down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2018)

Milosh said:


> The Germans awarded points for shot down a/c. Luftwaffe Score System This was in addition to actual scores of a/c shot down.



Exactly, and points were given for the number of engines. A kill for a Mossie was 2 points, not because it was a Mossie, but because it had two engines.

A shotdown Mossie would be 1 Kill, 2 Points.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 2, 2018)

The Mosquito has it's share of bad characteristics. One of them is Vmc - minimum controllable airspeed for a twin. The Mosquito has a Vmc on the order of 135 knots (155 mph!). You take off at something like 100 - 105 knots. So there is a considerable amount of time accelerating when, if anything untoward happens to the engines or props, you are landing straight ahead or just dead. 

It also has bad spin characteristics - a trait shared with many twins having heavy outboard engines, but not to the same degree. The vertical fin is not exactly flush with area to stop a spin or even a swing on takeoff or landing. You wouldn't normally think of spinning as a requirement for the type, but the ability to recover from one would have been VERY nice.

These factors do not mean it was less than a great airplane. No aircraft is best at everything. The Mosquito was pretty good or very good at many things, even if not the absolute best. The combination of performance made it a genuine surprise weapon, and that can never be changed.

I've read the Bf 110 was a delightful aircraft to fly at low to medium speeds, and only got to be a bit stiff at high speeds. It had many good or great characteristics. But it was no Mosquito. The Mosquito F.II maxed out at about 365 mph at all-up weight of 18,530 lbs. The Bf 110 maxed out at about 345 - 360 mph, and it would seem a good match. But the Bf 110 couldn't CRUISE nearly as fast. The Mosquito best-range was about 170 mph below 10,000 feet ... but it could cruise much faster if need be. The Bf 110 was not a fast cruiser. Both were about 20,000 pound max takeoff or slightly more, depending on variant.

I've always wondered how the mosquito might have handled with twin fins and rudders along the lines of the de Havilland Albatross. Maybe better, maybe not. I also think a scaled-down, single-engine version might have been a success. Again, maybe not. I'm glad de Havilland had the company nerve to design and proceed with a bomber that was never ordered to be designed with a specification requirement by the RAF and to do it out of a non-strategic material. Sure is a pretty plane, isn't it? So is my personal favorite DH aircraft, the Hornet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Dec 4, 2018)

Were there any plans to equip the Mossie with Griffon engines? I guess these would have been monsters. On par with the F8F Tigercat.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 4, 2018)

spicmart said:


> Were there any plans to equip the Mossie with Griffon engines? I guess these would have been monsters. On par with the F8F Tigercat.




IIRC there were plains to make a 'Super Mosquito', powered by two Sabre engines. A bigger fast bomber.
Hornet was on par with F8F, and then some.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> IIRC there were plains to make a 'Super Mosquito', powered by two Sabre engines. A bigger fast bomber.
> Hornet was on par with F8F, and then some.



There was an alternate plan for a larger Mosquito with Griffon engines as well, but it was thought its performance would be no better than the Mosquito's.

There was also a proposal for a jet Mosquito with, IIRC, two Halford H.Is (later to become de Havilland Goblin).


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 4, 2018)

spicmart said:


> Were there any plans to equip the Mossie with Griffon engines? I guess these would have been monsters. On par with the F8F Tigercat.




Or the F7F Tigercat. I guess all those Cats just look a like...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Dec 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> There was an alternate plan for a larger Mosquito with Griffon engines as well, but it was thought its performance would be no better than the Mosquito's.
> 
> There was also a proposal for a jet Mosquito with, IIRC, two Halford H.Is (later to become de Havilland Goblin).




The Sabre was quite heavier than the Griffon, right?
Why would the performance with Griffon not be better?

Sorry I meant F7F.


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2018)

I think a more sensible option would be to install the Merlin 130 with 2000hp as used in the Hornet.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 5, 2018)

spicmart said:


> The Sabre was quite heavier than the Griffon, right?



Yes, by about 200kg/450lb.

Was also more powerful.




spicmart said:


> Why would the performance with Griffon not be better?



Because the proposal was for a larger and heavier aircraft than the Mosquito.

EDIT: The Griffon itself was around 400lb heavier than the 2 stage Merlin. Installing Griffons in the Mosquito may have been possible, but detrimental to its load carrying capability.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 5, 2018)

Glider said:


> I think a more sensible option would be to install the Merlin 130 with 2000hp as used in the Hornet.



Would have been too late for the war.

The PR.34 and NF.36 got the Merlin 113 and 114, which was similar to the 130, but with updraft carburettors and a lower rating (~1,700hp).


----------



## pbehn (Dec 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Yes, by about 200kg/450lb.
> 
> Was also more powerful.
> 
> ...


Probably detrimental all around, it would need more fuel or have less range and have been even worse on one engine for performance. Maybe if you dial everything back and have Griffons available in 1939/40 something could have been done, but even then I am not really sure.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Probably detrimental all around, it would need more fuel or have less range and have been even worse on one engine for performance. Maybe if you dial everything back and have Griffons available in 1939/40 something could have been done, but even then I am not really sure.



You should have more power (2 stage Griffons more powerful than 2 stage Merlins) and more lifting ability, at the cost of lower load carrying (unless the airframe is capable of taking a higher auw, the maximum for the Mosquito seems to have been ~ 25,000lb) and less range, as you state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## me109g4 (Dec 6, 2018)

going back a bit to the Bf109 vs. mosquito, didn't Heinz Knoke get a mosquito in a tail chase? if I recall he about wrecked the engine in his 109 as the only way to close on the mosquito was to close radiator flaps, and use emergency boost just to get in range, Knokes wingman was completely outclassed and fell behind quickly. I suspect Knokes aircraft was a "G" model with the water/methanol injection, but I don't recall all the details.


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 7, 2018)

me109g4 said:


> going back a bit to the Bf109 vs. mosquito, […]



Well, there are these sorts of documents, although this combat ends rather differently than the previous anecdote.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 7, 2018)

me109g4 said:


> going back a bit to the Bf109 vs. mosquito, didn't Heinz Knoke get a mosquito in a tail chase? if I recall he about wrecked the engine in his 109 as the only way to close on the mosquito was to close radiator flaps, and use emergency boost just to get in range, Knokes wingman was completely outclassed and fell behind quickly. I suspect Knokes aircraft was a "G" model with the water/methanol injection, but I don't recall all the details.



There is some debate if the a/c was a Mossie. Iirc the weather wasn't the greatest and no Mossies in the area of the claim at the time.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 7, 2018)

Entering enemy airspace a Mosquito had the capacity to cruise to a different area of the sky before interception. When introduced it was faster than the Spitfire on the same engine, however as the war went on German planes even propeller driven were faster, the issue was by how much. If a Mosquito pilot spotted an interceptor 10,000 ft below the interceptor has to climb 10,000ft and match its speed to catch him. Vectoring a plane to within visual range was the issue for intercepting high altitude recon Mosquitos, I don't think a Griffon engine adds to the package, it burns more fuel from take off to landing and with recon versions the payload was fuel.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 7, 2018)

It also depended on the altitude.

There remained small bands of altitudes where the Mosquito was faster.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 7, 2018)

wuzak said:


> It also depended on the altitude.
> 
> There remained small bands of altitudes where the Mosquito was faster.


I was speaking in most general terms, the Me262 was faster at all altitudes but it was still possible for a Mosquito to get away.


----------



## FalkeEins (Dec 8, 2018)

..ten years since Erich told us 'wait for his book!' ( there's no book...) German author Andreas Zapf has published his " Mosquitos over Berlin " (book is German text " _Mosquitos über Berlin. Nachtjagd mit der Messerschmitt Bf 109 und Me 262_ " )

- a first look and a chat with the author about Me 262 night fighters, Kurt Welter, and Mosquito hunting on my blog here

FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: “Mosquitos over Berlin” - a chat with Andreas Zapf; Moskitojagd, Kurt Welter and Me 262 jet night fighters


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2018)

FalkeEins said:


> ..*ten years since Erich told us 'wait for his book!' ( there's no book...)* German author Andreas Zapf has published his " Mosquitos over Berlin " (book is German text " _Mosquitos über Berlin. Nachtjagd mit der Messerschmitt Bf 109 und Me 262_ " )
> 
> - a first look and a chat with the author about Me 262 night fighters, Kurt Welter, and Mosquito hunting on my blog here
> 
> FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: “Mosquitos over Berlin” - a chat with Andreas Zapf; Moskitojagd, Kurt Welter and Me 262 jet night fighters




Give him a break. He has been battling much more important things the last 5+ years.


----------



## Augsburg Eagle (Dec 8, 2018)

FalkeEins said:


> Mosquitos über Berlin. Nachtjagd mit der Messerschmitt Bf 109 und Me 262


Did put this on my wishlist for X-mas

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 16, 2018)

> Were there any plans to equip the Mossie with Griffon engines?



Yes. To begin with, when the design was being draughted, de Havilland produced figures for a Griffon engined machine, pending availability of the engine. Another proposal saw a single engined Sabre powered variant or two enlarged Napier Daggers. These of course were paper projects before final design was settled on. It is worth remembering that the DH.98 also went through a design phase where it was to be fitted with a four-gun tail turret and powered by two Griffons. Performance figures were calculated and compared with the unarmed Merlin engined paper plane and not surprisingly the performance decreased considerably fitted with the tail turret.

In 1941 the DH.102 was proposed, which was the Griffon engined Mosquito, which was never built. It was to be a bigger, more powerful Mossie, basically, but by the end of December 1942 it had been cancelled through lack of enthusiasm. The Merlin 61 engined Mossie had around the same performance as that of the DH.102, also de Havilland had its hands full with the Vampire and Hornet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 17, 2018)

The brakes were put on many British late war aircraft development projects because of the financialand economic exhaustion faced b the British. Many worthy projects simply did not receive proper funding and were still born as a result


----------

