# Mosquito FBVI v. Fw190 dogfight



## Mick (Oct 17, 2011)

I'm doing some research for a screenplay I'm writing and have a found a description of a real dogfight between a Mosquito FBVI and an Fw190. I can't quite grasp the sequence of events, but essentially, the Mosquito climbs away from the 190 and, somehow, manages to turn the tables on its German pursuer. I would normally have contacted the author in the first instance, but seeing he passed away some years ago I was was wondering if someone might be able to suggest how a climbing Mossie could manage to outwit his 190 opponent. 

Could he somehow slow the rate of climb sufficiently so that the Fw190 shot past him? I've heard of deliberately stalling aircraft but, quite clearly, I am out of my depth here (obviously!). I would, therefore, be most grateful for any suggestions. If anyone has any other thoughts – it doesn't have to follow this particular scenario – then I am open to ideas.

In anticipation,
Mick


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 17, 2011)

I'm going to guess this happened at night. The Mosquito could easily pull away, lose itself in the night, then using it's radar it could shoot down the Fw190. That is something the Mosquito's were quite adept at doing.


----------



## Mick (Oct 17, 2011)

Hi Thorlifter
Thanks for the response. Sorry, I didn't make that clear. Actually, our Mosquito and the rest of its squadron were attacked by a Fw190 Staffel on the way back from a low-level daylight raid over France.


----------



## Wurger (Oct 17, 2011)

If it would be at night it had to be quite easy to avoid the Fw190 attack. But Fw190 operating at nights wasn't something common. So it must have been a dogfight at the daylight. 
Also I don't think the Mossie slowed the rate of climbing because the maximal speed of the "The Wooden Wonder" was the main "weapon" against German fighters.


----------



## Wurger (Oct 17, 2011)

Oops.... we have crisse-crossed our posts.


----------



## Glider (Oct 17, 2011)

For what its worth it was a standard practice if Mossies were being intercepted by fighters for the rear section to turn and go head on with the chasing fighters, distrupt the attack and keep going for home while the rest of the formation carried on to the target. But a climbing dogfight I find difficult to go with. 
However it should be remembered that the Luftwaffe had a lot of inexperienced pilots for the later stages of the war and this may well have been a factor. Its more difficult than most people realise to see an aircraft in the air from another aircraft, and if the 190 pilot didn't see him or lost sight of him, then enything is possible.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 17, 2011)

Perhaps Erich would know. Mick, do you have a date and the Staffel #?


----------



## Kryten (Oct 17, 2011)

I have heard of Mosquito crews being briefed, when engaged by a single engined fighter to go to WEP and run with the S/E on the tail untill the fighter turns back due to fuel, crews were then told to use discretion whether they then turned to engage!
basically they had the option to run down the fighter who had no fuel to fight!
this was over the channel however, no clues as to whether this was advised anywhere else?


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 17, 2011)

More details would help, as posted above, got a date? I'm aware of a number of Mossie/190 encounters, though what you're describing doesn't ring a bell. Could imagine a scenario in which the Mossie climbed to avoid a diving attack on its beam - if the 190 kept turning after passing the Mossie, it might have allowed the British aircraft to cut inside its turning circle, though that's a rookie mistake.

Another possibility is a climb to avoid a diving attack from astern - if the 190's speed carried it past the Mossie, it might have come under fire.

Again, more details would help. Mossie FBs in squadron strength over France sounds like 2nd TAF, possibly Coastal Command if the raid was on coastal / naval facilities - I think CC attacked some naval oil storage dumps. From memory, the only 2nd TAF / 190 dogfights were Bob Braham's daylight ranger sorties. I believe CC had some dogfights with single-engine fighters in around July '44.

Again, more info please.


----------



## Wurger (Oct 17, 2011)

I thought it might have been the struggle of the Coastal Command 333 Squadron against Fw190As of 12./Jg5


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 17, 2011)

Yes, wondered that myself, however 333 flew against Norway, not France, and tended to do so singly as recce craft or as pairs when flying as outriders to strike wing attacks.


----------



## Wurger (Oct 17, 2011)

Yep... also true.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 17, 2011)

Mick said:


> I'm doing some research for a screenplay I'm writing and have a found a description of a real dogfight between a Mosquito FBVI and an Fw190. I can't quite grasp the sequence of events, but essentially, the Mosquito climbs away from the 190 and, somehow, manages to turn the tables on its German pursuer. I would normally have contacted the author in the first instance, but seeing he passed away some years ago I was was wondering if someone might be able to suggest how a climbing Mossie could manage to outwit his 190 opponent.
> 
> Could he somehow slow the rate of climb sufficiently so that the Fw190 shot past him? I've heard of deliberately stalling aircraft but, quite clearly, I am out of my depth here (obviously!). I would, therefore, be most grateful for any suggestions. If anyone has any other thoughts – it doesn't have to follow this particular scenario – then I am open to ideas.
> 
> ...



In RAF tactical trials, it was found that the early FW 190s - A3 and (underperfoming) A4 tested - were very slightly slower than the Mosquito Mk VI at sea level, but much superior in terms of rate of climb, around 700 ft/minute at sea level and increasingly superior as the aircraft got higher. Later Mk VI aircraft, with more powerful Merlin 25s, were much better in terms of speed and rate of climb, but its opponents weren't standing still either in terms of development.

The RAF assessment of the Mosquito as a fighter against other single-seat types indicates that it was not very satisfactory, having very heavy controls in turns in excess of 3G and an general inability to get on the offensive against opponents.

Therefore, I'd suspect that climbing away from a FW 190 was either an escape tactic of last resort or a very aggressive and opportunistic offensive move on the part of the Mosquito pilot. 

Much depends on the relative energy states of the two aircraft.

If the Mosquito was traveling significantly faster than the FW 190, it could have used a zoom climb to trade speed for altitude and a superior position, allowing it to dive back on the opposing aircraft. Look up the air combat maneuvers known as the 'high yo-yo', 'displacement roll' and 'lag roll' for an indication on how the combat could have occurred.


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2011)

All sorts of "impossible" things happen in a conflict as large as WWII. For instance Hans Rudel mentions Ju-87s mixing it up with fighter aircraft and prevailing.

Personally I wouldn't recommend attacking single seat fighter aircraft with light bombers or dive bombers. But sometimes you just get lucky.


----------



## post76 (Oct 18, 2011)

It also reminds me of that SBD pilot who fought off three Zeros. 
It would not be a typical outcome. 
I also think hind-site plays towards biased. 
It plays toward what the story teller wants to believe happened.
Its what they don't say sometimes and may have nothing to do with wit or skill. 
It could be as simple as the FW-190 not having sufficient fuel to maintain combat or pace, particularly if it was a long chase. 
It would be an interesting topic of research if you can find the pilots record.


----------



## Mick (Oct 18, 2011)

Hi everyone,

Many thanks for all your contributions. I'm sure many of you will have heard of this operation. Known as 'Jericho', it was an attack on Amiens Jail in February 1944 to free French resistance prisoners. On the way back this incident occurred:

'Spotting a 190 obviously eyeing his aircraft, a Mossie navigator readied the gun-sight mounted several feet above his guns and awaited the pounce he was certain was coming.
The 190 was sitting around beyond range on the Mosquito’s left, and staying there for the moment, obviously reporting to reinforcement Luftwaffe squadrons headed towards them.
Easing back his control column, the Luftwaffe pilot took his machine up in a gentle climb, training forward guns on the bomber, anticipating that it would dive steeply to port as soon as he attacked. Only just beneath it, he opened up, but the Mossie's cannon replied with interest. The 190's machine-gun muzzles raked the bomber's fuselage fore and aft, ripping though its body.
Badly hurt, the aircraft twisted and pushed itself upwards at full power into the sky. Flying suit soaked with perspiration, hands wet on the sticks, sweat pouring into his eyes near blinding him, the Mossie pilot turned to counter attack.
As the aircraft soared, the pull-out force almost made him black out. Bending his head between his knees to bring the blood back to it, he prayed nothing would ram him while he was striving to regain total consciousness. As his head cleared, the 190 became larger every second until it filled his vision and his navigator's sights. Guns firing, they almost crashed before the Mosquito plunged away vertically.
There was a flash from the 190, and it lurched. Swooping back over it, trying for a coup de grace, the Mossie fired again. The Focke^s complete cockpit cover split away and the Mosquilo pilot and navigator dodged pieces of fuselage as the shattered aircraft disappeared beneath them.' 
(from the book: 'And the Walls Came Tumbling Down' by Jack Fishman)

Hopefully, it will mean something to you guys. Personally, I can't make head nor tail of it! If I can't interpret, it's no great loss but it comes at a point when it would illustrate the skill and courage these pilots displayed. 

Mick


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 18, 2011)

Lets make a note on designations:
The aircraft was a Mosquito FBVI 

FB Fighter Bomber: has 4 20mm Hispanos but no radar.
B Bomber, is unarmed
NF Night Fighter has 4 20mm Hispanos and a radar.
PR Photo Reconaisance unarmed.

I think coastal command FB did not hesitate to engage an enemy aircraft if the opportunity presented itself.

There were 3 types of Focke Wulf FW 190 the A, F and G series.

They had different propellors, different emergency boost systems, different levels of weight and armour and I believe ailerons tuned to different speeds.

A was a fighter
F was a fighter bomber for close support.
G was a fighter bomber set up for long range stikes.


This site gives the speed of the

Mosquito Performance Trials
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hx809-level.jpg


MS Gear 
Max. speed at +18 lb/sq.in boost = 353 at 5100 ft. 
Max. speed at max. full throttle boost (23.9 lb/sq.in.) = 354 mph at sea level. 

Use of +23.9 lb/sq.in. boost instead of +18 lb/sq.in. at sea level increases the speed by 22 mph. 

FS Gear 
Max. speed at +18 lb/sq.in boost = 363 at 12500 ft. 
Max. speed at +25 lb/sq.in. = 369 mph at 7200 ft. 

By my reading of the chart the FW 190A8 would seem to be a little faster however use of 100/150 fuel will increase speed by 22mph.
FW 190 A-8 Performance
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hx809-level.jpg

The FW 190A9, which has two boost systems: one based on German C3 fuel (96/130) and the other based on MW50.

Note this version of the Mosquito has Merlin 25 engines and lacks the two stage Merlin 66, however this should make not difference at low altitude.


----------



## davebender (Oct 18, 2011)

*Wikipedia Data for Operation Jericho*
Operation Jericho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
9 Mosquito Bombers
12 RAF fighter aircraft. Apparently Typhoons as two were lost.
vs 2 Fw-190s.


I have no idea how accurate the Wikipedia data is. However it appears to me a pair of Fw-190s were outnumbered 6 to 1 by RAF Typhoons. Under such circumstances I'm surprised the Fw-190s managed to shoot down any of the Mosquito light bombers.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 18, 2011)

Since this occured after the strike, the weight of the Mosquito would be minus bomb load, and lighter fuel load also. How fast would the Mosquito be then ?

Also post strike they may not be a close group of aircraft with all the escorts close by also.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 18, 2011)

Mick said:


> I'm doing some research for a screenplay I'm writing and have a found a description of a real dogfight between a Mosquito FBVI and an Fw190. I can't quite grasp the sequence of events..




Quote from the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance":

"Ransom Stoddard: You're not going to use the story, Mr. Scott? 
Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."


----------



## Alnwick (Oct 18, 2011)

To return to the original post, later in the war many Mosquitoes were fitted with paddle-bladed propellors, resulting in a significant increase in the RoC (_a la_ the P47). If (as Jabberwocky suggests) the aircraft in question had the more powerful engines, _plus_ the paddle-blades it would almost certainly have been able to outclimb an Fw190, which was not outstanding in this regard compared to the Spitfire or Bf109.

Additionally, Coastal Command Strike Wings often used their Mosquito VI's as fighter escorts when Spitfires or Mustangs were not available, and they appear to have more-or-less held their own against German fighters, achieving a roughly 1:1 exchange rate judging by post-war analysis.


----------



## Mick (Oct 18, 2011)

They were attacked by Fw190's and Me109's from Gallant's J26 'Schlageter' Geschwader at Abbeville base and, according to my research, probably a good few of them were put up against the returning Mosquitos and no more than eight Typhoon escorts (according to two sources). Once source even gives three Typhoon squadrons, 198, 174 and 245, as making up a total of twenty-two Typhoons, being tasked with escort duties. Another source, more reliably, puts the original number of Typhoons as twelve. So the weather forced four Typhoons to turn back. Fourteen Mosquito's, including a PRU, survived the weather and engine trouble to attack the prison out of an initial force of nineteen aircraft.


----------



## Gixxerman (Oct 18, 2011)

Mick said:


> I've heard of deliberately stalling aircraft
> 
> Mick



I'm no help at all in this, sorry.

But I just have to say, you have just given me the most wonderful little sequence in my mind's eye of a Mossy in the early/mid 40's pulling a 'cobra' move on a 190.
Bl**dy marvelous.

.....well it's had me chucking this afternoon, so thanks for that.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm afraid the whole account is purest fiction. 

Opert\ation Jericho, as it came to be known, is a well known episode and none of what is described above actually took place. The raid leader's Mossie was lost to 190s, another to flak. I believe another was shot up by Fws but escaped. No Mossie pilot claimed to have shot down a 190.

Sorry to disppoint.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 20, 2011)

Something similar to a dogfight between Mosquitoes and 190's is fictionally described here, 








the Mosquito was a Mk XVI, if I remember well.

here you can find some news about the Pilot

GUEDJ Max Alias Maurice

Véronique Chemla: Max Guedj (1913-1945), héros méconnu de la France libre

Cheers


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 20, 2011)

There were 6 Mosquitoes of 21 Squadron, 7 from 487 Squadron, and 5 from 464, plus a photographic aircraft, and Typhoons of 174 198 Squadrons (although 198 only arrived after the attack, due to bad weather.) 487 464 did the work, with 21 not being needed. Pickard was shot down by Hans Mayer of 7.JG 26, and Walter Radener (same Staffel) got one of the two Typhoons lost by 174. There appears to be no record of a Mosquito shooting anyone down.
There is, by the way, a new book, on the raid, which is (allegedly, I haven't yet read it and can't remember the title) at odds with the accepted version; at around £30, it might be some time before I get it.


----------



## Mick (Oct 20, 2011)

Hi Gixxerman

What's a cobra move when it's at home?

Mick


----------



## Mick (Oct 20, 2011)

Thanks, Edgar I'll look that book up.

Mick


----------



## Mick (Oct 20, 2011)

Thanks, Elmas for your contribution.

Mick


----------



## Mick (Oct 20, 2011)

Still for the purposes of a screenplay, narrative license always has to come before the fact. I think as long as the film is faithful to the general truth of the story then, in this case, a Mossie shooting down a Fw190 for dramatic effect (since it isn't impossible) is more than acceptable – I may not use it anyway. 

Thanks, mhuxt.

Mick


----------



## Mick (Oct 20, 2011)

Thanks, Alnwick.

This is interesting. I think as long as something that happens in the film isn't actually _impossible_ then having a Mossie turning the tables on an Fw190 is quite acceptable. After all a film doesn't have to be an historically accurate account of everything that actually happened – that's the role documentaries perform.

Mick


----------



## Mick (Oct 20, 2011)

Quite, Timpaa.

See my replies to mhuxt and Alnwick. I was really trying to understand what the author was describing with his description of the dogfight. It seems it might have been fiction anyway!

Mick


----------



## wuzak (Oct 20, 2011)

Mick said:


> Hi Gixxerman
> 
> What's a cobra move when it's at home?
> 
> Mick





_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgHoBDW56CI_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ_ds1SgBG0_ (at about 1:05)


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mN9ZAfadpE_

I don't think he was actually attempting to land using a cobra manouevre.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GdfnTLKcvM_

And we bought Hornets....


----------



## Mick (Nov 3, 2011)

Thanks for the YouTube video links. Some of those manoeuvres are fantastic,. Didn't aircraft could even do some of those things. By the way, any idea how I get email notification alerts to new posts? I thought I'd done this in my profile.

Mick


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2011)

wuzak said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgHoBDW56CI_
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ_ds1SgBG0_ (at about 1:05)
> ...




Just so you know that Cobra maneuver is useless in combat, unless the guy doing it wants to commit suicide.


----------



## Kryten (Nov 3, 2011)

handy for scrubbing airspeed so he can eject safely?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2011)

Kryten said:


> handy for scrubbing airspeed so he can eject safely?


Probably about it.


----------



## Kryten (Nov 30, 2011)

Have been reading "A Seperate Little War" by Andrew Bird,
It chronicles the activities of the Banf Strike Wing operating against the German occupation forces in Norway during the last nine months of the war.

Of interest to this thread are the air combats between Mosquito crews and Me109/FW190 over Norway, there are several in the book with losses on both sides, of particular note is the action on 15th Jan 1945 when an air battle was fought between the Mosquito's from Banf and the FW190's of 9 staffel JG5.

it appears the Mosquitos lost two aircraft to flak during the shipping strike (one taking a direct hit from an 88 on the run in) and three to Fw190's in the following air combat.
German losses were three FW190 (2xA8 Zeuner Wnr737410 and Lehnert Wnr350183, 1xA3 Helbing Wnr 0132172) only survivors of these losses were a Mossie crew who escaped to Gibraltar via Spain, all others perished unfortunatly.

this is straight from the book and I have no independant verification, there are several other combats noted and the book is very interesting if your looking for information on Coastal Command.


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2011)

Thanks for the tip, just ordered one


----------



## Marsteinen (Nov 6, 2013)

I have written about this and have several sources and eye witnesses as well as having met a cousin of one of the British air men. I will include it in a local war history book that I am currently working on.


----------



## mhuxt (Nov 12, 2013)

Marsteinen said:


> I have written about this and have several sources and eye witnesses as well as having met a cousin of one of the British air men. I will include it in a local war history book that I am currently working on.



Hi Marsteinen,

Sorry for the late reply - are you referring to the air battle of 15 January 1945 or to the operations of the Strike Wing in general?

Would love to know more anyway - let us know when the book is ready.


----------



## Juha (Nov 12, 2013)

Kryten said:


> Have been reading "A Seperate Little War" by Andrew Bird,
> It chronicles the activities of the Banf Strike Wing operating against the German occupation forces in Norway during the last nine months of the war.
> 
> Of interest to this thread are the air combats between Mosquito crews and Me109/FW190 over Norway, there are several in the book with losses on both sides, of particular note is the action on 15th Jan 1945 when an air battle was fought between the Mosquito's from Banf and the FW190's of 9 staffel JG5.
> ...



Hafsten et al.: Flyalarm. Luftkrigen over Norge 1939-1945 (1991) also says that 5 Mossies and 3 Fw 190s/9./JG 5 were lost on 15 Jan 45 when 16 Mossies/Banf Wing attacked Leirvik harbour and were then attacked by 9 Fw 190s/9./JG 5. Mossies also sank one Vorpostenboot (Allied pilots call them flakships) and very badly damaged one merchant ship.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 7, 2020)

Mick said:


> Hi Gixxerman
> 
> What's a cobra move when it's at home?
> 
> Mick


It's a way for a Russian pilot to dump all forward speed and make himself into a sitting duck for any Western aircraft in the fight with an all aspect missile and a helmet-mounted sight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 8, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> It's a way for a Russian pilot to dump all forward speed and make himself into a sitting duck for any Western aircraft in the fight with an all aspect missile and a helmet-mounted sight.



MD,

it depends on range and closure. Missiles have minimum ranges unlike the gun. If you go for a gun shot be careful of scrubbing off to much airspeed as you will remove follow on options.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 8, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> MD,
> 
> it depends on range and closure. Missiles have minimum ranges unlike the gun. If you go for a gun shot be careful of scrubbing off to much airspeed as you will remove follow on options.
> Cheers,
> Biff


Biff, what is "visual range" how far away can a pilot be expected to see another individual aircraft in clear skies without vapour trails?


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 9, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Biff, what is "visual range" how far away can a pilot be expected to see another individual aircraft in clear skies without vapour trails?



Pbehn,

Another it depends. Answer lays in the 8-15nm range. F-16 nose on maybe a bit less than 8, Flanker (Su-27) or Tomcat a bit outside of 15 if more towards the beam (side view). Clouds, engine smoke, background, sun angle, aspect (how much of their aircraft they are showing). 

Modern fighters have Target Designator Boxes (TD box) that has your designated target in it (as long as someone has a sensor on him). The box can be square, diamond or circle depending on what’s tracking him. The above ranges work especially if he’s in a TD box. You may have to bring them in (visual acquisition ranges) a mile or two if you only have a general direction and altitude to go by.

When Chuck Yeager spoke of seeing guys at 50 miles he was talking about a squadron or greater sized gaggle. Even with a TD box I could just see a KC-10 at 50 miles with great conditions and I had 2015+ vision.

It also takes training to pick out guys at distance. I still practice it when flying airliners and am usually the first guy to get tally ho.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 9, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Pbehn,
> 
> Another it depends. Answer lays in the 8-15nm range. F-16 nose on maybe a bit less than 8, Flanker (Su-27) or Tomcat a bit outside of 15 if more towards the beam (side view). Clouds, engine smoke, background, sun angle, aspect (how much of their aircraft they are showing).
> 
> ...





pbehn said:


> Biff, what is "visual range" how far away can a pilot be expected to see another individual aircraft in clear skies without vapour trails?


Depends on your equipment. In NATO trials, Eurofighter Typhoon pilots found that they could use their PIRATE infra-red TV to extend their visual range and identify F-22s at a longer range than the F-22s could visually acquire the Typhoons, which meant they could engage first and then position better for the subsequent close range engagements, and then use helmet-mounted sights to make missile shots when the F-22s couldn't. The F-35 has cameras to allow the pilot to "see" to further ranges above, behind and below the aircraft, improving the visual acquisition range, and a helmet-mounted sight and a cueing system (the TD boxes Biff explains above) projected onto his visor to get the pilot looking in the right direction to hit a target he actually can't see with his Eyeball MkIs. Against tech like the older MiGs with just the Eyeball MkI for visual acquisition, the stealthy F-35 is going to "see" and kill them before the MiG driver is even aware they are in the same bit of sky.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 9, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> When Chuck Yeager spoke of seeing guys at 50 miles he was talking about a squadron or greater sized gaggle. Even with a TD box I could just see a KC-10 at 50 miles with great conditions and I had 2015+ vision.
> 
> It also takes training to pick out guys at distance. I still practice it when flying airliners and am usually the first guy to get tally ho.
> 
> ...


I was asking with Baders "Big Wing" in mind, and how far away his 60 aircraft formation could be seen, since the LW knew where it was based and where it formed up probably between 30 and 50 miles. My uncle was in the ROC and he told me/taught me about training your eyes. If I remember correctly looking at a clear blue sky your eyes focus at about 20-50 yards away. There was a DC 3 used to drop parachutists near "his" castle, you could always hear it, and you knew approximately where it was because they always dropped in the same place, but on a cloudless day it was hard to see it, then when you did manage to focus on it you couldn't believe you had missed it, but if you looked away it was "gone" again. Then as soon as the sky divers jumped out it looked huge.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 9, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> Depends on your equipment. In NATO trials, Eurofighter Typhoon pilots found that they could use their PIRATE infra-red TV to extend their visual range and identify F-22s at a longer range than the F-22s could visually acquire the Typhoons, which meant they could engage first and then position better for the subsequent close range engagements, and then use helmet-mounted sights to make missile shots when the F-22s couldn't. The F-35 has cameras to allow the pilot to "see" to further ranges above, behind and below the aircraft, improving the visual acquisition range, and a helmet-mounted sight and a cueing system (the TD boxes Biff explains above) projected onto his visor to get the pilot looking in the right direction to hit a target he actually can't see with his Eyeball MkIs. Against tech like the older MiGs with just the Eyeball MkI for visual acquisition, the stealthy F-35 is going to "see" and kill them before the MiG driver is even aware they are in the same bit of sky.



MD,

In your described scenario it sounds as if getting the VID (visual ID) was required prior to shooting. In combat you want to be shooting long before getting within visual range. It is true the F22 does not yet have the “helmet”, the rest do (A10, F15, F16, F18, F35). It’s another tool to be used, has great features but negatives as well. I did not fly with it but have had many conversations with guys who were.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------

