# USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons



## tomo pauk (Oct 11, 2013)

Wonder whether such a bomber (= unarmed 2/3 seater bomber, powered by two V-12 engines) might give a good service to the Allied cause? Built either in metal or mostly in wood, despite the US producers saying it could not be done (Beach Aircraft Corp. said that, IIRC). Can start with V-1710, then use V-1650, those to be substituted/replaced with new V-1710s as they become available. A better use of two stage V-1710s than to install them in P-63? 
Should be a base for a night fighter, too.


----------



## beitou (Oct 11, 2013)

Why not just build the Mosquito?


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 11, 2013)

beitou said:


> Why not just build the Mosquito?


Didn't the British even give them some in reverse lend-lease?


----------



## wiking85 (Oct 11, 2013)

beitou said:


> Why not just build the Mosquito?


Didn't the British even give them some in reverse lend-lease?


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 11, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Didn't the British even give them some in reverse lend-lease?


 
They did, yes, mostly PR types though a squadron's worth of night-fighters as well. 

For my money it would have to be "Mosquito-like," as opposed to the Mossie itself. De Havilland's staff were pretty stretched as it was trying to administer production at four locations in the U.K. in addition to the factories in Canada and Australia.

It's all so much fantasy though - the American way was large four-engine metal bombers with heavy defensive guns, that's not going to change easily.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 11, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> It's all so much fantasy though - the American way was large four-engine metal bombers with heavy defensive guns, that's not going to change easily.



Same for the Brits with the Lancaster and Halifax except for the heavy defensive guns.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 11, 2013)

Oh not building the Mossie was major strategic mistake by the US. It was mooted at times. It was quite possible, if DH could set up production in Canada and Australia, I don;t think there would have been much of an issue for the US.

I say strategic because it cost them a lot of money and resources and left a hole in their plane mix that nothing really could fill.
If they had gone the Mossie route, then they would have had no need for the B-24 or the B-25 or the P-61 and so on, at considerable cost savings (in operational crews as well as in building them).

Plus, as said, this left operational holes, which they tried to fill by getting Mossies from the UK, but there was never enough to go around.
Obviously VLR PR and night fighters were 2, but there is the whole issue of how it limited their tactical bombing capability, in both the ETO and PTO.


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2013)

A-20 was essentially a Mosquito with shorter range/endurance. When it entered service it was faster then many fighter aircraft. 

USA didn't embrace the fast light bomber concept. Follow-on A-26 didn't enter service until 1944 and it wasn't terribly fast despite being powered by a pair of R2800 engines.

If USA did embrace fast light bomber we could have made a slightly larger A-20 to increase internal fuel capacity. R2600 engines provided plenty of power so improved aerodynamics would be the key to higher speed. By 1944 max speed should be at least 380mph to make it competitive with contemporary Me-410 and Mosquito.

I see no reason for conversion to V12 engines. Other radial engine aircraft such as F7F were plenty fast.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 11, 2013)

"...Oh not building the Mossie was major strategic mistake by the US. It was mooted at times. It was quite possible, if DH could set up production in Canada and Australia, I don;t think there would have been much of an issue for the US.

I say strategic because it cost them a lot of money and resources and left a hole in their plane mix that nothing really could fill....."

While this is true .... about "the hole" to fill ..... the USA played the _long_ game during WW2 .... there was no long term strategic advantage in building _plywood_ air planes (ingenious as they were). Mastering and mass producing all-metal, complex air frames was going to be strategic .... and WW2 provided _the_ opportunity to gain world acceptance and master the craft.

I agree with db ... there was no_ prolonged i_nterest in strategic, pin point bombing. If there were, the P-38 could do a pretty credible job.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 11, 2013)

beitou said:


> Why not just build the Mosquito?



Major US manufacturers being far better in design production of metal airplanes, rather than wooden ones. De Haviland was producing wooden performers prior they produced Mossie.



davebender said:


> A-20 was essentially a Mosquito with shorter range/endurance. When it entered service it was faster then many fighter aircraft.
> If USA did embrace fast light bomber we could have made a slightly larger A-20 to increase internal fuel capacity. R2600 engines provided plenty of power so improved aerodynamics would be the key to higher speed. By 1944 max speed should be at least 380mph to make it competitive with contemporary Me-410 and Mosquito.



Mossie equivalent without Mossie's range is not an equivalent. However, the A-20 was able to afford enough room for the fuel and bombs, all internal - 725 US gals of fuel and 2000 lbs of bombs was carried by late A-20Gs, enabling the range (not radius) of 1570 miles.
By 1944 the A-20 might use the 1900 HP R-2600s, military power was some 1300 HP at 20000 ft. 



> USA didn't embrace the fast light bomber concept. Follow-on A-26 didn't enter service until 1944 and it wasn't terribly fast despite being powered by a pair of R2800 engines.
> I see no reason for conversion to V12 engines. Other radial engine aircraft such as F7F were plenty fast.



So what it is - R-2800s are good or bad? 
The F7F was faster than A-26 because it used more powerful engines (available from 1945 on), while having far smaller wing and empenage, no bomb bay, single pilot (these two equaled the thinner fuselage) and no gun turrets, weight also being smaller.
The V-12 powered fighter can provide both good power and less drag, crucial things for a success of the unarmed bomber.


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2013)

R2800s are good but 1,600 to 1,700hp R2600 was nothing to sneeze at either. 

V12 engines are fine if USA had one which could compete with R2600 radial during 1941 or R2800 radial during 1943. That wasn't the case historically so switching to V12 would result in lower range/payload. For a bomber that would be a step backward.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2013)

davebender said:


> R2800s are good but 1,600 to 1,700hp R2600 was nothing to sneeze at either.
> 
> V12 engines are fine if USA had one which could compete with R2600 radial during 1941 or R2800 radial during 1943. That wasn't the case historically so switching to V12 would result in lower range/payload. For a bomber that would be a step backward.



V-1710 plus turbo would offer more power at altitude at similar installed weight as the R-2600, as well as less drag. It would also need less fuel to run.

Takeoff power would be lower, but how much lower depends on the aggressiveness of Allison in specifying take-off and WEP settings. By 1944 the V-1710 should be able to be competitive in take-off power with the R-2600.


----------



## GregP (Oct 11, 2013)

I don't think the USA needed the Mosquito at all. While it would have been an asset if adopted, the USA would not have built a wooden combat aircraft at the time and, though we DID use a few Mosquitoes, it wasn't many and they contributed commensurate with their small numbers. I think of the Mosquito as a British classic, but cannot see it ever being adopted by the USA during WWII. This conclusion is NOT one of what maybe SHOULD have been done, it is purely based on political reaility in, say, 1940.

While US aircraft served the USA well in WWII, when the Brits got some US aircraft, they mostly didn't have good things to say about them, and didn't seem to use them past a definite need to do so. The US got a few British aircraft and we used themn where it made sense, but weren't going to adopt the types just as the British didn't do so in reverse.

The first British-developed modern plane we adopted that I can think of was the B-57 Canberra, and we changed the cockpit to suit US tastes when we did that. When the British got some F-4 Phantoms, they mandated British engines and came up with the Spey-powered variant. I think it would be highly unlikely that the US would adopt any foreign aircraft during WWII, advisable thoiugh it might be.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Oh not building the Mossie was major strategic mistake by the US. It was mooted at times. It was quite possible, if DH could set up production in Canada and Australia, I don;t think there would have been much of an issue for the US.
> 
> I say strategic because it cost them a lot of money and resources and left a hole in their plane mix that nothing really could fill....."
> 
> ...



Bell dismissed the Mosquito as an excuse to use wood, and would not perform any useful role in the war. They were somewhat wrong.

An American Mosquito-alike was the Douglas XB-42. An ugly thing, it, nonetheless, had impressive performance. Reported bomb load was to be 8000lb.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2013)

davebender said:


> A-20 was essentially a Mosquito with shorter range/endurance. When it entered service it was faster then many fighter aircraft.
> 
> USA didn't embrace the fast light bomber concept. Follow-on A-26 didn't enter service until 1944 and it wasn't terribly fast despite being powered by a pair of R2800 engines.
> 
> ...



Problem for the A-20 (and the Me 410) was that by 1944 the Mosquito bomber's max speed was 30 or 40mph faster than the proposed target.

I wonder how fast the F7F would have been if they redesigned the fuselage to carry bombs?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2013)

GregP said:


> The first British-developed modern plane we adopted that I can think of was the B-57 Canberra, and we changed the coclpit *to suit US testes* when we did that.


----------



## pattle (Oct 11, 2013)

Don't forget the Mosquito never became the mainstay of Bomber Command, this was because Mosquito's were not suitable for area bombing like the Lancaster was. It doesn't matter how much you try and hide it with yarns of dropping apples into pickle barrels the Americans were area bombing and they built B17's, B24's and B29s for exactly that purpose. If the Americans had of built Mosquito's then I expect they would have been used like the British based Marauders were used. I also think that national pride was always going to be in the biggest obstacle in this.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 11, 2013)

pattle said:


> Don't forget the Mosquito never became the mainstay of Bomber Command, this was because Mosquito's were not suitable for area bombing like the Lancaster was. It doesn't matter how much you try and hide it with yarns of dropping apples into pickle barrels the Americans were area bombing and they built B17's, B24's and B29s for exactly that purpose. If the Americans had of built Mosquito's then I expect they would have been used like the British based Marauders were used. I also think that national pride was always going to be in the biggest obstacle in this.



Precisely. Doctrines of both the RAF and USAAF prevented types like the Mosquito from being the mainstay of their bombing campaigns.

Harris couldn't use the Mosquito for city busting (other than as pathfinders/markers). Their only use was against "panacea" targets - like factories, transport, etc.

And Mosquitoes didn't have guns for self defence, so couldn't fight their way to target in tight, mutual defending box formations. They also couldn't carry 20-24 250lb bomb, or 12 500lb bombs - numbers that were required to hopefully, maybe, get a hit on the actual target.


----------



## JtD (Oct 12, 2013)

I always thought that the P-38 was pretty close to a Mosquito in terms of layout. There even were some two seated and unarmed versions. If the US had found the concept so valuable, the P-38 (just like the A-20) might have been a very good starting point.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 12, 2013)

"...when the Brits got some US aircraft, they mostly didn't have good things to say about them, and didn't seem to use them past a definite need to do so."

Au contraire ... the Brits thought B-24's, PBY's, Mustangs, C-47's, Corsairs, Wildcats, Avengers, P-40's, etc. ... all fine aircraft and used them accordingly. Churchill's personal mount was a B-24. NOT using them once the war was over is a different issue .... National pride, industrial development, etc.

"... The US got a few British aircraft and we used them where it made sense, but weren't going to adopt the types just as the British didn't do so in reverse...."

600 odd Spitfires is quite a "few" ... 

Uncle Sam’s Spitfires had written a little-known chapter in US fighter history. Though the USAAF used over 600 Spitfires during the war, the aircraft was never given a US designation, and little publicity was given to the exploits of the 31st and 52nd Fighter Groups – nothing like what they would get in the summer of 1944 during the wild air battles over Ploesti when they flew Mustangs. This is most likely a good example of the US military’s overall dislike of having to admit to using “NIH” (Not Invented Here) equipment.

During their time in Spitfires, the 31st FG claimed 194.5 confirmed, 39 probables and 124 damaged; the 52nd claimed 152.33 confirmed, 22 probables and 71 damaged. Thirteen pilots became aces on the Spitfire. Leland Molland went on to score another 6 victories in the summer of 1944 in the P-51 to bring his score to 11. Harrison Thyng added 5 more victories to his 5.5 as CO of the 4th FIW in Korea, while Royal N. Baker, who scored 3.5 in Spitfires added another 13 in Korea.

Source:http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html


----------



## wuzak (Oct 12, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Au contraire ... the Brits thought B-24's, PBY's, Mustangs, C-47's, Corsairs, Wildcats, Avengers, P-40's, etc. ... all fine aircraft and used them accordingly. Churchill's personal mount was a B-24. NOT using them once the war was over is a different issue .... National pride, industrial development, etc.



Not to mention the terme of the lend-lease supply deal.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 12, 2013)

JtD said:


> I always thought that the P-38 was pretty close to a Mosquito in terms of layout. There even were some two seated and unarmed versions. If the US had found the concept so valuable, the P-38 (just like the A-20) might have been a very good starting point.



Except not being equipped with an internal bomb bay.


----------



## JtD (Oct 12, 2013)

Had it had a bomb bay, it wouldn't have just been a starting point.


----------



## davebender (Oct 12, 2013)

Light bombers typically operate below 15,000 feet performing CAS missions. I doubt turbocharging is the answer for such an aircraft.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> Light bombers typically operate below 15,000 feet performing CAS missions. I doubt turbocharging is the answer for such an aircraft.


Agreed. An A20 or A26 seems about as close to a Mossie as America in WWII was going to go. On another note, the XB-42 Mixmaster is a beautiful plane! To whoever says otherwise, shame on you!


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 12, 2013)

Agreed about the Mixmaster - sheer beauty. The A-20 with, say, Packard Merlin would be a tough thing to kill for some fighters?



davebender said:


> Light bombers typically operate below 15,000 feet performing CAS missions. I doubt turbocharging is the answer for such an aircraft.



Depends what engines you have to design your unarmed around. If one wants V-12s, US 'natural' choice is the V-1710, and that engine was offering more power in most of the altitudes, during most of ww2 vs. the non-turbo V-1710 (even with unfortunate design of the intercoolers in the pre-P-38Js).


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> R2800s are good but 1,600 to 1,700hp R2600 was nothing to sneeze at either.
> 
> V12 engines are fine if USA had one which could compete with R2600 radial during 1941 or R2800 radial during 1943. That wasn't the case historically so switching to V12 would result in lower range/payload. For a bomber that would be a step backward.



Not sure how you get that? There is a little important variable called fuel economy.... Those big air cooled radials (and even the R-2600 was 43 litres) were real gas guzzlers, especially at the higher power settings (because they were 'hard' engines, they needed to run very rich to keep cool).

That was one of the things (there were several of course) that tipped the balance towards the P-51 in the ETO. It only needed half the fuel compared to the P-47. Much easier to cram that into it.
Then of course there are logistics as well. All that extra fuel needed means all that extra fuel has to be manufactured, shipped and stored.

In the Mossie's case it was similar. Terrific range, which was very useful for bombing, essential for PR and extremely desirable for night fighters (gave them a long loiter time, even in the intruder role). Fuel efficient engines, low drag, less fuel needed for a particular range.

Agree with Wozac in that you could do similar with the Allison (it was possibly even more economical than the Merlin), provided they could deliver the higher altitude performance.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 12, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Precisely. Doctrines of both the RAF and USAAF prevented types like the Mosquito from being the mainstay of their bombing campaigns.
> 
> Harris couldn't use the Mosquito for city busting (other than as pathfinders/markers). Their only use was against "panacea" targets - like factories, transport, etc.
> 
> And Mosquitoes didn't have guns for self defence, *so couldn't fight their way to target in tight, mutual defending box formations.* They also couldn't carry 20-24 250lb bomb, or 12 500lb bombs - numbers that were required to hopefully, maybe, get a hit on the actual target.



To a very great extent, neither could B-17s or B-24s. When the USAAF tried it, they quickly found that it didn't work. I think you got the gist right, though: WW2-era strategic bombing, regardless of which air force was doing it, required massive numbers of bombers in formation, which largely negated the advantages an aircraft like the Mosquito could have. No air force could operationally demonstrate CEPs of less than several hundred meters with ordinary bomber crews. Specialized units, like the RAF's 617 Squadron (I'm sure there were comparable USAAF units; I just don't know their designations) could do much better, but only in small (squadron-sized) operations.


----------



## davebender (Oct 12, 2013)

On the other hand air cooled engines are inherently superior for low altitude CAS missions which expose the aircraft to ground fire. So you've got a trade off.

Gas guzzlers were an American tradition for both aircraft and automobiles during 1940s. Surely you don't expect us to reform and become fuel efficient.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 12, 2013)

My post is from a know nothing novice so I will get things wrong so consider that in my post.

From everything I read I am left feeling that the Mosquito was a fantastic plane and maybe some Americans do not appreciate it as much as they should.

I also wonder if sometimes the duplication of effort between the USA and the British is production should only be done when it makes a huge amount of sense. Sometimes perhaps there is a duplication of effort when it is not needed?

The British did the bulk of the night time bombing and ran daylight Mosquito operations. 

How to word this to convey what I am thinking?

I sometimes think the variety that the allies were able to throw at the Axis was an advantage.

If only high altitude bombing was done the Axis would do much more to deal with high altitude bombing.

If only fast low level bombing was done the Axis would do much more to deal with fast low level bombers.

If only medium level bombing was done the Axis would do much more to counter that.

If only night time bombing was done the Axis would focus more effort to combat that.

In the air to ground role I think of a bunch of Venn diagrams.

Suitability for target.

Can strafing damage targets A, B, C, D, and F. (A and F) can be damaged by strafing. Can A and F be damaged by bombing. "A" can be damaged by bombing as well F can also be damaged by bombing but is more difficult and maybe a waste of a bombs.

Can fighter bombers take out target B using bombs. Yes but it might take a lot of fighter bombers. Worth doing if you have the fighter bombers to spare but a medium bombers are better for the role. 

What I am getting at is I see a whole lot of overlapping Venn diagrams where in some cases several types might be able to do the job but some might not be the best choice or the defenses might need to be considered just as much as the target type.


Response of the Axis. 

There are many types of attacks the Allies can do in number. If the Axis is going after high altitude bombers this opens the door for low level precision strikes, if it does not open it at least cracks the door a little.

Low level strikes takes out targets that would take a huge number of high altitude bombers, it also forces the Axis to take a different approach. Requires them to build both AAA for high, medium, and low level work. Axis pilots also have to learn to deal with a variety of targets or they specialize in a target type and then are not able to concentrate defense on a specific type of target.

Specialization.

Maybe some types of aerial missions require both the British and USA to be involved in. Perhaps some aerial missions there are times when one job should be taken on by the USA and another equally important job to be taken on but the British. They are in the same war and all of these tasks need to be done but do all tasks need to be done by everyone?

What is wrong with the Mosquito being a purely British thing doing a job that helps the war effort while the Americans do something else. They are on the same side, the Mosquito missions help all the European Allies in beating the Axis. I would think increasing Canadian production would be better and if the USA needs Mosquito's let the USA buy ones built but the the British or Canadians, they were all in this together.

Looking for the next greatest thing since sliced bread.

Instead of the USA building British types and the British building USA types unless a very good reason is there to do so like the Merlin. 

Instead of the the USA trying to build Mosquito's succeed for fail maybe it should focus on building the things it is good at while looking for the next greatest things since sliced bread while at the same time the British and Commonwealth build what is is tooled up and is good at while also looking for the next greatest thing since sliced bread.

The two forces do the same job when it makes sense, specialize in roles when it makes sense, build the same thing only when it make sense, specialize and produce different things when it makes sense use the other countries weapons when it makes sense.


To make a long story short maybe the Mosquito is a fantastic aircraft that contributes in a mighty way towards to war effort but maybe it should only be built by the British and Commonwealth and shared with the Americans when needed or it makes sense.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 12, 2013)

My last post is longer than I meant it to be and was poorly articulated. I have to think on this.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> On the other hand air cooled engines are inherently superior for low altitude CAS missions which expose the aircraft to ground fire. So you've got a trade off.
> 
> Gas guzzlers were an American tradition for both aircraft and automobiles during 1940s. Surely you don't expect us to reform and become fuel efficient.



You have CAS on the brain.

While the version of Mosquito built in the largest numbers, the FB.VI, was for CAS I believe that we are talking bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> Light bombers typically operate below 15,000 feet performing CAS missions. I doubt turbocharging is the answer for such an aircraft.



Which came first - the low altitude mission, or the engines that don't allow high altitude missions?

The A-20, A-26, B-25 and B-26 didn't have high altitude powerplants.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 12, 2013)

pattle said:


> Don't forget the Mosquito never became the mainstay of Bomber Command, this was because Mosquito's were not suitable for area bombing like the Lancaster was. It doesn't matter how much you try and hide it with yarns of dropping apples into pickle barrels the Americans were area bombing and they built B17's, B24's and B29s for exactly that purpose. If the Americans had of built Mosquito's then I expect they would have been used like the British based Marauders were used. I also think that national pride was always going to be in the biggest obstacle in this.



The originators of 'area bombing' (Churchill, Lindeman, etc) were not so squeamish, they called it terror bombing (and there was a lot of opposition to it). 'Area Bombing' was the propaganda or 'spin' version of the tactic.
Bizarrely, BC managed to achieve very good accuracy (even at night using first Gee, then Oboe, etc) by the end of the war when they wanted (though 'de-housing' still obsessed them, even way beyond it's use by date).

The RAF, though bomber obsessed (since the days of Trenchard) started the war with the intention of hitting key military targets (including oil funnily enough), when they couldn't live by day (no LR fighter) they went to night bombing, when they were lucky to hit within miles of a city. 

A classic example of a tactic becoming a strategy then a dogma. Happens a lot, not just in the military. One bad decision, often originally a short term expediency forced by circumstances, takes on a life of its own. Then by the time it becomes a dominant dogma, everyone post-rationalises it, making up all sorts of nonsense to justify it. Then it takes an incredible amount of effort to unwind it.
The powers of cognitive dissonance are incredible, especially the organisational version.

Humans are incredible at sticking too and expending (right to the point of, and often beyond death) incredible amounts of energy and resources following their dogmas. A basic brain fault. 
Bad organisational designs can amplify this tendency to absurd levels. In other words, no matter how non-rational an individual human can be, organisations can be far, far worse.


----------



## JtD (Oct 12, 2013)

If high altitude had been required, engines with better superchargers or turbochargers could have been fitted. It's not like that there were no higher altitude versions around. But where would be the point in that if the aircraft keep missing their targets from 5000m up already? Why fly at 8000m?

It could also be noted that the A-20 was still faster than a B-17 at 8000m.


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 12, 2013)

If the U.S. could have given up production capacity for, say, 5,000 B-24s to get 10,000 to 15,000 Mosquitoes, I think it would have been worth the trade. I think what made the Mosquito special is that it was so hard to duplicate everything that it did.


----------



## davebender (Oct 12, 2013)

CAS is the primary mission for light bombers. Just as strategic bombardment is primary mission for heavy bombers. How can you discuss an aircraft type without discussing suitability for the primary mission?


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> On the other hand air cooled engines are inherently superior for low altitude CAS missions which expose the aircraft to ground fire. So you've got a trade off.
> 
> Gas guzzlers were an American tradition for both aircraft and automobiles during 1940s. Surely you don't expect us to reform and become fuel efficient.



Radials were actually quite efficient, with cruise sfcs of 0.38 to 0.43. Recall, that pre-ww2, most radials, at least in the US were being built for airlines, for which every pound of excess fuel is money out of their pocket. Had radials been as thirsty and inefficient as some here portray them, the airlines would not have used them.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> CAS is the primary mission for light bombers. Just as strategic bombardment is primary mission for heavy bombers. How can you discuss an aircraft type without discussing suitability for the primary mission?



CAS was _not_ the primary mission for Mosquito bombers (as opposed to fighter-bombers).

And since we are talking USA Mosquito like aircraft....

Also, I don't think USAAF B-26s did CAS either.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 12, 2013)

At what year would the USA think they want the Mosquito?

What do you then use the all the tooling to make aluminum bombers?

The Merlin engines for a USA Mosquito, do they take away from Mustang production or is Mustang production not needed as much if the Mosquito is being built in the USA.

What are wood working machines in the USA doing at the time?

Would it be easier to increase Canadian production and the USA purchase Canadian Mosquito's rather them make them in the USA?


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 13, 2013)

Conslaw said:


> If the U.S. could have given up production capacity for, say, 5,000 B-24s to get 10,000 to 15,000 Mosquitoes, I think it would have been worth the trade. I think what made the Mosquito special is that it was so hard to duplicate everything that it did.



Exactly, that's the key point, the 'opportunity cost' of *not* doing it.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 13, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> At what year would the USA think they want the Mosquito?
> 
> What do you then use the all the tooling to make aluminum bombers?
> 
> ...



The US, just like the UK had lots of woodworking people and resources sidelined (from the furniture industry, etc), these could, as per the UK, be easily put onto production. Like the Mustang, the Mossie was deliberately designed for easy mass (and distributed) construction. In fact both the Mossie and Mustang shad quite a few construction techniques in common (something I had never realised until I got a book that showed the Mustang production lines, when I went "now where have a seen that before", I then went to my Mossy books). DH and NA were very clever.

Merlins were more of an issue. But it is a chicken and egg thing, if there was more demand then the US *would *have created more production. For example, the US Govt could have simply ordered Ford US to make them (as Ford UK was by the UK Govt). The US was not short of manufacturing resources. Another option was the reduced demand for R-2600 (etc) could have meant those manufacturers could have made them.

Packard had done the heavy lifting of setting up US manufacturing equipment and procedures to make them, from then on it was a copying job, much easier.
What made have made that easier was that the majority of Mossies were FB VIs and you would expect a similar mix for US usage, and they used the 2 speed Merlins, not the 2 stage ones.
Heck, worse comes to worse they could have shut down the V-1710 production and converted them to Merlin lines.

So they had a lot of options to build up the production.

Edited to add: The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 13, 2013)

"..The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base."

11 million people in Canada in December, 1941, when the USA joined the war.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 13, 2013)

How about an earlier Twin Mustang being used for some of the Mossies roles with the power and extra wing it should have been able to lift a good size load, though obviously externally.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 13, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base.



Its astonishing what Canada manufactured nearly a million trucks and armoured vehicles, thousands of planes, hundreds of warships and everything else they churned out. Canada more than pulled its weight in the manufacturing war and I will always argue that one of the great war winning weapons for the Commonwealth was the Canadian Military Pattern truck without it Tanks, planes, artillery and soldiers dont move or fight.

Canada you guys can be rightly proud of your role in both world wars


----------



## Milosh (Oct 13, 2013)

Didn't the Canadian Mosquito use Packard Merlins as did Canadian Hurricanes?


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 13, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Didn't the Canadian Mosquito use Packard Merlins as did Canadian Hurricanes?


 
Yes, the Canadian Mosquitos did.

Good website on Canadian Mosquito production:

http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuse...p?lg=English&ex=00000430&fl=0&id=exhibit_home


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 13, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Radials were actually quite efficient, with cruise sfcs of 0.38 to 0.43. Recall, that pre-ww2, most radials, at least in the US were being built for airlines, for which every pound of excess fuel is money out of their pocket. Had radials been as thirsty and inefficient as some here portray them, the airlines would not have used them.



For a radial engined bomber to cruise on same speed as the inline-engined bomber, it must use more HP. Say, 1200 HP vs. 1000? Now we multiply that power with sfc, and radial engine will suck 20% more fuel for the same mileage covered. The A-20G (late, RAF's Boston IV) was cruising between 205 and 275 mph at 15000 ft (using up to 1200 HP), on 605 imp gals and with 2000 lbs of bombs it was credited with range of 1530 miles. The Mossie Mk. IV carried the same bomb load, but with 536 imp gals of fuel, while cruising between 265 and 320 mph (using up to 1010 HP). Range was between 1360 and 1620 miles (depending on speed).
US pre-ww2 airlines did not have choice - there was no in-line engine to fit their needs.



Rufus123 said:


> At what year would the USA think they want the Mosquito?



The OP states a "Mosquito-like bomber", no the Mosquito itself...



> What do you then use the all the tooling to make aluminum bombers?



...that is built either from aluminium or wood.



> The Merlin engines for a USA Mosquito, do they take away from Mustang production or is Mustang production not needed as much if the Mosquito is being built in the USA.



It is good if they can use Packard Merlin, but V-1710 will do.



> What are wood working machines in the USA doing at the time?



They can build, say, a wooden transport aircraft.



> Would it be easier to increase Canadian production and the USA purchase Canadian Mosquito's rather them make them in the USA?



The OP states US as a producer, and the USA was in position to build a V-12 powered bomber already in 1940, if they founded they need one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 13, 2013)

BTW, the Boston IV fully bombed- and fueled up weighted 26000 lbs, taking 1500 ft to clear the 50 ft obstacle at take-off. The Mossie B.IV from the previous post weighted less tha 21500 lbs, taking 840 ft to do the same.



OldSkeptic said:


> ...
> Heck, worse comes to worse they could have shut down the V-1710 production and converted them to Merlin lines.
> 
> ...



That would be easier said than done. And unnecessary - the V-1710 (single stage) powered bomber would've have plenty of take off power by mid 1942 anyway, 1325 HP vs 1300 of the Merlin 21 (the one in Mossie B.VI) and V-1650-1.


----------



## JtD (Oct 13, 2013)

I really don't know why you keep insisting that radials are worse than inlines. In fact, by leaving out the water, radials do not require the same cooling area and in theory are less draggy than inlines. The rest is simply a design question - the practical application of the theory - which was increasingly better solved as the war went on.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 13, 2013)

I am not insisting that radials are worse than inlines. Actually, if you read the thread about the early R-2800 fighter, you may notice that. 
There are some areas where one engines are better than another, but much is determined by what a specific country designes/produces better. Say, Japan was better served with radials, Germany and the UK were better served with inlines. USA can throw capable engines in both categories, SU is somewhat lagging behind. 



> In fact, by leaving out the water, radials do not require the same cooling area and in theory are less draggy than inlines.



Airplanes were by far, the practical machines, and it was far easier to achieve better performance when using in-lines. Or, for the same cruise speed, inline-engined airframe will require less fuel, that means a smaller airframe (=further drag reduction), that will further either increase speed or range. Further, few countries have had the well executed usage of exhaust gasses prior mid-war, contrary to the inlines that got that mostly right when ww2 started.
We may compare the Fw-190A-9 and 190D-9, the D-9 was faster despite the smart installation of the more powerful BMW-801S.



> The rest is simply a design question - the practical application of the theory - which was increasingly better solved as the war went on.



It would be fair to say that inline engines' installations went more streamlined as the war moved on, too.


----------



## JtD (Oct 13, 2013)

The D-9 was longer than the A-8. That alone improves the aircrafts aerodynamics. I only know the data for the TS engine, the D-9 achieves the same speed at ~5% less power. That's comparing an improvised in-line with a pre-war radial installation, at top speed.

If you look at bombers that flew with both radial and in-line engine of comparable power at same fuel load (Lancaster, Halifax, Do 217 come to mind), you'll find that the range differences are hardly anywhere near 20%.

How many commercial airlines went with liquid cooled in-lines after WW2?


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 13, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> For a radial engined bomber to cruise on same speed as the inline-engined bomber, it must use more HP. Say, 1200 HP vs. 1000? Now we multiply that power with sfc, and radial engine will suck 20% more fuel for the same mileage covered. The A-20G (late, RAF's Boston IV) was cruising between 205 and 275 mph at 15000 ft (using up to 1200 HP), on 605 imp gals and with 2000 lbs of bombs it was credited with range of 1530 miles. The Mossie Mk. IV carried the same bomb load, but with 536 imp gals of fuel, while cruising between 265 and 320 mph (using up to 1010 HP). Range was between 1360 and 1620 miles (depending on speed).
> US pre-ww2 airlines did not have choice - there was no in-line engine to fit their needs.
> 
> 
> ...



Only a particularly poorly designed radial installation would result in 20% more overall airframe drag. Except for the P-51, there was very little difference in overall airframe drag, as expressed by Cd,0​, between radial-engined and V-12 engined military aircraft. Comparing the performance of disparate aircraft and attributing it to whether the engine is cooled directly or indirectly by air is specious.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 13, 2013)

I was not comparing disparate aircraft, the A-20 and Mosquito were pretty close in size. I do admit that it would've be nice to asses what would be a two-stage Twin Wasp powered A-20 capable for.



JtD said:


> The D-9 was longer than the A-8. That alone improves the aircrafts aerodynamics. I only know the data for the TS engine, the D-9 achieves the same speed at ~5% less power. That's comparing an improvised in-line with a pre-war radial installation, at top speed.



At 6,4 km in, the A-9 has circa 1670 PS, making 660-665 km/h. At same altitude, the D-9 has 1480 PS (both values are with ram) when using Steig Kampfleistung, making same speed. So with 11% less power, the D-9 is as fast.



> If you look at bombers that flew with both radial and in-line engine of comparable power at same fuel load (Lancaster, Halifax, Do 217 come to mind), you'll find that the range differences are hardly anywhere near 20%.



All of those aircraft were having plenty of drag inducing items, like thick wings, turrets and single guns protruding - unlike Mosquito. Any reduction in drag, provided by use of an inline engine vs. radial should be negligible. 



> How many commercial airlines went with liquid cooled in-lines after WW2?



With all those surplus C-47s/DC-3s, there was no way that any new piston engine will make a lasting impression on the late 1940's airlines, unless it brings new power levels to the table. Then we have a fact that most of the newly-built commercial planes were US-made - and a sole contender vs. R-2800/R-3350, the V-3420, never actually made it. So it was either of those 2000+ HP 18-cylinders, or none. Griffon, for example, was not an option for the US-built airliner.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 13, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Its astonishing what Canada manufactured nearly a million trucks and armoured vehicles, thousands of planes, hundreds of warships and everything else they churned out. Canada more than pulled its weight in the manufacturing war and I will always argue that one of the great war winning weapons for the Commonwealth was the Canadian Military Pattern truck without it Tanks, planes, artillery and soldiers dont move or fight.
> 
> Canada you guys can be rightly proud of your role in both world wars
> View attachment 245048



Hear, hear, well said. I hate how the Canadians, Poles, Australians, et al have been written out of WW2 history. For example; the amount of non-Canadian people that know they had a whole beach landing to themselves (the US and UK had 2 each ) could be written on a back of postage stamp.


----------



## bbear (Oct 13, 2013)

If I am intruding stupidly will someone please just respond with a 'No' to this. Then i'll get my coat.

Since radial and inline are as much about cooling as anything else it seems appropriate to look for the answer to these riddles (why did de Haviland choose an inline engine? is such an engine esssential to the Mosquito concept?) in temperature. Specifically the temperature of the lubricant. That is to say, i think engine temperature would be a limit to the schnell bomber engine plan choice. On the other hand if air cooled engines can keep the lubricant within its temperature limits at the least favourable combination of speed, altitude and power demand then no such constraint on engine choice would apply.

To explain : elsewhere on the site I read that an increase in airspeed generally occurs with the cube root of the power. So to go from a 'standard' bomber design to a schnell bomber in this case might for example in 'fast cruise' be a matter of 305mph/276mph to the power of 3 - 1.35 that is to say we require 35% more power for 10% more speed, or at 'schnell escape' maximum speed possibly 405/276 3.15 times more power required for 46% more speed. Substitute more realistic number please if you will, i'm only illustrating a principle. The more power is produced the more heat must be removed - like 3 times as much. i believe that as temperature approaches the lubricant design limits, as shear stresses increase between moving parts and as 'hystersis' type mechanical flexing losses increase then power out vs power produced internally would be a worse than linear progression. So for a Schnell bomber on a mission more than 3 - possibly 4 or 5 times as much heat would have to be removed as for a conventional bomber on the same mission.

Taken together that implies that for any given lubricant technology - provided that it is a limiting factor on engine performance limits:
An airliner (or a bomber flying a 'self protected or escorted' mission plan) will mostly fly at close to the most efficient cruising speed - air cooling will tend to be better. A schnell bomber must stress the engine to nearer it's limits routinely - liquid cooling will tend to be better.

I hope that makes sense - the implication would be that a US Mosquito will need a preferably Merlin in line liquid cooled engines for missions in Europe, but for long range missions in the Pacific - the schnell bomber concept may not work. 

This argument all stemmed from looking at the V1710, V1650 and R 2600 specs on wikipedia - the stand out difference figure being kW/L or hp/cubic inch - specific power, youd need to explain why the SP for the radial was so much lower - my hunch was internal losses.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 13, 2013)

Didn't the Canadians on Juno progress the furthest inland from the beaches on D-day?

Juno, a 6-mile (9.7 km) stretch of shoreline between La Rivière to the west and Saint-Aubin to the east, was assigned to the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division (3rd CID), commanded by Major-General Rodney Keller. Juno included the villages of Courseulles and Bernières.


----------



## JtD (Oct 13, 2013)

It's not the best idea to use high altitude performance as a reference, where a large part of the drag is induced. Try using an A-5 without outer wing guns, it's got at least a similar weight and armament. Fact is that Focke Wulf estimated the the BMW installation on the A-9 to produce ~30% more drag than the Jumo 213A on the D-9 with radiators in minimum drag position. This mostly comes from cooling drag. However, the engine related drag is only 15% of the cd0, and therefore you're down to 4.5% engine related for the total. With radiator open, the total difference is less, and given that the other drag components should not change, engine drag is in the same ball park. The Jumo 213E installation on the Ta 152H produced more drag than the engine installation on both A-9 and D-9. So, for generalisation, what do you want to use? The in-line that is better or the in-line that is just as good or the in-line that is worse?

The British built commercial airliners with in-lines, and unsuccessfully competed with US models. The Soviets built commercial air liners, and used radials. It's not even remotely true that all post war airlines operated WW2 leftover US junk and part of the reason the newly build US planes were as successful as they were is the choice of engine.

Boston III compared to Mosquito, according to British sources, the A-20 was about 20% draggier than a clean Mosquito, with about 10% being attributed to engine drag, surface finish and turrets each. Mosquito lost 10% in drag from unknown sources, hence the 20% difference in the end. At the same time, two of the most modern British engine installations on Tempest V and Tempest II, are nearly completely equal in drag, as are engine installations on Fw 190A and Spitfire IX.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 13, 2013)

We might take a look at fuel consumption figures in order to approach closer to the answer, at least one of them. On maximum continuous power:
-R-2600-23: 145 US gals for 1275 HP at 11800 ft
-V-1650-1: 93 gals for 1010 HP at 16000 ft
-V-1710-39: 103 gals for 1000 HP at 15000 ft
-V-1710-49 (for P-38F): 100 gals for 1000 HP, from 0-27000 ft
-V-1710-89 (for P-38H): 115 gals for 1100 HP, from 0-26000 ft 

On maximum power at lean mixture:
-R-2600-23: 70 gals for 855 HP at 18200 ft
-V-1650-1: 53 gals for 758 HP at 16000 ft
-V-1710-39: 45 gals for 600 HP at 15000 ft; V-1710-63: 58 gals for 760 HP at 12200 ft
-V-1710-49: 49 gals for 670 HP, from 0-30000 ft
-V-1710-89: 60 gals for 795 HP, from 0-30000 ft

Does not seem like the R-2600 have had anything above those in-lines as far as specific fuel consumption is the topic. It will use 0.11 gals to make 1 hp, vs. 0.092 for the Packard Merlin, and vs. 0.10 for the turbo V-1710 on max cont power. On max lean, 0.082, vs. 0.07, vs. 0.0755 for the turbo V-1710. The single stage V-1710 will consume 0.103 for max cont; 0.075 or 0.0763 for max lean. 

Now before people say: the R-2600 will produce more power, so the plane will go faster - the quirk is that R-2600 was one of the draggiest engines in the ww2, and that will consume much of the excess power. It also has no exhaust thrust worth speaking about, since the exhausts were routed into collector pipes, the gases ejected downward in historic planes it powered. That should add some thrust to the props for the V-12s listed here (10%?). That, combined with extra drag of the radial, all but cancels any deficit in power, while the radial's extra consumption remains. More fuel calls for a bigger plane, that either slows it vs. a smaller, or calls for a more powerful engine, that consumes more, and so on - the weight spiral goes up.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 13, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Edited to add: The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base.



The Canadian factory already has experienced people working on the Mosquito. It might be still easier to expand production there even with a labor shortage.

Like the USA Canada is not being bombed. It might even make sense to move some of the production people from Britain to Canada if there is a fear that Germany could ever attack production. Also I am sure it can be arranged if needed that US citizens could be hired to go work on Mosquito production. 

I see nothing wrong with a Canadian Mosquito factory having 70% Canadians, 15% British, and 15% Americans working on planes in Canada.

I think to answer some of these questions we would need to build a production possibilities curve based on both capital (machines) and human inputs, as well as materials and try and guess at the relative merits of the items produced. 

I just don't have the inputs nor the shape of the transferability curves.

Since they are already sunk costs and we would be trying to find best utility the utility will have to be calculated (well, best guess) at the margin.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 13, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The OP states a "Mosquito-like bomber", no the Mosquito itself...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What does Mosquito like actually mean? How similar does it have to be to be Mosquito like.

Why I thought the year was important is teh Mosquito's first light was in November 1940, introduction 1941, and didn't get into wide spread service until 1942.

We could argue that several twin engined aircraft were Mosquito like but were simply not able to do some jobs as well as a Mosquito. I would think if we wanted to match the Mosquito then we want a Mosquito. I would argue use the mosquito until something better can be found or until the need no longer exists.

By the time some saw the merits of the Mosquito a lot of other planes were already being built and were already in existence.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 13, 2013)

The liquid-cooled V-12s in use during WW2 were primarily developed for military use; later civil uses were largely on extemporized transport aircraft, like the Lancastrian. Conversely, while the first US radials were developed at to a USN contract, they soon completely replaced liquid-cooled engines in the commercial arena, where reliability, long life, and efficiency were of paramount importance. Considering that cooling drag is a significant factor in any piston engined aircraft, if the drag of a well-designed radial installation was as much worse as some people here seem to believe, they would not have driven liquid-cooled engines out of the commercial market. The V-12s would likely have survived if they could demonstrate significantly better sfcs, and they could not do that, either: radials, in cruise conditions had sfcs of about 0.38 to about 0.4, which is about as good as a spark ignition engine can get.

I think the primary reasons that radials get dissed so often are that the V-12 aircraft looked more streamlined and faster (probably more because "streamlined design," as in Raymond Loewy, was fashionable) than radial-engined aircraft and the P-51, which was probably the cleanest piston-engined fighter to see service had a V-12. With the exception of the P-51, which had Cd,0​ about 15% below any other piston-engined fighter to see service, the demonstrated values of zero-lift drag (Cd,0​) for all piston-engined fighters clustered between about 0.021 and about 0.025 with no significant difference between V-12 and radial engined aircraft.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 13, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> What does Mosquito like actually mean? How similar does it have to be to be Mosquito like.
> 
> Why I thought the year was important is teh Mosquito's first light was in November 1940, introduction 1941, and didn't get into wide spread service until 1942.
> 
> ...


 
I'd take 'Mosquito-like' to mean:

Small (less than 20,000 lbs loaded);
Long-range (combat radius of greater than 600 miles);
Fast, particularly at higher altitudes (say, 360 mph plus);
Two-man;
Twin-engine;
Un-armed.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 13, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> I'd take 'Mosquito-like' to mean:
> 
> Small (less than 20,000 lbs loaded);
> Long-range (combat radius of greater than 600 miles);
> ...



Lets see, the A-26 is 5mph too slow to meet the speed standard but it is close. Well, speed according to Wiki.

It has enough range.

3 man crew.

Twin engine.

It is armed.

It almost has the speed, it has the range and twin engined.

It is too heavy.

I would say it has three out of six that are met or close enough.

Looks like an heavy armed Mosquito like to me by that definition.

I think if we need a true Mosquito like the best bet is a real Mosquito.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 14, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> The Canadian factory already has experienced people working on the Mosquito. It might be still easier to expand production there even with a labor shortage.
> 
> Like the USA Canada is not being bombed. It might even make sense to move some of the production people from Britain to Canada if there is a fear that Germany could ever attack production. Also I am sure it can be arranged if needed that US citizens could be hired to go work on Mosquito production.
> 
> ...


 
Then you start getting into cost accounting issues - I'm convinced cost accountants are inherently evil, worse even than tax accountants, who are merely amoral.


Apologies to any cost/tax accountants on the board.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 14, 2013)

Actually one part of that is economics and another of it is finance. The finance part cannot be done properly until after the cost accountants have done their work.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 14, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Then you start getting into cost accounting issues - I'm convinced cost accountants are inherently evil, worse even than tax accountants, who are merely amoral.
> 
> 
> Apologies to any cost/tax accountants on the board.



Why the dislike of cost accountants? I am not a cost accountant but I have had to work with them a number of times and have had to interpret the data from them. I did have to study it as well.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 14, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> The liquid-cooled V-12s in use during WW2 were primarily developed for military use; later civil uses were largely on extemporized transport aircraft, like the Lancastrian. Conversely, while the first US radials were developed at to a USN contract, they soon completely replaced liquid-cooled engines in the commercial arena, where reliability, long life, and efficiency were of paramount importance. Considering that cooling drag is a significant factor in any piston engined aircraft, if the drag of a well-designed radial installation was as much worse as some people here seem to believe, they would not have driven liquid-cooled engines out of the commercial market. The V-12s would likely have survived if they could demonstrate significantly better sfcs, and they could not do that, either: radials, in cruise conditions had sfcs of about 0.38 to about 0.4, which is about as good as a spark ignition engine can get.
> 
> I think the primary reasons that radials get dissed so often are that the V-12 aircraft looked more streamlined and faster (probably more because "streamlined design," as in Raymond Loewy, was fashionable) than radial-engined aircraft and the P-51, which was probably the cleanest piston-engined fighter to see service had a V-12. With the exception of the P-51, which had Cd,0​ about 15% below any other piston-engined fighter to see service, the demonstrated values of zero-lift drag (Cd,0​) for all piston-engined fighters clustered between about 0.021 and about 0.025 with no significant difference between V-12 and radial engined aircraft.



We are all getting a bit mixed up here. The key is the difference needed for a _military_ engine. Commercial ones were (and still are) optimised for basically a single altitude and power output, with little variation but for take off and climb. In this case the air cooled radials were attractive, not in the least because lot more work on them for the _commercial _market had been done, plus the aircraft manufacturers were used to them.
Commercial liquid cooled engines had, for commercial aircraft, seen little development. 

For land transport, liquid cooled engines very quickly became dominant for similar reasons as to _military_ aircraft engines (though if jets had not came along I think that liquid cooled aircraft engines would have dominated the commercial arena after 15 years or so, particularly when the need for greater fuel efficiency became imperative).

That is, wildly varying power loads and the need for occasional very high power settings. In this case basic thermodynamics takes over. 
At high power settings air cooled engines struggle to get rid of the heat, at extreme power levels they can't (see caveat below). This is made worse with high boost levels, where a small engine is effectively acting as a much larger one, yet has a smaller mass to absorb that heat.

In an air cooled engine, ran at the highest power levels, beyond the normal cooling capacity, the only heat sink available is the engine (and oil) itself. With a liquid cooled one you have the mass of the coolant which is a better heat sink than the bare metal of the air cooled one.

If you took a small air cooled engine (say the same as a Merlin's 27 litres), boosted to the same maximum (combat rating) level ... it would melt real fast.

Secondary effects come into play, that is localised 'hot spots' around the combustion chamber. Again, with no heat sink to spread out the heat, except the metal itself (and the oil to a certain extent), it will quickly melt. The water/etc mixture quickly carries away the excess heat and even if the thermal load is ultimately higher than the cooling system will handle (say at max power) it will still cool those hot spots.

This is why air cooled engines are known as 'hard' engines, while liquid cooled ones as 'soft' ones. To prevent that (very) rapid combustion chamber meltdown typically the mixture is richened far more than is necessary for a liquid cooled one (later on water injection was used too).

Hence several things: one you can't make a similar sized air cooled engine, boost it to the same levels to get the same power as per a liquid cooled one. To get the power it *has *to be larger.
It's fuel consumption for the higher power settings will be greater, (a) because of the greater size and lower volumetric efficiency and (b) the need for richer mixtures.

Cooling caveat: all engines have a cooling system rated for a certain range of power levels, going above it means heat builds up. 
Now you can make an air cooled engine with tremendous cooling capability (Porche as an example for the 917 and the like), but it costs a lot of money as it is much more difficult to do (plus you have size and volume issues). Plus you then have the issue then of over cooling for lower power settings.

With a liquid cooled engine it is simple to vary the cooling ability and keep the engine at an optimum temp across a far wider range of power settings, while still maintaining a better 'extreme' power setting capability and reducing hot spots.

Basically the Merlin (and the Allison) was designed from the start as a military engine, capable of widely varying power settings, including extreme levels for periods of time.
A side affect was being able to run at very lean levels (ie high combustion chamber temp levels) and enable very good cruising fuel consumption.

The big radials were basically militarised commercial engines and one result of the compromises made to achieve the performance required, was far greater fuel consumption for a given power level.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 14, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> Lets see, the A-26 is 5mph too slow to meet the speed standard but it is close. Well, speed according to Wiki.
> 
> It has enough range.
> 
> ...



Well, its 2 out of 6, maybe 2.5. That's still a fail in my book. 

Given that an empty A-26 weighs more than a Mosquito - even a very late war Mosquito - does loaded, has defensive guns and was primarily a low altitude attack platform, I think we can rule it out as merely a 'heavy armed Mosquito'. That's like arguing a Hawker Typhoon is merely a heavy Spitfire...

As a bomber, the Mosquito's primary defence was speed, with a secondary defence of altitude. The earliest bomber Mosquitoes were capable of around 365-385 mph, the later bomber Mosqutioes of 410-420 mph. The A-26, although very fast at low altitudes, has nothing like the speed or altitude performance to be a US-style Mosquito. Maybe if they'd turbocharded the engines.

The Invader's 22,000 ft ceiling is only 500 ft better than the altitude the Merlin 21 powered Mosquitoes made their best speed at, and 6-8,000 ft lower than the altitude the early Mosquitoes cruised at. Late war Mossies had a best speed altitude of about 25,000 to 28,000 ft and would cruise above 30,000 ft and more than 300 mph.

To be Mosquito-like, it needs similar properties and capabilities - thus, we need a light bomber, with a moderate bomb load, no defensive armament, good spped, good high altitude performance and good range. 

Turbocharge the A-26, delete the turrets, widen the bomb bay for a cookie and then you'd have a Mosquito replacement. I feel that the only problem is that this sort of aircraft wouldn't be available in major numbers until mid-late 1943. 

A re-worked DB-7/A-20 with V-1650-1s might be acceptable though, and available six t eight months earlier.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 14, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> Well, its 2 out of 6, maybe 2.5. That's still a fail in my book.
> 
> Given that an empty A-26 weighs more than a Mosquito - even a very late war Mosquito - does loaded, has defensive guns and was primarily a low altitude attack platform, I think we can rule it out as merely a 'heavy armed Mosquito'. That's like arguing a Hawker Typhoon is merely a heavy Spitfire...
> 
> ...



I was just seeing how close I could come to the specifications that was posted and noted that I failed.

My thought is if the USA needs something like a Mosquito why not an actual Mosquito instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?

I understand that the Mosquito was not available in number until 1942 so I would think it would also be at least 1943 for even larger numbers of Mosquito's to be available but that is fine.

I would have no problem with the USA flying Canadian built Mosquito's if it makes sense to do so.


----------



## pattle (Oct 14, 2013)

I don't think the A26 was really capable of doing all the jobs the Mosquito did, and I certainly can't imagine the A26 flying down Copenhagen's streets to bomb the Gestapo building or it carrying out some of the other pin point raids the Mosquito was used for. Nothing against the A26, it's record speaks volumes, it is just as awkward for me to imagine the Mosquito doing the work the A26 undertook in Korea or Vietnam .


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 14, 2013)

and this:

"...The USAAF ordered 120 Mosquitos for photographic reconnaissance, but only *40* were delivered and given the US designation F-8 (6 Canadian-built B Mk VII and 34 B Mk XX). Only 16 reached Europe, where 11 were turned over to the RAF and five were sent to Italy. The RAF provided *145* PR Mk XVI aircraft to the Eighth Air Force between 22 April 1944 and the end of the war. These were used for a variety of weather, photographic, and night reconnaissance missions; as chaff dispensers; as scouts for the heavy bomber force; on "Red Stocking" OSS missions; and as H2X Mickey platforms by the 802d Reconnaissance Group (Provisional), later re-named the 25th Bomb Group (Reconnaissance). The 25th BG flew 3,246 sorties and lost 29 PR Mk XVIs on operations..."

Source:http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/De_Havilland:_DH_98_Mosquito


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2013)

JtD said:


> It's not the best idea to use high altitude performance as a reference, where a large part of the drag is induced. Try using an A-5 without outer wing guns, it's got at least a similar weight and armament.



Okay. I look forward to that comparison. The 2-cannon A-3 weighted 3850 kg, vs. 4300 of the D-9.



> Fact is that Focke Wulf estimated the the BMW installation on the A-9 to produce ~30% more drag than the Jumo 213A on the D-9 with radiators in minimum drag position. This mostly comes from cooling drag. However, the engine related drag is only 15% of the cd0, and therefore you're down to 4.5% engine related for the total. With radiator open, the total difference is less, and given that the other drag components should not change, engine drag is in the same ball park.



Cooling drag is firmly related to the engine type and installation, in-separable for practical examples? 



> The Jumo 213E installation on the Ta 152H produced more drag than the engine installation on both A-9 and D-9. So, for generalisation, what do you want to use? The in-line that is better or the in-line that is just as good or the in-line that is worse?



I look forward to the numbers that would confirm that Jumo-213E engine installation produced more drag than BMW-801D/S one. There should be no wonder that 213E was a draggier thing than 213A, however - intercooler(s) tend to increase drag. 



> The British built commercial airliners with in-lines, and unsuccessfully competed with US models. The Soviets built commercial air liners, and used radials. It's not even remotely true that all post war airlines operated WW2 leftover US junk and part of the reason the newly build US planes were as successful as they were is the choice of engine.



Neither the USA nor USSR were able to offer a 2000-3000 HP in-line engine, required for airlines size of Constellation- or Stratocruiser-sized airliner. The 1500 HP V-1710 won't cut it. Even the Tu-70 used 1800 HP engines, and troublesome later Klimovs won't cut it there either.
Expecting for a British airliner to compete vs. an US, post ww2 was a loosing proposal, except in UK proper and countries firmly tied to it.



> Boston III compared to Mosquito, according to British sources, the A-20 was about 20% draggier than a clean Mosquito, with about 10% being attributed to engine drag, surface finish and turrets each. Mosquito lost 10% in drag from unknown sources, hence the 20% difference in the end.



If I'm reading it correctly, for the 100% of Mosquito's drag, we have 120% for the A-20? Mossie's engines were credited with 24.8 (Merlin 21) or 28.2% of the airplane's drag. Adding 10 at those values means that R-2600 installation was some 30-40% draggier. No wonder Mossie cruised as fast as A-20 was flying flat out.
We can also note that Jumo-213 was a bigger engine than Merlin, while BMW-801 was smaller than R-2600, while offering far better installation. So the difference in Allied engines (size, drag, weight, exhaust thrust, consumption) was far greater than for the German engines - and that would favor Merlin vs. R-2600 if one wants an fast bomber.



> At the same time, two of the most modern British engine installations on Tempest V and Tempest II, are nearly completely equal in drag, as are engine installations on Fw 190A and Spitfire IX.



Engine installation of the Tempest V is 'most modern' only by date, it was no more modern than one at, say, Fulmar or P-40. If we want to take a look at what British really had to offer we might take a look at Whirlwind/Welkin, Mossie/Hornet, Tempest I or MB-5. Tempest V reverted from the leading-edge raditors found at Temp I because of production issues - a mere copy-paste from Typhoon guaranteed faster introduction in series production and, therefore, service use (similar as the Spit VIII vs. Spit IX). OTOH, the engine installation on Tempest II was tightly cowled and fan-cooled - a streamlined thing indeed. 
We can also note that Sabre was a wide inline engine, 40 in vs 30.3 in wide Griffon, so much of the inline engine's advantage was lost.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 14, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> The liquid-cooled V-12s in use during WW2 were primarily developed for military use; later civil uses were largely on extemporized transport aircraft, like the Lancastrian. Conversely, while the first US radials were developed at to a USN contract, they soon completely replaced liquid-cooled engines in the commercial arena, where reliability, long life, and efficiency were of paramount importance. Considering that cooling drag is a significant factor in any piston engined aircraft, if the drag of a well-designed radial installation was as much worse as some people here seem to believe, they would not have driven liquid-cooled engines out of the commercial market. The V-12s would likely have survived if they could demonstrate significantly better sfcs, and they could not do that, either: radials, in cruise conditions had sfcs of about 0.38 to about 0.4, which is about as good as a spark ignition engine can get.
> 
> I think the primary reasons that radials get dissed so often are that the V-12 aircraft looked more streamlined and faster (probably more because "streamlined design," as in Raymond Loewy, was fashionable) than radial-engined aircraft and the P-51, which was probably the cleanest piston-engined fighter to see service had a V-12. With the exception of the P-51, which had Cd,0​ about 15% below any other piston-engined fighter to see service, the demonstrated values of zero-lift drag (Cd,0​) for all piston-engined fighters clustered between about 0.021 and about 0.025 with no significant difference between V-12 and radial engined aircraft.



The advantage in streamlining got bigger and smaller over the years you describe. Also important in _commercial_ use is the _overall cost of operation_ and _reliability_. Both of which changed considerably from the 1920s to the late 40s. 

The reliability of the air-cooled engines is what drove the liquid cooled engines out of the commercial market in the 20s and early 30s. Forced landings and canceled flights do NOT help starting airlines grow. The air cooled engines were often cheaper to buy and cheaper to service, the majority of high power radials in the 20s and _early_ 30s being 9 cylinder engines as opposed to V-12 liquid cooled engines. They did not require the draining and filling of the cooling system overnight in cold climates Anti freeze not being available for aircraft use in this period (in fact engine oil was frequently drained over night in cold weather). 

On such planes as the Boeing 40:







The difference in performance between an air cooled engine and a water cooled engine were minor. The lighter weight of the air-cooled engine allowed for more payload (more profit) per flight. 

Air cooled engines got a boost with the Townend ring 






and a much bigger boost with the NACA cowling;






Which offered around a 20mph improvement over an uncowled engine






At this point in time water cooled engines had some pretty dismal installations, fitting a streamline cowl around the engine didn't do much good if the radiators were just stuck out in the air stream with no cowling or ducts. 






One reason for the push to ethylene Glycol for coolant was that smaller radiators could be used. 

As the speeds that aircraft operated at increased the need to adjust the amount of cooling increased (fixed pitch props and biplanes meant 'cruising' speeds using 75-90% power) leading to adjustable cowl flaps, radiator shutters and radiators in ducts with adjustable flaps/doors. 

It is a _FACT_ that the XP-40 (after a _lot_ of fiddling with) demonstrated 22% less drag than a P-36. Not style or fashion but speed vs power on the SAME air-frame from firewall back. It took P W until Sept 1942 to get the drag down to only 8% worse than the XP-40 on a radial engine plane. Of course by Sept of 1942 the XP-40 was no longer the height of _American_ low drag liquid cooled installations. Later air-cooled engines did better and the even changes like going from a "B" series P&W R-2800 to a "C" series ( forged heads with much higher and closer spaced fins and more fin area on the cylinder barrels) required less airflow (drag) for the same amount of power or allowed more power for the same amount of drag. But "C" series engines don't show up until 1944, put them together with _another_ TWO years of studying cowlings/baffles and exhaust ducting ( some of these later planes used the exhaust gases to pull cooling air through the cowling for ground running and low speeds, meaning smaller openings and _NO FAN_) and the cooling drag situation changed considerably from even the late 30s to 1945/46. 

The Cdo doesn't measure cooling drag.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 14, 2013)

If the USA were to build a Mosquito like bomber? Just imagine a smaller, twin engined version of this, say turbo-R-2800s:






The Republic XF-12 also shows how truly refined some radial engined installations were by the mid 1940s - 4 x R-4360s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2013)

(X)B-28 fits there, once we've ditched the turrets?


----------



## davparlr (Oct 15, 2013)

I am not sure that the AAF saw a need for the Mosquito. By the time the Mosquito became operational in May ’42, the AAF had three very capable light and medium bombers operational, the A-20, which had been operational about two years before this, the B-25, and the B-26, both of which had also engaged in combat. If it was bombing speed they needed, they already had options for this. One was the turbo-supercharged A-20 which had an estimated top speed of 388 mph at 20K, or a good 20 mph faster than the Mosquito. The turbo A-20 did have development problems but the AAF had already decided it did not need a high speed bomber. In addition, the proposal to the B-26 stated that an engine upgrade becoming available in 1942 would increase the small winged B-26 to a max speed of 368 mph at 20k ft., about the same as the Mosquito. A side note, the Martin proposal estimate of the baseline B-26A was 5 mph off. And, as for long range reconnaissance, the AAF had the F-4 (P-38 rece bird) coming out. 

While the beautiful and ingenious Mosquito did some things these planes could not do I am not sure the difference would have been worth the effort.

Maintenance on wood airplanes makes be raise an eyebrow.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 15, 2013)

Point of Order: even the earliest Mossie bombers did 380 minimum. FB Mossies also replaced Havocs on the Intruder squadrons - the difference in effectiveness speaks for itself, have a look at 418 Squadron, the 23 Sqn ORB is also online. From memory, it took 418 a year and a half to accumulate seven kills with the Havoc, doubled that in just over a month and a half with the Mossie.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2013)

A big thing in convincing the PTB (Powers That BE) is that the timing is wrong for the Mosquito. The B-25 and B-26 were ordered off the drawing board (Sept of 1939) about 6 months before the Mosquito was ordered. They were designed in responce to a requirement that asked for a 3000lb bomb load to be carried 2000 miles and a top speed over 300mph. The Mosquito, in the planing stages, was _supposed_ to carry a 1000lb bomb load. The B-25 first flies in Aug of 1940 and the B-26 and Mosquito both first fly on Nov 25 1940. At that point 1131 B-26s are on order. By the time the first Mosquito bomber gets to a service squadron over 100 each of the B-25 and B-26 have been built and at the time of the first Mosquito bombing mission (4 aircraft, May 31 1942) over 500 B-25s have been built and the number will pass 1000 in just a few more months. The B-26 is a few months behind. The A-26 project was approved back in Oct 1941 after long negotiations on price. The A-26 project slipped badly. 

The B-25 had NO increase in power during it's production life. performance dropped as more guns and equipment were added.
The B-26 had a small increase in power during it's life, about 8% and saw a similar increase in weight and drag. 
The Mosquito saw a considerable increase in power during it's life. Even leaving out the two stage Merlins, not all 20 series Merlins were created equal. Allowable boost went from 12lbs (or less on early ones) on the Merlin 21 to 14lbs on the Merlin 23 to 18lbs on the Merlin 25. Take-off power went from 1280 to 1610hp. 

The Mosquito was a remarkable aircraft that performed a variety of jobs but it's _potential_ in 1939/40/41 was to a large extent unforeseen. It also needed the improved fuels and improved Merlins to reach that potential. Trying to start American production in late 1942/43 would not see much in the way of service aircraft until 1944 at best.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 15, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Point of Order: even the earliest Mossie bombers did 380 minimum.



Not quite. 

The earliest bomber Mosquitos, the B Mk IV with Merlin 21 engines, managed around 365-370 mph. This was due to the effect of the ducted 'saxophone' exhausts to hide the exhaust flames during night.

When these were ditched in favour of multi ejector stubs, and a few minor other aerodynamic refinements were incorporated, speed went up to about 380 mph when loaded and about 385 mph with stores out.

The very early photo-recon and night fighter variants didn't quite make 380 mph either. Early PR aircraft made 370-375 mph, and the early night fighters made about 355-370 mph.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 15, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Point of Order: even the earliest Mossie bombers did 380 minimum. FB Mossies also replaced Havocs on the Intruder squadrons - the difference in effectiveness speaks for itself, have a look at 418 Squadron, the 23 Sqn ORB is also online. From memory, it took 418 a year and a half to accumulate seven kills with the Havoc, doubled that in just over a month and a half with the Mossie.



Spitfire Performance test show Mk II and IV with a top speed of around 366 mph.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 16, 2013)

Not sure what to tell you - all the data cards I've seen for the PR.I and the B.IV give a top speed of 380 or above. Sharp and Bowyer give the same numbers both for the prototypes and early production B.IVs.

Only test I've ever seen with a B.IV top speed less than 380 was on DK290, when +9 lbs boost was used. Those tests were done starting December '42, despite 105 Squadron using +12 to give German fighters the slip from July '42 at the latest. Sharp and Bowyer also have a chart of Merlin power increases with the XX at +12 by mid-1940.


----------



## Greyman (Oct 16, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> Not quite.
> 
> The earliest bomber Mosquitos, the B Mk IV with Merlin 21 engines, managed around 365-370 mph. This was due to the effect of the ducted 'saxophone' exhausts to hide the exhaust flames during night.
> 
> When these were ditched in favour of multi ejector stubs, and a few minor other aerodynamic refinements were incorporated, speed went up to about 380 mph when loaded and about 385 mph with stores out.



Keep in mind the 380 figure is with +9 boost. 

With +16 boost in 'S' gear a fully loaded Mosquito IV with ejectors would probably go about 390 mph at roughly 14,000 feet.

*EDIT:* Though I suppose +14/16 boost doesn't help the 'earliest' Mk.IV sorties as described by mxhut.



mhuxt said:


> Not sure what to tell you - all the data cards I've seen for the PR.I and the B.IV give a top speed of 380 or above. Sharp and Bowyer give the same numbers both for the prototypes and early production B.IVs.
> 
> Only test I've ever seen with a B.IV top speed less than 380 was on DK290, when +9 lbs boost was used. Those tests were done starting December '42, despite 105 Squadron using +12 to give German fighters the slip from July '42 at the latest. Sharp and Bowyer also have a chart of Merlin power increases with the XX at +12 by mid-1940.



Make sure to check the date on those data cards. They often reflect modification/limitations that took place well after introduction. The original +12 boost wouldn't help the Mosquito's best top speed as it was permitted in 'M' gear only.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 16, 2013)

Hmm, might well have to read up on my Merlins then, either that or find earlier data cards...

(Can you recommend a good Merlin book?)


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 16, 2013)

Mosquito (actually, a Mosquito-like aircraft) would be operated mostly during the day, so the flame dampers at the exhausts would not be needed. Unless it's a night fighter version, of course.

Any takers on this: how good/bad would've been an DB-7/A-20-based aircraft with Packard Merlin or Allison on-board?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2013)

Depends on what you want it to do, and when. 

An A-20 with R-2600 engines picked up about 4,000lbs of weight _empty_ over a DB-7 with R-1830s. Going _back_ to Allisons or Merlins is going to be hard once you have the R-2600 powered planes. Cutting your take-off power by 20-25% isn't going to help take-off, climb out or single engine ceiling much. 

I know I have harped on the 22% difference in drag between a P-40 and a P-36 but that is for a single engine plane with the fuselage behind the engine. On a twin engine bomber changing the engines does nothing to change the drag of the fuselage. The engine drag is a much smaller percentage of the total. The early planes (R-1830 powered and some R-2600s) used unprotected integral tanks. Fuel capacity is not always the same in some accounts but 325 gals seems pretty common. You now (using Allisons) have a much bigger, higher drag airplane than a P-38 (without turbos?) with little more internal fuel. 
Merlins rather depend on WHICH Merlin but the American single stage Merlin is going to leave you lacking in power for a bomber. 

Ranges and bomb loads for the A-20 need careful looking at because ranges are some times given at widely different cruise speeds and different bomb loads. 

There is no doubt the Mosquito was faster and longer ranged but the size of the fuselage on the A-20 means that without changing the whole fuselage it doesn't have a prayer of coming close to the Mosquito in speed or range.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 16, 2013)

(data for the DB-7/A-20 I'm using is here)
Well, I was thinking about the C series V-1710 instead of R-1830 (1040 HP for TO and at 13800 ft vs. 1100 for TO and 1000 at 14500 ft). The DB-7 was good for 322 mph at 15300 ft. The lower drag (10%, if I'm reading JtD's data right) and useful exhaust thrust makes another 20-30 mph - call it 350 mph? We don't have any gunners nor guns/ammo now, that should keep the weight in check. Due to faster cruise for same power/consumption, the range should be better, too.
The DB-7 was credited with 462 miles with 2080 lbs of bombs, with 325 gals of fuel. Or 875 miles max range.
Later, the F series V-1710 is available, 1150 for TO and at ~12000 ft, and starting in 1942 the V-1650 (1300 HP for TO) and the improved, 1325 HP for TO V-1710 are available. Should help both to carry more fuel/bombs, along with better overall performance. Especially with 1500-1600 HP once WER is approved (mid/late 1942).



> You now (using Allisons) have a much bigger, higher drag airplane than a P-38 (without turbos?) with little more internal fuel.



AHT gives the combat radius of 250 miles for a P-38J/L with two underslung 1600 lbs bombs, 410 gals of fuel. We know that, with tanks attached, the P-51 was ill able to escort Mossies. The late A-20Gs (Boston V, still 1600 HP for TO) were able to carry either 4000 lbs + 390 US gals (wings tanks only; range 690 miles), or 2000 lbs + 726 US gals (wing + bomb bay fuel tank; range 1530 miles). Aircraft data sheet for the Boston V was kindly provided by Neil Stirling some time ago, along with many other bombers ADS.

added: Boston IV is capable for same things as Boston V, according to the ADS provided by Neil

added 2: the Mosquito IV was able to take off with 12 lbs boost (1300 HP) when weighted 21462 lbs (2000 lbs + 643 US gals), with Merlin 21; same TO power was available for the V-1650-1. Take off power of the Merlin 22 and 23 was 1400 HP, with 14 lbs boost (here), enabling a Cookie to be lifted off by the Mk.IV, but with reduced fuel (600 US gals).


----------



## Greyman (Oct 16, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Hmm, might well have to read up on my Merlins then, either that or find earlier data cards...
> 
> (Can you recommend a good Merlin book?)



I'm a dunce when it comes to engines. My knowledge mostly taps out after the official _Pilot's Notes_ publications.

But, I made a quick estimation graph to show you what's basically happening with the Mosquito IV and the Merlin 21:







Green is +9 boost (full throttle, boost cut-out not pulled) in 'M' and 'S' ratio - the lower portion and upper portion of the curve, respectively.
Brown is +12 boost (cut-out pulled), this was cleared for 'M' ratio only.
Red is +14/+16 boost (cut-out pulled). This was the new engine limitation in late 1942. When the cut out was pulled it allowed +14 boost in the lower 'M' ratio and +16 boost in the upper 'S' ratio.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 16, 2013)

Thanks for that - I re-checked all the data cards and pilot's notes I have, they all give the M21 with +14 in M gear and +16 in S for everything that uses the Merlin 21. The pilot's notes say +12lbs was available by pushing back the spring catches on the throttle, which otherwise held the throttles at climbing boost (+9 lbs), but that this +12 was available at sea level only. Greater boost levels (+14 and +16, as above), were available through pulling the boost control cut-out, which was located on the top-left of the instrument panel.

I know for a fact the cut-out was available in early September at the latest, as a weather recce Mosquito was jumped by two 190s at high level - the Mossie got away with it but the pilot was noted to have failed to pull the boost control cut-out, which would have increased his speed below 22,000 feet. That's precisely where DK290's speed peaks, and where it's boost lilne goes "flat" on the test report. Pretty much identical to the W4076 test. The data cards for the Merlin 21 aircraft show a maximum speed at 14k (S gear) at or just above 380 m.p.h.

Do you have a source for me re: boost on the 21? 

For the record, I'd like to make abundantly clear that I'm not trying to "pull a Crumpp" and cling desperately to an illusion of my own infallibility despite massive evidence to the contrary. Just trying to learn whatever I can.


----------



## Greyman (Oct 16, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Thanks for that - I re-checked all the data cards and pilot's notes I have, they all give the M21 with +14 in M gear and +16 in S for everything that uses the Merlin 21. The pilot's notes say +12lbs was available by pushing back the spring catches on the throttle, which otherwise held the throttles at climbing boost (+9 lbs), but that this +12 was available at sea level only. Greater boost levels (+14 and +16, as above), were available through pulling the boost control cut-out, which was located on the top-left of the instrument panel.



Yep, sounds right ... after late 1942. Before that time the +14/+16 was unavailable.



mhuxt said:


> I know for a fact the cut-out was available in early September at the latest, as a weather recce Mosquito was jumped by two 190s at high level - the Mossie got away with it but the pilot was noted to have failed to pull the boost control cut-out, which would have increased his speed below 22,000 feet. That's precisely where DK290's speed peaks, and where it's boost lilne goes "flat" on the test report. Pretty much identical to the W4076 test. The data cards for the Merlin 21 aircraft show a maximum speed at 14k (S gear) at or just above 380 m.p.h.



I'd be careful with pilot anecdotes. Though it's not likely the pilot remembered using a boost cut-out when none existed, I've often seen them remember the effects of the emergency power incorrectly. A Battle of Britain Hurricane pilot remembering that he 'pulled the tit at 20,000 feet to get extra speed', or something to that effect.

Anything's possible though. Maybe he used the cut out in 'S' ratio when he wasn't supposed to, and it had the desired effect? Not sure. As I said, engines aren't my forte.

Data card speeds agree well with an aircraft fitted with saxophone exhausts.



mhuxt said:


> Do you have a source for me re: boost on the 21?



Quickest ones I could find, via the wwiiaircraftperformance site.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 16, 2013)

Thanks for that. Begs the question why A&AEE were testing at +9 from December '42 to April '43 when +16 had been approved in November. Maybe absolute speed itself wasn't the main issue - more the differential 'twixt saxophone and stubs, matt and gloss.

The encounter with the 190s went rather beyond the level of anecdote. I first read about it in Sharp Bowyer's history of the Mossie, turns out the pilot involved also wrote a book, in which the encounter takes up a couple of pages. He chose to evade by doing flick stalls, using open radiator slats as a means to increase nose-up. His combat report went to de Havilland's. Geoffrey de Havilland Jr. himself went up to test it. de H's view was that the forces involved would likely tear the aircraft apart, they recommended closing the rads and pulling the tit, both for speed. A week after the encounter it was published in Tee Em, the RAF pilots' rag, with the recommended course of action.

Still really don't know what to make of timing re: boost and ejectors. The Mossie history has nineteen Mossies on 105 Sqn by the end of September '42, "all with 14 lb. boost." It seems they were doing their own testing in situ, including substituting stubs for saxophones, which took place on DK336 at Marham, the 105 Sqn base, as opposed to Boscombe Down. (DK336 GB-P appears with stubs in a number of the pics taken at the "press day" at Marham, IIRC 5 December '42.)

Tantalisingly, the conclusion is that stubs were good for daylight ops, "as on reconnaissance aircraft". As you know doubt know, the original PR Mossies had the one-piece cowlings, however DK310 force-landed in Switzerland with radiator and engine strife in August had saxophones, and was photographed there (next to a German 109!). The first PR VIII (Merlin 61s) also had stubs in October '42.

Thanks again for the info.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 17, 2013)

I wonder if part of the reason the USA never built the Mosquito was a disinclination to adopt another nations designs. As the world's pre-eminent industrial power the US politicians and procurers might have found it a little hard to accept that someone was doing a better job of producing a particular type of aircraft than they were. I seem to recall there was a fair bit of teeth gnashing when the USMC adopted the Hawker Harrier. That said, the US did use Spitfires and Mossies and doubtless a few others I haven't mentioned, so perhaps they never really saw a need for the wooden wonder


----------



## Greyman (Oct 17, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Still really don't know what to make of timing re: boost and ejectors. The Mossie history has nineteen Mossies on 105 Sqn by the end of September '42, "all with 14 lb. boost." It seems they were doing their own testing in situ, including substituting stubs for saxophones, which took place on DK336 at Marham, the 105 Sqn base, as opposed to Boscombe Down. (DK336 GB-P appears with stubs in a number of the pics taken at the "press day" at Marham, IIRC 5 December '42.)



I think the best bet would be to research the individual squadron histories and see if/when they report the modifications.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 17, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> I wonder if part of the reason the USA never built the Mosquito was a disinclination to adopt another nations designs. As the world's pre-eminent industrial power the US politicians and procurers might have found it a little hard to accept that someone was doing a better job of producing a particular type of aircraft than they were. I seem to recall there was a fair bit of teeth gnashing when the USMC adopted the Hawker Harrier. That said, the US did use Spitfires and Mossies and doubtless a few others I haven't mentioned, so perhaps they never really saw a need for the wooden wonder



You have to remember the US was a very different place back then. Yes it was the world largest economy by that time, but in many technological areas it was very far behind. Aerodynamics, engines, superchargers, electronics, weapons, etc, etc, etc. There was a massive technological transfer from the British which bootstrapped their tech areas to a whole new level. if you look at the list of technological transfer they got for basically nothing during the war you cant help but think that Lend Lease was a bargain.

They had a tremendous potential capacity, because of the large motor vehicle, radio, etc industries, but were well behind Europe technologically. Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs.

In many ways and many areas it was still a 2nd World nation, with areas of concentrated (and very large) industries, but many other areas of incredible poverty and, basically, primitiveness. Take one example, the national road system was virtually non-existent, that came later in the Eisenhower era. If you read, for example, Yeager's biography about the standard of living when he was growing up, not that much different from an (say) eastern European peasant of the time.

Makes you wonder though, if WW2 hadn't happened would it have become so dominant?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 17, 2013)

<grabs popcorn>


----------



## Aozora (Oct 17, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Not sure what to tell you - all the data cards I've seen for the PR.I and the B.IV give a top speed of 380 or above. Sharp and Bowyer give the same numbers both for the prototypes and early production B.IVs.
> 
> Only test I've ever seen with a B.IV top speed less than 380 was on DK290, when +9 lbs boost was used. Those tests were done starting December '42, despite 105 Squadron using +12 to give German fighters the slip from July '42 at the latest. Sharp and Bowyer also have a chart of Merlin power increases with the XX at +12 by mid-1940.





mhuxt said:


> Thanks for that. Begs the question why A&AEE were testing at +9 from December '42 to April '43 when +16 had been approved in November. Maybe absolute speed itself wasn't the main issue - more the differential 'twixt saxophone and stubs, matt and gloss.
> 
> Still really don't know what to make of timing re: boost and ejectors. The Mossie history has nineteen Mossies on 105 Sqn by the end of September '42, "all with 14 lb. boost." It seems they were doing their own testing in situ, including substituting stubs for saxophones, which took place on DK336 at Marham, the 105 Sqn base, as opposed to Boscombe Down. (DK336 GB-P appears with stubs in a number of the pics taken at the "press day" at Marham, IIRC 5 December '42.)
> 
> ...



The A&AEE did test DK290/G at +12 lbs April-May 1943, fitted with de-H multi-fishtail ejector exhausts. The "certain stores" being tested were the _Highball_ bouncing bombs so the top speeds being registered were lower than Mosquitoes with full bomb bay doors http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290.pdf 

cf the tests done at + 9 lbs boost comparing open vs shrouded exhausts; maximum speeds were 367 mph @ 21,600 ft shrouds vs 380 mph @ 21,900 ejector exhausts: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 17, 2013)

Yes the exhausts made a big difference, especially at altitude. 

You look at a Mossie NF 30 with 2 stage Merlins, max (depending on sources) about the 420 mark. But that was with shrouded exhausts. Put in, for a day configuration proper ones and you can add 5-10mph depending on altitude.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> <grabs popcorn>



Silly, go back in history and the British were primitive. In the 400s to 1600s it was a primitive little place. Meaningless on the European stage. 
EVERY country came from primitive backgrounds, their rises, or falls are usually by luck and/or by the incredible efforts of various individuals/groups against the prevailing elites of the time.
Noting that the elites of any country of the time always, because it suits them, "want to keep thing the same way it was".

And they are even more silly, because things always change.

Better being a 'shockwave rider" (tile of a great book by John Brunner ... get it) rather than a King Canute.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> You have to remember the US was a very different place back then. Yes it was the world largest economy by that time, but in many technological areas it was very far behind. Aerodynamics, engines, superchargers, electronics, weapons, etc, etc, etc.



Bushwa.

Aerodynamics??? P-51, B-29 for starters.
Engines??? P&W and Wright were taking over the world markets for radial engines during the 30s.
Superchargers??? until Hooker showed up _everybodies_ superchargers were crap. British produced how many turbo aircraft?
Electronics??? Yes the British were ahead in some areas.
Weapons??? Gee, I guess I forgot about about the British semi-auto rifle that was standard issue in WW II. The British Semi-auto pistol? The British light machine gun? (designed where?) the Browning machine guns that armed the British planes? Etc,etc, etc.



> They had a tremendous potential capacity, because of the large motor vehicle, radio, etc industries, but were well behind Europe technologically.


So behind that Bren carriers were powered by copies of the Ford V-8 car engine? British Motor torpedo boats used Packard engines? Other British launches used Hall-Scott engines? British army used American trucks for heavy hauling? 
Please point out these _advanced_ British car and truck engines? 




> Even post war,the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs.


Rather ignores the GE J-35 and Westinghouse engines doesn't it? 



> In many ways and many areas it was still a 2nd World nation, with areas of concentrated (and very large) industries, but many other areas of incredible poverty and, basically, primitiveness. Take one example, the national road system was virtually non-existent, that came later in the Eisenhower era. If you read, for example, Yeager's biography about the standard of living when he was growing up, not that much different from an (say) eastern European peasant of the time.



And just when did the British motorway system come into existence? Pre WWII? I think not.

I also tend to doubt that every Cotswold cottage, Scottish sheep farm or Welsh residence had indoor pluming and electricity in the 1930s either. 
Yes there were large areas of poverty in the US in the 1930s ( and some still exist) but in many countries in the 1930s once you got out of the cities, Services tended to go peter out pretty quickly. 

The US did have the highest per capita ownership of motor vehicles and radios whicc means that while not every family had one it was much more common than any other country.

The British did many great things in the war and invented/developed a lot of stuff. Claiming the US rode on their coat tails doesn't stand up.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 17, 2013)

"...Makes you wonder though, if WW2 hadn't happened would it have become so dominant?"

_That _doesn't stand up either, my Friend. 

From the moment the 13 Colonies won their independence from the Crown, the USA was headed for dominance ..... not God-Given dominance ... but nonetheless Manifest Destiny dominance.

All WW2 confirmed was what WW1 had _already_ demonstrated ..... that Europe - aka the rest of the world - was in flux .... leaving an open-wide _opportunity_ for America (industry, finance, military, science, etc) to show what it could do. The world needed an america.  And for the most part, the world is a better place for what America has done.

MM
Proud Canadian


----------



## pattle (Oct 17, 2013)

I am sure the Americans could have built Mosquitos if they had decided to, my Grandad was a coach body builder at Derby railway works and he was involved in the building of Mosquitos during the war, America must of had enough skilled joiners etc to build Mosquitos if required. If the RAF had Mosquitos in enough numbers to do all the missions that required Mosquitos then there was not so much need for the Americans to have Mosquitos also, the RAF did one job and the USAAF another.


----------



## pattle (Oct 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Makes you wonder though, if WW2 hadn't happened would it have become so dominant?"
> 
> _That _doesn't stand up either, my Friend.
> 
> ...



You have to remember that America was after all a British invention, Washington and friends were not native Americans.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 17, 2013)

As for aerodynamics, superchargers etc:
Many renown, non-US airplanes used NACA airfoils; Spitfire, Fw-190, Lavotchinks, you name it. NACA cowl is/was also US invention. The 100 oct fuel was a great thing, crucial for the BoB, and USA was in the forefront of the development production of that and better fuels.
P&W was 1st to design produce a two stage supercharged engine (bar prototypes and one-offs). US was producing many semi- and full-automatic weapons, even in prior ww2 begun; their artillery was second to none. OTOH, many countries used Oerlikon and Bofors automatic cannons, UK was one of them; Hispano II-V was a development of a French design.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 17, 2013)

"...all a British_ invention_".

I'd question your choice of words.  The American Revolution was _a product_ of the entire British-Anglo-Saxon experience. But the Boston Tea Party was NOT a British invention. The New World _was _a new world .... it had never been feudal ... and Colonial Masters got into trouble when they failed to recognize that fact.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 17, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> As for aerodynamics, superchargers etc:
> Many renown, non-US airplanes used NACA airfoils; Spitfire, Fw-190, Lavotchinks, you name it. NACA cowl is/was also US invention. The 100 oct fuel was a great thing, crucial for the BoB, and USA was in the forefront of the development production of that and better fuels.
> P&W was 1st to design produce a two stage supercharged engine (bar prototypes and one-offs). US was producing many semi- and full-automatic weapons, even in prior ww2 begun; their artillery was second to none. OTOH, many countries used Oerlikon and Bofors automatic cannons, UK was one of them; Hispano II-V was a development of a French design.



America led the world in civil aviation with the likes of the Boeing 274, DC 1-3, Lockheed Model 9 Orion series:

It also invented kosher Coca Cola and the soda fountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#20th_century_landmarks



> By the time of its 50th anniversary, the soft drink had reached the status of a national icon in the USA. In 1935, it was certified kosher by Atlanta Rabbi Tobias Geffen, after the company made minor changes in the sourcing of some ingredients.
> 
> Claimed to be the first installation anywhere of the 1948 model "Boat Motor" styled Coca-Cola soda dispenser, Fleeman's Pharmacy, Atlanta, Georgia. The "Boat Motor" soda dispenser was introduced in the late 1930s and manufactured till the late 1950s.
> 
> The longest running commercial Coca-Cola soda fountain anywhere was Atlanta's Fleeman's Pharmacy, which first opened its doors in 1914. Jack Fleeman took over the pharmacy from his father and ran it till 1995; closing it after 81 years.



and..................TWINKIES!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie

I mean how advanced do you want a civilisation to be?


----------



## davparlr (Oct 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Makes you wonder though, if WW2 hadn't happened would it have become so dominant?"
> 
> _That _doesn't stand up either, my Friend.
> 
> ...



Thanks. Proud to have you as a neighbor. Our relationship should always be as brothers.


----------



## pattle (Oct 17, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...all a British_ invention_".
> 
> I'd question your choice of words.  The American Revolution was _a product_ of the entire British-Anglo-Saxon experience. But the Boston Tea Party was NOT a British invention. The New World _was _a new world .... it had never been feudal ... and Colonial Masters got into trouble when they failed to recognize that fact.


I just wrote that comment down for a bit of banter to be honest. I read quite a lot on the American revolution some years ago and the actual facts behind it differ considerably from what has now become popular folklore.


----------



## Glider (Oct 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Bushwa.
> 
> 
> Aerodynamics??? P-51, B-29 for starters..


P51 B-D powered by a copy of which engine? first installed in which country. P51 H significantly improved performance due to an engine powered in which country and used the design stress rules used in which country?
.


> Engines??? P&W and Wright were taking over the world markets for radial engines during the 30s..


True but who had the better in line engines? I look on that as a draw particually if you think about the first jet engines .


> Superchargers??? until Hooker showed up _everybodies_ superchargers were crap. British produced how many turbo aircraft?.


Fair to say we did pretty well with what we had.


> Electronics??? Yes the British were ahead in some areas..


Some? Navigation, Radar, Huff Duff, you name it .


> Weapons??? Gee, I guess I forgot about about the British semi-auto rifle that was standard issue in WW II. The British Semi-auto pistol? The British light machine gun? (designed where?) the Browning machine guns that armed the British planes? Etc,etc, etc..


The Lee Enfield which was close to but not as good as the Garrand, The Bren modified to UK requirements but a lot better than the BAR. The 6pd AT gun copied by which country?
The US and UK 20mm aircraft guns were both based on the French design but which was far more reliable in combat? the Bofors guns used by all sides were designed in which country? (clue not UK or USA). While we are at it the 20mm AA guns were also designed in which country (again not UK or USA). 
.


> So behind that Bren carriers were powered by copies of the Ford V-8 car engine? British Motor torpedo boats used Packard engines? Other British launches used Hall-Scott engines? British army used American trucks for heavy hauling? .


British MTB's at the start of the war used Italian engines and the Packards were copies of which engine?


> Please point out these _advanced_ British car and truck engines? .


AEC 7.6 litre on Matador
Bedford on Bedford QLD
Morris EH on Artillery Tractors
Gardner engines on Scammell pioneer Trucks

Canadian Built trucks used US engines for practical reasons
.


> Rather ignores the GE J-35 and Westinghouse engines doesn't it?.


 But they missed the war which is when they would have been needed and were not an improvement on UK Designs whithout which the USA would have been further behind .


> And just when did the British motorway system come into existence? Pre WWII? I think not.
> 
> I also tend to doubt that every Cotswold cottage, Scottish sheep farm or Welsh residence had indoor pluming and electricity in the 1930s either.
> Yes there were large areas of poverty in the US in the 1930s ( and some still exist) but in many countries in the 1930s once you got out of the cities, Services tended to go peter out pretty quickly..


By 1939 most UK farms did have electricity as those outside the national grid were given access to Generators and yes the majority did have indoor plumbing to a limited degree. War preperations were very detailed such as farms were given Linoleum for floors to ease cleaning freeing up time for farming. The latest techniques were taught to all farmers, tractors were being ordered to improve production and so on

[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 17, 2013)

Maybe it has been addressed and I missed it but can there be anything to 

#1 When the USA recognized how good the Mosquito is the USA was already well on the way with metal Heavy, Medium, and Light bombers and it would be 1943 before the USA could have enough to make a difference and the USA was staring to hit it's stride on output.

#2 The Germans are under a lot of pressure and there is a need to keep that pressure going and the metal bomber tooling investment as well as planes is a sunk cost.

#3. The USA thinks because it already has all of these bombers and is tooled up for it Mustang escort might be the faster route to viable bombers and they would not want to divert too many engines to other projects. It may have been better for the USA at this point in the war to crank out Mustangs rather than the Mosquito because it was already so heavily invested in metal bombers even if the Mosquito is the better plane.

#4. The British and Canadians are doing a fantastic job with the Mosquito allowing the USA to go a slightly different direction. The USA and it's allies do not need to be doing the exact same things everywhere to help with the war effort.

#5. Perhaps the A-26 and Mosquito are both good for the allies to have even though the A-26 came late. There are things the Mosquito can do better, there are things maybe that the A-26 can do better. There are things both can successfully do.

#6. In early 1944 Big Week may have reduced the need for the USA to consider the Mosquito in 1944 as the Luftwaffe has been reduced. In 1943 it was very invested in other projects.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 17, 2013)

Glider said:


> By 1939 most UK farms did have electricity as those outside the national grid were given access to Generators and yes the majority did have indoor plumbing to a limited degree. War preperations were very detailed such as farms were given Linoleum for floors to ease cleaning freeing up time for farming. The latest techniques were taught to all farmers, tractors were being ordered to improve production and so on


[/QUOTE]

In the 60's and 70's there were still farm houses in the center states of the USA that did not have indoor pluming. I remember bathing in a metal tub that was filled with water from buckets from an outdoor pump with water heated in pots on the stove.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 17, 2013)

So a civilization is to be judged by the sophistication of it's plumbing ??


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

Aozora said:


> The A&AEE did test DK290/G at +12 lbs April-May 1943, fitted with de-H multi-fishtail ejector exhausts. The "certain stores" being tested were the _Highball_ bouncing bombs so the top speeds being registered were lower than Mosquitoes with full bomb bay doors http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290.pdf
> 
> cf the tests done at + 9 lbs boost comparing open vs shrouded exhausts; maximum speeds were 367 mph @ 21,600 ft shrouds vs 380 mph @ 21,900 ejector exhausts: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf



And here is DK290/G

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Highball_prototypes_in_Mosquito.jpg


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2013)

A small point but officially I believe the USAAF considered the Mosquito to be unsuitable for night operations, hard to believe I know, but true.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2013)

> P51 B-D powered by a copy of which engine? first installed in which country.



What does the engine have to do with aerodynamics?



> True but who had the better in line engines? I look on that as a draw particually if you think about the first jet engines .



Early Allison and Early Merlin weren't that far apart. Merlin got better superchargers sooner. You are claiming the US was behind in piston engines, it wasn't. 



> Fair to say we did pretty well with what we had.Some? Navigation, Radar, Huff Duff, you name it .



Homing torpedoes? 




> The Lee Enfield which was close to but not as good as the Garrand, The Bren modified to UK requirements but a lot better than the BAR. The 6pd AT gun copied by which country?



I like the Lee Enfield but you either have a semi-automatic rifle or you don't. The BAR was not a LMG, it was an automatic rifle. Saying the British were ahead of the Americans because they converted a Czech machine gun to fire the .303 round is pushing things. The 6pdr was revolutionary how? The Americans and British agreed to use some of the same weapons/calibers to make supply easier. The other main artillery collaboration was a mistake. Less said about the 4.5in gun the better. 



> The US and UK 20mm aircraft guns were both based on the French design but which was far more reliable in combat? the Bofors guns used by all sides were designed in which country? (clue not UK or USA). While we are at it the 20mm AA guns were also designed in which country (again not UK or USA).



And this shows the US was behind the rest of the world and Britain in particular how? The US 20mm aircraft gun problem was a stupid mistake in chamber dimension. The US did have it's own 1.1in Navel AA gun and it's own 37mm Army AA gun. While not as good as the _Swedish_ 40mm Bofors they were as good or better than most of the Light AA that the rest of the world started WW II with ( French and German 37mm Naval AA weren't even automatic weapons). 



> British MTB's at the start of the war used Italian engines and the Packards were copies of which engine?



Packard _marine_ engines weren't a copy of anything, they were a modified version of the late 1920s Packard aircraft engine. 



> AEC 7.6 litre on Matador
> Bedford on Bedford QLD
> Morris EH on Artillery Tractors
> Gardner engines on Scammell pioneer Trucks



Thank you for proving my point. while you list two diesels the middle two engines are 3.5 liter gasoline engines of 70-72hp which don't seem to offer any real advantage over American gasoline engines of about the same size and power as used in Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge and other cars and trucks. In 1940 the British came to Diamond Reo for a tank transporter that used a Hercules diesel of 14.7 liters and 185hp. Just about the same power per liter as the AEC Matadoe engine. Where is the British superiority? 




> But they missed the war which is when they would have been needed and were not an improvement on UK Designs whithout which the USA would have been further behind .



Changing the argument now? 
You original statement "Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs."
Nothing about missing the war in the first statement. and I would note that the US ONLY used a handful (2-4) of British _built_ engines during the war on a few prototype aircraft so the parts of the statement that they had to _use_ Rolls Royce engines because they couldn't _make any itself_ post war is rather dubious. 

GE got the Whittle bench engine 1st of Oct 1941, by 18th April 1942 the General Electric I was running and on the 2nd Oct 1942 two GE 1-A engines powered the XP-59A on it's first flight. Only 5 months _ahead_ of the Gloster Meteor. At this time the GE I-16 was already running on the bench at 1600bs thrust. When did the Welland reach 1600lbs thrust? 
The Army wanted more power and GE responded by designing the I-40 engine which first ran on 9th Jan 1944. Allis-Chamlers had been given a contract to build de Havilland Goblins under licence as the J-36 engine but failed to deliver and P-80s were powered by the GE J-33 ( renamed I-40) instead. 
GE had been working on a turbo prop and after the gas generator ran on the 15th May 1943 they decided to use it as a plain turbo jet. It ran on the test bed 21st April 1944 with a 11 stage Axial compressor and a pressure ratio of 5:1. 
Both the J33 and J35 were good for 4000lbs in their early versions. While the J-33 and the Rolls Royce engines had the same starting point they evolved in parallel. Wiki "claims" the GE I-40 is an "improved" Derwent. Well if being 9in bigger in diameter, almost double the weight and giving double the thrust of a Derwent I is only an "improvment" I guess they are right. 




> By 1939 most UK farms did have electricity as those outside the national grid were given access to Generators and yes the majority did have indoor plumbing to a limited degree. War preperations were very detailed such as farms were given Linoleum for floors to ease cleaning freeing up time for farming. The latest techniques were taught to all farmers, tractors were being ordered to improve production and so on



by 1939 many of those things could be said about the majority of American farms. One can always pick and choose examples of poor conditions or poor areas but it is very bad practice to extend those examples to making generalities about a nation as a whole. The US was very much larger than Britain and while there were large areas and large numbers of poor farmers _on average_ American farmers had more tractors/motor vehicles than any other nation. This is not saying the British were backwards, just saying the Americans were NOT as far behind as you seem to think.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> So a civilization is to be judged by the sophistication of it's plumbing ??



or the sophistication of the plumbing miles from a sizable town?

Both countries had areas that had modern conveniences and areas that did not. Given the size of the US the US had areas that were rather large that did not but based on percentage or per capita I don't think they were that different.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 18, 2013)

Glider said:


> A small point but officially I believe the USAAF considered the Mosquito to be unsuitable for night operations, hard to believe I know, but true.



IIRC Don Bennett was told the same thing by The Men From The Ministry when he was trying to get Mossies for Pathfinder Force, specifically because they could carry Oboe higher (= more range) and faster (= safer, main force less likely to fail through bad marking.)

I think he waited for them to play that card, then quietly told them he was surprised to hear the Mossie was unsuited to night flight, as he'd been doing so all the past week...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 18, 2013)

"....So a civilization is to be judged by the sophistication of it's plumbing ??"

Yes. May seem humorous ... may seem simplistic ... but without a planned, disciplined means of human waste removal .... it ain't much of a civilization. It leaves itself open to epidemic and disease. BUT ... flush toilets are not synonymous with civilization. Spoiling 2+ gallons of water to dispose of a cup of urine is self-indulgence.


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 18, 2013)

Greyman said:


> I think the best bet would be to research the individual squadron histories and see if/when they report the modifications.



Yes indeed, though that said the best source for the timeline of on-squadron technical changes is actually Sharp Bowyer. The original ORBs tend to be full of who's joined the squadron, who's left the squadron, what the weather is and what exercises were undertaken. The post-war histories tend to have a lot of info on who dropped how many bombs where and when, though Barry Blunt's squadron histories tend to have much more info.

Anyway, in terms of what Sharp Bowyer have to say about speeds and tech development, I've gone through it again with a view to quotes about early speed tests, early engine management and early exhaust developments. It all goes to explaining why I believe the early bombers and PRs did 380 mph (my Inner Crumpp just won't let it go...)

In February '41, de Havilland's tests on W4050, the prototype were in line with expectations, which had been 386 mph. When the A&AEE tested the aircraft at Boscombe Down in March '41, they found the speed to be 388 at 22,000 ft. After it went back to de Havilland's, the latter were getting a top of 392 out of it, at 22,000 feet and 16,000 lbs. weight. (I'm assuming that was on +9 boost, as that seems to have been the FTH for that boost level.) 

That's the prototype of course. The company delivered a total of 20 aircraft before the end of 1941, and "As performance was measured on more and more aircraft it appeared that production B.Mk.IVs at the end of 1941 were doing 382 m.p.h. at 22,000 feet, 5 m.p.h. less than had been measured on the prototype with faired nacelles. Fighters were doing 378 m.p.h. (352 m.p.h. with matt finish), the greater drag of their flat windscreen, plus A.I. and larger tailplane, being offset by their better nacelle fairings at that time - until the final nacelles became standard."

That speed appears to have been borne out once the aircraft got onto squadrons - the PRU was the first user, followed by 105 Squadron on bombers:

"105's first Mk.IV did not arrive until mid-May (mhuxt - 1942). With the longer nacelles and flame dampers these were reckoned to be faster than the P.R.U./Bomber Conversion Type Mosquito I, but on tests the first showed a top speed of 2 m.p.h. less, 380 m.p.h. at 22,000 feet in F.S. gear, and 105 Squadron maintained this was general."

There was also the issue of how much boost could be used, and when, but the evidence suggests that the emergency boost cut-out was useable from March '42 onwards at the latest, a couple months before the bombers went into action over Germany. The PR birds eventually encountered Luftwaffe fighters, as below: 

One "of the earliest encounters with fighters (was) described by Flt. Lt. Merifield after a flight from Scotland:- 'We were flying in W4061 (mhuxt - 12th aircraft produced overall, seventh PR machine, 2nd of the Long-Range variants, would have been delivered with ducted exhausts, not the saxophones or the stubs) on 30 March, 1942, over Trondheim at 18,000 feet in F.S. gear at 2,400 revs. at the time. I noticed an Me 109 in my mirror about half a mile behind and 500 feet above. It was making a trail of black smoke, presumably because it was at full throttle. I increased revs. to 3,000, switched over to M.S., pulled the cut-out and dived gently. My observer reported another 109 on our starboard quarter about the same distance behind. We levelled off at 14,000 feet but did not seem to draw ahead. Observation of the enemy aircaft was difficult because they were dead astern and we were making a lot of black smoke ourselves. After a quarter of an hour they were no longer to be seen, so boost was reduced to 6 lb. and revs. to 2,700. ... I could not say what speed was reached during the dive but at 14,000 feet the I.A.S. was 320, which afterwards computed to be 395.'"

The important thing about the above is really that the boost cut-out was available, allowing higher boost below 22,000, and that pilots were ready willing and able to use it. This wasn't just the case at the PRU - the bomber pilots of 105 also used it in mid-42, about a month after their first raid:

"During his sortie (mhuxt - to Flensburg on 2 July 1942) Sqn. Ldr. Houlston was chased by three Fw 190s, intercepting Mosquitoes for the first time. He comfortably drew away from them, using plus 12 1/2 lb. boost at sea level."

Furthermore, the available boost levels were increased shortly thereafter; as noted earlier: "By the end of September (mhuxt - 1942) 105 Squadron had nineteen Mosquitoes, all with +14 lbs. boost."

As far as the stub exhausts are concerned, the prototype was first fitted with stubs in July 1941. The initial tests were done at Hatfield, but were adopted after trials in the operational units themselves. "Trials at Marham (mhuxt - 105 Squadron's base) with DK336 fitted with open stubs indicated that these gave too much glare at night, revealing the position of the aircraft and making night landings difficult. Closing the stub ends to oval section of slightly less area reduced the glare in tests on 25 November (mhuxt - 1942) and increased the jet propulsion effect without reducing engine efficiency, giving a worthwhile net gain of from 10 to 13 m.p.h. depending on altitude. ... The shrouded exhausts - never popular with ground crews - were retained for dusk and dawn attacks, and others were fitted with oval stubs for day raids, as on reconnaissance aircraft."

It seems the work at 105 was in fact applied on the recce aircraft either before the bombers got theirs, or at exactly the same time: "Two Mosquito IVs fitted with multiple ejector exhausts reached the squadron (mhuxt - by this time the PRU had been split into various squadrons, in this case 540 Squadron) in November (MH - 1942). It was decided that the extra 10 m.p.h. or so obtained from propulsion effect was worth more than flame suppression, and future aircraft were similarly equipped."

So anyway, that's where I'm coming from on early Mossie bomber speed. If the U.K. had gone to the U.S. with a plan for the Americans to produce Mosquitos, it would have been for a 380 mph machine.


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> What does the engine have to do with aerodynamics?


Nothing but we could do aerodynamics Mossie, Spit but what made the P51 was the Merlin. What made the P51H were UK design standards not US


> Early Allison and Early Merlin weren't that far apart. Merlin got better superchargers sooner. You are claiming the US was behind in piston engines, it wasn't.


If it wasn't the P51 wouldn't have needed the Merlin to make it the plane it became.


> Homing torpedoes?


True but these came late after that Battle of the Atlantic was won, by Radar, Huff duff and other UK devices and weapons such as Hedghog, Squid, Leigh Light.


> I like the Lee Enfield but you either have a semi-automatic rifle or you don't. The BAR was not a LMG, it was an automatic rifle. Saying the British were ahead of the Americans because they converted a Czech machine gun to fire the .303 round is pushing things. The 6pdr was revolutionary how? The Americans and British agreed to use some of the same weapons/calibers to make supply easier. The other main artillery collaboration was a mistake. Less said about the 4.5in gun the better.


The British were ahead of the USA as they recognised they needed an LMG and got the best they could without worrying about their ego and NIH issues. The 6pd wasn't a collaberation it was the best weapon of its time and the USA copied it.


> And this shows the US was behind the rest of the world and Britain in particular how?


Be fair I did point out that the 20mm and the 40mm were neither US or  UK designs and neither country was ahead of the rest.


> The US 20mm aircraft gun problem was a stupid mistake in chamber dimension.


Nope the US 20mm was handled in an dreadful manner. The same basic design was taken by both the UK and USA. the UK got it to work and the USA didn't. It was in US hand a huge waste of resources and to put it down to a single error is way off the mark.


> The US did have it's own 1.1in Navel AA gun and it's own 37mm Army AA gun. While not as good as the _Swedish_ 40mm Bofors they were as good or better than most of the Light AA that the rest of the world started WW II with ( French and German 37mm Naval AA weren't even automatic weapons).


The 1.1 was replaced as soon as possible and was a very poor weapon, plus its noticable that the US Army preferred the M16 to the M15 weapon. 


> Packard _marine_ engines weren't a copy of anything, they were a modified version of the late 1920s Packard aircraft engine.


Correct that I grant but the interesting thing is that we preferred the Italian engines so as to which was best I cannot comment on



> Thank you for proving my point. while you list two diesels the middle two engines are 3.5 liter gasoline engines of 70-72hp which don't seem to offer any real advantage over American gasoline engines of about the same size and power as used in Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge and other cars and trucks. In 1940 the British came to Diamond Reo for a tank transporter that used a Hercules diesel of 14.7 liters and 185hp. Just about the same power per liter as the AEC Matadoe engine. Where is the British superiority?


It wan't a case of superiority. You asked for examples of advanced british engines and I gave some concentrating on specialist trucks, simple as that.


> Changing the argument now?
> You original statement "Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs."
> Nothing about missing the war in the first statement. and I would note that the US ONLY used a handful (2-4) of British _built_ engines during the war on a few prototype aircraft so the parts of the statement that they had to _use_ Rolls Royce engines because they couldn't _make any itself_ post war is rather dubious.


If you are going to quote me, at least get the quote right. I said _Designs whithout which the USA would have been further behind _
Basis of this was simple point. The GE1 was based on the Gloster Whittle engine. Without that the USA would have been further behind. The J 33 was based on the J31 which was a production version of the British Whittle 1 which supports my point. You yourself pointed out that UK and US engines started from the same position and developed alongside each other which is the point of my statement. Without the British start the USA would ahve been behind.


> GE got the Whittle bench engine 1st of Oct 1941, by 18th April 1942 the General Electric I was running and on the 2nd Oct 1942 two GE 1-A engines powered the XP-59A on it's first flight. Only 5 months _ahead_ of the Gloster Meteor. At this time the GE I-16 was already running on the bench at 1600bs thrust. When did the Welland reach 1600lbs thrust?


No idea as to when 1,600 thrust was developed on the bench but the first Derwent was in production in 1943 with 2,000ib


> by 1939 many of those things could be said about the majority of American farms. One can always pick and choose examples of poor conditions or poor areas but it is very bad practice to extend those examples to making generalities about a nation as a whole. The US was very much larger than Britain and while there were large areas and large numbers of poor farmers _on average_ American farmers had more tractors/motor vehicles than any other nation. This is not saying the British were backwards, just saying the Americans were NOT as far behind as you seem to think.


I am not saying anything, I was just putting some flesh onto the statement. Without the war war preparation UK farming would have been much further behind. Had the USA seen a war on the way I have no doubt at all that similar and maybe more would ahve been done.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2013)

My apologies, I confused your post with another members who posed the US was backwards and need to catch up with the rest of the world, however;


Glider said:


> Nothing but we could do aerodynamics Mossie, Spit but what made the P51 was the Merlin. What made the P51H were UK design standards not US
> If it wasn't the P51 wouldn't have needed the Merlin to make it the plane it became.



Engines still have nothing to do with aerodynamics, The original statement was that the US was _behind_ in aerodynamics. While not every US plane was better than every British plane the US transports of the 30s (DC-2 in October 1934 MacRobertson Air Race) show that the US was _behind_ nobody for most of this period. See also DC-4 and Constellation. See earlier Lockheeds. 



> True but these came late after that Battle of the Atlantic was won, by Radar, Huff duff and other UK devices and weapons such as Hedghog, Squid, Leigh Light.



Squid had little to do with winning the Battle of the Atlantic, first production unit wasn't fitted until Sept 1943. First kill was in July 1944. The airborne homing Torpedoes were first dropped in action in the summer of 1943. 



> The British were ahead of the USA as they recognised they needed an LMG and got the best they could without worrying about their ego and NIH issues. The 6pd wasn't a collaboration it was the best weapon of its time and the USA copied it.


 The Americans had a different infantry tactical doctrine, it may have been wrong but that doesn't mean they were behind in weapons. Of all the weapons in an infantry battalion ONLY the Bren gun could be considered superior to it's American equivalent. A few other things might be equal. The US didn't collaborate in the design of the 6pdr but since the US was going to make 6pdr ammo why not use the British gun? BTW, the US had a design for their own 57mm AT gun and 4 pilot models were built. US decided on the British gun and approved the American version ( tolerances and thread sizes and such) 6 months before the British got the 6pdr into production in Britain. 



> Nope the US 20mm was handled in an dreadful manner. The same basic design was taken by both the UK and USA. the UK got it to work and the USA didn't. It was in US hand a huge waste of resources and to put it down to a single error is way off the mark.



Aside from tolerance issues which were straightened out that chamber dimension was the major problem. Unless you can show different? 



> The 1.1 was replaced as soon as possible and was a very poor weapon, plus its noticable that the US Army preferred the M16 to the M15 weapon.



The 1.1 may have been poor but many other nations had worse, it also survived until 1945 in small ships (DEs). The 1.1 may have been OK as a gun but the mount was complex and the power drive systems gave lots of trouble. The US built over 7,000 of the 37mm AA guns. 




> Correct that I grant but the interesting thing is that we preferred the Italian engines so as to which was best I cannot comment on



It may have been what was available. The US having little or no Program for PT boats until 1940. SO few, if any engine production before then. 
Again the original poster was claiming that the US was _behind_ Britain and/or the rest of the world in engines. 




> It wan't a case of superiority. You asked for examples of advanced British engines and I gave some concentrating on specialist trucks, simple as that.



But they are not advanced engines, simple as that, the original position was that the US was behind, not equal. 
There was a list published in the Automotive IND vol 82, No.5 March 1, 1940 of American stock, marine and commercial engines ( truck bus, stationary powerplant, etc) there are 483 engines on the list from 40 companies. The List may not be completely accurate. Most of these engines, if not all, are simply work engines, not high performance, with low power per unit of volume and high weights, they range from single cylinder engines to massive V-12 marine engines. Unless someone can show how another countries engines were _superior_ or more _advanced_ than the American ones and not simply that they had engines equal to the American engines the idea that America was _behind_ in engine design and needed to copy the British or other nations must be discarded. 



> If you are going to quote me, at least get the quote right. I said _Designs whithout which the USA would have been further behind _
> Basis of this was simple point. The GE1 was based on the Gloster Whittle engine. Without that the USA would have been further behind. The J 33 was based on the J31 which was a production version of the British Whittle 1 which supports my point. You yourself pointed out that UK and US engines started from the same position and developed alongside each other which is the point of my statement. Without the British start the USA would ahve been behind.



I have apologized for confusing your post with the earlier one. You are correct the US would have been further behind but the original posters statement " Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs." is pure hogwash. 



> No idea as to when 1,600 thrust was developed on the bench but the first Derwent was in production in 1943 with 2,000ib



Time line for the Derwent seems to be.
first run 29 June 1943, reached 1800lbs
passed type test at 2000lb in Nov 1943
Dec 20th 1943 first flight test in a Wellington
18th April 1944 sees first flight in Meteor with 1800lb service rating. 
Information from "Turbojet History and Development 1930-1960 Volume I by Antony L. Kay. 

The original question was when did the Welland reach 1600lbs on the Bench. I can't find that but a Welland was giving 1600lbs in the tail of a Wellington in May of 1943 which is 6-7 months after the I-16 makes the same power on the bench.


----------



## pattle (Oct 18, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> So a civilization is to be judged by the sophistication of it's plumbing ??



I like the sarcasm in this comment, but joking aside this is often how ancient civilisations are judged when you think of the Roman ruins of Hadrian's Wall or the even older Minoan ruins of Festos and Knossos in Crete, so perhaps us modern peoples are not so advanced as we like to think.
Any way this thread is about an American Mosquito equivalent not Bren magazines or ancient lavatories, happy days.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 18, 2013)

Glider said:


> Nothing but we could do aerodynamics Mossie, Spit but what made the P51 was the Merlin.


Spit? With the same engine, the P-51 was 20 mph faster. Relative to the P-51, the Spitfire had poor aerodynamics.


> What made the P51H were UK design standards not US


I am not sure that making an aircraft more fragile is a sign of advanced technology. This came back to bite the P-51H when the more robust P-51D was used in Korea, which was used in a more close support role.


> If it wasn't the P51 wouldn't have needed the Merlin to make it the plane it became.



It took the airframe and the engine to be the P-51. The Spitfire with the Merlin engine did not have the speed or the fuel mileage to do the P-51 job.




> The British were ahead of the USA as they recognised they needed an LMG and got the best they could without worrying about their ego and NIH issues. The 6pd wasn't a collaberation it was the best weapon of its time and the USA copied it.


Which I bet could be traced back to an operating system designed by Maxim or Lewis, both Americans.



> The Lee Enfield which was close to but not as good as the Garrand,


 I don't think close is right. There is significant firepower difference. The Garand is as far ahead of the Lee Enfield as the AK-47 is ahead of the Garand.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

I think that we did the right thing in avoiding the so called "Mosquito trap".
The Mosquito only worked because of all the other things going on at the time that made it insignificant in the over all scheme of things and thus not worth making it a major priority interceptor target.
Then there is the idea of using In Line LC engines instead of AC Radials. Why would you do this?
Lastly, I like your logo. The Mig-29 is one of the prettiest planes ever built.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> I say strategic because it cost them a lot of money and resources and left a hole in their plane mix that nothing really could fill.
> If they had gone the Mossie route, then they would have had no need for the B-24 or the B-25 or the P-61 and so on, at considerable cost savings (in operational crews as well as in building them).  The Mossy only worked because it's contribution to the war was so insignificant that the Germans never made them a high priority target for interception.
> 
> Plus, as said, this left operational holes, which they tried to fill by getting Mossies from the UK, but there was never enough to go around.
> Obviously VLR PR and night fighters were 2, but there is the whole issue of how it limited their tactical bombing capability, in both the ETO and PTO.


The Mossy never had, or was used as a "Tactical Mission" bomber. Think Tiffy/P-47 ground attack missions. Why use a twin with two crew when a single with one will do a better job?


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> I don't think the USA needed the Mosquito at all.Right on!
> 
> The first British-developed modern plane we adopted that I can think of was the B-57 Canberra, and we changed the cockpit to suit US tastes when we did that.Many other changes also. Almost a completely new plane when done. When the British got some F-4 Phantoms, they mandated British engines and came up with the Spey-powered variant. Look up it's history to see what a bad choice this was. I think it would be highly unlikely that the US would adopt any foreign aircraft during WWII, advisable thoiugh it might be.


I would point out that the Alison was a better engine than the Merlin with any set of "Fixes" to the myriad of problems in that the Allison was strangled by GM's refusal to institute the simple quick fixes shown to conclusively fix all the respective defects, as detailed in E. Schmued's book; "Mustang Designer", and when coupled to a turbocharger or a two stage blower could out power the Merlin at any point in history. Top Merlin power in actual service during WW-II was 1720 HP on 115-145 AV Gas, compared to 2220 HP to the Packard Merlin and 2,300 HP for the P-82's Alisons.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Problem for the A-20 (and the Me 410) was that by 1944 the Mosquito bomber's max speed was 30 or 40mph faster than the proposed target.
> 
> I wonder how fast the F7F would have been if they redesigned the fuselage to carry bombs?


Most here forget that the placard speeds are not real world speeds in actual use. First, at night, they had to install flame dampers to prevent easy interception of the Mossy, which knocked off 12-16 MPH off of the placard speed. Or bulged bomb bay doors which knock off 4-7 MPH more, also depending on the model and throttle position used. There are many more items like various antennas, differences in EEW and Loaded weight that all slow the plane.
Secondly, you never see the speed when flown at Maximum Continuous Throttle position which is the true usable speed and very much lower than the number commonly shown in books, etc.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> I would point out that the Alison was a better engine than the Merlin with any set of "Fixes" to the myriad of problems in that the Allison was strangled by GM's refusal to institute the simple quick fixes shown to conclusively fix all the respective defects, as detailed in E. Schmued's book; "Mustang Designer", and when coupled to a turbocharger or a two stage blower could out power the Merlin at any point in history. Top Merlin power in actual service during WW-II was 1720 HP on 115-145 AV Gas, compared to 2220 HP to the Packard Merlin and 2,300 HP for the P-82's Alisons.



Not you again!

Merlin 66, 150 grade fuel, 2000hp 1944.
P-82 Allisons did not appear during WW2, nor did the P-82.
The Packard Merlin V-1650-9 (the one with 2200hp) was rated RM16SM - the same as some 100-series Merlins. About the only difference between the -9 and Rolls-Royce engines was that they use ADI to allow the boost to be raised from +25psi to +30psi.

Allison's 2 stage engines compared favourably with 2 stage Merlins - but they were somewhat later in timing.

Turbocharged Allisons - I think the best the P-38 got was 2000hp, and that was with ADI. Otherwise most, during the war, had WEP of 1750hp. Turbocharged engines also much heavier installations, and gave up significant exhaust thrust at altitude.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> The Mossy never had, or was used as a "Tactical Mission" bomber. Think Tiffy/P-47 ground attack missions. Why use a twin with two crew when a single with one will do a better job?



MOSQUITO FB.VI. Look it up.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> Uncle Sam’s Spitfires had written a little-known chapter in US fighter history. Though the USAAF used over 600 Spitfires during the war, the aircraft was never given a US designation, and little publicity was given to the exploits of the 31st and 52nd Fighter Groups – nothing like what they would get in the summer of 1944 during the wild air battles over Ploesti when they flew Mustangs. This is most likely a good example of the US military’s overall dislike of having to admit to using “NIH” (Not Invented Here) equipment.
> 
> During their time in Spitfires, the 31st FG claimed 194.5 confirmed, 39 probables and 124 damaged; the 52nd claimed 152.33 confirmed, 22 probables and 71 damaged. Thirteen pilots became aces on the Spitfire. Leland Molland went on to score another 6 victories in the summer of 1944 in the P-51 to bring his score to 11. Harrison Thyng added 5 more victories to his 5.5 as CO of the 4th FIW in Korea, while Royal N. Baker, who scored 3.5 in Spitfires added another 13 in Korea.
> 
> Source:http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html


I would reply that the 600 Spits ONLY produced 13 aces, or a little over 2% of the number of planes used. Or about 1/4 of the number of aces, 7.6% produced by a similar number of P-51s, P-47s, or P-38s.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Most here forget that the placard speeds are not real world speeds in actual use. First, at night, they had to install flame dampers to prevent easy interception of the Mossy, which knocked off 12-16 MPH off of the placard speed.



Evidence?




SHOOTER said:


> Or bulged bomb bay doors which knock off 4-7 MPH more, also depending on the model and throttle position used.



Evidence?




SHOOTER said:


> also depending on the model and throttle position used. There are many more items like various antennas, differences in EEW and Loaded weight that all slow the plane.



What antennas?

Oboe was carried in the nose in Mosquitoes.

H2S required a radome in the rear fuselage - but I don't bellieve many Mosquitoes carried them.

The maximum eight of teh Mosquito went up from ~20,000lbs to ~25,000lbs, but they also gained a lot of power to make that possible.




SHOOTER said:


> Secondly, you never see the speed when flown at Maximum Continuous Throttle position which is the true usable speed and very much lower than the number commonly shown in books, etc.



This is the same for all aircraft. The maximum speeds are usually shown as the maximum WEP or combat speed.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

davebender said:


> Light bombers typically operate below 15,000 feet performing CAS missions. I doubt turbocharging is the answer for such an aircraft.


 But the Mossy was not used as a low altitude "Tactical bomber"! It was either low alt to small strategic targets, or high altitude at night which were the vast majority of their total sorties flown.
Exactly how many Mossy missions were flown in direct support of ground troops at the FEBA?


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 18, 2013)

Oh lordy not the red ink retard again. He has more sock puppets than I have empty beer bottles.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> My post; To make a long story short maybe the Mosquito is a fantastic aircraft that contributes in a mighty way towards to war effort but maybe it should only be built by the British and Commonwealth and shared with the Americans when needed or it makes sense.


 I dispute that the Mosquito was a fantastic Aircraft, or that it made a mighty contribution. It was only successful because of the environment that they operated in. If it was restricted to solo type missions like low altitude, or day light bombing, with out the cover of the much more dangerous heavies that gave them cover, they would have been torn to bits. As it was, the vast majority of all Mossy missions were simply ignored in favor of using their meager assets to intercept the much easier and very much more dangerous heavy bombers with their huge bomb loads.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Radials were actually quite efficient, with cruise sfcs of 0.38 to 0.43. Recall, that pre-ww2, most radials, at least in the US were being built for airlines, for which every pound of excess fuel is money out of their pocket. Had radials been as thirsty and inefficient as some here portray them, the airlines would not have used them.


 Absolutely true! AC Radials only have high SFC at very high powers. Somebody do a Merlin at 1,720 HP take off power to see the true difference in fuel consumption.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> For a radial engined bomber to cruise on same speed as the inline-engined bomber, it must use more HP. Say, 1200 HP vs. 1000?Wrong, the difference in drag between a radial and inline in a bomber is very small. The fuselage and wing are very much larger fraction of the total frontal area than the nacelles. Think of this, the B-17 was more efficient than the Lancaster at the same weights, altitudes and speeds. The OP states US as a producer, and the USA was in position to build a V-12 powered bomber already in 1940, if they founded they need one.


 This is a bad argument based on bad ideas that do not take most of the other variables into account. The thing I dislike most about all of these LC In lines Vs AC Radials is the utter failure to consider the Maintenance and Durability differences between the two types. The AC Radials are many times better than the LC In lines.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

bbear said:


> If I am intruding stupidly will someone please just respond with a 'No' to this. Then i'll get my coat.No, you are wrong on this entire line of thought.
> 
> Since radial and inline are as much about cooling as anything else it seems appropriate to look for the answer to these riddles (why did de Haviland choose an inline engine? is such an engine esssential to the Mosquito concept?) in temperature. Specifically the temperature of the lubricant. That is to say, i think engine temperature would be a limit to the schnell bomber engine plan choice. On the other hand if air cooled engines can keep the lubricant within its temperature limits at the least favourable combination of speed, altitude and power demand then no such constraint on engine choice would apply.
> 
> ...


 No, it was because the cooling system was so restricted on the air cooled engine. Hot spots in the head are very much harder to cool in the AC engine. But the Power/Weight figures do not include the weight of the cooling system in the LC Engine which are part of the AC Radial. If you look at the very much more significant figure of merit in Reciprocating engines, IE power per unit of piston crown area. The best AC Radials have ~.93 HP/Cm^2 of piston crown area! The best R-R made Merlin in service during the war was the 1720 HP mark which has 1.031 HP/Cm^2 of piston area. These numbers are the true differences in cooling ability difference between the two types. Turbo compounding makes the R-3350 1.091 HP/Cm^2. Far short of the post war Packard Merlin V-1650 and Alison V1710 at 1.25 HP/Cm^2 at 2,220 and 2,300 HP each. But the Napier Sabre and Nomad had all of these beat by a wide margin. For what it's worth.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> We might take a look at fuel consumption figures in order to approach closer to the answer, at least one of them. On maximum continuous power:
> -R-2600-23: 145 US gals for 1275 HP at 11800 ft
> -V-1650-1: 93 gals for 1010 HP at 16000 ft
> -V-1710-39: 103 gals for 1000 HP at 15000 ft
> ...


All of the figures you post are plane specific which has nothing to do with the engine. As to that argument use the Mk-IX Spitfire's Fuel consumption figures Vs the P-51D to prove that point. Then use the Merlin powered Halifax Vs the B-17F. Then just to muddy the water use the Merlin powered Lanc Vs the same B-17F, but at Maximum Service Ceiling at the same over the ground speeds and take off weights to a range of 3,200 miles. The more variables we spec, the more meaningful the comparison becomes.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> The liquid-cooled V-12s in use during WW2 were primarily developed for military use; later civil uses were largely on extemporized transport aircraft, like the Lancastrian. Conversely, while the first US radials were developed at to a USN contract, they soon completely replaced liquid-cooled engines in the commercial arena, where reliability, long life, and efficiency were of paramount importance. Considering that cooling drag is a significant factor in any piston engined aircraft, if the drag of a well-designed radial installation was as much worse as some people here seem to believe, they would not have driven liquid-cooled engines out of the commercial market. The V-12s would likely have survived if they could demonstrate significantly better sfcs, and they could not do that, either: radials, in cruise conditions had sfcs of about 0.38 to about 0.4, which is about as good as a spark ignition engine can get.
> 
> I think the primary reasons that radials get dissed so often are that the V-12 aircraft looked more streamlined and faster (probably more because "streamlined design," as in Raymond Loewy, was fashionable) than radial-engined aircraft and the P-51, which was probably the cleanest piston-engined fighter to see service had a V-12. With the exception of the P-51, which had Cd,0​ about 15% below any other piston-engined fighter to see service, the demonstrated values of zero-lift drag (Cd,0​) for all piston-engined fighters clustered between about 0.021 and about 0.025 with no significant difference between V-12 and radial engined aircraft.


 Great post with great facts and ideas!


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> I'd take 'Mosquito-like' to mean:
> 
> Small (less than 20,000 lbs loaded);
> Long-range (combat radius of greater than 600 miles);
> ...


Overview[edit]

The Mosquito was a fast, twin-engined aircraft with shoulder-mounted wings.[57] The most produced variant, designated the FB Mk VI (Fighter-bomber Mark 6), was powered by two Merlin Mk 23 or Mk 25 engines driving three-bladed de Havilland hydromatic propellers. The typical fixed armament for an FB Mk VI was four Browning .303 machine guns and four 20 mm Hispano cannon while the offensive load consisted of up to 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of bombs, or eight RP-3 unguided rockets.[58]
Flight characteristics[edit]

The design was noted for having light and effective control surfaces which allowed for good manoeuvrability. It was noted that the rudder should not be used aggressively at high speeds, and the poor aileron control at low speeds when landing and taking off was also a problem for inexperienced crews.[86] For flying at low speeds, the flaps had to be set at 15°, speed reduced to 201 miles per hour (323 km/h) and rpm set to 2,650. The speed could be reduced to an acceptable 150 miles per hour (240 km/h) for low speed flying.[87] For cruising the maximum speed for obtaining maximum range was 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) at 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) weight.[87]
DH.98 Mosquito B Mk XVI[edit]

Mosquito P.R.34.

Data from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II[160] and World War II Warbirds[163]

General characteristics
Crew: 2: pilot, bombardier/navigator
Length: 44 ft 6 in (13.57 m)
Wingspan: 54 ft 2 in (16.52 m)
Height: 17 ft 5 in (5.3 m)
Wing area: 454 ft2 (42.18 m2)
Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,490 kg)
Loaded weight: 18,100 lb (8,210 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Merlin 76/77 (left/right) liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,710 hp (1,280 kW) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 361 kn (415 mph (668 km/h)) at 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
Range: 1,300 nmi (1,500 mi (2,400 km))with full weapons load
Service ceiling: 37,000 ft (11,000 m)
Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 39.9 lb/ft2 (195 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.189 hp/lb (311 W/kg)

Armament

Bombs: 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) Only with bulged bomb bay doors which reduced top speed by 4-8 MPH.
The salient points are that the MTO is 25,000 pounds or more depending on the exact date of manufacture and that the cruising speed for maximum range is 200 MPH!


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> All of the figures you post are plane specific which has nothing to do with the engine. As to that argument use the Mk-IX Spitfire's Fuel consumption figures Vs the P-51D to prove that point. Then use the Merlin powered Halifax Vs the B-17F. Then just to muddy the water use the Merlin powered Lanc Vs the same B-17F, but at Maximum Service Ceiling at the same over the ground speeds and take off weights to a range of 3,200 miles. The more variables we spec, the more meaningful the comparison becomes.



Actually they are engine parameters. 

ie to produce 1275hp @ 11,800ft (critical altitude) the R-2600-23 required 145 USG per hour (I presume per hour, as without the time component it does not make sense).

An airframe specific fuel consumption would be in air miles per gallon (ampg), which combines the engine's performance (fuel consumption at specific power setting in gph) and the airframe performance (speed in mph at the same specific power setting).

Thus a Spitfire IX and P-51B Mustang using the same engine would have the same engine consumption (gph) but the latter would be faster at the same power setting, meaning that it would have a better ampg figure.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

Quote; "Basically the Merlin (and the Allison) was designed from the start as a military engine, capable of widely varying power settings, including extreme levels for periods of time.
A side affect was being able to run at very lean levels (ie high combustion chamber temp levels) and enable very good cruising fuel consumption.

The big radials were basically militarised commercial engines and one result of the compromises made to achieve the performance required, was far greater fuel consumption for a given power level." Un quote.
My reply is that the ultimate restriction on Recip engine power is the heat input into the piston crown, everything else is insignificant! At cruise settings the two engines have very similar SFCs. It is only at much higher power levels that the air cooled engines must burn more fuel and ADI fluid. But when you take the weight of the entire cooling system into account, there is not much difference between the LC and AC engines, with a slight edge going to the Air Cooled types. ( Think radiator, hoses, ducting, pumps, etc.) Think about the R-2800 with 2,800 HP in a Bearcat then comp it with a any LC engine plane with the same range and loiter numbers. Only the P-51H is close, but not quite there.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> I was just seeing how close I could come to the specifications that was posted and noted that I failed.
> 
> My thought is if the USA needs something like a Mosquito why not an actual Mosquito instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?
> 
> ...


 Why not use a P-38 as the starting point? All it needs to blow the Mossy's doors off in any category is the Mk-84 streamlined bombs for external carriage.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Overview[edit]
> 
> The Mosquito was a fast, twin-engined aircraft with shoulder-mounted wings.[57] The most produced variant, designated the FB Mk VI (Fighter-bomber Mark 6), was powered by two Merlin Mk 23 or Mk 25 engines driving three-bladed de Havilland hydromatic propellers. The typical fixed armament for an FB Mk VI was four Browning .303 machine guns and four 20 mm Hispano cannon while the offensive load consisted of up to 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of bombs, or eight RP-3 unguided rockets.[58]
> Flight characteristics[edit]
> ...


 
The aircraft data sheet, provided by Neil Stirling, shows that the Mosquito B.XVI had a most economical cruising speed of 245mph (Merlin 72/73) to 250mph (Merlin 76/77) *at 15,000ft*. Not sure if that means that it was the best altitude for economy, or that it was a standard test altitude. Cruising speed is at mean weight (19,100lb).

Maximum weak mixture (ie continuous) cruise was 321mph (Merlin 72/73) to 358mph (Merlin 76/77). Again at 15,000ft. 

In case you were wiondering, this is clearly with the bulged bomb bay, as maximum bomb loads listed are:
1 x 4000lb (fuselage) + 2 x 500lb (wings) = 5000lb or
4 x 500lb (fuselage) + 2 x 500lb (wings) = 3000lb

Range at most economical speed and maximum bomb load (5000lb) is 1370 miles.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Why not use a P-38 as the starting point? All it needs to blow the Mossy's doors off in any category is the Mk-84 streamlined bombs for external carriage.


 


Yep, wait for 20+ years to have a bomber with lower performance than the Mosquito.

Apart from the length of the Mk 84 bomb, two could fit inside the Mosquito's bomb bay.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

Aozora said:


> If the USA were to build a Mosquito like bomber? Just imagine a smaller, twin engined version of this, say turbo-R-2800s:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 How about a four engine plane that beats the crap out of B-29s? A scaled XF-12 with two R2800s out of the P-47N? Makes the Mossy look like a slug! I love this idea! I will do the scale drawings now that the idea has been put into my head! Great idea! How is that for streamlined?


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> You have to remember the US was a very different place back then. Yes it was the world largest economy by that time, but in many technological areas it was very far behind. Aerodynamics, engines, superchargers, electronics, weapons, etc, etc, etc. There was a massive technological transfer from the British which bootstrapped their tech areas to a whole new level. if you look at the list of technological transfer they got for basically nothing during the war you cant help but think that Lend Lease was a bargain.This entire statement is not true. Aerodynamics? The first fighter plane to exceed 400 MPH? World record holders from both Hughes and Douglas. The off the shelf DC-3 comes with in an inch of beating the De Havilland Comet racer to Australia, etc. The worlds first 1000 HP Production engine. Effective turbochargers in 1931. Right!
> 
> They had a tremendous potential capacity, because of the large motor vehicle, radio, etc industries, but were well behind Europe technologically.More BS. Even post war, the US had to use and/or license Rolls Royce jet engines because it couldn't design/make any itself. Basically it did a Jaapan/China thing. Copy and build foreign designs and then later make its own designs.Part of this was done to ease British repayment of Lend Lease.
> 
> ...


 Fatally flawed in so many ways.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 18, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....So a civilization is to be judged by the sophistication of it's plumbing ??"
> 
> Yes. May seem humorous ... may seem simplistic ... but without a planned, disciplined means of human waste removal .... it ain't much of a civilization. It leaves itself open to epidemic and disease. BUT ... flush toilets are not synonymous with civilization. Spoiling 2+ gallons of water to dispose of a cup of urine is self-indulgence.



There is not much in the way of civilization in much of North America, being Canadian you should know that. I lived in civilization a couple of times and it drove me nuts. Canada will have the places I have lived beat on isolation but here goes.

in my my late thirty's early forty's I lived how no person should live (well, in my opinion  ) I lived 7 miles from an artificial light source. There was also a paved road that went by the place. It was sooooo crowded, 2 homes on almost every square mile. I did have a septic system. 


Before that I was in a 1000sq mile country with 4,000 people in it, still too crowded but a much better. The counties to the North, South, and West were thinner, to the East it got a little thicker with 10,000 people in 1200sq miles. Humans should not have to live within 10 miles of even a dirt road.  There is a problem with that area, you were two counties away from an interstate. 

Pluming these places and having modern sewage would have been cost prohibitive back then. 

There was more urine in those areas from bobcats than humans, more urine from coyote than humans, more urine from roadrunners than humans, more urine from rattlesnakes than humans, more urine form many other animal species than humans. This area was not a desert but good farm country.

You have places in Canada that would be harder yet to get a modern sewage system for the rural people. You can do it for the great metropolises with a population of 200-300 but not the rural people.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Makes you wonder though, if WW2 hadn't happened would it have become so dominant?"
> 
> _That _doesn't stand up either, my Friend.
> 
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## Aozora (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> I would point out that the Alison was a better engine than the Merlin with any set of "Fixes" to the myriad of problems in that the Allison was strangled by GM's refusal to institute the simple quick fixes shown to conclusively fix all the respective defects, as detailed in E. Schmued's book; "Mustang Designer", and when coupled to a turbocharger or a two stage blower could out power the Merlin at any point in history. Top Merlin power in actual service during WW-II was 1720 HP on 115-145 AV Gas, compared to 2220 HP to the Packard Merlin and 2,300 HP for the P-82's Alisons.


 
The P-82 with Allisons was a post WW2 aircraft while AFAIK the Packard Merlin V-1650-7 used in production P-51s generated a maximum of 1,860 hp on 100/150 grade avgas

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/engcleared-matcom-b.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/44-1_Fuel-16March44.pdf

The Merlin 66 used in Spitfire L.F Mk IXs generated 2,000 hp on 100/150 grade avgas:


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 18, 2013)

Glider said:


> By 1939 most UK farms did have electricity as those outside the national grid were given access to Generators and yes the majority did have indoor plumbing to a limited degree. War preperations were very detailed such as farms were given Linoleum for floors to ease cleaning freeing up time for farming. The latest techniques were taught to all farmers, tractors were being ordered to improve production and so on



Some places it would have simply not been practical to do including much of our bread basket.

There are several states in the USA that have more square miles than England but have populations between 575,000 - 3.5 million.

I know a lot of people who drive 7 miles or more in tire ruts to get to a dirt road. There is agricultural land where the people are spaced out many miles apart and the town that they go to to shop might have 300 people in it and be many many miles away. I remember we used to go to the second nearest town to kick up our heals, it was quite a bit of a drive but you got to get up to a 600 person town (The county seat) if you want to go to a town you can get wild in.

A lot of rural American is not near big places like Bugtussle, Tennessee. Heck that state had more than 6 million people in it and there are so many towns near Bugtussle it is darn right crowded in the rural areas around there. The Clampett's lived lived in a civilized area.

I really think it would have been impossible to make rural American except for that which is near large population centers and along highways into modern farms during the 40's. It took until the 90's to do it and it is still septic systems and well water with an electric pump.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

davparlr said:


> Spit? With the same engine, the P-51 was 20 mph faster. No, 40 MPH faster. 390 MPH with the Alison Vs 358 for the Merlin Spit. Relative to the P-51, the Spitfire had verypoor aerodynamics.
> 
> I am not sure that making an aircraft more fragile is a sign of advanced technology. This came back to bite the P-51H when the more robust P-51D was used in Korea, which was used in a more close support role.The P-51H was not weaker than the P-51D, it used thinner, but much stronger Aluminum alloy in it's construction and was built to a stress standard not matched by any Spit Mk. What crippled it in Korea was the small size of it's wheels and tires which prevented the heavy over load take off weights
> 
> ...


This last sentence is not even close to being right! There is a very small difference between the M-1 Garand and the AK-47 in effective fire power. The Garand is vastly better in Range, power, accuracy, rate of aimed fire and durability and at that time reliability. The Garand is 4-5 times better than the Lee-Enfield .303 in every aspect.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2013)

Shooter.

He's Baaaaccckkk.....


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Not you again!Yes, it's me again.
> 
> Merlin 66, 150 grade fuel, 2000hp 1944.Which plane was that engine in service in? By the way, the first Merlin to make over 2,000 HP were those installed in the early Hornit post war. Note that at that time, the Packard V-1650-9 in the P-51H made 2,220 HP. In service and using 115-145 gas, not 115-150.
> P-82 Allisons did not appear during WW2, nor did the P-82.Right and Wrong.
> ...


While this is true. Exhaust thrust speed boost is very over rated and not nearly as effective as the same power to the prop. Ie, if the exhaust thrust is 300 pounds, a much over rated number that can not be justified with real world test results in a flying plane, the use of a turbo can add more than 500 HP to the crank at high altitude! Given that nobody on the planet believes that a decent but not great WW-II prop, will give 1.65 pounds of thrust at 450 MPH for every HP input to it! So the net thrust is 300 pounds, Vs 825 pounds? Right. At take off speeds a typical prop will give more than 3.35 pounds of thrust for every HP put into it.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> MOSQUITO FB.VI. Look it up.


 I did, how many sorties did it fly during the Battle of the Bulge over the front lines in the face of Flak??? Right!!!


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> What antennas? Wire radio and it's mast.
> 
> Oboe was carried in the nose in Mosquitoes.
> 
> ...


You are right! WEP is not real world speed and is only used to evade, or enable a shoot down, not prevent the interception in the first place. Real world speed is maximum continuous that will permit the mission range to be flown! In some cases that is only 200-220 MPH for long range with heavy loads.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> This last sentence is not even close to being right! There is a very small difference between the M-1 Garand and the AK-47 in effective fire power. The Garand is vastly better in Range, power, accuracy, rate of aimed fire and durability and at that time reliability. The Garand is 4-5 times better than the Lee-Enfield .303 in every aspect.




I don't like AK's and I do like Garand's, Actually I like HK940's but that is another topic. Even though I am not an AK fan the difference in firepower between an Garand and an AK is more then small. The Garand is more accurate, has better range, has more power but does not have more firepower.

On the Lee-Enfield, I don't think the Garand is 4 times better. I think four guys armed with an Enfield can put more fire down range than one guy with a Garand. Enfield is more reliable, with a couple of small tweaks is more accurate. The Enfield is one of the fastest bolt guns to be mass produced.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Oh lordy not the red ink retard again. He has more sock puppets than I have empty beer bottles.


 No, it's me in my original sign on since 2003 or so.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Actually they are engine parameters.
> 
> ie to produce 1275hp @ 11,800ft (critical altitude) the R-2600-23 required 145 USG per hour (I presume per hour, as without the time component it does not make sense).Where did you get this number. I ask because it seems very high to me. I get 68 GPH for one engine, is that for two engines? With what prop in what plane was it measured?
> 
> ...


True, if they were the same engine, but the Packard Merlin and R-R Merlin were not the same engines. They were similar, but not the same.


----------



## Juha (Oct 18, 2013)

Merlin 66, 150 grade fuel, 25lb boost, 2000+hp in 1944. Spitfire LF IX. Also LF VIII would has been capable but because it served in MTO and in FE there were probably no 100/150oct fuel available.

Juha


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The aircraft data sheet, provided by Neil Stirling, shows that the Mosquito B.XVI had a most economical cruising speed of 245mph (Merlin 72/73) to 250mph (Merlin 76/77) *at 15,000ft*. Not sure if that means that it was the best altitude for economy, or that it was a standard test altitude. Cruising speed is at mean weight (19,100lb).That is the range altitude. It would be suicide in broad day light and most missions at night were flown at much higher altitudes. At least that is what most have said here. They claim it's combination of speed and altitude made it hard to intercept.
> 
> Maximum weak mixture (ie continuous) cruise was 321mph (Merlin 72/73) to 358mph (Merlin 76/77). Again at 15,000ft.
> 
> ...


 Just to show what under the best possible conditions daylight radius of range is with a "Range of 1370 miles", use 45% of 1,370 = 616.5 miles. From a practical point, this is impossible since the climb out would be over enemy territory at low to medium altitude and speed. Worse yet the cruising speed would be at 245-255 MPH. Do you think that would make it hard to intercept, or shoot down?
But the speeds and weights that you list are mutually exclusive. A 5,000pound load makes the Zero fuel and no crew weight 19,300 pounds, from Wiki, plus two crew at 200 pounds each = 19,700 pounds leaving 5,300 pounds for fuel? Since the plane normally carried 615 to 715 gallons, both with drop tanks, see Wiki below, there is no way to use that total take off weight or bomb load. I would like to see some one post the pilot's manual page for calculating a flight plan to find the real range.

From Wiki; The fuel systems allowed the Mosquito to have a good range and endurance, using up to nine fuel tanks. Two outer wing tanks each contained 58 imperial gallons (260 L) of fuel.[76] These were complemented by two inner wing fuel tanks, each containing 143 imperial gallons (650 L), located between the wing root and engine nacelle. In the central fuselage were twin fuel tanks mounted between bulkhead number two and three aft of the cockpit.[77] In the FB.VI, these tanks contained 25 imperial gallons (110 L) each[76], while in the B.IV and other unarmed Mosquitos each of the two centre tanks contained 68 imperial gallons (310 L).[78][79] Both the inner wing, and fuselage tanks are listed as the "main tanks" and the total internal fuel load of 452 imp gal (2,050 l) was initially deemed appropriate for the type.[76] In addition, the FB Mk VI could have larger fuselage tanks, increasing the capacity to 63 imperial gallons (290 L). Drop tanks of 50 imperial gallons (230 L) or 100 imperial gallons (450 l) could be mounted under each wing, increasing the total fuel load to 615 or 715 imperial gallons (2,800 or 3,250 L).[76]


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Yep, wait for 20+ years to have a bomber with lower performance than the Mosquito.
> 
> Apart from the length of the Mk 84 bomb, two could fit inside the Mosquito's bomb bay.


 Since the highly streamlined bomb was well in hand during WW-I, not to mention the tallboy and grand slam of WW-II, this seems like a very easy way to go!


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

1370 mile range was with 2 500lb bombs under the wings. Thus only internal fuel was available. The maximum internal fuel for a B.XVI was 536 UK gallons, but with the 5000lb bomb load only 500 UKG was used for the 1370 mile range. Perhaps because of MTO weight considerations.

For maximum fuel (536 UKG internal plus 2 x 50 UKG in drop tanks) the range was 1795 miles with 2000lb bomb load.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Since the highly streamlined bomb was well in hand during WW-I, not to mention the tallboy and grand slam of WW-II, this seems like a very easy way to go!



External bombs and carriers still create more drag than internal bombs. Plus the P-38 couldn't then use the drop tanks for extended range.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Where did you get this number. I ask because it seems very high to me. I get 68 GPH for one engine, is that for two engines? With what prop in what plane was it measured?



I got the number from Tomo's post which you quoted.

I doubt that it was measured on an aircraft. It was, most probably, measured in the test cell.





SHOOTER said:


> True, if they were the same engine, but the Packard Merlin and R-R Merlin were not the same engines. They were similar, but not the same.



There were small differences between the Packard Merlin and the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Notably the Packard engines had an epicyclic gear train (designed by Wright) to drive the supercharger, whereas the Rolls-Royce Merlin used the Farman type gear set.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

Aozora said:


> The P-82 with Allisons was a post WW2 aircraftTrue. while AFAIK the Packard Merlin V-1650-7 used in production P-51s generated a maximum of 1,860 hp on 100/150 grade avgasNews to me, I thought it was 1,595 HP? But it does not change anything.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/engcleared-matcom-b.jpg
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/44-1_Fuel-16March44.pdf
> ...


The only figures that I've ever seen printed in books that show more than 2000 HP are for the post war Hornets at 2,050/2,080 HP depending on the model. I then compare that the P-51H's 2,220HP which was an "in service" late war time, production engine with a 1000 hour TBO, not approached by the post war Hornets.
The second part of the argument is that the Two stage Alison was a terrible engine WO the "fixes" inlet backfire screens, etc. Read Edgar Schmued's book "Mustang Designer" in which he details the effects of the fixes they installed WO Alison approval to prove the problems were not with the plane, but all Alison-GM's! Note that the extra power, 2,300 to 2,220 HP, provided by the Alison engine made the much heavier and huge pod equipped night fighter almost as fast as the A-B models WO the pod!


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Wire radio and it's mast.



These were basically the same over all versions - so why would they make a difference in performance between marks?




SHOOTER said:


> Here's one more of the many.



Huh?




SHOOTER said:


> And that changes my point how? Did they have MTOs of 25,000 pounds or not?



Some did, some did not.

B.XVI, PR.XVI did. B.IV, FB.VI did not.




SHOOTER said:


> You are right! WEP is not real world speed and is only used to evade, or enable a shoot down, not prevent the interception in the first place. Real world speed is maximum continuous that will permit the mission range to be flown! In some cases that is only 200-220 MPH for long range with heavy loads.



I doubt that any mission was performed with aircraft flying at the same speed throughout.

Missions were generally planned around the aircraft - how far they could fly, or how much load could they carry to get the distance.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> The only figures that I've ever seen printed in books that show more than 2000 HP are for the post war Hornets at 2,050/2,080 HP depending on the model. I then compare that the P-51H's 2,220HP which was an "in service" late war time, production engine with a 1000 hour TBO, not approached by the post war Hornets.



Merlin 66, 100/130 grade fuel.
MS Gear: 1750hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 5250ft.
FS Gear: 1625hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 12,500ft.

Merlin 66, 100/150 grade fuel.
MS Gear: 2000hp, 3000rpm, +25psi boost, 5250ft.
FS Gear: 1860hp, 3000rpm, +25psi boost, 11,000ft.


Merlin 76/77, 100/130 grade fuel.
MS Gear: 1700hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 10,500ft.
FS Gear: 1475hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 22,500ft.

Merlin 76/77, 100/150 grade fuel.
FS Gear: 1940hp, 3000rpm, +25psi boost, 5500ft.

Data from Lumsden.

What is your source for TBOs?

In 1943 Rolls-Royce ran a Merlin 66 for 100 hours continuously, having strengethened components after previous tests, at +18psi and 3000rpm. This became the basis of 100 series Merlines - including the V-1650-9.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> First I've heard about the 30 pound boost used, source please.



Data at war emergency rating with water injection at 3000 rpm. 

```
Altitude Ft.	TAS     MP             Throttle
                MPH    "Hg    Blower   Setting
S.L.            401     90	Low	Part   
*6800           431     90	Low	W. O.
**13400         423     90	High	Part   
***21200        451     90	High	W. O.
25000           448     78	High	W. O.
```

*	Low Blower Critical Altitude for 90" Hg., MP
**	Altitude for Blower Shift.
***	High Blower Critical Altitude for 90" Hg., MP.

P-51H Performance Test

90" Hg = +30psi boost.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

> V-1650-7 Engine Performance Data (Static)
> R.D.E.1.(a) 1/9/44
> Combat Conditions
> 
> ...



P-51 Mustang Performance

Note that 67" Hg = +18psi boost
81"Hg = +25psi boost


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> I don't like AK's and I do like Garand's, Actually I like HK940's but that is another topic. Even though I am not an AK fan the difference in firepower between an Garand and an AK is more then small. The Garand is more accurate, has better range, has more power but does not have more firepower.
> One definition of "Fire Power" is hits per unit of time. Using this measure the Garand is three to four times as effective as the AK-47. While many folks make much out of the AK's full auto power, they have not actually used it. It is next to impossible to hit anything with a full auto AK-47. This is why the Reds went to the AK-74!
> On the Lee-Enfield, I don't think the Garand is 4 times better. Use the above measure. I think four guys armed with an Enfield can put more fire down range than one guy with a Garand. Only if you only count shots fired, not hits. A Lee-Enfield requires two complete actions to load ten rounds from two five round stripper clips. Then each shot must have the bolt worked between shots. A Garand can be loaded with eight rounds in much less time than it takes to load a single stripper clip of five rounds, not counting the time to close the bolt. Loading the Garand is a single motion deal with the bolt closing with out action by the shooter. One soldier can fire more aimed shots than four Enfield guys in one minute. Enfield is more reliable, with a couple of small tweaks is more accurate. The Enfield is one of the fastest bolt guns to be mass produced.


 As to accuracy, the Garand is required to pass a 2.5 MOA test before acceptance into service. A feat that most "Tweaked" Enfields can not match. Major service conditioning, similar to what we call the "National Match", or Sniper rifle Mods, yields a a 1.6 MOA rifle with service ammo and a 1.25 MOA rifle with the 172 grain sniper ammo. This from WW-II testing and acceptance trials. I've seen WW-II issue Enfields with perfect and bright bores that could not shoot 6.6 MOA groups with service ammo. They had loose bolts, but were as new condition still in the wrapper. I have seen others that would shoot under 3 MOA, but they were very few and far between. IIRC, the Enfield Service acceptance standard was 5 MOA by the trained soldier?
I remember an old saying that went sort of like this; The Germans build rifles to parade with, the Americans build rifles to shoot targets with and the English build rifles to fight wars with. This in reference to bolt action rifles. This was in reference to the fact the German's rifles were shinny and the Americans were the most accurate, but the Enfield's the fastest firing. The Enfield's problem was the rear lugged bolt which was used to get around the Mauser Patents. This made fitting the bolt in both the right face space and alignment almost impossible in a production gun. In addition the bolt had substantial flexion when fired. While a master gunsmith could take selected rifles with the right bolt fitment and turn them into a decent sniper rifle, the Ruski's thought their Myosin Nagant and Dragenofs were great too. Until they had to fire a long range match Vs the M-14NM/21, M-16, M24/40, all sub-MOA, all the time.
As an aside, if you, or any other member of this board ever get to this part of the world, come by and I'll take you shooting with all eight of my battle-sniper rifles. Two M-14s, a DPMS LR-308, A Remington 700 SSFS in .300RUM, a Savage 112M in 22-250, A 4 in .224 Clark Imp, two R-742s in .308 and a Ruger 10-22S, I also have four Para P-14 Ltds, a Barlow Custom P-14 Ltd with a 6" Nolan slide and ten port comp, a P-13, a P-12, A .45 Firestar, A Rem-51, HS-Citation/Olympic, half a dozen .25 Brownings, a 1910 and two 1910/22 Brownings, A scoped Ruger 10-22 pistol, a Glock-17, two Grendel P-30s, Rem 11-87 Master Blaster, and a dozen more I can't think of right now. You can shoot as much as you like as long as you buy your ammo.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 18, 2013)

wuzak said:


> 1370 mile range was with 2 500lb bombs under the wings. Thus only internal fuel was available. The maximum internal fuel for a B.XVI was 536 UK gallons, but with the 5000lb bomb load only 500 UKG was used for the 1370 mile range. Perhaps because of MTO weight considerations.
> 
> For maximum fuel (536 UKG internal plus 2 x 50 UKG in drop tanks) the range was 1795 miles with 2000lb bomb load.


 Just a question since Wiki lists the total available fuel as 615-715 gallons, including 2X50, or 2X100 gallon drop tanks making 515 gallons internal fuel. But I suppose that there were many variations between the first and last of any given type? The source I found gives the 1795 mile range with two 100 gallon drop tanks, but did not spec the internal fuel load. But again, it's on the internet, so it must be right? Sarcasm X 2! I would like to see a post war pilots manual with flight planning data.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> External bombs and carriers still create more drag than internal bombs. Plus the P-38 couldn't then use the drop tanks for extended range.


 The late model P-38 had four hard points on the wings and bombs could go on the outer ones, or vice verse.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> These were basically the same over all versions - so why would they make a difference in performance between marks?
> Different radios required different antenna matching sets and longer or shorter wires and higher or lower masts. The different equipment weights causes more or less induced drag
> 
> 
> ...


 All true!


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Merlin 66, 100/130 grade fuel.
> MS Gear: 1750hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 5250ft.
> FS Gear: 1625hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 12,500ft.
> 
> ...


This is not the same as taking a random production engine and flying 1000 hours of combat missions, even if they had much less than 20 hours at full throttle. The RAF had trouble making 300 hours TBO on Spitfires, while the USAAF flew an average of 1000 hours TBO in combat missions including full throttle at take off and 5 minutes of combat, IF required.
Secondly, was the 100 Series Merlin used during the war?


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Data at war emergency rating with water injection at 3000 rpm.
> 
> ```
> Altitude Ft.	TAS     MP             Throttle
> ...


 How do you square this with 487 MPH at 25,000' from all the books and the Pilot's Manual?
Just a question regarding sources and data?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2013)

Shooter, is Wiki your number one source? You source it often...


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> P-51 Mustang Performance
> 
> Note that 67" Hg = +18psi boost
> 81"Hg = +25psi boost


 NEAT! Where did you get these numbers? I must be very out of date as to current research and publication because this is the first time I've seen these figures. Some years ago, I spent two months in the Research Library at the Museum of the USAF in Dayton Ohio.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> P-51 Mustang Performance
> 
> Note that 67" Hg = +18psi boost
> 81"Hg = +25psi boost


See; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg 
For the performance curves that are quoted in most books. It is the same basic web site as the figures above, but later on the P-51H page near the bottom. It shows 487 MPH at 9,530 pounds. ( 255 Gallons of gas and 2,060 rounds of .50 Cal.)


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Shooter, is Wiki your number one source? You source it often...


Yes, just because it is so easy! When arguing on line, having a quotable source seems to trump memory from what I read in the past. Wiki has it's problems, but it also has great strengths, like ease of use, broad base of knowledge and in some cases great Notation! I always balk at objections against Wiki when they do not also attack the sources and notes listed in the better and more popular articles.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> The only figures that I've ever seen printed in books that show more than 2000 HP are for the post war Hornets at 2,050/2,080 HP depending on the model. I then compare that the P-51H's 2,220HP which was an "in service" late war time, production engine with a 1000 hour TBO, not approached by the post war Hornets.
> The second part of the argument is that the Two stage Alison was a terrible engine WO the "fixes" inlet backfire screens, etc. Read Edgar Schmued's book "Mustang Designer" in which he details the effects of the fixes they installed WO Alison approval to prove the problems were not with the plane, but all Alison-GM's! Note that the extra power, 2,300 to 2,220 HP, provided by the Alison engine made the much heavier and huge pod equipped night fighter almost as fast as the A-B models WO the pod!


 
So you now have published figures, from a book, showing that the Merlin 66 was producing 2,000 hp during WW2. 

As it is the, WW 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin R.M.14.SM generated 2,200 hp and so impressed Schmued that he was "eager to use this power plant". I don't have his book, but dollars to donuts it'll be in there:

The P-51 Mustang Variants: P-51H -MustangsMustangs



> Rolls Royce had designed a new version of the Merlin, the RM.14.SM, which was proposed to increase the manifold pressure to 120 (from 67 max) and thus improve horsepower to 2,200. Schmued was very eager to use this powerplant. The new Merlin was not heavier than the earlier models. Schmued visited with the engineers at Rolls Royce and they answered his many questions. Schmued left the Rolls Royce factory very satisfied with their cooperation....The engine would not be the newer RS.14.SM Merlin as in some of the lightweight prototypes. The Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650-9 was chosen. Take-off horsepower was actually down from the -7 series to 1,380. But, the new -9 Merlin used water/alcohol injection and was able to up the war emergency power to 2,200 at 10,200 feet.





SHOOTER said:


> But the Mossy was not used as a low altitude "Tactical bomber"! It was either low alt to small strategic targets, or high altitude at night which were the vast majority of their total sorties flown.
> Exactly how many Mossy missions were flown in direct support of ground troops at the FEBA?



Source? Read Christopher Shores Chris Thomas' series on the 2nd Tactical Air Force to find out just how much of a contribution the Mosquito made carrying out tactical operations on small targets. 

2nd Tactical Air Force, Vol. 1: Spartan to Normandy, June 1943 to June 1944: Christopher Shores, Chris Thomas: 9781903223406: Amazon.com: Books

2nd Tactical Air Force, Vol. 2: Breakout to Bodenplatte, July 1944 to January 1945: Chris Thomas, Christopher Shores: 9781903223413: Amazon.com: Books

2nd Tactical Air Force, Vol. 3: From the Rhine to Victory, January to May 1945: Christopher Shores, Chris Thomas: 9781903223604: Amazon.com: Books

You're also completely ignoring the Mosquitoes roles as a PR aircraft, night fighter, pathfinder, target marker, anti shipping aircraft, to name a few roles.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Shooter, is Wiki your number one source? You source it often...


PS. I like the icon you have chose as your avatar. In terms of WW-II and possibly for all time, the Me-109 is demonstrably the world's most effective fighter plane. Now that I said that all the guys with other favorite planes will argue for them being the best. That was not my intention, just a simple acknowledgment of the fact that Me-109 pilots shot down more planes than the next three or four types combined.


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2013)

davparlr said:


> Spit? With the same engine, the P-51 was 20 mph faster. Relative to the P-51, the Spitfire had poor aerodynamics.


But the Spit was designed from the start as an interceptor and its aerodynamics gave it a much greater climb rate and of course its agility. To pick one factor and say it proves that the Spit had poor aerodynamics is far from accurate.


> I am not sure that making an aircraft more fragile is a sign of advanced technology. This came back to bite the P-51H when the more robust P-51D was used in Korea, which was used in a more close support role.


The P51 was designed as a fighter not a GA aircraft. Look at it another way. Has the designers used the pre war British standards you could easily have ended up with a much faster Mustang from 1943 onwards, think of the difference that would have made.



> It took the airframe and the engine to be the P-51. The Spitfire with the Merlin engine did not have the speed or the fuel mileage to do the P-51 job.


And as mentioned earlier The Mustang didn't have the climb and agility to be as good as an interceptor


> Which I bet could be traced back to an operating system designed by Maxim or Lewis, both Americans.


I admit when I first read this I thought, 'A 6pd with a Maxim operating system, wasn't that the Mollins'



> I don't think close is right. There is significant firepower difference. The Garand is as far ahead of the Lee Enfield as the AK-47 is ahead of the Garand.


Again your right I did get a little carried away with that one


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

Aozora said:


> So you now have published figures, from a book,Which book? showing that the Merlin 66 was producing 2,000 hp during WW2.
> 
> As it is the, WW 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin R.M.14.SM generated 2,200 hp and so impressed Schmued that he was "eager to use this power plant". I don't have his book, but dollars to donuts it'll be in there: Yes, it is prominently mentioned in his book, also the problems converting that engine to Packard's manufacturing standards. Also, the R.M.14.SM is not the same engine as the V-1650-9.
> 
> ...


 I have not ignored any of those other Mossy mission types. Tactical air is that used to attack Tanks and other targets that can shoot back close to the FEBA. None of the local libraries have any of those books and they are too expensive for me to fee good about buying. I like less specific and more general books that can be bought cheep.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> This is not the same as taking a random production engine and flying 1000 hours of combat missions, even if they had much less than 20 hours at full throttle.



No, it is not the same. It is a tougher test - 100 hours continuously at WEP.




SHOOTER said:


> The RAF had trouble making 300 hours TBO on Spitfires, while the USAAF flew an average of 1000 hours TBO in combat missions including full throttle at take off and 5 minutes of combat, IF required.



I doubt that disparity. Especially since some RAF Spitfires (namely the XVI) had Packard Merlins too.

Packard Merlins were built to Rolls-Royce specs and standards. Parts built by Packard were interchangeable with parts made by Rolls-Royce and Ford UK.

As I said before, the 2 stage engines, (-3, -5, -7, -9) differed only in small details - such as the supercharger drive. USAAF bound Merlins got SAE spline prop shafts, British/Commonwealth bound Packard Merlins got the SBAC prop shaft.

The only thing I can think that would make the difference is the operation between the airforces. P-51s would cruise at low power settings for a large proportion of their missions, while Spitfires would use higher power for larger percentages of their missions. 




SHOOTER said:


> Secondly, was the 100 Series Merlin used during the war?



Yes, the V-1650-9 was a 100-series Merlin.

And a few Mosquito PR.34s, using Merlin 113/114s, were built and used before the end of the war.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> Who is Lumsden and what is the title of his book?



I didn't bother writing the title of the book as most people in here are familiar with his name.

However:
Alec Lumsden, _British Piston Aero-Engines and their Aircraft_, ISBN 1 85310 294 6.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> SAF Maintenance Manuals scanned at the Museum of the USAF. Also from RAF squadron Maintenance records.



How wonderful, since you can upload entire pdfs to this site, or individual pictures (as Aozora has) to show us.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> None of the local libraries have any of those books and they are too expensive for me to fee*l* good about buying.



It might help with dispelling your ignorance.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

Glider said:


> But the Spit was designed from the start as an interceptor and its aerodynamics gave it a much greater climb rate and of course its agility. To pick one factor and say it proves that the Spit had poor aerodynamics is far from accurate. Not actually. Speed is fungible and rate of climb is variable because of the weight. At very light Take Off Weights as if used as an interceptor, will let the P-51 out climb the Spit easily.
> The P51 was designed as a fighter not a GA aircraft. Look at it another way. Has the designers used the pre war British standards you could easily have ended up with a much faster Mustang from 1943 onwards, think of the difference that would have made. The Spitfire was a fragile plane easily destroyed. Do you think that is a valid trade? I do not, especially since the P-51 can out climb the Spit at equal power and weights.
> 
> 
> ...


 Because all planes have parts of their flight envelope that are better than those same parts of most other planes, you have to be very careful when you state that any one plane is more of anything than the other, except when you talk about speed! Speed is the only test that at which most planes are measured at like parameters. There are variations, but they are few and far between.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2013)

Keep it civil everyone!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2013)

Shooter where is your proof that the Spitfire is any more fragile and easy to destroy than a Bf 109 or P-51?

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> No, it is not the same. It is a tougher test - 100 hours continuously at WEP. No, it is not! The engine in the test cell does not have a very limited source of cooling capacity. That is why using full throttle for more than five minutes in almost any plane will quickly destroy that engine that ran 100 hours in a test cell.
> 
> Packard Merlins were built to Rolls-Royce specs and standards. No, they were not. There were built to more stringent standards. Parts built by Packard were interchangeable with parts made by Rolls-Royce and Ford UK. Not all parts in all equivalent engines. R-R still had many hand fit parts and much "File to fit" in their engines. We had none of that. That is why we were able to make so many engines in such a short time using so little floor space. read "The Arsenal of Democracy" to get the whole picture.
> 
> ...


 I did not know that. How many? They built and flew 555 P-51Hs with two, thousand, three hundred spare engines. ( All during the war.)


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Shooter where is your proof that the Spitfire is any more fragile and easy to destroy than a Bf 109 or P-51?
> 
> Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?



The P-51H was designed to British stress standards (ie lower factor of safety) like the Spitfire. So, if the Spitfire was fragile NAA were'nt all that concerned.

Also, when did a P-51 with the same power outclimb a Spitfire?


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I didn't bother writing the title of the book as most people in here are familiar with his name.
> 
> However:
> Alec Lumsden, _British Piston Aero-Engines and their Aircraft_, ISBN 1 85310 294 6.


 Wow, only 63.89 on Amazon. Plus 3.99 S&H. I'll have to wait some before I spend that kind of money and feel good about it.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Shooter where is your proof that the Spitfire is any more fragile and easy to destroy than a Bf 109 or P-51?
> 
> Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?


 German Gun Camera film, now on U-Tube. The fact that German -109s shot down more Spits than Spits shot down 109s over the entire course of the war, even when they had about half the fire power. ( One 20 and to MGs Vs two 20s and four MGs, give or take.) The RAF lost more Spits in making A2G attacks than we lost Mustangs, which flew many more strafing missions. Thus the 'stang is stronger than the Spit. There are many lines of argument along these lines.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2013)

I hate to interrupt the arguing, but the U.S. did have types similiar to the Mosquito in prototype stages that ended up fading into obscurity before or during the war.

one of which, was the Curtiss XA-14 that was in development stages during the 1930's. Powered by two Wright R-1670-5 radials, it had a top speed of 254mph (408kph), armed with 5 .30 cal. MG and an internal bomb bay. This may not seem too impressive by war-time standards, but for 1935, wasn't bad at all. Had this been given more modern (by 1941 standards) radials, and up-gunned to at least .50 cal. MG, it may have showed quite a bit of promise.

Another consideration would be the Lockheed XP-58. A twin Allison V-3420 powered aircraft that was capable of 436mph (702kph) and a ceiling of 38,000 feet (11,700m). During the process of development, the Army kept changing the requirements, delaying the aircraft's final design by well over 4 years. It could have been very capable in a role similiar to the Mosquito's.

Another candidate would be the Beechcraft XA-38. This was intended to replace the A-20 and was known for it's speed, even under load. Max speed was 376mph (605kph) with a payload of 2,000lb (907kg) of bombs. This was in the works during the early stages of the war and could have been available in the role similiar to the Mosquito very easily.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The P-51H was designed to British stress standards (ie lower factor of safety) like the Spitfire. So, if the Spitfire was fragile NAA were'nt all that concerned. Yes they were! It was only after they had new manufacturing methods of riveting the skin and a very much stronger alloy than that used in any Spitfire. The H was built using American standards for strength, using British thickness of skinning.
> 
> Also, when did a P-51 with the same power outclimb a Spitfire?


 When the two planes are at the same weights and effective powers. Similar engines and take off weights. Look up the rate of climb on this chart; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg ! I've never heard of any Spitfire with a RoC over 6,300 FPM? Even the Mk-XIV was 3,600-5,400 FPM depending on mission and sources quoted!
See Wiki;
Specifications (Spitfire Mk XIV)[edit]





A Spitfire XIVE RN119 of 402(RCAF) Squadron in March 1945.
General characteristics
Crew: one pilot
Length: 30 ft (9.14 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
Height: 10 ft (3.05 m)
Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 2209.4(tip)
Empty weight: 6,578 lb (2,984 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,923 lb (3,593 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 8,488 lb (3,850 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Griffon 65, supercharged V12 engine , 5-bladed Jablo-Rotol propeller, 2,050 hp (1,528 kW) at 8,000 ft (2,438 m)

Performance
Maximum speed: 448 mph, (391 kn, 717 km/h)
Combat radius: 400 nmi (459 mi, 740 km)
Ferry range: 950 nmi(1,090 mi, 1,815 km)
Service ceiling: 43,500 ft (13,258 m)
Rate of climb: 3,650 ft/min (18.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 32.72 lb/ft2 (159.8 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.24 hp/lb (0.42 kW/kg)

Armament

Guns: ** 2 × 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 120 rpg. 4 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rpg. Replaced by 2 x .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns 250 rpg Mk XIVE.

Bombs: 2 × 250 lb (113 kg) bombs


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

Lets see the numbers shooter.

Where is your data on the Spiteful.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I hate to interrupt the arguing, but the U.S. did have types similiar to the Mosquito in prototype stages that ended up fading into obscurity before or during the war.
> 
> one of which, was the Curtiss XA-14 that was in development stages during the 1930's. Powered by two Wright R-1670-5 radials, it had a top speed of 254mph (408kph), armed with 5 .30 cal. MG and an internal bomb bay. This may not seem too impressive by war-time standards, but for 1935, wasn't bad at all. Had this been given more modern (by 1941 standards) radials, and up-gunned to at least .50 cal. MG, it may have showed quite a bit of promise.
> 
> ...


I still like the XB-42-2 for a two engine Schnell bomber.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Lets see the numbers shooter.


 See;
Amazon.com: Buying Choices: British Piston Aero Engines


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

Since the book costs an minimum of $63, does that mean you don't have the book since it is so expensive?


----------



## JtD (Oct 19, 2013)

The Spitfire was designed for load factors of 2*5 up for most Merlin variants and 2*6 for most Griffon variants. This means a design load factor of 10g or 12g respectively, which had to be possible in both positive and negative direction. The typical US fighter, such as the P-47, F4U or P-51 where designed to 8g, with a 1.5 safety factor. This means a load factor of 12g, which had to be possible in positive direction, and half of which had to be possible in negative direction. A few fighters, like the F6F, were designed to 9g. The German fighter aircraft were in a 12g similar ballpark. There's very little to chose in terms of permissible load factors between the premier fighters of these nations.


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Lets see the numbers shooter.
> 
> Where is your data on the Spiteful.


 The Spiteful, particularly the ones fitted with the CR Props are my favorite Spit variant! The single largest factor is the new trapezoidal wing which doubled the rate of roll and finally made the Spit competitive in that arena. It also made the Spit much faster. The CR Props also make the plane very much more pointable and add speed.
Specifications (Spiteful XIV)[edit]

Orthographic projection of the Spiteful. The Spiteful possesses the elliptical horizontal stabiliser of the Spitfire, but lacks the elliptical wing.
Data from Supermarine Aircraft since 1914 [6]

General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 32 ft 11 in (10.03 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 13 ft 5 in (4.09 m)
Wing area: 210 ft² (19.5 m²)
Empty weight: 7,350 lb (3,331 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 9,950 lb (4,523 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Griffon 69 V-12 engine, 2,375 hp (1,772 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 483 mph (420 knots, 778 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Range: 564 mi (490 nmi, 908 km)
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,800 m)
Rate of climb: 4,890 ft/min (24.8 m/s)

Armament

Guns: 4 × 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk V cannons
Rockets: 8-12 × 3inch "60 lb" rocket projectiles
Bombs: 2 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 19, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Since the book costs an minimum of $63, does that mean you don't have the book since it is so expensive?


 I do not own it because I've never heard of it before. I did not buy it tonight because of the price. I'll look around for a month or two to try to find a bargain. Then buy it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> I still like the XB-42-2 for a two engine Schnell bomber.


Problem with the XB-42, was that it was too late in the war to be of much use.

The examples I posted could have been in the skies over Europe at a critical point in the war, especially the Curtiss XA-14, which was under development in the mid30's.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> I do not own it because I've never heard of it before. I did not buy it tonight because of the price. I'll look around for a month or two to try to find a bargain. Then buy it.



So, since you don't have the book and have not read it, how can you use it as a reference?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> When the two planes are at the same weights and effective powers. Similar engines and take off weights. Look up the rate of climb on this chart; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg ! I've never heard of any Spitfire with a RoC over 6,300 FPM? Even the Mk-XIV was 3,600-5,400 FPM depending on mission and sources quoted!
> See Wiki;
> Specifications (Spitfire Mk XIV)[edit]
> 
> ...



I would jsut like to point out that the Spitfire XIV's RoC was shown at +18psi boost (Griffons were cleared for +25psi near the end of teh war, when the P-51H was appearing), whereas the P-51H's RoC was at light weight and +30psi boost.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The P-51H was designed to British stress standards (ie lower factor of safety) like the Spitfire. So, if the Spitfire was fragile NAA were'nt all that concerned.
> 
> Also, when did a P-51 with the same power outclimb a Spitfire?



Not quite. The 51H had an interesting development history. Descended from the lightweight Mustang prototypes, which were very, very fast.
But the 51H was only a bit lighter than the 51D. The main reason for its development was the deterioration of the Mustangs G limit over time.

The Mustang was in the 12G ultimate G limit for the 51A, but as each iteration came out, plus fuel loads (like the rear tank) went up, the G limit dropped more and more.
A 51D with no external tanks was down to 9.5G
A fully fueled 51D was down to about a 7.5G limit.
Note these are ultimate, failure 'rip your wings off or break your fuselage' G limits.

The 51H had a 11G limit at 9.600 pounds weight. Plus the wings were thinner and its mach limit was better.
Bit less draggy with a Merlin 100 series engine, so a bit faster and climbed better. Better CoG so it handled far better with a full rear tank and it was more stable. Better to land and overall easier to fly.

So the 51H was not really one of the lightweights, rather a further evolution of the design, though some of the lessons learned were incorporated.

Added: Note that the Spit, right through all its iterations maintained a very high G limit, in the 12-13G range. Eric Brown, after the war doing doing the weather recon stuff, deliberately chose Spits because of their great strength. It was, from a G limit point of view, a heck of a tough plane.

The paper on (forgot the link I'll post it later) of a study form putting G meters on samples of various Allied planes, the Spits consistently recorded the highest G levels, the a P-61A actually recorded the highest single reading, though as stated non of the 51Bs or Ds could get close to that. 

Plus the Mustang did have a bit of a tailplane weakness, which became an issue with the 51B/Cs, fixed to a certain extent with the later added strakes.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 19, 2013)

wuzak said:


> As I said before, the 2 stage engines, (-3, -5, -7, -9) differed only in small details - such as the supercharger drive. USAAF bound Merlins got SAE spline prop shafts, British/Commonwealth bound Packard Merlins got the SBAC prop shaft.



The -3 and -7 had different supercharger gear ratios. the -3 was the same as a Merlin 63 or 70, ie high altitude gearing. The -7 was the same as the Merlin 66, the mid altitude version as used in the Spit the LF IX and LF VIII.

Thus the 51D was a bit slower than the 51 B/C at max speed optimum altitude, but it was faster in that critical 15,000-25,000ft fighting altitude.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> I dispute that the Mosquito was a fantastic Aircraft, or that it made a mighty contribution. It was only successful because of the environment that they operated in. If it was restricted to solo type missions like low altitude, or day light bombing, with out the cover of the much more dangerous heavies that gave them cover, they would have been torn to bits.



Not sure what you mean by this or where you got the information that the Mosquito was somehow unsuccessful without the cover of strategic bombers. As a light bomber the Mosquito made many daylight operations into the heart of occupied Europe Germany, including making a famous pinpoint precision attack on a radio station in Berlin - all without the support of strategic bombers - or fighter escort, come to that. The Mosquito's contribution _in support_ of strategic bombers was incalculable.



SHOOTER said:


> As it was, the vast majority of all Mossy missions were simply ignored in favor of using their meager assets to intercept the much easier and very much more dangerous heavy bombers with their huge bomb loads.



I guess you don't know that the Germans put a great deal of effort into developing specially lightened versions of the He 219 and Bf 109 specifically to catch Mosquitos, plus put a great deal of effort into converting two seat Me 262s in nightfighters, all in an often unsuccessful attempt to catch Mosquitos. Did you know that Goering and others in the Nazi hierarchy were driven to despair by the Mosquito's exploits? Wikipedia has got the information, albeit condensed.



SHOOTER said:


> I have not ignored any of those other Mossy mission types. Tactical air is that used to attack Tanks and other targets that can shoot back close to the FEBA.


 
Why ignore the totality of the Mosquito's contribution to the war? With your definition of what constituted a great aircraft (it can carry out tactical missions close to the FEBA) few aircraft were great.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 19, 2013)

Don't forget the Light Night Striking Force, which was doing fairly large scale bombing of Berlin in mid to late 44 and 45. Carrying 4,000lb 'cookies' ... which a B-17 couldn't carry. Even Lancasters were only carrying 6,000-8,000lbs on those long range missions.

In the winter months they often did 2 trips a night. The Mossies would go out, bomb, return. Change crews, refuel and reload and go a 2nd time. There and back in 3-4 hours. With incredibly low loss ratios.
Or in other words a Mossie could drop the same amount of explosives on Berlin as a Lancaster could, albeit taking 2 missions to do it. But far cheaper to build and maintain, plus only 2 crew.

Even Galland, in his book, said they couldn't do anything about them (day or night) until they got the 262s.


----------



## JtD (Oct 19, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> The -3 and -7 had different supercharger gear ratios. the -3 was the same as a Merlin 63 or 70, ie high altitude gearing. The -7 was the same as the Merlin 66, the mid altitude version as used in the Spit the LF IX and LF VIII.
> 
> Thus the 51D was a bit slower than the 51 B/C at max speed optimum altitude, but it was faster in that critical 15,000-25,000ft fighting altitude.


Generally speaking that's right, but there were several B and C submodels (B15, C5, C10?) using the -7 engine. Those were about 5 mph faster than a D at all altitudes.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 19, 2013)

True, the D was a little bit more draggy than the B/C, but it was overall a better warplane.

Though people always forget the drop tank/bomb holders. Which were fixed on the Mustangs. With them you lost at least 10 mph (in all models). So even though the clean Mustang speed was in the 440+ range with, the common, holders in place you were in the 420-430 class.

Hence, going back to the great book, the Banff strike wing, even when they got Mustang escorts (IIIs mostly though some later IVs = 51Bs and Ds) they had hard fights against 109Gs and 109As, let alone the later, but very few in that theatre, 190Ds.

Hence also those claims about Luftwaffe Experten's claims about out running Mustangs. If you had an old and well used Mustang, not far from a major service and you were up against a late model brand new 109G or K, there wouldn't be much difference at all. 

People always forget the influence of age. The planes in those days aged real fast. Your (say) 400mph plane after a few months of work quickly became a 390mph plane, then a 380 plane, then a ...


----------



## mhuxt (Oct 19, 2013)

I highly recommend the "Ignore User" feature on this board.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Problem with the XB-42, was that it was too late in the war to be of much use.
> 
> The examples I posted could have been in the skies over Europe at a critical point in the war, especially the Curtiss XA-14, which was under development in the mid30's.




There may be a bit of drag problem with the Curtiss machine, they did build 13 A-18s which were pretty close. Trouble is that move the machine from the 254mph area at 850 hp to 370mph you need to move to 2600hp engines if I have done the math right. 







It is a good looking plane but internet sources are confusing as to actual performance. Some claim the bomb load was carried in the wing (20 x 30lb bombs).


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> German Gun Camera film, now on U-Tube. The fact that German -109s shot down more Spits than Spits shot down 109s over the entire course of the war, even when they had about half the fire power. ( One 20 and to MGs Vs two 20s and four MGs, give or take.) The RAF lost more Spits in making A2G attacks than we lost Mustangs, which flew many more strafing missions. Thus the 'stang is stronger than the Spit. There are many lines of argument along these lines.



What's your source, I'm not necessarily doubt your claim because it was only in Autumn 1943 when Spitfires got upper hand against Jagdwaffe, even in Summer 43 Jagdwaffe seems to have had a slight edge against Spits.


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> There may be a bit of drag problem with the Curtiss machine, they did build 13 A-18s which were pretty close. Trouble is that move the machine from the 254mph area at 850 hp to 370mph you need to move to 2600hp engines if I have done the math right.
> 
> It is a good looking plane but internet sources are confusing as to actual performance. Some claim the bomb load was carried in the wing (20 x 30lb bombs).



Looks pretty much like Ki-46 Dinah


----------



## Juha (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> ...It depends on how you rate agility! Any Mustang flown during the war will easily out roll any Spitfire flown during the war...



Only above 350mph IAS with 50lb stick force if we believe NACA, that vs clipped wing Spit, against normal wing Spit above 260mph IAS.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> German Gun Camera film, now on U-Tube. The fact that German -109s shot down more Spits than Spits shot down 109s over the entire course of the war, even when they had about half the fire power. ( One 20 and to MGs Vs two 20s and four MGs, give or take.) The RAF lost more Spits in making A2G attacks than we lost Mustangs, which flew many more strafing missions. Thus the 'stang is stronger than the Spit. There are many lines of argument along these lines.



You call that your proof? Wow!

You ever heard of target rich environment?

Where is your proof, the Spits structure could not take anymore damage? The Engine? Come on now! You are so simplistic, it is cute.

What you just described above does not prove anything, except that you do not know a thing. Sorry if this hurts your feelings, but the posts you have made here today and throughout your time on the forum, show your lack of knowledge, as well as your lack of desire to learn, research. You also are very limited in your scope of understanding things, that or you choose not to understand.

It has become clear you think you are some worldly scholar, but in fact are an amateur who does not grasp...

Aircraft Powerplant systems
Aircraft Performance
Aircraft Structures
WW2 History

I would recommend you broaden your horizon and stop using Wiki so much. The fact that you put so much weight into it, and not other sources is an amateur mistake. Try reading all these books that you keep saying over and over that you have never heard of, or that they are too expensive. You might actually learn a thing or two. I doubt it though, as I think you are incapable.

Now I will move along, and quit wasting my time before I start doing things I tell other members to stop doing. Besides I am going off to fly for a few hours. Much better use of my time than this conversation.


----------

