Build me a US Mosquito

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by gjs238, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. gjs238

    gjs238 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    #1 gjs238, Nov 1, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
    In the field ready to fight sometime between when the JU-88 and UK Mosquito were fielded.
    Timeline similar to the Douglas A-20 Havoc.
    Pre-Packard V-1650

    You can make it of wood or all-metal.
    You can start from scratch or start with an historically existing plane like the A-20.

    I'm thinking turbo-supercharged V-1710's.
    But use whatever is available.

    Of course, we want the impossible, this thing has got to do everything the historical Moquito does, and has got to kick the JU88's arse.
     
  2. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #2 tomo pauk, Nov 1, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
    Airframe along the lines of A-20/Ta-154/B-26 (high wing 'classic' twin), dimensions akin to the A-20/Mossie, turbo V-1710s (alternatively R-2800), place for 3 crew members (pilot, bomb aimer/copilot, rear gunner), 500-600 gals of fuel, decent bomb bay. Pylons like the P-38 had.

    Or something like Douglas Mixmaster, with 'regular' V-1710s.
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Like Germany, the USA had plenty of aluminum. So building it out of wood makes little sense.

    What is the mission?
    - Night pathfinder role not applicable to the U.S. Army Air Corps.
    - P-61 being constructed for the night fighter mission. Not my favorite but it was the U.S. Army Air Corps favorite for that role.
    - U.S. Army Air Corps already has a P-38 variant for the long range recon mission.

    That leaves the light bomber mission. The historical A-26 escorted by hordes of long range P-38s or P-51s will work just fine.
     
  4. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not in 1941:

     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    If you want a good American light bomber during 1941 then I would try stretching the A-20 to increase fuel capacity. Other then low endurance it was a pretty good aircraft.
     
  6. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #6 tomo pauk, Nov 2, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012
    There is no need to stretch the A-20, in order to increase fuel tankage. There was plenty of room in the wings between them for additional fuel tanks. Even the small F4F-7 (unarmed recon version of the Wildcat) was able to carry 555 USG in wing tanks. The A-20 was capable to take off with 1100 USG of fuel (wing, bomb bay and belly tanks); belly tank fuel weighted 2250 lbs alone. And there was another possibility - inboard pylons akin to P-38 - but unfortunately it was never applied to the A-20.
     
  7. yulzari

    yulzari Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    Gentleman
    Location:
    Limousin
    How about an up powered Martin Maryland? The standard Maryland was only a little larger than an early Mosquito but was lighter (5K kg v 6K kg), with a better rate of climb (12m/s v 9 m/s), a ceiling of 9,500m v 8,800m, a range of 2.1K km v 1.5K km and did that on 1,000bhp rather than 1,500bhp. Same bomb load and already carried forward firing guns (at least 5 kills known with RAF and some [Luftwaffe RAF?]in French service) and 2,000lb of bombs. Larger engines could afford to allow weight to grow with the lower wing loading and a 2 man crew without rear guns would allow heavier forward firing guns situated to allow for nose radar in a fighter version. Already in production and operational use for 3 years before USA entry into the war.
     
  8. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Would that be the Martin Baltimore?

    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg shows a maximum rate of climb for a B.IV with Merlin 21 and 2000lbs bombs, maximum speed 380mph (case a).

    That would leave the Maryland some 80mph short on level speed and the Baltimore much the same (with 1700hp engines).

    We also don't know under what conditions the range was set - is 2100km a ferry range, or operational range?

    The Mosquito B.IV has a better ceiling (33,000ft, 10.0km) at max weight than what you have listed.
     
  9. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    i never thinked to this Martins because they never get USAAF service


    p.s. sorry i thinked was the other thread on US "mosquito"
     
  10. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    I don't have a good handle on taking an A-20 and re-engine to Merlin with respect to drag improvement. If feasible (and there were no Merlins available for US consumption until late 1942 after Packard started rolling them out) then extra fuel could be added and the specific fuel consumption should be improved by 20-30% over the radials.

    As Dave mentioned - Now What?
     
  11. yulzari

    yulzari Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    Gentleman
    Location:
    Limousin
    Comparing the actual 1939/40 Maryland to the first 1941/42 Mosquitos is where I made my comparisons.

    Now pop a couple of 1,700 bhp engines in a Maryland and then one can do a comparison with a later Mosquito (yes I know you can't simply 'pop' them in). You are adding 70% more power.

    The Baltimore was in response to an Anglo-French request for a better medium bomber but if Martin had gone down the road of a faster Maryland then it looks quite promising.

    I actually suggested it as a bit tongue in cheek. But the more I looked into it, the more promising it becomes. If you compare a Martin Maryland to a Grumman Tigercat you find the Maryland's loaded weight is less than the empty weight of the Tigercat. Certainly the weight would grow with a larger engine etc. but the potential seems to be there.

    Perhaps I should add a Super Maryland thread one day.
     
  12. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #12 GregP, Nov 2, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012
    Personally I like the Maryland and always thought it should have been developed, but in the faster direction instead of the slower, heavier, bigger direction such as the Baltimore was. I also believe we could have developed a bigger faster, single seat Curtiss A-18 into something quite good.

    It may interest you to know that Aerotraders at Chino, California are currently restoring both an A-26 Invader, complete with turrets and turret controls AND a beautiful Douglas A-20 Havoc. They both look great and are going to be high-quality restorations. If I find out, I'll post the expected flights for them (unlikely) and will try to get some pics.
     
  13. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    That's even better if you can make it work.

    The Ju-88H had a longer fuselage to increase fuel capacity. I figured Douglas would do something similiar for the A-20.
     
  14. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    The outer venier of the Mosquito came from Wisconsin, the Balsa wood core probably from South America. We've got woodworkers also , Parkard built the Merlin too, so why not just built a Mosquito.
    We could just assemble them ourselves with less wasteful motion just shipping raw material around worldwide.
    After all they did build some in Canada.
     
  15. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    I don't think we needed Mosquitos and do NOT feel it is a good plane for a tropical climate due to the wood construction. The jungle can rot your fatigues right off, and is not much more friendly to wood constructs ... though the effects CAN be mitigated with proper care and sheltering ... which was almost never available in tropical bases.

    We had the planes we needed and really didn't need more. We won along with the rest of the Allies, but maybe could have had a shorter war (a good thing) if we had pursued other aircraft sooner and with more of a sense of imminent need. Still, what WAS accomplished was amazing enough considering the state of the US industrial base in June 1941, so maybe it could NOT have been done much sooner than it was.

    I tend to think the people of the day knew more about what was possible at the time than we do some generations removed from WWII. We might have hindsight, but THEY knew the US people of the time and what was possible.
     
  16. gjs238

    gjs238 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    But with the benefit of hindsight, it may appear that numerous US developments may have been better spent on license producing the Mosquito.
    P-61 as one example.
     
  17. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    #17 tyrodtom, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
    I don't think it was so much the wood couldn't survive the tropics as the glues that was used in the veniers of the plywood, hardwoods and balsawood. The high heat, more than the humidity, degraded the glue's bond. After all, mankind had thousands of years experience on protecting wood from water and weather damage in all parts of the world , but not a lot on protecting the modern glues

    In Britain they've got plenty of humidity, in North Africa, plenty of heat, the Mosquito did ok in both of those climates, but the combination of high heat and humidity it encountered in the far east gave the problem.
     
  18. R Pope

    R Pope Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The Israelis had problems with the plywood de-laminating on their Mosquitoes, they grounded all of them after a few literally fell apart.
     
  19. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,199
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    The glues did give problems but wood structures do not lend themselves well to long term longevity. The greatest problem was shrinkage when Mosquitoes were moved from one environment to another. Wood is difficult to repair in the field and requires a lot more inspection scrutiny.
     
  20. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    I wonder if maybe the Mosquitos stationed in Britain spent a little more time in the hangers than your average WW2 fighter, just to protect them from the weather.

    So the Mosquito needed more TLC than most, and wasn't going to last long regardless,under some field conditions.
     
Loading...

Share This Page