Could Axis aircraft catch the Mosquito in Dec 1941?

mhuxt said:

Not sure why that's important, no 1941 recce Mossie would have been over its targets at those heights. Even the Mk.IXs of 60 SAAF in 1943 were taking photos at 30k or less, according to the ORB.

Click to expand...

I suppose that if the enemy tried to intercept a PR Mossie it could climb higher and use the greater speed to escape.

fastmongerl i'm not sure of understand you but the Mosquito I has 380 mph max speed probably around 22k (and 5' power) it's easy that also over the target if not see enemy planes go slower of 350 mph at 33k or around. Also if see enemy they can go at max power 5' but so high can't go at 380 mph.

freebird can just need to see if this is the right tactic for evade. if climb higher probly go slower and generally Mosquito I is not fastest of F-4 and if is a Z is surely in the wrong element in high altitude

Would a PR aircraft be over the target at cruise speed surely they would be going faster than that.

Click to expand...

The Mosquito PRI had a top speed of 386mph at 15000 ft. Only ten were made, so there is not a lot of data on this variant. It was roughly equivalent to the BIV variant. I dont have the cruising speeds or altitudes for the PRI, but the BIV had a top speed of 366 mph and a cruising speed of 352 mph. With bombload that dropped to 335-340mph.

by extrapolation, that would suggest that a PRI would probably have a cruising speed in unloaded condition (ie internal duel only) of about 370mph. If it was carrying external tanks, its crusing speed would probably be about 360mph.

The PRXVI introduced in 1943, with Merlin 61s had a max level speed of 408mph, and a crusing speed of 395 mph with internal fuel only. When caarying external fuel, its max crusing speed dropped to 386mph.

Optimal operating altitude was always 15-24000 feet.

Mosquitoes were always fast, very fast, which explains their low operational loss rates. 0.63% overall, with as I recall, losses to enemy fighters for the entire war being less than 130 aircraft all up. They lost many more aircraft to nohn-operational causes than to enemy action

Parsifal your number for cruise speed are too high
PR XVI max speed +18 lbs, 3000 rpm 401 mph FS gear 25.2k, (max) cruising +7.5 lbs 2650 rpm 366 mph FS gear 30.6k with Merlin 73, test of prototype of PR XVI, fall '43, Williams Site.

Radar is only half the equation. You need operational procedures for vectoring fighter aircraft to intercept. By December 1941 the Luftwaffe has considerable practise at this business thanks to RAF Bomber Command.

Vincenzo said:

Parsifal your number for cruise speed are too high
PR XVI max speed +18 lbs, 3000 rpm 401 mph FS gear 25.2k, (max) cruising +7.5 lbs 2650 rpm 366 mph FS gear 30.6k with Merlin 73, test of prototype of PR XVI, fall '43, Williams Site.

Click to expand...

Did i misread that data? I checked that site plus another dealing with the Mosquito development. Maybe I made a mistake.

Thanks for the correction

am i correct in saying that the mossie had problems in the far-east due to its construction being of wood,i think i saw that recently in a mag article on the type so they had to change to beaufighters

The glue could lose its effectiveness, this was fixed but it took time and some losses were incurred

fastmongrel said:

Would a PR aircraft be over the target at cruise speed surely they would be going faster than that.

Click to expand...

Virtually all sorties had more than one target to cover, so they might have managed a fast cruise (30 minute limit) for some of it, but most of the time they were by nature over enemy territory at cruise speeds.

I'd say that the answer to the original question is theoretically yes but practically almost certainly not.
Cheers
Steve

Sounds like the He-162. Except the war ended before Heinkel could fix their glue problem.

Any idea how long it took de Havilland to get on top of the glue problem?

I wouldnt overstate the glue issue too strongly. It was a relatively minor issue that happened to occur in one of the wettest places on Earth....Calcutta, which has an average annual rainfall of over 550 inches per annum. even that is misleading, suggesting the rains fall all year around. This is incorrect. The rainy season in bengal lasts from late June through to early november. So for 4 months every year it rains exceptionally heavy every day. Few aircraft, metal or wood will put up with that.

Australi deployed its Mosquitoes into the tropics with no such difficulties. The deployment of our Mosquiroes included deployments to Darwin and moratai, and after the war to Indonesia and Malaya. There were never any systemic problems of the type experienced in Bengal.

The rainfall of Darwin and Moratai are in the 70-120 inches per year, again with a 4 month rainy season. Our mossies handled these less rigorous conditions easily, and our Mosquitoes remained in frontline service for 17 years

From memory (I'll need to dig out the reference), it took literally hours to solve the glue problem. I believe a DH rep visited the location, inspected the problem, and sent a signal back to Hatfield. Steps were taken to rectify this immediately, but how this affected those aircraft already in location, I don't know.

Was it the rain that was a problem, or the high heat?
After all, Britain isn't exactly known for it's dry climate.

tyrodtom said:

Was it the rain that was a problem, or the high heat?
After all, Britain isn't exactly known for it's dry climate.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the rain being described is of a different scale.

London's annual rainfall is about 600mm/24". Less than half of Darwin's, and 1/20th of that in Calcutta!

And not as humid!

davebender said:

Sounds like the He-162. Except the war ended before Heinkel could fix their glue problem.

Any idea how long it took de Havilland to get on top of the glue problem?

Click to expand...

Germany's "problem" was bigger than just the He 162 Dave; I've posted on this matter in another thread here on this board.

They went "all in" with advanced phenolics, produced at one facility in Wuppertal. Then the RAF razed that facility to the ground (nothing burns like a chemical factory) and they scrambled to find alternatives. The alternatives were LACKING (to say the least) but "things" were going so far "pear-shaped" by that point that they pressed ahead with substitution in airframe component manufacture (using these "ersatz" adhesives) on many components of their late war fighter aircraft.

I would love to know how many LW pilots were lost, due to failures in their machines basic structure (wooden) under hard manoevering. I'm sure there's a considerable number.

That said?

Dead men tell no tales.

That number would be found in the exceptionally high attrition rates suffered by LW formations, through no effect of enemy activity, even when operating with the immense advantage of home country airfields. in 1944, LW losses due to non-combat causes were more than twice as high as equivalent allied formations. many were probably due to pilot errors, but im willg to bet at least some were lost due to some kind of structural or engine failure

parsifal said:

I wouldnt overstate the glue issue too strongly. Australi deployed its Mosquitoes into the tropics with no such difficulties.

Click to expand...

By the time Australia deployed its Mosquitos the issues had been solved

Siegfried said:

By the time Australia deployed its Mosquitos the issues had been solved

Click to expand...

Err no, you are forgetting we were using fully imported mosquitoes well before the first locally produced versions were accepted.

From the RAAF museum website

"The first Australian Mosquito was delivered on 23 July 1943, and accepted by the RAAF on 5 March 1944. The FB Mk 40 was equivalent to the RAF FB Mk VI and, although 212 were built at Bankstown (A52-1/212), only 209 served with the RAAF because A52-12, 18 and 24 crashed before acceptance. Six of the FB Mk 40s were converted for photo-reconnaissance as PR Mk 40s, and these aircraft operated so effectively that a further 28 FB Mk 40s were converted to PR Mk 41s. Previously, A52-90 had been re-engined with Packard Merlin 69s and became the sole FB Mk 42: however, this marque was superseded and A52-90 was used as the prototype for the PR Mk 41 and re-serialled A52-300.

On 28 January 1943, a RAF Mk II (DD664) became the first Mosquito to operate with the RAAF when, as A52-1001, it was used as the prototype for the local FB Mk 40. It was also the forerunner of 14 RAF T Mk IIIs (A52-1002/1015). Australian versions of these trainers were developed by converting 22 FB Mk 40s to T Mk 43s. In addition, a further 61 ex-RAF Mosquitoes were used by the RAAF as follows: 38 B Mk VIs (A52-500/537) and 23 PR Mk XVIs (A52-600/622). Thus, altogether 209 Australian Mosquitoes and 76 UK-built Mosquitoes served with the RAAF. These aircraft fitted with a variety of engines including the Merlin 31, Merlin 33 and Packard Merlin 69.

The RAAF Mosquitoes played an effective, part in the later years of the Pacific War and served with No 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, Nos 87 and 94 Squadrons, No 78 Wing, No 1 Aircraft Performance Unit, Aircraft Research and Development Unit, Central Flying School, No 5 Operational Training Unit and Ferry/Survey Flights. Post-war, photo-reconnaissance Mosquitoes were used extensively between 1947–53 on survey flights throughout Australia. Mosquito flying ceased (mainly) in 1954, and the aircraft still on RAAF strength were passed to DAP for disposal, except for a few which were transferred to the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

After the war, Mosquitoes laden with cameras surveyed all of India, Cambodia, and Australia. The last Mosquito built, an NF 38 (VX916), rolled off the production line at Chester on 28 November 1950, and the last operational combat mission (in combat) was on 21 December 1955 when a Mosquito PR 34A conducted a reconnaissance mission above suspected communist strongholds hidden in the jungles of Malaya".