How good dogfighter was the Mosquito?

5x1.8 is 9 that is higher of 8

Vincenzo said:

5x1.8 is 9 that is higher of 8

Click to expand...

5x1.5 = 7.5 < 8

The Mosquito had a lower wing loading and a slight edge in power to weight ratio.

The P-38 was a better climber as it was designed as a high altitude interceptor.

On paper it seems both had about the same top speed, but it seems there are some references that show the P-38 at 425 mph, probably at war emergency settings.

A side note - if a Mosquito was put into a tight turning fight, I think about how the pilot's visibility and situational awareness would have been with a body seated to his right. I make this statement because my father in law once told me he didn't like any simulated air-to-air engagements when he briefly flew F-111s because of the cockpit arrangement. I know I'm making a comparison from two different eras, let alone the advancements of the latter aircraft, but I think cockpit layout would be a bit of an issue in this scenario. I wonder if there were any statements made by former Mossie pilots addressing this?

tomo pauk said:

In his book about the Ta 152, D. Hermann notes the load factor of 5 at 4500 kg for the Ta 152H, state of January 1945.
It was 6.3 at the 'medium fighter weight' 5000 kg for the Ta 152C (per the same source), so actually the 152C have had the greater load factor than the bomber Mosquitoes.

Click to expand...

Oh yes. Now I remember. I have that book, too. I always thought the Focke Wulf airplanes were quite sturdy despite their slender rear fuselage and wings (higher aspect ratios than most other fighters). Weren't they?

FLYBOYJ said:

The Mosquito had a lower wing loading and a slight edge in power to weight ratio.

The P-38 was a better climber as it was designed as a high altitude interceptor.

On paper it seems both had about the same top speed, but it seems there are some references that show the P-38 at 425 mph, probably at war emergency settings.

A side note - if a Mosquito was put into a tight turning fight, I think about how the pilot's visibility and situational awareness would have been with a body seated to his right. I make this statement because my father in law once told me he didn't like any simulated air-to-air engagements when he briefly flew F-111s because of the cockpit arrangement. I know I'm making a comparison from two different eras, let alone the advancements of the latter aircraft, but I think cockpit layout would be a bit of an issue in this scenario. I wonder if there were any statements made by former Mossie pilots addressing this?

Click to expand...

Note quite true. While the crew of the F-111 are seated abreast, the navigator's seat in the Mossie is set back behind the line of the pilot's seat. Only variation is in the pilot trainer versions like the T.III. Best illustrated from models.

EwenS said:

Note quite true. While the crew of the F-111 are seated abreast, the navigator's seat in the Mossie is set back behind the line of the pilot's seat. Only variation is in the pilot trainer versions like the T.III. Best illustrated from models.

Aires 1/48 Mosquito FB Mk VI/NF Mk II Cockpit Set For TAM AHM4086 | eBay UK

1-48 Scale. Most of these great Aircraft update sets are made up of Resin pieces. See the photo above for kit contents. Skill level 3. aircraft not included. Resin Update Set, Model kit not included.

www.ebay.co.uk

Click to expand...

Plus having two pairs of eyes with the canopy affording (essentially) all-round visibility is something of an advantage. I'm not saying the Mossie was a dogfighter but I think the 2-man crew was more of an advantage than a disadvantage if it did have to engage.

EwenS said:

Note quite true. While the crew of the F-111 are seated abreast, the navigator's seat in the Mossie is set back behind the line of the pilot's seat. Only variation is in the pilot trainer versions like the T.III. Best illustrated from models.

Aires 1/48 Mosquito FB Mk VI/NF Mk II Cockpit Set For TAM AHM4086 | eBay UK

1-48 Scale. Most of these great Aircraft update sets are made up of Resin pieces. See the photo above for kit contents. Skill level 3. aircraft not included. Resin Update Set, Model kit not included.

www.ebay.co.uk

Click to expand...

You still had a degree of your visibility obscured when compared to a single cockpit or if pilots sat in tandem

buffnut453 said:

Plus having two pairs of eyes with the canopy affording (essentially) all-round visibility is something of an advantage. I'm not saying the Mossie was a dogfighter but I think the 2-man crew was more of an advantage than a disadvantage if it did have to engage.

Click to expand...

Yes and no - extra set of eyes are an advantage, but you still have some vision obscurity let alone 180 pounds worth of ballast not needed in a dogfight.

But then again, the Mosquito was not designed to be a dogfighter.

FLYBOYJ said:

You still had a degree of your visibility obscured when compared to a single cockpit or if pilots sat in tandem

Click to expand...

I think it comes down to crew cooperation. The biggest limfac with the F-111 was probably the lack of visibility aft, making it hard to keep track of aircraft as they move towards your rear.

It's also worth noting that the F-111 navigator had many other tasks to fulfil using systems which may have kept his eyes in the cockpit. The Mossie nav arguably had less requirement to be heads-down (at least during daylight...which is the scenario in which real dogfighting took place during WW2).

FLYBOYJ said:

Yes and no - extra set of eyes are an advantage, but you still have some vision obscurity let alone 180 pounds worth of ballast not needed in a dogfight.

But then again, the Mosquito was not designed to be a dogfighter.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

buffnut453 said:

Plus having two pairs of eyes with the canopy affording (essentially) all-round visibility is something of an advantage. I'm not saying the Mossie was a dogfighter but I think the 2-man crew was more of an advantage than a disadvantage if it did have to engage.

Click to expand...

Vision to the rear was not great.

So much so that sometimes the navigator/radio operator would turn around and kneel on his seat to look back.

A, the Mosquito wasn't built to dogfight. B, the hardest part is the training and crew coordination (what does the B/N (bombardier navigator) tell the pilot about the plane attacking them, when, and what direction does he give). Neither guy was probably trained in air to air, and the B/N would probably not know how to describe what he sees in a manner usable to the pilot other than, "He's attacking us lets get the hell out of here"! Which if done early enough is probably adequate.

My buddies that flew the F-15E would pass along humorous stories of mis-communication between the front and back seaters (And they didn't sit side by side). I have attacked F-111s, and their saving grace was lots of gas & speed.

BiffF15 said:

My buddies that flew the F-15E would pass along humorous stories of mis-communication between the front and back seaters (And they didn't sit side by side).

Click to expand...

You might have seen this before, although a training situation

FLYBOYJ said:

You might have seen this before, although a training situation

Click to expand...

That's a T-38 with a foreign student. Language barriers along with intercom settings turned down (on the students part). That was a good laugh!

BiffF15 said:

That's a T-38 with a foreign student. Language barriers along with intercom settings turned down (on the students part). That was a good laugh!

Click to expand...

I kind of feel bad for the student, he obviously didn't know what was going on, so screaming and swearing wasn't going to fix it. Hopefully they "cooled off" and had a laugh together in the de-brief

BiffF15 said:

A, the Mosquito wasn't built to dogfight. B, the hardest part is the training and crew coordination (what does the B/N (bombardier navigator) tell the pilot about the plane attacking them, when, and what direction does he give). Neither guy was probably trained in air to air, and the B/N would probably not know how to describe what he sees in a manner usable to the pilot other than, "He's attacking us lets get the hell out of here"! Which if done early enough is probably adequate.

My buddies that flew the F-15E would pass along humorous stories of mis-communication between the front and back seaters (And they didn't sit side by side). I have attacked F-111s, and their saving grace was lots of gas & speed.

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with you Biff. Most light bomber aircraft in RAF service up to and including the Mossie had the navigator either alongside or behind the pilot. Even if they weren't "trained in air to air", I'd be astounded if operational experience didn't force rapid evolution to the point where any crew member could report with sufficient accuracy the presence, location and actions of enemy fighters. One only has to look at RAF heavy bomber rear gunners who were trusted to give the pilot direction on how to respond to a German nightfighter threat ("Corkscrew port...GO!!!" etc). Yes, the daylight air-to-air is different than a heavy bomber at night but the required skills to detect and accurately report enemy aircraft are the same.

wuzak said:

Vision to the rear was not great.

So much so that sometimes the navigator/radio operator would turn around and kneel on his seat to look back.

Click to expand...

That's because it's easier to keep eyes on the adversary aircraft by kneeling on the seat. That takes nothing away from the fact that the Mosquito's canopy did afford excellent all-round visibility. It certainly gave the pilot and nav a far better than most other twin-engined aircraft, including the Blenheim, Beaufighter, Beaufort, B-25, B-26 etc.

I flew with a Lt Col in T-37s who could have been Herman Munsters brother. Big dude, could palm the throttle quadrant on a Tweet, and whose shoulders were definitely in my space when in the jet. He kept his hair coifed back like a 50's Johnny Cash, smoked, and generally had a "stay the f--k away from me attitude". Yours truly flew with him exclusively when he came to our class. Yay. So we are stepping to fly, and the scheduler (Capt / O-3 type) mentions he needs to do a spin for currency. Me being the type of person I am (not good in this case), goes, "don't forget to put in your spin inputs, blah blah blah", just like the IPs did to us. He comes unglued! "G-d damn it Lt, don't you f--king tell me what to do, blah &$#@ blah". The scheduler looks at me with something akin to pity. Me, thinking, we are STEPPING to go fly, this is going to be fun...

Same guy, different day, we are debriefing and I'm totally focused on what he is saying (I wanted to fly Eagles and was honed in on doing the best I could), when he looks at me and bellows, "Are you f--king listening to me Lt Blah". I'm like, WTFO, and respond with a yes sir. Meanwhile all the students are walking behind him to make eye contact with me, with a look that's a cross between pity and thankfulness (that they didn't have to fly with him). He was one of two tools that visited our class. I flew exclusively with both. Who did I piss off. In actuality I was doing well, and they put guys like that only with students they would have a tough time busting. I hooked two rides in Undergraduate Pilot Training, one with each.

I bust the ride before my instrument check in T-37s. We had a holding pattern above the field where we would do a turn in holding, do a penetration (designed for those first jet engined aircraft - to be done in idle to save fuel), and transition to a non-precision approach (TACAN - like a VOR but with built in DME), and go missed approach. It was built well above field elevation so guys in the pattern weren't affected but us idiots shooting approaches. I screwed up the hold and it was a clean bust.

Next day I fly with the same Lt Col as mentioned above, and do the same thing again. I zoned out in the hold and left it early. So we walk back into the squadron and the scheduler looks at me, and gives me the question mark thumbs up. I look at the Lt Col as I know what the answer is (one can hope), and he answers the IP with a, "Good luck Lt Blah, I'd f--king hook you if I thought you'd learn anything!" I went to my check ride the next day. While he could be a tool, on that day, after that sortie, he did exactly the right thing.

Cheers,
Biff

buffnut453 said:

Not sure I agree with you Biff. Most light bomber aircraft in RAF service up to and including the Mossie had the navigator either alongside or behind the pilot. Even if they weren't "trained in air to air", I'd be astounded if operational experience didn't force rapid evolution to the point where any crew member could report with sufficient accuracy the presence, location and actions of enemy fighters. One only has to look at RAF heavy bomber rear gunners who were trusted to give the pilot direction on how to respond to a German nightfighter threat ("Corkscrew port...GO!!!" etc). Yes, the daylight air-to-air is different than a heavy bomber at night but the required skills to detect and accurately report enemy aircraft are the same.





That's because it's easier to keep eyes on the adversary aircraft by kneeling on the seat. That takes nothing away from the fact that the Mosquito's canopy did afford excellent all-round visibility. It certainly gave the pilot and nav a far better than most other twin-engined aircraft, including the Blenheim, Beaufighter, Beaufort, B-25, B-26 etc.

Click to expand...

BuffNut,

I see your point of view. The shades of grey difference I see is the difference between night and day. At night you are trying to get out of visual range, which in most conditions of little to no moon, is fairly easy. The corkscrew was hard to follow if flying on instruments alone, and if eyes out (doing it visually) it can be spatially disorienting to an unbelievable degree.

There is also a difference between reporting what you see (4 EA in the vicinity of Berlin, flying in a loose gaggle), and assessing if a guy is a threat, and if not currently, when he will become one and what to do about it beyond fire walling the throttles. If you don't get training in that prior to combat, then you get it in combat, and if a SE fighter is closing on gun range to a Mossie, it would not be a good situation.

I fought F-16s more times than I can count. I remember many times when they would start jinking before I had my gun near them. The Eagle has an up canted gun, and therefor can gun you with nose on vice in lead. They talked about that and would inevitably screw it up. Numerous times I wouldn't have got the guy except he starts doing Krazy Ivans when my nose was sort of close, which allowed me to get into the gun WEZ (weapon engagement zone).

Cheers,
Biff

I love that kind of talk.

BiffF15 said:

BuffNut,

I see your point of view. The shades of grey difference I see is the difference between night and day. At night you are trying to get out of visual range, which in most conditions of little to no moon, is fairly easy. The corkscrew was hard to follow if flying on instruments alone, and if eyes out (doing it visually) it can be spatially disorienting to an unbelievable degree.

There is also a difference between reporting what you see (4 EA in the vicinity of Berlin, flying in a loose gaggle), and assessing if a guy is a threat, and if not currently, when he will become one and what to do about it beyond fire walling the throttles. If you don't get training in that prior to combat, then you get it in combat, and if a SE fighter is closing on gun range to a Mossie, it would not be a good situation.

I fought F-16s more times than I can count. I remember many times when they would start jinking before I had my gun near them. The Eagle has an up canted gun, and therefor can gun you with nose on vice in lead. They talked about that and would inevitably screw it up. Numerous times I wouldn't have got the guy except he starts doing Krazy Ivans when my nose was sort of close, which allowed me to get into the gun WEZ (weapon engagement zone).

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

Hey Biff,

Surely the point in WW2 is getting out of visual range, regardless of whether you're flying at night or in daytime? Or at least getting far enough away so that, coupled with acceleration/speed, the enemy fighter can't get to you?

I'd be absolutely astounded if Blenheim navigators weren't trained during the OTU phase in determining whether or not a gaggle of EA constituted a threat. As you point out, failure to train to that would result in even worse loss rates. By the time the Mossie entered service, the RAF had 3 years of operational experience in Blenheims and I just don't think it's realistic to assume the navigators were incapable of accurately reporting threats to the pilot.

Again, I'm not suggesting it's smart for a Mossie to tangle with a SE fighter. However, given the operational areas, particularly for the anti-shipping strikes, and given the operational experience of the RAF at the time, I find it really hard to believe that the navs weren't capable of working with the pilot to spot and report threats.

Going back to the F-15E for a second, I was at RAF Honington when the first Strike Eagles arrived just up the road at Lakenheath. At that time, the UK's low flying areas were something of a wild west. Any military aircraft flying in the LFAs was deemed a suitable target to be bounced by any other military aircraft in the area. This was not pre-coordinated but simply arranged on the fly with the appropriate ATC. After the F-15Es arrived, several RAF squadrons attempted to bounce them only to be told "knock it off". Shortly after, we had a liaison visit from some Strike Eagle crews. When asked why they refused to engage with the bounce, they responded that they were still trying to figure out how to fight the aircraft...apparently the MFDs had so many levels and configurations that the WSOs were getting "lost" in the software...and doing that at 250ft altitude was a BAAAAD thing! Happy days....

Cheers,
B-N