Hey, you are not.
ME262 Reidel starter motor
Anyone have schematics/drawings of the Riedel starter motor? Have a couple, and a great many parts. Would like to get at least one back to running condition.
ww2aircraft.net
How good dogfighter was the Mosquito?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
ww2aircraft.net
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Thanks man!
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Dragging this back on topic. The answer is ... not very, at least against single seaters in daylight.
Rehasing a post I made on this forum in 2010:
The AFDU did some tests in early to mid 1943 with a Mk VI against the Spitfire V, IX and XII and the Typhoon IB. The aircraft was fitted with Merlin 23 engines, with a +14 lbs maximum (5 minute limit) - this meant it was a little down on speed and rate of climb compared to a later Merlin 25 equipped example, but the results are pretty representative.
The aircraft was found to be nice to fly, being stable with "light and well harmonised controls" including "particularly effective" aileron and "good" elevators. However, the inertial weight on the controls meant that "forces over 3G are very difficult to impose and detract from the general manoeuvrability as a fighter". It was found to be tail heavy in a dive and needed trimming.
Elevator control at 450 mph IAS was "very heavy" but aileron control was "quite light".
Low altitude:
Mosquito was outpaced at low altitude by all fighters except the Spitfire Mk V, and was outclimbed by all of them. All S/E fighters were able to throw the Mosquito off their tails and get onto its tail themselves. The Mosquito was found to be unable to disengage whenever a S/E fighter got into position behind it.
However, its evasion was considered "particularly good", making it "very difficult" for fighters to get easy shooting solutions. The aircraft was easy to corkscrew and could weave easily, even at high speeds.
The exception to being out-turned and out-manoeuvred was against a Typhoon flown by "an inexperienced pilot". However, "when the Typhoon, which has a turning circle similar to the FW 190, was well flown, it could make matters almost as difficult for the Mosquito as the Spitfires".
Medium altitude:
Similar results to low altitude tests. There was a better chance for the Mosquito to escape though as it accelerated in a slight dive faster than the S/E fighters. Time to max speed from fast cruise was two minutes. The Mossie could lead the fighters on a stern chase and sometimes avoid combat outright using a slight dive. Best speed was at about 9,000 ft.
The report does note the Mosquito's stern blindness, noting that it was easy for a fighter to sneak into its rear without being noticed.
High altitude:
The manoeuvrability of the Mosquito "drops off considerably", climb over 25,000 ft "is not good" and aileron control "feels comparatively mushy".
Against enemy fighters
It was also flown against a captured 190A3 and a 109G2. The aircraft was found to be around "about as fast" as the enemy fighters near sea level, faster than both aircraft at 9,000 ft but slower at altitude, particularly against the 109 which was much superior over 17,000 ft. The Mosquito was 700 ft/sec slower in initial climb than the 190A, and 1000 ft/sec slower than the 109G2 in climb. This deficiency increased with altitude.
Overall assessment
It was judged that the Mossie was not a good day fighter against S/E types. If in contact with enemy fighters it was "unable to go on the offensive and must content itself with defensive tactics".
It was not to be expected to behave as a fighter against enemy S/E types.
It was considered "only able to be offensive against enemy bomber type aircraft". It "cannot take on enemy single seater fighters effectively".
It was also considered to be a poor aircraft for bomber escort and would "probably be a liability to a bomber force".
With Merlin 25s:
The ADFU later tested a Mk VI with Merlin 25s against a Spitfire XII. It was found that the aircraft could outrun the Mk XII at ground level. Even if the Mk XII was 800 yards behind and 1,000 ft above, the Merlin 25 outfitted Mosquito VI could accelerate from a fast cruise and pull away.
The RoC was also significantly improved, starting at 3,800 ft/min. The aircraft could go from fast cruise at sea-level into a 2,000 ft cloud base in about 30 seconds.
It was considered able to accelerate away from the majority of attackers. From a fast cruise top speed was hit top speed in about 1 1/2 minutes (about 30 seconds better than with Merlin 23s).
Single seater
The AFDU also converted the Merlin 23 powered Mosquito to a single seater and took out about 1,500 lbs of equipment from it (dropping all up weight to 18,800 lbs) and removing the inertia weight from the controls. The results improved the climb and manoeuvrability of the aircraft. Rate of climb jumped to over 3,000 ft/min for the first few thousand feet.
The conclusion was that: "As a single seater all powers of manoeuverability were considerably improved but it was still unable to be really effective against the Spitfire. A smaller lighter version could probably deal well with the Typhoon or FW.190 class of fighter, especially by outclimbing them".
Rehasing a post I made on this forum in 2010:
The AFDU did some tests in early to mid 1943 with a Mk VI against the Spitfire V, IX and XII and the Typhoon IB. The aircraft was fitted with Merlin 23 engines, with a +14 lbs maximum (5 minute limit) - this meant it was a little down on speed and rate of climb compared to a later Merlin 25 equipped example, but the results are pretty representative.
The aircraft was found to be nice to fly, being stable with "light and well harmonised controls" including "particularly effective" aileron and "good" elevators. However, the inertial weight on the controls meant that "forces over 3G are very difficult to impose and detract from the general manoeuvrability as a fighter". It was found to be tail heavy in a dive and needed trimming.
Elevator control at 450 mph IAS was "very heavy" but aileron control was "quite light".
Low altitude:
Mosquito was outpaced at low altitude by all fighters except the Spitfire Mk V, and was outclimbed by all of them. All S/E fighters were able to throw the Mosquito off their tails and get onto its tail themselves. The Mosquito was found to be unable to disengage whenever a S/E fighter got into position behind it.
However, its evasion was considered "particularly good", making it "very difficult" for fighters to get easy shooting solutions. The aircraft was easy to corkscrew and could weave easily, even at high speeds.
The exception to being out-turned and out-manoeuvred was against a Typhoon flown by "an inexperienced pilot". However, "when the Typhoon, which has a turning circle similar to the FW 190, was well flown, it could make matters almost as difficult for the Mosquito as the Spitfires".
Medium altitude:
Similar results to low altitude tests. There was a better chance for the Mosquito to escape though as it accelerated in a slight dive faster than the S/E fighters. Time to max speed from fast cruise was two minutes. The Mossie could lead the fighters on a stern chase and sometimes avoid combat outright using a slight dive. Best speed was at about 9,000 ft.
The report does note the Mosquito's stern blindness, noting that it was easy for a fighter to sneak into its rear without being noticed.
High altitude:
The manoeuvrability of the Mosquito "drops off considerably", climb over 25,000 ft "is not good" and aileron control "feels comparatively mushy".
Against enemy fighters
It was also flown against a captured 190A3 and a 109G2. The aircraft was found to be around "about as fast" as the enemy fighters near sea level, faster than both aircraft at 9,000 ft but slower at altitude, particularly against the 109 which was much superior over 17,000 ft. The Mosquito was 700 ft/sec slower in initial climb than the 190A, and 1000 ft/sec slower than the 109G2 in climb. This deficiency increased with altitude.
Overall assessment
It was judged that the Mossie was not a good day fighter against S/E types. If in contact with enemy fighters it was "unable to go on the offensive and must content itself with defensive tactics".
It was not to be expected to behave as a fighter against enemy S/E types.
It was considered "only able to be offensive against enemy bomber type aircraft". It "cannot take on enemy single seater fighters effectively".
It was also considered to be a poor aircraft for bomber escort and would "probably be a liability to a bomber force".
With Merlin 25s:
The ADFU later tested a Mk VI with Merlin 25s against a Spitfire XII. It was found that the aircraft could outrun the Mk XII at ground level. Even if the Mk XII was 800 yards behind and 1,000 ft above, the Merlin 25 outfitted Mosquito VI could accelerate from a fast cruise and pull away.
The RoC was also significantly improved, starting at 3,800 ft/min. The aircraft could go from fast cruise at sea-level into a 2,000 ft cloud base in about 30 seconds.
It was considered able to accelerate away from the majority of attackers. From a fast cruise top speed was hit top speed in about 1 1/2 minutes (about 30 seconds better than with Merlin 23s).
Single seater
The AFDU also converted the Merlin 23 powered Mosquito to a single seater and took out about 1,500 lbs of equipment from it (dropping all up weight to 18,800 lbs) and removing the inertia weight from the controls. The results improved the climb and manoeuvrability of the aircraft. Rate of climb jumped to over 3,000 ft/min for the first few thousand feet.
The conclusion was that: "As a single seater all powers of manoeuverability were considerably improved but it was still unable to be really effective against the Spitfire. A smaller lighter version could probably deal well with the Typhoon or FW.190 class of fighter, especially by outclimbing them".
Last edited:
True, the best you could do is a MK VI @ around 380 with 4 x20mm. 4 x.303 and 1000lbs of bombs.
I was surprised reading Dave McIntosh's, "Terror in the Starboard Seat", that the Mosquito's of 418 Squadron almost never carried bombs. Their bomb bays were used for carrying an extra fuel tank and tanks were carried on the wings as well. Their real purpose was to carry those 4x20mm and 4x .303 over Germany and shoot anything Axis that moved.
wuzak
Captain
I have seen a picture of a bomber Mosquito with rockets fitted. Not sure which version - a B.XVI or later could, possibly, carry 2,000lb internal and the rockets but would lack any guns.
While trying to find such a picture, I found a video of a sim where you could use a 4,000lb bomb from a FB.VI while still keeping the 4 x 20mm cannon.
While trying to find such a picture, I found a video of a sim where you could use a 4,000lb bomb from a FB.VI while still keeping the 4 x 20mm cannon.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'm sure that'll work out well.
Hand held or in a turret?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I believe the bomb is cradled in the bay ... but it's a sim so I could be wrong.
drgondog
Major
Great question - for fighters the RAF/BAM limit load was 7.5 G, for bombers 3.0G Limit (positive) similar to AAF.
drgondog
Major
Tom - those loads are Ultimate (Break), the US loading for 'yield' was 8G at specified GW
Anything above the yield value involves permanent deformation of the material and the structure. In fact repeated loads below but close to the yield value can lead to failure or loss of performance, even car suspension springs get tired and stop doing what they are there to do. I know you know drgondog, but it isnt always obvious in a discussion. If you stress a metal with a 12G break limit to 11G dont expect it to perform as designed in future, it has been "cold worked" and the discussions and calculations are based on engineering stress not true stress.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
While what you say is true, be advised that operational aircraft will have maintenance parameters to deal with situations like this. "Over G" inspections are done to ensure the aircraft weren't stressed to the point where they are no longer airworthy. At a minimum, aside from a through visual inspection of the airframe, an asymmetry inspection is done to ensure the airframe didn't bend to unairworthy limits set by the manufacturer. I'm pretty certain that there have been many military aircraft that were stressed beyond manufacturer limits and eventually found a new career on top of a stick at a base entrance or park.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Wow! How the the pilots do and how much damage was there to the airframe (if any)? I dealt with an over G at Reno, my pilot had some neck issues as a result
Fear makes you stronger. Plus you / we get very conscious of where your pumpkin is before you start a big pull (most injuries are in the neck). The jets motors get pulled, the motor mounts get X-rays and lots of panels are pulled for inspections. If it's rolling it's way worse. The plane has sensors in about six or seven places that measure the Gs as well, which helps with the inspections. I've seen over G's resulting in wing changes. When that happens ALL the crew chiefs know your name.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,847
- May 13, 2018
To relate the work weakening of springs on a simple level, when the washing machine began to jump around worse during spin cycle to the point the clothes were very wet, service was called. He replaced the four springs which support the tub and it now works as designed. His explanation is the springs weaken over the years of cycles and can no longer support the tub properly during the spin cycle.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I've mentioned that my father in law was the chief production test pilot during the B-1B production days. In addition to testing the B-1, he ran a detachment of F-106s, probably the last operational -106s in the USAF. These were brought on the program to chase the B-1. Someone in the AF caught wind of this detachment and "hired" my father in law and a few of his pilots to do dissimilar air to air training against F-15s, for some reason I remember him saying it was a ANG unit. Anyway after a week of playing dogfighting, they returned with some of the -106s with popped rivets and screwheads found on the wings. Needless to say their maintenance Chief was pretty pissed. As Bob quoted his maintenance chief - "If I find out who did this to these jets I'm going to sh*t in their helmet bag!"
FBJ,
I have no doubt there was hell to pay! I think a lot of guard units received their 106s new, or almost new. They flew them for years and took very good care of them. It was a big change coming from active duty to the ANG. First, on AD there was some 20-22 year old kid launching me out. He met me with a salute when I walked up, took my helmet bag and pubs kit up and stashed it in the cockpit while I was doing the walk around, and then followed me up the stairs to assist in getting me strapped in. My first sortie in the ANG I walk out, the two crew chiefs, one of which age wise could have been my dad greet me with, "are you Biff?" I reply yes, and sit my stuff down at the foot of the stairs, check the forms, do the walk around, and return to the stairs. My stuff was still sitting there. No big deal, I grab it and up the stairs I go. I put my stuff away, sit down, and look to my left to see the stair getting pulled. The older crew chief then looks at me, and asks as he's walking away, "you don't need any help do you?". I laugh and tell him no.
That's the eye wash. The real difference is the average crew chief on a ANG flight line is probably in the 5-7 level, where on AD there are just a sprinkling of guys at that experience level. I was in the ANG for over a year before I ground aborted my first jet, and those jets were old. Probably a once a month thing on AD. Also, there were a lot of father son pairs on our flight line, so we had very experienced guys teaching young guys, so they were given a first class up bringing. The ANG jets were mostly in well above average shape, as the guys worked on them for decades, no PCSs, very few exercises, limited distractions, no switching schools, house hunting, getting settled in BS. It is a much better set up than AD. Fly to failure stuff on AD was done preemptively in the Guard. My guard unit had the highest aircraft utilization rate (UTE rate) in the USAF F-15s, with some of the oldest jets. We also kept 3-5 jets at a dislocated alert site (we didn't get to fly them regularly). In other words, we had GREAT maintenance! I will trade the pomp and circumstance of AD for the gritty get it done of the ANG any day. Oh, and ANG fighter squadrons have about 70-75% of the body count as an AD equivalent squadron.
Cheers,
Biff
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,847
- May 13, 2018
Reminds of an experience in AF Reserve. In 1963 we were a squadron, '64 & '65 a group. As a small unit, an individual knew many of the people or at least knew where they worked. The senior guys were Air Reserve Technicians which meant that was their regular daytime job and only had to put up with us reservists once per month. Because of that familiar group we passed our ORI (Operational Readiness Inspection) every year. An example: The security inspectors always wore starched and ironed fatigues (green pickle suits) and ours were just clean. One year, I remember noticing a chain link gate normally kept locked was unlocked and slightly open. Before I could notify anyone, some called, "Hey, Boudreaux, there's a guy with a bomb headed for your plane." Sure enough, a starched pickle suit with a shoebox was headed for Boudreaux's C-119, and was captured.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Once our Reserve 301st TFW upgraded to F-16s from F-4Es, their maintenance capabilities really shone through. The F-4s had a pretty bad IFE rate, for being older (20 years + by 1989), but once they got good equipment, they kept it running with nary a hitch and exceeded our active-duty bomb wing in mission-capable a/c.
