Match-up between Tigercat and Mosquito, who wins?

[Washing Machine Charlie]

Hi all, I am a longtime reader, first time contributor.. I am a history buff, but, not much of a technical guy, as far as planes goes, so, talking specs juat scrambles my brains. I will leave that to the experts here.

One of my "that would really be cool to see" match-ups has been the British Mosquito vs American Tigercat.

The legendary wooden wonder, which jumped into the fight early on vs the American design, that arrived too late to battle. Would the late war design give the Tigercat enough of an advantage to dominate the mosquito or was the English design good enough to go toe to toe with a late war design?

Head to head, who would win? If the Tigercat was given a chance and the combat experience to mature, as a design, how would it compare to the Mosquito as far as versatility? It always baffled me,as to why, the design didnt see more action in Korea....

 

[pbehn]

Hi all, I am a longtime reader, first time contributor.. I am a history buff, but, not much of a technical guy, as far as planes goes, so, talking specs juat scrambles my brains. I will leave that to the experts here.

One of my "that would really be cool to see" match-ups has been the British Mosquito vs American Tigercat.

The legendary wooden wonder, which jumped into the fight early on vs the American design, that arrived too late to battle. Would the late war design give the Tigercat enough of an advantage to dominate the mosquito or was the English design good enough to go toe to toe with a late war design?

Head to head, who would win? If the Tigercat was given a chance and the combat experience to mature, as a design, how would it compare to the Mosquito as far as versatility? It always baffled me,as to why, the design didnt see more action in Korea....

The Tigercat was a contemporary of the Hornet, they are very closely matched. Pretty much as good as it gets in twin engine prop fighters.

 

[wuzak]

The Tigercat was a contemporary of the Hornet, they are very closely matched. Pretty much as good as it gets in twin engine prop fighters.

And a better match in terms of role.

 

[pbehn]

And a better match in terms of role.

The Hornet was a single seat fighter, although it did carry an additional crew man later it must have affected performance. I would say they were as close as its possible to get, considering one was wooden with in line V engines and the other metal with radials, they were up against the actual limits of prop fighters, which ever route you take.

 

[Milosh]

Hornets flew off carriers while the F7F did not.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I believe the Tigercat did fly off of carriers

 

[pbehn]

Hornets flew off carriers while the F7F did not.

Well similar numbers of both were built, the F7F was eventually made carrier capable, I guess there was a bit of needs must and horses for courses.

 

[Milosh]

A final version, the F7F-4N, was extensively rebuilt for additional strength and stability, and did pass carrier qualification, but only 12 were built.

 

[pbehn]

A final version, the F7F-4N, was extensively rebuilt for additional strength and stability, and did pass carrier qualification, but only 12 were built.

The F7F was only produced for two years up to 1948, the Hornet up to 1950, if the US wanted or needed them they would have got them.

 

[Milosh]

Produced from 1943 to Nov 1946. USMC got their 1st F7Fs in April 1944. Retired 1954.

 

[BiffF15]

The F7F was only produced for two years up to 1948, the Hornet up to 1950, if the US wanted or needed them they would have got them.

Pbehn,

Accidentally gave you a thumbs down but have since removed it.

Sorry about that!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

Pbehn,

Accidentally gave you a thumbs down but have since removed it.

Sorry about that!

Cheers,
Biff

I hadn't noticed Biff. I don't think there was much to choose between the types, just depended on what other types each nation had as far as I can see.

 

[CORSNING]

Well guys, I agree 100% that the DH.98 needs to be compared to the P-38
and not the F7F. I also agree that the Hornet was a contemporary of the
Tigercat. But that is not the topic projected at us.
WMCharlie, I do not know how you decided on that name, but in my very
early years out of high school I worked at Whirpool putting together trash
compactors and washing machines for four years as I put myself through.
college. That is totally off topic and I will gladly accept the demerits for that.

OK then, after saying all that, I'd like to say all this... The F7F-3P which was
the only Tigercat to see operational service in WW2 could out accelerate and
outclimb any Mosquito by a very wide margin (4 X 0.5in. + 4 x 20 mm.)
The Mosquito was just exactly what it was. An extremely versatile aircraft that
could perform a multitude of duties. Those duties started on 2 September 1941
when Moqsuito Mk.I (W4055) made a daylight reconnaissance sortie over
Brest, La Pallice and Bordeaux. That flight was made by the Photographic
Development Unit at Benson.
I personally feel all the glorious accomplishments of the de Havilland aircraft
can in no way be compared to Grumman's two engine bruit. The F7F interred
operational service in July/August 1945, almost four years later. Think of all
the good the Mosquito did in those four years before the Grumman came
along. These two aircraft can not be compared....PERIOD!!!

 

[Shortround6]

Hi all, I am a longtime reader, first time contributor.. I am a history buff, but, not much of a technical guy, as far as planes goes, so, talking specs juat scrambles my brains. I will leave that to the experts here.

One of my "that would really be cool to see" match-ups has been the British Mosquito vs American Tigercat.

The legendary wooden wonder, which jumped into the fight early on vs the American design, that arrived too late to battle. Would the late war design give the Tigercat enough of an advantage to dominate the mosquito or was the English design good enough to go toe to toe with a late war design?

Head to head, who would win? If the Tigercat was given a chance and the combat experience to mature, as a design, how would it compare to the Mosquito as far as versatility? It always baffled me,as to why, the design didnt see more action in Korea....

This comes up a lot but the big thing that is overlooked is that the Mosquito was a bomber that was converted into a night fighter or fighter-bomber/strike aircraft.
It was never intended to pull the "G" loads a fighter operating in daylight would.

A IIF at 18,500lbs was rated at 8 "G"s ultimate load (not service load).

Single seat fighters (British and American ) went between 9.0 (Firefly) to 14 (Tempest V) with most being 10-12(Hellcat was 13.5).

The Mosquito did a lot of things very well, dogfighting single seat fighters in daylight was probably not one of them even if they did score some successes.

By the time you get to the later versions with two stage superchargers for extra power the wight has gone up but I am not sure they really beefed up the structure of the plane much.

Service loads were usually about 2/3 of the ultimate load (plane breaks in flight).

 

[pbehn]

Well they both served as nightfighters the Mosquito may have an edge there just because it has more room for "stuff".

 

[Milosh]

The 1st Mosquito to fly a mission was the PR version.

 

[Greyman]

Any purpose-built fighter is going to eat a Mosquito for breakfast in a dogfight. Especially one three years younger (F7F).

If you must put on your emperor hat and watch a gladiatorial contest - the Mossie vs. Havoc would be much more sporting.

 

[YF12A]

How about an F-7F against an F-82? Timeline wise, they were compatible.

 

[Dawncaster]

This comes up a lot but the big thing that is overlooked is that the Mosquito was a bomber that was converted into a night fighter or fighter-bomber/strike aircraft.
It was never intended to pull the "G" loads a fighter operating in daylight would.

A IIF at 18,500lbs was rated at 8 "G"s ultimate load (not service load).

Single seat fighters (British and American ) went between 9.0 (Firefly) to 14 (Tempest V) with most being 10-12(Hellcat was 13.5).

The Mosquito did a lot of things very well, dogfighting single seat fighters in daylight was probably not one of them even if they did score some successes.

By the time you get to the later versions with two stage superchargers for extra power the wight has gone up but I am not sure they really beefed up the structure of the plane much.

Service loads were usually about 2/3 of the ultimate load (plane breaks in flight).

14G? 13.5G? I wonder what weight condition was used for those ultimate load factors.

As far as I know, Hellcat had 7.0G limit load factor with 12000 lbs(11000 lbs for F6F-3s). So It's 6.6~6.75G limit load factor for military gross weight, And applying 1.5 safety factor gives about 10G ultimate load factor.

In my knowledge most WWII fighters have an ultimate load factor of about 12G with 1.5(1.8 for axis fighters) safety factor for design weight.

 

[Shortround6]

14G? 13.5G? I wonder what weight condition was used for those ultimate load factors.

As far as I know, Hellcat had 7.0G limit load factor with 12000 lbs(11000 lbs for F6F-3s). So It's 6.6~6.75G limit load factor for military gross weight, And applying 1.5 safety factor gives about 10G ultimate load factor.

In my knowledge most WWII fighters have an ultimate load factor of about 12G with 1.5(1.8 for axis fighters) safety factor.

There is a chart from Nov 1943 on Structural weight data and Drag Analysis that was posted by Neil Stirling.

The weight for the Hellcat is listed as 11,000lbs, perhaps it was misprint or transcription error. The chart appears hand written and is a British chart.
Some American types have blank spaces. Some have Asterisks next to the ultimate load factor number with no explanation in the notes.