Match-up between Tigercat and Mosquito, who wins?

[Greyman]

The asterisks denote specification figures, as opposed to the others which are approximate achieved figures.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you

 

[Zipper730]

As I grasp it

F7F vs Mosquito
The F7F-1 had a higher normal and ultimate g-load over the Mosquito which would favor maneuverability at lower altitudes. The earlier Mosquitos were slower with critical altitudes around 20,000-23,000 feet, which is inferior to the F7F-1 at 24,000 feet depending on power setting. Later Mosquitos would be able to achieve critical altitudes around 25,000-30,000 feet due to the twin-stage supercharger which would give it a decided advantage at altitude, though I think it's top speed might have been a little bit lower (could be wrong on this) at 415 vs 420 on the F7F at it's optimum condition.

I'm uncertain how the climb-rate of the later Mosquitos were, but the climb-rate was 2500 fpm on earlier models and the F7F-1's was around 4000. I have no idea how the two compare in terms of roll-rate. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mosquito could dive a bit faster because the British usually had us beat in that parameter, but the F7F-1 could hit a placard limit of 0.77 Mach.

The F7F had an advantage in firepower because of the combination of 4 x 20mm + 4 x 0.50" whereas the Mosquito's firepower ranged from 4 x 20mm (later models), and earlier F/NF models had 4 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303", which is more but not quite as much.

Verdict: Without correct data for roll-rate, and dive-speed I can't really even remotely come close to giving an accurate answer, but the earlier Mosquitos seem to be at a disadvantage to the F7F-1 with the later variants at an advantage at altitude at the minimum (excluding the FB variants).

F7F vs Hornet
The Hornet might have had a higher climb-rate than the F7F-1 and, that being said, it was able to probably maintain it to much higher altitudes using the twin-stage Merlins. The Hornet was substantially faster than the F7F-1 at altitude at the minimum and possibly at most all altitudes. I have no idea who has a better rate of turn as a function of speed (The F7F's maximum g-load might have been a tiny bit higher, though might not be significant), or who had a better rate of roll.

The placard dive limit of the F7F was around 0.77, I'm not sure how the Hornet compared, but I wouldn't be all that shocked if it was a little faster which would give it a theoretical advantage. I'm not sure who'd pick-up speed faster however, as heavier usually means you build up speed faster. These two variables mean that it might not have made a significant difference in practice.

Verdict: The Hornet would probably be at an advantage most of the time as it was faster, higher flying, faster climbing, and probably had at least similar diving performance. The fact that it could get off and on a carrier deck with an engine dead is also a big plus.

 

[wuzak]

F7F vs Mosquito:

Which Mosquito in what role?

Armed Mosquitoes were fighter-bombers and night-fighters.

The fighter-bombers never received 2 stage engines. They had an internal bomb bay which could take 2 x 500lb bombs, as well as carrying 2 more on the wing.

The F7F could match or better that load, but 2 years later.

The closest Mosquito fighter to the F7F would be the NF.XXX. Its top speed was around that of the F7Fs. It only had 4 x 20mm cannon, the nose being taken up by radar.

But then you also have the PR and B variants.

The PR.XVI and B.XVI were fast.

The B.XVI's top speed with 4,000lb bomb load was 408mph. Without the bomb it was ~415mph. So close to the F7F.

The PR.XVI's top speed was similar to the bomber version's, if not identical.

The RAF trialled a Mosquito as a long range fighter, and decided it was not suitable for the task. So it shouldn't really be compared to pure fighters, such as the F7F and P-38.

 

[Zipper730]

Which Mosquito in what role?

I'd figure the following designs would be the best ones

• F.II/NF.II: It was the first with the F7F-1 being the first of it's type
• NF.30: It was the last wartime version and was high altitude equipped

I would not use the bombers as comparisons since the bombers aren't designs to shoot it up.

The fighter-bombers never received 2 stage engines.

That's why I made a comment about altitude...

The RAF trialled a Mosquito as a long range fighter, and decided it was not suitable for the task. So it shouldn't really be compared to pure fighters, such as the F7F and P-38.

When was this?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Is the match-up to see which aircraft can bomb targets in Germany the best in 1942? If so, the Mosquito wins hands down, no comparison.

 

[wuzak]

I'd figure the following designs would be the best ones

• F.II/NF.II: It was the first with the F7F-1 being the first of it's type

The F.II first flew in early/mid 1941. The NF.II not long after. That's about 2.5 years before the F7F-1 first flew.

Not many F.IIs remained as F.IIs, most were completed as NF.IIs with AI radar.

It is unlikely any F.IIs remained in service at the time the F7F entered service. There may have been some NF.IIs, which were among the first radar equipped British fighters allowed over the continent in WW2 (~1943).

NF.30: It was the last wartime version and was high altitude equipped

It had 2 stage engines, but I don't know if it was particularly "high altitude equipped".

The PR.XVI and B.XVI, for comparison, had pressure cabins for high altitude flight.

I would not use the bombers as comparisons since the bombers aren't designs to shoot it up.

That's the entire problem with such comparisons. The Mosquito was designed as a bomber, the fighter versions being adapted from the original design.

When was this?

Early 1943. It was an FB.VI.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf

The Mosquito has very good controls but the presence of the inertia weight detracts from the aircraft's general manoeuvrability as a fighter.

Against single seater fighter the Mosquito could hardly ever get on to the offensive and was unable to disengage when the fighters were in position astern.

As an escort fighter the Mosquito is not considered effective owing to its limited powers of offence. It would probably be a liability to a bomber force.

 

[Zipper730]

The F.II first flew in early/mid 1941. The NF.II not long after. That's about 2.5 years before the F7F-1 first flew.

Well, the question was how would a match-up between a Tigercat and a Mosquito work out. They are designed for totally different things.

Not many F.IIs remained as F.IIs, most were completed as NF.IIs with AI radar.

I thought all of them were converted...

It had 2 stage engines, but I don't know if it was particularly "high altitude equipped".

Well, it seems the closest comparison to a day fighter of the era, so that's why I used it. It had the highest speed.

 

[Washing Machine Charlie]

Thanks, all, for some truly interesting reading. Next, on my list, i will be researching the Hornet.

Corsning,

Washing Machine Charlie pops up, from time to time, in WW2 and Korea. Its first mention, that I am aware of, was over Hendersen Field on Guadacanal. It was a twin-engine Japanese plane that harrassed the marines, at night, keeping them up with bombs, flares, and unsynchronized engines(?). During Korea, I assume Marine vets of WW2 gave the name to Chinese bi-planes that performed similiar roles.

 

[pbehn]

Thanks, all, for some truly interesting reading. Next, on my list, i will be researching the Hornet.

Corsning,

Washing Machine Charlie pops up, from time to time, in WW2 and Korea. Its first mention, that I am aware of, was over Hendersen Field on Guadacanal. It was a twin-engine Japanese plane that harrassed the marines, at night, keeping them up with bombs, flares, and unsynchronized engines(?). During Korea, I assume Marine vets of WW2 gave the name to Chinese bi-planes that performed similiar roles.

Just the ticket to get you to that meeting old chap. Flying a war plane in a suit always makes me laugh.

 

[shepsan]

I seem to recall that early in the Korean War, the F7F flown by Marines flew night support for ground Marines.
VP squadrons flying PB4Y2 aircraft

dropped flares illuminating the terrain so that the F7F could drop ordinance and strafe visible objects.

 

[parsifal]

Just from wiki

F7F Tigercat

General characteristics

• Crew: 2 (pilot, radar operator)
• Length: 45 ft 4 in (13.8 m)
• Wingspan: 51 ft 6 in (15.7 m)
• Height: 16 ft 7 in (5.1 m)
• Wing area: 455 ft² (42.3 m²)
• Empty Weight: 16,270 lb (7,380 kg)
• Max T/O Weight: 25,720 lb (11,670 kg)
• Powerplant: 2 x P&W R2800 radials, 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) each

Performance

• Max speed: 460 mph (400 knots, 740 km/h)
• Range: 1,200 mi (1,000 nmi, 1,900 km)
• Service ceiling 40,400 ft (12,300 m)
• Rate Of Climb 4,530 ft/min (23 m/s)

Armament

• Guns:
  • 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M3 cannon
  • 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Brownings
• Bombs:
  • 2 × 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under wings or
  • 1 × 18" torp under fuselage

Avionics

• AN/APS-19 radar

DH Hornet

General characteristics
Crew: 1

• Length: Length 35 ft, 6 in (10.82 m)
• Wingspan: 45 ft (13.72 m)
• Height: 14 ft 2 in (4.32 m)
• Wing area: 361 ft² (33.54 m²)
• Empty Weight 11,292 lb (5,122 kg)
• Loaded weight: 15,820 lb (7,176 kg)
• Max Takoff Weight 18,250 lb (2 x 200 gal drop tanks) (8,278 kg)
• Powerplant: Four blade, 12-foot (3.7 m) diameter "handed" de Havilland propellers: Two × RR 130/131 12-cylinder engines, 2,070 hp (1,544 kW) each

Performance

• Max Speed 475 mph at 21,000 ft (764 km/h at 6,400 m)
• Cruise Speed 270 mph at 20,000 ft (435 km/h at 6,096 m)
• Range; 1,480 mi (2,600 mi max) (2,382 km (4,184 km max))
• Ceiling : 41,500 ft (12,650 m)
• Climb 4 minutes to 20,000 ft. Average 5,000 ft/min (25.4 m/s)
• Wing Loading 43.82 lb/ft² (213.9 kg/m²)

Armament

• 4 × 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk V cannon (with 190 rpg) in lower fuselage nose
• 2 × 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under wing, outboard of engines
• 8 × 60lb RP3 unguided rockets (Hornet F.3)

Avionics
ASH radar fitted in Sea Hornet NF Mk 21.

Data source is very general and probably suspect, but just on the basis of that cursory examination, the following points can be made.

Tigercat is larger and heavier. Tigercat has two crew, hornet is single seat. Power outputs are more or less identical. Hornet is slightly faster at the nominated altitude (US type operating altitude not stated). Hornet has a slight advantage for range. Service ceiling is slightly in favour of the hornet. Rate of climb favours hornet. Gun armament appear favour the tigercat. Offensive loads are equal. Electronics appear to be very similar.

 

[Zipper730]

Thanks, all, for some truly interesting reading. Next, on my list, i will be researching the Hornet.

Now that's a good choice and one of the best piston engined planes

Flying a war plane in a suit always makes me laugh.

Why did they do that?

 

[Zipper730]

Just from wiki

. . .

Data source is very general and probably suspect

Possibly, but the data is based on the F7F-4N which had a two-man crew.

I have data on the F7F-1 & F7F-3, which had single man crews, which is from the Alternatewars SAC Charts page. The figures I'm putting in are based on the weights used for air-to-air combat since that's what the comparisons seem to be about.

F7F-1

• Dimensions
  • Length: 45'4-1/2"
  • Wingspan: 51'6"
  • Wing Area: 455 sqft
  • Aspect Ratio: 5.83
• Weights
  • Empty: 15943 lbs
  • Internal Fuel: 426 US gal / 2556 lbs
  • Oil: 28 US gal / 210 lbs
  • Combat: 20914 lbs (estimated based on 80% fuel load)
  • GTOW: 21425 lbs
• Armament
  • 4 x 20mm: 200 rpg
  • 4 x 0.50": 300 rpg
• Performance
  • Maximum Speed
    • WEP: 394 mph @ 0'; 417 mph @ 13400' / 427 mph @ 19200'
    • Military: 412 mph @ 20900'
    • Normal: 414 mph @ 23400'
  • Stall Speed: 89.1 mph @ GTOW; 83.6 mph without fuel
  • Rate of Climb
    • WEP: 4360 fpm @ 0'; 4310 fpm @ 1500'; 3100 fpm @ 11000'; 2980 fpm @ 15800'
    • Military: 3830 fpm @ 0'
    • Normal: 3070 fpm @ 0'
  • Service Ceiling: 36200'
  • Radius of Action: 500 miles (435 nm)

F7F-3

• Dimensions
  • Length: 45'4-1/2"
  • Wingspan: 51'6"
  • Wing-Area: 455 sqft
  • Aspect-Ratio: 5.83
• Weights
  • Empty: 16270 lbs
  • Internal Fuel: 455 US gal / 2730 lbs
  • Oil: 26 US Gal / 195 lbs
  • Combat: 21174 lbs
  • GTOW: 21720 lbs
• Armament
  • 4 x 20mm: 200 rpg
  • 4 x 0.50": 300 rpg
• Performance
  • Maximum Speed
    • WEP: 367 mph @ 0'; 405 mph @ 7500'; 397 mph @ 15200'; 435 mph @ 22200'; 406 mph @ 30000'
    • Military: 359 mph @ 0'; 428 mph @ 23100'
    • Normal: 335 mph @ 0'; 411 mph @ 23300'
  • Stall Speed: 91.3 mph @ GTOW; 85.5 mph without fuel.
  • Rate of Climb
    • WEP: 4530 fpm @ 0'; 4700 fpm @ 5800-5900'; 3800 fpm @ 10000'; 3700 fpm @ 13000'; 3740 fpm @ 19800; 3000 fpm @ 21400'.
    • Military: 4160 fpm @ 0'
    • Normal: 3230 fpm @ 0'
  • Service Ceiling: 40700'
  • Radius of Action: 477 mi / 415 nm

One thing I've looked at is performance above the critical altitude -- how much power could the plane hang on to.

 

[pbehn]

Now that's a good choice and one of the best piston engined planes

Why did they do that?

Possibly a de Havilland employee or even one of the de Havilland family themselves.

 

[Shortround6]

Possibly a de Havilland employee or even one of the de Havilland family themselves.

Just another day at the office

 

[pbehn]

Just another day at the office

It must have been tiresome.

 

[Shortround6]

No casual Fridays.

 

[pbehn]

No casual Fridays.

They could dress up as a pilot!

 

[warbird51]

I posed this very question to Steve Hinton who has flown both. He said there is no doubt on which is better and its "the one with Tiger in the name" No comparison.