mid war recon aircraft -Ki-46 Dinah or Mossie?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by delcyros, Mar 4, 2009.

  1. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Please explain why.
     
  2. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    A good question.

    Both seem to have excellent high altitude performance needed on recon bird. But if I had to pick one, I would go with the Mossie. Here is why:

    1. More developed than the Dinah. Multiple marks, multiple varieties. Engines increased in power as did the speed. Dinah was a one off in terms of engines and development. Probably more of a expression of what Japanese industry was capable of rather than the machine itself.

    2. Seems, (and this is just appearence), seems that the Mosquito is stronger, more sturdy.

    3. Later marks of Mosquitos were faster (by about 40mph) but that is not really a big deal. If you are high enough and going over 300mph, chances are an intercept is not going to happen if you are taking off to chase it.

    All in all a tough thing to choose. Both very good airplanes.
     
  3. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello Delcyros,
    a close call. If one comparse Mossie PR IX with Ki-46-II and –III, Mossie was faster, significantly so when compared to –II but cruising speed same as that of Dinahs.
    Range PR IX had significantly more range than 46-II but more or less same range as 46-III.
    IMHO the side by side seating was better than that of the 2 crew in separated cockpits, the 3 blisters gave passable view behind. So IMHO Mossie was better but the margin wasn’t large.

    Juha
     
  4. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I'd have to say the mossie.

    As a side note ..... I have heard that at one point of the war, the Germans were considering to build a liscence built Dinah.
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Now you've made me curious. What are the cruising speeds for WWII era long range recon aircraft while performing a typical long range mission at high altitude?

    Ki-46
    Mosquito PR Mk 32
    Ju-88D
    Me-110 C5
    P-38 F-4
    Please add your favorite long range recon aircraft to my list. :)
     
  6. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello Dave
    Ki 46-II cruised at 400km/h, almost exactly same as Mossie PR IX (250mph).
    IIRC 46-III also cruised 400km/h or was that 410km/h. IIRC only 5 PR 32s were made, (converted from PR XVIs) but PR 34 had a range of 3600mls at 300mph, but it only just made it and IIRC flew under 50 sorties during the war. And it flew its last recon missions when I was already born.

    Juha
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Very interesting. The He-177 heavy bomber had a higher cruising speed (with payload) then the Mosquito recon aircraft. I've got to assume that it was equally difficult to intercept.
     
  8. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    ...but that´s ecomic cruise, not max. sustainable cruise speed. Economic cruise typically is well below max. sustainable cruise speed. For example, the turbo-supercharged Ki-46-IV from which only four specimen were made covered an unspecified distance at high altitude with an average of 435 mp/h during pre-operational tests:

    Low cruise speed was more advisable for long range. I have no idea how fast the Mossie and Ki-46 could go on a max. sustainable base. From german referene I would suggest that the cruise speed of the Mossie (over hostile terretory) was signifiantly higher than 400 Km/h. Otherwise they wouldn´t be that difficult to intercept. Similarely I tend to think that 400 Km/h are only refletive for the Ki-46´s eonomic range, not the max. sustainable cruise speed.

    I just have the following datas for the Ki-46:
    Ki-46-I:
    540km/h @ 4070m, powerlevel unspecified
    Ki-46-II:
    604 km/h @ 5800m and 950 hp each.
    Ki-46-III:
    630 km/h @ 6000m and 1250 hp each.
    -these are reflective fore all out, level speed.
     
  9. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Isn't that what you use on a typical combat mission?
     
  10. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    economic cruise may be ideal for neutral or friendly airspaces such as the open wides of the (empty) Pacific. In hostile airspaces over enemy terretory recon planes either fly as high or as fast as they can in order to shorten their exposure to enemy action. Both concepts are not necessarely interchangable.
     
  11. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello Delcyros
    max speed for Mossie PR. IX was 656km/h at 8500m. What I recall from British long range PR pilots experiences they flew high but didn’t flew near max speed but kept sharp lookout using those blisters, firstly to watch out that their own plane didn’t leave condensation trails and also for German fighters, if they saw fighters which were getting uncomfortable close, PR pilot opened throttle(s) and climbed.

    from AirToAirCombat.Com: B.IV Mosquito de Havilland Mosquito: DH.91 Albatross
    “The PR.IX's more powerful engines and greater fuel load were put to good use. During 1943, one made a "grand tour" of central Europe, flying out of RAF Benson and overflying Regensburg, Germany; Vienna, Austria; Budapest, Hungary; and Foggia, Italy, before landing in Catania, Sicily. The trip covered 3,060 kilometers (1,900 miles), took 6 hours 30 minutes flying time, with an average speed of 407 KPH (292 MPH). The Mosquito ran out of gas before it could taxi to its parking spot. “

    Notice that 292mph is in fact 470km/h.
     
  12. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    That's the data I am looking for. Do we have historical cruise speed data for the other recon aircraft types?
     
  13. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Thanks Yuha for the input.

    bf-110c4/d1 cruise speed with two 500kg bombs / droptanks:
    445 km/h @ 5000m (max. sustainable) or:
    335 km/h @ 5000m (most economical = max. range)-
    bf-110f2 cruise speed: 311 mp/h @ 14.760ft. (max. sustainable, clean without external stores)
    Ju-88A1 ruise speed with two SC-500 Kg bombs / droptanks:
    385 km/h @ 6000m (max. sustainable) or:
    340 km/h @ 6000m (most economical = max. range)
     
  14. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello Delcyros
    thanks for the info. You and Dave can check the speed graps for Mossie B.IX, PR. IX was a recon version of it, from here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/lr495-level.jpg

    Info on the condition of the plane: Climb and level speed performance trials have been completed on this aircraft at a take-off weight of 21,910 lb., a loading corresponding to full fuel and oil and four 500 lb. bombs carried internally, but no external bombs or fuel tanks fitted.

    Notice that the graph also gives max weak mixture cruising speed, something like 347mph at 32000ft.

    Juha
     
  15. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Mike´s site does also have performance graphs for other Mossie variants. As a point of comparison, the Mossie PR-I and PR-IV are contemporary to the Ki-46-II, the Mossie PR-VIII and PR-IX are contemporary to the Ki-46-III. The latter three all entered service in mid 1943.
    1941 to 1943:
    speed Mossie PR-I/PR-IV (with Merlin 21):
    368 mp/h @ 12.000ft (all out level speed)
    330 mp/h @ 15.200ft (max. weak mix cruise power)

    speed Ki-46-II
    375 mp/h @ 19.200ft. (all out level speed)
    ??? mp/h @ ? (max. cruise power)

    mid 1943 to wars end:

    speed Mossie PR-IX (with Merlin 72):
    405 mp/h @ 25.700ft. (all out level speed FS gear)
    393 mp/h @ 13.800ft. (all out level speed in MS gear)
    352 mp/h @ 32.000ft. (max. weak mix cruise power)

    speed Ki-46-III:
    391 mp/h @ 19.900ft. (all out level speed)

    Both planes appear to be evenly matched, but the PR-IX has some notable excess power, not only at very high altitude but thanks to the MS gear and high grade fuels also at lower altitudes compared to the Ki-46-III (the latter is slightly better at it´s best altitude but the margin is very low and the altitude frame very narrow). Cruise speed should be comparable but at drastically different altitudes, respectively.
     
Loading...

Share This Page