Mosquito versus the German fighters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Have a read of it again. There are several reports of dogfights. Bob Braham famously shot down a 190 in a turning fight in the day (then tried to do it with 2 another time, held his own but got shotdown by the wingman).
At that low level the FB VI it could hold its own, with pilots being trained properly of course.

The speed differential was very close, the warning time was very short and almost always with poor weather in low cloud. So for a 109 or 190 to engage it couldn't be a bounce from the sky, it had to be a dogfight.
They did notice that when the Luftwaffe got more 190s they were more aggressive than when the had 109s.

Just like the USN pilots in the Pacific, the Mossie pilots learned how to do it, It was fast and agile enough to avoid being easily taken out by an attack and their own wingman (or others) then could get into play.
And that firepower, 4x20mm and 4x.303, took no prisoners.

In the early days of the Banff wing, the Mossie crews were the escorts for the Beaufighters.

As for the German twins they had nothing that could live in the air when a Fighter or Fighter/bomber Mossie was around, day or night, until the jets.
 
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I have just seen a documentary called "The plane that saved Britain ; The Mosquito".
Now I think that is a bit of a stretch, but some excellent footage, interviews and recollections of the Mossie at work.
One role I never knew of until I watched this footage was the U boat hunter. Equipped with a 57mm (6 Pounder) cannon, the Mossie was a potent weapon !

As far as going up against the LW single engined fighters - not really a good move unless you were in an advantageous position, probably why the RAF sent two Typhoons as escorts per Mossie on the Amiens raid!
 
I saw the same programme but didn't quite understand what handling problems the mosquito had that caused it to be so dangerous to the crew?
 
Wow. Why did the RAF bother with any other plane? Two mosquitoes was more then enough to win the airwar.
<sarcasm>.
 
Hope you enjoyed it Beitou.
It was not a handling problem as such, it was the fact that the merlin engines had a carb rather than fuel injection.
This meant that some manoeuvres such as a sudden nose down, or roll could cause fuel supply to cut off or even flood the engine and cause power loss. If this happens with both engines at the same time could be fatal.
 
I think one of the most significant complements on the Mossie capability was from the germans themselves, that sang its praises, and if my memory serves me, wanted to copy it. That says volumes about what the germans thought of the wooden wonder.
 
I dont know who said two mosquitoes won the air air war, and I dont know who said the Mustang won the air war. both statements are equally false.
 
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the blanket statement the P-51s won the air war was a case of IRONY. Citing the History Channel as a reference is a bit of a give-away. But if you didn't catch it, don't be too hard on yourself - Americans are famous for irony the way Australians are famous for sobriety.
 
I do not recall anyone saying that the Mosquito won the air war.
In my post I said that I had seen a documentary called "The Plane that saved Britain".
I think even that is an over simplification / exaggeration of biblical proportions!
 

Surely the engines would have at the least been fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice if not the later pressure carbs.
 
From the accident report;
n deference to the age of the aircraft, the display pilots never intentionally applied negative g,
although reduced positive g(ie less than 1 g) would have occurred to varying degrees. Apart from g
loadings experienced on the aircraft centreline, each carburettor might be subjected to greater or
lesser accelerations due to engine vibration, turbulence, sideslip, and rolling motion about
the aircraft longitudinal axis. For example, the left carburettor could experience reduced or negative
g if a roll to the left were initiated, or a roll to the right arrested, while the right carburettor would see
positive g. The movement of the fuel within the floatchambers ('slosh'), and in consequence the
float behaviour, therefore is a function of complex dynamic conditions. In the event that the
combined dynamics of the aircraft and float chamber fuel mass caused the floats to be forced
towards their fully depressed conditions,then it is likely that the ensuing restricted fuel flow
could cause a loss of engine power, as the residual fuel in the chamber would last only a few
seconds. Although it could not be concluded that this caused a power loss, it was considered that the
as-found adjustment states of the carburettors were capable of producing it under certain conditions.
The fact that the restriction of flow in the left carburettor was more severe than the right (based upon
the results of bench testing one chamber from each carburettor),might indicate a greater
susceptibility of the left engine tocut. Nevertheless, the number of variables involved in creating a
restricted flow condition also suggested that actual occurrence could be of an unpredictable nature.
This might explain why the symptoms could not be reproduced following the Lille incident,when
the pilot deliberately put the aircraft through a series of reduced g manoeuvres.
The Merlin's reputation for cutting under negative g conditions had endured since the beginning of
the Second World War. Curiously,the fact that a successful carburettor modification had been
developed(and incorporated on the subject aircraft) to remedy the problem had largely been
forgotten.
 
Last edited:
fastmongrel said:
Surely the engines would have at the least been fitted with Miss Shilling's orifice if not the later pressure carbs.
Click to expand...

from the crash report-


The SU company, in conjunction with the Royal Aircraft Establishment(RAE), developed a
modification which led to the 'RAE Anti g Carburettor'. Both carburettors in G-ASKH were found
to be of this type

nothing to do with neg G on the carb as per the original merlins in spits, report focuses on power loss on the left engine during the wing over.
 
Last edited:
In truth, the Mosquito was considered by a RAF to a 'Hot' aircraft, normally a delightful aircraft to fly but if flown recklessly it could be a handful. It also suffered from what all powerful twin engined machines tended to suffer from, troubles with asymmetric power , a loss of power from one of the engines on take off or landing could be highly dangerous.
For these reasons the RAF tended to use experienced pilots for flying the Mosquito.
 
yep got it now. The only thing I disliked about the programme was the presenter was very keen on throwing adjectives and superlatives around, I can understand his liking the mosquito and his enjoyment of the flight but I would loved to have heard more from the bods who restored and flew it themselves.
 
Last edited:

I watched it last night on catch up and I wasnt impressed the presenter even got some basic facts wrong. Nice pictures and dull words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Average sorties/kill for German night fighters
Replies
16
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
S
Small wings/high wing loading of German fighters
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
469
Dimlee
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
Menu
Log in
Register