Mosquito vs single engine planes.

[Engineman]

General conclusions of the CFE (formerly the AFDU):

Although the Hornet was designed for the role of a long range fighter, it is felt that the main requirement for such a fighter was not borne in mind during the designing stage.

The cockpit is too small to allow the average pilot to fly long endurance sorties with a reasonable measure of comfort. He is unable to relax his muscles by periodically changing the position of his body and legs, and such amenities as urine tube and arm rests are entirely lacking.

In the event of the failure of the single generator on the port engine, or the engine itself, the accumulators would rapidly become discharged due to the number of dependent services and the aircraft would then be without Gun Firing Control, Gunsight, Radio, R.I. Compass, Fuel Gauges, Radiator Flap Actuating Gear, Booster Pumps and all engine instruments. Even for peace time flying, loss of these services would constitute a serious hazard, especially in bad weather conditions. From a tactical point of view these disabilities would become progressively acute when the aircraft was used in the long range operational role; the greater the distance from the base, the less chance there would be of the pilot returning safely.

All of these hazards, added to that of single engine flying, would be eliminated if a continuous supply of electrical power were assured by the provision of a second generator on the starboard engine.

During long range escort duties the Hornet might be compelled to engage in combat with short range interceptor fighters of great speed and manoeuvrability. The excellent all-round view from the Hornet would afford the enemy small chance of achieving surprise.

The Hornet is not designed for long distance strikes or air to ground offensive support, but it is considered that this aircraft is suitable for this alternative role.

Although the Hornet has good acceleration, rate of climb and top speed, these qualities are not sufficient to provide full compensation for the relatively low rates of turn and roll. With such fundamental technical limitations the Hornet pilot would find himself inevitably at a serious tactical disadvantage.

Interesting, the full report would be good to see.

I am noting the conclusions drawn seem to show the Hornet was fast, climbed and accelerated well. Roll and turn rates not as good as contemporary SE fighter , it seems, but no
specifics. So, possibly the Hornet was better at zoom and boom fighting, in reality this can be better than a slower turn and burn machine.
I have read that Hornets could embarrass early jets that ran out of puff at high altitude.

Eng

 

[GregP]

Almost any piston fighter with a combat ceiling of 35,000+ feet could embarass early jets at high altitude. Not so much in the teens to mid twenties in thousands of feet.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd have to research the Hornet. On the face of, the Hornet HAS the speed and armament.

I wonder how a Mosquito or Hornet would do if the Merlins were swapped out for Griffons?

Minus some trials with the Beaufighter, I don't believe the Griffon was ever used in a twin-engine configuration.

Bristol Beaufighter with Griffon engines

This is a well known photograph of the Bristol Beaufighter with Griffon engines but the two nacelles look quite different. The port nacelle, nearest the camera, has no exhaust stubs whereas the starboard one does. There also seems to be an air intake behind the propeller on top of the starboard...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Greyman]

Interesting, the full report would be good to see.

I am noting the conclusions drawn seem to show the Hornet was fast, climbed and accelerated well. Roll and turn rates not as good as contemporary SE fighter , it seems, but no
specifics. So, possibly the Hornet was better at zoom and boom fighting, in reality this can be better than a slower turn and burn machine.
I have read that Hornets could embarrass early jets that ran out of puff at high altitude.

Eng

I'll try and get the other two tactical comparisons up throughout the weekend as I have time.

 

[Greyman]

Other two:

 

[Bergjon12]

Heinz Knoke reports that he failed to keep up with a Mosq. in an ME109 over Norway.

 

[ThomasP]

Is it known which model of 109?

 

[Bergjon12]

Is it known which model of 109?

It was either E or F, not the G I'm pretty sure.

 

[GregP]

Heinz Knoke reports that he failed to keep up with a Mosq. in an ME109 over Norway.

Does he mention the type of Bf 109? Bf 10 E or what?

Curious only. Never mind ... covered above.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Meteor out turning the Hornet surprises me.

 

[GregP]

Jet engine are light versus big pistons and the meteor has wide, low-aspect ratio wings. So, it will turn rapidly, but will lose speed rapidly also when it does.

The Hornet should hold speed better than the Meteor in a hard turn. What that means in a practical sense in the real world of aerial combat I'm not exactly sure, but I'm sure we have some jet fighter pilots in here who can make some rather intellgent first-hand observations.

 

[ThomasP]

re the ability of the Meteor to out-turn the Hornet