GregP
Major
No I don't think something slower than a Beaufighter would be called successful, but the Me 410 has had some good writeups and I was asking.
Perhpas I shouldn't have after all.
Perhpas I shouldn't have after all.
Mosquito vs The Rest
- Thread starter stona
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
anything build in either Germany and the UK was utter crapA controversial thread seemingly started for the purpose of proving everything designed and built in Germany was utter crap. What do you expect?
DonL
Banned
Indeed tyrodtom.
The ME 410 was fast, something about 630 km/h, but in need to reach this performance of the DB 603.
But the DB 603 was a rare engine, nothing for mass production at 1942/43.
And we must looking of the timeline, the Me 210 should be introduced begin 1942 (start development 1937; first flight 1939)and was developed and scheduled for the DB 601/605 engine and not for the rare DB 603. But through the shortcomings of it's performance with the DB 601/605, it could be introduced after fixing all design problems and with bigger engines end of 1943.
To be honest I can't call this timeline, performance and design issues successfull, far away from it and the ME 210 was a major project of the RLM, with many hope in it, which exploded like some soap bubbles.
Willy Messerschmitt and the Bayerische Flugwerke were very ambivalent on a rational view:
The good design of the Bf 109 A-F, but with real issues at the G
The average design if the Bf 110
The good design of the Me 262
The bad design of the Me 210, only could be fixed after 4 years
The real bad design of the Me 309 (development since 1940 till 1943), not faster then the Bf 109 and much worse to fly from handling and turning rates, also with a DB 603 engine.
There is not only gold shining where Messerschmitt did the work and design.
The ME 410 was fast, something about 630 km/h, but in need to reach this performance of the DB 603.
But the DB 603 was a rare engine, nothing for mass production at 1942/43.
And we must looking of the timeline, the Me 210 should be introduced begin 1942 (start development 1937; first flight 1939)and was developed and scheduled for the DB 601/605 engine and not for the rare DB 603. But through the shortcomings of it's performance with the DB 601/605, it could be introduced after fixing all design problems and with bigger engines end of 1943.
To be honest I can't call this timeline, performance and design issues successfull, far away from it and the ME 210 was a major project of the RLM, with many hope in it, which exploded like some soap bubbles.
Willy Messerschmitt and the Bayerische Flugwerke were very ambivalent on a rational view:
The good design of the Bf 109 A-F, but with real issues at the G
The average design if the Bf 110
The good design of the Me 262
The bad design of the Me 210, only could be fixed after 4 years
The real bad design of the Me 309 (development since 1940 till 1943), not faster then the Bf 109 and much worse to fly from handling and turning rates, also with a DB 603 engine.
There is not only gold shining where Messerschmitt did the work and design.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
1940 Germany isn't going to build an aircraft from wood, power it with RR Merlin engines and arm it with Hs.404 cannon. They would test the Mosquito prototype and possibly incorporate some design features into the Me-210. Not sure what features though as early Mosquito prototype offered no advantage over early Me-210 prototype.
DonL
Banned
Are you serious dave?
1. Other than the ME 210, the Mossie had no problems with several serious accidents and was able to stay in the sky.
2. The Mossie was much much faster with the same horsepower then the ME 210 and so had the much better aerodynamic.
This are hard facts and can't be denyed from a rartional viewpoint.
Glider
Captain
Germany would have been mad not to jump at the Mosquito for the same reasons the RAF(once they got over their intial caution) went for it. It had a long range, it was very fast and very very difficult to catch. A Spit IX and a Mosquito IX have a very similar top speed and there is no doubt which had the fuel to keep going for longer
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Are you saying Mosquito airframe had no technical glitches starting with prototype number one? That would be very unusual for a new aircraft type.
wuzak
Captain
There were glitches - albeit minor ones.
The undercarriage doors wouldn't close properly in flight.
The tail wheel had a problm castoring, leading to a damaged fuselage on the prototype W4050. This was replaced by the fuselage for W4051 (the PR prototype) which, in turn, had its fuselage replaced by a production fuselage. The tail wheel was changed and a strengthing strak was added to the right rear fuselage.
There was some buffeting at certain speeds. This was investigated and solved soon after the commencement of production. The solution was extended nacelles and longer span tail plane.
The prototype was trialed with different span wings. The original short span wing featured only on W4050. W4050 was also fitted with leading edge slats, but it was soon decided that these were not required, so they were wired shut and did not feature on subsequent Mosquitoes.
Geoffrey de Havilland Jr was performing single engine acrobatics on the Mosquito very early into flight testing. He would do it at demonstartions too.
The prototype achieved 392mph in early 1941 (the prototype having first flown late in 1940).
As was anything built in Japan, The Ussr, Italy, USA, no hang on waitanything build in either Germany and the UK was utter crap
davebender
1st Lieutenant
de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nothing that cannot be fixed but same holds true for problems experienced by early Me-210 prototypes.
Looks like technical glitches to me and fuselage fracturing from a rough taxi sounds like a serious structural problem.
Nothing that cannot be fixed but same holds true for problems experienced by early Me-210 prototypes.
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Why does this myth keep coming around. The Mossie's wooden construction was not any more labour intensive than anything else.
In fact it was specifically designed for mass production, just like the Mustang.
Focke Wulf produced the excellent TA-514 design, which was of wood construction (fortunately for the Allies cancelled mainly do to internal politics which favoured the markedly inferior 219).
Wood was increasingly used for components in other German plans (eg late 109G and 109K)
DonL
Banned
Such a statement is realy annoying me.
Several testpilots and normal pilots found their dead through the flight characteristic of the ME 210.
The ME 210 was very fragile to flat spin and overdrawing.
The prototype plus the first mass produced 210A had serious design issues!
The production was stopped and they need 2 years to sort all issues out with the longer fuelsage and automatic leading edge slats.
For reference:
[ MESSERSCHMITT BF 110/ME 210/ME 410 AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY BY MANKAU, HEINZ](AUTHOR)HARDBACK: Amazon.de: Heinz Mankau: Bücher
Can this be said to the Mossie development? No far far away from this. So please stay to the facts.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Glider
Captain
The difference is that the problem was fixed in three months . Re the fuselage fracturing from a rough taxi sounds like a serious structural problem the same article states that the structure failure was caused by a tailwheel jamming. So not a Serious Structural problem just a stuck tailwheel.
I would also suggest that the fact that the initial prototype was used for a number of different tests developing different models for approx three years, was a sign of the design being right from the start.
I note from Wiki that the Germans needed It took 16 prototypes and 94 pre-production examples to try to resolve the many problems and the chief test pilot commented that the Me 210 had "all the least desirable attributes an aeroplane could possess
Compare that to the flight by Cunningham 4 months after the first test flight
With the buffeting problems largely resolved, John Cunningham flew W4050 on 9 February 1941. He was greatly impressed by the "lightness of the controls and generally pleasant handling characteristics".
Last edited:
I see that claim made a lot, though I never see any numbers to back it up. Generally speaking, the statement is that losses when introduced were higher than other bombers, but as you've determined they were twice as high, and presented it as fact, I assume you've done some comparative analysis. Can we see it?
Mosquitos of 2 TAF flew 1532 bombing sorties in daylight in the six months from October '43 to March '44, for a loss rate of 1.9%. Hiding in broad daylight, clever.
Apparently the Luftwaffe abandoned the night skies in mid-43. Can't imagine what was happening to the heavies around then.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
I find it very sad that both sides of this debate cannot acknowledge greatness when they are confronted with it.
The Germans were a truly gifted nation that produced some outstanding designs and were at the cuting edge of design.
So too the british.
The Mosquito was one of those designs that deservedly earned legendary status.
How people can denigrate tru greatness is simply very sad in my opinion.
The Germans were a truly gifted nation that produced some outstanding designs and were at the cuting edge of design.
So too the british.
The Mosquito was one of those designs that deservedly earned legendary status.
How people can denigrate tru greatness is simply very sad in my opinion.
Ummm nope. Luftwaffe flew night missions right throughout 1944. I cant find anything for 1945, possibly because the allies suspended night operations by then IIRC.
