Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well it isnt quite as simple as that is it, thats why the discussion has 51 pages.Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.
Most were pushed onto the fire dump when the weather delaminated them.
Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.
Most were pushed onto the fire dump when the weather delaminated them.
Do you make this statement based on losing an engine on takeoff, cruise speed or max speed? The Mosquito, like the P-38 had excellent engine out characteristics if you were properly trained.Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.
The Mosquito, like the P-38 had excellent engine out characteristics if you were properly trained.
Just curious, but was this unique to the Mossie or would that also include the Bf110, KI-46, B-25, CA.310, A-20, G.1, Ju88, Whirlwind, KI-45, Pe-2, LeO 451, PZL.37, Me410, B-26, Blenheim, Ca.314, G4M, etc., etc., etc...Mosquito, lose an engine near the ground and you died… simple as that.
The Avro Manchester should certainly be on that list, it struggled to stay in the air one one engine with a full fuel and bomb load same for many early British types like the Beaufort.Just curious, but was this unique to the Mossie or would that also include the Bf110, KI-46, B-25, CA.310, A-20, G.1, Ju88, Whirlwind, KI-45, Pe-2, LeO 451, PZL.37, Me410, B-26, Blenheim, Ca.314, G4M, etc., etc., etc...
During the war my mothers school was hit by a crashed Wellington's engine, she was disappointed to find her lessons not cancelled.Well in all cases if that engine fell on you ......?
The BA.88 was so underpowered, that losing power to one engine almost guaranteed to see it go down, no matter it's altitude.Breda 88
The BA.88 was so underpowered, that losing power to one engine almost guaranteed to see it go down, no matter it's altitude.
In my misspent youth we used to mix TEL with unleaded gasoline for my friend's boat with a 455 Buick with a 12 to 1 compression ratio. Didn't shake or stir it, it blended itself and it seemed to survive a BC winter without problems.Hey Shortround6,
re "Yes anti-knock compounds precipitated out of the fuel, they were heavy aromatic compounds, not lead compounds."
Did you mean "evaporated"? The aromatics (along with alkylates) are in solution with the other gasoline components, and will not precipitate out of solution.
edit: Hey buffnut453,
re "The J model's enlarged radiators were trouble-prone. Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems:Improperly blended British fuel exacerbated the problems: Anti-knock lead compounds literally seethed out and became separated in the Allison's induction system at extreme low temperatures. . ."
Freeman did not know what he was saying. I assume that he was quoting someone, but whoever he was quoting was incorrect.
Hey anyone else,
re precipitation of TEL and/or British Avgas being the cause of the V-1710 problems
TEL (tetraethyl lead) goes into solution when added to gasoline and will not precipitate out, and it remains stable in a gasoline solution for at least 6 months. The reason lead is combined with tetraethyl (making it a liquid compound) is to allow it to go into solution.
The idea that TEL could precipitate out of the charge while traveling through the turbocharger (or supercharger) and degrading the running of the V-1710 is false. The stories of lead build-up being found in the intercooler system are false, at least if they are attributed to TEL precipitation. Regardless of the V-1710 apologist's myth to the contrary, TEL will not precipitate out on the way to the combustion chamber.
The lead in the TEL compound prevents/inhibits the ignition of gasoline by raising the temperature at which charge mixtures will combust. TEL is a liquid, and at the temperatures found in the intercooler system the TEL will not combust and leave atomic or molecular lead oxide - this is the gray or gray-yellow residue found on some components of the engine after combustion (ie valves, spark plugs, interior of the exhaust manifold) - and sometimes on the interior of the intake manifold (due to blowback and preignition through the intake valves).
The main source for degradation of WWII aviation gasoline was the break down over time, due to oxidation of the alkylates and aromatics (particularly if there is a fresh air source) and/or exposure to actinic* light. The proper sealing of the fuel storage units was a partial solution to the oxidation problem - but only partial due to various chemical processes that go on in the gasoline even without a fresh air source. The removal of optical sight glasses for the fuel levels was the primary way of preventing the breakdown due to actinic* light.
*actinic light is generally defined as in the blue frequency range and higher (ie into the ultraviolet range)
Also, I thought that it had been shown (on this website) that the P-38 never ran on "British gasoline" except for (possibly) a very limited period by the British A&AEE/RAE/AFDU when it (the P-38) was first tested by the Brits - and was actually operated by the USAAF using US made Avgas at least 99% of the time.
Which was better, at the moment i think the mossie, but i wont vote yet...
Better at what?
The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load.
As a fighter, the P-38 was far and away the better airplane, and more were built. You could put guns on a Mosquito, but it wasn't exactly agile when compared with a single-engine fighter by any stretch of the imagination.
A biggie: The Mosquito had the highest Vmc of any twin. If an engine failed below 165 mph, you were going straight in. By comparison, the P-38 was a docile machine around the patch.
Mosquito P-38L
B Mk XVI
Built ITotal): 7,781 10,037
Top Speed: 415 414
Climb fpm: 2,850 4,750
Range Radius Fighter: 450
Ferry range (miles): 1,300 2,600
Bombs: (pounds): 4,000 3,000
Speed was about a wash. P-38L was MUCH better fighter. The Mosquito was a better bomber. Neither was likely to supplant the other in its better roles. Both were very good airplanes, the P-38 especially after the initial faults were ironed out, and they were. The Mosquito, to it's credit, didn't have too many initial faults.
Arguably its best contribution (in Europe) was as a PR aircraft.Better at what?
The Mosquito was better as a bomber, with 1/3 more bomb load.
As a fighter, the P-38 was far and away the better airplane, and more were built. You could put guns on a Mosquito, but it wasn't exactly agile when compared with a single-engine fighter by any stretch of the imagination.
A biggie: The Mosquito had the highest Vmc of any twin. If an engine failed below 165 mph, you were going straight in. By comparison, the P-38 was a docile machine around the patch.
Mosquito P-38L
B Mk XVI
Built ITotal): 7,781 10,037
Top Speed: 415 414
Climb fpm: 2,850 4,750
Range Radius Fighter: 450
Ferry range (miles): 1,300 2,600
Bombs: (pounds): 4,000 3,000
Speed was about a wash. P-38L was MUCH better fighter. The Mosquito was a better bomber. Neither was likely to supplant the other in its better roles. Both were very good airplanes, the P-38 especially after the initial faults were ironed out, and they were. The Mosquito, to it's credit, didn't have too many initial faults.
Arguably its best contribution (in Europe) was as a PR aircraft.
For anything else, there was nearly always something better available.
P-38L was MUCH better fighter.
The P-38 accomplished very little as a night fighter. Its victories at night can be pretty much counted on the fingers of one hand. To compare it to the Mosquito as a night fighter is ludicrous.Great summary. I'd also propose that the Mossie was a better night fighter than the P-38. I'm sure others will contest that view but the simple fact that the USAAF brought on Mossies as reverse lend-lease says a lot (to me, at least).
That's because it entered service after Japan surrendered.The P-38 accomplished very little as a night fighter. Its victories at night can be pretty much counted on the fingers of one hand.
Hmmm there may have been reasons for that, when the British evaluated the P-38, the included a section on the viability as a night-fighter, they noted:That's because it entered service after Japan surrendered.
It was a capable platform, but never saw combat.