Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was best summed up in the book 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45', in which my co-author Emmanuel Gustin wrote the following:
"Soon Mosquito bombers became a vital part of the night operations too. In early 1944 a bulged bomb bay was introduced to hold a 4000 lb 'cookie,' doubling the bomb load. The combat introduction of the high-altitude B.XVI version, which was even harder to intercept, was in March. A paper by the Ministry or Aircraft production calculated that, before the aircraft was lost, a Mosquito could be expected to drop an average of 1690 kg of bombs in 92 sorties. A Lancaster would drop 3370 kg on an average sortie, but survived on average only 28 sorties, and cost 2.8 times as much as a Mosquito. It could be concluded that the material cost per ton of bombs dropped was at least four times lower for the Mosquito than for the Lancaster. And the Mosquito had only one-fourth of the crew of the Lancaster, so its use also reduced the loss of life. Evidently, such figures are dependent on time, tactics, and circumstances, but they were nevertheless evidence that the Mosquito had advantages that had to be exploited. The "Light Night Strike Force" became an important part of Bomber Command's No.8 Group; its operations included 170 attacks on Berlin."
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: CANNON, MACHINE GUNS AND AMMUNITION
There is an interesting late-war study carried out by the RAF in the PRO files (reference AIR 2/5487, minutes of meeting held 20 April 1944 to consider future bomber needs). This was called to discuss potential super-heavy bombers, but the discussion included much questioning of the need for such planes. A mathematical proof was included of the superior efficiency of a large number of small bombers rather than a small number of big ones (unfortunately, this was before the days when digital cameras were allowed and I didn't have the patience to copy it all). However, from memory it compared the construction cost, bomb loads and survival chances of big and small bombers and demonstrated that the small, fast unarmed bomber (read: Mosquito) was a more efficient bomb delivery system than the big slow one (read: Lancaster).
Yes, the Lanc could carry the super-heavy bombs, but frankly such attacks were more effective at hitting the headlines than they were at shortening the war.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: CANNON, MACHINE GUNS AND AMMUNITION
That "primitive" was a reaction to a post from Siegfried.
I fought the NVA, I never considered them primitive.
Starting in 1944, the light and medium two engine bomber was in transition. Except perhaps in the PTO, dive bombing was fading in popularity and high altitude bombing was not providing the needed accuracy for tactical support. Low altitude was the coming answer and a move toward the attack aircraft.
Planes like the A-26 and A-1 were valuable for their endurance and stores capability over the battlefield and led to the development of the A-10, which is probably the closest thing to a two engine bomber today. The F-117 did give a short breath. Fighter bombers are now the way.
What is a Black Cat is it different then a normal PBY5 ,It hasn't been mentioned...but what about a Black Cat style Catalina for patrol, night attack, and harassment duties?
A price that must be paid if you want to hit the target with iron bombs. That's why the Me-410 and Ju-88 could dive bomb.
What is a Black Cat is it different then a normal PBY5 ,
so not much different save the 20mm and the hand dropped grenades so Catalina or Canso depending on builderIf I tried to explain it, I know I'd screw up. Under the Night Attack and Naval Interdiction is the Black Cat section. Basically, the Cats were modified to carry more guns (like 20mm bow guns), we painted black for night operations, and carried bombs both on the wings, and grenade sized munitions in the body dropped by the crew. The rest is better read from the site (even if it is Wiki).
Consolidated PBY Catalina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just finished rereading Alan Macnutts Altimeter Rising and he probably has to be 1 of the high time Mosquito pilots having flown them post war on survey work around most of the world and he also flew the A26 as a FireBomber , he preferred the the A26 as a flyer and platform and was regurlay hauling 8000lbs of fire retardent in it, He also did a lot of work in P38`s loved the contra rotating props but found they were more labour intensive maintainence wise then the Mosquito but far more pilot friendly. Some great stories in this book such as flying a P38 for Chilean survey along border with Argentina and the Argentinians at the time tried to intercept him but they had nothing to get to his altitude he buggered off. He was an AME as well and flew as an instrument check pilot for the MOT .
Great book on flying
I would think the engines would be one thing ,the Merlin didn't have the same life span in any way close to the R2800 which was still neing put into newbuild aircraft as late as the 70s , and as for the comfort that was usually the last consideration for any Brit aircraft . I've heard it mentioned more then once in humour they designed a lovely aircraft and then had to decide where to put the pilotI wonder if that was just a comfort thing for the pilot.
The Mosquito had two very noisy Merlins mounted next to the crew's ears.
Also not surprised that the A-26 could carry such a load. Once you dump the turrets and guns and any other military equipment you would have increased the lift capacity substantially.
And the A-26 was about 1/3 larger than the Mosquito.
None of which makes the A-26 a better bomber in 1944-45 than the Mosquito.
For the sake of talking, as you say 44-45....
How well the Swedish B-18 compare?
General characteristics
Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator/gunner, and bombardier)
Length: 13.23 m (43 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 17 m (55 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.35 m (14 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 43.75 m2 (470.9 sq ft)
Empty weight: 6,100 kg (13,448 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 8,800 kg (19,401 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,700 litres (370 imp gal; 450 US gal)
Powerplant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 605 inverted-vee piston engines, 1,100 kW (1,475 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 575 km/h (357 mph; 310 kn)
Range: 2,600 km (1,616 mi; 1,404 nmi)
Service ceiling: 9,800 m (32,152 ft)
Armament
Guns: one 7.92mm fixed forwards-firing gun in wing root; two 13.2mm defensive guns.
Rockets: 8 air-to-surface rockets on underwing stubs
Bombs: 1,500 kilograms (3,300 lb) in internal bay
Worth looking into mate! What would that do to the performance of the B-18, another 450hp on those engines (together)?
Worth looking into mate! What would that do to the performance of the B-18, another 450hp on those engines (together)?
I think you have a flaw there as induced drag will increase with speed and if the airframe remains unmodified with any parasitic producing items on the aircraft (antennas, scoops, etc.) will increase drag as well, increasing parasitic drag and in the end total drag. How about the extra weight of the engine?The calculation is somewhat conservative as induced drag does not increase while the increased jet thrust only obeys a square root law. However I did not include whether the supercharger was maxed out 1.7 ata boost at the maximum speed altitude needed to achieve this. The effect of the extra power might then be to sustain maximum speed down to much lower altitudes, including at sea level. This is likely where the B18 would be opperating anyway. Certainly with the 2000hp DB605DCM engine at least 395mph would be possible while the aircraft would be able to cruise in at 357mph.
I could understand fuel, but why spark plugs?The swedes would have had better fuel and likely better sparking plugs etc.