UK: Mosquito, DE: Ju-88, US: ?
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Mosquito, of course! The USAAF operated photo reconnaissance Mosquitoes; these were nominally PR.IXs and PR.XVI models, but also the F-8 (modified B.XXs) built in Canada, although these saw little service. There was also a request for Mossie night fighters for US forces in Italy, but this was fulfilled by British sqns. Hap Arnold also requested reconnaissance Mosquitoes for the Pacific, favouring their range and speed.
As for a US type built to the same concept, there was none. Nor was the Ju 88, but in keeping with the versatility and 'jack-of-all-trades' theme, I guess as Vincenzo added, the DB-7, or even the B-25.
As for a US type built to the same concept, there was none. Nor was the Ju 88, but in keeping with the versatility and 'jack-of-all-trades' theme, I guess as Vincenzo added, the DB-7, or even the B-25.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
Can we bring the B-26 into the aspirants' row?
It may have not been as versatile as the Mossie or Ju-88 were but it had a very high speed coupled with a decent payload capability.
It may have not been as versatile as the Mossie or Ju-88 were but it had a very high speed coupled with a decent payload capability.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Endurance was far too low.
A-26 was probably the closest U.S. match. However it wasn't all that fast by the time it entered service.
A-26 was probably the closest U.S. match. However it wasn't all that fast by the time it entered service.
For some inexplicabe reason, the A-20 never vent past 390-400 gals of internal fuel, in wing tanks - even the late P-38 had more. The bomb bay fuel tanks were limited only to 140 gals. For comparison sake, Beaufighter was carrying 550 imp gals (660 US gals) internally, and additional 132 imp gals(158 USG) in lieu of LMGs their ammo. All in wings - thick wings have their qualities 
Too bad Douglas never installed a fuel tank between two main tanks (or maybe installing two longer main tanks, that would stretch from nacelle to plane's center), and/or copied the layout of fuel tanks the P-38 - likely 600+ gals of internal fuel?
The bulky thirsty R-2600s surely do not have a great mileage, too.
Too bad Douglas never installed a fuel tank between two main tanks (or maybe installing two longer main tanks, that would stretch from nacelle to plane's center), and/or copied the layout of fuel tanks the P-38 - likely 600+ gals of internal fuel?
The bulky thirsty R-2600s surely do not have a great mileage, too.
The use of bomb bay for fuel is fine for deployment, but it defeats the purpose of the bomb bay itself. The ability to carry a 375 gals (2250 lbs) of fuel under the fuselage brings a question: was the belly DT attachment point ever used to carry a weapon?
Too bad Douglas did not installed the wing store stations, akin to the P-38s.
Too bad Douglas did not installed the wing store stations, akin to the P-38s.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Lot of mishmash here.
Certainly the US had great twin engine bomber types. The B-26 and especially the B-25, were easily as capable and flexible as the Ju-88 as has been discussed in other sites. The Ju-88 was used in many roles as was the B-25. The B-26 was also used as a torpedo bomber, four of which made an unsupported attack on the Japanese carriers at Midway, three of which made it into dropping range and two making it home. The Japanese were very impressed this this aircraft, considering it "blazingly fast" and difficult to bring down.
The A-20, in my opinion, is one of the most underrated aircraft of the war. Comparing the A-20B to the contemporary Mosquito Mk II,
Top speed
A-20 353 mph
Mosquito 366 mph
Speed SL
A-20 314 mph
Mosquito approx. 305 estimated
Comment. Not much difference here slight advantage at high altitude for the Mosquito, A-20 may have advantage at lower levels.
Load carrying ability (gross weight - empty weight)
A-20 7k lbs
Mosquito 5k lbs.
Comment. A significant advantage here for the A-20 in that it has more play in configuration/fuel allocation
Range
A-20 (490 US gal) 745 miles w/1000 lb bomb
Mosquito (492 US gal) 900 miles (no listed bomb load, only cannon and machine guns)
Comment. Not much to say here. Maybe an advantage for the A-20 due to better load carrying capacity.
Ceiling
A-20 28.6 k ft
Mosquito 29k ft.
Comment. Nothing here
For this configuration, there does not appear to be a lot of difference in the A-20 verses the Mosquito
Follow on. Both aircraft are upgraded later in the war with the Mosquito including more powerful engines and the A-20 being replaced with the A-26. The upgraded Mosquito is much faster than the A-26 but the A-26 has a much better load carrying ability. These two aircraft were designed for different missions.
Data on Mosquito from Wikipedia. Data on A-20/26 from Wagner's "American Combat Planes"
Certainly the US had great twin engine bomber types. The B-26 and especially the B-25, were easily as capable and flexible as the Ju-88 as has been discussed in other sites. The Ju-88 was used in many roles as was the B-25. The B-26 was also used as a torpedo bomber, four of which made an unsupported attack on the Japanese carriers at Midway, three of which made it into dropping range and two making it home. The Japanese were very impressed this this aircraft, considering it "blazingly fast" and difficult to bring down.
The A-20, in my opinion, is one of the most underrated aircraft of the war. Comparing the A-20B to the contemporary Mosquito Mk II,
Top speed
A-20 353 mph
Mosquito 366 mph
Speed SL
A-20 314 mph
Mosquito approx. 305 estimated
Comment. Not much difference here slight advantage at high altitude for the Mosquito, A-20 may have advantage at lower levels.
Load carrying ability (gross weight - empty weight)
A-20 7k lbs
Mosquito 5k lbs.
Comment. A significant advantage here for the A-20 in that it has more play in configuration/fuel allocation
Range
A-20 (490 US gal) 745 miles w/1000 lb bomb
Mosquito (492 US gal) 900 miles (no listed bomb load, only cannon and machine guns)
Comment. Not much to say here. Maybe an advantage for the A-20 due to better load carrying capacity.
Ceiling
A-20 28.6 k ft
Mosquito 29k ft.
Comment. Nothing here
For this configuration, there does not appear to be a lot of difference in the A-20 verses the Mosquito
Follow on. Both aircraft are upgraded later in the war with the Mosquito including more powerful engines and the A-20 being replaced with the A-26. The upgraded Mosquito is much faster than the A-26 but the A-26 has a much better load carrying ability. These two aircraft were designed for different missions.
Data on Mosquito from Wikipedia. Data on A-20/26 from Wagner's "American Combat Planes"
wuzak
Captain
You are comparing an early fighter Mosquito with the saxophone exhaust against the A-20 light/attack bomber.
With ejector exhausts the Mosquito's performance increases to 380mph with 2000lb bomb load and a range of over 1300 miles.
While I like A-20, I have to agree with wuzak here - Mossie was a far better performer, in speed and range.
The A-20 carried only 400 gals of internal fuel, any increase means that bomb has to go under fuselage, meaning the penalty in range speed. Mosquito FB (the one with cannons and bombs) had 452 imp gals of internal fuel - 565 USG, if my math is correct. The bomber variants carried even more internal fuel (530-563 imp gals, or circa 700 USG, without using the bomb bay to carry fuel), and, with wing pylons, the fuel/weapon flexibility was superb.
The bulky thirsty R-2600s did not contribute to the mileage either.
The A-20 carried only 400 gals of internal fuel, any increase means that bomb has to go under fuselage, meaning the penalty in range speed. Mosquito FB (the one with cannons and bombs) had 452 imp gals of internal fuel - 565 USG, if my math is correct. The bomber variants carried even more internal fuel (530-563 imp gals, or circa 700 USG, without using the bomb bay to carry fuel), and, with wing pylons, the fuel/weapon flexibility was superb.
The bulky thirsty R-2600s did not contribute to the mileage either.
Additional fuel in the bomb bay area of the A-20 was above the bomb cell thus not reducing the ability to load bombs internally (just limit bombload in weight). They had even larger ferry tanks filling out the entire bomb bay area but I was talking of the long range combat tanks.
The 'Erection and maintenance manual' says this about the fuel tanks in bomb bay: 144 USG in 2 self sealing tanks, or 676 US in 4 steel containers. Looking at the cross section drawings, seem like, with 4 x 250(?) lbs bombs there was plenty of space above them.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I took a snapshot of 1942 when the US was entering the war. I don't have a good time line for Mosquito upgrades so I don't know when these upgrades, which apparently nicely improved the Mosquito performance, occurred. For circa 1942, I think this comparison is reasonable, certainly test performed in late 1943 on some configurations did not reflect this increased performance.
wuzak
Captain
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZzgDkFvHbI
Certainly looks like they had ejector exhausts in 1942.
