UK: Mosquito, DE: Ju-88, US: ?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by gjs238, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. gjs238

    gjs238 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The Brits had the Mosquito
    The Germans had the Ju-88
    Did the Americans have anything comparable?
     
  2. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
  3. zoomar

    zoomar Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The A-20 would be my main guess as well, although I'm not sure it really matches up in some of the performance categories. The A-26 might be a better example, but it came so late. Could the P-38 count?
     
  4. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    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.
     
  5. TheMustangRider

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  6. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    Sure can, Marauder! join the party! The A-26 invader was also a good 'un considering its post war service.
     
  7. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The A-20 seem like a contender here. It was an attack bomber, night fighter, torpedo bomber (in VVS service). I do think that Mossie or Ju-88 were better, though.
     
  8. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  9. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.

    fuel 20.JPG
     
  10. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The Boston IV manual from 2/1945 mentions fuselage tanks above the bomb bay with a total capacity of 325 US gals. Also noted an optional belly drop tank with 375 US gals, placed below the bomb bay doors.
     
  11. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  12. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    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"
     
  13. ShVAK

    ShVAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    A-20, definitely. One of the most underrated types of the war. It did fall short in range but was otherwise a close match to the Mosquito as noted.
     
  14. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    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.
     
  15. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  16. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  17. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,996
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
    20 fuel.JPG
    20 bay.JPG
     
  18. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    i think the bombs are larger that 250 lbs
     
  19. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    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.
     
  20. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania

    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZzgDkFvHbI

    Certainly looks like they had ejector exhausts in 1942.
     
Loading...

Share This Page