USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Oct 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,993
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wonder whether such a bomber (= unarmed 2/3 seater bomber, powered by two V-12 engines) might give a good service to the Allied cause? Built either in metal or mostly in wood, despite the US producers saying it could not be done (Beach Aircraft Corp. said that, IIRC). Can start with V-1710, then use V-1650, those to be substituted/replaced with new V-1710s as they become available. A better use of two stage V-1710s than to install them in P-63?
    Should be a base for a night fighter, too.
     
  2. beitou

    beitou Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Why not just build the Mosquito?
     
  3. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Didn't the British even give them some in reverse lend-lease?
     
  4. wiking85

    wiking85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicagoland Area
    Didn't the British even give them some in reverse lend-lease?
     
  5. mhuxt

    mhuxt Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    28
    They did, yes, mostly PR types though a squadron's worth of night-fighters as well.

    For my money it would have to be "Mosquito-like," as opposed to the Mossie itself. De Havilland's staff were pretty stretched as it was trying to administer production at four locations in the U.K. in addition to the factories in Canada and Australia.

    It's all so much fantasy though - the American way was large four-engine metal bombers with heavy defensive guns, that's not going to change easily.
     
  6. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Same for the Brits with the Lancaster and Halifax except for the heavy defensive guns.
     
  7. OldSkeptic

    OldSkeptic Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Oh not building the Mossie was major strategic mistake by the US. It was mooted at times. It was quite possible, if DH could set up production in Canada and Australia, I don;t think there would have been much of an issue for the US.

    I say strategic because it cost them a lot of money and resources and left a hole in their plane mix that nothing really could fill.
    If they had gone the Mossie route, then they would have had no need for the B-24 or the B-25 or the P-61 and so on, at considerable cost savings (in operational crews as well as in building them).

    Plus, as said, this left operational holes, which they tried to fill by getting Mossies from the UK, but there was never enough to go around.
    Obviously VLR PR and night fighters were 2, but there is the whole issue of how it limited their tactical bombing capability, in both the ETO and PTO.
     
  8. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    A-20 was essentially a Mosquito with shorter range/endurance. When it entered service it was faster then many fighter aircraft.

    USA didn't embrace the fast light bomber concept. Follow-on A-26 didn't enter service until 1944 and it wasn't terribly fast despite being powered by a pair of R2800 engines.

    If USA did embrace fast light bomber we could have made a slightly larger A-20 to increase internal fuel capacity. R2600 engines provided plenty of power so improved aerodynamics would be the key to higher speed. By 1944 max speed should be at least 380mph to make it competitive with contemporary Me-410 and Mosquito.

    I see no reason for conversion to V12 engines. Other radial engine aircraft such as F7F were plenty fast.
     
  9. michaelmaltby

    michaelmaltby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    #9 michaelmaltby, Oct 11, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2013
    "...Oh not building the Mossie was major strategic mistake by the US. It was mooted at times. It was quite possible, if DH could set up production in Canada and Australia, I don;t think there would have been much of an issue for the US.

    I say strategic because it cost them a lot of money and resources and left a hole in their plane mix that nothing really could fill....."

    While this is true .... about "the hole" to fill ..... the USA played the long game during WW2 .... there was no long term strategic advantage in building plywood air planes (ingenious as they were). Mastering and mass producing all-metal, complex air frames was going to be strategic .... and WW2 provided the opportunity to gain world acceptance and master the craft.

    I agree with db ... there was no prolonged interest in strategic, pin point bombing. If there were, the P-38 could do a pretty credible job. :)
     
  10. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,993
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Major US manufacturers being far better in design production of metal airplanes, rather than wooden ones. De Haviland was producing wooden performers prior they produced Mossie.

    Mossie equivalent without Mossie's range is not an equivalent. However, the A-20 was able to afford enough room for the fuel and bombs, all internal - 725 US gals of fuel and 2000 lbs of bombs was carried by late A-20Gs, enabling the range (not radius) of 1570 miles.
    By 1944 the A-20 might use the 1900 HP R-2600s, military power was some 1300 HP at 20000 ft.

    So what it is - R-2800s are good or bad? ;)
    The F7F was faster than A-26 because it used more powerful engines (available from 1945 on), while having far smaller wing and empenage, no bomb bay, single pilot (these two equaled the thinner fuselage) and no gun turrets, weight also being smaller.
    The V-12 powered fighter can provide both good power and less drag, crucial things for a success of the unarmed bomber.
     
  11. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    R2800s are good but 1,600 to 1,700hp R2600 was nothing to sneeze at either.

    V12 engines are fine if USA had one which could compete with R2600 radial during 1941 or R2800 radial during 1943. That wasn't the case historically so switching to V12 would result in lower range/payload. For a bomber that would be a step backward.
     
  12. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    V-1710 plus turbo would offer more power at altitude at similar installed weight as the R-2600, as well as less drag. It would also need less fuel to run.

    Takeoff power would be lower, but how much lower depends on the aggressiveness of Allison in specifying take-off and WEP settings. By 1944 the V-1710 should be able to be competitive in take-off power with the R-2600.
     
  13. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #13 GregP, Oct 11, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2013
    I don't think the USA needed the Mosquito at all. While it would have been an asset if adopted, the USA would not have built a wooden combat aircraft at the time and, though we DID use a few Mosquitoes, it wasn't many and they contributed commensurate with their small numbers. I think of the Mosquito as a British classic, but cannot see it ever being adopted by the USA during WWII. This conclusion is NOT one of what maybe SHOULD have been done, it is purely based on political reaility in, say, 1940.

    While US aircraft served the USA well in WWII, when the Brits got some US aircraft, they mostly didn't have good things to say about them, and didn't seem to use them past a definite need to do so. The US got a few British aircraft and we used themn where it made sense, but weren't going to adopt the types just as the British didn't do so in reverse.

    The first British-developed modern plane we adopted that I can think of was the B-57 Canberra, and we changed the cockpit to suit US tastes when we did that. When the British got some F-4 Phantoms, they mandated British engines and came up with the Spey-powered variant. I think it would be highly unlikely that the US would adopt any foreign aircraft during WWII, advisable thoiugh it might be.
     
  14. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Bell dismissed the Mosquito as an excuse to use wood, and would not perform any useful role in the war. They were somewhat wrong.

    An American Mosquito-alike was the Douglas XB-42. An ugly thing, it, nonetheless, had impressive performance. Reported bomb load was to be 8000lb.
     
  15. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Problem for the A-20 (and the Me 410) was that by 1944 the Mosquito bomber's max speed was 30 or 40mph faster than the proposed target.

    I wonder how fast the F7F would have been if they redesigned the fuselage to carry bombs?
     
  16. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    :shock:
     
  17. pattle

    pattle Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Don't forget the Mosquito never became the mainstay of Bomber Command, this was because Mosquito's were not suitable for area bombing like the Lancaster was. It doesn't matter how much you try and hide it with yarns of dropping apples into pickle barrels the Americans were area bombing and they built B17's, B24's and B29s for exactly that purpose. If the Americans had of built Mosquito's then I expect they would have been used like the British based Marauders were used. I also think that national pride was always going to be in the biggest obstacle in this.
     
  18. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Precisely. Doctrines of both the RAF and USAAF prevented types like the Mosquito from being the mainstay of their bombing campaigns.

    Harris couldn't use the Mosquito for city busting (other than as pathfinders/markers). Their only use was against "panacea" targets - like factories, transport, etc.

    And Mosquitoes didn't have guns for self defence, so couldn't fight their way to target in tight, mutual defending box formations. They also couldn't carry 20-24 250lb bomb, or 12 500lb bombs - numbers that were required to hopefully, maybe, get a hit on the actual target.
     
  19. JtD

    JtD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I always thought that the P-38 was pretty close to a Mosquito in terms of layout. There even were some two seated and unarmed versions. If the US had found the concept so valuable, the P-38 (just like the A-20) might have been a very good starting point.
     
  20. michaelmaltby

    michaelmaltby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    #20 michaelmaltby, Oct 12, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2013
    "...when the Brits got some US aircraft, they mostly didn't have good things to say about them, and didn't seem to use them past a definite need to do so."

    Au contraire ... the Brits thought B-24's, PBY's, Mustangs, C-47's, Corsairs, Wildcats, Avengers, P-40's, etc. ... all fine aircraft and used them accordingly. Churchill's personal mount was a B-24. NOT using them once the war was over is a different issue .... National pride, industrial development, etc.

    "... The US got a few British aircraft and we used them where it made sense, but weren't going to adopt the types just as the British didn't do so in reverse...."

    600 odd Spitfires is quite a "few" ... :)

    Uncle Sam’s Spitfires had written a little-known chapter in US fighter history. Though the USAAF used over 600 Spitfires during the war, the aircraft was never given a US designation, and little publicity was given to the exploits of the 31st and 52nd Fighter Groups – nothing like what they would get in the summer of 1944 during the wild air battles over Ploesti when they flew Mustangs. This is most likely a good example of the US military’s overall dislike of having to admit to using “NIH” (Not Invented Here) equipment.

    During their time in Spitfires, the 31st FG claimed 194.5 confirmed, 39 probables and 124 damaged; the 52nd claimed 152.33 confirmed, 22 probables and 71 damaged. Thirteen pilots became aces on the Spitfire. Leland Molland went on to score another 6 victories in the summer of 1944 in the P-51 to bring his score to 11. Harrison Thyng added 5 more victories to his 5.5 as CO of the 4th FIW in Korea, while Royal N. Baker, who scored 3.5 in Spitfires added another 13 in Korea.

    Source:http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page