USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons

[SHOOTER]

Shooter, is Wiki your number one source? You source it often...

PS. I like the icon you have chose as your avatar. In terms of WW-II and possibly for all time, the Me-109 is demonstrably the world's most effective fighter plane. Now that I said that all the guys with other favorite planes will argue for them being the best. That was not my intention, just a simple acknowledgment of the fact that Me-109 pilots shot down more planes than the next three or four types combined.

 

[Glider]

Spit? With the same engine, the P-51 was 20 mph faster. Relative to the P-51, the Spitfire had poor aerodynamics.

But the Spit was designed from the start as an interceptor and its aerodynamics gave it a much greater climb rate and of course its agility. To pick one factor and say it proves that the Spit had poor aerodynamics is far from accurate.

I am not sure that making an aircraft more fragile is a sign of advanced technology. This came back to bite the P-51H when the more robust P-51D was used in Korea, which was used in a more close support role.

The P51 was designed as a fighter not a GA aircraft. Look at it another way. Has the designers used the pre war British standards you could easily have ended up with a much faster Mustang from 1943 onwards, think of the difference that would have made.

It took the airframe and the engine to be the P-51. The Spitfire with the Merlin engine did not have the speed or the fuel mileage to do the P-51 job.

And as mentioned earlier The Mustang didn't have the climb and agility to be as good as an interceptor

Which I bet could be traced back to an operating system designed by Maxim or Lewis, both Americans.

I admit when I first read this I thought, 'A 6pd with a Maxim operating system, wasn't that the Mollins'

I don't think close is right. There is significant firepower difference. The Garand is as far ahead of the Lee Enfield as the AK-47 is ahead of the Garand.

Again your right I did get a little carried away with that one

 

[SHOOTER]

So you now have published figures, from a book,Which book? showing that the Merlin 66 was producing 2,000 hp during WW2.

As it is the, WW 2 Rolls-Royce Merlin R.M.14.SM generated 2,200 hp and so impressed Schmued that he was "eager to use this power plant". I don't have his book, but dollars to donuts it'll be in there: Yes, it is prominently mentioned in his book, also the problems converting that engine to Packard's manufacturing standards. Also, the R.M.14.SM is not the same engine as the V-1650-9.

The P-51 Mustang Variants: P-51H -MustangsMustangs

Source? Read Christopher Shores Chris Thomas' series on the 2nd Tactical Air Force to find out just how much of a contribution the Mosquito made carrying out tactical operations on small targets. Just because it is a small target, does not make it a tactical target.

2nd Tactical Air Force, Vol. 1: Spartan to Normandy, June 1943 to June 1944: Christopher Shores, Chris Thomas: 9781903223406: Amazon.com: Books

2nd Tactical Air Force, Vol. 2: Breakout to Bodenplatte, July 1944 to January 1945: Chris Thomas, Christopher Shores: 9781903223413: Amazon.com: Books

2nd Tactical Air Force, Vol. 3: From the Rhine to Victory, January to May 1945: Christopher Shores, Chris Thomas: 9781903223604: Amazon.com: Books

You're also completely ignoring the Mosquitoes roles as a PR aircraft, night fighter, pathfinder, target marker, anti shipping aircraft, to name a few roles.

I have not ignored any of those other Mossy mission types. Tactical air is that used to attack Tanks and other targets that can shoot back close to the FEBA. None of the local libraries have any of those books and they are too expensive for me to fee good about buying. I like less specific and more general books that can be bought cheep.

 

[wuzak]

This is not the same as taking a random production engine and flying 1000 hours of combat missions, even if they had much less than 20 hours at full throttle.

No, it is not the same. It is a tougher test - 100 hours continuously at WEP.

The RAF had trouble making 300 hours TBO on Spitfires, while the USAAF flew an average of 1000 hours TBO in combat missions including full throttle at take off and 5 minutes of combat, IF required.

I doubt that disparity. Especially since some RAF Spitfires (namely the XVI) had Packard Merlins too.

Packard Merlins were built to Rolls-Royce specs and standards. Parts built by Packard were interchangeable with parts made by Rolls-Royce and Ford UK.

As I said before, the 2 stage engines, (-3, -5, -7, -9) differed only in small details - such as the supercharger drive. USAAF bound Merlins got SAE spline prop shafts, British/Commonwealth bound Packard Merlins got the SBAC prop shaft.

The only thing I can think that would make the difference is the operation between the airforces. P-51s would cruise at low power settings for a large proportion of their missions, while Spitfires would use higher power for larger percentages of their missions.

Secondly, was the 100 Series Merlin used during the war?

Yes, the V-1650-9 was a 100-series Merlin.

And a few Mosquito PR.34s, using Merlin 113/114s, were built and used before the end of the war.

 

[wuzak]

Who is Lumsden and what is the title of his book?

I didn't bother writing the title of the book as most people in here are familiar with his name.

However:
Alec Lumsden, British Piston Aero-Engines and their Aircraft, ISBN 1 85310 294 6.

 

[wuzak]

SAF Maintenance Manuals scanned at the Museum of the USAF. Also from RAF squadron Maintenance records.

How wonderful, since you can upload entire pdfs to this site, or individual pictures (as Aozora has) to show us.

 

[Milosh]

None of the local libraries have any of those books and they are too expensive for me to feel good about buying.

It might help with dispelling your ignorance.

 

[SHOOTER]

But the Spit was designed from the start as an interceptor and its aerodynamics gave it a much greater climb rate and of course its agility. To pick one factor and say it proves that the Spit had poor aerodynamics is far from accurate. Not actually. Speed is fungible and rate of climb is variable because of the weight. At very light Take Off Weights as if used as an interceptor, will let the P-51 out climb the Spit easily.
The P51 was designed as a fighter not a GA aircraft. Look at it another way. Has the designers used the pre war British standards you could easily have ended up with a much faster Mustang from 1943 onwards, think of the difference that would have made. The Spitfire was a fragile plane easily destroyed. Do you think that is a valid trade? I do not, especially since the P-51 can out climb the Spit at equal power and weights.


And as mentioned earlier The Mustang didn't have the climb and agility to be as good as an interceptor It depends on how you rate agility! Any Mustang flown during the war will easily out roll any Spitfire flown during the war. The Mustang also had a small pitch authority advantage. The Spit had a lower wing loading which gave it a faster rate of turn, but only under some conditions as the Mustang has a higher Specific Excess Power at any given power and weight.
I admit when I first read this I thought, 'A 6pd with a Maxim operating system, wasn't that the Mollins'


Again your right I did get a little carried away with that one

Because all planes have parts of their flight envelope that are better than those same parts of most other planes, you have to be very careful when you state that any one plane is more of anything than the other, except when you talk about speed! Speed is the only test that at which most planes are measured at like parameters. There are variations, but they are few and far between.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Keep it civil everyone!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Shooter where is your proof that the Spitfire is any more fragile and easy to destroy than a Bf 109 or P-51?

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[SHOOTER]

No, it is not the same. It is a tougher test - 100 hours continuously at WEP. No, it is not! The engine in the test cell does not have a very limited source of cooling capacity. That is why using full throttle for more than five minutes in almost any plane will quickly destroy that engine that ran 100 hours in a test cell.

Packard Merlins were built to Rolls-Royce specs and standards. No, they were not. There were built to more stringent standards. Parts built by Packard were interchangeable with parts made by Rolls-Royce and Ford UK. Not all parts in all equivalent engines. R-R still had many hand fit parts and much "File to fit" in their engines. We had none of that. That is why we were able to make so many engines in such a short time using so little floor space. read "The Arsenal of Democracy" to get the whole picture.

As I said before, the 2 stage engines, (-3, -5, -7, -9) differed only in small details - such as the supercharger drive. USAAF bound Merlins got SAE spline prop shafts, British/Commonwealth bound Packard Merlins got the SBAC prop shaft.

The only thing I can think that would make the difference is the operation between the airforces. P-51s would cruise at low power settings for a large proportion of their missions, while Spitfires would use higher power for larger percentages of their missions. This is true, but we also had more opportunities to use full throttle than spits did, because they did not have as many encounters.

Yes, the V-1650-9 was a 100-series Merlin. See the differences that you list above.

And a few Mosquito PR.34s, using Merlin 113/114s, were built and used before the end of the war.

I did not know that. How many? They built and flew 555 P-51Hs with two, thousand, three hundred spare engines. ( All during the war.)

 

[wuzak]

Shooter where is your proof that the Spitfire is any more fragile and easy to destroy than a Bf 109 or P-51?

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

The P-51H was designed to British stress standards (ie lower factor of safety) like the Spitfire. So, if the Spitfire was fragile NAA were'nt all that concerned.

Also, when did a P-51 with the same power outclimb a Spitfire?

 

[SHOOTER]

I didn't bother writing the title of the book as most people in here are familiar with his name.

However:
Alec Lumsden, British Piston Aero-Engines and their Aircraft, ISBN 1 85310 294 6.

Wow, only 63.89 on Amazon. Plus 3.99 S&H. I'll have to wait some before I spend that kind of money and feel good about it.

 

[SHOOTER]

Shooter where is your proof that the Spitfire is any more fragile and easy to destroy than a Bf 109 or P-51?

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

German Gun Camera film, now on U-Tube. The fact that German -109s shot down more Spits than Spits shot down 109s over the entire course of the war, even when they had about half the fire power. ( One 20 and to MGs Vs two 20s and four MGs, give or take.) The RAF lost more Spits in making A2G attacks than we lost Mustangs, which flew many more strafing missions. Thus the 'stang is stronger than the Spit. There are many lines of argument along these lines.

 

[GrauGeist]

I hate to interrupt the arguing, but the U.S. did have types similiar to the Mosquito in prototype stages that ended up fading into obscurity before or during the war.

one of which, was the Curtiss XA-14 that was in development stages during the 1930's. Powered by two Wright R-1670-5 radials, it had a top speed of 254mph (408kph), armed with 5 .30 cal. MG and an internal bomb bay. This may not seem too impressive by war-time standards, but for 1935, wasn't bad at all. Had this been given more modern (by 1941 standards) radials, and up-gunned to at least .50 cal. MG, it may have showed quite a bit of promise.

Another consideration would be the Lockheed XP-58. A twin Allison V-3420 powered aircraft that was capable of 436mph (702kph) and a ceiling of 38,000 feet (11,700m). During the process of development, the Army kept changing the requirements, delaying the aircraft's final design by well over 4 years. It could have been very capable in a role similiar to the Mosquito's.

Another candidate would be the Beechcraft XA-38. This was intended to replace the A-20 and was known for it's speed, even under load. Max speed was 376mph (605kph) with a payload of 2,000lb (907kg) of bombs. This was in the works during the early stages of the war and could have been available in the role similiar to the Mosquito very easily.

 

[SHOOTER]

The P-51H was designed to British stress standards (ie lower factor of safety) like the Spitfire. So, if the Spitfire was fragile NAA were'nt all that concerned. Yes they were! It was only after they had new manufacturing methods of riveting the skin and a very much stronger alloy than that used in any Spitfire. The H was built using American standards for strength, using British thickness of skinning.

Also, when did a P-51 with the same power outclimb a Spitfire?

When the two planes are at the same weights and effective powers. Similar engines and take off weights. Look up the rate of climb on this chart; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg ! I've never heard of any Spitfire with a RoC over 6,300 FPM? Even the Mk-XIV was 3,600-5,400 FPM depending on mission and sources quoted!
See Wiki;
Specifications (Spitfire Mk XIV)[edit]





A Spitfire XIVE RN119 of 402(RCAF) Squadron in March 1945.
General characteristics
Crew: one pilot
Length: 30 ft (9.14 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
Height: 10 ft (3.05 m)
Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 2209.4(tip)
Empty weight: 6,578 lb (2,984 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,923 lb (3,593 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 8,488 lb (3,850 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Griffon 65, supercharged V12 engine , 5-bladed Jablo-Rotol propeller, 2,050 hp (1,528 kW) at 8,000 ft (2,438 m)

Performance
Maximum speed: 448 mph, (391 kn, 717 km/h)
Combat radius: 400 nmi (459 mi, 740 km)
Ferry range: 950 nmi(1,090 mi, 1,815 km)
Service ceiling: 43,500 ft (13,258 m)
Rate of climb: 3,650 ft/min (18.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 32.72 lb/ft2 (159.8 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.24 hp/lb (0.42 kW/kg)

Armament

Guns: ** 2 × 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 120 rpg. 4 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rpg. Replaced by 2 x .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns 250 rpg Mk XIVE.

Bombs: 2 × 250 lb (113 kg) bombs

 

[Milosh]

Lets see the numbers shooter.

Where is your data on the Spiteful.

 

[SHOOTER]

I hate to interrupt the arguing, but the U.S. did have types similiar to the Mosquito in prototype stages that ended up fading into obscurity before or during the war.

one of which, was the Curtiss XA-14 that was in development stages during the 1930's. Powered by two Wright R-1670-5 radials, it had a top speed of 254mph (408kph), armed with 5 .30 cal. MG and an internal bomb bay. This may not seem too impressive by war-time standards, but for 1935, wasn't bad at all. Had this been given more modern (by 1941 standards) radials, and up-gunned to at least .50 cal. MG, it may have showed quite a bit of promise.

Another consideration would be the Lockheed XP-58. A twin Allison V-3420 powered aircraft that was capable of 436mph (702kph) and a ceiling of 38,000 feet (11,700m). During the process of development, the Army kept changing the requirements, delaying the aircraft's final design by well over 4 years. It could have been very capable in a role similiar to the Mosquito's.

Another candidate would be the Beechcraft XA-38. This was intended to replace the A-20 and was known for it's speed, even under load. Max speed was 376mph (605kph) with a payload of 2,000lb (907kg) of bombs. This was in the works during the early stages of the war and could have been available in the role similiar to the Mosquito very easily.

I still like the XB-42-2 for a two engine Schnell bomber.

 

[SHOOTER]

Lets see the numbers shooter.

See;
Amazon.com: Buying Choices: British Piston Aero Engines

 

[Milosh]

Since the book costs an minimum of $63, does that mean you don't have the book since it is so expensive?