wuzak
Captain
Not to mention the terme of the lend-lease supply deal.
USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
- Status
Not to mention the terme of the lend-lease supply deal.
wuzak
Captain
Except not being equipped with an internal bomb bay.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Light bombers typically operate below 15,000 feet performing CAS missions. I doubt turbocharging is the answer for such an aircraft.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Agreed. An A20 or A26 seems about as close to a Mossie as America in WWII was going to go. On another note, the XB-42 Mixmaster is a beautiful plane! To whoever says otherwise, shame on you!
- Thread starter
- #26
Agreed about the Mixmaster - sheer beauty. The A-20 with, say, Packard Merlin would be a tough thing to kill for some fighters?
Depends what engines you have to design your unarmed around. If one wants V-12s, US 'natural' choice is the V-1710, and that engine was offering more power in most of the altitudes, during most of ww2 vs. the non-turbo V-1710 (even with unfortunate design of the intercoolers in the pre-P-38Js).
Depends what engines you have to design your unarmed around. If one wants V-12s, US 'natural' choice is the V-1710, and that engine was offering more power in most of the altitudes, during most of ww2 vs. the non-turbo V-1710 (even with unfortunate design of the intercoolers in the pre-P-38Js).
Last edited:
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Not sure how you get that? There is a little important variable called fuel economy.... Those big air cooled radials (and even the R-2600 was 43 litres) were real gas guzzlers, especially at the higher power settings (because they were 'hard' engines, they needed to run very rich to keep cool).
That was one of the things (there were several of course) that tipped the balance towards the P-51 in the ETO. It only needed half the fuel compared to the P-47. Much easier to cram that into it.
Then of course there are logistics as well. All that extra fuel needed means all that extra fuel has to be manufactured, shipped and stored.
In the Mossie's case it was similar. Terrific range, which was very useful for bombing, essential for PR and extremely desirable for night fighters (gave them a long loiter time, even in the intruder role). Fuel efficient engines, low drag, less fuel needed for a particular range.
Agree with Wozac in that you could do similar with the Allison (it was possibly even more economical than the Merlin), provided they could deliver the higher altitude performance.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,311
- Jun 25, 2013
To a very great extent, neither could B-17s or B-24s. When the USAAF tried it, they quickly found that it didn't work. I think you got the gist right, though: WW2-era strategic bombing, regardless of which air force was doing it, required massive numbers of bombers in formation, which largely negated the advantages an aircraft like the Mosquito could have. No air force could operationally demonstrate CEPs of less than several hundred meters with ordinary bomber crews. Specialized units, like the RAF's 617 Squadron (I'm sure there were comparable USAAF units; I just don't know their designations) could do much better, but only in small (squadron-sized) operations.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
On the other hand air cooled engines are inherently superior for low altitude CAS missions which expose the aircraft to ground fire. So you've got a trade off.
Gas guzzlers were an American tradition for both aircraft and automobiles during 1940s. Surely you don't expect us to reform and become fuel efficient.
Gas guzzlers were an American tradition for both aircraft and automobiles during 1940s. Surely you don't expect us to reform and become fuel efficient.
My post is from a know nothing novice so I will get things wrong so consider that in my post.
From everything I read I am left feeling that the Mosquito was a fantastic plane and maybe some Americans do not appreciate it as much as they should.
I also wonder if sometimes the duplication of effort between the USA and the British is production should only be done when it makes a huge amount of sense. Sometimes perhaps there is a duplication of effort when it is not needed?
The British did the bulk of the night time bombing and ran daylight Mosquito operations.
How to word this to convey what I am thinking?
I sometimes think the variety that the allies were able to throw at the Axis was an advantage.
If only high altitude bombing was done the Axis would do much more to deal with high altitude bombing.
If only fast low level bombing was done the Axis would do much more to deal with fast low level bombers.
If only medium level bombing was done the Axis would do much more to counter that.
If only night time bombing was done the Axis would focus more effort to combat that.
In the air to ground role I think of a bunch of Venn diagrams.
Suitability for target.
Can strafing damage targets A, B, C, D, and F. (A and F) can be damaged by strafing. Can A and F be damaged by bombing. "A" can be damaged by bombing as well F can also be damaged by bombing but is more difficult and maybe a waste of a bombs.
Can fighter bombers take out target B using bombs. Yes but it might take a lot of fighter bombers. Worth doing if you have the fighter bombers to spare but a medium bombers are better for the role.
What I am getting at is I see a whole lot of overlapping Venn diagrams where in some cases several types might be able to do the job but some might not be the best choice or the defenses might need to be considered just as much as the target type.
Response of the Axis.
There are many types of attacks the Allies can do in number. If the Axis is going after high altitude bombers this opens the door for low level precision strikes, if it does not open it at least cracks the door a little.
Low level strikes takes out targets that would take a huge number of high altitude bombers, it also forces the Axis to take a different approach. Requires them to build both AAA for high, medium, and low level work. Axis pilots also have to learn to deal with a variety of targets or they specialize in a target type and then are not able to concentrate defense on a specific type of target.
Specialization.
Maybe some types of aerial missions require both the British and USA to be involved in. Perhaps some aerial missions there are times when one job should be taken on by the USA and another equally important job to be taken on but the British. They are in the same war and all of these tasks need to be done but do all tasks need to be done by everyone?
What is wrong with the Mosquito being a purely British thing doing a job that helps the war effort while the Americans do something else. They are on the same side, the Mosquito missions help all the European Allies in beating the Axis. I would think increasing Canadian production would be better and if the USA needs Mosquito's let the USA buy ones built but the the British or Canadians, they were all in this together.
Looking for the next greatest thing since sliced bread.
Instead of the USA building British types and the British building USA types unless a very good reason is there to do so like the Merlin.
Instead of the the USA trying to build Mosquito's succeed for fail maybe it should focus on building the things it is good at while looking for the next greatest things since sliced bread while at the same time the British and Commonwealth build what is is tooled up and is good at while also looking for the next greatest thing since sliced bread.
The two forces do the same job when it makes sense, specialize in roles when it makes sense, build the same thing only when it make sense, specialize and produce different things when it makes sense use the other countries weapons when it makes sense.
To make a long story short maybe the Mosquito is a fantastic aircraft that contributes in a mighty way towards to war effort but maybe it should only be built by the British and Commonwealth and shared with the Americans when needed or it makes sense.
From everything I read I am left feeling that the Mosquito was a fantastic plane and maybe some Americans do not appreciate it as much as they should.
I also wonder if sometimes the duplication of effort between the USA and the British is production should only be done when it makes a huge amount of sense. Sometimes perhaps there is a duplication of effort when it is not needed?
The British did the bulk of the night time bombing and ran daylight Mosquito operations.
How to word this to convey what I am thinking?
I sometimes think the variety that the allies were able to throw at the Axis was an advantage.
If only high altitude bombing was done the Axis would do much more to deal with high altitude bombing.
If only fast low level bombing was done the Axis would do much more to deal with fast low level bombers.
If only medium level bombing was done the Axis would do much more to counter that.
If only night time bombing was done the Axis would focus more effort to combat that.
In the air to ground role I think of a bunch of Venn diagrams.
Suitability for target.
Can strafing damage targets A, B, C, D, and F. (A and F) can be damaged by strafing. Can A and F be damaged by bombing. "A" can be damaged by bombing as well F can also be damaged by bombing but is more difficult and maybe a waste of a bombs.
Can fighter bombers take out target B using bombs. Yes but it might take a lot of fighter bombers. Worth doing if you have the fighter bombers to spare but a medium bombers are better for the role.
What I am getting at is I see a whole lot of overlapping Venn diagrams where in some cases several types might be able to do the job but some might not be the best choice or the defenses might need to be considered just as much as the target type.
Response of the Axis.
There are many types of attacks the Allies can do in number. If the Axis is going after high altitude bombers this opens the door for low level precision strikes, if it does not open it at least cracks the door a little.
Low level strikes takes out targets that would take a huge number of high altitude bombers, it also forces the Axis to take a different approach. Requires them to build both AAA for high, medium, and low level work. Axis pilots also have to learn to deal with a variety of targets or they specialize in a target type and then are not able to concentrate defense on a specific type of target.
Specialization.
Maybe some types of aerial missions require both the British and USA to be involved in. Perhaps some aerial missions there are times when one job should be taken on by the USA and another equally important job to be taken on but the British. They are in the same war and all of these tasks need to be done but do all tasks need to be done by everyone?
What is wrong with the Mosquito being a purely British thing doing a job that helps the war effort while the Americans do something else. They are on the same side, the Mosquito missions help all the European Allies in beating the Axis. I would think increasing Canadian production would be better and if the USA needs Mosquito's let the USA buy ones built but the the British or Canadians, they were all in this together.
Looking for the next greatest thing since sliced bread.
Instead of the USA building British types and the British building USA types unless a very good reason is there to do so like the Merlin.
Instead of the the USA trying to build Mosquito's succeed for fail maybe it should focus on building the things it is good at while looking for the next greatest things since sliced bread while at the same time the British and Commonwealth build what is is tooled up and is good at while also looking for the next greatest thing since sliced bread.
The two forces do the same job when it makes sense, specialize in roles when it makes sense, build the same thing only when it make sense, specialize and produce different things when it makes sense use the other countries weapons when it makes sense.
To make a long story short maybe the Mosquito is a fantastic aircraft that contributes in a mighty way towards to war effort but maybe it should only be built by the British and Commonwealth and shared with the Americans when needed or it makes sense.
wuzak
Captain
On the other hand air cooled engines are inherently superior for low altitude CAS missions which expose the aircraft to ground fire. So you've got a trade off.
Gas guzzlers were an American tradition for both aircraft and automobiles during 1940s. Surely you don't expect us to reform and become fuel efficient.
You have CAS on the brain.
While the version of Mosquito built in the largest numbers, the FB.VI, was for CAS I believe that we are talking bombers.
wuzak
Captain
Which came first - the low altitude mission, or the engines that don't allow high altitude missions?
The A-20, A-26, B-25 and B-26 didn't have high altitude powerplants.
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
The originators of 'area bombing' (Churchill, Lindeman, etc) were not so squeamish, they called it terror bombing (and there was a lot of opposition to it). 'Area Bombing' was the propaganda or 'spin' version of the tactic.
Bizarrely, BC managed to achieve very good accuracy (even at night using first Gee, then Oboe, etc) by the end of the war when they wanted (though 'de-housing' still obsessed them, even way beyond it's use by date).
The RAF, though bomber obsessed (since the days of Trenchard) started the war with the intention of hitting key military targets (including oil funnily enough), when they couldn't live by day (no LR fighter) they went to night bombing, when they were lucky to hit within miles of a city.
A classic example of a tactic becoming a strategy then a dogma. Happens a lot, not just in the military. One bad decision, often originally a short term expediency forced by circumstances, takes on a life of its own. Then by the time it becomes a dominant dogma, everyone post-rationalises it, making up all sorts of nonsense to justify it. Then it takes an incredible amount of effort to unwind it.
The powers of cognitive dissonance are incredible, especially the organisational version.
Humans are incredible at sticking too and expending (right to the point of, and often beyond death) incredible amounts of energy and resources following their dogmas. A basic brain fault.
Bad organisational designs can amplify this tendency to absurd levels. In other words, no matter how non-rational an individual human can be, organisations can be far, far worse.
If high altitude had been required, engines with better superchargers or turbochargers could have been fitted. It's not like that there were no higher altitude versions around. But where would be the point in that if the aircraft keep missing their targets from 5000m up already? Why fly at 8000m?
It could also be noted that the A-20 was still faster than a B-17 at 8000m.
It could also be noted that the A-20 was still faster than a B-17 at 8000m.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
If the U.S. could have given up production capacity for, say, 5,000 B-24s to get 10,000 to 15,000 Mosquitoes, I think it would have been worth the trade. I think what made the Mosquito special is that it was so hard to duplicate everything that it did.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
CAS is the primary mission for light bombers. Just as strategic bombardment is primary mission for heavy bombers. How can you discuss an aircraft type without discussing suitability for the primary mission?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,311
- Jun 25, 2013
On the other hand air cooled engines are inherently superior for low altitude CAS missions which expose the aircraft to ground fire. So you've got a trade off.
Gas guzzlers were an American tradition for both aircraft and automobiles during 1940s. Surely you don't expect us to reform and become fuel efficient.
Radials were actually quite efficient, with cruise sfcs of 0.38 to 0.43. Recall, that pre-ww2, most radials, at least in the US were being built for airlines, for which every pound of excess fuel is money out of their pocket. Had radials been as thirsty and inefficient as some here portray them, the airlines would not have used them.
wuzak
Captain
CAS was not the primary mission for Mosquito bombers (as opposed to fighter-bombers).
And since we are talking USA Mosquito like aircraft....
Also, I don't think USAAF B-26s did CAS either.
At what year would the USA think they want the Mosquito?
What do you then use the all the tooling to make aluminum bombers?
The Merlin engines for a USA Mosquito, do they take away from Mustang production or is Mustang production not needed as much if the Mosquito is being built in the USA.
What are wood working machines in the USA doing at the time?
Would it be easier to increase Canadian production and the USA purchase Canadian Mosquito's rather them make them in the USA?
What do you then use the all the tooling to make aluminum bombers?
The Merlin engines for a USA Mosquito, do they take away from Mustang production or is Mustang production not needed as much if the Mosquito is being built in the USA.
What are wood working machines in the USA doing at the time?
Would it be easier to increase Canadian production and the USA purchase Canadian Mosquito's rather them make them in the USA?
- Status
