USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

Exactly, that's the key point, the 'opportunity cost' of not doing it.
 

The US, just like the UK had lots of woodworking people and resources sidelined (from the furniture industry, etc), these could, as per the UK, be easily put onto production. Like the Mustang, the Mossie was deliberately designed for easy mass (and distributed) construction. In fact both the Mossie and Mustang shad quite a few construction techniques in common (something I had never realised until I got a book that showed the Mustang production lines, when I went "now where have a seen that before", I then went to my Mossy books). DH and NA were very clever.

Merlins were more of an issue. But it is a chicken and egg thing, if there was more demand then the US would have created more production. For example, the US Govt could have simply ordered Ford US to make them (as Ford UK was by the UK Govt). The US was not short of manufacturing resources. Another option was the reduced demand for R-2600 (etc) could have meant those manufacturers could have made them.

Packard had done the heavy lifting of setting up US manufacturing equipment and procedures to make them, from then on it was a copying job, much easier.
What made have made that easier was that the majority of Mossies were FB VIs and you would expect a similar mix for US usage, and they used the 2 speed Merlins, not the 2 stage ones.
Heck, worse comes to worse they could have shut down the V-1710 production and converted them to Merlin lines.

So they had a lot of options to build up the production.

Edited to add: The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base.
 
Last edited:
"..The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base."

11 million people in Canada in December, 1941, when the USA joined the war.
 
How about an earlier Twin Mustang being used for some of the Mossies roles with the power and extra wing it should have been able to lift a good size load, though obviously externally.
 
OldSkeptic said:
The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base.
Click to expand...

Its astonishing what Canada manufactured nearly a million trucks and armoured vehicles, thousands of planes, hundreds of warships and everything else they churned out. Canada more than pulled its weight in the manufacturing war and I will always argue that one of the great war winning weapons for the Commonwealth was the Canadian Military Pattern truck without it Tanks, planes, artillery and soldiers dont move or fight.

Canada you guys can be rightly proud of your role in both world wars
 

For a radial engined bomber to cruise on same speed as the inline-engined bomber, it must use more HP. Say, 1200 HP vs. 1000? Now we multiply that power with sfc, and radial engine will suck 20% more fuel for the same mileage covered. The A-20G (late, RAF's Boston IV) was cruising between 205 and 275 mph at 15000 ft (using up to 1200 HP), on 605 imp gals and with 2000 lbs of bombs it was credited with range of 1530 miles. The Mossie Mk. IV carried the same bomb load, but with 536 imp gals of fuel, while cruising between 265 and 320 mph (using up to 1010 HP). Range was between 1360 and 1620 miles (depending on speed).
US pre-ww2 airlines did not have choice - there was no in-line engine to fit their needs.

Rufus123 said:
At what year would the USA think they want the Mosquito?
Click to expand...

The OP states a "Mosquito-like bomber", no the Mosquito itself...

What do you then use the all the tooling to make aluminum bombers?
Click to expand...

...that is built either from aluminium or wood.

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.
Click to expand...

It is good if they can use Packard Merlin, but V-1710 will do.

What are wood working machines in the USA doing at the time?
Click to expand...

They can build, say, a wooden transport aircraft.

Would it be easier to increase Canadian production and the USA purchase Canadian Mosquito's rather them make them in the USA?
Click to expand...

The OP states US as a producer, and the USA was in position to build a V-12 powered bomber already in 1940, if they founded they need one.
 
Last edited:
BTW, the Boston IV fully bombed- and fueled up weighted 26000 lbs, taking 1500 ft to clear the 50 ft obstacle at take-off. The Mossie B.IV from the previous post weighted less tha 21500 lbs, taking 840 ft to do the same.

OldSkeptic said:
...
Heck, worse comes to worse they could have shut down the V-1710 production and converted them to Merlin lines.

...
Click to expand...

That would be easier said than done. And unnecessary - the V-1710 (single stage) powered bomber would've have plenty of take off power by mid 1942 anyway, 1325 HP vs 1300 of the Merlin 21 (the one in Mossie B.VI) and V-1650-1.
 
Last edited:
I really don't know why you keep insisting that radials are worse than inlines. In fact, by leaving out the water, radials do not require the same cooling area and in theory are less draggy than inlines. The rest is simply a design question - the practical application of the theory - which was increasingly better solved as the war went on.
 
I am not insisting that radials are worse than inlines. Actually, if you read the thread about the early R-2800 fighter, you may notice that.
There are some areas where one engines are better than another, but much is determined by what a specific country designes/produces better. Say, Japan was better served with radials, Germany and the UK were better served with inlines. USA can throw capable engines in both categories, SU is somewhat lagging behind.

In fact, by leaving out the water, radials do not require the same cooling area and in theory are less draggy than inlines.
Click to expand...

Airplanes were by far, the practical machines, and it was far easier to achieve better performance when using in-lines. Or, for the same cruise speed, inline-engined airframe will require less fuel, that means a smaller airframe (=further drag reduction), that will further either increase speed or range. Further, few countries have had the well executed usage of exhaust gasses prior mid-war, contrary to the inlines that got that mostly right when ww2 started.
We may compare the Fw-190A-9 and 190D-9, the D-9 was faster despite the smart installation of the more powerful BMW-801S.

The rest is simply a design question - the practical application of the theory - which was increasingly better solved as the war went on.
Click to expand...

It would be fair to say that inline engines' installations went more streamlined as the war moved on, too.
 
The D-9 was longer than the A-8. That alone improves the aircrafts aerodynamics. I only know the data for the TS engine, the D-9 achieves the same speed at ~5% less power. That's comparing an improvised in-line with a pre-war radial installation, at top speed.

If you look at bombers that flew with both radial and in-line engine of comparable power at same fuel load (Lancaster, Halifax, Do 217 come to mind), you'll find that the range differences are hardly anywhere near 20%.

How many commercial airlines went with liquid cooled in-lines after WW2?
 

Only a particularly poorly designed radial installation would result in 20% more overall airframe drag. Except for the P-51, there was very little difference in overall airframe drag, as expressed by Cd,0​, between radial-engined and V-12 engined military aircraft. Comparing the performance of disparate aircraft and attributing it to whether the engine is cooled directly or indirectly by air is specious.
 
I was not comparing disparate aircraft, the A-20 and Mosquito were pretty close in size. I do admit that it would've be nice to asses what would be a two-stage Twin Wasp powered A-20 capable for.


At 6,4 km in, the A-9 has circa 1670 PS, making 660-665 km/h. At same altitude, the D-9 has 1480 PS (both values are with ram) when using Steig Kampfleistung, making same speed. So with 11% less power, the D-9 is as fast.

If you look at bombers that flew with both radial and in-line engine of comparable power at same fuel load (Lancaster, Halifax, Do 217 come to mind), you'll find that the range differences are hardly anywhere near 20%.
Click to expand...

All of those aircraft were having plenty of drag inducing items, like thick wings, turrets and single guns protruding - unlike Mosquito. Any reduction in drag, provided by use of an inline engine vs. radial should be negligible.

How many commercial airlines went with liquid cooled in-lines after WW2?
Click to expand...

With all those surplus C-47s/DC-3s, there was no way that any new piston engine will make a lasting impression on the late 1940's airlines, unless it brings new power levels to the table. Then we have a fact that most of the newly-built commercial planes were US-made - and a sole contender vs. R-2800/R-3350, the V-3420, never actually made it. So it was either of those 2000+ HP 18-cylinders, or none. Griffon, for example, was not an option for the US-built airliner.
 

Hear, hear, well said. I hate how the Canadians, Poles, Australians, et al have been written out of WW2 history. For example; the amount of non-Canadian people that know they had a whole beach landing to themselves (the US and UK had 2 each ) could be written on a back of postage stamp.
 
If I am intruding stupidly will someone please just respond with a 'No' to this. Then i'll get my coat.

Since radial and inline are as much about cooling as anything else it seems appropriate to look for the answer to these riddles (why did de Haviland choose an inline engine? is such an engine esssential to the Mosquito concept?) in temperature. Specifically the temperature of the lubricant. That is to say, i think engine temperature would be a limit to the schnell bomber engine plan choice. On the other hand if air cooled engines can keep the lubricant within its temperature limits at the least favourable combination of speed, altitude and power demand then no such constraint on engine choice would apply.

To explain : elsewhere on the site I read that an increase in airspeed generally occurs with the cube root of the power. So to go from a 'standard' bomber design to a schnell bomber in this case might for example in 'fast cruise' be a matter of 305mph/276mph to the power of 3 - 1.35 that is to say we require 35% more power for 10% more speed, or at 'schnell escape' maximum speed possibly 405/276 3.15 times more power required for 46% more speed. Substitute more realistic number please if you will, i'm only illustrating a principle. The more power is produced the more heat must be removed - like 3 times as much. i believe that as temperature approaches the lubricant design limits, as shear stresses increase between moving parts and as 'hystersis' type mechanical flexing losses increase then power out vs power produced internally would be a worse than linear progression. So for a Schnell bomber on a mission more than 3 - possibly 4 or 5 times as much heat would have to be removed as for a conventional bomber on the same mission.

Taken together that implies that for any given lubricant technology - provided that it is a limiting factor on engine performance limits:
An airliner (or a bomber flying a 'self protected or escorted' mission plan) will mostly fly at close to the most efficient cruising speed - air cooling will tend to be better. A schnell bomber must stress the engine to nearer it's limits routinely - liquid cooling will tend to be better.

I hope that makes sense - the implication would be that a US Mosquito will need a preferably Merlin in line liquid cooled engines for missions in Europe, but for long range missions in the Pacific - the schnell bomber concept may not work.

This argument all stemmed from looking at the V1710, V1650 and R 2600 specs on wikipedia - the stand out difference figure being kW/L or hp/cubic inch - specific power, youd need to explain why the SP for the radial was so much lower - my hunch was internal losses.
 
Didn't the Canadians on Juno progress the furthest inland from the beaches on D-day?

Juno, a 6-mile (9.7 km) stretch of shoreline between La Rivière to the west and Saint-Aubin to the east, was assigned to the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division (3rd CID), commanded by Major-General Rodney Keller. Juno included the villages of Courseulles and Bernières.
 
It's not the best idea to use high altitude performance as a reference, where a large part of the drag is induced. Try using an A-5 without outer wing guns, it's got at least a similar weight and armament. Fact is that Focke Wulf estimated the the BMW installation on the A-9 to produce ~30% more drag than the Jumo 213A on the D-9 with radiators in minimum drag position. This mostly comes from cooling drag. However, the engine related drag is only 15% of the cd0, and therefore you're down to 4.5% engine related for the total. With radiator open, the total difference is less, and given that the other drag components should not change, engine drag is in the same ball park. The Jumo 213E installation on the Ta 152H produced more drag than the engine installation on both A-9 and D-9. So, for generalisation, what do you want to use? The in-line that is better or the in-line that is just as good or the in-line that is worse?

The British built commercial airliners with in-lines, and unsuccessfully competed with US models. The Soviets built commercial air liners, and used radials. It's not even remotely true that all post war airlines operated WW2 leftover US junk and part of the reason the newly build US planes were as successful as they were is the choice of engine.

Boston III compared to Mosquito, according to British sources, the A-20 was about 20% draggier than a clean Mosquito, with about 10% being attributed to engine drag, surface finish and turrets each. Mosquito lost 10% in drag from unknown sources, hence the 20% difference in the end. At the same time, two of the most modern British engine installations on Tempest V and Tempest II, are nearly completely equal in drag, as are engine installations on Fw 190A and Spitfire IX.
 
We might take a look at fuel consumption figures in order to approach closer to the answer, at least one of them. On maximum continuous power:
-R-2600-23: 145 US gals for 1275 HP at 11800 ft
-V-1650-1: 93 gals for 1010 HP at 16000 ft
-V-1710-39: 103 gals for 1000 HP at 15000 ft
-V-1710-49 (for P-38F): 100 gals for 1000 HP, from 0-27000 ft
-V-1710-89 (for P-38H): 115 gals for 1100 HP, from 0-26000 ft

On maximum power at lean mixture:
-R-2600-23: 70 gals for 855 HP at 18200 ft
-V-1650-1: 53 gals for 758 HP at 16000 ft
-V-1710-39: 45 gals for 600 HP at 15000 ft; V-1710-63: 58 gals for 760 HP at 12200 ft
-V-1710-49: 49 gals for 670 HP, from 0-30000 ft
-V-1710-89: 60 gals for 795 HP, from 0-30000 ft

Does not seem like the R-2600 have had anything above those in-lines as far as specific fuel consumption is the topic. It will use 0.11 gals to make 1 hp, vs. 0.092 for the Packard Merlin, and vs. 0.10 for the turbo V-1710 on max cont power. On max lean, 0.082, vs. 0.07, vs. 0.0755 for the turbo V-1710. The single stage V-1710 will consume 0.103 for max cont; 0.075 or 0.0763 for max lean.

Now before people say: the R-2600 will produce more power, so the plane will go faster - the quirk is that R-2600 was one of the draggiest engines in the ww2, and that will consume much of the excess power. It also has no exhaust thrust worth speaking about, since the exhausts were routed into collector pipes, the gases ejected downward in historic planes it powered. That should add some thrust to the props for the V-12s listed here (10%?). That, combined with extra drag of the radial, all but cancels any deficit in power, while the radial's extra consumption remains. More fuel calls for a bigger plane, that either slows it vs. a smaller, or calls for a more powerful engine, that consumes more, and so on - the weight spiral goes up.
 
OldSkeptic said:
Edited to add: The Canadians did an incredible (and nearly always forgotten) job, but like the British they were (by 43 onwards) running out of people. Remember they had a much smaller population and industrial base.
Click to expand...

The Canadian factory already has experienced people working on the Mosquito. It might be still easier to expand production there even with a labor shortage.

Like the USA Canada is not being bombed. It might even make sense to move some of the production people from Britain to Canada if there is a fear that Germany could ever attack production. Also I am sure it can be arranged if needed that US citizens could be hired to go work on Mosquito production.

I see nothing wrong with a Canadian Mosquito factory having 70% Canadians, 15% British, and 15% Americans working on planes in Canada.

I think to answer some of these questions we would need to build a production possibilities curve based on both capital (machines) and human inputs, as well as materials and try and guess at the relative merits of the items produced.

I just don't have the inputs nor the shape of the transferability curves.

Since they are already sunk costs and we would be trying to find best utility the utility will have to be calculated (well, best guess) at the margin.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Are HVAR and RP-3 usable in air to air combat against bomber?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Dimlee
Dive-bomber crew skills
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Thumpalumpacus
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
W
Air Traffic Control - Bomber Command
Replies
9
Views
959
EwenS
E
S
Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
NZTyphoon
Menu
Log in
Register