Since the highly streamlined bomb was well in hand during WW-I, not to mention the tallboy and grand slam of WW-II, this seems like a very easy way to go!
Yep, wait for 20+ years to have a bomber with lower performance than the Mosquito.
Apart from the length of the Mk 84 bomb, two could fit inside the Mosquito's bomb bay.
USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
wuzak
Captain
1370 mile range was with 2 500lb bombs under the wings. Thus only internal fuel was available. The maximum internal fuel for a B.XVI was 536 UK gallons, but with the 5000lb bomb load only 500 UKG was used for the 1370 mile range. Perhaps because of MTO weight considerations.
For maximum fuel (536 UKG internal plus 2 x 50 UKG in drop tanks) the range was 1795 miles with 2000lb bomb load.
For maximum fuel (536 UKG internal plus 2 x 50 UKG in drop tanks) the range was 1795 miles with 2000lb bomb load.
wuzak
Captain
External bombs and carriers still create more drag than internal bombs. Plus the P-38 couldn't then use the drop tanks for extended range.
wuzak
Captain
I got the number from Tomo's post which you quoted.
I doubt that it was measured on an aircraft. It was, most probably, measured in the test cell.
There were small differences between the Packard Merlin and the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Notably the Packard engines had an epicyclic gear train (designed by Wright) to drive the supercharger, whereas the Rolls-Royce Merlin used the Farman type gear set.
The only figures that I've ever seen printed in books that show more than 2000 HP are for the post war Hornets at 2,050/2,080 HP depending on the model. I then compare that the P-51H's 2,220HP which was an "in service" late war time, production engine with a 1000 hour TBO, not approached by the post war Hornets.The P-82 with Allisons was a post WW2 aircraftTrue. while AFAIK the Packard Merlin V-1650-7 used in production P-51s generated a maximum of 1,860 hp on 100/150 grade avgasNews to me, I thought it was 1,595 HP? But it does not change anything.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/engcleared-matcom-b.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/44-1_Fuel-16March44.pdf
The Merlin 66 used in Spitfire L.F Mk IXs generated 2,000 hp on 100/150 grade avgas:I did not know that! Honestly, it is news to me. Everything I've read stated 1,720 HP and then only in short life engines. See the relevant pages in Janes, both during and post war.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="120px" width="160px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
The second part of the argument is that the Two stage Alison was a terrible engine WO the "fixes" inlet backfire screens, etc. Read Edgar Schmued's book "Mustang Designer" in which he details the effects of the fixes they installed WO Alison approval to prove the problems were not with the plane, but all Alison-GM's! Note that the extra power, 2,300 to 2,220 HP, provided by the Alison engine made the much heavier and huge pod equipped night fighter almost as fast as the A-B models WO the pod!
wuzak
Captain
These were basically the same over all versions - so why would they make a difference in performance between marks?
Huh?
Some did, some did not.
B.XVI, PR.XVI did. B.IV, FB.VI did not.
I doubt that any mission was performed with aircraft flying at the same speed throughout.
Missions were generally planned around the aircraft - how far they could fly, or how much load could they carry to get the distance.
wuzak
Captain
Merlin 66, 100/130 grade fuel.
MS Gear: 1750hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 5250ft.
FS Gear: 1625hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 12,500ft.
Merlin 66, 100/150 grade fuel.
MS Gear: 2000hp, 3000rpm, +25psi boost, 5250ft.
FS Gear: 1860hp, 3000rpm, +25psi boost, 11,000ft.
Merlin 76/77, 100/130 grade fuel.
MS Gear: 1700hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 10,500ft.
FS Gear: 1475hp, 3000rpm, +18psi boost, 22,500ft.
Merlin 76/77, 100/150 grade fuel.
FS Gear: 1940hp, 3000rpm, +25psi boost, 5500ft.
Data from Lumsden.
What is your source for TBOs?
In 1943 Rolls-Royce ran a Merlin 66 for 100 hours continuously, having strengethened components after previous tests, at +18psi and 3000rpm. This became the basis of 100 series Merlines - including the V-1650-9.
wuzak
Captain
Data at war emergency rating with water injection at 3000 rpm.
Code:
Altitude Ft. TAS MP Throttle
MPH "Hg Blower Setting
S.L. 401 90 Low Part
*6800 431 90 Low W. O.
**13400 423 90 High Part
***21200 451 90 High W. O.
25000 448 78 High W. O.* Low Blower Critical Altitude for 90" Hg., MP
** Altitude for Blower Shift.
*** High Blower Critical Altitude for 90" Hg., MP.
P-51H Performance Test
90" Hg = +30psi boost.
wuzak
Captain
As to accuracy, the Garand is required to pass a 2.5 MOA test before acceptance into service. A feat that most "Tweaked" Enfields can not match. Major service conditioning, similar to what we call the "National Match", or Sniper rifle Mods, yields a a 1.6 MOA rifle with service ammo and a 1.25 MOA rifle with the 172 grain sniper ammo. This from WW-II testing and acceptance trials. I've seen WW-II issue Enfields with perfect and bright bores that could not shoot 6.6 MOA groups with service ammo. They had loose bolts, but were as new condition still in the wrapper. I have seen others that would shoot under 3 MOA, but they were very few and far between. IIRC, the Enfield Service acceptance standard was 5 MOA by the trained soldier?
I remember an old saying that went sort of like this; The Germans build rifles to parade with, the Americans build rifles to shoot targets with and the English build rifles to fight wars with. This in reference to bolt action rifles. This was in reference to the fact the German's rifles were shinny and the Americans were the most accurate, but the Enfield's the fastest firing. The Enfield's problem was the rear lugged bolt which was used to get around the Mauser Patents. This made fitting the bolt in both the right face space and alignment almost impossible in a production gun. In addition the bolt had substantial flexion when fired. While a master gunsmith could take selected rifles with the right bolt fitment and turn them into a decent sniper rifle, the Ruski's thought their Myosin Nagant and Dragenofs were great too. Until they had to fire a long range match Vs the M-14NM/21, M-16, M24/40, all sub-MOA, all the time.
As an aside, if you, or any other member of this board ever get to this part of the world, come by and I'll take you shooting with all eight of my battle-sniper rifles. Two M-14s, a DPMS LR-308, A Remington 700 SSFS in .300RUM, a Savage 112M in 22-250, A 4
Just a question since Wiki lists the total available fuel as 615-715 gallons, including 2X50, or 2X100 gallon drop tanks making 515 gallons internal fuel. But I suppose that there were many variations between the first and last of any given type? The source I found gives the 1795 mile range with two 100 gallon drop tanks, but did not spec the internal fuel load. But again, it's on the internet, so it must be right? Sarcasm X 2! I would like to see a post war pilots manual with flight planning data.
The late model P-38 had four hard points on the wings and bombs could go on the outer ones, or vice verse.
All true!
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. 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.
Secondly, was the 100 Series Merlin used during the war?
How do you square this with 487 MPH at 25,000' from all the books and the Pilot's Manual?
Just a question regarding sources and data?
Shooter, is Wiki your number one source? You source it often...
NEAT! Where did you get these numbers? I must be very out of date as to current research and publication because this is the first time I've seen these figures. Some years ago, I spent two months in the Research Library at the Museum of the USAF in Dayton Ohio.
See; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg
For the performance curves that are quoted in most books. It is the same basic web site as the figures above, but later on the P-51H page near the bottom. It shows 487 MPH at 9,530 pounds. ( 255 Gallons of gas and 2,060 rounds of .50 Cal.)
Yes, just because it is so easy! When arguing on line, having a quotable source seems to trump memory from what I read in the past. Wiki has it's problems, but it also has great strengths, like ease of use, broad base of knowledge and in some cases great Notation! I always balk at objections against Wiki when they do not also attack the sources and notes listed in the better and more popular articles.
So you now have published figures, from a 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:
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.
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.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
- Status
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)