wuzak
Captain
Yes, but how far could they carry them? What was their performance?
B-17s did carry 2 x 4,500lb "Disney" bombs in 4 missions, the longest being to Hamburg. Did they use the external racks at other times?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The B-17 had two external racks (one under each wing) that could accommodate up to a 4,000 pound bomb (per rack).
That is for sure - looking at crew numbers a B-17 carries ten and includes two pilots.
Mosquito two crew with one pilot. That means you can crew two mossies with 6 left overs from one B-17 crew. One of the B-17 crew would need to be retrained as a Navigator and that would be a problem unless they used the USAAF lead navigator idea to get them on target as then the radio operator can get them home (as often happened in real life)
I don't see the operation of the radio a big deal, bomb aiming, another story.There was a navigator on the B-17 crew, so that would be transferrable. Transferring to the Mosquito, he would have to be trained as a radio operator and in bomb aiming for altitude missions.
In the Mosquito, Bomb aiming at low altitude was done by the pilot.
The radio operator took in information concerning things that changed after the mission started. If the target was obscured by cloud and you had to switch for example then you need a new course to a secondary target.I don't see the operation of the radio a big deal, bomb aiming, another story.
And that can be easily handled by the pilot and during flight training one of the major things learned during navigation (while in flight training) is course deviation.The radio operator took in information concerning things that changed after the mission started. If the target was obscured by cloud and you had to switch for example then you need a new course to a secondary target.
Over enemy held territory, avoiding major flak and enemy airfield risks? Bill Runnels said that fighter escorts used to ask for a "fix" heading when they departed the bombers, after flying for hours over clouds where you are is a calculation and a probability, not a fact. The discussion frequently involves all that a Mosquito did. To avoid enemy A/C at high or low level Mosquitos changed direction often. Accurate bombing includes statistics from bombing by electronic aids, those are operated by the co pilot.And that can be easily handled by the pilot and during flight training one of the major things learned during navigation (while in flight training) is course deviation.
Yes -Over enemy held territory, avoiding major flak and enemy airfield risks?
Although it is, but if you know how to "dead reckoning" (which was the standard method of navigation) you should be OK. Getting a "fix" from another aircraft is other plus as well as using LF nav aids to follow an AM frequency. Operations in the Pacific involved a lot of "DR" and sometimes pilots didn't have the luxury of a radio aid.Bill Runnels said that fighter escorts used to ask for a "fix" heading when they departed the bombers, after flying for hours over clouds where you are is a calculation and a probability, not a fact.
Yes and agree, but many of these tasks can be done by a single pilot, and many times they were, but as stated, the additional crewman takes a lot of the workload off the pilot. Going back to the original point - aside from performing bomb aimer duties, I don't think it would take much to take the average B-17 navigator of the day and train him up to fly second crewmember in a Mosquito.The discussion frequently involves all that a Mosquito did. To avoid enemy A/C at high or low level Mosquitos changed direction often. Accurate bombing includes statistics from bombing by electronic aids, those are operated by the co pilot.
I agree and the same with the bomb aimer or radio op from the B-17. Bomb aimers had at least basic nav abilities and enough technical background to learn the radios reasonably easily.Yes and agree, but many of these tasks can be done by a single pilot, and many times they were, but as stated, the additional crewman takes a lot of the workload off the pilot. Going back to the original point - aside from performing bomb aimer duties, I don't think it would take much to take the average B-17 navigator of the day and train him up to fly second crewmember in a Mosquito.
They used them on quite a few missions into France and the low countries.Yes, but how far could they carry them? What was their performance?
B-17s did carry 2 x 4,500lb "Disney" bombs in 4 missions, the longest being to Hamburg. Did they use the external racks at other times?
Ok, found the thread.Yes, but how far could they carry them? What was their performance?
B-17s did carry 2 x 4,500lb "Disney" bombs in 4 missions, the longest being to Hamburg. Did they use the external racks at other times?
IIRC I think the B-17 had about a 200 mile radius with full internal bomb load and external racks (17,600 lb)
The B-17 could carry six 1,600 pound bombs internally, so two 4,000lb external bombs would have had to be for a specialty mission.
The external racks were designed for 1,000, 1,600, 2,000 and 4,000 pound bombs.
If the B-17 were only carrying two 4,000 pound bombs (and no internal ordnance), it's range would have been close to an 800 mile radius.
Let's be careful here. Mosquitoes flew low-altitude day bombing missions. In 1942/1943, they flewI would agree with that but the Mosquito bombing at low altitude is far more accurate than the B-17 can ever be.
The B-17 was rated at 1,000 mile radius with a 6,000lb internal loadout.Yes, missions where bomb sizes up to 2,000lb aren't big enough.
I am not so sure about the 800 mile radius. First, the extra drag would have an effect. And second, I thought missions of 800 mile radius had no more than 5-6,000lb bombs internally?
Let's be careful here. Mosquitoes flew low-altitude day bombing missions. In 1942/1943, they flew
726 day day bombing sorties, often deep into Germany. They lost 48 aircraft, for a total loss rate of a quite substantial 6.6%. The Mosquito has an excellent mission survival rate because they stopped doing this.
With a two-stage supercharger and the bulged bomb bay, a Mosquito could exceed 400mph with the 4,000lb cookie, at 30,000ft. It exceeded 400mph by more, after it dropped the 4,000lb cookie. Until very late in the way, Germans fighters could not do anywhere near 400mph at 30,000ft, so Mosquitoes were fairly safe from fighters.
The 4,000lb cookie was just a big can. Was anybody developing a powerful bomb that could be dropped accurately, and mounted into a Mosquito
Let's be careful here. Mosquitoes flew low-altitude day bombing missions. In 1942/1943, they flew
726 day day bombing sorties, often deep into Germany. They lost 48 aircraft, for a total loss rate of a quite substantial 6.6%. The Mosquito has an excellent mission survival rate because they stopped doing this.
With a two-stage supercharger and the bulged bomb bay, a Mosquito could exceed 400mph with the 4,000lb cookie, at 30,000ft. It exceeded 400mph by more, after it dropped the 4,000lb cookie. Until very late in the way, Germans fighters could not do anywhere near 400mph at 30,000ft, so Mosquitoes were fairly safe from fighters. The 4,000lb cookie was just a big can. Was anybody developing a powerful bomb that could be dropped accurately, and mounted into a Mosquito?
The old, single stage supercharger Mosquitoes were faster than the two-stage supercharger Mosquitoes at low altitude, which is one of the reasons they kept building them. A fighter plane like a Spitfire or a Mustang requires high performance anywhere from sea level to 40,000ft. A bomber like a Mosquito, needs to be fast at its intended altitude, 30,000ft, or 1,000ft. All the other altitudes do not matter.
Considering the survivability and comparable bomb loads,would we have been far better off with the former? Would we even have built the lumbering Liberator had we had thousands of these?