Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi,
I think the lowest loss rate of Allied bombers goes to the B26 Marauder. However, I am not sure if those stats would include the Mosquito, as it was such a versatile aircraft and calling it a bomber covers only a part of its operations. On the flip side of the coin, maybe they did include the Mosquito in those stats and included all variants under the generic name of "Mosquito".
river
(I think it's fair to say from '45 - '65 the orthodoxy was as per the Mossie way, high fast as opposed to the later under the radar necessity of very low a lot more slow).
The generals who thought high and fast was the way to go didn't appreciate that the game had changed since WW II. Unless you electronics were better than the defenders, attacking bombers couldn't fly higher or faster than ground based missiles. Since bombers were taking longer to develop than either fighters or missiles the bombers almost never managed to actually outfly the defenders in those decades, no matter what the "next generation"promised. Good EW changed things enough to make it somewhat workable.
watched the same show I believe which was aired on PBS , IIRC in the 50's the RAF was given the more daunting tasks in to recce work on the WARPAC using CanberrasI wouldn't go along with this for the 50's and 60's. The Canberra is probably the best example of an aircraft that could and did fly over Russia with no losses. There was a TV series a couple of years ago about the unadmitted flights over the Soviet block and the most interesting was an interview with an RAF crew. They were asked to fly over a Russian research station they said yes and then found that it was only 50 miles from Moscow and they would have to do it in daylight. They did the misson and described seeing russian fighters trying to get to their altitude and failing, as well as some missile that were fired but were deflected by their counter measures.
Some RAF crews flew US aircraft but these did suffer some losses. I cannot remember the type, but it wasn't a usual one about the size as a Canberra but with four engines. Any ideas welcome from anyone
They couldn't very well put in any pictures of Mosquitos that were badly damaged that didn't make it home, could they?
An analogy could be made on the premise that dolphins are likely to help injured swimmers because there are stories told by said injured swimmers of dolphins pushing them to shore. For all we know, 99% of the injured swimmers encountered by dolphins are either pulled under or pushed out to sea, but we never hear about THOSE swimmers' experiences.
Likewise, some pictures of heavily damaged Mosquitos might represent the exception rather than the rule. We don't have pictures of a Mosquito burning up from a single 7.7mm incendiary round and crashing into the North Sea because only survivors were photographed.
also aluminium has a "memory" you can only stress it so many times before it cracks, the bonded wooden sandwich has very good stress resistance due to the area it is bonded over, but the down side is lifespan due to degradation in the older style bonding agents, this however was no real problem in ETO as the lifespan of the glues was greater than the expected operational life of the aircraft.
it's no accident that most modern aircraft use sandwich composites in thier construction, albeit with more modern materials and epoxies!
I think it would depend on the size of the damage. I do know most aircraft have a repair manual that would give limits for repairs, the Mossie being no exception. I've worked on some wood aircraft that have pretty precise limits for damage and repairs. I'm sure de Havilland came up with a methodology to assess repairs and their limits.yeah thats true, I assume damaged areas were replaced rather than repaired back then? can't see it being practical or advisable to fillet in repairs to a wing etc?
I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.
For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.
I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.
For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.
I'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.
For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.
read a book about a guy whu used both the P38 and Mosquito in his busuness of aerial surveys of the north , he preffered the Mossquito over the 38 because it was far easier to keep in the air (far less snags) particularly as he and his photo guy were resposible for the maintainence in places far away from normal facilities, His major complaint on the Mosquito was lack of hydraulic resovoir (vey scary with runaway prop) and he called the turbo or supercharge system of P38 very labour intensive . Can't really knock this guys opinions as he flew 1000's of hours in bothI'm sorry, but I don't get all the Mosquito praise, especially the "high and fast" stuff.
The P-38 was more powerful, faster, had a higher service ceiling and a longer range. It could carry 3,200 pound of bombs to the Mosquio's 4,000 pounds, but that seems to be the only spec where the Mosquito beat the P-38 except for wing loading at normal takeoff weight. Of course, teh P-38 also had maneuvering flaps to help with that.
I'd take a P-38 any day, even for photo recc due to higher, faster, and longer-range specs. The longer-range specs were duw to the Allison having better fuel consumption than a Merlin.
For reference, I used a Mosquito B.IV and a P-38J for the comparison.
read a book about a guy whu used both the P38 and Mosquito in his busuness of aerial surveys of the north ,