If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
When they compared the Mosquito to the Marauder, they went with
the Marauder, And for that I sincerely thank them all. yep, it was definitely just what the air corps needed, for its style of attack. v/r Gordon |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Geoffrey Sinclair" writes: Peter Stickney wrote in message ... I just double checked, he numbers I gave are a bit muddied-up, too. I've two Pilot's Handbooks for the Mosquito, one for the FB.6 (Fighter-Bomber) from 1950, and one for the various single-stage Merlin Night Fighters, published in 1945. The numbers I quoted were from the FB.6 handbook, and the NF.12 handbook is different. The NF.12 book lists best cruise as 220 mph IAS, which is nudging 330 TAS at 25,000'. and 360 TAS at 30,000'. It's possible that the FB.6 numbers are for an airplane carrying external bombs and rockets, but it doesn't say. Sounds like the time to add the information from the book Mosquito by Sharpe and Bowyer. The FB6 used Merlin 21/22/23/25, the NF12 merlin 21/23. True, but, in the case of long range cruise, irrelevant. The Merlin XX/20 series were essentially identical in anything other than the Combat Emergency (5 Minute) Ratings. Merlin 21 & 23 were rated at 3000RPM/+14 in Low Blower, and 3000RPM/+14 in High Blower, corresponding to Horsepowers and altitudes of 1460 HP at 6250' and 1435 HP at 11500', repectively. The Merlin 25 was rated for 3000RPM/+18 in both gears, giving 1640HP @ 2000', and 1550HP @ 9500'. Climb Power (2850 RPM/+9) and Continuous Power (2650RPM/+7) ratings were the same for all angines. Well, with one variation - Merlin 21s had a Max Lean Mixture power setting of 2650 RPM/+4, and the later engines had a Max Lean rating of 2650R/+7, due to better carburation. In the case of cruise speeds, the particualr engine mark is irrelevant. (And as far as the RAF was concerned, the F.Mk II, NF. Mk XII/XIII, and NF Mk XVII were interchangable. Appendix 8, performance of the B35 (merlin 114) versus the FB6 (merlin 25). B35, 22,000 pounds, bomb load 1,500 pounds including 2 x 500 pounds bombs under the wings, 539 gallons of fuel, still air range 1,600 miles at 25,000 feet at 300 mph TAS, 1,250 miles at 37,000 feet at 375 mph TAS. Top speed 425 mph at 30,500 feet. FB6 21,700 pounds, bomb load 1,500 pounds including 2 x 500 pounds bombs under the wings, 453 gallons of fuel, still air range 1,120 miles at sea level at 250 mph TAS, 960 miles at sea level at 296 mph TAS. Top speed 378 mph at 13,200 feet. The Merlin 72/73 or 76/77 versions (VII, IX and XIV) outward recommended cruising speed 220 mph IAS, economic cruise in clean condition was 295 mph TAS at 20,000 feet and 350 mph at 30,000+ feet, maximum continuous cruising, clean, 349 mph TAS at 20,000 feet, 378 mph TAS at 30,000 feet. For the merlin 21/22/23/31 equipped versions maximum continuous cruise was 341 mph TAS at 20,000 feet but this fell to 329 mph at 25,000 feet, I assume in clean condition. Again outward bound recommended cruise was 220 mph IAS at around 25,000 feet. The return flight recommendation was for around a 5% reduction in cruise speed compared with outbound, 210 mph IAS. As I explained in my other post in this thread tonight, the differnence in Cruise True Airspeeds is due to the higher critical altitudes of the two-stage (60, 70, and 100 series) engines. The Cruise IAS stays the same. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: John Halliwell Date: 7/17/03 3:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time All it needed was enough speed to hold a single seat fighter at bay long enough for the latter to run out of fuel (having already had to climb to altitude at full throttle). In this case, short bursts of extra speed were significant. Especially if there was a cloud nearby. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Hienze Knocke (sp?), however, demonstrated by his successful low-altitude interception of a Mossie, that if the Mossie used stereotyped tactics once too often, an experienced Luftwaffe pilot could, with the proper tactics and positioning, exploit that lapse even while flying a standard, unmodified aircraft. ....although I can't find a missing Mosquito for the claim made by Knoke, I think its likely to some day be found that he either got the date wrong (as he certainly did in other places of his book) or the Mosquito he claimed equates to some other a/c type, or finally, it WAS a Mosquito, but from an unconventional source (since it doesn't turn up as a loss from a normal squadron). Wise mossie pilots varied their flight profiles on a regular basis. Same is true of F-117 pilots. I've read that the only German interceptor which reliably had a decent chance at intercepting the Mossie was the Me-262, which had the speed capability from level flight to run down a Mossie from behind. I call that "Chapter 6". Two years ago, I was honored to host the first postwar reunion for Kdo Welter, so I will have to agree with your view, coincidentally shared by Galland and several others, like Speer and that rat-fink Goebbels. The Swallow's good climb rate to altitude and even higher cruising speed made an interception of a Mossie a less problematical affair, with the proviso that an alert mossie crew could generally easily maneuver inside the Me's turning circle long enough to locate cloud cover or to cause the Me to have to rtb in consideration of fuel usage. It was even more of a challenge under the stars. v/r Gordon Stormbirds.com/recon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Aircrew "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?" "Nothing but my forehead, sir." |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
If I were a Luftwaffe Sector Controller, or the Sector Commander, my
nightmare would be a squadron or more of Mosquitos flying through my sector spaced about 1 minute apart. Using hand plotting and voice comms, my command an dcontrol system would be well & truly saturated. Peter, for 36 nights in a row (Feb-Mar 45), the RAF sent forces of 20-120 Mosquito bombers to hit Berlin in a morale-crushing exhibition of the tactics you present. As you predicted, the Grossgefechtstand at Doberitz was well and truly saturated, managing only a handfull of successful interceptions throughout this period. Perhaps the most successful was the March 27th interception of Pathfinder Andre van Amsterdam and his nav, Harry Forbes by a Kdo Welter Me 262 pilot - the B. XVI was destroyed directly over the command station, with wreckage landing on the site. Even then, the Battle Opera Hourse and the dedicated anti-Mosquito ILO could only give the interceptor jet pilot vague directions until the Mossie blundered into his path. Mosquito interceptions were absolutely the most frustrating propositions for the NJG corps. v/r Gordon |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:50:38 +0100, John Halliwell
wrote: In article , Peter Stickney writes And just what is Max Speed for a bomber, anyway? 5 Minutes of War Emergency Power doesn't make too much sense, or even 15 minutes at Military Power. You can get some amazing numbers that way, that will never show up in real life. The Mossie used speed as a defence, and I believe it could accelerate very quickly. All it needed was enough speed to hold a single seat fighter at bay long enough for the latter to run out of fuel (having already had to climb to altitude at full throttle). In this case, short bursts of extra speed were significant. -- John Inasmuch as acceleration correlates closely with climb, I don't think that the Mossie could out-accelerate any single engine Luftwaffe fighter of the time. Consider that the Bf-109G-10 could maintain a climb rate of nearly double that of a Mosquito, you can be absolutely certain that the Mosquito would get chased down very quickly should one bleed off its speed. Mossies needed to stay high and fly at fast cruise speeds to avoid interception. Getting the Mosquito slow was to get it dead. As it was, most models were not especially fast when compared to the day fighters of the time. To veer off topic a bit.... I still shake my head in amazement when I hear the advocates of the Mossie as a strategic bomber blubber on about how the Mosquito could have replaced the American heavy bombers because they were fast enough to avoid interception. Utter rubbish. They seem to forget that it would take huge formations of Mosquitos to put enough bombs on a target to match that delivered by the heavies. individual Mossies could evade detection, evan small groups could be hard to locate. But, hundreds of them would be easy to detect early in their flight. That meant the Luftwaffe would be waiting high above them in strength. Without any defensive or offensive guns whatsoever, the Mosquitos would be scattered and very much chewed to pieces. My regards, Widewing (C.C. Jordan) http://www.worldwar2aviation.com http://www.netaces.org http://www.hitechcreations.com |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message snip They seem to forget that it would take huge formations of Mosquitos to put enough bombs on a target to match that delivered by the heavies. individual Mossies could evade detection, evan small groups could be hard to locate. But, hundreds of them would be easy to detect early in their flight. That meant the Luftwaffe would be waiting high above them in strength. Without any defensive or offensive guns whatsoever, the Mosquitos would be scattered and very much chewed to pieces. Just as an aside, the Mossie could actually carry a bigger bomb load than the B17. :-) |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: (Corey C. Jordan) Date: 7/18/03 5:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: still shake my head in amazement when I hear the advocates of the Mossie as a strategic bomber blubber on about how the Mosquito could have replaced the American heavy bombers because they were fast enough to avoid interception. Utter rubbish. hey seem to forget that it would take huge formations of Mosquitos to put enough bombs on a target to match that delivered by the heavies. individual Mossies could evade detection, evan small groups could be hard to locate. But, hundreds of them would be easy to detect early in their flight. That meant the Luftwaffe would be waiting high above them in strength. Without any defensive or offensive guns whatsoever, the Mosquitos would be scattered and very much chewed to pieces. Let's do some numbers. The B--17 carried a 5,000 lb. bomb load on most of its mssions. The B-26 carried a 4,000 bomb load on most of its mssions. But a max effort of B-17's was about 22 planes. A max effort of B-26's was 56 planes. The B-17's would drop 110,000 lbs on the target, the B-26's would dump 224,000 lbs on the target and did so it from a much lower altitude and with far greater accuracy. Now you figure what plane can replace the B-17 best. And it sure as hell wasn't the Mosquito. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 16th 04 05:27 AM |
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 14th 04 07:34 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 05:33 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 4th 03 05:40 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | Jim Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 11th 03 06:24 AM |