B-17 vs Lancaster vs Mosquito vs B24...
jt
are the claims false? Hard to tell from factsheets since, for example,
bomb load varies so wildly based on conditions, range, etc.
- B17 had by far the most successful defensive armament
- Lancaster terribly undergunned and vulnerable
- B17 so loaded with gunners/guns/ammo that bombload very light
But if Lancaster carried about double the bombs with fewer crew,
couldn't you reduce the max missions per crew by half to give same or
better survivability as B17 crew while delivering comparable or more
bombload?
- Mosquito needed no armament due to speed
- Sometimes dropped markers for following B-17s
- Cheap to make - wood and fabric
I was going to propose swarms of Mosquitos to replace Lancasters which
just replaced B17's. I was going to concede the German use of medium
rather than heavy bombers was considered a big mistake, esp being
unable to reach east Russian arms factories. But I was just checking
spelling of Mosquito on the web and found overwhelming (and official)
support of Mosquito over Lanc at
http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
where they say replacing Lancs with Mosquito would not only of saved
much effort and aircrew, but would have minimized much indescriminent
damage and maximized the military effectiveness to a war-shortening
degree.
Is that plausible? Next step is to see if Mosquitos should have been
replaced by all B-24's...
jt
as one of the great mistakes of WW2 - see other sickening ones at
http://www.2worldwar2.com/mistakes.htm and more flyware at
http://www.2worldwar2.com/index.htm#weapons
Krztalizer
Mosquitos, use B-17s. As far as which is more survivable, the loss rates for
each type show rather starkly that the Mosquito was able to do the bombing side
of the job better than other bombers. Folks love to point to the B-26s loss
rate, but if the two types flew the same number of sorties over the Reich
between 42-45, or tried to fly unescorted to Berlin and back, there wouldn't
have been any B-26s left.
I know I am a 'Mosquito fan' so it appears I don't look at the problem
objectively, but it simply blows the competition away. As an Intruder and
Nightfighter, it destroyed more enemy aircraft than the type lost as a bomber
to enemy fighters - could we say the same of any other aircraft in the war?
B-17 and B-24 gunner claims are hogwash, no offense intended. Loss records for
German fighter groups are fairly well set and they show that thousands of
gunner's claims are fantasy - simply too many men shooting at the same target,
unable to follow their target all the way down to destruction. Not the
gunners fault, but its stupid to cling to the belief that we shot down hundreds
of German fighters on each deep penetration strike - it just didn't happen.
I've seen 40+ RAF heavy bomber claims for the destruction of Me 262
nightfighters, against *0* actual losses. They even claimed the destruction of
Me 163s, AT NIGHT?! Give me a mixed force of Mosquitoes and I could build
an entire air force that would have surgically bled Germany to death. By
early 43, they were already striking individual buildings and factories with
pin-point accuracy, something no other Allied bomber could routinely do at any
time in the war.
Replace Mosquitoes with B-24s? What on earth for?
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR
Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
Keith W
"jt" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107112239.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> More fractured WW2 history on tv documentaries raises questions... or
> are the claims false? Hard to tell from factsheets since, for example,
> bomb load varies so wildly based on conditions, range, etc.
>
> - B17 had by far the most successful defensive armament
> - Lancaster terribly undergunned and vulnerable
> - B17 so loaded with gunners/guns/ammo that bombload very light
>
> But if Lancaster carried about double the bombs with fewer crew,
> couldn't you reduce the max missions per crew by half to give same or
> better survivability as B17 crew while delivering comparable or more
> bombload?
>
The simple fact is the aircraft flew under different conditions
and you cant make such simpistic comparisons.
> - Mosquito needed no armament due to speed
> - Sometimes dropped markers for following B-17s
Not to my knowledge, they did however operate as
part of the RAF pathfinder force for Lancaster
and Halifax bombers
> - Cheap to make - wood and fabric
>
Incorrect. The plywood monocoque construction wasnt
especially cheap or easy to make and the 2 Merlins
werent free. They were certainly cheaper than a Lancaster
but carried less than a quarter of its bombload.
> I was going to propose swarms of Mosquitos to replace Lancasters which
> just replaced B17's.
Dont - note that Lancaster's didnt replace B-17's
> I was going to concede the German use of medium
> rather than heavy bombers was considered a big mistake, esp being
> unable to reach east Russian arms factories. But I was just checking
> spelling of Mosquito on the web and found overwhelming (and official)
> support of Mosquito over Lanc at
> http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
> where they say replacing Lancs with Mosquito would not only of saved
> much effort and aircrew, but would have minimized much indescriminent
> damage and maximized the military effectiveness to a war-shortening
> degree.
>
Which is a foolish exageration for a number of reasons.
1) Most Mosquito's only carried 2000lb bombloads while a
Lancaster typically carried nearer 8000lb. The bulged mossie
carrying 4000 lb didnt arrive until the end of the war.
This means you'd need 4 times as many aircraft and
also critically 4 times more pilots, always one of the
bottlenecks
2) It simply wouldnt have been possible to build that
many mosquitos. The specialist wood workers were pretty
much maxed out and the specialist glues needed werent
in unimited supply.
3) The Germans would have adopted different countermeasures
had the mosquito been the only bomber adopted
4) Certain weapons needed the sheer lifting power of the
heavy bomber, the upkeep weapon, tallboy and grand slam
come to mind.
> Is that plausible? Next step is to see if Mosquitos should have been
> replaced by all B-24's...
>
Now you are being silly.
Keith
Stephen FPilot Bierce
Being a high-performance aircraft compared to the others, the Mosquito would
have required a higher level of skill from its crews. It was a specialty
machine used in the niches it was best to fill, and not as well suited to
replace heavy bombers in the bombardment campaign role. But using Mossies
instead of Mitchells or Marauders might have been a better idea. Then again,
the limits of Merlin engine production would've been a factor in the decision.
Re-engine some Mossies with Allisons? Or with twin-row radials?
As for the heavies...when the B-29 was combat-ready in the middle of 1944, why
not just have a rapid phase-out production for all the other types and build
B-29s exclusively? Too complex? Too expensive? Too much time lost in the
factories re-tooling?
Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
"For the majority of the world's population, the prevailing answer to the most
critical of the world's problems is 'Kill All the Americans and Take All Their
Stuff.' America's survival depends on creation of better solutions."--Tepid 1:12
Krztalizer
>
>Not to my knowledge, they did however operate as
>part of the RAF pathfinder force for Lancaster
>and Halifax bombers
Keith, the US had a small force of Mosquitoes that were primarily used as Met
warriors, out in advance of strikes. When we tried to use them as Pathfinders,
our escort fighters AND our bombers attacked them! Silly to use an aircraft
like that when everyone is looking for an Me 410 to shoot down.
Kevin Brooks
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
news:20050130144205...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> If the goal is to bring the Luftwaffe up in order to decimate it, don't
> use
> Mosquitos, use B-17s.
Excellent point. The B-17's and B-24's probably acheived as much or more by
tying down a goodly chunk the Luftwaffe's fighter force, and bringing them
up to do battle with the escorts, as they did with their actual payload of
bombs. Along with the RAF heavies coming in at night, the two forces also
required the Germans to devote an ever increasing share of their resources
and production towards other air defense assets (guns, searchlights,
coordination centers, etc.) as well.
All true, but this ignores another aspect of the equation--how many heavies
survived because the effect of the gunners prevented/dissuaded attacking
Luftwaffe fighters from scoring effective hits? In the Pacific there were
many cases of Japanes fighters remaining outside of the range of B-29
defensive guns--while that kept the B-29 gunners from getting real kills, it
also meant that the fighters were in no position to hamper the bombers'
mission.
> I've seen 40+ RAF heavy bomber claims for the destruction of Me 262
> nightfighters, against *0* actual losses. They even claimed the
> destruction of
> Me 163s, AT NIGHT?! Give me a mixed force of Mosquitoes and I could
> build
> an entire air force that would have surgically bled Germany to death.
Might have had some difficulty hitting those oilfields and refineries in
Rumania. Nor am I convinced that a single-airframe force would have been all
that effective--it would have allowed the Luftwaffe to concentrate its
defensive assets towards that single threat, something they could not do
when faced with multiple threats of differing types (for example, you don't
*need* an interceptor armed with 30mm, or even 20mm, guns to kill a
Mosquito, and the heavy flak batteries become of less value in countering
them as well).
By
> early 43, they were already striking individual buildings and factories
> with
> pin-point accuracy, something no other Allied bomber could routinely do at
> any
> time in the war.
IIRC those raids were the exception, not the norm, and were usually carried
out at low altitude, with attendant loss in range?
>
> Replace Mosquitoes with B-24s? What on earth for?
Enhance the pschological impact of all of those droning radial engines, with
some invariably out-of-synch? :-)
Brooks
Krztalizer
>3) The Germans would have adopted different countermeasures
>had the mosquito been the only bomber adopted
From 1942 right through to the end, the LW and the leadership of the Reich
tried quite literally everything they could imagine to try and stop Mosquitoes,
without effect. The only time loss rates swelled was when the Allies used them
in Operation Clarion - even then, it wasn't anything special that the Jerries
tried, it was just an inappropriate use of the aircraft.
>
>4) Certain weapons needed the sheer lifting power of the
>heavy bomber, the upkeep weapon, tallboy and grand slam
>come to mind.
>
I don't think anyone could intelligently suggest shelving every heavy bomber,
but swapping the roles and keeping a small elite force of Lancs for such
targets and leaving the day-to-day pulverization of Germany to the Mosquitoes
would definitely have worked. The Germans believed so, and they were on the
recieving end of all of the bombers - they didn't have a German word for "fear
of heavy bombers" but they DID have a word for "panic caused by Mosquitoes".
I think the list of 4,000 pound "Cookie" bombs lists thousands dropped by
Mosquitoes, but even if those were not routinely used, their 2,000 pound normal
load was no worse than an average B-17 unloading over Berlin. When Lancs
carried an 8,000 pound load, they were invariably brought lower into denser
flak. A Mosquito with a Cookie could still make it to Berlin at "Mosquito
Height" (LW term for 'above 30,000'), making it practically invulnerable to
flak and all but the most determined/lucky German fighters.
>> Is that plausible? Next step is to see if Mosquitos should have been
>> replaced by all B-24's...
>>
>
>Now you are being silly.
>
Agreed.
Kevin Brooks
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
> >
>>3) The Germans would have adopted different countermeasures
>>had the mosquito been the only bomber adopted
>
> From 1942 right through to the end, the LW and the leadership of the Reich
> tried quite literally everything they could imagine to try and stop
> Mosquitoes,
> without effect. The only time loss rates swelled was when the Allies used
> them
> in Operation Clarion - even then, it wasn't anything special that the
> Jerries
> tried, it was just an inappropriate use of the aircraft.
But you are ignoring the fact that they were rather tightly constrained by
having to deal with the other threats posed by the other aircraft when they
were trying to find that anti-Mosquito capability. Lose those other threats,
and you open up a lot of resources to be aimed at the Mosquito problem.
>
> >
>>4) Certain weapons needed the sheer lifting power of the
>>heavy bomber, the upkeep weapon, tallboy and grand slam
>>come to mind.
>>
>
> I don't think anyone could intelligently suggest shelving every heavy
> bomber,
> but swapping the roles and keeping a small elite force of Lancs for such
> targets and leaving the day-to-day pulverization of Germany to the
> Mosquitoes
> would definitely have worked. The Germans believed so, and they were on
> the
> recieving end of all of the bombers - they didn't have a German word for
> "fear
> of heavy bombers" but they DID have a word for "panic caused by
> Mosquitoes".
Disagree. You are ignoring the fact that had you done so, the Germans would
have been free to apply *all* of their air defense resources towards getting
a handle on the Mosquito. The Germans were not fools, as we both know, and
following that course of action could have made things *easier* for them
just as well as it could have made things more difficult, so I think your
"definitely" is a bit too definitive a term.
>
> I think the list of 4,000 pound "Cookie" bombs lists thousands dropped by
> Mosquitoes, but even if those were not routinely used, their 2,000 pound
> normal
> load was no worse than an average B-17 unloading over Berlin. When Lancs
> carried an 8,000 pound load, they were invariably brought lower into
> denser
> flak. A Mosquito with a Cookie could still make it to Berlin at "Mosquito
> Height" (LW term for 'above 30,000'), making it practically invulnerable
> to
> flak and all but the most determined/lucky German fighters.
But at that height and speed its accuracy was no better than, and probably
worse than, that of the heavier aircraft, right?
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
"Stephen "FPilot" Bierce" <sbi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fd3a7e...@news.vic.com...
> (Premise snipped...)
>
<snip>
>
> As for the heavies...when the B-29 was combat-ready in the middle of 1944,
> why
> not just have a rapid phase-out production for all the other types and
> build
> B-29s exclusively? Too complex? Too expensive? Too much time lost in
> the
> factories re-tooling?
You'd have also have had to retool a lot of other factories--the ones that
made the engines, etc. It was not just a matter of rearranging the assembly
line floor and putting B-29 jigs in place of B-17 jigs. Component and
subcomponent manufacture across a wide range of industries would have been
impacted. Not to mention the US approach of keeping a number of programs
ongoing concurrently to minimize risk would have been jeopordized--if you
recall, the Convair B-32 Dominator was kept on "life-support" so to speak in
case the B-29 program, which was *very* complex/risky at that time, came to
earth with a resounding "thud".
Brooks
>
> Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
jt
> Which is a foolish exageration for a number of reasons.
>
> 1) Most Mosquito's only carried 2000lb bombloads while a
> Lancaster typically carried nearer 8000lb. The bulged mossie
> carrying 4000 lb didnt arrive until the end of the war.
>
> This means you'd need 4 times as many aircraft and
> also critically 4 times more pilots, always one of the
> bottlenecks
OK but vs the B-17, sources suggest it equaled the 200lb "mossie"
bombload on a typical Berlin raid. The B17 carries 5 times the number
of crew at risk, on top of a higher loss rate, which just seems
obscene to do exclusively year after year.
> 2) It simply wouldnt have been possible to build that
> many mosquitos. The specialist wood workers were pretty
> much maxed out and the specialist glues needed werent
> in unimited supply.
Maybe build in US/Canada where factories were waiting to produce the
giant Spruce Goose floatplanes, delayed by Howard Hughes micromanaging
the design.
> 3) The Germans would have adopted different countermeasures
> had the mosquito been the only bomber adopted
OK, the Me262 and other high speed interceptors might have had less
delays. But if those Lancs were shifted to Crete for early Ploesti oil
attacks, maybe the Luftwaffe would have become limited to using
bungee-launched sailplanes by then?
Guy Alcala
> Keith W wrote:
> > Which is a foolish exageration for a number of reasons.
> >
> > 1) Most Mosquito's only carried 2000lb bombloads while a
> > Lancaster typically carried nearer 8000lb. The bulged mossie
> > carrying 4000 lb didnt arrive until the end of the war.
> >
> > This means you'd need 4 times as many aircraft and
> > also critically 4 times more pilots, always one of the
> > bottlenecks
>
> OK but vs the B-17, sources suggest it equaled the 200lb "mossie"
> bombload on a typical Berlin raid. The B17 carries 5 times the number
> of crew at risk, on top of a higher loss rate, which just seems
> obscene to do exclusively year after year.
The B-17 typically carried between 4-5,000 lb. to Berlin, not 2,000 lb. For
further details, I suggest you google for B-17vs. lancaster, or B-17 vs.
Mosquito or several other combinations of the various a/c, as this topic
gets done to death here about once a year or so.
>
>
> > 2) It simply wouldnt have been possible to build that
> > many mosquitos. The specialist wood workers were pretty
> > much maxed out and the specialist glues needed werent
> > in unimited supply.
>
> Maybe build in US/Canada where factories were waiting to produce the
> giant Spruce Goose floatplanes, delayed by Howard Hughes micromanaging
> the design.
Lack of the special woods needed was also a problem that would have
prevented much greater production. Several forests in various countries
were essentially stripped to build the a/c, despite substituting wood types
when they could. The only way the Mosquito could have been built in the
requisite numbers required by your theory is for the major component(s) of
the a/c, i.e. the wing and/or fuselage, to have been redesigned in metal,
which would undoubtedly take at least a year.
>
>
> > 3) The Germans would have adopted different countermeasures
> > had the mosquito been the only bomber adopted
>
> OK, the Me262 and other high speed interceptors might have had less
> delays. But if those Lancs were shifted to Crete for early Ploesti oil
> attacks, maybe the Luftwaffe would have become limited to using
> bungee-launched sailplanes by then?
It would be interesting to see you base Lancs in Crete, considering that
the Germans conquered it before the a/c entered service.
Guy
old hoodoo
would be flying over England now...maybe, although the Russians may
still have kicked Nazi butt. It was not JUST the reliance on tactical
aircraft. Four engines bombers would have had great difficulty over
England also as they would have been available in significantly smaller
numbers and didn't have great tactical use. German strategic bombers
would also have had great difficulty maintaining a sustained bomber
offensive against Russian factories in any case.
The issue isn't necessarily replacing one type of aircraft with
another. Swarms of Mosquitos would have been needed and they would have
needed swarms of pilots. Additionally, more stress would have probably
been on the infrastructure to maintain that larger number of a/c.
Also no one knew the Mosquito would have been the success it was. Had
the Mosquito been a resounding success in 1938 perhaps Britain would
have cancelled the Manchester and the Halifax. Remember the Lanc design
was originally a twin engined aircraft. By the time the Mosquite was
proven a success the Lanc was already hitting its stride and the Halifax
was proving a success at many roles, not all of which would have been
taken up by the Mosquito.
It most likely would have been very disruptive to
stop Lanc production for swarms of Mosquitos. The two aircraft were
primarily built of different materials so they did not necessarily
conflict with each other.
Large bombers are remarkably efficient for what they are intended to do
which is why they have continued to see use to the present day.
No one was that concerned about indescriminate damage at the time, as a
matter of fact Harris was quite happy with indescriminate damage.
Keith W
> Keith W wrote:
>> Which is a foolish exageration for a number of reasons.
>>
>> 1) Most Mosquito's only carried 2000lb bombloads while a
>> Lancaster typically carried nearer 8000lb. The bulged mossie
>> carrying 4000 lb didnt arrive until the end of the war.
>>
>> This means you'd need 4 times as many aircraft and
>> also critically 4 times more pilots, always one of the
>> bottlenecks
>
> OK but vs the B-17, sources suggest it equaled the 200lb "mossie"
> bombload on a typical Berlin raid. The B17 carries 5 times the number
> of crew at risk, on top of a higher loss rate, which just seems
> obscene to do exclusively year after year.
>
Which is why the B-17's didnt make too many Berlin raids
until the P-51 was available in numbers
>> 2) It simply wouldnt have been possible to build that
>> many mosquitos. The specialist wood workers were pretty
>> much maxed out and the specialist glues needed werent
>> in unimited supply.
>
> Maybe build in US/Canada where factories were waiting to produce the
> giant Spruce Goose floatplanes, delayed by Howard Hughes micromanaging
> the design.
>
That still requires considerable tooling and a steep learning
curve while not addressing the shortage of Merlin engines.
As it was there were never enough Mosquitoes to go round
and they WERE built in Canada. DeHavilland Canada
turned out around 1300 of them.
>> 3) The Germans would have adopted different countermeasures
>> had the mosquito been the only bomber adopted
>
> OK, the Me262 and other high speed interceptors might have had less
> delays. But if those Lancs were shifted to Crete for early Ploesti oil
> attacks, maybe the Luftwaffe would have become limited to using
> bungee-launched sailplanes by then?
>
No they'd have a lot of fun arresting Lancaster crews as they
landed on Crete. The Germans controlled the island at the time.
Keith
Keith W
"old hoodoo" <alf...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10vqrig...@corp.supernews.com...
> If the Germans would have had enough twin engined bombers the Swastika
> would be flying over England now...maybe, although the Russians may still
> have kicked Nazi butt. I
The German twin engined bombers were simply targets
when they could not win air superiority. What they lacked
were fighters with adequate range and a decent strategy.
Keith
The Enlightenment
systems but they did give the Luftwaffe a dilema becuase the US had the
resources in material and manpower to afford them. The dilema for the
Luftwaffe was that in order for it to combat the heavy US bombers
effectively they needed aircraft with considerable armour and armament
that then made their aircraft sluggish and put their aircaft at a
disadvantage in dealing with allied escorts and made Mosquito
interception more difficult. They didn't have enough time to develop
P47 sized aircaft that might combine the two roles. (they had a
Focke-Wulf Corsair like designe going based on the BMW802 (18 cylinder
version of 14 cylinder BMW801))
Had they been freed of thse conflicting requirement of dealing with
both heavy bombers and escort fighters they could have stayed with the
armament of the Me 109F essentially 1 x 20mm or 15mm propellor hub
canon. (Mk 151/20 or Mk 151) plus two rifle caliber MGs and fairly
modest pilot-rear and windscreen armour. Late model Me109F exceded the
performance of early model Me109G which had a much larger engine for
this reason and such more lightly armed aircaft could far more easily
intercept Mosquito and had more than enough firepower to deal with any
US fighter aircraft apart from the P47 (but even it wilted before the
30mm Mk108 that was actually lighter than the 20mm canon).
The lightened german fighters would also have been far more competitive
with the allied escort fighters against whom they were placed at a
disadvantage due to their need for heavier arms and armour. Thsi would
have further reduced german attrition.
The Mosquito was absolutely essential as a long range reconaisence
aircraft and night fighter.
The Allies basically attrited the Germans on the basis of production
and pilot training. In the last year of the war the Germans were
producing about 90,000 mainly fighter aircraft wheas the US about
300,000 of fighters and heavy bombers. The Germans were taking their
bomber crew and turning them into fighter pilots and using ill trained
crew (25 hours versus 300 hours for allied crew)
There was nothing particularly smart about the B17 or B24. It
consumed a huge amount of resources and put 10 men at risk and apart
from the early days was easy to intercept and could be shot down with a
2:1 advantage to the fighters using suitable tactics and modestly
modified single engined fighters. Given that a 4 engined aircaft used
4 times the reources to build and used 10 times the crew this is an
unwinable situation had the allies and germans had equal resources.
The Allies, the US in particular, had those resources and were able to
force the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition of men and equipement that
the Luftwaffe could only loose.
In terms of the ideal aircaft I would say that something like a 4
engined heavy mosquito with a crew of no more than 4 and preferably
only 3. By designing an aircaft whose wetted area and crossectional
area was such that it would be competitve in speed with the single
engined fighters of the day an aircaft of substantial range and speed
could be built with a fair bomb load. The speed of such an aircaft
would ensure that interceptions were difficult and of limited
effectiveness and duration. Armament would ideally be remotely
opperated heavy guns that were periscopically aimed so as to not effect
performance. (the A26 Invader configration or that of the Arado 440
would be ideal as these aircaft were capable of protecting virtually
all sectors with only 1 gunner) however hand aimed guns in low drag
installations would also be adaquete in the early stages of the war.
Having said that ther is still a case for squadrans of Mosquitos under
escort by armed escort Mosquitos and other aircraft. Surely 3 or more
Mosquitos could be built, crewed and opperated for the price of one B17
and their speed would improve the number of sorties that could be
flown.
bernardz
less
> > delays. But if those Lancs were shifted to Crete for early Ploesti
oil
> > attacks, maybe the Luftwaffe would have become limited to using
> > bungee-launched sailplanes by then?
>
> It would be interesting to see you base Lancs in Crete, considering
that
> the Germans conquered it before the a/c entered service.
What he is refering to, is a rather fasinating discussion at his
website
http://www.2worldwar2.com/mistakes.htm#ploesti
of which the only one that might be plausable is the middle one where
the British hold on to Crete. Considering how close it was the battle,
it might have been held. If so the Allies would have had a good base to
attack the oil fields at Ploesti.
Considering however the allied raids by the the Eighth Air Force on the
ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt and aircraft production factories
at Regensburg, its questionable whether they could really make that
much of an impact until the Mustang was available as a long-range
escort fighter in quantity. Which is about the same time as much of
Ploesti was knocked out anyway!
Even if they had made an impact its not going to effect the Luftwaffe
as almost all of its aviation gasoline came from hydrogenation plants.
Krztalizer
>have required a higher level of skill from its crews.
Isn't that true of every new aircraft? By the end of the war, sergeants on both
sides of the Channel were flying jets, so Mosquitoes were not THAT hard. Also,
they had a two man crew to monitor and operate the aircraft - most wartime
fighters, regardless of how complex, required a single man to operate. The
Mossie was a brilliant design and took less effort to fly than, say, a Beau.
>It was a specialty
>machine used in the niches it was best to fill,
it filled a whole lot of niches very well!
>.... and not as well suited to
>replace heavy bombers in the bombardment campaign role. But using Mossies
>instead of Mitchells or Marauders might have been a better idea.
If you are laying a bomb carpet across an airfield or saturating the area
around a bridgehead, the Mossie probably isn't a better choice - it is a
surgeon's scalpel compared to a horde of bat-weilding Manchester United fans
(B-25s and B-26s).
> Then again,
>the limits of Merlin engine production would've been a factor in the
>decision.
Packard fixed that problem.
>Re-engine some Mossies with Allisons? Or with twin-row radials?
What? YUCK! You'd end up with one of those Argentine "Mosquito" copies. May
as well make them out of metal (which is how the Argies did it!).
>As for the heavies...when the B-29 was combat-ready in the middle of 1944,
>why
>not just have a rapid phase-out production for all the other types and build
>B-29s exclusively? Too complex? Too expensive? Too much time lost in the
>factories re-tooling?
We had thousands of B-17 and B-24 flightcrews and groundcrews already in full
operational swing, complete with laid in stocks for every bolt, rivet and
sparkplug - all of which would have needed replacement if the biguns arrived in
the theatre - plus, most of the UK airfields that operated them would have a
difficult or impossible time launching and recovering a behemoth B-29.
The Enlightenment
to mass production in less than 6 months under the worst conceivable
situation so I think it would have been possible to do the lessor job
of a conversion of the Mosquito in less than this time.
The He 162 had wooden wings and an aluminium fueselage and if you look
at the fueselage it is a beautifully streamlined teardrop shape similar
to the Mosquito. (Not much else was attractive on this functional
designe.) It had a spar made of a laminate of bakelite & wood called
Ty-bu so not even whole pieces of wood were needed while the wing
itself was skinned by wraping in beech wood ply. The wing was sealed
with a glue so that it then formed an integral fuel tank that gravity
drained to the main fuesleage tank.
The fuesleage was all alluminium and it was chosen to be of this
material becuase it was faster to designe and work with despite
Germany's light metals shortage. Wood to Alloy joins are not hard
while an all wooden fueslelage presents greater difficulty at the
oppenings and joins needed for undercarriage, wings, tail-plane, fin
assembly and guns. (Mosquito didn't have fuesleage mounted wheels like
He 162 and was not so small so it was somewhat easier). In others
words a composite wood alluminium aircaft should be easier to build
than an all aluminium aircraft.
The He 162 did have some problems but these would have not plagued the
mosquito: excessive dihetheral introduced to make flying for novice
pilots easy set up an occaisional lateral instabillity that led to
pilot coupled oscillations that overstessed the airframe. (The
diehetheral problem was not detected as a probem due to lack of
pro-type testing before production). Combined with poor workmanship
and I suspect use of inferior plywood glues this led to 2 documented
mid air breakups one with a German Test Pilot and another with a
British Pilot.
The favoured german plywood glue was Phenol formaldehyde resin
(Tego-film) but this was in short supply due to bombing (The Ta 154 was
apparently so dealyed it was cancelled due to lack of this glue. I
suspect the He 162 also used another cheaper glue. The Mosquito
initially used caesin (a milk based glue especially developed for the
Mosquito project) but latter switched to a glue called "Beetle" as
caesin rotted in the tropics.
You can still buy tego film today:
http://www.pdusa.com/products/thinbirch.htm
I believe ALL of these glues, including caesin attack to one degree or
another wood.
So I believe a composit wood-aluminium composit Mosquito could have
been converted and gotten into mass production in 6 months and I
believe it could have been a lighter, faster, stronger aircraft than
the all wooden one.
The subject of Mosquito fabrication is a fascinating and beautifull
one. Does anyone have links to construction methods? I'd like to see
how the wing and fueselage were joined to see how the designe might
have been modified. In the case of the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 the wing was
made all one spar and it was made a high wing aircraft to avoid the
structural complications of the spar having to passing through the
fueselage shell.
Tex Houston
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
> >Being a high-performance aircraft compared to the others, the Mosquito
> >would
>>have required a higher level of skill from its crews.
>
> Isn't that true of every new aircraft? By the end of the war, sergeants on
> both
> sides of the Channel were flying jets, so Mosquitoes were not THAT hard.
Are you inferring that sergeant pilots are somehow inferior? In what way?
Skill? Training? Social graces? Education? Your attitude is somewhat
suspect here.
Tex Houston
Krztalizer
>IIRC those raids were the exception, not the norm, and were usually carried
>out at low altitude, with attendant loss in range?
They made it to Berlin at low alt for the famous "we interrupt this broadcast"
missions. Aarhus in Denmark, many other places were struck at low alt and long
distances. Your point is valid, but the Mossie was able to accomplish just
about anything it was tasked to do.
>> Replace Mosquitoes with B-24s? What on earth for?
>
>Enhance the pschological impact of all of those droning radial engines, with
>some invariably out-of-synch? :-)
That's just cruel! Great point though - the people on the recvg end of bomber
streams saw those giant contrail streams as "the finger of death" and they were
looked upon with an almost palpable dread. That sort of psychological hammer
just had to hurt.
Krztalizer
>having to deal with the other threats posed by the other aircraft when they
>were trying to find that anti-Mosquito capability. Lose those other threats,
>and you open up a lot of resources to be aimed at the Mosquito problem.
True enough, but the Germans considered the Me 262 as the only counter they had
- from Göring and Galland on down, in meetings discussing the new 'turbos',
these were always seen as the panacea to cure the Mosquito problem. So until
the 8-262 goes operational, they were spinning their wheels.
> The Germans were not fools, as we both know, and
>following that course of action could have made things *easier* for them
>just as well as it could have made things more difficult, so I think your
>"definitely" is a bit too definitive a term.
I said that because the LW had effective measures to counter everything else we
had, with varying degrees of success. Three thousand more Mosquito bombers
would have been a disaster for Germany.
>> A Mosquito with a Cookie could still make it to Berlin at "Mosquito
>> Height" (LW term for 'above 30,000'), making it practically invulnerable
>> to
>> flak and all but the most determined/lucky German fighters.
>
>But at that height and speed its accuracy was no better than, and probably
>worse than, that of the heavier aircraft, right?
I can give you an example of that ability - the Propaganda Ministry was
selected as a target on 27 March 45: from (poor) memory, a force of 77
Mosquitoes raided Berlin, including a couple that were detailed to strike the
Ministry. A 139 Squadron Mosquito reported it released its bomb at ~10.000
meters and it brought the massive building down. (One wing of the building
remained, but Goebbels literally cried over the damage.) When the little
clubfoot arrived to take stock of his once magnificent Ministry building, he
saw all the firefighters standing around watching it burn - he demanded they
try to save what was left but it was deemed too dangerous. Unknown to Goebbels
at the time, the Volksturm decided the cellar of the building would make
excellent storage for over 500 Panzerfausts!
So while I generally agree that the Cookie bomb was not an accurate weapon, a
good crew could put them on the ground where they wanted.
Kevin Brooks
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
>> they were rather tightly constrained by
>>having to deal with the other threats posed by the other aircraft when
>>they
>>were trying to find that anti-Mosquito capability. Lose those other
>>threats,
>>and you open up a lot of resources to be aimed at the Mosquito problem.
>
> True enough, but the Germans considered the Me 262 as the only counter
> they had
> - from Göring and Galland on down, in meetings discussing the new
> 'turbos',
> these were always seen as the panacea to cure the Mosquito problem. So
> until
> the 8-262 goes operational, they were spinning their wheels.
But how much more quickly could they have gotten that into service had they
not had to resource the defense against the heavies? Multiple modes of
attack force the defender to develop multiple modes of defense--if you
restrict yourself to a single mode of attack, you make things that much
easier for the defender.
>
>> The Germans were not fools, as we both know, and
>>following that course of action could have made things *easier* for them
>>just as well as it could have made things more difficult, so I think your
>>"definitely" is a bit too definitive a term.
>
> I said that because the LW had effective measures to counter everything
> else we
> had, with varying degrees of success. Three thousand more Mosquito
> bombers
> would have been a disaster for Germany.
But to get that number of additional Mosquitos into the fight, you'd have
had to have sacrificed the majority of the heavies (resources, especially
pilots, being constrained). Which brings us back to attacking via a single
mode, and letting the defender only worry about that single mode to
counteract.
Interesting example, but I can not for the life of me understand how a
Mosquito dropping from 30K feet at 350 kts could be any *more* accurate than
a Lancaster dropping the same bomb from the same height (or a bit lower) at
say 280 kts (or whatever their actual typical speed was during a bomb run),
if the crew expertise (specifically that of the bombardier) is the same. It
is not as if the Mosquito had some kind of precision engagement capability
from high altitude that the other aircraft lacked, right? What it did have
was speed--which during WWII was not always at high altitude the best friend
of bombing accuracy. Was it a better low altitude performer, with attendant
better bombing accuracy? Sure. But how could it have been any more accurate
from high altitude?
Brooks
Guy Alcala
Seems to me that his point was that even the most junior pilots (with experience
presumably to match, given the relatively rapid promotion rates) could handle
jets. No slur need be inferred, just a statement of fact.
Guy
Guy Alcala
<snip>
> > Then again,
> >the limits of Merlin engine production would've been a factor in the
> >decision.
>
> Packard fixed that problem.
<snip>
I you're willing to deny them to P-51s, and Mossies are going to need escorts if
flown by day in formation. Of course, every Lanc you didn't produce would get you
two Mossies (B.Mk.IVs given the engines), so that's a gain. Going to the two-stage
engines for the Mk.IX/XVIs would presumably decrease the production numbers
somewhat.
Guy
Bill Shatzer
On 31 Jan 2005, Krztalizer wrote:
-snip-
> That's just cruel! Great point though - the people on the recvg end of bomber
> streams saw those giant contrail streams as "the finger of death" and they were
> looked upon with an almost palpable dread. That sort of psychological hammer
> just had to hurt.
'Course, the air crews just -hated- it when atmospheric conditions were
right for the formation of contrails - that "finger of death" pointed
directly at the bomber formations to assist even the most near-sighted
Bf 109 driver in locating his intended prey.
Cheers and all,
Tex Houston
"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:41FDBA4E...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
that status your entire career. You would not be diverted to a staff
assignment or anything else that may interfere with an officers career
progress. The USN senior pilots in may units were the sergeants (or in
their case Chief Petty Officers). In the RNLAF I knew a Sergeant Major
pilot with over 5,000 hours of single engine fighter time in a country which
you can cross in minutes.
What I'm trying to express is that the rank has nothing to do with
experience. Some sergeants might have a lot of experience. Same with
enlisted navigators which the USMC still uses.
I think it was a back-handed slam toward enlisted men.
Tex Houston
Bill Shatzer
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Stephen FPilot Bierce wrote:
> As for the heavies...when the B-29 was combat-ready in the middle of 1944, why
> not just have a rapid phase-out production for all the other types and build
> B-29s exclusively?
While the B-29 first went into combat in the middle of 1944, it was far
from "combat ready". There were a slew of "bugs" to work out and the
B-29 was not really "combat ready" until the end of 1944. Even then,
they continued to have problems with engine fires right up until the
end of the war and never really licked that problem completely.
> Too complex? Too expensive? Too much time lost in the
> factories re-tooling?
All the above. Although, the last B-17 was delivered in April, 1945
which was a reasonably rapid ramp-down.
The B-24 lingered in production longer - mostly because of its utility as
a long-range ASW and maritime patrol aircraft.
Cheers and all,
Kevin Brooks
"Tex Houston" <texho...@pcisys.netVVV> wrote in message
news:10vrg3h...@corp.supernews.com...
Fer cryin' out loud--IIRC the poster who made the comment WAS himself an
enlisted man in the service! Looks like the PC Police have been summoned out
for a false alarm...
Brooks
>
> Tex Houston
>
The Enlightenment
effort and well developed program of substitution (documented on the
net somewhere) to use otherwise excellent and wide variety of
Australian woods (such as the temperate forrest woods of Tasamania to
the Tropical Woods of Nth Queensland) exact substitutes in all cases
could not be found and some problems due to incorrect elasticity of the
wings were manifest when all local woods were used.
I suspect a redesigne would have allowed a wider use of materials. I
believe the Soviets had some excellent wood-steel composite airframes.
Use of a small amount of steel, in for instance the spar or at the
fuesleage/wing section would appear to be the best way to avoid
reliance on both strategic materials such as aluminium and on
particularly rare high quality or unique woods
The fast clipper ships of yore had wooden hulls and ribs cross braced
with wrought iron so it isn't exactly a new concept.
Geoffrey Sinclair
>More fractured WW2 history on tv documentaries raises questions... or
>are the claims false? Hard to tell from factsheets since, for example,
>bomb load varies so wildly based on conditions, range, etc.
Given the hundreds of TV history shows there are always some
with errors.
>- B17 had by far the most successful defensive armament
Versus the B-29? The B-24? What is being defined as success?
kill claims? loss rates?
>- Lancaster terribly undergunned and vulnerable
Compared with the B-17 yes for guns, but not versus the
unarmed Mosquito bombers. The Mosquito was the most
vulnerable if the enemy could obtain a shot, but the hardest
to intercept. What is being compared here?
>- B17 so loaded with gunners/guns/ammo that bombload very light
Very light appears to be bomb loads closer to those carried by the
B-25 and B-26.
>But if Lancaster carried about double the bombs with fewer crew,
>couldn't you reduce the max missions per crew by half to give same or
>better survivability as B17 crew while delivering comparable or more
>bombload?
Comparing the two types ignores they were built for different missions,
one was for day operations expecting interception and the other for
night operations expecting more evasion than interception.
Replacing the B-17 and Lancaster 1 for 1 simply will not work. There
would be more Lancasters lost to fighter interception for example, the
B-17 at night would not be able to carry many more bombs, assuming
retention of full defensive armament.
In theory yes, reducing the armament on a bomber increases its bomb
load and reduces its cost, the first enabling fewer sorties the second
enabling more escorts, but until the P-51 proved itself in 1944 the
allies had to assume the bombers would spend time unescorted over
Germany given the ranges involved, plus no escort could be perfect.
Hence the armament on the B-17 and B-24, so they would not be
limited to the range of available fighters, at least in theory.
>- Mosquito needed no armament due to speed
When flying at night, the day unarmed bomber sorties were intercepted
and took losses, of 726 sorties (542 effective), some 48 Mosquitoes
failed to return in the first year of operations.
>- Sometimes dropped markers for following B-17s
No, this was a night time situation, the USAAF Mosquitoes were used
for reconnaissance, not target marking.
>- Cheap to make - wood and fabric
No, the Mosquito appeal was it could be built using the woodworking
industry, with minimal loading on the light metals industry. Cost was
still in line with comparable twin engined types.
>I was going to propose swarms of Mosquitos to replace Lancasters which
>just replaced B17's.
For a start this assumes the allies knew early enough, like 1941 and
1942 the Mosquito was the way to go as a bomber so they could set
up production and training in time to deploy large numbers in 1944.
There were a whole 17 production Mosquitoes by the end of 1941.
The first Mosquito day bomber operation was on 31 May 1942. The
initial series of day bomber operations stopped about a year later
on 27 May 1943.
>I was going to concede the German use of medium
>rather than heavy bombers was considered a big mistake, esp being
>unable to reach east Russian arms factories.
This sort of ignores the reality of how much bombing effort was
required to stop an industrial economy. The Germans going to
heavy bombers means thousands of them in order to actually,
really, effect Soviet war production, using the results of the allied
attempts to do so over Germany.
What the Germans failed to do in the east from perhaps 1942 but
certainly from 1943 onwards was to use the bombers to do
"strategic interdiction", an anti rail campaign stretching to hundreds
of miles from the front line. The bombers ended up being used
as battlefield support. Admittedly given the numbers the chance of
a rail campaign being successful were not to good anyway.
>But I was just checking
>spelling of Mosquito on the web and found overwhelming (and official)
>support of Mosquito over Lanc at
>http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
>where they say replacing Lancs with Mosquito would not only of saved
>much effort and aircrew, but would have minimized much indescriminent
>damage and maximized the military effectiveness to a war-shortening
>degree.
The official part appears to be the claims about
1) Bomb loads to Berlin, if the 4,000 pound carrying Mosquito was in
use then yes it could carry around half the bomb load on average, this
ignores the fact the Mosquito versions to carry this did not enter service
until early 1944, two years after the Lancaster, and the initial versions
had stability issues. The trouble was it would take most of 1944 for
the Mosquito bomber force to change over to the 4,000 pound bomb
carrying version. Also check out the last Mosquito to bomb Berlin,
it could have carried a 4,000 pound bomb but dropped four 500 pound
bombs.
2) Loss rates, the claim is 10 to 1, the paper supporting the creation
of the Light Night Striking Force gave the loss ratio as 4 to 1. Overall
for the war the loss ratio 3.4 to 1 in the Mosquito's favour for aircraft
on operations in Bomber Command, but the accident rate was about
the same so overall some 2.36% of Lancaster operations lost a bomber,
versus 0.78% of Mosquito operations, around 3 to 1.
3) The LNSF paper used man-hours to build to arrive at cost of
aircraft 2.8 to 1 in favour of the Mosquito. This ignores cost of
material.
4) Crew sizes are basically correct.
5) Mosquito "Proven precision day bomber", Lancaster was not.
Apparently. Lancasters can bomb by day, precision tends to be, in
WWII, more a function of cloud cover and altitude than bomber type.
The famed Mosquito precision raids were made by the fighter
bomber units, carrying a maximum of 2,000 pounds of bombs.
This is the end of the "official" part, then comes the claim it was a
failure to produce so few pure Mosquito bombers, ignoring the
usefulness of the trainer, reconnaissance, fighter bomber and night
fighter versions.
Next we go on with the idea that only 1.5% of bomber command's
bombs hit desirable targets, dropping the effective bomb load from
1,200,000 short tons to 18,000 short tons, to be delivered in
10,000 Mosquito sorties. This could also be done by January 1943,
when the USAAF first began to bomb Germany. By the way these
18,000 short tons of bombs would destroy the entire German military
industry. The 1.5% hit rate was based on the 1941 Butt report
results, and simply assumes no further improvement in accuracy for
the war.
Now for reality, there were around 445 Mosquitoes built by the end of
1942. Bomber Command Mosquitoes dropped around 28,000 short
tons of bombs during the war, from 39,795 sorties. So why didn't the
German war machine stop earlier? Given the Mosquito day bombers
delivered around 1,100 short tons of bombs in the May 1942 to May
1943 period, why wasn't around 1,100/18,000 or 6% of the German
war industry destroyed in that time period. Then add the "hit rate" of
the heavy bombers when attacking German oil refineries was around
3.4%, that is hits on actual machinery or equipment, as opposed
to exploded within the factory perimeter, which was another 7.6% of
bombs and another 1.8% that did not explode. All up some 12.8% of
the bombs dropped in these oil raids "hit", using the definition of hit
above, and the RAF figure was above the average at 15.8%.
>Is that plausible? Next step is to see if Mosquitos should have been
>replaced by all B-24's...
Why not go all the way and use F-15E with relevant smart weapons?
We now know what worked and what did not thanks to the people of
the time trying various things. Sure if you go back in time and show
how the Mosquito would be a winner years before the proof was
actually made then you can promote the Mosquito, now just assume
someone does the same thing for the Me262 and its powerplants or
some of the later German piston engined fighters.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Guy Alcala
Depends on the service. Yes, you might be in that rank your entire career, but
then again, given a high casualty rate and the need for officers, skilled
survivors tended to get rank fairly quickly.
> You would not be diverted to a staff
> assignment or anything else that may interfere with an officers career
> progress. The USN senior pilots in may units were the sergeants (or in
> their case Chief Petty Officers).
AFAIK the USN commissioned (in some cases, warrant) all the former CAPs in VF-2
fairly early in 1942. But that's not representative of the RAF or Luftwaffe,
who had Sgt. pilots throughout the war (the LW even had some Gefreiters).
> In the RNLAF I knew a Sergeant Major
> pilot with over 5,000 hours of single engine fighter time in a country which
> you can cross in minutes.
Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. Gordon could have said
Sgt./Feldwebel/Pilot Officer/Leutnant pilots, but that's rather clumsy. It
seems that you're the only person who interprets his use of the shorthand Sgt.
Pilots as a slur. I suppose he could have said low-time pilots or given his
interest, Nachwuchs, but most of us read his meaning just fine.
> What I'm trying to express is that the rank has nothing to do with
> experience. Some sergeants might have a lot of experience. Same with
> enlisted navigators which the USMC still uses.
And sometimes it does. There's no universal correlation, but a nugget is a
nachwuchs is a newbie is a what have you. In services like the RAFwhere
education level determined whether someone started out their flying career as an
NCO or an officer, if you were going to look for the least experienced group _as
a whole_, you'd look among the Sgts and the pilot officers. You could
havehigh-time Sgts. who refused commissions, and pilot officers who'd been
commissioned after having spent considerable flight time as NCOs. OTOH, chances
are the Flt. Lts., S/Ldrs and W/Cdrs are expereinced, even though you might find
some who'd spent most of their career in training establishment or the staff.
> I think it was a back-handed slam toward enlisted men.
You're entitled to your opinion, however as Kevin has pointed out, your opinion
is almost certainly wrong.
Guy
Guy Alcala
> The Germans managed to get the Wood/Metal Heinkel He 162 from designe
> to mass production in less than 6 months under the worst conceivable
> situation so I think it would have been possible to do the lessor job
> of a conversion of the Mosquito in less than this time.
The difference being that it was designed that way from the start.
Sometimes it's far easier to just start from scratch.
<snip>
> The fuesleage was all alluminium and it was chosen to be of this
> material becuase it was faster to designe and work with despite
> Germany's light metals shortage.
And that's why I think any mass production of the Mossie would require
redesign in metal.
<snip>
> So I believe a composit wood-aluminium composit Mosquito could have
> been converted and gotten into mass production in 6 months and I
> believe it could have been a lighter, faster, stronger aircraft than
> the all wooden one.
For the reasons given above, I disagree that it could have been done in six
months, but I could be wrong. Besides, if you're not as desperate as the
germans were, you aren't going to cut the kinds of corners they did during
development and test.
> The subject of Mosquito fabrication is a fascinating and beautifull
> one. Does anyone have links to construction methods? I'd like to see
> how the wing and fueselage were joined to see how the designe might
> have been modified.
I can't find anything online. The sole book I own on the Mossie, the
Ballantine paperback, has a few shots showing wings and fuselages under
construction, but I can't tell how the join was made. the fsuelage
wasbuilt in two halves split lengthwise, then joined. Photos show the wing
apparently made in a single piece before joining, which is odd because it's
a mid-wing design and I know the nav sat on the wing center section as it
passed through the cockpit. I don't think the whole wing was slid through
from one side, but the photos I have aren'table to tell me. Possibly the
wing was built in two halves that were assembled with them joined together
to check fit (photos show entire wings being worked on, not halves), then
the two halves were detached to allow them to be attached to the now
completed fuselage.
Guy
Keith W
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
> >
>>IIRC those raids were the exception, not the norm, and were usually
>>carried
>>out at low altitude, with attendant loss in range?
>
> They made it to Berlin at low alt for the famous "we interrupt this
> broadcast"
> missions. Aarhus in Denmark, many other places were struck at low alt and
> long
> distances. Your point is valid, but the Mossie was able to accomplish
> just
> about anything it was tasked to do.
>
Note however the loss rates on those low altitude raids was high.
German light flak was deadly and at low level the FW-190
was a real threat too.
Keith
Dave Kearton
|| The subject of Mosquito fabrication is a fascinating and beautifull
|| one. Does anyone have links to construction methods? I'd like to
|| see how the wing and fueselage were joined to see how the designe
|| might have been modified.
|
| I can't find anything online. The sole book I own on the Mossie, the
| Ballantine paperback, has a few shots showing wings and fuselages
| under construction, but I can't tell how the join was made. the
| fsuelage wasbuilt in two halves split lengthwise, then joined.
| Photos show the wing apparently made in a single piece before
| joining, which is odd because it's a mid-wing design and I know the
| nav sat on the wing center section as it passed through the cockpit.
| I don't think the whole wing was slid through from one side, but the
| photos I have aren'table to tell me. Possibly the wing was built in
| two halves that were assembled with them joined together to check fit
| (photos show entire wings being worked on, not halves), then the two
| halves were detached to allow them to be attached to the now
| completed fuselage.
|
| Guy
The Australian War Memorial has many pics on the Australian production
series, which apart from a couple of substitute woods and glues, was very
similar to the UK production.
Finding the pics can be difficult, however, by the sheer number of Mosquito
pics (including the insect).
The quickest way that I could find to get the assembly pics is ....
www.awm.gov.au and select 'Search our collections' on the right of
the page.
The simple search page - search for 'Mosquito' in WWII
Some of the pics you want are on the resulting page 27
Start there and work backwards.
You'll find wing, fuselage and engine assembly
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Guy Alcala wrote:
SNIP
> Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. Gordon could have said
> Sgt./Feldwebel/Pilot Officer/Leutnant pilots, but that's rather
clumsy. It
> seems that you're the only person who interprets his use of the
shorthand Sgt.
> Pilots as a slur. I suppose he could have said low-time pilots or
given his
> interest, Nachwuchs, but most of us read his meaning just fine.
The German term for Sargeant is Feldwebel literally means "Field
Weaver" and I suspect the term Seargent means the same in French.
Feldwebels were literate and smart in medieval times and carried
handbooks of mathematical tables, geometry, square root etc. They were
in charge of organising the troops in complex formations and
manouevering them. The speed that they did this often determined
victory. They had to know how fast the inner and out troops had to
march to get the movement they needed and what area or front line was
needed.
Krztalizer
>on
>> > both
>> > sides of the Channel were flying jets, so Mosquitoes were not THAT hard.
Tex replied (sorry, I didnt get that reply on AOL):
>> Are you inferring that sergeant pilots are somehow inferior?
Tex, you should know me better than this. I am not Art and I am not suggesting
that enlisted airmen were not capable of complex tasks.
Did we send a Sgt Pilot to the moon, or perhaps someone a bit more senior? That
was my point, that I honestly believe you should have gotten it without my
having to explain it. I was the first out of many people who blasted him for
suggesting enlisted folks were too thick to operate GEE and I know good and
well how capable sgt pilots were.
>> In what way?
>> Skill? Training? Social graces? Education? Your attitude is somewhat
>> suspect here.
No more so than yours here Tex - you seem spoiling for a fight without any
reason that I can see.
Guy replied:
>Seems to me that his point was that even the most junior pilots (with
>experience
>presumably to match, given the relatively rapid promotion rates) could handle
>jets. No slur need be inferred, just a statement of fact.
>
Exactly - thanks, Guy (and others).
Tex Houston
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
Gordon,
It did seem out of character but the sergeant pilots I knew and knew of,
more RNLAF than American, were not on a track which made them junior in
anything. The USA Army trained 3,007 between 1912-1942 and the last
enlisted pilot retired in 1957. Others who were later commissioned served
longer. I served with one who went the gamut, sergeant, flight officer,
commissioned, RIF'ed, enlisted again. As for as skill is concerned I submit
one name...Bob Hoover Class 1942H-Columbus, yes that Bob Hoover.
The Dutch pilots I knew were senior to very senior and were all fighter
pilots in F-104G. While I knew them as Sergeants all were eventually given
commissions or warrants as I think the practice of using enlisted pilots was
being phased out of their service.
The US service which handled the situation best was probably the Navy but
then God always wanted to be a US Navy Chief!
Just striving to give them the credit they deserve,
Tex Houston
Emmanuel Gustin
> Re-engine some Mossies with Allisons? Or with twin-row radials?
Why not take the radical route, if you are playing what-if...
Some US manufacturer could certainly have produced an equivalent
of the Mosquito of all-metal construction, flush-riveted
throughout, with a laminar-flow wing and a pair of
turbo-supercharged R-2800s. Essentially, a smaller XB-28.
With a pressure cabin, it could have operated at altitudes
that were beyond the reach of all but a few German fighters.
--
Emmanuel Gustin
Chad Irby
Emmanuel Gustin <Emmanue...@skynet.be> wrote:
Of course, if you're talking about counter-fighter techniques, there's
always the "gunship" B-29s that were suggested, where they add in a
couple more crew and a *lot* more firepower, inlcuding multiple 20mm
cannons and a lot of ammo, instead of bombs.
For interceptor duty, a megagun b-29 "superfighter" was another
suggestion, with a pod containing a *bunch* of front-firing weapons
slung under the fuselage. At very high altitude, it could outrun and
outmaneuver most of the planes in the air at the time.
Greg Hennessy
<Emmanue...@skynet.be> wrote:
>Stephen FPilot Bierce wrote:
>
>> Re-engine some Mossies with Allisons? Or with twin-row radials?
>
>Why not take the radical route,
You mean the Douglas Mixmaster.
greg
--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone
Peter Stickney
Guy Alcala <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> writes:
> The Enlightenment wrote:
>
>> The Germans managed to get the Wood/Metal Heinkel He 162 from designe
>> to mass production in less than 6 months under the worst conceivable
>> situation so I think it would have been possible to do the lessor job
>> of a conversion of the Mosquito in less than this time.
>
> The difference being that it was designed that way from the start.
> Sometimes it's far easier to just start from scratch.
>
> <snip>
>
>> The fuesleage was all alluminium and it was chosen to be of this
>> material becuase it was faster to designe and work with despite
>> Germany's light metals shortage.
>
> And that's why I think any mass production of the Mossie would require
> redesign in metal.
Which would also lower performance, at the sime time that it reduced
the stuctural weight. The molded wood skins of the Mosquito allowed
for an exceptionally smooth finish, that a flush-rivetted metal
airframe can't match without adding a coat of filler (liek the
Mustang's leading edge) to it. It's worth pointing out that until the
advent of the Libelle Sailplane (The first Glass Ship) in the early
'60s, the preferred materiel for high performance sailplanes was
wood.
THe mossie was smooth even for a wooden airframe. Even the number of
hatches and access plates was held to a minimum.
>
> <snip>
>
>> So I believe a composit wood-aluminium composit Mosquito could have
>> been converted and gotten into mass production in 6 months and I
>> believe it could have been a lighter, faster, stronger aircraft than
>> the all wooden one.
>
> For the reasons given above, I disagree that it could have been done in six
> months, but I could be wrong. Besides, if you're not as desperate as the
> germans were, you aren't going to cut the kinds of corners they did during
> development and test.
I agree with you, Guy. And, while it would probably have been
lighter, it would not necessarily be stronger, and it certainly
wouldn't be faster.
>
>> The subject of Mosquito fabrication is a fascinating and beautifull
>> one. Does anyone have links to construction methods? I'd like to see
>> how the wing and fueselage were joined to see how the designe might
>> have been modified.
>
> I can't find anything online. The sole book I own on the Mossie, the
> Ballantine paperback, has a few shots showing wings and fuselages under
> construction, but I can't tell how the join was made. the fsuelage
> wasbuilt in two halves split lengthwise, then joined. Photos show the wing
> apparently made in a single piece before joining, which is odd because it's
> a mid-wing design and I know the nav sat on the wing center section as it
> passed through the cockpit. I don't think the whole wing was slid through
> from one side, but the photos I have aren'table to tell me. Possibly the
> wing was built in two halves that were assembled with them joined together
> to check fit (photos show entire wings being worked on, not halves), then
> the two halves were detached to allow them to be attached to the now
> completed fuselage.
As it so happens... :) I just reached across the library and pulled
my copy of the Erection Manual for teh Mosquito off the shelf.
It's got instructions for assembling/disassembling the airplane, of
course. (So if anywone's got a spare Mosquito sitting in a crate,
I'll take it off your hands.)
The airplane went together like a big model airplane. The wing is one
piece, and the fuselage is essentially one piece, as well. The area
under the wing, where the bomb bay/cannon bay was, isn't part of the
strength part of the fuselage structure, and is removable. Basically,
you propped the wing up level, and lowered the fuselage onto it.
--
Pete Stickney
p-sti...@nospam.adelphia.net
Without data, all you have are opinions
Krztalizer
I hate you, sir.
>It's got instructions for assembling/disassembling the airplane, of
>course. (So if anywone's got a spare Mosquito sitting in a crate,
>I'll take it off your hands.)
Five minutes alone inside your house - honest, you won't even know I was there.
I'll replace the volume and you'll never miss it.
>The airplane went together like a big model airplane. The wing is one
>piece, and the fuselage is essentially one piece, as well. The area
>under the wing, where the bomb bay/cannon bay was, isn't part of the
>strength part of the fuselage structure, and is removable. Basically,
>you propped the wing up level, and lowered the fuselage onto it.
Speaking of wood models, I have a 1944 solid balsa wood model of the Mosquito,
but I am quite terrified to try to build it. Probabaly about 1/60 scale or so
- not one of the more common sizes. I'd love to see it built, by someone else!
Is anyone good at this sort of thing..?
steve gallacci
Krztalizer wrote:
>
> >
> >>> The Germans managed to get the Wood/Metal Heinkel He 162 from designe
> >>> to mass production in less than 6 months under the worst conceivable
> >>> situation so I think it would have been possible to do the lessor job
> >>> of a conversion of the Mosquito in less than this time.
> >>
Actually, the He162 was almost all metal fuselage and only the wing and
some panels, nose cone, gear doors in wood. it is also a very small and
simple thing.
Since the mechanical dynamics of metal is rather different than wood,
any major element on the Mossie would in effect have to be designed all
over from scratch and require some integration work.
Alan Dicey
>>
>>As it so happens... :) I just reached across the library and pulled
>>my copy of the Erection Manual for the Mosquito off the shelf.
>
>
> I hate you, sir.
>
>
>>It's got instructions for assembling/disassembling the airplane, of
>>course. (So if anywone's got a spare Mosquito sitting in a crate,
>>I'll take it off your hands.)
>
>
> Five minutes alone inside your house - honest, you won't even know I was there.
> I'll replace the volume and you'll never miss it.
>
I know there are Mosquito assembly pics on the web somewhere - and
indeed here they are, in a very well put-together series from the
Toronto Aerospace Museum
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/CommunityMemories/AECZ/00aa/Exhibits/English/
>
>>The airplane went together like a big model airplane. The wing is one
>>piece, and the fuselage is essentially one piece, as well. The area
>>under the wing, where the bomb bay/cannon bay was, isn't part of the
>>strength part of the fuselage structure, and is removable. Basically,
>>you propped the wing up level, and lowered the fuselage onto it.
>
Like this:
The one-piece wing
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=record_detail&fl=&lg=English&ex=00000192&rd=94029
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=record_detail&fl=&lg=English&ex=00000192&rd=94031
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=record_detail&fl=&lg=English&ex=00000192&rd=94055
The fuselage
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=record_detail&fl=&lg=English&ex=00000192&rd=94021#
Mating the two
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=record_detail&fl=&lg=English&ex=00000192&rd=94058
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=record_detail&fl=&lg=English&ex=00000192&rd=94059
I think that the fuselage had to be supported by a jury strut in the
bomb-bay opening until the wing was in place. The bombs and fuel tanks
were hung off the one-piece wing structure.
>
> Speaking of wood models, I have a 1944 solid balsa wood model of the Mosquito,
> but I am quite terrified to try to build it. Probabaly about 1/60 scale or so
> - not one of the more common sizes. I'd love to see it built, by someone else!
> Is anyone good at this sort of thing..?
>
Frightningly, the kit is probably worth more unassembled! And nowadays,
to have a model of the Mosquito on your desktop, in 1/48 or 1/72
scale, go to your local model shop and get hold of one of the Tamiya
kits. They are extremely well molded, of recent production, and have
almost everything you could want. Currently they produce:
a B Mk.IV/PR Mk.IV,
an FB Mk.VI/NF.MkII
and an NF Mk. XIII/XVII.
Airfix make a B/PR Mk.XVI, with two-stage Merlin long nacelles.
I'm working on a PR IV, to be DZ383 in overall PRU Blue, just to show
off the lines of the aircraft.
Ah! De Havilland . . .
The Enlightenment
This may be an aspect of production. Small production runs probably
don't favour metal as it may require investment in presses and dies.
Otherwise we'd have B-47 Stratojets with wooden wings. Presses actually
speed production but they are a considerable up front investment.
>
> THe mossie was smooth even for a wooden airframe. Even the number of
> hatches and access plates was held to a minimum.
Some of the fastest aircraft of the era had a metal fuesleage and
wooden wings:
the Heinkel He 70 airliner of the prewar era could outpace any bomber
or fighter of the time, the Ta 152H and ofcourse the Heinkel He 162
also had this form of construction. The use of filler material is
quite a valid way around the problem of poor manufacturing tollerances
of metal work and seams; this is how the Germans built the Arado 234
jet bomber (which was very smooth but very rough underneath the spack
filler) and as you say how Nth American built the P51 Mustang.
I do recall reading that in the fly of evaluation between the Heinkel
He 112 and Messerschmitt Bf 109 that the metal elliptical wing of the
He 112 had rough bulges that were a product of the way the wing had
been beaten and formed. To get a smooth surface an an metal elliptical
wing the wing surface needs to be pressed and this is pretty expensive
and time consuming for a prototype. The RLM had required that the He
112 use an all metal elliptical wing whereas the He 70 elliptical wing
was wooden.
(Which raises the possibillity of using a wooden fueselage and going to
a metal wing or as the Soviets did with great success going to an
aluminium fueselage, steel wing spar and wooden wing.)
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> So I believe a composit wood-aluminium composit Mosquito could
have
> >> been converted and gotten into mass production in 6 months and I
> >> believe it could have been a lighter, faster, stronger aircraft
than
> >> the all wooden one.
> >
> > For the reasons given above, I disagree that it could have been
done in six
> > months, but I could be wrong. Besides, if you're not as desperate
as the
> > germans were, you aren't going to cut the kinds of corners they did
during
> > development and test.
>
> I agree with you, Guy. And, while it would probably have been
> lighter, it would not necessarily be stronger, and it certainly
> wouldn't be faster.
The conversion of the all metal Fw 190D to the metal fueselage and
wooden winged Ta 152H seems to have worked quite well and I believe the
process was happening to the smaller winged low altitude Ta 152C and Fw
190A-10 (whcih was getting an enlarged wing)
The Soviets probably have some excellent examples as well.
Ofcourse th is a designe that started as an all metal designe and ended
up a composite. The Fw 190 already had a carry through spar that ran
all the way from left wing to right through the fueselage (unlike
Messerchmitt designes that had the wings spars bolted and the skins
riveted like a zipper on the left and right of the fueselage, the
fuesleage of the Me 262 also built in left and right halves and then
'zipped' together)
The Mosquito also had a carry through spar so it becomes a matter of
providing a strong bulkhead and some beams on the new metal fueselage
to bolt or attach the wooden wing to. That should be fairly easily
solved as the high stress concentration areas can be engineered for the
Aluminium to take.
The next issue is how to get that egg or teardrop shape for the
fueselage which must be the secret of the Mosquito.
Some of the metal sheeting would clearly need to be 3 dimensional. To
a degree carefull bending of 2 dimensional sheets would work, similar
to the process used on the DC-3 and most other aircaft of the area.
To get serious however presses will be needed. By the end of the
second world war the B-29 was having its very thick wing skins formed
by presses instead of just being wrapped around the fueselage. The B26
Marauder also used this method and had an exaceptional finnish and I
suspect the B-24 Liberator as this had thicker skins and thinner ribs
and stringers.
I know that the 'cap' that formed the nose of the DC-3/C47 was made by
pressing using rubber blocks as the male into a female die and this
sort of thing could be done at an airline workshop: the presses were
big manually opperated screws not hydraulic.
Dave Kearton
"Alan Dicey" <al...@removethis.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote in
message news:420046d0$0$46772$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net
|
......Lots of snippage......
|
| http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/CommunityMemories/AECZ/00aa/Exhibits/English/
|
||
||| The airplane went together like a big model airplane. The wing is
||| one piece, and the fuselage is essentially one piece, as well. The
||| area under the wing, where the bomb bay/cannon bay was, isn't part
||| of the strength part of the fuselage structure, and is removable.
||| Basically, you propped the wing up level, and lowered the fuselage
||| onto it.
||
|
| Like this:
|
| I'm working on a PR IV, to be DZ383 in overall PRU Blue, just to show
| off the lines of the aircraft.
|
| Ah! De Havilland . . .
Is that a fantastic site - or what ?
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
John Keeney
"Krztalizer" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
Why don't you just ask him for a scan?
> >The airplane went together like a big model airplane. The wing is one
> >piece, and the fuselage is essentially one piece, as well. The area
> >under the wing, where the bomb bay/cannon bay was, isn't part of the
> >strength part of the fuselage structure, and is removable. Basically,
> >you propped the wing up level, and lowered the fuselage onto it.
>
> Speaking of wood models, I have a 1944 solid balsa wood model of the
Mosquito,
> but I am quite terrified to try to build it. Probabaly about 1/60 scale
or so
> - not one of the more common sizes. I'd love to see it built, by someone
else!
> Is anyone good at this sort of thing..?
I used to be, but I haven't done a model in many-many years.
Dave Kearton
"John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42005...@news.iglou.com
|
| I used to be, but I haven't done a model in many-many years.
I have, but I didn't get pics ;-(
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Krztalizer
>I'm working on a PR IV, to be DZ383 in overall PRU Blue, just to show
>off the lines of the aircraft.
Need any reference photos? I have approximately several air-to-air shots of
DZ383. Its definitely one of the top three most photographed Mossies.
>Ah! De Havilland . . .
>
Ain't it so.
v/r
Gordon
PS, thanks for the links. I have a few similar Downsview shots in our
"Mosquitopedia" image collection.
Dave Eadsforth
stic...@Mineshaft.local> writes
>In article <41FDD94D...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net>,
> Guy Alcala <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> writes:
>> The Enlightenment wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> And that's why I think any mass production of the Mossie would require
>> redesign in metal.
>
>Which would also lower performance, at the sime time that it reduced
>the stuctural weight. The molded wood skins of the Mosquito allowed
>for an exceptionally smooth finish, that a flush-rivetted metal
>airframe can't match without adding a coat of filler (liek the
>Mustang's leading edge) to it.
The gaffers in the best rivetting shops were reputed to run a paint
scraper along the lines of flush rivets to see if they really were
flush. If not...
SNIP
>
>THe mossie was smooth even for a wooden airframe. Even the number of
>hatches and access plates was held to a minimum.
>>
I recall that the Mosquito was given a final covering of Mandapolam, a
fabric that was doped onto the wood skin for smoothness and
waterproofing. But perhaps not all wooden skinned aircraft of the
period used it.
Cheers,
Dave
--
Dave Eadsforth
Admiral Sir Francis Haddock
>Speaking of wood models, I have a 1944 solid balsa wood model of the Mosquito,
>but I am quite terrified to try to build it.
I've got a solid brass model of a Mossie (B.IX or thereabouts) made by
an erk in 8 Group.
Gavin Bailey
--
Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En
Peter Stickney
krzta...@aol.comint (Krztalizer) writes:
>>As it so happens... :) I just reached across the library and pulled
>>my copy of the Erection Manual for the Mosquito off the shelf.
>
> I hate you, sir.
'Tis a matter of sharp eyes and a discerning intellect. When you
spend a lifetime looking for obscure stuff, you develop a talent.
>>It's got instructions for assembling/disassembling the airplane, of
>>course. (So if anywone's got a spare Mosquito sitting in a crate,
>>I'll take it off your hands.)
>
> Five minutes alone inside your house - honest, you won't even know I was there.
You'd have to get in through the Machine Shop/Garage, which is rather
full of disassembled Renault FT at the moment. (Well, it's a Van Dorne
6-ton, that it's a difference without distinction) The dog wouldn't
let you in without a big supply of Puppy Cookies and Belly-rubs. (Then
she'd show you where the silverware is kept.)
> I'll replace the volume and you'll never miss it.
If I find another, it's yours.
Actually, I've been meaning to get in touch with you about some
stuff. drop me a line at the address in the .sig
>>The airplane went together like a big model airplane. The wing is one
>>piece, and the fuselage is essentially one piece, as well. The area
>>under the wing, where the bomb bay/cannon bay was, isn't part of the
>>strength part of the fuselage structure, and is removable. Basically,
>>you propped the wing up level, and lowered the fuselage onto it.
>
> Speaking of wood models, I have a 1944 solid balsa wood model of the Mosquito,
> but I am quite terrified to try to build it. Probabaly about 1/60 scale or so
> - not one of the more common sizes. I'd love to see it built, by someone else!
> Is anyone good at this sort of thing..?
THat sounds an awful lot like an ID model. They used to pass out kits
to organizations like the Boy Scouts & such, who'd build 'em to supply
the War Effort. That kit's probably a Piece of History, and it'd be a
shame to build it.
That being said, I _am_ pretty good at that sort of thing. (Take
ballsa blocks & planks, and remove anything that doesn't look like a
Mosquito.) And I've love to take a shot. I wouldn't need the kit
itself, just a copy of the plans & patterns, using new wood. That way
you get the model and get to keep the kit in its unbuilt state.
> Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
Yabbut - I prefure landing you can _walk_ away from to landings where
you swim.
Peter Stickney
Alan Dicey <al...@removethis.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> writes:
> Krztalizer wrote:
<snip - prodiction line shots of Mosquitoes being made.>
Those are from Downview? Very impressive indeed. Thanks for showing
them.
>
> I think that the fuselage had to be supported by a jury strut in the
> bomb-bay opening until the wing was in place. The bombs and fuel tanks
> were hung off the one-piece wing structure.
There is an adjutable jury strut, but it looks like its too light for
strength, It gets removed before assembly, and of course, is put on
after you pull the fuselage off the wing. It doesn't seem all that
different than the strongback panels that had to be put on an F-4
before you dropped an engine. (IIRC), the engine access panels were
part of the "stiffness" of the fuselage, and dropping an engine
without the strongback in place meant a warped airframe.
> I'm working on a PR IV, to be DZ383 in overall PRU Blue, just to show
> off the lines of the aircraft.
That's going to be lovely.
> Ah! De Havilland . . .
They certainly made some beautiful airplanes. That seems to have been
part of DH's requirements. The otherse seem to be:
1) High performance
2) Make it out of wood as much as possible
3) Have a "DH-shape" tail
4) There will be a hidden flaw.
(Structural integrity for the Albatross (Perhaps the most beitiful
4-engine airliner ever) and Comet, High Mach behavior for the Vampire
& Venom, & the glue holding up for the Mosquito.
Alan Dicey
>>I'm working on a PR IV, to be DZ383 in overall PRU Blue, just to show
>>off the lines of the aircraft.
>
>
> Need any reference photos? I have approximately several air-to-air shots of
> DZ383. Its definitely one of the top three most photographed Mossies.
>
Yes, please; all reference material is much appreciated, especially
photos of the real thing in service!
If DZ383 is so well documented, that perhaps explains why Tamiya chose
to provide it as one of the three alternative sets of markings. (The
others are DZ367 GB-J and DK333 HS-F)
I have a couple of photos of it as a PR IV, issued to 540 Squadron in
May 1943, in overall blue with no codes. One of these shows what looks
like a camera port in the port fuselage side, just behind the wing root.
The 1/48th Tamiya kit has no opening here, so extra reference would be
most welcome.
Richard Franks "SAM Modellers Datafile" shows outline drawings of the PR
IV with two camera ports just aft of the bomb bay, in addition to the
two at the front of the bomb bay and the single tac camera port under
the fuselage and halfway to the tail. I've seen no other evidence that
PR IV's had more downward ports than the B IV's they were converted
from, so underside views would be good too :-) And anything showing
weathering, exhaust staining (hard to miss on the plain blue airframe) etc.
I have also seen pictures of DZ383 as B IV in the Day Fighter scheme
with invasion stripes and marked ? in September 1944, when it was
apparantly used as a camera ship (on operational missions!) with 2 TAF -
including the Shell House raid, I believe. This was obviously a
long-lived airframe.
The Enlightenment
respects:
1 It was able to opperate at speeds and altitudes that made
interception difficult and reduced the number and types of attack
possible. (in other words it was Mosquito like in some aspects of its
opperation)
2 The B29 had a much more accurate gun aiming system than the older
heavies thatmade its defensese far more potent. This relied on a sort
of stadeoscopic range finder reflector sight that the gunner aimed at
the target and while simultaneously opperated in an expanding and
contracting recticle around the target that was used to estimated the
attacking aircrafts range by its wingspan & general dimensions. The
angular elevation and azimuth was transmited via a servo mechanism
consisisting of transmiting syncho in the sight and a receiving syncho
in the turrets with the error between actual and desired position
being detected vua a phase sensitive demodulator that converted the
error from AC pahse differences to DC and then amplified by a
combination of valve electronics and a type of motor-generator called
an amplidyne that then energised the drive motors.
The site elevation/azimuth data was also transmitted to an
electromechanical computer that calculated corrections for range,
triangulated the parrallex erros due to the differences between
sighting station and gun, calculated an firing solution for relative
target movement and made corrections due to air density and velocity
that were trimed in via a differential synchro transformer between the
sight and turret synchros.
(PS I have no single document on the above: I've pieced it together
over years)
The resulting accuracy was quite high: A26 Invaders with the system
could hit trucks from 8000 feet and B29 were used to kill contaminated
horses from nuclear tests.
I think that the powerfull remote control aiming system developed for
the B29 would have allowed high speed aircaft only a little bigger than
the Mosquito but just as fast to carry an effective all aspect defense
system.
This is the best of both worlds.
In the case of the German Ar 240/Ar 440 (and Ju 388) the rear gunner
was seated in the main cabin facing rearward and viewed rearward via a
periscope that dropped to mid level of the fueselage and then ran the
length of the fueselage then split at a T junction into an upper scope
and a lower scope that switched automatically as the gunner scaned the
sky. The scope was near the remote turret so there was no parrallex
error to calculated or correct for. While the gunner could easily view
upwards and down toward the either sides his vision directly rearward
was through the periscope so wide angle optics were developed to
enhance his viewing angle and increase his chances of acquiring the
target. The position of the periscopes also gave a good rearward view
over (or underI the tail and its surfaces. It was found to give
better night vision than the gunner had through a normal sight and
bullet proof glass.
The A26 Invader had a similar system only the gunner sat in a chair
around the periscope and could spin around it. These gunners had views
better than a normal dorsal gunner as they could view over the tail,
shoot over the tail and even see downward via the sight.
In a properly conceived aircraft the speed of the Mosquito, its low
crew requirements and good bombload could be combined with accurate and
powerfull all aspect defensive armament by the use of low drag remotely
controlled weapons that require minimum crew numbers.
The B29 started taking looses as the Japanese adjusted wepaons and
tactics: once its slight performance advantage was eroded enough the
weapons no logner worked. The B29 was too slow and then even its
wepons started becoming ineffective.
Krztalizer
>let you in without a big supply of Puppy Cookies and Belly-rubs. (Then
>she'd show you where the silverware is kept.)
Goooooooood giiiiiiiirl...
>> I'll replace the volume and you'll never miss it.
>
>If I find another, it's yours.
>Actually, I've been meaning to get in touch with you about some
>stuff. drop me a line at the address in the .sig
roger that - incoming.
>
>>>The airplane went together like a big model airplane. The wing is one
>>>piece, and the fuselage is essentially one piece, as well. The area
>>>under the wing, where the bomb bay/cannon bay was, isn't part of the
>>>strength part of the fuselage structure, and is removable. Basically,
>>>you propped the wing up level, and lowered the fuselage onto it.
>>
>> Speaking of wood models, I have a 1944 solid balsa wood model of the
>Mosquito,
>> but I am quite terrified to try to build it. Probabaly about 1/60 scale or
>so
>> - not one of the more common sizes. I'd love to see it built, by someone
>else!
>> Is anyone good at this sort of thing..?
>
>THat sounds an awful lot like an ID model. They used to pass out kits
>to organizations like the Boy Scouts & such, who'd build 'em to supply
>the War Effort. That kit's probably a Piece of History, and it'd be a
>shame to build it.
Oh, I'd never attempt it. The attachment I am forwarding to your email is a
few small .jpgs of the kit. Called an "Eagle Solid Wood Airplane" - the
drawings show it is intended to be finished as a B-XVI or PR-XVI (bulged
windows). Sure looks cool, but definitely outside me area of expertise.
>That being said, I _am_ pretty good at that sort of thing. (Take
>ballsa blocks & planks, and remove anything that doesn't look like a
>Mosquito.) And I've love to take a shot. I wouldn't need the kit
>itself, just a copy of the plans & patterns, using new wood. That way
>you get the model and get to keep the kit in its unbuilt state.
I have a chum in the UK that is sick with the Mosquito, building a 1/3rd scale
Mossie in his backyard to fly the baby around in, that sort of thing. If he
doesn't get all glazed over with love for this kit, its yours - at least it
will be in the proper hands!
>> Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
>
>Yabbut - I prefure landing you can _walk_ away from to landings where
>you swim.
Typical SAR aircrew comment to a pilot during an emergency: "Sir, you wait
here - I'll go for help!"
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR
Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
Krztalizer
>If DZ383 is so well documented, that perhaps explains why Tamiya chose
>to provide it as one of the three alternative sets of markings. (The
>others are DZ367 GB-J and DK333 HS-F)
DZ367 is one of the other 'Most Photographed' machines - we've got a pile of
pix of her too.
I made a zip file of the DZ383 photos and they are going into your mail in a
few minutes.
>I have a couple of photos of it as a PR IV, issued to 540 Squadron in
>May 1943, in overall blue with no codes. One of these shows what looks
>like a camera port in the port fuselage side, just behind the wing root.
> The 1/48th Tamiya kit has no opening here, so extra reference would be
>most welcome.
On the waaaaaaaaay
>Richard Franks "SAM Modellers Datafile" shows outline drawings of the PR
>IV with two camera ports just aft of the bomb bay, in addition to the
>two at the front of the bomb bay and the single tac camera port under
>the fuselage and halfway to the tail. I've seen no other evidence that
>PR IV's had more downward ports than the B IV's they were converted
>from, so underside views would be good too :-) And anything showing
>weathering, exhaust staining (hard to miss on the plain blue airframe) etc.
>
>I have also seen pictures of DZ383 as B IV in the Day Fighter scheme
>with invasion stripes and marked ? in September 1944, when it was
>apparantly used as a camera ship (on operational missions!) with 2 TAF -
>including the Shell House raid, I believe. This was obviously a
>long-lived airframe.
Always amazed me when we'd track an airframe that went from early production
all the way through to the end. One of the first batch of PR Is made it from
first flight to demob, in action all the way. Imagine a short-nacelle Mossie
hanging around the big show all the way to the curtain - only to be lit on fire
by erks as a late thank you for your service.