Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Magic Mossies
Aussiegunneragain    7/11/2010 9:01:10 AM
There was a thread on here a few years ago put up by a fellow named Shooter, who was trying to make the argument that the Dehavilland Mosquito was a strategically insignificant aircraft which should never have been produced for the RAF, because it represented a waste of engines which could have better been used in Avro Lancasters. Shooter, an American, had a hobby of trying to diss any non-American type that had an excellent reputation (the Spitfire was another favourite target) and most people here told him he was being a clown with that being the end of it. However, the thread has stuck in the back of my mind and made me wonder whether in fact the Mossie, despite its widespread usage in a variety of roles, was in fact underutilised in the daylight strategic bombing role? It did perform some very important low level raids such as the daylight raid on the Phillips radio works (along with Ventura's and Bostons - far less Mossies were shot down)in Holland during Operation Oyster. However, I can't find many references to the Mossie being used for the sort of regular high altitude daylight strategic bombing missions that the B-17 and other USAF daylight heavies conducted. Consider its characteristics: -It could carry 4 x 500lb bombs all the way to Berlin which meant that you needed three mossies to carry a slightly larger warload than one B-17 did, which upon this basis meant more engine per lb of bomb in the Mossie. -However, the Mossie was hard to catch and was more survivable than the Heavies. The latter only really became viable with the addition of long-range escort fighters, something that the mossie could have done without. -It only required two crew versus ten on a B-17. Without intending to be critical of the USAF daylight heavies, because they were one of the strategically vital assets in winning WW2, I am wondering whether had the RAF used the Mossie in the role at the expense of night bombing operations in Lancasters? I have read accounts that suggest that the later were not really directly successful in shutting down German production, with the main contribution being that they forced the Germans to provide 24/7 air defence. If they had used Mossies more in the daylight precision role is it possible that the impact that the fighter-escorted USAF bombers had on German production might have been bought forward by a year or so, helping to end the War earlier? Another idea that I have is that if Reich fighter defences had started to get too tough for unescorted Merlin powered Mossies on strategic daylight missions, that they could have built the Griffon or Sabre powered versions that never happenned to keep the speed advantage over the FW-190? Up-engined Fighter versions of the Mossie would also have probably had sufficient performance to provide escort and fighter sweep duties in Germany in order to provide the bombers with even more protection. Thoughts? (PS, in case anybody hasn't worked it out the Mossie is my favourite military aircraft and my second favourite aircraft after the Supermarine S-6B ... so some bias might show through :-). I do think it has to rate as one of the best all round aircraft of all time based on its merits alone).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
Maratabc       3/16/2013 11:20:23 AM
Mere denial does not disguise your ignorance. An understanding of vectored forces and how these operate shows me that you do not know the first thing about how objects behave in motion.  That is all I need to tell me that you do not know how bombs fall. 
 
Why do you think others are fools and that you know what you discuss, when almost every post you make shows THEM that you do not know even the simplest everyday knowledge? 
 
Bombs do not fall straight down  They fall down in the direction of forward motion. Think about it, if you can. 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/16/2013 12:23:33 PM
For trim adjustment of the tabs on the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Yes I do know this, for how a plane is loaded determines how much preset angle of attack you must set for the control tabs to keep the nose pointed without too much rise in inclination (pitch) or side motion (called crabbing or yaw.). I also know that fuel use has more effect than a mere 1000 lb bomb on those presets, for a plane's center of gravity shifts constantly as consumables are burned off. This shows me that not only do you lie about the bombs, but you don't know what you read in the manuals, you claim you read. For if you did you would read the cautions in the Flying Fortress manuals about how to set trim to prevent yaw and in which order to use the fuel tanks to prevent an uncontrolled nose wander.
 
Now... you were claiming without proof again? 
 
 

 

 
Please!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/16/2013 1:43:03 PM

Mere denial does not disguise your ignorance. An understanding of vectored forces and how these operate shows me that you do not know the first thing about how objects behave in motion.  That is all I need to tell me that you do not know how bombs fall. 
Not talking about bombs falling.
 
Why do you think others are fools and that you know what you discuss, when almost every post you make shows THEM that you do not know even the simplest everyday knowledge? 
Because, like you, they do not pay attention to the details, or they make silly assumptions. Like your responce below!
 
Bombs do not fall straight down  They fall down in the direction of forward motion. Think about it, if you can. 
I never wrote anything that even remotely implied any of this! But I can see from your assertion above that you obviously did not understand the idea, and the problem.
Part one, the bomb wobble, or fall path under discussion was what happened after a bomb higher on the rach fell onto a hung bomb below. Someone stated that it would become stuck and remain, buy implication, in the plane. I pointed out that there was more than enough room for any bomb of 2000 pounds, or under  to clear a hung bomb below it. No-one seems to have noticed that part, or like you, misinterpreted it.
Part two , The trajectory of a bomb dropped from a moving aircraft is almost straight down from the possition of the plane. Movies taken from a fixed camera inside the bomb bay show that the bombs possition is almost directly under the plane all the way to impact. However because of drag, the bomb starts to lag behind the plane's possition. The actual trajectory of the bomb resembles a Hyperbola with the loci at the point of release and the plane of maneuver coincidental with that of the plane that dropped it. When a bomb is not released cleanly, IE hangs up from only one of the two hooks that hold it, ot it impacts a hung bomb below in the verticle string of the rack, it comes out of the plane with a significant wobble which is clearly vissible in motion pictures and some times even in still pictures. All as I noted in the original post.


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/16/2013 1:50:21 PM
The fact that you claimed you were not talking about bombs falling shows exactly why you are ignorant. How weights drop from a bomber and how they foul in their carriages to affect a planes center of gravity and its stability, is exactly what you talked about.
 
If you don't even know that much, then how ignorant are you when you discuss how a plane changes its center of gravity as it flies?
 
Let me tell you. You know nothing. Even your quotes and claims show your utter ignorance. Learn before you write more nonsense, or better yet find something about which you might know a little, (finger painting?) and discuss that topic. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/16/2013 2:03:13 PM

For trim adjustment of the tabs on the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Yes I do know this, for how a plane is loaded determines how much preset angle of attack you must set for the control tabs to keep the nose pointed without too much rise in inclination (pitch) or side motion (called crabbing or yaw.). I also know that fuel use has more effect than a mere 1000 lb bomb on those presets, for a plane's center of gravity shifts constantly as consumables are burned off. Not really! Fuel, because it is shuch a huge factor must always be carried near the CG Poss! As such it's consuption has very little to do with the basic trim of the plane! You are right in the above that the trim tabs have very small corrective power. This shows me that not only do you lie about the bombs, In what way? but you don't know what you read in the manuals, you claim you read. For if you did you would read the cautions in the Flying Fortress manuals about how to set trim to prevent yaw and in which order to use the fuel tanks to prevent an uncontrolled nose wander. How on earth does nose wander equate to an "out of CG Range excursion" caused by an unballenced 1000 pound weight so far from the permissible ends of the range? Fuel in the wings is both difuse and centralised as a Mass and the Ailerons have tremendous power to counteract any defect due to failure to feed. They have to or every plane that ever had a stuck feed valve would have crashed. On the other hand the elivator has lots of power too, but if you had ever read the instruction, or pilot's  manuals, you would know that the range of CG possition has limits because the elivator has much less power to over come out of ballence conditions than the ailerons! The P-51 was a prime example of this. The CG was at the aft limits when the fuel tank behind the pilot was full and the plane was bairly controlable. So the used the fuel in that tank first, then the drop tanks, then the wing tanks. See that the wing tanks being out of ballence 105 gallons, or 630 pounds extra on one side of the plane was bad, but not serrious because the ailerons could cope with it. In the Lancaster, the permissible CG Range was, IIRC from 17 to 34% of the MAC! The desired CG location as the plane was loaded was at 24-25% of the MAC. Virtually ALL of the fuel in the entire plane wings and fuse was located between these two points! ALL of it! The last row of bomb racks was 12-13 feet behind the most aft CG datum. Now you tell me how easy that plane would be to fly when the elivator does not have enough athourity to over come that 13,000 pound feet of moment arm? Right! Look it up for your self if you do not believe me! It was all posted way back in this argument and I was right back then and I am right now!
 
Please!

Yes please do look it up! It's not a fantacy but a fact of life.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/16/2013 2:20:33 PM

The fact that you claimed you were not talking about bombs falling shows exactly why you are ignorant. How weights drop from a bomber and how they foul in their carriages to affect a planes center of gravity and its stability, is exactly what you talked about.
Yes, you are right about all of that, but in different ways at different times. That is why I asked for you to explain which way when I first replied to your non-specific post several back.
 
If you don't even know that much, then how ignorant are you when you discuss how a plane changes its center of gravity as it flies?
Obviously much better informed than you are! While the planes CoG does change as it flies, it does so in a controlled way, like the way that ever drop of fuel and oil is in-between the for and aft CoG limits! Those limits are set durring the design stage so that shifts normally incurred as the fuel is burned off have very little effect on the plane as a whole. They are easily comp'd for by the trim system. I have asked this repeatedly of all here on this board this question, but no-one has ever answered it! "What happens to a plane in flight if it's CoG is suddenly thown far out of range as would happen when a 1000 pound bomb hangs up in the rack farthest aft?"
 
Why don't you answer the question above?

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/16/2013 2:35:17 PM
I did. You were not able to understand.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/16/2013 4:04:58 PM
    Lossiemouth to Troso is 1050 1,059 miles and change from the runway cross point to the center of down town, but the ship is a bit over 33 klicks south west  about 1,038 miles.
wow 20 miles that makes a huge difference and as the Island the Tirpitz was moored at is 5km from the centre of Tromso that makes your statement wrong,
the above link to find the true great circle distance, 912 miles from the form up point to the center of town!
says
854.4 miles and as Peterborough was south west of any uSAAF base so we are talking less than that figure
er no, I user Peterborough as this was south east of all USAAF B17 Bases and therefor maximised your figures,
 
  Absolutely! The 30 planes that made that trip, assuming it was round trip and not a shuttle run to Russia,
it wasn't there were NO shuttle runs TO Russia they all were all England - Russia - target - England, and those you refer to were when the Tirpitz was further north
 
since I can find no refferance to the return trip landing place,
try Lossiemouth
 were fitted with extra tankage that was never part of the other 7,347 Lancasters!
No as the OTHER Lancaster didn't need it, it was only carrying 12000lbs to Tromso that needed the extra tankage, the non tallboy carrying lancasters on the mission didn't have the extra tanks or the removal of turrets or the upgraded engines, although it is worth noting that the engines and extra fuel tanks were easily fitted and could certainly been achieved on ALL lancasters should it have been required
 
It was absolutely impossible for those other 7,347 Lancs to make that trip.
what? the mine laying Lancasters were standard aircraft so whilst nostandard Lancaster could make it with 12000lbs they could make it with a reduced payload something beyond B17 even after they had the additional tanks fitted
 
 Furthermore, it was flown at an altitude of only 1,000' ASL for all but 225 miles of the entire trip!
rubbish true the Lancaster like the B17 flew low over the north sea both climbed over land and both bombed from 15000ft ish
 Then there is the point of the extra powerful 1,710 HP engines and the >72,000 pound Take Off Weight that the other 7,347 Lancs did not have! Those 30 Lancs were the only ones with the ability to do that!
maybe they were the only Lancasters that could do that but the point is that they WERE Lancasters and They DID do that which makes your satement that No Lancaster could match the B17 tronheim raid completely wrong, and the Trodheim raid required the B17 to have EXTRA tankage in the outer wings (called Tokyo tanks)
 
Until the advent of the post war Lincoln, 68,000 pounds was the MTO! So you want to comp those 30 Lancs with 8,400+ B-17Gs that would have absolutely no trouble at all making that trip?
No they wouldn't firstly NO B17 could carry a Tallboy any distance, secondly ther were NO B17 mission of that range at all
 
  Yes, but those sorties were not flown by any one of the 7,347 standard Lancasters! They were flow by the ~30 "Specials"!
no the mine layer was a Standard Lancaster not a Tallboy model
Once again, you cite something done by the ~30 Stripper "Specials" as if it was something that any of the others could have done? Right!
why not? maybe not with 12000lbs but then again no B17 could reach any target with that, but what of the main changes were not possible with a standard Lancaster should the need have arisen? the Uprated engines ? no they were a simple retro fit, the extra fuel tank, nope that was a easy job of a standard part, so why didn't they do it, well probably as it wasn't needed all practical targets were already in range of the standard Lancaster, unlike the B17 which first needed a big rubber bladder in a bomb bay then the fitting of extra tanks in the wings (despite the tendency of these tanks to explode
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/16/2013 4:25:34 PM
Shooter
 
Explain a few things then
 
Why is it not mentioned in the flight manuals
Why is it not mentioned in the test reports
Why is it not mentioned in pilot briefs
why did the recommended bomb drop sequence state nose to tail, this means that the final row of 3x 1000lbs were still attached when the row before was dropped, yet you claim that 1000lbs was enough to make the aircraft uncontrollable
 
finally can you provide evidence of your statements as you seem to be the ONLY source of this information
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/16/2013 4:33:10 PM
By the way I just noticed that you wrote that they flew from Bases WEST of London, is this a typo as there were no B17 bases WEST of London, there wasn't even any EAST of London they were all North - North East (ie closer to Norway)
 
I find it amazing how the Lancaster cannot get improvements whilst the B17 needed them constantly
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics