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
45-Shooter       3/19/2013 8:16:42 PM
OK, here we go again. I used the Range of CG limits as posted many times by others here as the starting point.
 What CofG limits posted here I have not notice such a post and as you are so happy referencing it it shouldn't be a problem for you to post a link to it
     I would IF I felt like going back threw the last hundred or so posts, but believe me, or not, it's there!     
 
I don't believe you, you have been wrong so many times (in fact I cannot remember you ever being right when you claim that something has been posted, whenever anyone checks it seems your memory is faulty so there is no chance of you being believed)
 
Then I did a simple moment arm calc to see how far out of range the plane would be IF a 1000 pound bomb hung up in the last row. Since the results are very far out of permitted range, I concluded that what all the current pilot's manuals say about those sorts of things are true. See this; 
CofG issuses were well known by the late 30s yet as I pointed out NO documents regarding the Lancaster refer to such an issue, and as the earlier models had a ventral turret that was discontinued in later models
  You failed to note the "Ballast" installed and or removed when that was done? When items of equipment are removed, added, changed there are always new calcs of CoG done! Always!
so they ballast back within limits yet never bother to check that a hung bomb or even all three bombs, would make the plane unflyable, what rubbish, there is documented evidence of a Lancaster losing 800lbs of tail turret and gunner yet that managed to return to England what was the change in cofg of  that?
From what I can see, no they never did check that. But if you have any of the various histories of this plane from back then, please post them and show us all. 
 
When those new calcs show a significant change that is considered 
to cause a problem, ballast is always added or removed as required to rectify the problem!
 
so before they release the plane they test its flight characteristics yet fail to test the most obvious talk sense, its basic aircraft design
As far as I can tell, no they never did test it's flight charicteristics with the CoG being so far out of ballence! So if you have any of the copies of the flight test reports from back then that do show they did this test, please post them for all of us to see.
But as an aside, I do not think they ever did a flight test with the CoG being so far out of ballence for any plane! Even to this day! The idea that someone would risk his life trying to fly any plane that badly out of ballence, seems strange to me?

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/19/2013 8:29:41 PM

You do not understand? Let me spell it out.
1700 gallons (imperial) 
About  5 tons (imperial) give or take  a hundred pounds. (weight changes per gallon based on temperature as it affects density/volume with gasoline more than water)
All as given! Not in dispute!
 
 

The trim for the aircraft has to adjust for the loss of that five tons (imperial) of fuel. This is your obvious failure! No, the plane has very little change in CoG because all of the gas is either in the wing, or thye fuse over the wing! There is absolutely no great shift in CoG as the gas is burned! Sudden drop of bombs fore to aft would NOT be a problem for an aircraft that has to have trim capability to adjust for 8% of its flight weight burned off as FUEL routinely. This is just one more giant failure of the thought proccesses! The fuel is all very near the desired CoG! The bomb burden would be released in sequence off a bridge load that could be easily handled  by the pilot shoving the yoke forward to keep horizon level as the drop sequence traveled front to back. Not true at all! That was why the huge horizontal stabilizers on the Lancaster. The Lancaster has the smallest and least effective Horitzontal Stab and elevator of all of the major serries produced WW-II bombers! Measure the areas your self from any three view, then multiply that area by the mean distance from the CoP! That square feet/meter times distance gives a factor. Then do the same for both the B-17 and B-24! The Liberators had a similar but less robust elevator solution applied to them. Wrong again! The B-24 was considerably more powerful verticle control force than the Lanc. And as the last load fell clear the Lancaster pilot would return to neutral attack on his control surfaces. Not according to the pilot's manual. The fuel would be more of a trim problem for him than the bombs, What is the farthest distance from the trailing edge of the farthest aft fuel tank? And the most aft bomb rack? because that is a constant refined trim adjustment over the entire flight.

This is clearly why you do NOT know how planes work
The above highlighted shows why you do not have a clue to any of the above!
 
 

Almost everthing you wrote above it terribly wrong!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/19/2013 8:37:26 PM

another example of him being wrong
Just how was anything I wrote wrong?
 
another way of looking at it, he has 1000lbs at about 10' from cofg making the aircraft unflyable
Actually it is about 13' to the leading hook o0f the pair that hold the bomb, not ten!
 
yet a Heinkel he111 could drop a 4700lbs V1 hung 4' off the centreline asynchrony  without crashing
Obviously! Ailerons have very much more power than the elivator! They are both farther from the CoG and they have conciderably more multiplication of force than the elevator.
Part two. It is asymetric, which means out of ballence in this case, not Asynchrony as you state above, which means out of time coordination! You really blew this one up. 
 

makes a mockery of his claims again
Both of the above show your complete lack of knowledge about how and why planes work the way they do!
And the synic demonstrates his complete mockery of his claims of competance and knowledge! Again!

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/19/2013 9:11:31 PM
PAGE 24. inboard to outboard, and then to center wing tanks. The plane had to be trimmed as each pair of tanks was burned off, otherwise the nose climbed.    
 
As for elevators same manual PAGE 10. It reinforces page 24.
 
The rest of your commentary is lies, gibberish, and ignorance. PER THE MANUAL. 
 
 The fuel would be more of a trim problem for him than the bombs, What is the farthest distance from the trailing edge of the farthest aft fuel tank? And the most aft bomb rack? because that is a constant refined trim adjustment over the entire flight.
This is clearly why you do NOT know how planes work
The above highlighted shows why you do not have a clue to any of the above!
 
 
Almost everthing you wrote above it terribly wrong!

 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/19/2013 9:59:22 PM
Reported results. Acceptable.
 
Pages 515-516  Aerodynamics for Engineering Students (Fifth Edition 1960)
By E. L. Houghton, P. W. Carpenter[ Butterworth Heinemann/Linacre House; Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP.]   
Center of gravity tests. 

     I would IF I felt like going back threw the last hundred or so posts, but believe me, or not, it's there!     
 
I don't believe you, you have been wrong so many times (in fact I cannot remember you ever being right when you claim that something has been posted, whenever anyone checks it seems your memory is faulty so there is no chance of you being believed)
 
Then I did a simple moment arm calc to see how far out of range the plane would be IF a 1000 pound bomb hung up in the last row. Since the results are very far out of permitted range, I concluded that what all the current pilot's manuals say about those sorts of things are true. See this; 
CofG issuses were well known by the late 30s yet as I pointed out NO documents regarding the Lancaster refer to such an issue, and as the earlier models had a ventral turret that was discontinued in later models
  You failed to note the "Ballast" installed and or removed when that was done? When items of equipment are removed, added, changed there are always new calcs of CoG done! Always!
so they ballast back within limits yet never bother to check that a hung bomb or even all three bombs, would make the plane unflyable, what rubbish, there is documented evidence of a Lancaster losing 800lbs of tail turret and gunner yet that managed to return to England what was the change in cofg of  that?
From what I can see, no they never did check that. But if you have any of the various histories of this plane from back then, please post them and show us all. 
 
When those new calcs show a significant change that is considered 
to cause a problem, ballast is always added or removed as required to rectify the problem!
 
so before they release the plane they test its flight characteristics yet fail to test the most obvious talk sense, its basic aircraft design

As far as I can tell, no they never did test it's flight charicteristics with the CoG being so far out of ballence! So if you have any of the copies of the flight test reports from back then that do show they did this test, please post them for all of us to see.
But as an aside, I do not think they ever did a flight test with the CoG being so far out of ballence for any plane! Even to this day! The idea that someone would risk his life trying to fly any plane that badly out of ballence, seems strange to me?

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/20/2013 4:05:32 AM
so they ballast back within limits yet never bother to check that a hung bomb or even all three bombs, would make the plane unflyable, what rubbish, there is documented evidence of a Lancaster losing 800lbs of tail turret and gunner yet that managed to return to England what was the change in cofg of  that?
From what I can see, no they never did check that. But if you have any of the various histories of this plane from back then, please post them and show us all.
No its you that claim something that would have grounded a plane if it occured, I can show that the Manchester was tested with balast to silmulate hung bombs in all possible conbinations so I cannot see why they
a/ skipped those tests in the Lancaster
b/ were allowed to skip them
 
for it not being an issue we have
 
Avro and the Department of Aircraft production both being happy that the Lancaster is safe to fly, we have hundreds of pilot reports that say that the Lanc had no bad habits (including all the test pilots) and we have documented proof that losing 800lbs from the extream end on the fuselarge didnt create an unconrolable inbalance
 
for it  being an issue we have
 
shooter and ...... nope thats it just shooter no one else, no reports, no antidotes, no rumours nothing
 
Shooter if you cannot see something that does not mean it doesnt exists the more logical explanation is that it was a problem and therefore didnt get mentioned, like crew movement the movement of a crew member about the plane will effect the weight distribution but you dont find reports of that either, why?
 because it was a none issue and not worth reporting.
 
Had thier been any issue with a 1000lbs on the last row bringing down a aircraft this would have been quickly identified when a 1000lbs on the next to last row hung up and caused significant control loss, that would have imediately led to investigation and the very quick fix of baning 1000lbs from the last row neither of which happened, in fact I cannot find any reports of hung bombs creating any noticable loss of control, even one report of a lanc flying most of the way home with a 1000lbs rolling loose in the bay
 
If your BS had any truth in  it there would be reports of hung bombs causing control loss - where are they?
 
 
 
When those new calcs show a significant change that is considered
to cause a problem, ballast is always added or removed as required to rectify the problem!
so before they release the plane they test its flight characteristics yet fail to test the most obvious talk sense, its basic aircraft design
As far as I can tell, no they never did test it's flight charicteristics with the CoG being so far out of ballence!
 
and as far as you can tell the B17 carried 4000llbs bombs internally, more than 2x 2000lbs internally and 34 x 440lbs internally so excuse us while we laugh hartley at any suggestion that what you think is anything near the truth
 
But as an aside, I do not think they ever did a flight test with the CoG being so far out of ballence for any plane! Even to this day! The idea that someone would risk his life trying to fly any plane that badly out of ballence, seems strange to me?
 
yet in all this time only you have thought of this? despite the same bay diemensions being used on the shackleton that operated into the 1980s
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/20/2013 4:28:31 AM

Just how
was anything I wrote wrong?

in just about everything you said

another way of looking at it, he has 1000lbs at about 10' from cofg making the aircraft
unflyable

Actually it is about 13' to the leading hook o0f the pair that hold the bomb, not ten!

so in a 33' bay the leading hook? of the last row is 13' from the CoG? get real

yet a Heinkel he111 could drop a 4700lbs V1 hung 4' off the centreline asynchrony without crashing

Obviously! Ailerons have very much more power than the elivator! They are both farther
from the CoG and they have conciderably more multiplication of force than the
elevator.
What complete rubbish, may I sugest you make that claim to a pilot and see his responce

Part two. It is asymetric, which means out of ballence in this case, not
Asynchrony as you state above, which means out of time coordination! You really
blew this one up.
nope
the bombs can be carried asymetric but can only be dropped asynchrony or together, true 1 bomb cannot be dropped aysynchrony but niether can it be dropped aysmetrically
 

it was because I was looking at a V1 article and mixed the single V1 of the He111
with the 2 V1s of the B17 which were dropped asynchrony.
however
a further investigation shows that at least 1 He111 was tested with twin V1s
and these were dropped asynchronously (the test was successful but the idea was
rejected as the he 111 had trouble making altitude with 2 V1s
So
actually what I wrote was write (although I will admit that I didn’t know it at
the time)
as were the Tallboys on a B29 - also dropped asynchrony

makes a mockery of his claims again

Both of the above show your complete lack of knowledge about how and why planes work
the way they do!

And the synic demonstrates his complete mockery of his claims of competance and
knowledge! Again!

really
I will put my record here against yours anyday, and when I am wrong I admit it
not lie and change the subject like you do.

Your claims have been repeated shot down and your research shown to be inaccurate,
misleading, inadequate but mainly just Wrong

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/20/2013 3:59:13 PM

I find it kind of neat that you have sited a "Pilot's Manual from the Microsoft FS-2004 game as a reliable source. ( Which it probably is!) But note that they use the word "Trim" not control for the minor changes that different fuel tanks use has on the model plane.
 
PAGE 24. inboard to outboard, and then to center wing tanks. The plane had to be trimmed as each pair of tanks was burned off, otherwise the nose climbed.    Once again, note the use of the word "Trim" instead of Control.
As for elevators same manual PAGE 10. It reinforces page 24.
General flying
(i)  Stability.-At normal loadings and speeds, stability is satisfactory.
(ii)  Controls.-The elevators are relatively light and effective, but tend to become heavy in turns. The
ailerons are light and effective, but become heavy at speeds over 260 m.p.h. The rudders also
become heavy at high speeds. Again, note the use of the word "Trim" and that the "Stability" is just "Satisfactory" not great, or good!
This is clearly why you do NOT know how planes work
The above highlighted shows why you do not have a clue to any of the above!
 
 
Almost everthing you wrote above it terribly wrong!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/20/2013 4:17:48 PM

so they ballast back within limits yet never bother to check that a hung bomb or even all three bombs, would make the plane unflyable, what rubbish, there is documented evidence of a Lancaster losing 800lbs of tail turret and gunner yet that managed to return to England what was the change in cofg of  that? Part one. The loss of so much weight aft would tend to make the plane more stable, not less.
From what I can see, no they never did check that. But if you have any of the various histories of this plane from back then, please post them and show us all.
No its you that claim something that would have grounded a plane if it occured, They did test W&B and CoG range before flight. I can show that the Manchester was tested with balast to silmulate hung bombs in all possible conbinations so I cannot see why they: a/ skipped those tests in the Lancaster b/ were allowed to skip them.
  Please post a link to those balasted tests to simulate hung bombs.

    Avro and the Department of Aircraft production both being happy that the Lancaster is safe to fly, we have hundreds of pilot reports that say that the Lanc had no bad habits (including all the test pilots) and we have documented proof that losing 800lbs from the extream end on the fuselarge didnt create an unconrolable inbalance
  Now all you have to do is show that the reverse of the above condition, IE Loosing weight in back, did not destabilise the plane, so once again, I ask for you to post the link to the above tests!
Shooter if you cannot see something that does not mean it doesnt exists the more logical explanation is that it was a problem and therefore didnt get mentioned, like crew movement the movement of a crew member about the plane will effect the weight distribution but you dont find reports of that either, why?
Because the 200 pounds was not nearly as dangerous as 1000! Secondly, the crew was located in a more or less equal ditribution of weight fore and aft and it was very hard to get over the wing in flight to transfer much weight aft!

    Had thier been any issue with a 1000lbs on the last row bringing down a aircraft this would have been quickly identified when a 1000lbs on the next to last row hung up and caused significant control loss, that would have imediately led to investigation and the very quick fix of baning 1000lbs from the last row neither of which happened, in fact I cannot find any reports of hung bombs creating any noticable loss of control, even one report of a lanc flying most of the way home with a 1000lbs rolling loose in the bay
Links to the above would be nice! 

If your BS had any truth in  it there would be reports of hung bombs causing control loss - where are they?
  Because if the plane was lost, how would they know what caused it? After all, there was very little chance of a sucessful escape from most of the forward possitions and the pilot would be the only one to know.

 
As far as I can tell, no they never did test it's flight charicteristics with the CoG being so far out of ballence!
and as far as you can tell the B17 carried 4000llbs bombs internally, more than 2x 2000lbs internally and 34 x 440lbs internally so excuse us while we laugh hartley at any suggestion that what you think is anything near the truth
  What I said is that it was possible to fit said bombs into the bay. Once again, you post a lie and then atribute it to me.

 
But as an aside, I do not think they ever did a flight test with the CoG being so far out of ballence for any plane! Even to this day! The idea that someone would risk his life trying to fly any plane that badly out of ballence, seems strange to me?
yet in all this time only you have thought of this? despite the same bay diemensions being used on the shackleton that operated into the 1980s
  Eactly what were the dimentions and areas of the Shakleton? And why were they changed?



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/20/2013 4:18:39 PM
I find it kind of neat that you have sited a "Pilot's Manual from the Microsoft FS-2004 game as a reliable source. ( Which it probably is!) But note that they use the word "Trim" not control for the minor changes that different fuel tanks use has on the model plane.    
 
PAGE 24. inboard to outboard, and then to center wing tanks. The plane had to be trimmed as each pair of tanks was burned off, otherwise the nose climbed.    Once again, note the use of the word "Trim" instead of Control.
As for elevators same manual PAGE 10. It reinforces page 24.
General flying
(i)  Stability.-At normal loadings and speeds, stability is satisfactory.
I think you need to check more reports, satisfactory is the wording used to indicate that it passes, you will find that it is the highest rating

(ii)  Controls.-The elevators are relatively light and effective, but tend to become heavy in turns. The
ailerons are light and effective, but become heavy at speeds over 260 m.p.h. The rudders also
become heavy at high speeds. Again, note the use of the word "Trim" and that the "Stability" is just "Satisfactory" not great, or good!
you will find that great or good is never used in these documents, satisfactory is the highest rating
 
This is clearly why you do NOT know how planes work
The above highlighted shows why you do not have a clue to any of the above!
 
no its an indicator that you know nothing
 
Almost everthing you wrote above it terribly wrong!
 
and is a FLIGHT SIM the best you can do? what a joke
 
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