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       4/6/2013 2:37:30 AM

Marat speaks:

When people argue the merits of British and American efforts in the air war, it must be remembered that both nations used what they learned about air warfare. In retrospect, it seems that the Americana were one to two years behind in equipment and experience compared to the British when the USAAF arrived in strength in mid 1943. Neither the British nor the American waged a true air bombardment in force that lasted more than a year (1944-1945). The British when they finally had the means in 1944 were unable to compose a proper air campaign to hit the proper fuel targets because their navigation assistance means and bombing accuracy aids (as well as their utter lack of formation tactics until the middle of 1944) made it impossible for the massed bombing of synthetic fuel plants with H2S, GEE, and OBOE neutralized by German jamming.           
 

Did you read the parts about bomb scatter of RAF Daylight raids because of their loose formation tactics?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/6/2013 3:00:51 AM

Shooter quote; "Google PIO"
Marat speaks:
 
What Shooter, the devious one, seeks to imply is that a Lancaster with a hung bomb would assume a tail heavy configuration that would cause the pilot to over-control and pitch the nose down into a stall conditresult. In yellow below, quoted from the link above!
The captain's large and rapid elevator control reversals, which resulted in an increasing divergence above and below the target pitch attitude, were consistent with a "classic" pilot-induced oscillation (PIO). Essentially, the captain made each increasingly larger elevator input in an attempt to compensate for the input he had made in the opposite direction about 1 second earlier. PIO in the pitch axis can occur when pilots make large, rapid control inputs in an attempt to quickly achieve desired pitch attitude changes. The airplane reacts to each large pitch control input, but by the time the pilot recognizes this and removes the input, it is too late to avoid an overshoot of the pilot's pitch target. This, in turn, signals the pilot to reverse and enlarge the control input, and a PIO with increasing divergence may result. He supplies no evidence that this even ever occurred and in fact contradicts his original argument that the Lancaster lacked the control means to correct the pitch event.
It is all a logical conclusion from the evidence extant! The bombs hang up more than a few percent of the time. Freely admitted to by all. The simple calc of 1000 pounds of hung bomb more than 13 feet behind the CoG! and the Fact that PIO/whatever you call it, is well known today, but not back then. The large number of "Unexplained" losses of Lancasters in the war! See the above link to the stats in the post before this.
 
He again proves that he is utterly dishonest and seeks to change his argument claiming falsely that this is what he meant when he plainly DID NOT KNOW what it was when it was previously explained. 

Why on Earth would you think this? What have I ever said that would give you this idea! What words have I written that might lead you to this conclusion?
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/6/2013 10:57:58 AM
Did you read the part where I said the British did not practice formation tactics, you devious untruthful and unable to read person called shooter?  




Marat speaks:



When people argue the merits of British and American efforts in the air war, it must be remembered that both nations used what they learned about air warfare. In retrospect, it seems that the Americana were one to two years behind in equipment and experience compared to the British when the USAAF arrived in strength in mid 1943. Neither the British nor the American waged a true air bombardment in force that lasted more than a year (1944-1945). The British when they finally had the means in 1944 were unable to compose a proper air campaign to hit the proper fuel targets because their navigation assistance means and bombing accuracy aids (as well as their utter lack of formation tactics until the middle of 1944) made it impossible for the massed bombing of synthetic fuel plants with H2S, GEE, and OBOE neutralized by German jamming.           

 



Did you read the parts about bomb scatter of RAF Daylight raids because of their loose formation tactics?
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/6/2013 11:04:46 AM
You still are devious.
 
 
On July 31, 1997, a FedEx MD-11 crashed on landing at the Newark International Airport. The NTSB stated that the probable cause was the "captain's overcontrol of the airplane during the landing and his failure to execute a go-around from a destabilized flare." In the analysis section of the accident report was the following statement:
 
 
The prevailing situation:

The FedEx MD-11 was approaching runway 34L at Tokyo Narita, with fairly high gusting winds forecasted. Gusting winds always raise the spectre of potential windshear, and Narita is renowned for it.

The forecast wind (320deg at 26kt gusting to 40kt) would have provided a crosswind from the left that was some 20deg off the runway heading, although that may not have been what actually prevailed on landing.

So although it was not going to be particularly easy to land any aircraft type in an elegant way that day, the conditions were far from extreme and the visibility was excellent.

Now watch the video below, be ready to pause it from time to time to examine the very rapid transition from a relatively normal landing to a disastrous one, and then check the text below for my interpretation of what you are seeing at each point:

 
 




Shooter quote; "Google PIO"

Marat speaks:


 
What Shooter, the devious one, seeks to imply is that a Lancaster with a hung bomb would assume a tail heavy configuration that would cause the pilot to over-control and pitch the nose down into a stall conditresult. In yellow below, quoted from the link above!
The captain's large and rapid elevator control reversals, which resulted in an increasing divergence above and below the target pitch attitude, were consistent with a "classic" pilot-induced oscillation (PIO). Essentially, the captain made each increasingly larger elevator input in an attempt to compensate for the input he had made in the opposite direction about 1 second earlier. PIO in the pitch axis can occur when pilots make large, rapid control inputs in an attempt to quickly achieve desired pitch attitude changes. The airplane reacts to each large pitch control input, but by the time the pilot recognizes this and removes the input, it is too late to avoid an overshoot of the pilot's pitch target. This, in turn, signals the pilot to reverse and enlarge the control input, and a PIO with increasing divergence may result. He supplies no evidence that this even ever occurred and in fact contradicts his original argument that the Lancaster lacked the control means to correct the pitch event.
It is all a logical conclusion from the evidence extant! The bombs hang up more than a few percent of the time. Freely admitted to by all. The simple calc of 1000 pounds of hung bomb more than 13 feet behind the CoG! and the Fact that PIO/whatever you call it, is well known today, but not back then. The large number of "Unexplained" losses of Lancasters in the war! See the above link to the stats in the post before this.
 
He again proves that he is utterly dishonest and seeks to change his argument claiming falsely that this is what he meant when he plainly DID NOT KNOW what it was when it was previously explained. 

Why on Earth would you think this? What have I ever said that would give you this idea! What words have I written that might lead you to this conclusion?





==========================================>
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/6/2013 11:10:29 AM

The landing sequence shown in the video tells us the following:

1. On the last part of short final approach the aircraft appears to be stable, if slightly low, with wings level and a normal pitch attitude for the circumstances (given that we don't know what the airspeed is);

2. the touchdown is very firm, but under gusty circumstances the pilots would naturally aim for a firm touchdown;

3. the nosewheel was lowered onto the runway at a high rate. Although the crew would want to put the nosewheel on the runway quickly to stop the aeroplane flying, the rate at which it was lowered might have threatened damage to the nose-gear - but it looks as if it survived the impact anyway.

Note: up until this point the aircraft's landing performance and behaviour has been well within the normal range. But then:

4. immediately following nosewheel touchdown the aircraft pitched up dramatically and the aircraft ballooned into the air again.

Note: the rate at which the nosewheel was lowered may have been a part of the cause of  the pitch-up following nose oleo compression, and that pitch-up might also have been exacerbated by the automatic extension of the spoilers which, in this type, are renowned for producing a pitch-up moment;

5. Now the aircraft is airborne again. This ballooning following first touchdown might have been made worse by a sudden gust of wind, momentarily raising the airspeed. But if that were true, the spoilers would have been simultaneously destroying a lot of the lift, and producing considerable drag; so, as the gust died (if it did) the aircraft might have been at or below stalling speed;

6. then - and this is what leads to disaster - the nose drops and stays low until the nosewheel's impact with the runway. This happens either because of lack of elevator authority, or because the pilot flying was tempted into a classic pilot induced oscillation.

Note: there are no circumstances under which a pilot of any type should deliberately select a nose-down attitude at that point - if, indeed, pilot selection of the nose-down attitude is what actually happened. During ballooning following touchdown the nose MUST be held up (if the elevator authority allows it) and appropriate power applied, whether the crew are trying for a successful second touchdown or for a go-around.

7. finally the nosewheel hits the ground extremely hard and the nose instantly rebounds upward, the main gear touching the surface momentarily a fraction of a second later. Almost simultaneously, the aircraft begins its fatal bank to the left, from which recovery was impossible once the left wingtip had hit the ground.

Note: b anking to the left is not what the forecast crosswind would have been expected to produce. Normally, especially in a swept-wing aircraft like this one, the upwind wing has a tendency to lift, but in this case it didn't. So the crosswind does not appear to be the critical factor here, although windshear is very likely to be one of the causal factors.

For all those with different interpretations (or even to agree), please feel free to file your comments,

The plane BOUNCED off the runway you incompetent reader who calls himself Shooter.
 
NOW do you see WHY I  consider you with no regard at all?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/6/2013 12:51:14 PM
1. I have never stated that these were just lancaster casualties! Ever.
Lie. You used the figure 55,000, and you said Lancasters in the same posts at least four times. 
2. The note in red and yellow above is from the exact same paper you quoted just above that part!
Meaningless and repetitive.
3. Read the entire paper. In it it states many DIFFERENT figures that dispute each other AND which I have never made light of, but have repeatedly stated that I do not care the least of which you use!
Gibberish that means nothing.
4. From that very paper; They have seven or is it ten different "Average Bomb Load" figures, NONE of which agree with their total bomb loads/sorties calculations!
Those are subsets of the same overall numbers manipulated to show different aspects of the same thing such as which bombers carried what percentage of loads, crew survival by sortie, and different bombing periods.   
 
In other words you LIED.
5. The TOTAL number of sorties flown by all types of British Heavy Bombers is only about 12% more than the TOTAL number of sorties flown by B-17s alone! 335K/298K! At least according to the report quoted above, and ALL other sources too! That figure alone makes the B-17 the more reliable of the two!
Incompetent you are. What it means is that a B-17 carried less bombs by weight per sortie than an average British bomber. Are you that stupid that you do not understand this? Further the number of bombers needed to execute the sorties was twice on average to what the British needed.    
6. Given all of the above, I re-state my basic claims in this argument;
A. For any given load up to any that can be carried inside the B-17, the B-17 will fly farther, higher and more often than any Merlin engined heavy bomber flown in WW-II. The only real differance between the two is the typical mission profile.
And yet the  conclusions reached in Part 27 of the study are exactly OPPOSITE to every claim you make.
 
B. The B-17 was much tougher plane to knock down than the Lancaster. See losses/missions in the report above.
 
Again that is not what the study says at all, by the very numbers you lie about. Since USAAF B-17 losses plane and crew losses are as great for half the tonnage dropped as Lancasters!
C. The differances in bomb load delivered by the RAF heavies and American heavies was entirely due to the huge differances in mission profile, not Aerodynamic properties of the two planes. If the Lancasters had to climb to altitude and circle over their bases forming up for up to 80-90 minutes before departing toward Germany like their American counter parts, their range would be about 250-320 miles less than the typical B-17 mission and 380-450 miles less than the typical B-24 mission. (The longer the mission, the larger the differance.
 
Foolish. The fuel used by Lancaster in evasive maneuvers they typically practiced would burn up more than fifteen minutes of normal cruise at best altitude. Are you that stupid?
 
Where did it take 90 minutes for a 27 plane group to form up?  Again do you take US or the USAAF  for the fools? Are you that stupid?
D. Acording to the report cited above only a little over 40% of all bombs dropped by the RAF landed anywhere near their intended targets, most of those from their ~40,000 day light missions flown late in the war. Even then, the bomb scatter was excessive. See the above report.
 
Before 1944 40% missed within their aim points' CEP circle. After 1944 70 %.  You like to omit facts don't you devious one? 
======================================>
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/6/2013 1:00:41 PM
E. The total weight that could have been carried, but was not, is about the same for the Lancaster and B-17G, IE 17,600 pounds and 18,000 pounds, ir-respectively!
 
LIE. An absolute LIE.
p35 (graph)
Section 19 Chart shows the average bombload per aircraft per range.
 
Reading off that chart the following loads IN METRIC TONNES at 1400 kilometers radius to target:
LANCASTER I & III ~ 5 TONNES
STIRLING III ~ 2 TONNES
HALIFAX III  ~ 3 TONNES
B-17                ~ 2.7 TONNES
MOSQUITO   ~ 0.7 TONNE
 
 
F. While I can recently find no proof, the loads I stipulated COULD have been carried, there is no reason why they could not have been done IF they had chosen to do so! The loads are with in respective lifting abilities and the bombs fit dimentionally!
 
Lie. The proof is right in front of you consolidated by Mister Varley who gives his original sources. He has done the work. You can check it. I have found minor small errors (the Mosquito bombload is slightly understated, it COULD carry 1 tonne 1400 kilometers, but those are within the number range air historians accept.   
G. This late at night, if I have forgotten anything I could have said in the past, please enter it here!
 
You have forgotten to apologize to everyone you INSULT for taking them for the ignorant fool.  
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc    CO)RRECTION.   4/6/2013 1:08:08 PM

[HIT] .   You like to omit facts don't you devious one? 
======================================>
I forgot a very important word, the omission of which the devious one would use to lie.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/6/2013 2:29:10 PM

what kind of failure are we talking about?

 Sudden excursion... That is the CONDITION not the FAILURE 


2, it would make the aircraft uncontrolable in pitch      
 Almost certainly resulting in a sudden pitch up, followed by a stall, or PIO= Pilot Induced Occilation resulting in ecessive loads beyond the aircraft's stress limits! With the CoG range AFT exceeded by more than one foot, or almost two feet, depending on who's guess you favor.    

 If it was the second that would require both a bomb hang up AND pilot error, as the standard procedure was to put the nose down and dive until the aircraft stabilised, with this being wartime and in combat maintaining level flight was not a requirement so PIO would be very unlikely, plus it is a result of pilot inexperience so why if they were so many losses due to this did it never happen to a skilled pilot who would then report it up the chain, something that never happened.

 
 would have been such to cover the stuck bomb untill such time as the tail started to drop, possible a second or two later. Then the Pilot subconchously applies down, IE forward stick, to the elevator to corect the imballence. The nose goes down, but the inertia causes it ti over shoot and droop just a scooch, the the pilot over corects up and the PIO is started!

 so basically you are saying that they lost hundreds of planes to PIO? you seriously expecting this to hold water? that all these loses were down to a CONTROLLABLE situation?

Mayby three to five seconds later the plane disintigrates in mid-air

Now that is rubbish, it would take longer than that to transit between one sudden climb and one sudden dive, and PIO would need sustained porposing   to cause failure

 But in any case the crew who are being tossed about by thye sudden violent vertical positive and negitive G maneuvers can do nothing to escape when they are alternately flung from floor to ceiling! 

and not even the sudden disintegration of the plane there were never any survivors, yet in less losses due to flak(according to you) there were many reports of survivors from aircraft explosively disintegrating   


     but his basic oppinion was that the whole idea was rubbish, whilst a CoG change of this order was not nice it certainly wouldnt have moved the plane out of control flight parameters.

 No, I got the CoG "Ideal point from a post by others and the CoG range from someone elses post.

well you never credited it you claimed it was YOUR idea!

 I use those Datums because they are larger than I would have expected, but are still exceeded by a hung 1,000 pound bomb in the last row aft!

only according to you no one else, in fact every one else thinks that this is a load of made up rubbish, it was when you tried the same question on a professional pilots site, in fact can you provide a single person who thinks its even a remote possibility?


Also note that I am prepaired to argue the whole point again, should any one post copies of the realivant documents!

Their are no relevant documents, we have you with theory and no supporting evidence that wasn't invented by yourself with no factual support and only one supporter (you)

If you are so convinced you find a document that states that such a loading at such a distance from the CoG would cause potentially fatal change in the flight envelope!

 put up or shut

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       4/6/2013 3:01:29 PM
well as the floor was not changed between Manchesters and Lancaster of any variant how do you explain this     
mouse holes? If that was a lanc, and do not doubt that it is as there is no way to tell from the pic, they do appier to be inspection hatches.    
 so they appear to be inspection hatches directly over the bomb shackles, now why would they have those?
 
 
you havent explaned HOW this change would cause        "near instantainious destruction" when a 500lbs bomb in the same location was not considered a flight hazzard, or why bombs were dropped for to aft if this rear shift of CoG was such a danger      
500 times 13 feet is only 6,500 foot pounds, Vs 13,000 foot pounds, so I can see the differance and why it might be a danger. 
so the aircraft was so knife edge in its flight envelope, strangely no one mentions this, all flight test and reports conveniently omit this problem, yet strangely mention it in the B17 reports and those of the Manchester, so whilst tit was a big issue with the Manchester they never bothered to test it in its replacement
 
As to the rest, Did you Google PIO? How it happens and why? Because if you did, you probibly would not have written this.
I did but it looks like you are clutching at straws comparing a civilian issue with a military flight
 
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