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
oldbutnotwise       3/16/2013 5:23:27 PM
Shooter I just thought of another one
 
If the B17 bay was so big why did you have to remove the shackles holding 2000lbs BEFORE releasing any bombs stored above them?
 
oh a 1 B17 mission carrying more than 1000lbs of ANY distance
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/17/2013 12:46:50 PM

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
I did not know this. I always thought it would be one from the back, one from the front, or Vice Verse untill they got to the centeral row of racks? But given the interval between the first and last bomb exiting the plane, it is easy to see why they do not have a problem with stability for that fraction of a second when the last bomb(s) is/are still on the hook, if it was the way you state.
 
finally can you provide evidence of your statements as you seem to be the ONLY source of this information
OK, here we go again. I used the Range of CG limits as posted many times by others here as the starting point. 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;
The center of gravity (CG) of an aircraft is the point at which the aircraft would balance if it were possible to suspend it at that point. It is the theoretical point at which the entire weight of the aircraft is assumed to be concentrated.[1] Its position is calculated after supporting the aircraft on at least two sets of weighing scales or load cells, and noting the weight shown on each set of scales or load cell. The center of gravity affects the stability of the aircraft. To ensure the aircraft is safe to fly, the center of gravity must fall within specified limits established by the aircraft manufacturer.
Back in the early days of flight, in the 20s-30s- and yes the 40s, they did not know nearly as much as they did in say 1946 because they did more research between 1940 and 1945 than in all the prior years combined.
Incorrect weight and balance in fixed-wing aircraft

When the center of gravity or weight of an aircraft is outside the acceptable range, the aircraft may not be able to sustain flight, or it may be impossible to maintain the aircraft in level flight in some or all circumstances. Placing the CG or weight of an aircraft outside the allowed range can lead to an unavoidable crash of the aircraft.

[edit] Center of gravity out of range

When the fore-aft center of gravity is out of range, the aircraft may pitch uncontrollably down or up, and this tendency may exceed the control authority available to the pilot, causing a loss of control. The excessive pitch may be apparent in all phases of flight, or only during certain phases, such as take-off or descent. Because the burning of fuel gradually produces a loss of weight and possibly a shift in the center of gravity, it is possible for an aircraft to take off with the center of gravity in a position that allows full control, and yet later develop an imbalance that exceeds control authority. Calculations of center of gravity must take this into account (often part of this is calculated in advance by the manufacturer and incorporated into CG limits).

[edit] Weight out of range

Few aircraft impose a minimum weight for flight (although a minimum pilot weight is often specified), but all impose a maximum weight. If the maximum weight is exceeded, the aircraft may not be able to achieve or sustain controlled, level flight. Excessive take-off weight may make it impossible to take off within available runway lengths, or it may completely prevent take-off. Excessive weight in flight may make climbing beyond a certain altitude difficult or impossible, or it may make it impossible to maintain an altitude.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    PS. Part - II   3/17/2013 1:01:09 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 see this regulation manual on Weight and Balance from the FAA. While I do not know if the British-European regs are the same, I'll bet dollars against do-nuts that they are similar enough not to matter
 
 



 



 
Please!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/17/2013 2:36:11 PM
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
     I did not know this. I always thought it would be one from the back, one from the front, or Vice Verse untill they got to the centeral row of racks? But given the interval between the first and last bomb exiting the plane, it is easy to see why they do not have a problem with stability for that fraction of a second when the last bomb(s) is/are still on the hook, if it was the way you state.     
so the sudden change was less of an issue that the constant force applied by a hung bomb! also having a
 
finally can you provide evidence of your statements as you seem to be the ONLY source of this information
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
 
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

Details of the Type R 

      Power system	     Electro-hydraulic system		
	Armament	     Two Browning 0.303in. Mk.II		
	Ammunition	     500 rounds per gun	
	Dia of turret ring   35in.		
	Field of fire	     Rotation 360°
			     Elevation 25°
			     Depression 90°		
	Gunsight       	     Wide angle periscope sight
	Weight (empty)	     330lb (150kg)		
	Weight (armed)	     504lb (229kg)(+ 180lbs of gunner)	
      and this was as twice as far from the CofG as a 1000lbs hung bomb and it didn't cause an issue
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/17/2013 2:45:10 PM
Your link doesn't work.
 
 
But as usual you cannot read.
 
Where an aircraft balances is also a significant factor
in determining if the aircraft is safe to operate. An
aircraft that does not have good balance can exhibit
poor maneuverability and controllability, making it
difficult or impossible to fly. This could result in an
accident, causing damage to the aircraft and injury to
the people on board. Safety is the primary reason for
concern about an aircraft’s weight and balance.
A secondary reason for concern about weight and bal
-
ance, but also a very important one, is the efficiency of
the aircraft. Improper loading reduces the efficiency of
an aircraft from the standpoint of ceiling, maneuver
-
ability, rate of climb, speed, and fuel consumption. If
an airplane is loaded in such a way that it is extremely
nose heavy, higher than normal forces will need to be
exerted at the tail to keep the airplane in level flight.
The higher than normal forces at the tail will create
additional drag, which will require additional engine
power and therefore additional fuel flow in order to
maintain airspeed.
The most efficient condition for an aircraft is to have
the point where it balances fall very close to, or perhaps
exactly at, the aircraft’s center of lift. If this were the
case, little or no flight control force would be needed
to keep the aircraft flying straight and level.
 
In short, if the aircraft cannot lift, it cannot take off. Therefore, your rubbish claims as to HOW the center of gravity and load distribution works is revealed to be exactly that. Certification of military aircraft was a requirement even in wartime to check these factors as well as others... CERTIFICATION of EVERY aircraft. That is why every aircraft was test flown from the factory before assigned to an active unit. This was standard RAF practice at the time and is STANDARD European practice to this day for any individual aircraft that is manufactured or modified.   
 
I doubt that you know how aircraft work.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/19/2013 1:10:07 PM

But given the interval between the first and last bomb exiting the plane, it is easy to see why they do not have a problem with stability for that fraction of a second when the last bomb(s) is/are still on the hook, if it was the way you state.     
so the sudden change was less of an issue that the constant force applied by a hung bomb! also having a 
Matbe? 

finally can you provide evidence of your statements as you seem to be the ONLY source of this information

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!
 
 
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! 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!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/19/2013 1:17:29 PM

Your link doesn't work.
Sorry about that, but what can you say, it's the Government! http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/media/FAA-8083-30_Ch04.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/media/FAA-8083-30_Ch04.pdf
But as usual you cannot read.
Why do you think that? Do I need to highlight the realivant bits for you?
Where an aircraft balances is also a significant factor    
in determining if the aircraft is safe to operate. An
aircraft that does not have good balance can exhibit
poor maneuverability and controllability, making it
difficult or impossible to fly. This could result in an
accident, causing damage to the aircraft and injury to
the people on board. Safety is the primary reason for
concern about an aircraft’s weight and balance.
A secondary reason for concern about weight and
balance, but also a very important one, is the efficiency of
the aircraft. Improper loading reduces the efficiency of
an aircraft from the standpoint of ceiling, maneuverability,
rate of climb, speed, and fuel consumption. If
an airplane is loaded in such a way that it is extremely
nose heavy, higher than normal forces will need to be
exerted at the tail to keep the airplane in level flight.
The higher than normal forces at the tail will create
additional drag, which will require additional engine
power and therefore additional fuel flow in order to
maintain airspeed.
The most efficient condition for an aircraft is to have
the point where it balances fall very close to, or perhaps
exactly at, the aircraft’s center of lift. If this were the
case, little or no flight control force would be needed
to keep the aircraft flying straight and level.
 

In short, if the aircraft cannot lift, it cannot take off. You miss the point entirely again! The plane is IN BALLENCE until the bomb hangs up, then it is OUT OF BALLENCE! 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/19/2013 2:29:13 PM
But given the interval between the first and last bomb exiting the plane, it is easy to see why they do not have a problem with stability for that fraction of a second when the last bomb(s) is/are still on the hook, if it was the way you state.     
so the sudden change was less of an issue that the constant force applied by a hung bomb! also having a 
Matbe? 

finally can you provide evidence of your statements as you seem to be the ONLY source of this information

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?
 
 
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
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/19/2013 4:45:41 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)
 
The trim for the aircraft has to adjust for the loss of that five tons (imperial) of fuel. 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.  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. That was why the huge horizontal stabilizers on the Lancaster. The Liberators had a similar but less robust elevator solution applied to them. And as the last load fell clear the Lancaster pilot would return to neutral attack on his control surfaces. The fuel would be more of a trim problem for him than the bombs, because that is a constant refined trim adjustment over the entire flight.
 
This is clearly why you do NOT know how planes work
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/19/2013 5:12:54 PM
another example of him being wrong
 
another way of looking at it, he has 1000lbs at about 10' from cofg making the aircraft unflyable
 
yet a Heinkel he111 could drop a 4700lbs V1 hung 4' off the centreline asynchrony  without crashing
 
makes a mockery of his claims again
 
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