![]() |
Mossie speed
Hi all,
I saw in HardBall table that Mossie (in Il2) was only 3 Kph more fast than a FW-A4... tahts is correct? I ever read that Mk VI was superior in velocity over any axis plane at yout time... In fact, in game I dont can run away from enemy fighters, unless emils or more olders one... There is something that I can do to improve my speed flying mossies? Thanks, and forgivme for my English |
Quote:
Early Mosquitoes were actually a touch SLOWER than the BF109 and Fw190 day fighters however they bombed at high altitude meaning by the time the Germans got up there the Mosquito had already shot through and the 109/190s did not have a sufficient speed advantage to catch up. At night the story was different as German night fighters like the Bf 110 or Junkers Ju 88 simply had no hope of keeping up. The Heinkel He 219 and Junkers Ju 388 may have caught a Mosquito but neither entered large scale serial production. The Mosquito simply wasn't a large enough threat to warrant fast night fighters being specifically built just to catch it. By late war the newer 109's, the Dora and the 262's had a clear speed advantage over the Mosquito. Even then the PR Mk 32 photo reconnaissance version with long-span wings, special high-altitude superchargers and the elimination of as much weight as possible had a reasonable (but not guaranteed) chance of avoiding interception. Be careful not to put too much credence in the "myths" that have arisen about WWII. |
German Ace Heinz Knocke said in his diary that "the speed of the Mosquito was astonishing", but flying with Bf-109 he was slowly shorting the distance between his fighter and the Mosquito and shot the British bomber down in to the sea. Only big oil spot remain from the Mosquito. Both planes were flying at maximum speed close to the sea surface. the British bomber was trying to escape.
~S |
Quote:
On the He219, be careful when one reads a top speed of 416mph. This was a striped down a/c that would have been almost useless as a night fighter. There was no radar antenna, the exhaust shrouds were removed as was some of the armament. Max speed of the He219 was around 360mph(600kph). |
Quote:
Original estimates were that, with twice the power of a Spitfire and twice the wetted area and over twice the weight, the Mosquito would still be 20mph (32km/h) faster than the Spitfire. The Air Ministry was very sceptical. When the prototype was officially tested at Boscombe Down in February 1941 they were proved wrong and it exceeded this estimate by achieving a top speed of 392mph (631km/h) The early FW190 A3 had a top speed of 636Kph So one can assume the later FW190's were faster. I agree that height and speed made them harder to catch with the early Fw having a ceilng of only 12000m it would be hard to take down a mossie but not impossible The recon version of the Mossie - DH MOSQUITO PR.34 maximum speed: 685 KPH (425 MPH / 370 KT) service ceiling: 13,100 meters (43,000 feet) range: 5,375 kilometers. While all stats are subjective war time propaganda most probably made the mossie a myth it unfortuantely was more than capable of living up to. The kill quoted earlier in this thread is of a mossie out of its element, flying low, someting it was not really meant to do???? I could be wrong on that but I always assumed a mossie was a high altitude fighter/bomber http://www.dhmosquito.com/ |
Quote:
One might even suggest that a successful return, whilst desirable, is not the most important factor to the mission-planners. If one or several aircraft making this kind of approach can nail the target and cause great devastation then the mission is successful. No amount of kills by the defence forces after the event can change that. Just my 2d-worth Brando |
Here's a story I found when doing a skin for one of the BOAC operated civilian Mossies that flew secret night time missions from Scotland to Sweden (they had no guns so they where naturally lighter than the armed version):
"On the 18:th of July 1943, Mosquito G-AGGC after leaving the Swedish coast at 7.600 meters noticed condensation trails – one above and one behind the a/c, presumed to be from Focke-Wulf 190s. Rae, The pilot turned into the fighters and then dived in a spiral down to the sea level, leveled out and gave full throttle. Indicated airspeed was 570 Km/h and the course set for Leuchars. In the full moon the attacking fighters had no problem seeing the Mossie and the chase was on for half an hour without the attackers gaining on the Mosquito. The Germans gave up, probably because of fuel shortage. BOAC's instruction was that if an aircraft was attacked over the eastern part of Skagerak, the pilot was to turn back because of the risk of fuel starvation if entangled in a long chase. However, this time Gilbert Rae decided to continue the flight because he had a Danish officer on board who had just escaped the Gestapo." It seems they had real problems shaking those 190:s - and it's interesting that they used 190:s as night fighters. Maybe to catch Mossies? /Mazex |
The Mossie modeled in IL2 is the earlier version that doesn't produce the horsepower nor speed of the later models. It is truly competitive in pre-1942 scenarios, but after that it's easily outclassed.
|
Quote:
As I like to built historic mission to play with my friends, and I like fly Mosquistos, only in a Burma scenario Mossie became a pleaseant option :!: Thanks pals |
Quote:
Get hold of the Osprey books on the Mossie. |
Quote:
|
Salute
As has been mentioned, for some reason Oleg chose to model a 1942 version of the Mosquito FB. Later versions were much faster. Below is a link to a test of a 1943 Nightfighter version, equipped with 1943 version Merlin 61 engines, operating at only +15 boost, it has a top speed of 408 mph, quite a bit faster than the game's version. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...uito/mp469.pdf Later models which used 150 octane and which had boost raised to +25 had a top speed a little above 426 mph. The Mosquito outperformed any other twin engined prop driven nightfighter or nightbomber. |
Quote:
If one wants to read some reports other than biased selective ones: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o.../mosquito.html |
Quote:
Here's a less rare Mk IX, another 1943 version. Top speed 405 mph. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r495-level.jpg And the NF Mk 30, equipped with the Merlin 72 at only +18 boost, has a top speed of 397 mph as you can see from table below: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...m748-level.jpg With engines boosted to +21, and 350 + more horsepower, it could achieve 426 mph, as I mentioned above. Charts showing engine horsepower at +18 and +21: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...in72-curve.jpg Either of these aircraft is faster than the version we have in the game. Amazing how German fanatics insist on one standard for their 'uber' planes, but another for Allied aircraft. By the way, all these charts ARE from Mike William's WWII Performance. I would suggest anyone who is interested go there: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o.../mosquito.html |
@ buzzsaw
I, for my part find it really amazing how poor your position must seem to you to introduce such polemic sentences in this, until then, fairly objektive thread: Quote:
|
Quote:
If that is the case, then YOUR objectivity is clearly in doubt. No doubt you'd be full of outrage if IL-2 only had the 1942 FW-190A4, but it seems when it comes to the Mosquito, you're happy with the game only having a 1942 version? As far as how 'poor' my position is, I would suggest you actually look at the historical documents presented, and compare the figures in those documents to the performance of IL-2 aircraft, and the claims of some of the posters here before you start your accusations. Then you'd understand that in fact the responses to this thread were far from being objective, in fact there was a lot of false information being purveyed to a fair question about the Mosquito's performance by the thread originator. The suggestion was the Mosquito had no speed advantage, when in fact, it did at a lot of altitudes, especially when facing only prop driven Nightfighter opposition. |
The obvious reason why we do not have a NF mark of the Mosquito in the game is that the game doesn't simulate night bomber/fighter operations.
The Mosquito FB VI is of course the right choice for the game as it perfectly fits into the tactical environment it simulates and it was used in large numbers. Crying for any other version - especially a NF - is as stupid as crying for a flyable Lancaster, flyable B-17 or flyable Bf 110 night fighter. Even a flyable Mosquito B IV wouldn't be useful as there is no map for it. What's left is a possible discussion about the performance of the Mosquito FB VI we have in the game. IMHO this is a very good report about the relative performance of it: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...I-tactical.pdf That trials could have been made with the game, couldn't they ;) The only question is whether our Mosquito has a Merlin 21 or Merlin 23 (which would boost the performance a bit). |
Quote:
Honestly we all know there will be NO improvements to the planes in IL2 as Oleg has repeatedly stressed. However looking forward to SOW BoB and the many varrients yet to be announced I do not see why we will not have flyable B17's, Lancasters and nightfighters :grin: |
Quote:
Boost levels were increased as the war went on, by the end, the Mk VI was using +25 boost. Where is that version??? There is a test of a +25 boost FB VI on the Mosquito page, which shows that even when fitted with external drop tanks, it is FAR faster at low and medium alts than the version we have in game. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...x809-level.jpg Yes, there won't be any new aircraft added (by Oleg) in the game, but that doesn't mean people need to stick their heads on the sand and pretend we have a Mosquito which performs up to the level the actual aircraft could. |
Quote:
Quote:
Sure for a 45 scenario a later +25 lbs FB VI would be needed and for a 44 scenario a little boosted (Merlin 23/25) FB VI would be nice but if you limit the planeset to common types (e.g. Bf 109 G-6 in Mid 1944) and not only to the latest but limited available types it's ok. |
I think if you took any plane and really asked around you would find someone not happy about historical performance vs ingame play.
The Mossie may have got a raw deal, but take an Me109F2 out for a spin and see how that one anoys the gronards. Would I like a faster Mossie sure, but then I would want the recon missions that go with it. I would also like night fighters all I hope will eventually make its way into SOW. One must remember that the original IL2 did not even have a player flyable Stuka and this feature was only introduced in patch 1.2 :grin: My guess why we do not have a decent Mossie is simple, lack of community interest, pure and simple. It could easily have been modded by now and i am sure Oleg would have jumped at adding it in. but no-one did so.. Lets hope in SOW some modder takes an interest in the Mossie and for that matter all the lovely French fighters from the Phoney war :grin: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
An IL2 pilot will hunt you down beyond all reasonable means just to get a kill. It been said many times before that most engagements were fast, one second the enemy were there the next they were gone. This is difficult to emulate in IL2 due to the viewing capability of the sim. The aircraft in WW2 saw many roles and was adapted accordingly. This clip shows the armament and numbers flown on raids, in the early days it wasn't just a couple of mossies plopping a few bombs on a nazi HQ in France, they were quite a work horse, this clip shows to the end some shipping attacks in what looks like Norway. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ-a8U1QWUw |
Quote:
Be sure 5 non operational prototypes are rare. There was 4 Gruppen with around 167 (iirc) K-4s. The number that had been converted to C3 is questionable but you can be sure a good number had been. At least the Ta152H saw combat which is more than can be said for your selective NF XV. :eek: Stick to data on the Mossie we have in the game. And, before you get your silk knickers into to much of a knot, yes we need a late war Mossie FB. BRITISH MOSQUITO PRODUCTION: __________________________________________________ ______________________ new_build conversions __________________________________________________ ______________________ PR.I 10 PR.IV - 29 conversions from B.IV. PR.VIII 5 PR.IX 90 PX.XVI 432 PR.32 5 1 prototype conversion from PR.XVI. PR.34 181 PR.35 - 10 conversions from B.35s. PR_SUM: 723 __________________________________________________ ______________________ B.IV (I) 10 B.IV (II) 263 B.V 1 B.IX 54 B.XVI 402 B.35 265 B_SUM: 995 __________________________________________________ ______________________ (N)F.II 494 NF.XII - 98 conversions from NF.II. NF.XIII 260 NF.XV 1 4 conversions of NF.IIs. NF.XVII - 99 conversions of NF.IIs. NF.XIX 280 NF.30 526 NF.36 163 NF.38 101 1 prototype conversion from NF.36. NF_SUM: 1,825 __________________________________________________ ______________________ FB.VI 2,584 FB.VIII - 19 conversions from FB.VIs. TF/TR.33 50 2 conversions from FB.VIs. TF.37 14 T.III 352 6 conversions from F.IIs. TT.35 - 26 conversions from B.35s. TT/39 - 106 conversions from B.XVIs. ETC_SUM: 3,000 __________________________________________________ ______________________ subtotal: 6,543 __________________________________________________ ______________________ CANADIAN MOSQUITO PRODUCTION: __________________________________________________ ______________________ B.VII 25 B.XX 245 B.25 343 FB.21 6 FB.26 337 T.22 6 T.27 43 T.29 37 conversions from FB.26. __________________________________________________ ______________________ subtotal: 1,005 __________________________________________________ ______________________ AUSTRALIAN MOSQUITO PRODUCTION: __________________________________________________ ______________________ PR.40: 6 PR.41 - 28 conversions from FB.40s. FB.40 203 FB.42 - 1 conversions from FB.40. T.43 - 22 conversions from FB.40s. __________________________________________________ ______________________ subtotal: 209 __________________________________________________ ______________________ TOTAL: 7,757 http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmoss3.html |
Quote:
Don't get me wrong I'd like to have every mark of the Mosquito, but resources are limited. Taking the FB VI was propably the best choice. |
Thanks for the video, Alpha
Quote:
But I think that a FB.VI Serie II would be the best choice :) |
Quote:
In particular the forums attract a lot of new players who are excited about online play and have just discovered the game lacks a late war prototype spit/P51/Dora with 50 lbs extra boost and nitro-etho-benzo-uber injection that they are convinced will make them invincible on hyperlobby. 3 years later what the same guy really wants is a swordfish for torpedo bombing in the Mediterranean and a flyable Wellington but he is not spamming the forums with plane requests by that stage. |
Quote:
It is a specialists plane, focused on the ground attack role, something which a person obsessed with their kill/ratio is never going to fly. It was never designed to mix it up with single engined fighters. What it was designed to do was to get in to the target so quickly and with such speed, that interceptors are unable to react. And that speed issue is exactly the point the original poster raised, ie. why is it comparatively slow? The answer of course, is that the version we have in the game does not represent the later '44 and '45 models, where performance was upgraded so that it remained competitive. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The late war mossies were faster but still relied a lot on surprise and/or altitude advantage to get in and out safely. |
I didn't read this whole thread so forgive me if this was already mentioned.
I didn't think the Germans had a plane that could catch the Mossie until they built the 262. I read that somewhere (I know it doesn't make it true, but is it?) |
Quote:
FAIL |
As has already been said, the Mosquito WAS incredibly fast FOR A BOMBER. But there were certainly Luftwaffe fighters which could catch it, especially if they dived from altitude. But you have to remember that most of the Luftwaffe fighters top speed is listed as with boost which they could only use for a short time.
The main reason why it was so hard to shoot down was that by the time it had been spotted, it had usually dropped its load and was racing home at high speed. The loss rate of Mosquitos was apparantly very very small when compared to other types. Galland states in his book 'The First and the Last', how Goering was so angry at Mosquitos roaming Germany at will, that a dedicated Mosquito killer squadron was set up using 109's with the very latest boost systems in 1944 specially to catch them, however to his knowledge the gruppe never shot down one Mosquito. It has often been suggested that a huge fleet of Mosquitos would have been a far better proposition than the hundreds of Lancasters bombing every night, but thats another debate. I dont actually think that Mosquito performance changed that much did it? I thought the top speed always stayed around 404mph and didnt increase that much through the different versions. Possibly the higher boosted Merlins gave better speed below Full throttle height as they did with the Spitfire. But didnt all Mossies have 60 series Merlins? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is a clue to why a "huge fleet" would have been so difficult to produce. The great strength and lightness of the Mossie came about because the airframe was built primarily of wood, mostly sheets of ply steamed and curved over formers. This was then overlaid by further sheets laid diagonal to those preceding, bonded with a strong artificial adhesive. This method afforded remarkable rigidity and durability, but it required the employment of skilled wood-workers to craft them. The length of training required to equip a worker with these skills was far greater than that required to create a semi-skilled worker in the metal aircraft industry. B |
Brando, the Mossie's skin was a sandwich of 2 layers of plywood with balsa between.
Nice link to Mossie construction in Downsview Ontario Canada http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?i...sh&ex=00000192 Notice the number of women involved in the construction of the Mossie. |
Hi B
Here's a link to some Mossie construction at 5 mins in. Use the link at the top of the youtube screen streaming disabled I think !!! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ9EJ3b_k1E See you in the air over the weekend hopefully. :) |
Thanks for that link Alpha!
|
I read the same thing about the Mossie/Lancaster debate in a quarterly aviation magazine. The thing to consider here is that a Mossie could carry almost as heavy of of a load as a B17 and the Lancaster carried even more ;)
I think the text in the magazine was "the Mosquito was a precision weapon, like a sword, while the Lancaster was a crude area effect weapon like a bludgeon" :grin: It's an interesting debate but i tend to agree that if enough Mossies could be built they would be a far better alternative to the thousands of 4 engined RAF heavies. They had as much of a carrying capacity as the american daylight bombers, better accuracy in their drops (especially if you add some Oboe equipped Mossie pathfinders in the mix, while 4 engined heavies dropped their bomb loads over empty countryside for much of the early stage of the night bombing campaign due to navigation difficulties), lower chance of interception by the enemy and probably better crew survivability rates in the event of a crash, which the Lancaster was notorious for. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Without guided munitions, all high altitude bombing is going to be somewhat inaccurate, and nighttime makes that much worse. |
Yep, you're right, but it's no use having a 8 ton bomb load when
a) you can't ensure a sufficient number of bombers reaching the target due to survivability issues b) half of the time these bombs are dropped on empty countryside and c) you lose a few hundred of hard to train aircrew each night, while the Mossie only has a crew of 2-3 Of course, during the late stages of the war that accuracy improved and air superiority was in allied hands we could argue that RAF night heavies could at last do a proper job so we can't really discount them totally. The reason is simple, you can't develop new heavy bombers in the span of 1-2 years during wartime. So, while it might have been more effective to use Mossies until advances in navigation, accuracy and survivability were made for the heavies, we could also say that if no 4 engined heavies were around for the early part of the war then there would be no reason to improve and refine them or the tactics they used, so in the end there probably would be no heavies at all. Interesting conundrum this one ;) |
Quote:
The main problem was appallingly bad navigation. Dead reckoning just wasn't good enough at night, with the ground often obscured by clouds (bear in mind that there was no way to measure the windspeed in real time over enemy territory with the equipment available at that time). The mossie has a crew of 2 as a glazed nosed bomber? The Lancaster had a crew of 7, and a bomb load of 14,000lb. To carry the same load in Mosquitos would require 3+1/2 planes, with 7 crew. :) |
Isn't this all a moot point as the Mossie was so difficult (comparatively speaking) and time-consuming to build?
|
The Mossie had a crew of: pilot and navigator/bomb aimer or navigator/radar operator.
I'll say it again, replace the American heavies, especially the B-17. This would give a surplus .50" guns which could have been fitted to the Lancaster. The Lancaster was needed for its heavy lift capacity. "In 1941 the average bomb load per attacking aircraft was 2,889 lbs whereas by 1944 it had risen to 9,155 lbs according to ACM Harris' Dispatch. In the official history the average bomb load of RAF bombers is given as 6,903 lbs in 1943, and 8250 lbs in 1944, and the corresponding figures given for the US AAF were 3,220 lb and 3,980 lb respectively." http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.v...Offensive.html Can you expand on your statement JoeA? |
Quote:
The cabinate makers, carpenters, Piano makers etc. that made components for the Mosquito didn't have to compete for production with the other types being built. The production of a competitive aircraft that didn't effect the other types shows good ingenuity, engineering and manpower management. That being said, we only have to look at the early stages of the war and the Battle of Britain to show how ineffective medium/light bombers are in a strategic roll. When the LW rolled accross Europe and when they were concentrating on the British airfield's their medium bomber aircraft (JU87's, Do17's and HE111's) excelled in a tactical roll. When they switched tactics and started attacking area targets (London for example) They just didn't have the bombloads to do the job. (This statement is not trying to detract from the damage and loss of life caused by the medium bombers) They were using a weapon in a role it was not intended and therefore it made it harder to do the job. Luckly Hitler was so focused on his early Bitzkrieg victories that he stymied the development of the Heavy bombers that Germany needed. The Mosquito was a fantastic plane - BUT - only in the role it was intended for. If you can imagine the planning and logistics that would have gone into one of the British maximum effort, 1000 bombers raids and then multiplied that by 3 and a 1/2, I doubt Britain (or any other airforce at the time) would have been able to pull it off. |
Quote:
It did everything by night or by day from ground attack to high level bombing to anti shipping to being a night fighter (and a number of other roles). It even passed its carrier trials. The only thing it couldn't excel at was being a dive bomber, pure fighter or interceptor (unless you count V1's) but it pretty much covered every other role imaginable and better than most designs intended for those roles. It was probably the first true multirole combat aircraft that could operate by night or by day. |
Quote:
Cheers! |
No Skoshi it couldn't carry the load a Lancaster could but it did carry a load comparable to the American heavies.
|
Quote:
My books put the disposable stores at something like Mosquito -early marque 2000lbs later models ('44 onwards) 4000lbs B25 Mitchell -3,200lbs B26 Marauder - 4,000lbs A20 Havoc - 4,000lbs A26/B26 Invader - 6,000lbs He111 - 7,165lbs B24 Liberator - 8,800lbs B17 -17,600lbs Lancaster - 18,000 Now in my interpretation the Heavies would be the B17, Lancaster and maybe B24 Liberator. The Mosquito definately fits into the first group which would be described as attack or maybe medium (at a pinch) bombers. Also those figures quoted are maximum bomb loads and doesn't state what carrying those maximum loads did to their speed or altitude. In the case of the Mosquito (without any defensive armerment) both of these were it's key to it's survival. Now the Mosquito is one of my favourite planes. I find that talking up it's abilities detracts from it's beauty and the roles it served so well at. Cheers! |
Typical bomb load in the ETO.
B-17 - 5000lb (B-24 similar) Lancaster - 9-10,000lb There was also a bomb rack designed for the Mossie, though not used, that had 3000lb (6x500lb) in the bomb bay. Americans classified the B-17/B-24 as heavy bombers and the B-28 as very heavy bombers. The B-26/B-25 are classed as medium bombers. |
Quote:
On the same track a Mosquito would typically carry less than its maximum bomb load. Mosquito carrying a single 4000lb bomb would be great in a tactical role, lets say taking out a Bridge, but if we were going for an stategic area target, like an industrial complex, B17's with 12x500 (or greater) would be much more appropriate. The milliary planners in WWII weren't idiots. If a weapon system didn't live up to it's requirements it was dumped at the first opportunity. The reason we didn't see great fleets of Mosquitos doing the job of planes like the B17 was that it couldn't do the job required as efficiently. |
Yes, large fingers, B-29. Also the B-32.
No the Mossie always carried its full load. Quote:
How many bombs land on the target if the B-17 is shot down? At least with 3 Mossies carrying the same load, some bombs would land on the target even if 1 or 2 were shot down. |
Quote:
I think we need to invent a time a machine and send you back to the 1939 so the Allies could win the war before Christmas and save the world a lot of grief. Bye |
Bye, yee of myopic tunnel vision. :)
|
A couple of nice accounts of Mossie/262 encounters.
The second one shows as aspect of speed/endurance we often forget in our game. No one would deny the P51 is ultimately a faster plane than the Mossie, but read how the Mossie pilot kept having to throttle back for the sake of his Pony escorts: http://www.mossie.org/stories/Norman_Malayney_2.htm |
If out IL2 mosquito tried a 450mph dive and a corkscrew it would break apart.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.