Mosquito better than B-17?????

KraziKanuK · 02-17-2005, 05:34 PM

The Americans had a chance to build Mossies but decided against doing so, iirc.

Where does this 6000lb come from for the Mossie?

The normal load to Berlin for the B-17 was 5000lb, mostly 500lb and some 1000lb. These are good for structures but not good at destroying machinery as invesitigations by the Allies and the Germans found.

Even loaded with a [u]cookie[/i] the Mossie cruised 1/2 again as fast as the B-17. Makes it harder to intercept and it spends less time over enemy territory. When attacking a target, the speed would be near twice that of the B-17. The P-51s would have an easier time escorting Mossies because of the higher cruise speed. If shot down, only 2 are lost compared to 10-11 in the B-17. Mossies would not fly in a 'horde' like the B-17 but individual squadron or wing formations spreading out the LW defences. Mossies would simply overwhelm the LW.

wmaxt · 02-17-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiron

Nice info. Thanks. I bought the Fly Journal last month, which was the special edition devoted fully on B-17. One thing that I still had hard time to grasp is that before the appearance of P-51, why didnt US Air Force came up any solution to safeguard the B-17's vulnerability against fighters during bombing? I meant several B-17 veterans had commented on how dangerious was the condition of thier planes without P-51 around.

Why so late? Thats why I had heard some academics (although they are Birtish) had commented that Mosquito should be in the forefront of strategic bombing, not B-17.

Part of it was political the AAF had set it's reputation on the self defending bomber then found out it couldn't. The sad thing was that in the METO and the PTO the P-38 was flying up to 1500 mile (RT) escort missions at the same time the 8th Air Force was tacking such heavy losses. When the P-38s started escorting inOctober '43 the losses dropped from 9/10% per mission to 4/5% per mission a number never surpassed by the thousands of P-51s that came later.
The P-38s had serious problems at first they were inexperianced,out numbered against experianced foe, with a plane that needed to be adapted to the job of high altitude -60 degree cold and 5-7 hour missions.
The P-51 came along and due mostly to cost and availability became the prime fighter. The P-38 was phased out of escort in the ETO by November '44. The P-38 is not mentioned much because of it's early trouble but mostly because it's politicaly incorrect timimg - if used earlier it could have saved many allied aircrew. When the P-51 came along they could and did say "nothing was available, when it was we used it".

evangilder · 02-17-2005, 05:41 PM

I know what you mean, NS. My wife is an avid Barbie collector as well. My birds help offset all those pink boxes! Let her know that GI Joe was way more cool that that girly Ken!

KraziKanuK · 02-17-2005, 05:45 PM

Sorry for going OT but Evan here is a wooden model or two for you.

More at http://ggi.cool.ne.jp/solid/

evangilder · 02-17-2005, 05:47 PM

Good points, KK and wmaxt. I agree. The other major problem with the P-38 at the altitudes over Europe was that the cockpit was not heated. Coupled with the fact that often the P-38 would not reach optimal operating temperature before hitting the cold air at altitude put a strain on the engine. It was also noted that the fuel octane and lead separated at high altitiude which caused valve failures. The P-38 did what it could, and it could escort the bombers to Germany and back, but they were not the best airplane for the job.

evangilder · 02-17-2005, 05:52 PM

Nice KK! I have been collecting the ones that are already put together and painted up, like the ones on http://www.warplanes.com/index.cfm. I am also building a couple of balsa models (Spitfire now, P-40 later). The Spitfire has a 27 inch wingspan! I will probably hang that from the ceiling.

Nonskimmer · 02-17-2005, 06:02 PM

Those are great models!

Chiron · 02-19-2005, 01:20 AM

According to Canada Aviation Museum, the Mosquito can carry the same bomb load as the B-17, but with longer range and of course much faster.

http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/c...quitoBXX.shtml

NightHawk · 02-19-2005, 02:12 AM

Heres a site i found about the "Mosquito, The timber terror"
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...d/mosquito.htm

02-19-2005, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Yep, B-17 normally carried 8000lbs to Germany, right? The Mossie could do the same with 6,000lbs, but much faster

Yes, in terms of maximum the B-17 could carry 17,600lbs, but not very far.

No. The Mossie could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs any distance (say Berlin). The B-17 could typically carry about 6,000 lbs of bombs the same distance, but often less were carried because of the difficulties of forming up.

The missions were different. The Mossie was good for precision strikes, the B-17 for taking it to the enemy in massive formations. It's silly to compare the two.

=S=

Lunatic

cheddar cheese · 02-19-2005, 07:14 AM

That makes sense.

the lancaster kicks ass · 02-19-2005, 08:07 AM

i'll admit it is a bit silly to compare the two although it is interesting...........

KraziKanuK · 02-19-2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

The missions were different. The Mossie was good for precision strikes, the B-17 for taking it to the enemy in massive formations. It's silly to compare the two.

True if you don't care about all the collateral damage and still leave the target reletively undestroyed. The 'Black Thursday' ball bearing raid is an example since the factories were back to full production in a few weeks after clearing away all the debri. The Mossie's 4000lb cookie would have destroyed the machinery which the 500lb and 1000lb American bombs could not do.

mosquitoman · 02-19-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Me too. Theres no way im going to fit all my models in my room

Think yourself lucky, I'm running out of ceiling!

wmaxt · 02-19-2005, 05:42 PM

The Mosquito was a great plane but it was NOT the end all be all. It was by nature low production, each aircraft was coustom fitted for each job it had to do and it was not very rugged again by nature. It was not strong or manuverable enough to be an escort fighter or armed and rugged enough to be a daylite bomber the way a B-17 bomber was.
This is not to put the Mossie down it wasn't designed to go there
It's high lights were Photo Recon, Limited attack raids (single or small groups low level strikes. Night prefered), Pathfinder, and Night Fighter. The P-38 was a better fighter, Not as good on night or long distance strike attack, and as good or better for the rest. More to the point while the P-38 had some dedicated planes like the Droop snoot (both with and without radar) Photo and some night fighters (and these could do other jobs if desired) they, ALL P-38s could do any of the jobs asked of it. THATS important in the field where there isn't time to order up a mew plane every time something new comes up!

I honestly think the P-38J/Ls were the best fighters with the widest range of capabilities in WWII, I also think it was the most versatile of the war. I do not think it was the only good plane or that it could do everything that needed to be done!

This contention that the Mossie could replace every other plane that has ever flown is ridiculous. It was a great plane in it's designed/manufactered roles.