 | Mossie nf vs He 219 nf| Aviation Discuss Mossie nf vs He 219 nf in the World War II - Aviation forums; the mossie was just about the fastest thing up there untill '44............... |
|
06-16-2004, 01:46 PM
|
#91 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | the mossie was just about the fastest thing up there untill '44............
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | 
|  | |
06-22-2004, 08:57 PM
|
#92 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 584
| I think the Mossie's manoevrability had alot to do with it too, the weight difference between the He 219, at 33,000 lb AUW, to the Mossie's 20,000 odd lbs. - The Wooden construction obviously gave great benefit here, and even though they tried to 'copy' this construction in the Fw 154, they failed with the glues; - it did certainly show though, that the wooden aircraft was noticably quicker, top speed in the low 400's mph in the initial trials. - But even with the improved engines, the He 219 would still have been hard-pressed to get it over the Mosquito... | |
| | |
06-22-2004, 11:12 PM
|
#93 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
| Well the Mossie couldn't have run flat out over the length of the entire mission. Does anyone know what the typical cruising speed of a Mossie was? The He 219 did shoot down some Mosquitoes so obviously it was capable of catching it. If a Mossie could be surprised while it was cruising, I imagine it would still be vulnerable.
__________________  | |
| | |
06-22-2004, 11:26 PM
|
#94 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 584
| About 255 mph on average, but it's climb rate was twice the He 219's, and if they had warning, well...that was the game, wasn't it ? It's quite conceivable the Mosquitos they did shoot-down were Bomber or Pathfinder variants, but one thing's for sure, they were light , fast and manoevrable, something the He 219 had to work at.... | |
| | |
06-22-2004, 11:31 PM
|
#95 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
| They were bomber variants, but that was what the Luftwaffe was most concerned with shooting down. If they could knock out the Mossie pathfinders then the accuracy of the raid would drop considerably. 255 mph isn't all that fast and could be caught with only some difficulty.
__________________ | |
| | |
06-23-2004, 02:47 PM
|
#96 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | but they would obviously speed up on their bombing run, and i've seen higher cruising speeds than that.....................
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
06-23-2004, 11:20 PM
|
#97 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
| I'm sure they did speed up on the bombing runs. The thing is, Berlin was a distant target, about 600 miles straight line. The Mossie couldn't run full-out there and back. Most fighters were only capable of sustaining maximum power (ie speed) for about 5-10min per mission. Whenever the Mossie was in a cruise, I imagine it would have still be vulnerable.
__________________ | |
| | |
06-24-2004, 01:22 PM
|
#98 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | but bomber varients had a range of 2000+ miles (while cruising), so they have allot of extra fuel to burn, and whenever they got jumped, they would hit the throttle and would propberly be safe, they could just outrun the fighter with ease.........................
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
06-24-2004, 01:28 PM
|
#99 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
| Engines burn up fuel a whole lot faster at high power (3-4 times faster or more) plus the fact that the engine itself generally can't take continuous high power for very long effectively limits the continuous speed of the Mossie or anything else. Yes the Mossie was very difficult to intercept and yes it could usually avoid an attacker by going to high power. However, it could be intercepted and going to high power is only an option if the attacker can be spotted or some form of warning given. As great as it was, combat in the Mossie was dangerous, just like it was in anything else.
__________________ | |
| | |
06-24-2004, 03:42 PM
|
#100 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | but like you say, combat in anything is dangerous, truth is, piloting a mossie in late 42/43 was one of the safest places to be.....................
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
06-24-2004, 11:26 PM
|
#101 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
| Probably one of the safest. But so often people talk of the Mossie as if it equipped its crew with invulnerability. It was very good, but nothing was THAT good.
__________________ | |
| | |
06-25-2004, 01:12 PM
|
#102 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | Quote: |
But so often people talk of the Mossie as if it equipped its crew with invulnerability
| becuase the pilots had great faith in their aircraft, they knew she was a good bird and they had a dam good chance of coming back.......................
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
06-25-2004, 03:06 PM
|
#103 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
| I've never denied that . . . but she wasn't invulnerable, nothing was. And the successes that the He 219 had against the Mossie proves it. The Mossie was the better plane, but the crew still had to be on their toes.
__________________ | |
| | |
06-26-2004, 06:53 AM
|
#104 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | but even then fighter varients of the mossie were well equiped to take them out..................
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
06-26-2004, 02:12 PM
|
#105 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,512
| Fighter marks, yes . . . bomber marks, no.
__________________ | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 PM. | | |
