Tophe -- are you watching this build, a Twin Mosquito ?

jcf · January 03, 2009, 10:32:37 PM

The P-38L did indeed have a 'rated' ceiling of 44,000 feet, that of the F-5G was 44,500.

However, rated or tested capability and actual normal performance are two different things, no WWII piston engined
aircraft regularly performed to its ideal rated specs, including the Mosquito.
It is a simple fact of life that service use is not the same as flight test.

Turbo-superchargers can give an altitude advantage, which is one of the reasons the US actively pursued turbo-supercharger development from 1919 on.

Thomas, the Wikipedia article is very balanced, well written and well documented with references and a bibliography.

Jon

PR19_Kit · January 04, 2009, 02:25:28 AM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 03, 2009, 10:32:37 PM
The P-38L did indeed have a 'rated' ceiling of 44,000 feet, that of the F-5G was 44,500.

Without a pressure cabin?

jcf · January 04, 2009, 11:10:52 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 04, 2009, 02:25:28 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 03, 2009, 10:32:37 PM
The P-38L did indeed have a 'rated' ceiling of 44,000 feet, that of the F-5G was 44,500.

Without a pressure cabin?

Why would it need a pressure cabin?

Aside from needing a breathing apparatus there are no physiological reasons to require a pressure cabin or suit for
short duration flights below 50,000 feet.

Pressure cabins are mainly so crew/passengers could fly at high altitude for long periods without masks/suits.

Also as stated, rated performance is basically a benchmark of optimal performance.

Jon

PR19_Kit · January 04, 2009, 01:53:10 PM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 04, 2009, 11:10:52 AM
Why would it need a pressure cabin?

Aside from needing a breathing apparatus there are no physiological reasons to require a pressure cabin or suit for
short duration flights below 50,000 feet.

Exactly......

If that sort of altitude was going to be meaningfull, and the crew needed to operate up there for any length of time, a pressure cabin was a darn good idea. My Dad spent much of WWII at humunguous altitudes flying various Marks of PR Spitfires, and his descriptions of flying the un-pressurised versions, before the PRX and XI appeared, were horrendous.

I've just read an article in 'Aeroplane Monthly' about Spitfire Vs operating in the Middle East trying to shoot down Ju-86Ps that flew over above 50000 ft. On three occasions they succeeded in doing this, but that doesn't mean a Spit V's max altitude was 55000 ft or so.

On the subject of Wikipedia's accuracy, which is where this all started, they would have us believe that the P-38 had a max. range of 1300 miles combat and 1770 miles ferry, the P-51 Mustang a max. range of 1650 miles with drop tanks, the P-47 max. range of 800 miles combat and 1800 miles ferry, and the Mosquito max. range of 900 miles.

If they are all correct it raises a few questions. 1) Why did the USAAC need the outstanding Mustang's range if the P-38 could already do the job? 2) If a Mosquito only had a max. range of 900 miles how did any of them ever get back from a raid on Berlin, let alone haul a 4000 lb bomb half way there?

That's why I'm sceptical of the almost any figures quoted in there, it is after all, an open format document.

Thomas comment may well have been somewhat over the top, but we in Europe are well used to the US claiming that everything American is automatically better than anything else in the aviation world I'm afraid. That's probably what triggered it.

kitnut617 · January 04, 2009, 02:43:19 PM

Not sure where that 900 mile range came from Kit, in the Sharp/Bowyer book Mosquito, the data gives the best economical range of a PR version with 760 Gal. onboard and at 30,000ft as 1500 miles, at 10,000ft it's 1620 miles. A bomber version with 540 Gal. at 30,000ft has a range of 1000 miles and at 10,000ft 1120 miles. Both the ranges at 10,000ft are their best milage. Interestingly though, at high speed cruise, the range is best at 30,000ft for both types, PR = 1320 Bomber=895 (aha - guess that's where the 900 mile range is) The fighter version aren't much better than the bombers.

PR19_Kit · January 04, 2009, 03:12:16 PM

That's exactly my point.

Wikipedia is too shallow a document on almost any subject, and to find the REAL numbers you need to dig deeper, exactly what you have done. (And thanks for that too, it's very interesting)

Assuming that one's favourite aircraft's entry in Wiki is the gospel truth while suggesting that all the others are not just isn't a logical point of view. Wiki just provides pointers to my mind, and acts as a catalyst to proper research.

There's also the vexed question of 'range' versus 'combat radius'. One is double the other, unless we are talking about suicide missions, and far too many references get them mixed up.

overscan · January 04, 2009, 03:25:42 PM

Recce Mossies could hit 42,000ft or more. The bomber version was optimised for high speeds at 27-30,000ft with a typical ceiling of 34,000 ft.

jcf · January 04, 2009, 04:58:53 PM

The ceiling figure in the Wiki entry (quoted for the P-38L) matches the figure quoted in Francillon's 'Lockheed Aircraft since 1913', Putnam/NIP 1987. The same source gives a maximum range of 2,600 miles for the P-38L, with a normal range of 450 miles.

The Putnam on De Havilland quotes 43,000 feet for the Mosquito P.R. Mk. 34, with ranges varying from 1,030 miles to 3,340 miles depending on DH 98 sub-type.

Of course, any table of performance figures should be taken with a grain of salt.

Jon

p.s. I make no assumptions about Wiki accuracy

retro_seventies · January 04, 2009, 07:30:16 PM

Handbags at 5 paces, eh?

Glad to see things are peachy again around these parts

NARSES2 · January 05, 2009, 04:02:12 AM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 03, 2009, 10:32:37 PM

Thomas, the Wikipedia article is very balanced, well written and well documented with references and a bibliography. Frankly your comment is the only thing that stinks in this thread.

Jon

Why this thread has generated vitriol I don't know ? Little harsh use of there Jon ?

GTX · January 06, 2009, 12:05:44 AM

Cool!

Regards,

Greg

ysi_maniac · January 07, 2009, 05:54:51 AM

^^^^^^
^^^^^^
Love that!

Tophe · April 24, 2009, 11:34:26 AM

Quote from: John Howling Mouse on January 02, 2009, 05:17:43 PM
Link sent to Tophe's e-mail.

oh sorry, I received the Twin-Mosquito link, wonderful, but I missed this very topic here, so wonderful too. Belated apologies and congratulations... Where was I? Sorry...

Tophe · April 26, 2009, 09:36:51 AM

Quote from: B787 on January 03, 2009, 05:47:13 AM
I have my doubts on wikipedia too.
Anyhow, here is the P-38 "mosquito version":
And some zwillings of it:

Dear B787, great designer, I have checked your drawings

compared to my collection. One is completely new, thanks!

I have included it at the end of my site http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/index.htm
with further inventions of mine...

Thanks again!