De Havilland Mosquito

[sequoiaranger]

>I thought you could dive bomb with any type of bomb?  The Mosquito had the capacity for either 3,000 to 4,000 pounds of bombs (4,000 with a cookie, and 3,000 normal).<

I can't recall any "dive bomber" doing so from a "bomb-bay" (the SB2C had a "bomb bay", but just for aerodynamics---the bomb was guided out with a bomb-crutch). Usually a dedicated "dive bomber" has a bomb mounted OUTSIDE the fuselage. When the USN used the Avenger (having a bomb-bay) as a "dive bomber" it was really a "glide bomber" at shallow angles. I think as a pilot I would be hesitant to have a slew of bombs potentially "rattling around" in my fuselage if, say, a 200mph wind was creating gusts that would wiggle a bomb around inside the bay.

That being said, my imagination "plays the movie" of a Mossie hurtling down on a Japanese aircraft carrier and releasing a....4,000lb "cookie" to explode below decks!!! 

[pyro-manic]

Not sure a 4000lb cookie would be the best anti-ship weapon, to be honest - I suspect the penetrating ability was fairly low, as it was a thin-skinned high-capacity bomb. Accuracy would be pretty bad as well, due to the un-aerodynamic shape. If it hit a carrier it would devastate anything on-deck, of course, and the blast would have an impressive effect, even with a near-miss.

[sequoiaranger]

>Not sure a 4000lb cookie would be the best anti-ship weapon, to be honest - I suspect the penetrating ability was fairly low, as it was a thin-skinned high-capacity bomb. Accuracy would be pretty bad as well, due to the un-aerodynamic shape. If it hit a carrier it would devastate anything on-deck, of course, and the blast would have an impressive effect, even with a near-miss. <

For aircraft carriers, especially those without armored decks, penetration to the hangar deck is a GIVEN. Something that heavy would just BEGIN to explode as it crashed THROUGH the thin flight decks (mostly wooden) of WW II carriers. Yes, near-misses would cave-in the sides of the ship, methinks, BETTER than a torpedo! But...I was being facetious in thinking that a cookie-carrying Mossie COULD be a naval dive-bomber! Accuracy?? The cookie was called a "block-buster" for a reason! A carrier is about a block long...Hmm...! 

[kitnut617]

Just out of curiousity, could a DH Mosquito have met the range if it was powered by a radial like an R-1830?

Considering that the R-1830 is way underpowered for a Mosquito, but do a google on the Argentinian Calquin if you want a radial powered Mosquito

[Mossie]

Bristol Hercules or P&W R2800 Double Wasp would give you the required power.

Not sure a 4000lb cookie would be the best anti-ship weapon, to be honest

A Cookie set up as an aerial depth charge might have been interesting.  Casing might have been needed to be heavier to withstand hitting the water but would have given one hell of a wallop.

[pyro-manic]

Put it on a parachute? Or dropped at low level it wouldn't be very fast. But then it'd take the Sunderland or whatever with it as well as the sub. I read that the minimum drop height was 5,000ft - any lower and the bomber was at risk!

[KJ_Lesnick]

Considering that the R-1830 is way underpowered for a Mosquito, but do a google on the Argentinian Calquin if you want a radial powered Mosquito

Why did it fly so much slower and have shorter range?

[pyro-manic]

Less fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....

[kitnut617]

Less fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....

An interesting article appeared in one of the Air-Britain Aeromilitaria issues a couple of years ago (with photos too), it seems that during the war the Air Ministry wanted to simplify production and told De Havilland they wanted a Lancaster type 'power-egg' with the chin (or beard as they were called back then) radiators installed on the Mosquito.  One Mosquito was modified with the power-egg and had the traditional radiator intakes faired over.  The boffins expected that there would be quite a drop in performance but were totally surprised with the results when the modified Mossie was compared to a standard Mossie, in just about every case there wasn't any difference in performance.  But De Havilland told the Air Ministry there was no way the power-egg was going on his aircraft, so it didn't ---

[The Wooksta!]

There's a photo of it in the Tony Buttler book on wartime projects and according to him, that Mosquito flew quite badly.

As for the Calquin, the Argies did try to get Merlins for it.  The Air Ministry said no, but you can buy Mosquitos instead. 

[kitnut617]

I'll have to go find the magazine, but afaik there is no mention about the aircraft handling badly, and IIRC Phil Butler wrote the article.  Now part of the article concerned the Welkin which was also tested with a beard radiator (but not a Lancaster power-egg) and that did handle very badly apparently.  But then it had both types of radiators working at the same time so wasn't a real apples to apples sort of test.

[KJ_Lesnick]

pyro-manic

Less fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....

I didn't know it had less fuel, less power makes sense, as for more drag is that the airframe or the engine?


Everybody

Why didn't they ever put counter-rotating props on

[PR19_Kit]

Everybody

Why didn't they ever put counter-rotating props on

On the Mossie or the Calquin?

If the Mossie, probably because there was a war on and it would have taken time and money to develop a reverse rotation gearbox, which they did later for the Hornet of course.

If the Calquin, did the Twin Wasp come in a reverse rotation version? I can't find any reference to one, but that's not to say they didn't make one.

[pyro-manic]

pyro-manic

Less fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....

I didn't know it had less fuel, less power makes sense, as for more drag is that the airframe or the engine?

As I said, it's just a guess, based on the stats on Wikipedia, and just looking at the thing. Radial engines have more frontal area than Merlins, so that means more drag. I'd also be willing to guess that the airframe was not as refined as that of the Mosquito, as the Argentine aircraft industry probably didn't have anything like the resources and research DH had to draw on. That's pure conjecture on my part, as I don't know. Less power - the R-1830-G on the Calquin put out 1,050hp, whereas the Merlins on the Mossie NF.30 gave 1,710hp. So that's nearly 1400hp more per plane.

[KJ_Lesnick]

As I said, it's just a guess, based on the stats on Wikipedia, and just looking at the thing. Radial engines have more frontal area than Merlins, so that means more drag.

Still, the USN managed to produce some fast-fighters that had radials such as the F4U

I'd also be willing to guess that the airframe was not as refined as that of the Mosquito

Makes sense

Less power - the R-1830-G on the Calquin put out 1,050hp, whereas the Merlins on the Mossie NF.30 gave 1,710hp. So that's nearly 1400hp more per plane.

Would 2 R-2600's cover it?