Mosquito

[R33GZ]

Just flew the Mosquito for the first time. Damn its agile... much more so than the IL246 version. I guess its realistic and well researched, otherwise it wouldn't have made into the stable. There was one flying around my neck of the woods until she found a new home in the US I think

 

Still learning its quirks, but I can see myself having some fun with this beauty

 

Any tips getting the most out of her?

[HazMatt]

I don't have any tips as I'm learning myself, however I have also noticed that the modeling is different between sims.

[Art-J]

There are charts showing that in GB It overperforms in roll rate by a hefty margin, so "well researched" part has some holes in it. That "extra" comes in handy in defensive maneuvers, though!

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Art-J said:

There are charts showing that in GB It overperforms in roll rate by a hefty margin, so "well researched" part has some holes in it. That "extra" comes in handy in defensive maneuvers, though!

 

Can you post evidence to show this?

[Ulricus]

7 hours ago, HazMatt said:

I don't have any tips as I'm learning myself, however I have also noticed that the modeling is different between sims.

In this context fits Requiem's reply to MAILMAN's question (Do you plan on making one of these for IL-2 Great Battles, Mosquito?) - see here (Comments): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HTu9J-uoBQ

[Lusekofte]

10 hours ago, R33GZ said:

Just flew the Mosquito for the first time. Damn its agile... much more so than the IL246 version

Much better than the DCS version too. I love this in gb

6 hours ago, Art-J said:

There are charts showing that in GB It overperforms in roll rate by a hefty margin, so "well researched" part has some holes in it. That "extra" comes in handy in defensive maneuvers, though!

Compared to DCS version its control authority is more controlled or firm. Can’t say I have felt any overperformance compared to it. But I tend to be a bit of a bomber pilot in the way I fly 

[R33GZ]

6 hours ago, Ulricus said:

In this context fits Requiem's reply to MAILMAN's question (Do you plan on making one of these for IL-2 Great Battles, Mosquito?) - see here (Comments): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HTu9J-uoBQ

I don't quite understand that. It apparently pulls the wrong way on takeoff. So the assumption is that the entire FM is incorrect?

 

I'm pretty sure I have a magazine somewhere that has a pilot review from the Mosquito that was rebuilt here in NZ. It will be interesting to re read that and compare

[R33GZ]

Found the magazine. Kiwi Flyer, issue 50 2017. The main article within is: Mosquito - Rebuild and Pilots Report. It covers one of 3 Mosquitos rebuilt and flight tested in NZ before being sold and shipped to the US.

 

The article has this to say about the takeoff roll of the Mosquito.

 

"George removed a lot of the threat of the swing on takeoff that the Mosquito has something of a reputation for. By using his 'zero boost' technique -running the engines up to zero bost (30 inches of manifold pressure on an American aircraft) on the brakes, then immediately going to take off power upon brake release - symmetrical take off power is established at the very beginning of the take off roll and any subsequent swing is easy to deal with. 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2024 by R33GZ

[R33GZ]

Quite a few other interesting things to say about the test flight.

 

"Airborne handling was lively with nice control harmony. Configuring the aircraft for landing, we were again reminded of the colossal drag increase that occurs when the landing gear and flaps are lowered. As a consequence, the final approach is flown with what would be regarded as a cruise power setting in many aircraft."

 

"There is little tendency to swing until the tail drops and aerodynamics give way to brakes as the primary keep-straight mechanism. Differential braking is then required, but is virtually impossible to apply exactl the right amount, and a dance begins with rudder and brakes making corrections to corrections until you slow to taxi speed"

 

I don't know, from what I've just read, from a pilot with current experience in a host of WW1 and WW2 aircraft, the GB Mosquito appears to behave according to type. There was no discussion about which way it swings on takeoff, but I would have thought it was in the direction of the torque of the propellers

Edited March 31, 2024 by R33GZ

[CUJO_1970]

Here's a comparison to the Great Battles Mosquito vs the Actual Mosquito. The Mossie in the sim can roll at over 100 deg/sec @ 250mph where in real life the roll rate was around 25 deg/sec.

 

 

Read the RAAF report and there are some interesting points about why the aircraft was forbidden from aerobatics.

Edited March 31, 2024 by CUJO_1970

[R33GZ]

58 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Here's a comparison to the Great Battles Mosquito vs the Actual Mosquito. The Mossie in the sim can roll at over 100 deg/sec @ 250mph where in real life the roll rate was around 25 deg/sec.

 

 

Read the RAAF report and there are some interesting points about why the aircraft was forbidden from aerobatics.

Interesting graph.... who drew the red line on there? Worth noting that it is labeled as Boomerang rolling trials... and also has the boomerang topping out at 375mph! I think its top speed was actually closer to 300mph and probably not while rolling

[Lusekofte]

I read that standard takeoff procedure was to have uneven throttle setting in order to battle torque in the start of a takeoff. But I do not want to argue with a kiwi

[Jaegermeister]

13 hours ago, R33GZ said:

I don't know, from what I've just read, from a pilot with current experience in a host of WW1 and WW2 aircraft, the GB Mosquito appears to behave according to type. There was no discussion about which way it swings on takeoff, but I would have thought it was in the direction of the torque of the propellers

 

Here ya go...

 

In Game Mosquito Specs;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sgt_Joch]

In game, the Mosquito is similar to the Me110, a fast light bomber with good armament, very good for quick bombing raids and very stable/powerful gun platform if you surprise enemy ACs. You won’t be able to dogfight enemy fighters in it though.

 

Takeoff is easy once you get the hang of it, but you have to use brakes to keep it straight until the rudder works. Because of the layout, you have to get some speed up before the rudder has an effect. It is easy to fly with no noticeable quirks.

 

Now the issue of whether it should pull left or right on takeoff is debatable, I have read both, but once in the air, you can see the torque is modeled in the correct direction.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Sgt_Joch

[NZCadMan]

Wanaka airshow NZ Easter weekend

 

Mosquito was airborne before shipping to US

 

https://www.warbirdsoverwanaka.com/

 

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350229592/restored-mosquito-plane-once-childrens-plaything

Edited April 1, 2024 by KiwisAtWarNZCadMan

[Gingerwelsh]

17 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

I

Now the issue of whether it should pull left or right on takeoff is debatable,

Not in Physics it isn't.

 

Twins with 2 clockwise props will pull to the left. Tail dragging, free tailwheel especially.

 

1. Propwash. Weak but still there.

2. P factor.

3. Gyro effect when tail lifts.

4. Torque roll at lift off.

All these conspire to turn aircraft left.

 

To counter this, power was added to the left engine.

 

Add to this the insane roll rate of our Mosquito.

My pet hate is the lack of revs during the roll out. It should be 3000 RPM off the blocks and sustained.

 

..

Edited April 1, 2024 by Gingerwelsh

[Sgt_Joch]

1 hour ago, Gingerwelsh said:

Not in Physics it isn't.

well bottom line it’s a game, not RL, if players want to obsess over that and not fly the Mossie, that is up to them.

[Ulricus]

On 3/31/2024 at 6:51 PM, Sgt_Joch said:

Takeoff is easy once you get the hang of it, but you have to use brakes to keep it straight until the rudder works. Because of the layout, you have to get some speed up before the rudder has an effect

Thx for this comprehensible instruction and explanation, with which I was finally able to take-off my 'Sim'-Mossie properly. 

Edited April 10, 2024 by Ulricus

[dannytherat]

On 3/31/2024 at 6:31 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Read the RAAF report and there are some interesting points about why the aircraft was forbidden from aerobatics.

The RAF's Pilots' Notes for the Mosquito VI explicitly state that aerobatics were permitted.

 

The "special equipment" referred to is radar, which our Mosquito does not have.

Edited April 4, 2024 by dannytherat
Edited for typo

[Bilbo_Baggins]

I don't understand why the roll-rate is so high on this machine. Can anyone explain?

[EAF19_Marsh]

3 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

I don't understand why the roll-rate is so high on this machine. Can anyone explain?

Delta Wood. Be sure.

[ST_Catchov]

5 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

I don't understand why the roll-rate is so high on this machine. Can anyone explain?

 

Yeah, ditch the ring Baggins.

[CUJO_1970]

On 3/31/2024 at 1:37 AM, R33GZ said:

Interesting graph.... who drew the red line on there?

 

I did. It's the Mosquito roll rate as measured on Kuban Autumn map.

[CUJO_1970]

On 4/2/2024 at 2:19 AM, dannytherat said:

The RAF's Pilots' Notes for the Mosquito IV explicitly state that aerobatics were permitted.

 

The "special equipment" referred to is radar, which our Mosquito does not have.

 

RAAF had same flight restrictions for all Mossie variants including PR, primarily due to excessive loads on tailplane and elevator:

 

 

 

 

[jollyjack]

Since i never really read much of roll rate i found this page, quite enlightening:

https://fastercapital.com/content/Understanding-Roll-Rate--A-Key-Aspect-of-Flight-Dynamics.html#Introduction-to-Roll-Rate

[Sky_Wolf]

So is CUJO’s claim true or not? If yes, it is a damning indictment of the chaps responsible for building the mosquito model.

[Jaegermeister]

2 hours ago, Sky_Wolf said:

So is CUJO’s claim true or not? If yes, it is a damning indictment of the chaps responsible for building the mosquito model.

 

Since Equivalent Air Speed is used, I suppose if you performed the test at sea level it would be easy to check. If the mosquito will roll at 90 degrees per second at 225 mph IAS just above sea level, then CUJO_1970's data is certainly close.

 

Why don't you give it a roll (pun intended) and see if you can do a complete aileron roll in 4 seconds.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2024 by Jaegermeister

[CUJO_1970]

On 5/6/2024 at 5:02 PM, Jaegermeister said:

 

Since Equivalent Air Speed is used, I suppose if you performed the test at sea level it would be easy to check. If the mosquito will roll at 90 degrees per second at 225 mph IAS just above sea level, then CUJO_1970's data is certainly close.

 

Why don't you give it a roll (pun intended) and see if you can do a complete aileron roll in 4 seconds.

 

 

Roll rates test are done in accordance with NACA standard, 10,000 ft and standard atmospheric conditions on Kuban Autumn map. 
 

The red line is what you see happening in the sim under those conditions. 

[dannytherat]

While I am of the opinion that the rate of roll we have in the Mosquito in game is probably excessive, I believe that the Mosquito's rates of roll shown in CUJO's graph do not marry up with the maximum the aircraft could perform.

 

Although the video below is quite blurry (and I haven't timed it exactly) I believe it shows the Mosquito performing a full 360° roll in about 6 seconds, implying a roll rate in the region of 60° per second, and it is not entirely clear whether even this roll is being flown at the maximum rate that the aircraft could perform.

 

https://youtu.be/d7pNBSRkEiQ?si=3jbjaN66ITntVkl0&t=1m35s

 

It may be worth noting that CUJO's graph illustrates roll rates with "Full control column deflection or 30lbs control column load"

 

It is not unreasonable to believe that the control forces required to roll a Mosquito would exceed the force required to roll most single-seat single-engined fighters, and as a result the 30-pound control column load limit for the test would artificially limit the roll-rate for the Mosquito in this test.

 

There seems to be a difference of opinion between the RAF and RAAF in terms of each service's attitude to aerobatics in the Mosquito, with the RAF's pilots notes explicitly stating that aerobatics in the Mosquito were permitted for experienced pilots, while the RAAF pilots notes state that they were not permitted.

 

I would suggest that the Mosquito could perform quite rapid rolls for a twin-engined (although probably not as fast as in game), although quite likely the control forces involved would probably have meant that the average pilot would have found prolonged hard rolling manoeuvres extremely tiring (which is, of course, not modelled in sim).

Edited May 8, 2024 by dannytherat
Edited for typo

[Jaegermeister]

6 hours ago, dannytherat said:

 

It is not unreasonable to believe that the control forces required to roll a Mosquito would exceed the force required to roll most single-seat single-engined fighters, and as a result the 30-pound control column load limit for the test would artificially limit the roll-rate for the Mosquito in this test.

 

I would suggest that the Mosquito could perform quite rapid rolls for a twin-engined (although probably not as fast as in game), although quite likely the control forces involved would probably have meant that the average pilot would have found prolonged hard rolling manoeuvres extremely tiring (which is, of course, not modelled in sim).

 

I just watched a video with an Australian Mossie (Mozzie) pilot and at about 9 minutes in he says the stick forces are "quite light" at slow speed and it has a good roll rate. 225 MPH would be quite slow for the Mossie if they cruised at 290 mph.

 

 

I tested the Mossie at 300 - 500 above sea level on the south coast of England with 1/2 fuel and was able to do repetitive rolls just using aileron in 4 seconds or less, so @CUJO_1970's graph is probably pretty accurate.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2024 by Jaegermeister

[dannytherat]

2 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

I tested the Mossie at 300 - 500 above sea level on the south coast of England with 1/2 fuel and was able to do repetitive rolls just using aileron in 4 seconds or less, so @CUJO_1970's graph is probably pretty accurate.

 

 

Sorry - to clarify, when I referred to CUJO's graph, I was talking about the data from the RAAF's report which CUJO posted earlier to compare with the in-sim Mosquito. The roll rates quoted from the RAAF report do not equate to what appeared to be a six-second complete roll in the footage.

 

I have no reason at all to doubt that the curve that @CUJO_1970 plotted from the game data is accurate - it looks bang on to me.

 

From the Pilots Notes for the Mosquito (the RAF notes - I haven't seen the RAAF notes in their entirety) the cruising speed is given as 210-220mph IAS. Whether or not we count this as "low speed" is open to interpretation.

 

Also, when we talk about "light controls", it's worth thinking about context - "light controls" in a ten-ton twin-engined aircraft probably means something different to "light controls" in a small single-engined fighters.

[Jaegermeister]

44 minutes ago, dannytherat said:

 

From the Pilots Notes for the Mosquito (the RAF notes - I haven't seen the RAAF notes in their entirety) the cruising speed is given as 210-220mph IAS. Whether or not we count this as "low speed" is open to interpretation.

 

Also, when we talk about "light controls", it's worth thinking about context - "light controls" in a ten-ton twin-engined aircraft probably means something different to "light controls" in a small single-engined fighters.

 

If you watch the video I linked above, the pilot says at around 8:10 that they cruise about 260 to 270 mph to reduce unpleasant propeller harmonics. He didn't say what he was comparing it to, but he did say he flew DC-10s, a Spitfire, a Corsair and a few other tail draggers.  It's all anecdotal anyway except for the roll rate charts.

[CUJO_1970]

There are a number of reasons you don't throw a Mosquito around the sky, especially you don't do it anywhere near the ground without several thousands of feet for recovery. As the RAAF report shows, this was for equipment and structural reasons (structural limitation to the tailplane) - but also they were pretty notorious for engine cutouts related to carb. issues and this persisted even long after the war, even with completely rebuilt and new carbs.

 

I'm not going to link it here, out of respect for those who lost their lives or to trivialize this tragedy, but you can easily find the video of the '96 Mosquito crash where the engine cutout shortly after attempting a rolling maneuver and unfortunately the pilot was unable to recover and it went right into the ground.

 

Big twins like the JU-88, the 410 and the Arado were all built by the Luftwaffe to be fully aerobatic (also direct fuel injection) due to the ridiculous RLM requirement that all these aircraft be capable of dive bombing -  but the the Mosquito was built for speed - neither it nor the A-20 was built for aerobatics. (You can also watch the training films for the A-20 that says don't fly aerobatics in it)

[CUJO_1970]

On 5/6/2024 at 3:00 PM, Sky_Wolf said:

So is CUJO’s claim true or not? If yes, it is a damning indictment of the chaps responsible for building the mosquito model.

 

I doubt it's anything like that, just hard to program I'd say...

 

Have you tried to fly any warbird in MSFS? They are atrocious and this is coming from someone who absolutely love MSFS.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

As the RAAF report shows, this was for equipment and structural reasons (structural limitation to the tailplane) - but also they were pretty notorious for engine cutouts related to carb. issues and this persisted even long after the war, even with completely rebuilt and new carbs.

Would these not be issues with the engine/damage models rather than the flight model?

 

5 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I'm not going to link it here, out of respect for those who lost their lives or to trivialize this tragedy, but you can easily find the video of the '96 Mosquito crash where the engine cutout shortly after attempting a rolling maneuver and unfortunately the pilot was unable to recover and it went right into the ground.

I was looking for information about this crash, and came across this marvel about a different Mosquito:

 

Spoiler

Pilot came into land with only the port wheel and tail-wheel lowered. He made a very good landing on the one main wheel and as he came to a halt the starboard wing tip dropped on to the ground. We rushed across the airfield to see what had happened and as we got to the aircraft we could see that the starboard wheel and its nacelle were missing! Geoffrey got out and said that he was doing a high speed low-level run over the field in Old Welwyn when one of the wheels came down on its own and the rush of air blew the wheel and its nacelle away. He could not land back at Hatfield due to a Proctor on approach there so he diverted to Panshanger. While he was telling us this, there was a screech of brakes and a butcher’s van from Old Welwyn pulled up. The driver got out and said “I’ve got a bit of your aeroplane here. I came over as fast as I could as I knew you would want it right away!” He had brought back most of the nacelle, but of course it was too damaged to be of any use.

 A butcher's van bringing a missing piece of aircraft. Could've been a Dad's Army episode.

[LukeFF]

Guys, any complaints about FMs being "absurd" and whatnot need to be backed up with documented proof, thank you.

[Aleksander55]

The Mosquito was made of wood. It's like the soviet single engine fighters, one can work wood laminates into an aerodynamic shape as good as all metal ones, but these wood laminates will never have the weight/strenght efficiency of aluminium. You either make the aircraft heavier to cope with the stress of maneuvering as the soviets did (and keep behind in the fighter game for pretty much the whole war), or focus on lightness and speed as with the Mosquito.

 

I think the british had the much better idea with the Mossie, it was always planned as a fast bomber, not a maneuvering fighter, so the disavantadges of wood construction would not be felt. The soviets should have made the Pe-2/3s and Tu-2s of wood and the Yaks, LA-ggs, Migs and Polikarpovs of metal. Where's that time machine? I'll go back to the past to!... 

 

The Mosquito probably can make faster aerobatic maneuvers than recommended in manuals, but as it's wooden structure was made purely for aerodynamic efficiency and high cruising speeds - not torsional resistance - the pilot would be taking a high dose of personal risk.

[CUJO_1970]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I was looking for information about this crash, and came across this marvel about a different Mosquito:

 

Link to AAIB report - note at the end this does not apply to Bendix injection Carbs.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542301dce5274a1317000b69/dft_avsafety_pdf_501355.pdf

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Link to AAIB report - note at the end this does not apply to Bendix injection Carbs.

That for sure is an issue, but if that was a reason to ban aerobatics, the Spit and the Hurricanes would have been banned from aerobatics as well.

 

The Mosquito being capable of rolling, looping etc. is not really up for debate. It can do that and it can do so better than most twins. The point is more: Should you? The Shrike Commander 500S was hardly marketed as an aerobatic aircraft, yet Bob Hoover showed what you can do with an aircraft if you do it right. An aircraft cleared for aerobatics is not only capable of flying the maneuver, it is also built to sustain with a defined margin ALL loads it might encounter during these maneuvers. The Mosquito has light controls (for a bomber), and especially the light rudder (with its small fin) is a concern here.

 

A bomber is per se not a 9g aircraft. It would not only require the added weight for the stricture to safely reach these limits, but it would also have to be strong enough to carry the stores under such conditions. In a fly by wire system, you (e.g. in the Mirage2000) flip a switch to limit your g load if you carry heavy stores. With direct controls, it is all up to the pilot. Now, if an aircraft is, say, rated to 6g, then this means it has to be much stronger than that. These 6g's are a one directional load. However, if the aircraft goes crabwise (happens easily with a light elevator or power out of sync in a twin), then you have much more load than just these 6g and maybe 4.5g might be the limit form where your structure takes damage. That is also why you just don't flick those aircraft, not even Spits or Mustangs (it is forbidden!), as sideway loads are considerable and add to the vertical g load. The Mustang had to have an added fin on the rudder stab to prevent any teenage dork from going sideways, even though it is perfectly fine to fly it without that fillet. But then you have to watch the ball and do something about it. The Cavalier Mustang had even an enlaregd tailfin to reduce footwork that the vanilla P-51D still requires in maneuvers. Hence, rich, fat old dorks are obviously even worse than regular teenage dorks, hence added safety measures have to me put in place. And these sideways loads is exactly what the manuals refer to.

 

The Germans were indeed insane for making anything that moves dive-bombing capable, as they paid dearly with a reduced payload. With larger aircraft, you deliberately make the controls heavier to prevent the pilot from overstressing and hamfisting the aircraft. As a negative example, the He-177 is a terrible, terrible aircaft that had extremely light elevator controls, but structurally it was nowhere near what it should be to be considered "aerobatic". This flying fraud gave - if it didn't get on fire by itself in flight - the pilot the ability to easily rip the wings of the aircraft, as the elevator (in contrast to the ailerons) was that light. Eric Brown hated the crate for that and called it the "glass aircraft".

 

Wood is per se also not "weaker" than aluminum. Wood composite was the standard way for De Havilland to build aircraft. Almost all aircraft up to that date (especially the fancy ones) were built from wood composite. And just because they have a wooden shell doesn't mean that there are no metal internals. I see metal inside:

[Gingerwelsh]

On 5/8/2024 at 7:00 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

There are a number of reasons you don't throw a Mosquito around the sky, especially you don't do it anywhere near the ground without several thousands of feet for recovery. As the RAAF report shows, this was for equipment and structural reasons (structural limitation to the tailplane) - but also they were pretty notorious for engine cutouts related to carb. issues and this persisted even long after the war, even with completely rebuilt and new carbs.

 

 

 

Note that; aileron rolls were not permitted. (From the pilots manual).

 

They had to be barrelled to maintain positive G, in order to respect the engines.

..