PDA

View Full Version : What kind of Mosquito do we actually have in IL2?



mynameisroland
03-03-2008, 02:18 AM
The boost guages read 18lb at max boost and its speed is in the region of 345/350 mph at sea level. I know its meant to be a series I Merlin 23 engined variant but if it was a Merlin 25 engined Mosquito how much faster would it be?

p1ngu666
03-03-2008, 03:52 AM
a **** one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. post war ammo loads (half). numous sources ill dig up say 360+ on ops was the average at sea level/very low level. and i doubt its because the speedo is wrong, as they where nearly always on time to target/waypoints to the second/minute http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
03-03-2008, 04:20 AM
re the ammo load i have read 300 rounds per 20mm cannon. where did Oleg get the extra ammo loadout from if he modelled default load out as half ? Extra ammo only has an extra 25 shells per 20 mm.

p1ngu666
03-03-2008, 07:25 AM
its based off postwar ammo loadouts, aka peace time where there isnt a bunch of things to shoot and lets be extra safe.

think a full load was 283cannon and 1000303 (per gun)

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mossiedoc1.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mossiedoc2.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mossiecartoon.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//moss0iegraph.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mollyingu.jpg

just the stuff i have on my crappy uploadit :\

JtD
03-03-2008, 08:46 AM
It is a Merlin 25 powered MkVI FB variant. Performance for 18lbs is about correct.

mortoma
03-03-2008, 09:50 AM
"What kind of Mosquito do we actually have in IL2?" The one that sucks the most? I dunno....

ElAurens
03-03-2008, 10:58 AM
A slow one.

Be sure.

JG53Frankyboy
03-03-2008, 11:08 AM
in a scenario versus Bf109F-4, Fw190A-4, Bf110G-2, Fw190A-4, Mc202 it is ok.
later on, and AFAIK the FB.VI Mosquito is a plane for 1943 on , its "proplematic" because always there are enemy fighters over the targetarea who know already you are comming - on the typical Dogffightserver/COOP mission.........

a later, higher performing Mosquito FB.VI would have made actually realy more sense for the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

MB_Avro_UK
03-03-2008, 01:33 PM
Hey P1ngu666,

Great post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And the Mosquito Museum at Hatfield UK is the best!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

JtD
03-03-2008, 02:50 PM
Our Mossie makes 347 mph on the deck and 360 mph at low alt max.

So if I am not mistaken the only 1942 fighter able to catch her without altitude advantage would be the Fw 190A-4 and even that only by a very small margin.

I'd also like to point out that a combat trial report states "600 rounds 20mm, which could be increased to 700".

So what's so bad about the Mossie?

Choctaw111
03-03-2008, 03:16 PM
In short...the slow one

VW-IceFire
03-03-2008, 03:22 PM
For me...its slow and easily shot down. A few times I've been able to leverage its speed in the early war but not after that. Soon as anyone hits you...its mega fuel tank leak or structural failure too. Rather disappointed with its toughness. Also...no rockets. I can only explain that as being dumb. We should have gotten a FB.IV with rockets...thats the popular one...thats the one that was used over Norway. Thats what we should have gotten.

blairgowrie
03-03-2008, 04:32 PM
Would it have taken much effort to add a FB.1V after the one we got? I always thought most of the drudge work was in the cockpit etc.

Choctaw111
03-03-2008, 04:40 PM
I was ecstatic when we finally got the Mossie...but...when my squadron and I started flying it around, you know to "kick the tires" and whatnot, it didn't take us long to realize that we got the one dragging the ball and chain http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

MB_Avro_UK
03-03-2008, 04:58 PM
Hi all,

The Mosquito is one of my favourite planes from WW2. Radical design concept,successful and had by far the lowest casualty rate of all RAF bombers.

Also adopted by the US.

But the version we have is from 1942.

Of course it is outclassed in late war servers.

But the srength of the Mosquito was very low level precision bombing (try doing that in a server with map icons on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif)

The second strength was night operations (see above).

The third strength was high altitude unarmed recon. (No place for that on servers).

The RAF plane set in general is mid-war.

If a late mark of Spitfire was available I dread to imagine the whinining that it would create http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I cannot comment on the damage model for the Mosquito as my wartime experience only related to hi-alt recon. (ok only joking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif)

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MM-Zorin
03-03-2008, 11:08 PM
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hx809.pdf

Given I understand the conclusions drawn by that test and given JtDs speed figures are correct we have a perfect Merlin 25 18lbs (translates to no 150 octane fuel which is needed for 25lbs) Mosquito FB.VI. Making it a typical FB and not the early version with Merlin 21.

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 03:57 AM
Doesnt that test say that it has external tanks on it Zorin?


Although possibly a little slow, the main reason teh Mossie was so successful was that it could be in and on its way home before enemy fighters could get anywhere near it.

As has already been suggested, on the mini-war/dogfight servers the enemy knows where the target is in advance, so these tactics do not work well. It has to be used with care and brains. If the enemy knows you are coming and can get into position above, then its not the plane to use, better with a heavily armed 4 engined heavy.

Also the plane breaks up at very low speed compared to metal planes.

Its OK, but I hit one a little last night and it just disintegrated, as it usually does, I couldnt help but comment on the difference in strength between British wood and Russian wood in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS: Great pics Pingu!

WOLFMondo
03-04-2008, 04:10 AM
If there was a later war mossie or one of the faster variants, it would break up before it reached its top speed if the DM is the same as the current one in FB.

I agree with the statement that when used on DF servers the Mosquito looses most of its advantages. That is in the western theatre. Its still very good when used in any pacific scenario.

stathem
03-04-2008, 04:45 AM
As with the loadouts as P1ngu mentioned above, the Vne almost exactly matches the Vne placard limits for the post war Pilots Notes.

Co-incidence?

Could the real thing in wartime really not be dived above 420 mph IAS without losing bits?

You'd struggle to catch V-1s in a dive with our FB.VI.

Viper2005_
03-04-2008, 04:53 AM
If so then it's the only aircraft to actually run into trouble at its placarded VNE; I regularly take my Fw-190 to 800 km/h plus IAS, which is well past the redline, with no ill effects...

stathem
03-04-2008, 05:32 AM
This is from Airpages.Ru

http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=uk30&page=mos_05

I've seen the scanned ones from Prangsters site and it's the same.

p1ngu666
03-04-2008, 07:01 AM
we have the version with more rounded engines, the faster mossie was faster at low alt only, but pretty much faster than everything at that alt, far more disarable for a mud mover, and hero dogfight servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
03-04-2008, 08:09 AM
Im not saying there is anything wrong with our Mosquito - apart from DM/break up speed/too low cannon armament 15o prg according to IL2Compare.

I only wanted clarification on what model we had as it confused me to read that it registered 18lb boost. Which would indicate a Merlin 25 engined variant. That equates to two x 1630 HP at 2500 ft and two x 1510 HP at 9,250 ft. Thats quite a lot of grunt at low altitude. Id be happy with that level of performance and an increased break up limit. I dont expect a Vne of 0.83 mach but it would be nice to have one around 480 mph or so. I think our Mosquito is modelled with permanent pylon drag and a Vne that reflects it is carrying underwing stores.

It would be nice to have the current model, a F.B VI at 25lb which would be around 590 km/h according to p1ngu's book, with rockets. Id also like some 2 stage 2 speed Merlin Mosquitos as the ones we have are purely low altitude jobs. Imagine level bombing at 400mph at 25,000ft, in an early/mid 44 scenario in a B.IX

MM-Zorin
03-04-2008, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Im not saying there is anything wrong with our Mosquito - apart from DM/break up speed/too low cannon armament 15o prg according to IL2Compare.

I only wanted clarification on what model we had as it confused me to read that it registered 18lb boost. Which would indicate a Merlin 25 engined variant. That equates to two x 1630 HP at 2500 ft and two x 1510 HP at 9,250 ft. Thats quite a lot of grunt at low altitude. Id be happy with that level of performance and an increased break up limit. I dont expect a Vne of 0.83 mach but it would be nice to have one around 480 mph or so. I think our Mosquito is modelled with permanent pylon drag and a Vne that reflects it is carrying underwing stores.

It would be nice to have the current model, a F.B VI at 25lb which would be around 590 km/h according to p1ngu's book, with rockets. Id also like some 2 stage 2 speed Merlin Mosquitos as the ones we have are purely low altitude jobs. Imagine level bombing at 400mph at 25,000ft, in an early/mid 44 scenario in a B.IX

Again confused, but didn't we settle on the conclusion that 150 octane fuel wasn't used by the 2TAF?

MM-Zorin
03-04-2008, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
re the ammo load i have read 300 rounds per 20mm cannon. where did Oleg get the extra ammo loadout from if he modelled default load out as half ? Extra ammo only has an extra 25 shells per 20 mm.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf

First paragraph of the description:

4x cannons with 600 rounds (could be increased to 700) and 4x .303 with 2000 rounds (could be increased to 2800 rounds)

So it is perfectly alright the way we have it.

MM-Zorin
03-04-2008, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
As with the loadouts as P1ngu mentioned above, the Vne almost exactly matches the Vne placard limits for the post war Pilots Notes.

Co-incidence?

Could the real thing in wartime really not be dived above 420 mph IAS without losing bits?

You'd struggle to catch V-1s in a dive with our FB.VI.

Dive limit for the Mosquito was 450 mph IAS. Found in the same document above.

JtD
03-04-2008, 09:24 AM
Just to clarify, I checked the in game performance vs. historical performance of the 18lbs Merlin 25 Mossies. I found two useful tests, which vary by around 20 km/h. Our in game Mossie is in between the two.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/mossiev.JPG

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2008, 10:17 AM
i can reach with the ingame Mossie
~542km/h at SL
~572km/h at 1500mm
~607km/h at 4000m

wondering if the drag of the wingracks is modelled in game - on some other planes such wingracks can cost ~30km/h in top speed !

anyway, the ww2performance chart is giving 535km/h at SL and 568km/h at 1550m for a 18lb/sq.in. boost FB.Mk.VI, equipted with external tanks , that are also have additional drag i guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


sure , a 150octan Mossie with a speed at ~570km/h top speed (still with the additional drag !) fom SL up to 1550m would have been the better choice for the ingame one...........

stathem
03-04-2008, 10:26 AM
Buffet starts at about 380 mph IAS

First part off.

700 km/h Indicated, 434 mph
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossieFirstDamage.jpg

Write off, 720 km/h, 447 mph
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossieBreakUp.jpg

...And it seems all other planes can go beyond their placard limit?

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2008, 10:35 AM
its very different programmed in game:
Bf110 and Beaufighter brake also around 700km/h

Pe-2/3 can dive till 900km/h .................

Mc202/205 can dive till 1000km/h http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MM-Zorin
03-04-2008, 10:54 AM
First part gone: 740km/h Indicated

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/mossie1.jpg

Write off: 750km/h Indicated

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/mossie2.jpg

That is clearly within the limit of 450 mph.

MM-Zorin
03-04-2008, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
i can reach with the ingame Mossie
~542km/h at SL
~572km/h at 1500mm
~607km/h at 4000m

wondering if the drag of the wingracks is modelled in game - on some other planes such wingracks can cost ~30km/h in top speed !

anyway, the ww2performance chart is giving 535km/h at SL and 568km/h at 1550m for a 18lb/sq.in. boost FB.Mk.VI, equipted with external tanks , that are also have additional drag i guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


sure , a 150octan Mossie with a speed at ~570km/h top speed (still with the additional drag !) fom SL up to 1550m would have been the better choice for the ingame one...........

A loss of 5 mph at sea level for the drop tanks.

p1ngu666
03-04-2008, 11:26 AM
i think some of the zeros breakup at there dive limit aswell. the mossie deffinately could go damn fast in a dive, and the zero could atleast go abit over dive limit...

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mossiegraph.jpg

i forgot to post that :x

problem ingame vs history, mossie isnt really competative unless u setup the mission specialy to help them.
irl mossies where pretty much taking the piss, and they where very usefull through to the end of the war

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2008, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
...............i forgot to post that :x

...............

to ad, that HX802 is a 150octan driven Mossie.

MM-Zorin
03-04-2008, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think some of the zeros breakup at there dive limit aswell. the mossie deffinately could go damn fast in a dive, and the zero could atleast go abit over dive limit...

i forgot to post that :x

problem ingame vs history, mossie isnt really competative unless u setup the mission specialy to help them.
irl mossies where pretty much taking the piss, and they where very usefull through to the end of the war

Competitive? Didn't you read the document above? It clearly states that the fighting potential of the Mossie was poor and the only tactic recommend was to evade and run for it. It also states that it should only engage slow trainers or unaware enemy planes at a clear disadvantage being caught low and slow.

MM-Zorin
03-04-2008, 11:43 AM
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

No mention of any other RAF plane being operated besides the Spitfire with 150 octane fuel.

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by MM-Zorin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think some of the zeros breakup at there dive limit aswell. the mossie deffinately could go damn fast in a dive, and the zero could atleast go abit over dive limit...

i forgot to post that :x

problem ingame vs history, mossie isnt really competative unless u setup the mission specialy to help them.
irl mossies where pretty much taking the piss, and they where very usefull through to the end of the war

Competitive? Didn't you read the document above? It clearly states that the fighting potential of the Mossie was poor and the only tactic recommend was to evade and run for it. It also states that it should only engage slow trainers or unaware enemy planes at a clear disadvantage being caught low and slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt notice it say the 'fighting potential' was poor? Or did you mean DOG-fighting potential?

It was found it could accelrate away from a Spitfire mkXII which was an extremely fast aircraft at low level in mid 1943.

Its basically a slightly better Ju88 or a better Me110, it could do a massive amount of roles, but you wouldnt want to dogfight a single engined plane in it, just like any dual engined fighter-bomber, it will be significantly less manouverable thanks to its weight and size.

JtD
03-04-2008, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
...............i forgot to post that :x

...............

to ad, that HX802 is a 150octan driven Mossie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But seems to be a slow one with ducted saxophone exhausts. They apparently reduced the speed by 10-15 mph.

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 12:43 PM
Also the test includes external fuel tanks, I think?

Surely they slow it down by a significant amount?

The report also saysd the plane was significantly underperforming.


I cannot believe that the real plane would break up as early as it does in the game.

I know theres a 'dive limit' but this is well under the actual breakup speed. Also this 'dive limit' would surely allow for using the controls without loosing surfaces, not just diving straight down until it breaks up.

What should be tested in the game is if the plane can reach its 'dive limit' and then pull up hard without loosing an elevator. Remember this would be set for full safety, so actual planes could go above this limit too, it is set for the weakest examples.

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
............The report also saysd the plane was significantly underperforming.


................

the HJ679 yes - the HX802 was ok.

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
............The report also saysd the plane was significantly underperforming.


................

the HJ679 yes - the HX802 was ok. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah OK thx for the correcti9on.

Isnt it Hx809 however?

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2008, 12:55 PM
yep, most propably a typo in pingus chart

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
...............i forgot to post that :x

...............

to ad, that HX802 is a 150octan driven Mossie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But seems to be a slow one with ducted saxophone exhausts. They apparently reduced the speed by 10-15 mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean that it was intended to be used as a Night fighter?

I gathered that these ducted exhausts stopped the exhaust flames, was this to make it less visible in the dark?

A few mph is not as significant on Night Fighters. I guess the exhaust thrust added a bit of speed and hence the speed loss?

JG53Frankyboy
03-04-2008, 01:33 PM
all shown Mosquito FB.VIs in Shores book about the 2.TAF, Volume 1(june43 to june44) , have these exhaust collectors (as the Mossie in game has too).
it is mentioned that the Mosquito force of the 2.TAF flew its intruder missions over the occupied europe mainly at night.

the daylight raid at Amiens on 18.feb. 1944 was covered by Typhoons............. even not all went by plan by these fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
03-04-2008, 05:47 PM
stub exhausts (like on spit, p51 etc) provide thrust, which is quite handy, various shrouds used on night time aircraft obivously add drag, and reduce the thrust abit too i guess, on some aircraft they where truely horrible.

isnt the aircraft in the report have night time exhausts and drop tanks (they only dropped them if needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif ).

from my extensive reading on mossie, 360mph~ was very achivable on the deck in service, with 18lb boost...

VW-IceFire
03-04-2008, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by MM-Zorin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Im not saying there is anything wrong with our Mosquito - apart from DM/break up speed/too low cannon armament 15o prg according to IL2Compare.

I only wanted clarification on what model we had as it confused me to read that it registered 18lb boost. Which would indicate a Merlin 25 engined variant. That equates to two x 1630 HP at 2500 ft and two x 1510 HP at 9,250 ft. Thats quite a lot of grunt at low altitude. Id be happy with that level of performance and an increased break up limit. I dont expect a Vne of 0.83 mach but it would be nice to have one around 480 mph or so. I think our Mosquito is modelled with permanent pylon drag and a Vne that reflects it is carrying underwing stores.

It would be nice to have the current model, a F.B VI at 25lb which would be around 590 km/h according to p1ngu's book, with rockets. Id also like some 2 stage 2 speed Merlin Mosquitos as the ones we have are purely low altitude jobs. Imagine level bombing at 400mph at 25,000ft, in an early/mid 44 scenario in a B.IX

Again confused, but didn't we settle on the conclusion that 150 octane fuel wasn't used by the 2TAF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Other way around. You'd have to dig up the thread around here that had that all sorted out.

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 10:42 PM
2nd TAF used the most 150 grade fuel. The planes left at home quickly changed back to 130 grade. I guess because the flying bomb threat had gone, and any German aircraft daft enough to fly over Britain in late 1944 would be sure to be shot down whether they used 18 boost of 25 boost. They had Meteor F1's in late 44 and the much faster F3's covering Britian in early 1945, after all which didnt need any 'boost', the F3 being much faster than most prop fighters at low level.

One thing I didnt know about the Meteor is that it did see action, and destroyed 46 German aircraft on the ground, and did a lot of Ground attack in 1945.



On the subject of the Mossie loosing parts earlier than other planes, in 1943 the Bf109G had these speed limitations placed on it:-

Up to 3 km(9,842 ft.)750 km/h.(466 m.p.h.)
At 5 km(16,404 ft)700 km/h.(435 m.p.h.)
At 7 km(22,965 ft)575 km/h.(357 m.p.h.)
At 9 km(29,527 ft)450 km/h.(280 m.p.h.)
At 11 km(36,089 ft)400 km/h.(248 m.p.h.)


The low alt limitation is basically the same as the Mossie, yet in the game it just falls aparts just over this speed. The Bf109 can reach well over these speeds just fine.

JtD
03-04-2008, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

from my extensive reading on mossie, 360mph~ was very achivable on the deck in service, with 18lb boost...

That would be surpassing even the optimistic manufacturers performance data.

mhuxt
03-05-2008, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
all shown Mosquito FB.VIs in Shores book about the 2.TAF, Volume 1(june43 to june44) , have these exhaust collectors

Then again, it doesn't show all the 2nd TAF Mossies.

luftluuver
03-05-2008, 04:28 AM
The exhaust shrouds were a pain in the butt, causing nothing but problems.

badatflyski
03-05-2008, 04:53 AM
Mosquito "in il2" vs 190A4 1.32ATA aka 190A2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fw-190A-4: [Vmin(clean)-198.0] [Vmax(0 level)-540.0] [VmaxAllowed-860.0] [VmaxH/Alt-640.0/6100.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS150.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-300.0]

Mosquito-BMkIV: [Vmin(clean)-190.0] [Vmax(0 level)-510.0] [VmaxAllowed-700.0] [VmaxH/Alt-540.0/4000.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS135.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-240.0]

Mosquito-FBMkVI: [Vmin(clean)-190.0] [Vmax(0 level)-537.0] [VmaxAllowed-700.0] [VmaxH/Alt-606.0/4000.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS135.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-240.0]

VmaxAllowed: breaking airframe speed.

MM-Zorin
03-05-2008, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
2nd TAF used the most 150 grade fuel. The planes left at home quickly changed back to 130 grade. I guess because the flying bomb threat had gone, and any German aircraft daft enough to fly over Britain in late 1944 would be sure to be shot down whether they used 18 boost of 25 boost. They had Meteor F1's in late 44 and the much faster F3's covering Britian in early 1945, after all which didnt need any 'boost', the F3 being much faster than most prop fighters at low level.

Quoted from the source material I posted on page 2:


The Second Tactical Air Force

Plans were being made in August to supply the 2nd TAF with 150 Grade Fuel. 38 During November 1944 S.H.A.E.F cleared 100/150 grade fuel for use by the Second Tactical Air Force:.

J.H Houghton Colonel A.C. Director of Supply described the supply position as of 23 November 1944.

It was decided that the Second Tactical Air force would change over from 100/130 grade fuel to 100/150 grade fuel from the 15th December 1944.

No. 42 Maintenance Group:

The shipping of fuel from Antwerp started on 2 January, 1945.

100/150 grade fuel was introduced into Spitfires of 83 and 84 Groups during January 1945.

On the 5 February 1945, J.H Houghton Brigadier General, U.S.A. Director of Supply, reported that the R.A.F on the Continent were using 100/150 grade fuel.

So they used it for what? Three month on "full scale"?

stathem
03-05-2008, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
Mosquito "in il2" vs 190A4 1.32ATA aka 190A2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fw-190A-4: [Vmin(clean)-198.0] [Vmax(0 level)-540.0] [VmaxAllowed-860.0] [VmaxH/Alt-640.0/6100.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS150.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-300.0]

Mosquito-BMkIV: [Vmin(clean)-190.0] [Vmax(0 level)-510.0] [VmaxAllowed-700.0] [VmaxH/Alt-540.0/4000.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS135.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-240.0]

Mosquito-FBMkVI: [Vmin(clean)-190.0] [Vmax(0 level)-537.0] [VmaxAllowed-700.0] [VmaxH/Alt-606.0/4000.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS135.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-240.0]

VmaxAllowed: breaking airframe speed.

QFT

Thank you badaflyski

VmaxAllowed = 700km/h. 434mph.

Xiolablu3
03-05-2008, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by MM-Zorin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
2nd TAF used the most 150 grade fuel. The planes left at home quickly changed back to 130 grade. I guess because the flying bomb threat had gone, and any German aircraft daft enough to fly over Britain in late 1944 would be sure to be shot down whether they used 18 boost of 25 boost. They had Meteor F1's in late 44 and the much faster F3's covering Britian in early 1945, after all which didnt need any 'boost', the F3 being much faster than most prop fighters at low level.

Quoted from the source material I posted on page 2:


The Second Tactical Air Force

Plans were being made in August to supply the 2nd TAF with 150 Grade Fuel. 38 During November 1944 S.H.A.E.F cleared 100/150 grade fuel for use by the Second Tactical Air Force:.

J.H Houghton Colonel A.C. Director of Supply described the supply position as of 23 November 1944.

It was decided that the Second Tactical Air force would change over from 100/130 grade fuel to 100/150 grade fuel from the 15th December 1944.

No. 42 Maintenance Group:

The shipping of fuel from Antwerp started on 2 January, 1945.

100/150 grade fuel was introduced into Spitfires of 83 and 84 Groups during January 1945.

On the 5 February 1945, J.H Houghton Brigadier General, U.S.A. Director of Supply, reported that the R.A.F on the Continent were using 100/150 grade fuel.

So they used it for what? Three month on "full scale"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Probably, it was used around the same time as the FW190D and Bf109K came into service.

Its really a 1945 'thing'.

There were groups using it before this, but they were small in number.

Xiolablu3
03-05-2008, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatflyski:
Mosquito "in il2" vs 190A4 1.32ATA aka 190A2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fw-190A-4: [Vmin(clean)-198.0] [Vmax(0 level)-540.0] [VmaxAllowed-860.0] [VmaxH/Alt-640.0/6100.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS150.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-300.0]

Mosquito-BMkIV: [Vmin(clean)-190.0] [Vmax(0 level)-510.0] [VmaxAllowed-700.0] [VmaxH/Alt-540.0/4000.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS135.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-240.0]

Mosquito-FBMkVI: [Vmin(clean)-190.0] [Vmax(0 level)-537.0] [VmaxAllowed-700.0] [VmaxH/Alt-606.0/4000.0] [Vmin/w/FLAPS135.0] [Vmax/w/FLAPS-240.0]

VmaxAllowed: breaking airframe speed.

QFT

Thank you badaflyski

VmaxAllowed = 700km/h. 434mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats very very low. Isnt that under the limited speed of the real thing?

mynameisroland
03-05-2008, 06:31 AM
I read a Mosquito pilots interview who said that they received 150 octane fuel during the V1 campaign and they kept on using it after the campaign finished. That would give around 2000 HP at sea level on a Merlin 25 I think. It would make the Mosquito capable of 360/370 mph easily imo. Probably around as fast as an early 9 lb Tempest.

Anyway the 150 octane Spitfire thing is really a moot point. Spitfire XIV, XII and Tempest Vs were faster and more dangerous opponents to the Luftwaffe on 100/130 Octane fuel than a Mk IX on 150 Octane was. The

JG53Frankyboy
03-05-2008, 07:24 AM
the HX809 report is mentioning 332mph at SL for 18lb boost.

HX809 had droptanks, costs 5mph in speed. the tactical report of HJ666 shows that emtpy wingbombracks also cost 5mph in speed.

our ingame FB.VI has these exhaust collectors wich cost 13-15mph on speed - HX809 has them also...........


i personally can reach with the ingame FB.VI ~542km/h TAS at SL.
the HX809 mentioned 332mph are ~536km/h.

so, i would say, with the given equipment (wingracks, exhaust collector), the ingame Mosquito FB.Mk.VI represents at real FB.Mk.VI of 1943 not so bad. at least with its sealevel max speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
150octan/25lb boost would be a plane for late 1944 i guess ?!


a max divespeed of perhaps 750km/h IAS would most propably be a help for this plane in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
03-05-2008, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I read a Mosquito pilots interview who said that they received 150 octane fuel during the V1 campaign and they kept on using it after the campaign finished. That would give around 2000 HP at sea level on a Merlin 25 I think. It would make the Mosquito capable of 360/370 mph easily imo. ....................

HX809 , 354mph with 150octan fuel boost at SL.
delete the droptanks, and you can ad 5mph, give it another exhaust system and you can ad another 13-15mph : makes 372-374mph (~600km/h) at SL

p1ngu666
03-05-2008, 06:16 PM
i think it was concluded previously, our mossie has the merlin 23 engines and its fairly acurate for that, merlin 25's would give it a decent boost at low alt, and make it useable in normal missions...

merlin 25's, proper ammo loadout, rockets, removal of paper dm, slight spritz added to performance/handling, now that would be nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JtD
03-05-2008, 10:24 PM
Pingu, do you actually read what other folks post and link?

Let me sum up a _facts_ for you:
1st: We have a Merlin 25 variant in game.
2nd: Modeled to 18lbs boost.
3rd: Speed performance is within historical tolerance, but not best possible prototype.
4th: 150 rpg standard/175rpg overload is correct NF load out.

Now you come back like in the 2nd post and reiterate all the wrongs folks used to say about the Mossie?

Aaron_GT
03-06-2008, 04:29 AM
Isn't the beaufighter also short of cannon ammunition (plus short of a good deal of loadouts, e.g. lacking 2x500lb on the centre line, and lacking the 1000lb wing bomb capability).

Aaron_GT
03-06-2008, 04:59 AM
The exhaust shrouds were a pain in the butt, causing nothing but problems.

Indeed, sometimes they caused issues with exhausting leading to quicker ending overheat, and sometimes the shrouds got to hot they were practically melting.

Aaron_GT
03-06-2008, 05:01 AM
4th: 150 rpg standard/175rpg overload is correct NF load out.

I thought 283 rpg was the standard Beaufighter load, not the Mosquito. I think we have 150 rpg in the Beaufighter, though.

What I'd like to see for the FB. VI is a max ammo option, rockets, and a +25 option.

We're a bit short of types of rockets for RAF planes - we should really also get the 25lb AP and 90lb HE in addition to the 60lb rocket we have now. The 60lb was the most common, followed by the 25lb, and the 90lb was relatively uncommon. In any case the rockets we have are far too accurate.

Of course a B.IV, IX and XVI would be nice too, but then there's BoB.

JG53Frankyboy
03-06-2008, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4th: 150 rpg standard/175rpg overload is correct NF load out.

I thought 283 rpg was the standard Beaufighter load, not the Mosquito. I think we have 150 rpg in the Beaufighter, though.

.............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it's 250rpg in the Beaufighter's canons for IL2 v4.08 ..................

Aaron_GT
03-06-2008, 06:09 AM
Ah, maybe it got fixed. I haven't counted for a while. 250 rpg is close enough.