DH Mosquito, daylight bombing offensive?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

The RAF were sent an H - Model specifically for testing, given that he was the Pilot who flew the comparative testing between the P-38, the P-47 and the P-51 for Jimmy Doolittle, I would imagine yes.

It wasn't that he disliked the F-86, it was his favourite Jet. He just preferred the Hornet.

(He was also the only Allied pilot to fly the Me-163 Komet, and considered the He-162 quite flyable)
 
Use them as escort? Granted, if we have the Hornet with Merlins of late 1942/43/44, the turn of speed will not be spectacular, but it still be faster than P-38 of the era (and without compressibiity issues, so it can chase down LW fighters that tried to dive away; also better visibility for the pilot), let alone the Fw 190s. Combat radius to well past Berlin from the UK.
As an option let's say De Havilland fast tracks the Hornet in 1943 as a long range fighter escort for Mosquito missions while waiting for Hawker to make a long range Typhoon/Tempest or for the Americans to get the Mustang in sufficient numbers. De Havilland can continue to develop the fighter for naval operations but for now they put out a long range fighter. Does this sound like a plausible option?
 
There really was nothing new in Hornet that would've precluded an earlier development, the people at De Havilland connected the dots right, even if a bit late (similarity with Centurion tank, IMO). Though an 'pre-Hornet' it would probably mean that there is no Vampire as we know it, not that Vampire mattered for ww2 - so the scenario is a net win for the Allies.
The long range Tempest for early 1944 with just a year of notice is no problem in either TTL or OTL, same with Typhoon for 1943. RAF can try to have NAA producing Mustang in all of 1942 instead of A-36, even if this means Churchill saying a few words to Roosevelt. The Spitfire VII/VIII/IX with rear fuselage tank is also a trivial techincal task in TTL or OTL, but it is a major doctrine problem for an air force that is firmly against long range fighters in two decades before 1943 as per OTL.
 
Why are we farting around with accelerated Hornets when the better solution is right in front of our eyes?

ef200541453ca1bb3c8c84254b29718c.jpg
 
There really was nothing new in Hornet that would've precluded an earlier development, the people at De Havilland connected the dots right, even if a bit late (similarity with Centurion tank, IMO). Though an 'pre-Hornet' it would probably mean that there is no Vampire as we know it, not that Vampire mattered for ww2 - so the scenario is a net win for the Allies.
The long range Tempest for early 1944 with just a year of notice is no problem in either TTL or OTL, same with Typhoon for 1943. RAF can try to have NAA producing Mustang in all of 1942 instead of A-36, even if this means Churchill saying a few words to Roosevelt. The Spitfire VII/VIII/IX with rear fuselage tank is also a trivial techincal task in TTL or OTL, but it is a major doctrine problem for an air force that is firmly against long range fighters in two decades before 1943 as per OTL.

Just an opinion because I have a moment. The Hornet came out quite right, all in all, although the dorsal fillet seems to have missed the original design. The 130 Merlins did incorporate a major redesign with features not likely thought of or embraced ealier. The Hornet also featured a carefully thought out redesign of the Mossie tailplane and elevator, a feature which was a shortcoming on the original and never modified on Mossie, with a single remark in the pilot's handbook warning caution instead of a production fix. Another thing is that Hornets were built in a Mossie production facility, Hatfield, and it seems to me that you can't make the most of both in the same plant.

The Hawker Typhoon was put in production before it was ready, because the Ministry was tired of waiting, and put into service before ready as well, due to pesky Germans. Had not the Government's wind tunnel given incorrect information to Sir Sydney, the Typhoon's introduction might have been the Tempest's instead, but still, the numbers of non-operational accidents was very high. It seems that the Mossie's rate of failure due to being out of control was 3 times higher than of any other RAF aircraft, and could possibly be quantified, but seems way too difficult. I tried finding the 21 Mossies that failed to return from NW Germany Feb 22, 1945, and only came up with 19 serial numbers. I'm reminded of the anecdote about Winkle Brown, catapulting a Panther Jet from a parked aircraft carrier. We'll risk the life of the pilot if you'll risk the airplane. They gladly risked many lives. Anyway, statistically speaking, I did come across some figures for Typhoon trans-channel incursions and they did not impart a confidence that Typhoons could defend themselves, let alone Mossies. A number of Typhoons failed to protect Pickard at Amiens, from 2 FW-190s (2) total. Two Typhoons went missing. Just missing.
I've worn out my fingers arguing rear fuselage tanks over 30 gallons for Spitfires. I'm done.
 
No need to get upset about technicalities that worked, there was so many of those that did not :)
Schematics of Spitfire IX fuel system, long range (picture) - two rear fuselage tanks, combined 66 or 74 imp gals (no measly 29 or 30 imp gals, like it was used on the Spit V sometimes in the Med), depending on rear fuselage layout. Keen eye will notice that Spitfire IX can acquire the lower front tank with 48 gals, just like it started with Spit VII. We can also expect that SPitfire VII/VIII will add a bit more range/radius due to the greater internal fuel carried already.

This is what the tests revealed, date of the doc 7th September 1944:

RAF Long Range Fighter Details Wide.jpg

800 conversion sets are listed as ordered by same date, sets including rear fuselage tanks, as well as lower front tank with increased capacity.

Typhoon as an escort does need to be fed in bits and pieces, but in strength.

The reason I've stated that De Havilland with Hornet connected the dots is that it used the right engine (unlike Whirlwind, Fw 187 or Ro.57) with top-notch installation, installed it on the aircraft of the right size (unlike Bf 110, Beaufighter, Welkin), while using the reasonably thin wing (unlike 110, Beau, Welkin). I've covered the thing that Hornet of 1943 (if it is produced) will not be using Merlin 130s, as well as that turn of speed of 460-470+ mph will not be there.
 
Top