Read the forum code of contact
By: - 29th May 2014 at 02:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Beau' wasn't a bad aircraft, it just that the Mosquito was better. The Beau' sprang out of the Blenheim, a much less advanced design than the Mosquito. Not only that, the Mosquito was more versatile and made better use of strategic materials and other resources. The glue problems in the Far East et al were overcome. Even with the same Merlins, the Beau was slower.
The Beau was designed for quite a different role to the Mosquito too. The Mosquito could do anything the Beau could do, better, and was more inherently adaptable. Their roles only really coincided as night fighters and anti-shipping a/c. Whilst both could carry external bombs and rockets, the Beau was more commonly-equiped to carry a torpedo. (I think this was only done experimentally with the Mosquito.). The Mosquito really was the original MRCA.
It's often forgotten that the Mosquito was originally designed purely as a bomber. Even judged in that role alone, it was in a class of it's own. Mosquito loss-rates were remarkably low. It has been argued, and the facts back this up, that if instead of building large, slow and vulnerable four-engined 'heavies', Bomber Command had have had many, many more Mosquitos, a great number of the Commands 55,000 casualties could have been avoided. The Heavies only made one trip a night to Germany, whereas it was not unusual for Mosquitos to make several trip a night.... The Mosquito could carry the same bomb-load as a B17 and even carry the large 'Cookies'. All for half the engines, half the fuel and less than half the crewmen, but much more than half the risk. Quite sobering.... Analysis along these lines makes for some very uncomfortable reading. Used more effectively, in much greater numbers, the Mosquito might have achieved more - and sooner - and all that, crucially, with that much lower casualty rate.
Mosquitos ranged over all over occupied Europe, almost at will, especially at night. Whilst all this was going on, Mosquito night-fighters were in the bomber-stream attacking Luftwaffe night-fighters, and Mosquito Night-Intruders were harrying the Luftwaffe night-fighters at take-off and landing. All of this with relative impunity.
The early risky low-level Mosquito ops by the likes of the Marham-based squadrons such as 105 Sqn with the BIV, were good for moral, but not, strictly, what the machine was designed for. All the low-level fighter-bomber operations with the FBVI's were very spectacular, but many other a/c, including the Beau', were able to carry out many of these out almost as effectively as the Mosquito.
Especially noteworthy were the operations of Coastal Commands Banff Strike Wing, which operated in the North Sea against Axis shipping and shore targets, sometimes with fighter-support. I think the Banff Wing operated a broadly equal mix of Beau's and Mosquitos (Presumably FBIV's.) and it's operations were well known for being highly effective.
The other varied roles of the Mosquito extended both the altitude and range of the machine. The MkXVIII even used a field-gun against U-Boats for a while. The PR versions of the Mosquito were sublime, much in demand and the small numbers given to the USAAF highly prized. It still worth emphasising however, that whilst there was some commonality of roles, the Mosquito can stand unchallenged on it's performance in it's intended role as a pure altitude-bomber alone.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 06:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Excellent summary. Thanks.
Probably worth mentioning that the Beaufighter's air cooled radials were more resistant to small calibre ground fire than the liquid cooled Merlins.
Moggy
By: - 29th May 2014 at 06:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Beau' sprang out of the Blenheim
I think you will find it would be more accurate to say that the Beaufighter was developed from the Beaufort, indeed they share some components. :)
By: - 29th May 2014 at 09:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you will find it would be more accurate to say that the Beaufighter was developed from the Beaufort, indeed they share some components. :)
The early plastic kit models of the Beaufighter were wildly inaccurate - because they used drawings supplied by Bristol's.
Those drawings were just general arrangement / PR plans - where the Bristol drawing office had just grafted a Beaufighter fuselage onto a set of Beaufort wings - as a simple expediant to show what it would look like.
Consequently, the models had cowlings that were too narrow (Taurus instead of Hercules).
At least that's what a bloke down the pub told me.........
Ken
By: - 29th May 2014 at 09:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think its fair to say that if there hadn't been a Beaufighter, the Mosquito would have adapted to all the other roles it had without any problems.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 09:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have often wondered if the mass production of Mosquitos instead of 'heavies' would have been possible given the amount of wood that would be required. Some of it could have come from the USA and Canada but enough for 10-15000 more?
I wonder if any design consideration was ever made to building 'metal' Mosquitos?
It would certainly have saved many lives and the cost of their training.
mmitch.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 09:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think they could have done it, yes - A lot of the wood did come from Canada, and there are a lot of trees over there!
There were no plans for a metal Mosquito - it would have defeated the object on a number of points, but it is notable that the Hornet contained a fair chunk of metal in its design in comparison, as did the Vampire.
Bruce
By: - 29th May 2014 at 10:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
de Havilland Canada could have mass-produced locally?
By: - 29th May 2014 at 10:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's a supplementary.
My first Airfix Beaufighter which I think was a Coastal Command variant had a machine gun in the rear bubble. Vickers K if I recall correctly.
What proportion of Beaus were thus equipped?
Moggy
By: - 29th May 2014 at 10:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Beaufighter was one of the first true nightfighters,could carry torpedos and also one of the most heavily armed strike aircraft in the allied arsenal..
By: - 29th May 2014 at 10:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Veri interesting thread, thanks for kicking off the discussion Stepwilk
The Heavies only made one trip a night to Germany, whereas it was not unusual for Mosquitos to make several trip a night....
Is this really true? Mosquitos making more than one trip into Germany in a single night?
I'm also intrigued as to the mention of torpedo trails undertaken by Mosquitos, is there any more information on this available?
By: - 29th May 2014 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 2
First class summary - says it all, about the most complete warplane of its time.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Beaufighter was less prone to break up when ditching - a feature appreciated by Coastal Command crews.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certainly two trips in a single winter night were not unusual.
Moggy
By: - 29th May 2014 at 11:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Veri interesting thread, thanks for kicking off the discussion StepwilkIs this really true? Mosquitos making more than one trip into Germany in a single night?
?
Yes Mike - it is fairly well documented,the Mossie had a really good cruising speed !
By: - 29th May 2014 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re; the Beaufort/Beaufighter, from Wikipedia:
The Bristol Type 156 Beaufighter, often referred to as simply the Beau, was a British long-range heavy fighter derivative of the Bristol Aeroplane Company's earlier Beaufort torpedo bomber design. The name Beaufighter is a portmanteau of "Beaufort" and "fighter".
and
The idea of a fighter development of the Beaufort was suggested to the Air Ministry by Bristol. The suggestion coincided with the delays in the development and production of the Westland Whirlwind cannon-armed twin-engine fighter.[2] Bristol made proposals of a fixed four-cannon version and a turret fighter with twin cannons; the former was preferred by the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff. As a torpedo bomber and "general reconnaissance" aircraft the Beaufort had moderate performance but for fighter-like performance Bristol suggested their new Hercules engines in place of the Beaufort's Taurus (another Bristol engine).
Since the "Beaufort Cannon Fighter" was a conversion of an existing design, development and production could be expected far more quickly than with a completely fresh design. Accordingly, the Air Ministry produced draft Specification F.11/37 written around Bristol's suggestion for an "interim" aircraft pending proper introduction of the Whirlwind. Bristol started building a prototype by taking a part-built Beaufort out of the production line. This conversion would speed the process - Bristol had promised series production in early 1940 on the basis of an order being placed in February 1939 - and the Ministry ordered two prototypes from the line and two built from scratch. Although it had been expected that maximum re-use of Beaufort components would speed the process, the fuselage needed more work than expected and had to be completely redesigned.[3] As such the first prototype flew for the first time on 17 July 1939, a little more than eight months after the design had started, possibly due to the use of much of the Beaufort's design and parts. A production contract for 300 machines "off the drawing board" had already been placed two weeks before the prototype F.17/39 even flew.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Years ago, I traced the history of ML963, the subject of the well known Charles Brown picture, and on which the colour scheme of TA634 is based.
It carried out a number of twice in a night missions, albeit with different crew.
Bruce
By: - 29th May 2014 at 13:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The replacement of the heavies with the mossie is very hypothetical....
To tool up the industry to change to mossie production would have taken too long and you cannot really compare loss rates as the Luftwaffe would have changed their tactics if we had changed ours.
I do agree that if we could have upped the production of mossies they could have been used to devastating effect.
I wouldn't bash the Beau either. It was a well liked, solid plane that did the job.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Veri interesting thread, thanks for kicking off the discussion StepwilkIs this really true? Mosquitos making more than one trip into Germany in a single night?
BOAC mossies sometimes did more than one return flight a night on the Leuchars - Stockholm run.
By: - 29th May 2014 at 14:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The idea that the Mosquito made better use of strategic resources is only on the basis that supplies of aluminium would become restricted . That never happened and as is clear the allies depended on metal as the choice material. To assert that the problems of operating the Mosquito in the Far East were overcome is also debatable. The climate wasn't exactly perfect for the construction method and you have to wonder how many were marginally airworthy by the end of the war.
What is interesting is that the RAF continued to use the Beaufighter for a long time after the war in secondary roles in a very similar manner to the Mosquito.
Posts: 629
By: Stepwilk - 29th May 2014 at 00:38
What was the relationship between the Mosquito and the Beaufighter? Were they complementary? Did the Mosquito "replace" the Beaufighter? Did they fulfill largely different missions? Was the Beau better for North Africa and the Far East because it wasn't made of wood and glue? I'd like to know not just out of curiosity but for an Aviation History Magazine article I'm doing on the Mosquito.