# Metal Mosquito



## yulzari (Apr 10, 2012)

It is clear to most that the Mosquito gave an unrivalled precision access to Axis industry in daylight and many have advocated both an earlier decision to produce Mosquitos and increased production.

However, the British aero industry was tied to metal production. Can we see some metal equivalent in production? Has to use existing Merlin or Hercules power. Has to have an internal bomb bay (external loads prohibit range due to drag). Your decision time is mid 1941 when the ineffectiveness of night bombing is being recognised at high level. I think considering the difficulties of this may illuminate some of the decisions actually taken to remain on the night heavy bomber policy.

Remember, even the Beaufighter was conceived pre-war, designed 1938, ordered 1939 and in significant service in 1941.


----------



## rank amateur (Apr 10, 2012)

What would be the advantage of a metal Mosquito? (i like the name though)


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2012)

Why do you say that? British aluminum production was rather small.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why do you say that? British aluminum production was rather small.



Spitfire, Typhoon, Beaufighter, Halifax, Manchester/Lancaster, Stirling, etc.

Maybe that's what he meant by tied to metal production - ie, aircraft produced were predominately all metal.


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2012)

In fact there was a "Metal Mosquito" namely Vickers Type 432.

Juha


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

Perhaps his would have been a better direction for metal production.







The Hawker high speed bomber project (P.1005) was an all metal aircraft with a 70ft wingspan, 4000lb bomb load, using two Sabres for an estimated maximum speed of 420mph and cieling of 36,000ft.
Bigger and faster with more useful load.

Maybe alternative engines could be used. Centaurus may be a possibility, but perfomance would suffer and the program probably delayed.

Griffons could do the job, also at a loss of performance.

Perhaps V-3420s could have been sourced, possibly with turbos for altitude performance.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

Juha said:


> In fact there was a "Metal Mosquito" namely Vickers Type 432.
> 
> Juha



No exactly.

From memory that was a high altitude fighter - was in competition with the Westland Welkin.


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2012)

Yes, but some called it as Metal Mosquito.

Juha


----------



## PJay (Apr 10, 2012)

IIRC I remember reading that a Mossie built conventionally would have been about 10% lighter.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

PJay said:


> IIRC I remember reading that a Mossie built conventionally would have been about 10% lighter.



Most sources suggest that an all-metal Mosquito would have been heavier.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

Another question is, if more bomber Mosquitos were required could a change in the production mix (PR, NF, B or FB) effectively increased bomber production?

Also, what happened to production bomber Mosquitos? For 1942/early 43 bomber Mosquitos seemed to have been used in small numbers. Is that all that were produced?


----------



## yulzari (Apr 10, 2012)

Re metal production. Existing factories, supplies, staff, tools and training are geared to making metal aeroplanes. You cannot simply say 'now make wooden ones'. You can turn the carpentry industry towards wooden aeroplane construction by issuing plans for sub contract parts but carpenters cannot be put to make metal parts either. In a feasible timescale you have to use what you already have. It is called industrial inertia and tells you much about 1950's british industry.


----------



## PJay (Apr 10, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Most sources suggest that an all-metal Mosquito would have been heavier.



Then why weren't there more wooden aircraft in WW2?
Just wondering.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 10, 2012)

Re more Mosquitos. The existing carpentry industry was pretty well at capacity with Horsas, Hamilcars, Albermarles, Master, Martinet and Mosquitos.Perhaps the Albermarle and Master/Martinet capacity could have been diverted to Mosquito production but the biggest increase possible in Mosquito bombers would have been to divert all Mosquito production to bombers. No fighters. Let Beaufighters do the nightfighting etc. Squeeze as hard as you like but I doubt if you could end up with more than 50% more Mosquito bombers so what will you use if you choose not to mass bomb at night with heavy bombers?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

yulzari said:


> Re more Mosquitos. The existing carpentry industry was pretty well at capacity with Horsas, Hamilcars, Albermarles, Master, Martinet and Mosquitos.Perhaps the Albermarle and Master/Martinet capacity could have been diverted to Mosquito production but the biggest increase possible in Mosquito bombers would have been to divert all Mosquito production to bombers. No fighters. Let Beaufighters do the nightfighting etc. Squeeze as hard as you like but I doubt if you could end up with more than 50% more Mosquito bombers so what will you use if you choose not to mass bomb at night with heavy bombers?


 
I disagree.

Mosquito NFs were a far better option than Beaufighter NFs.

Better instead to reduce the numbers of FBs produced (the FBVI was the most produced mark, nearly 3000, IIRC, made out of a total of 7800) in favour of the bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia has 2,298 FBVIs built, 338 FB26s + 3 FB21s + 2 FB24s (Canadian production), 178 FB40s + 11 FB41s (Australian production). Listed is also 17 PR41s, which presumably were based on FB41s.

Will look through the rest later to see how many of each type were built.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 10, 2012)

What type of airframe construction the Mosquito had?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

Looking through the Wiki page I have discovered

1309 bomber variants (not including B35, as numbers built not listed)
2873 Fighter-Bombers
1528 Fighters and night-fighters
733 Photo-reconaissance variants
348 trainers
56 torpedo bombers/Sea Mosquitos.

The list is by no means complete - the total is about 1000 short.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> What type of airframe construction the Mosquito had?



Sandwich/composite wooden construction.

The main parts were plywood top and botton, sandwiching a balsa core, glued and screwed together. Fuselage halves were built in one piece, and joined atthe centreline. The halves woul dbe fitted out with equipment where possible before being joined together. The wings were a single piece item. The airframe was covered in dobe (fabric).


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 10, 2012)

PJay said:


> Then why weren't there more wooden aircraft in WW2?
> Just wondering.



There were - The Soviets built masses of wooden fighters throughout the war; Lavochkins, Migs, Yaks and so on. The major imperative for this was the lack of available aluminium. As the war progressed and startegic materials became more readily available the USSR moved more and more towards duralium. Not so De Havilland, who stuck with the Mosquito's wooden construction methods post-war for the superb Hornet fighter.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2012)

The closest thing to a metal Mosquito I have seen is the post-WWII Argentine FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu.

Looks more like a Hornet, had Merlins, but was WAY faster than a Mosquito. Unfortunately they only built one ...


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

GregP said:


> The closest thing to a metal Mosquito I have seen is the post-WWII Argentine FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu.
> 
> Looks more like a Hornet, had Merlins, but was WAY faster than a Mosquito. Unfortunately they only built one ...


 
But not faster than the heavier, but slightly smaller, Hornet.

It was smaller and lighter than the Mosquito, and had later Merlins. Also couldn't carry the load of the Mosquito.


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2012)

It was better-looking than the Mosquito, but that is subjective and personal. Since they only made one, the combat-proven choice is the Mosquito. Still the Namcu was METAL and the closest to the Mosquito in metal I kow of ... which is, after all, the title of the thread.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

GregP said:


> It was better-looking than the Mosquito, but that is subjective and personal. Since they only made one, the combat-proven choice is the Mosquito. Still the Namcu was METAL and the closest to the Mosquito in metal I kow of ... which is, after all, the title of the thread.


 
I suppose it is the closest thing to a metal Mosquito - but, as you noted earlier, it resembles the Hornet. It's roles are more like the Hornet's than the Msoquito's too.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

I have some more data from The de Havilland Mosquito Page

This gives me 1694 bombers of all types.
1939 fighters and night fighters
2828 fighter bombers
739 photo recon types
454 trainers
66 torpedo bombers

Plus the original prototype, W4050, and a turret fighter prototype.

The numbers above show the Mosquitos constructed as those types. Some were converted into other types - some PRIs were converted into BIV series i, for example, but not constructed as such.

These add up to 7722 units - still some 59 short of the listed number built (7781).

Some types were built after the war - such as the B35, PR32, PR34, NF36 and NF38.

Best I can figure some 1416 bombers were built during the war, not including prototypes.


----------



## Juha (Apr 11, 2012)

yulzari said:


> Re more Mosquitos. The existing carpentry industry was pretty well at capacity with Horsas, Hamilcars, Albermarles, Master, Martinet and Mosquitos.Perhaps the Albermarle and Master/Martinet capacity could have been diverted to Mosquito production but the biggest increase possible in Mosquito bombers would have been to divert all Mosquito production to bombers. No fighters. Let Beaufighters do the nightfighting etc. Squeeze as hard as you like but I doubt if you could end up with more than 50% more Mosquito bombers so what will you use if you choose not to mass bomb at night with heavy bombers?



IMHO it would have been easy to limit Albemarle production, of course one would has needed more glider tugs, but one needed trainers and high speed target tugs, so Master/Martinet production was very important so difficult to cut back.

Juha


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 11, 2012)

I have it in my head that 6,671 Mossies were built during the course of the war, but of course many of those built in late '44 and during '45 will not have made it to operational units. 

My db has:

FB.VI	2176
F.II	561
NF.30	530
PR.XVI	435
B.XVI	400
FB26	398
T.III	358
B.25	330
B.IV Series II	292
NF.XIX	280
B.35	276
NF.XIII	270
B.XX	245
FB.40	206
PR.34	181
NF.36	162
FB.VI series I	113
NF.38	101
PR.IX	90
B25	70
B.IX	54
TR.33	52
T29	37
B.VII	25
F.II (Special) Intruder for 23 Squadron	25
T27	19
FB.XVIII	17
TR.37	14
PRU/Bomber conversion type or B.IV Series 1	9
T22	6
PR.4	6
PR.1	5
Production T.III (or II dual control)	5
PR.32	4
NF.XV	4
PR.VIII	4
FB21	3
PR.1 (long-range/tropicalised)	2
PR.1 (long-range)	2
Turret fighter. T.III prototype	1
Prototype Mk.XII	1
Prototype	1
Second turret fighter prototype mod to T.III	1
Mk. XV pressure cabin prototype bomber	1
Bomber prototype. B.V	1
F.II prototype	1
NF.38 prototype	1
First production F.II (single control)	1
PR.1 prototype	1
Grand Total	7777

Which gives a total of 4850 armed Mossies, 2927 unarmed.

I have a videotape here somewhere which features an interview with Ralph Hare, who was one of the original design team. later becoming Head of Structures at BAe. He makes the statement that dH undertook a study of a similar design in metal, based on the dH Flamingo (I think it's the Flamingo), the study concluding that had the Mosquito desigin been continued in metal, it would have been heavier for the same strength.

Bear in mind dH's experience with high-performance aircraft was pretty much all in wood - even the Vampire jet fighter had a wooden cockpit pod.

I love the Mossie but there were jobs it couldn't do - shutting down the French railways required lots and lots and lots of 500 lb bombs per acre of target. The Hallies and Lancs could deliver them, the Mossie not.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

This is what I have..at the moment
B.25	400
B.35	276
B.IV Series II	292
B.IX	54
B.VII	25
B.XVI	400
B.XX	245
Bomber prototype. B.V	1
F.II	561
F.II (Special) Intruder for 23 Squadron	25
F.II prototype	1
FB.40	206
FB.VI	2176
FB.VI series I	113
FB.XVIII	17
FB.21	3
FB.26	313
First production F.II (single control)	1
Mk. XV pressure cabin prototype bomber	1
NF.30	530
NF.36	162
NF.38	101
NF.38 prototype	1
NF.XIII	272
NF.XIX	280
NF.XV	4
PR.1	5
PR.1 (long-range)	2
PR.1 (long-range/tropicalised)	2
PR.1 prototype	1
PR.32	4
PR.34	181
PR.40	6
PR.IX	90
PR.VIII	4
PR.XVI	435
Production T.III (or II dual control)	5
Prototype	1
Prototype Mk.XII	1
PRU/Bomber conversion type	9
Second turret fighter prototype	1
T.III	358
T.22	6
T.27	49
T.29	35
TR.33	52
TR.37	14
Turret fighter. T.III prototype	1

Total 7722.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

mhuxt said:


> I have a videotape here somewhere which features an interview with Ralph Hare, who was one of the original design team. later becoming Head of Structures at BAe. He makes the statement that dH undertook a study of a similar design in metal, based on the dH Flamingo (I think it's the Flamingo), the study concluding that had the Mosquito desigin been continued in metal, it would have been heavier for the same strength.
> 
> Bear in mind dH's experience with high-performance aircraft was pretty much all in wood - even the Vampire jet fighter had a wooden cockpit pod.



Yes, I believe I have the same video.




mhuxt said:


> I love the Mossie but there were jobs it couldn't do - shutting down the French railways required lots and lots and lots of 500 lb bombs per acre of target. The Hallies and Lancs could deliver them, the Mossie not.



Sure, a Mosquito couldn't carry as many 500lb bombs as a Lanc or Halibag. Nor could a B-17 or B-24.

For short range missions the Mossie could carry 6 500lb bombs (from the IX on) with one under each wing. With the bulged bomb bay doors they could carry 6 internally (same goes for B.IV) using the infamous Avro carrier. For the later marks with the strengthened wing 8 could be carried. I know a lot of B-17 missions were flown with 10 x 500lb bombs - just not sure if B-17s could actually carry more internally (you could carry them externally, but not sure if slowing the thing even further would be wise).

The B.IV (just), B.IX and B.XVI could carry the 4000lb HC "Cookie" blast bomb, as well as the 4000lb MC bomb - which was designed for low level use because the "Cookie" could break apart in low level operations.

Getting "lots and lots and lots of 500 lb bombs per acre of target" for Mosquitos would mean multiple attacks, rather than single raids. But then it is likely that they would attack at low level and achieve a larger percentage of bombs dropped into the target area.

The main jobs the Mossies couldn't do which the heavies could relate to the big bomb jobs - Chastise, Tallboy, Grand Slam, 8000lb HC bomb and 12,000lb HC bomb. Which the B-17 and B-24 couldn't do either.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> But then it is likely that they would attack at low level and achieve a larger percentage of bombs dropped into the target area.



Agreed. I sometimes wonder, when I see pics of "Mosquito X drops Y bombs through the roof of target Z", what the corresponding cost of the same effect would have been had the heavies been asked to do the job.

Hmm, Mossies vs German oil, woulda coulda shoulda.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

mhuxt said:


> Agreed. I sometimes wonder, when I see pics of "Mosquito X drops Y bombs through the roof of target Z", what the corresponding cost of the same effect would have been had the heavies been asked to do the job.
> 
> Hmm, Mossies vs German oil, woulda coulda shoulda.



The RAF had the evidence in 1943. IIRC the calculations showed the Mosquito to be as much as 6 times more efficient than the Lancaster.

But there was a lot of impetus behind the heavy bomber campaign.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 11, 2012)

Yep, the RAF wasn't going to be able to pull 600 Mossie bombers from its hat at any point after February 1942 really. The Mossie did well to stay on the Bomber Command OOB at all, and even then it was a near-run thing.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

mhuxt said:


> Yep, the RAF wasn't going to be able to pull 600 Mossie bombers from its hat at any point after February 1942 really. The Mossie did well to stay on the Bomber Command OOB at all, and even then it was a near-run thing.



Should have had at least 400 bombers by mid 1943 - B.IV production was 400 during 1942 and early 1943, with 54 B.IXs (and 90 PR.IXs) coming off the lines from April 1943. PR.XVIs started rolling off the lines late in 1943, and the B.XVI not long after.

If priorities were changed there were 561 F.IIs built in 1942 and the first few months of 1943.

Canada production began in 1943, but not sure how quickly they were delivered. 245 B.XXs would have been handy.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2012)

Thanks for the informative posts


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

The other problem was that early Mosquito daylight raids appeared to have high loss rates. But that was largely because the raids were small, often having little more than 3 or 6 bombers on a mission. The loss of a single or two bombers made the loss rates high (1/6 = 16.7%).

It has been my belief for a while that it was the capacity of the defenders that determined loss rates moreso than the numbers of attacking bombers. So if the LW was able to down 1 Mossie in a raid using 6, it is unlikely that they would be able to down 17 in a 100 bomber raid. Maybe get a couple more.

It was something that changed the loss rates for the USAAF 8th AF too. In mid 1943 when they sent around 300 bombers to Schweinfurt they lost around 60, yet in early 1944 when they sent as many as 1000 bombers on a raid they still lost around the 60-80 mark.


----------



## Timppa (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Most sources suggest that an all-metal Mosquito would have been heavier.



Most ?
OK, list some of your sources.

AFAIK, there is no specific study between any aircraft made all wood or all metal.

However there were some aircraft I know of, where single components were switched from wood to metal or vice versa. The wooden one was heavier, without exception:

1. La-5FN. Wooden wing spars and some ribs were changed to aluminum alloy. Weight saving 100 kg.

2. Some of the late Bf109G's had wooden tails (due to material shortage). They were so much heavier, that they needed a 25kg counterbalance in the nose. In Finland, as the material deteriorated rapidly due to exposure to the elements, they were changed back to metal tails.

3. In Finland, wings of one Brewster were changed to locally designed wooden ones. Total weight increase was 250kg.

The post war De Havilland Hornet wings were partially made of Al-alloy also.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The other problem was that early Mosquito daylight raids appeared to have high loss rates. But that was largely because the raids were small, often having little more than 3 or 6 bombers on a mission. The loss of a single or two bombers made the loss rates high (1/6 = 16.7%).
> 
> It has been my belief for a while that it was the capacity of the defenders that determined loss rates moreso than the numbers of attacking bombers. So if the LW was able to down 1 Mossie in a raid using 6, it is unlikely that they would be able to down 17 in a 100 bomber raid. Maybe get a couple more.
> 
> It was something that changed the loss rates for the USAAF 8th AF too. In mid 1943 when they sent around 300 bombers to Schweinfurt they lost around 60, yet in early 1944 when they sent as many as 1000 bombers on a raid they still lost around the 60-80 mark.



Dadblang it, where do I upload zip files? Have a file on day Mossie bomber losses that puts the absolute number in perspective..


----------



## cimmex (Apr 11, 2012)

Timppa said:


> Most ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There never was a shortage of aluminum during the war in Germany. The reason why more and more aircraft parts were made of wood was quite simple. The aircraft production was decentralised and spread over the country to avoid bombing damage. Skilled sheet metal workers were limited but there were a lot of well trained workers in the furniture industry and so those companies made the wooden aircraft parts.
cimmex


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2012)

A metal Mosquito wasn’t something out of the question. I think it “would had” made a better over-all aircraft had the performance not been affected by any changes in weight and structural strength. Going with a metal structure would mean an entire redesign of the structure and stress analysis done to the replacement metal parts. I would guess that more structural components would have been necessary to achieve the same strengths that the wood monocoque construction achieved. Lastly I think the Mosquito, if able to been built of metal “would have” remained around many more years than it actually did.

A metal Mosquito with a turbo-prop, engine! A perfect counter-insurgency aircraft!


----------



## yulzari (Apr 11, 2012)

The point I wanted to examine was that the RAF in 1941 realised it could not hit specific targets in the dark nor could it's heavy bombers survive in daylight over Germany. It also was seeing that Mosquito in 1942 was able to do just that. If you ran the RAF then could you have switched strategy to daylight low level point bombing or were you locked into night heavy area bombing. 

Whist I see the 'Mosquito' route as the one I would have preferred, and one could point to this design or that as a metal alternative (not literally a Mosquito made in metal), I can see no way it could have been achieved in a possible timescale. Industrial inertia was locked into the heavy night bomber. The best they might have done was to enhance Mosquito bomber production but it could not replace the heavies. 

I do accept that the Beaufighter was a lesser night fighter but it would release Mosquitos. War involves unpleasant compromises and my underlying theme of the post is which is the most effective compromise the RAF could actually have made at that point in time. The USAAF managed on (well worn) Beaufighters in the Mediterranean into 1945.

FLYBOYJ. I think you will find that this is called an FMA IA 58 Pucará and easier to hit with an L7A2 GPMG than a Douglas A4 Skyhawk.

Just in case somebody suggests one could move the Beaufighter into a daylight low level bomber over Germany can I remind them that it is in the Boston/Baltimore performance bracket. Good but needing escort.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2012)

yulzari said:


> FLYBOYJ. I think you will find that this is called an FMA IA 58 Pucará and easier to hit with an L7A2 GPMG than a Douglas A4 Skyhawk.


It was providing the opposition had L7A2s. Yes, you "would of" had basically a Pucará years earlier, with the note that operatioally the Pucará would be the safer aircraft to operate based on configuration.


----------



## hrandy (Apr 11, 2012)

The Japanese experienced significant weight gains in the aircraft they were redesigned to utilize wood. The Russians found that in addition to weight loss they had more internal volume and could fit larger fuel tanks.

Wood simply creates too many compromises because it is strongest in compression and weak in tension. Certainly a 10% weight loss is a reasonable low estimate a metal mosquito.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2012)

hrandy said:


> Certainly a 10% weight loss is a reasonable low estimate a metal mosquito.


That's a strong possibility providing there weren't many additional detailed sub assemblies needed in the replacement of one piece wood components.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

Timppa said:


> Most ?
> OK, list some of your sources.
> 
> AFAIK, there is no specific study between any aircraft made all wood or all metal.
> ...


 


hrandy said:


> The Japanese experienced significant weight gains in the aircraft they were redesigned to utilize wood. The Russians found that in addition to weight loss they had more internal volume and could fit larger fuel tanks.
> 
> Wood simply creates too many compromises because it is strongest in compression and weak in tension. Certainly a 10% weight loss is a reasonable low estimate a metal mosquito.



These examples are all well and good, but though they are also utsing wood they are not using it the same way.

The fuselage was a composite sanwich moncoque construction. The composite sandwich consisted of plywood skins over a balsa core. The wing used stressed skins, with two plywood skins (spaced by spruce) on the upper surface and a single skin on the lower surface, built over two laminated spars.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac...es/10573/de-havilland-dh-mosquito-cutaway.jpg

http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g54/5554/5554_1170786602_large.jpg

I have little doubt that the DH88 Comet, also made of wood, could have been built lighter using metal. But it did not use the same construction as the Mosquito.

The DH91 Lbatross did, however.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

mhuxt said:


> Dadblang it, where do I upload zip files? Have a file on day Mossie bomber losses that puts the absolute number in perspective..



If you go to the advanced reply option (press the Go Advanced butoon in the bottom right of the quick reply window) there is a file atachment button in the controls.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

Here is (what I assume to be) an all metal aircraft of similar size to the Mosquito.

It is lighter, but also has lighter engines and does not have radiators etc.


----------



## Piper106 (Apr 11, 2012)

I have thought about a 'metal Mosquito' a number of times. Not so much for Europe, more for in the southwest Pacific or tropical Africa. I recall the Hornet was used used in Malaysia in the late 40s, but I don't think a Mosquito or the DH Hornet are the best fit for the hot moist tropics. Tropics + wood = rot and termite damage = bad for wood airplanes. 

My though for a 'metal Mosquito' would be the Ju 188S/T and/or the Ju 388K/L. A Ju 388K with a pair of Griffons or or a pair of Sabres done up with annular radiators as 'power eggs' might be interesting. 

I am now closing the blast doors. That vein in Readie's forehead looks like it is going to burst.

Piper106


----------



## yulzari (Apr 11, 2012)

You know Piper106 (tongue in cheek) I doubt if the Luftwaffe would let the RAF have any of their aeroplanes; even if asked very nicely....

So no Ju88/188/388 will address the RAF's bombing strategy question.

De Havilland plywood/balsa is not subject to insect damage. The Hornet and Mosquito (and Vampire for that matter) served in tropics and at sea so temperature and damp were not an issue either. Now, if you neglect the waterprooofing fabric outer wrapping, then you will see a problem. This is why abandoned surplus ones rotted out.


----------



## PJay (Apr 11, 2012)

The early Mosquitos had a problem with the glue going mouldy inside the fuselage in tropical conditions. This was fixed for later aircraft. IIRC.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

PJay said:


> The early Mosquitos had a problem with the glue going mouldy inside the fuselage in tropical conditions. This was fixed for later aircraft. IIRC.



Yes, the glue was changed after problems in the tropics.

Not sure if it went "mouldy" or just lost its bonding capabilities and thus compromised structural strength.


----------



## rank amateur (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Here is (what I assume to be) an all metal aircraft of similar size to the Mosquito.
> 
> It is lighter, but also has lighter engines and does not have radiators etc.



It also lacks performance, range and bomload. I can't think of any reason why a country post war would build an aircraft which is already out classed by any A20 from 6 years earlier. Unless to get a national aircraft industry going


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> It also lacks performance, range and bomload. I can't think of any reason why a country post war would build an aircraft which is already out classed by any A20 from 6 years earlier. Unless to get a national aircraft industry going


 
The performance would have been similar to the Mosquito had the Merlins been available.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2012)

Folks, I'll say it again. Wood does not do well when you take the aircraft out of it's construction environment and expose it to extreme changes in temperatures and humidity. The glue problem on the Mosquito was solved but temperature related problem plagued many wood aircraft and the Mosquito was no exception.

_"First located at Ekron (Tel-Nof) AFB, the Mosquitoes quickly moved to Hazor where the 109th Mosquito squadron was formed, comprising of three sections : operational, training and reconnaissance. A fourth section for night fighting was set up with the arrival of the Mk. 30s in 1952. The large number of aircraft received exceeded the storage room available at Hazor and the Mosquitoes were parked in the sun*. This wrecked havoc on the wooden aircraft and many malfunctioned until shelters were build for the entire Mosquito force*."_

the mosquito in israeli service


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks, I'll say it again. Wood does not do well when you take the aircraft out of it's construction environment and expose it to extreme changes in temperatures and humidity. The glue problem on the Mosquito was solved but temperature related problem plagued many wood aircraft and the Mosquito was no exception.
> 
> _"First located at Ekron (Tel-Nof) AFB, the Mosquitoes quickly moved to Hazor where the 109th Mosquito squadron was formed, comprising of three sections : operational, training and reconnaissance. A fourth section for night fighting was set up with the arrival of the Mk. 30s in 1952. The large number of aircraft received exceeded the storage room available at Hazor and the Mosquitoes were parked in the sun*. This wrecked havoc on the wooden aircraft and many malfunctioned until shelters were build for the entire Mosquito force*."_
> 
> the mosquito in israeli service



Unfortunately the report does not specify what "malfunctions" were. To me a malfunction is something that happens to mechanical systems, like an engine, or control rods. If it were a problem for the airframe I would expect to see the word "failure".

The report also says:


> The night fighter Mosquitoes, the NF Mk. 30s, also suffered a great deal from the local weather. Delievered devoid of their radars, these aircraft were fitted with the American APS-4 naval radar and wore a black livery. In 1953 they formed the IAF's first night fighter squadron but the poor performance shown by the new radars, the poor maintenance and the corrosive local weather hampered their operation.



But it again does not say how they suffered.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> But it again does not say how they suffered.



Having worked on wood aircraft I could bet dollars to donuts they had shrinkage. I've seen other reports about post war Mosquitoes having issues in the field, I'll have to find them


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Having worked on wood aircraft I could bet dollars to donuts they had shrinkage. I've seen other reports about post war Mosquitoes having issues in the field, I'll have to find them



Causing deformation of the airframe/wings?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2012)

_The current holy grail of warbird restoration is an airworthy de Havilland Mosquito, one of the very last of the major World War II types not represented by a flying restoration or accurate replica. Mosquitos were once plentiful, but other than the 30-odd parked in museums and non-flying displays, all have succumbed to the inevitable deterioration of their wood airframes and, particularly, the glue used to fabricate them. The last flying example crashed fatally at an airshow in Manchester, England, in July 1996._

Mosquito to Buzz Again

Boom - headshot!

_It should be easy to build a wooden airplane, right? EAAers do it all the time. Actually, *it would be a far simpler restoration if Mosquitos were aluminum*, for a big part of the job consists of building the large fuselage molds, the tooling and the extremely precise wing and attachment jigs that must be in place before a rebuild can really begin. All of de Havilland's jigs and tools had been scrapped in the early 1950s, so the Mosquito literally had to be reinvented._


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2012)

Causing deformation, separation, warping, and outright failure under normal load.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Causing deformation of the airframe/wings?


 No, any metal fittings attached into the wood structure becomes loose because the wood is shrinking. I seen on Pitts bi-planes that were brought into California from colder climates.

Glued components can and will seperate


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Here is (what I assume to be) an all metal aircraft of similar size to the Mosquito.
> 
> It is lighter, but also has lighter engines and does not have radiators etc.


The Calquin was also wood, and about 100 mph slower than the Mosquito.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The Calquin was also wood, and about 100 mph slower than the Mosquito.



Ok, so not all-metal.

Anything about the Mosquito's size and performance made in all-metal which could be used as a comparison?


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 12, 2012)

wuzak said:


> If you go to the advanced reply option (press the Go Advanced butoon in the bottom right of the quick reply window) there is a file atachment button in the controls.


 
Cheers.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 12, 2012)

View attachment Day Moss Loss vs BC 2.zip
Brief file I put together on daylight Mosquito bomber losses. Go through it from the first tab down. First tab shows overall losses, looks pretty high. Second tab shows that as time went on, the overall loss rate diminished. Third tab shows how the loss rate was brought down, by looking at loss rate over the previous 100 sorties. Fourth tab shows the trendline (logarithmic) for the previous 100 sorties. Fifth tab contrasts the prevoius graph with BC night losses by month. Fifth to seventh show all of the above, with info for the two squadrons, 105 and 139. Eighth tab shows how and when the focus changed from high- to low-level sorties. Next shows high vs low vs monthly loss rate, and trend of monthly loss rate. Next shows aircraft sorties by size of formations dispatched. Next shows both high/low and size of formation. Next tab ("format size pivot") is just data for the graph. Final tab with any meaning for the current discussion is "format size losses" which shows that the most effective / low-loss raids were at low level, by formations of 6-12 aircraft, also reason for losses - note losses through collision on raids with more than 12 aircraft.

Loss info tab has description of individual losses.

The rest is calculations / data for the graphs.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 12, 2012)

On the glue issue, I can't get to my copy of "Mosquito" as the Wicked Witch of the West stands between myself and the book, and I've had enough of her **** for today.

The glue was not changed after the India crashes, nor was it the cause thereof. Two of the first four Mossies to go to the CBI, mid '43 IIRC, had formaldehyde glue. The aircraft were there to be parked outside to test deterioration, but were pressed into service.

The crashes which caused concern in India were both on 20 October, 1944, HP919 and HP921. As you can tell from the serial numbers, they were both from the same series, FB.VIs built by Standard Motors. All the FB.VIs in theatre were grounded (recce Mossies, again IIRC, stayed on ops uninterrupted) and the fault was found to be in the manufacture of the wings at Standard, faulty gluing to one of the ribs. Mossies were back in action three weeks later, and stayed in action beyond the end of the war, fighting the insurgency in what is now Malaysia. 

The very last operational RAF Mossie sortie was flown from Singapore, in 1952.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2012)

Interesting data Mark.

From this we can conclude that:
1) Mosquito losses during the day were higher than other BC losses at night
2) Mosquito daytime losses were trending down and converging with BC night bomber losses.
3) The loss rates became lower when low level bombing.
4) BC ignored this and switched them to bombing at night as pathfinders.

We also know that low level bombing was more accurate than high level bombing.

Would be interesting to see how other unescorted day bombers fared in the same time period. Particularly B-17s.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2012)

And looking at the low level statistics, it may have been a good thing to have made at least one series of two stage powered Mosquitos with the low level Merlin 66.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 12, 2012)

Heya,

Yes, those are my conclusions. As you know, 105 and 139 were switched to night ops at the end of May '43, same day as the other light bombers in 2 Group were hived off to the new 2 TAF. Harris apparently had told dH that the Mossies were invaluable as markers, so brought the 2 Mossie squadrons over to night ops. No doubt this was a result of the handful of 109 Squadron aircraft, equipped with Oboe, had marked Essen accurately enough for the heavies to smash the place up in March of that year.

I posted in another thread 8th AF losses by month.

I think the only direct comparison would be with the B-26, which had a very bad experience unescorted by day against targets in Holland, only real direct parallel to the Mossie.


Ultimately, 2 Group / TAF went back to Mossies, though they were armed fighter bombers, as opposed to the bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2012)

Looked at the combined sheet you posted on the other thread. It would seem that, for the most part, 8th AF losses were similar or higher than the Mosquitos the last few months before they switched to night bombing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2012)

Many thanks, Mark.


----------



## PJay (Apr 12, 2012)

One can only speculate how many Mossies the USA could have produced.
(20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing).


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Apr 12, 2012)

In all this, you're bypassing some fundamental problems:-
1) What are you going to do with de Havilland, since they were, first and foremost, experts in wooden airframes?
2) How are you going to make a metal airframe in the way that the wooden structure was made?
Fuselages (and wings) left here (my home town High Wycombe) in identical form, with the fuselages (especially) as hollow shells (one company's employees, throughout the war, thought they were building boats.) When their service needs were assessed, the shells' interiors' wood was cut to receive the requisite Mark's half bulkheads and internal equipment, then the two halves glued together, the wing "hole" cut out, then the whole thing fitted over, and glued to, its purpose-fitted wings. As far as I know, metal aircraft start with the bulkheads, followed by longerons, followed by the metal skin, which requires a completely different type of workforce.
3) What are you going to do with the hundreds of woodworking companies, with most of their workforce well beyond the age when they can be useful to armed forces? There was huge satisfaction in High Wycombe's factories that they were doing their bit in the war. Please, no twaddle about them going back to making furniture, which nobody wanted.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 12, 2012)

Downsview Mossies > 251 photos 

Mosquito Aircraft Production at Downsview


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> In all this, you're bypassing some fundamental problems:-
> 1) What are you going to do with de Havilland, since they were, first and foremost, experts in wooden airframes?
> 2) How are you going to make a metal airframe in the way that the wooden structure was made?
> Fuselages (and wings) left here (my home town High Wycombe) in identical form, with the fuselages (especially) as hollow shells (one company's employees, throughout the war, thought they were building boats.) When their service needs were assessed, the shells' interiors' wood was cut to receive the requisite Mark's half bulkheads and internal equipment, then the two halves glued together, the wing "hole" cut out, then the whole thing fitted over, and glued to, its purpose-fitted wings. As far as I know, metal aircraft start with the bulkheads, followed by longerons, followed by the metal skin, which requires a completely different type of workforce.
> 3) What are you going to do with the hundreds of woodworking companies, with most of their workforce well beyond the age when they can be useful to armed forces? There was huge satisfaction in High Wycombe's factories that they were doing their bit in the war. Please, no twaddle about them going back to making furniture, which nobody wanted.


I think we're looking at "could have" the Mosquito been made out of metal, not the hypthetical impact on the industry supporting it. I think if you look at my post (39) I address on the fabrication process in applying metal fabrication as a replacement for wood, very "doable" even during WW2. As far as concerns in 1 3? I'm sure there were PLENTY of other industries that could have used all the personnel involved in producing the Mosquito, again highly hypothetical here.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 12, 2012)

I think a metal successor to the Mosquito would be a better option than a metal Mosquito.

If you have to redsign the whole structure in metal you may as well expand on the Mosquito concept with a newer design. Something like teh Hawker P.1005 project.


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2012)

The woodworkers could have made ... BOATS! How about PT boats?

They could have made Morgan sports cars (wood frames). They could have fitted out the interiors of ships. They could have made accordians. They could have made hordes of Tiger Moths or Dragon Rapides.

But a metal Mosquito? Naaaahhh ... if you ditched, you couldn't make a raft out of a metal Mosquito! All you needed for the real Mosquito was a hatchet and an outboard motor ... it was already pretty much of a boat shape, huh? of course, you WOULD have to get rid of the wings / engines before you sank, so the hatchet had better be sharp and you had better be quick about it.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 13, 2012)

A hybrid mixed metal wood solution would probably be best. Wood does have the advantage of producing a very smooth surface especially after covered in doped fabric. The Soviets used aircraft with metal spars and wooden skins and ribs for instance that the Germans found very strong.

The Heinkel He 162 Volksjaeger used a metal fueselage; it looks beatifully streamlined to me and was obviously built for mass production. This suggests to me a good smooth fueselage could be built in metal. However, it used wooden and plastic wings. The main spar which was of constant thickness was made of a material called Ty-Bu which was laminations of bakelite and wood. This started at 25% of chord at the root and ended up being at 50% at the wing tip.

A wooden fueselage was not considered viable for a single engined design: the cutouts for guns, cockpit, 3 undercarriage legs, engine mounting etc being seen as too much for the sake of structural integrity for a wooden design. A twin engine design such as the Mosquito keeps the fueselage clear of penetrations by placing the undercarriage into the wing mounted engine nacells.


----------



## rank amateur (Apr 13, 2012)

GregP said:


> The woodworkers could have made ... BOATS! How about PT boats?
> 
> They could have made Morgan sports cars (wood frames). They could have fitted out the interiors of ships. They could have made accordians. They could have made hordes of Tiger Moths or Dragon Rapides.
> 
> But a metal Mosquito? Naaaahhh ... if you ditched, you couldn't make a raft out of a metal Mosquito! All you needed for the real Mosquito was a hatchet and an outboard motor ... it was already pretty much of a boat shape, huh? of course, you WOULD have to get rid of the wings / engines before you sank, so the hatchet had better be sharp and you had better be quick about it.



I have never though about it, but could the Mosquito stay afloat when landed on water?


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 13, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> I have never though about it, but could the Mosquito stay afloat when landed on water?


 
It could, but ditching a Mossie generally seems to have resulted in the aircraft breaking its back.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Apr 13, 2012)

GregP said:


> The woodworkers could have made ... BOATS! How about PT boats?.


And put British Power Boats and Vosper Thorneycroft out of business at the same time. If you check the map, you'll find a distinct lack of sizable water around Hatfield, too.


> They could have made Morgan sports cars (wood frames). They could have fitted out the interiors of ships. They could have made accordians.


All of which would have done wonders for the war effort, especially for an aircraft company.


> They could have made hordes of Tiger Moths or Dragon Rapides


.
They already did.


----------



## PJay (Apr 13, 2012)

However, Higgins boats were in short supply, and, I think, road-transportable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2012)

There was also a shortage of boat engines. Both high speed boat engines and the GMC or Gray Marine diesels used in the landing craft. 

Even if you could make an all metal mosquito and even if it was lighter by 500-1000lbs, what have you gained?
Speed is more dependent on drag than weight. The smooth skin of th Mosquito offered lower surface or skin drag than an equivilant metal plane. While the slightly lighter metal plane could lift more fuel it might burn up most of it trying to cruise at the same speed with more drag.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The smooth skin of th Mosquito offered lower surface or skin drag than an equivilant metal plane. While the slightly lighter metal plane could lift more fuel *it might burn up most of it trying to cruise at the same speed with more drag*.


 
Not really - Depending on assembly and aluminum wing can be just as smooth as a wood wing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2012)

It can be but was it for the aircraft concerned?

The Mosquito was noted for it's smooth skin, while some all metal aircraft had good finishes, many others did not with dishing between ribs or stringers and such. Some wooden aircraft also had finish problems, especially as they aged.
It is a bit of a crap shoot. Spend tens of thousands of hours designing the structure for an all metal mosquito and the jigs and tooling, then train a work force to be more careful in assembly than on many contemporary British aircraft. To gain a how many percent increase performance? Single digits?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> It can be but was it for the aircraft concerned?



It "could have" been, no problem


Shortround6 said:


> The Mosquito was noted for it's smooth skin, while some all metal aircraft had good finishes, many others did not with dishing between ribs or stringers and such. Some wooden aircraft also had finish problems, especially as they aged.
> It is a bit of a crap shoot. Spend tens of thousands of hours designing the structure for an all metal mosquito and the jigs and tooling, then train a work force to be more careful in assembly than on many contemporary British aircraft. To gain a how many percent increase performance? Single digits?



It all depended on design and construction and what the customer at the time wanted. If this "Metal Mosquito" had simple skin to rib construction and was hand riveted in crude jigs, yes. Many WW2 aircraft had corrugation under the outer skin. The corrugation was machine riveted to the outer skin; the corrugations were hand assembled to the interior structure. You can also construct wings out of "planks" where you will mill down a thick plank of aluminum leaving machined "risers" on the interior portions of the wings. The planks were held in place with close tolerance rivets and rivet tolerances could be held to +.002/ -.000. Lastly you also had micoshavers that can be used to shave down rivet heads that are too high. A coat of paint and you're just as smooth (if not smoother) than any wood wing.

Is all this worth it? Depends what was needed at the time. If someone wanted a Mosquito that had a high airframe life capable of operating in all environments, I think this idea isn't too off base. If someone needed a fast quickly built fighter bomber made out of non-strategic materials - the Mosquito was perfect as is.


----------

