# What if the P-38 was made of plywood a la Mosquito?



## Razgriz1 (Jul 10, 2017)

Would it have improved the performance or the maneuverability of it?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 10, 2017)

I don't think the turn performance of the P-38 was restricted by its airframe strength. neither its performance (dive climb speed).
One would have to compare weights really I think

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jul 10, 2017)

It depends from the Safety factor accepted by Top Brasses ( … and Pilots, of course). With the same safety factor of a metallic P-38 I’m not so sure that a wooden P-38 would have been much ligther, improving performances and manouverability.

Probably the ship could have had a slightly better aerodynamic due to the smoothness of the surfaces.

But I don’t know how a wooden airframe could not rot in the Guadalcanal jungle…

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2017)

Pretty quickly!

The jungle in Viet Nam rotted the electronics, our underwear, books, food, and was generally hard on anything made of natural materials as well as some synthetics. I don't think the British got long life and ruggedness from their wood airplanes in tropical jungle climates. I think they got short but relatively useful lives from them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 10, 2017)

GregP said:


> Pretty quickly!
> 
> The jungle in Viet Nam rotted the electronics, our underwear, books, food, and was generally hard on anything made of natural materials as well as some synthetics. I don't think the British got long life and ruggedness from their wood airplanes in tropical jungle climates. I think they got short but relatively useful lives from them.




Hi Greg

Mosquito was pretty resistant to moisture actually. RAAF Mosquitoes were in service of one sort or another until 1962, in very limited numbers. For most of the 50's they were engaged in aerial survey work, the first complete survey in Australia at the time. this survey extended to the tropics and further included the PNG and I believe Borneo as well.

No signs of rot there. The problem with the earlier versions of the Mosquito, from which this myth extends from, was in the adhesive used to keep the bonded material together. After several mossies were lost after they disintegrated in mid-air, the problem was traced to this issue. The Mossies used in the tropics used a different type of bonding adhesive, which overcame this problem. I worked alongside a couple of cranky old salts who worked with the Mossies, and they commented on how resistant to moisture on several occasions.

I served in the tropics for some extended tours. your right about organics not enjoying tropical heat and moisture, but metals fare far worse im afraid, including so called inert materials used in airframe construction. The only materials able to withstand this punishment without constant maintenance, are materials like Brass. Add a little salt to the mix and watch what happens. the biggest threat incidentally is to electrical circuitry.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2017)

Since wood and metal have different properties I suspect a wooden P 38 would look like a d-H Hornet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 11, 2017)

I've seen what jungles do to wood first hand, so I'll be skeptical. But not so skeptical that I'll deny facts.

Let's say, I would prohibit wood for a plane in the tropics and let it go at that. Also, I won't build a wood plane in a dry area and them move it to a wet one or vice versa. Seen that one, too, and it isn't a happy thing.

But build wood in a one area, keep it there, do good maintenance, and it's very durable. I'd fly most CAP-10/20s.

Have nothing against wood. Just want it to last in a military airplane. NONE are wood today. But many good GA planes are, and I have no issue with that.

Lee Behel was killed when his wood GP-5 came apart at Reno. That has never been explained as far as I know. It was well built! The workmanship was extraordinary, from first hand observation. The wing failed at 400 mph some 100 feet high. Hard to recover from. Wood may or may not have been the culprit, but I'll take Aluminum or other metal any day unless it is a slow plane (< 200 mph). Then wood is fine.

I'm sure someone will throw in a Mosquito or Hornet. Always loved them but would decline to fly it in the tropics. Your opinion may vary. And that's OK. Ditto a Vampire.

If I had a BOAT, wood is great. But it also needs proper care and feeding or you sink! .... maybe slowly ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2017)

LMAO about the slowly sinking wood boat. That happened to me you know.....


----------



## yulzari (Jul 11, 2017)

DH Hornets were used in Malaya with no issues and I can personally attest to the hot damp climate. But they were using the later synthetic families of glues. 

The weather in NW Europe combined with poor workmanship and poor glues caused Fokker DVIII/EV wings to fail in 1918. In one documented case they opened up a hole to check and water poured out.

Equally one can point to the changes in carrier planes v land ones to protect them from salt water corrosion.

My conclusion is that well executed wood works, poorly executed metal does not. Equally the opposite applies.

The Mosquito is a good guide in that it operated successfully in climates like Canadian winters, desert heat and dryness, maritime cold and wet and tropical heat and damp. But you could not copy DH construction for the P38 because there simply would not be enough balsa wood to go round.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 11, 2017)

Razgriz1 said:


> Would it have improved the performance or the maneuverability of it?



I believe the P-38 was already more manoeuvable than the Mosquito, and had superior performance as a fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jul 11, 2017)

But there is not only damp and moisture in very hot and humid climate: generally there are thousands species of worms, insects and fungi more than willing to make of wooden wings and fuselages their food....
In very dry climates like some parts of Australia or cold climates such Canada wood can resist much better than in a jungle.
The problem is not much in the glue used, it is in the wood itself.
Certainly, if you think to use an aeroplane just for months, if not even weeks or days, like in WWII, how much an aeroplane will last is not an issue.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 11, 2017)

yulzari said:


> DH Hornets were used in Malaya with no issues and I can personally attest to the hot damp climate. But they were using the later synthetic families of glues.



So were de Havilland Venoms with their wooden fuselages which are pretty close to the P-38s from a high-level design perspective. Not sure how twin booms with built-in turbo-superchargers would work with wood, though. I suspect there would be structural issues given the load placed on that part of the airframe and the construction techniques required to make such components from wood...and that's before we consider any heat shielding/dissipation issues.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 11, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> So were de Havilland Venoms with their wooden fuselages which are pretty close to the P-38s from a high-level design perspective. Not sure how twin booms with built-in turbo-superchargers would work with wood, though. I suspect there would be structural issues given the load placed on that part of the airframe and the construction techniques required to make such components from wood...and that's before we consider any heat shielding/dissipation issues.



Mosquitoes had metal panels around the engine bays.

I believe the Hornet was mixed construction - with a lot of aluminium in the structure.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 11, 2017)

Correct, and the Venom only had a wooden cockpit nacelle. My point was more about how to build a P-38 out of wood. IMHO the tail booms would be a major challenge.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2017)

Since nobody ever built a metal Mosquito we don't know what the weight difference is. We do know there are different forms of wooden construction. We do know that a wooden Japanese KI84 was about 600lbs heavier than the Aluminium one, we also know that a version using more steel was also heavier. We know that Russian planes also got lighter (in structural weight, they used the weight savings to add things) as they got more metal parts. We know the wooden "tail" on the 109 was heavier and required a counter balance. We Know the Americans had trouble with several wooden aircraft projects coming out over weight.
We also know the P-38 was _designed_ for a 12 G ultimate load factor with a an 8 G service load factor (later versions may have slipped a little?) while the Mosquito was 8 G ultimate and a bit over 6 Gs service load. Not a criticism of the Mosquito, it wasn't designed as a single seat day fighter and it was designed to British rules, not American. I would not that many post war US jets had service G factors lower than 8 Gs.
The Americans also had some sophisticated wooden construction techniques, perhaps they weren't as good as the Mosquito but without real engineering data and a structural engineer or two we don't know if they are equivalent. Some US methods used a lot of resins and baking entire fuselages in large ovens. It may not have been true but they were advertised as rot proof 





They were reported to be subject to decomposition over time but 10 out of 262 built were still on the national register in 2001, 58 years after last built.

I could be wrong but part of the Mosquito's strength/weight could be due to it's size. As in a 4ft diameter tube is stronger (at least in bending) than a 3ft diameter tube if both use the same wall thickness. How much thicker the 3ft tube walls have to be to make it as strong I don't know. If they have to be 33% thicker than the wight comes out even. 
The Mosquito was a much larger airplane and trying to build the P-38, especially those skinny tail booms, out of the same materials as the Mosquito might have been difficult.
The Hornet did use slightly thinner fuselage skinning than the Mosquito. While the inner and out layers of plywood stayed the same the inner layer of balsa wood was changed from 7/16 in to 5/16 in in thickness. Please note that balsa wood can weigh, in general (model airplane contest grades excepted) between 8-14lbs per cubic ft and picking 12lbs for ease of math means that q 1 in thickness 1 sq ft in size weighs 1lb. the 1/8 in difference between the Hornet and the Mosquito is worth 1/8 of a pound or 2 ounces per square ft. Using lighter balsa the difference is less. 

good website on the construction of the Hornet; fuselage construction

Parent : The de Havilland "Hornet" & "Sea Hornet"

The Hornet was also much smaller than a Mosquito,
with 9 ft less wingspan, 80% of the wing area, around 5-6 ft less fuselage length ( depends a lot on radar domes, which can add another few feet to either) and the Early Hornet weighs about 3,000lbs less empty than a Late model Mosquito (both with two stage engines), refer to the above website for the use of a partial metal wing spar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 11, 2017)

I've seen how long wooden boats, and canoes can last IF they're maintained. 

But you can get to any area in them fairly easy to insure there's no breaks in the paint, varnish, or what ever protection you're using on the wood to prevent moisture from getting inside the wood.

The older fabric covering they used on aircraft only lasted a few years anyway under normal use unless they spent their lives in hangers.
So the fabric was stripped, the wood inspected, revarnished, and recovered.

But they are so many areas in a aircraft covered, and impossible to inspect, especially if the outer covering is wood.

Surely the Mosquitoe's wooden inner structure had some kind of varnish, paint, or some form of protection to stop, or slow moisture intrusion into the wood..


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Surely the Mosquitoe's wooden inner structure had some kind of varnish, paint, or some form of protection to stop, or slow moisture intrusion into the wood..


 
The probably did but most of these coatings are permeable to some extent. Yes rain water will run off but weeks or months in either a dry or extremely wet environment will change the water content of the "protected" wood.

Wood boats that spend most of their time in the water do fairly well. Ones that speed a few months on shore and then go back in the water require good bilge pumps the first few days after launch until they swell up again  
Ones that spend their life on a trailer and only get "dunked" a few days a month can also stay pretty tight.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 11, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Since nobody ever built a metal Mosquito.
> 
> The Mosquito was a much larger airplane and trying to build the P-38, especially those skinny tail booms, out of the same materials as the Mosquito might have been difficult.




Great post SR.

In the interests of discussion, it is true no one built a metal mosquito but the Hornet and Tigercat were basically metal and wooden competitors for best twin engined piston fighters. Metal and wood are completely different, I think building a P-38 out of wood would be as successful as building a wooden fire guard. Whether a single seater, twin Allison engined fighter could have been made is another question but the P-38 was a USA plane and the USA was not short on metal and had the time space to train people to make metal planes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 14, 2017)

I suspect that were Lockheed to have designed a wooden aircraft to meet the same mission as the P-38, it would look completely different. The other question is whether the USAAF would buy any wooden fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2017)

Of course it was several years later than the P-38.
It also suffered from being overweight, delayed development and was designed around an engine that never made it to flight status (or even test bench?)
The intended "buy" changed quantity several times and finally resulted in just the two prototypes.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 14, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Of course it was several years later than the P-38.
> It also suffered from being overweight, delayed development and was designed around an engine that never made it to flight status (or even test bench?)
> The intended "buy" changed quantity several times and finally resulted in just the two prototypes.



XP-77. Contracting out construction of a wooden airplane to a company which had no experience building in wood was probably not the best choice, even disregarding the fact that the lightweight fighter concept (WW2 edition) was not likely to be a rousing success (on the other hand, Bell got the XP-77 built; neither Douglas [XP-48] nor Tucker [who? XP-57] completed prototypes)

Was any US company building any wooden aircraft except for general aviation use in the 1930s?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Was any US company building any wooden aircraft except for general aviation use in the 1930s?



Not to my knowledge, Wooden construction being essentially ended for commercial aircraft in the wake of the crash of TWA flight 599 in 1931, the Crash that killed Knute Rockne. Between government regulation and public demand for metal aircraft no new wooden commercial aircraft were built in the US.
even such aircraft as the Stinson Model A used metal spars.





Three 260hp Lycoming engines. Strangely one of these crashed in Australia in 1945 due to metal fatigue in the lower wing spar attachment points. The aircraft was about 8 years old at the time and been converted to a twin engine aircraft with P & W R-1340 engines. 

Even such aircraft as the Stinson Reliant had changed to all metal framework by 1936.


The Military was not buying any wooden framed aircraft and hadn't for several years. They did use fabric covered metal structure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jul 15, 2017)

Some wooden planes, apparently of good design, were complete failures when properly tested






and some, good at the time of their appearance in the skies, were outdated when the war progressed

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 15, 2017)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the Mosquito which I believe comes from inexact use of English. Most descriptions state something like "de Havilland produced a lightweight wooden bomber design". This is actually two statements, they produced a lightweight design and also it was made from wood. The most important part of the lightweight design is its lack of defensive guns and small fuselage. I dont know how the Mosquito compared to the P51 in cooling drag/meredith effect but I suspect it was close. Other parameters like frontal area, wetted area and maybe others I havnt a clue about are from the design not from being madfrom wood. The Mosquito was made from very advanced materials, laminates and composites in well engineered proportions, they just happened to be from trees, but very special trees sourced around the world. As others have pointed out some planes became heavier using wood, I suppose it depends on what would you can get.



Does anyone know the cooling drag/frontal area/surface drag of the Mosquito and P-38 as a matter of interest?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2017)

The Mosquito didn't really have a great radiator setup. It wasn't bad but it wasn't in the same class as a P-51.








There is a bit of a trade off in that the Mosquito's radiator didn't add much, if any, to the frontal area of the aircraft. However the Mustangs larger expansion ratio of inlet to radiator area means a lower speed of air through the radiator matrix and since drag goes up (or down) with the square of the speed that is an important difference. Getting the exiting air to not only exit but do so with the least turbulence and change in direction is also important to low over all drag (or attempting to get actual thrust).

Mosquito construction also varied quite a bit depending on if you are talking about fuselage or wings.









The Mosquito probably had a better surface finish and quite possibly a better radiator installation than the P-38 but was a much larger aircraft in size. As already mentioned the P-38 was built to withstand a higher load factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 15, 2017)

Elmas said:


> Some wooden planes, apparently of good design, were complete failures when properly tested
> 
> 
> 
> ...



..yet those old-fashioned, obsolescent trimotors, Savoia-Marchetti SM.79s were "[r]egarded by many as one of the finest torpedo bombers of the war, it served with distinction and was flown with courage and skill." (Savoia-Marchetti SM.79). I don't think "failure" would properly apply to them. The other aircraft is the SAI.207, a lightweight fighter. In general, around that time "lightweight fighter" was really just a synonym for "failure."


----------



## Elmas (Jul 16, 2017)

Yes, SM 75 was not a failure: only obsolescent, in times where the development of aircrafts and engines was, if not on a weekly, almost on a monthly basis. But his successor, SM 84, was..


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 16, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The Mosquito didn't really have a great radiator setup. It wasn't bad but it wasn't in the same class as a P-51.



I'm afraid that is selling the Mosquito's radiator short. The system was copied on both sngle- and two-engined A/C (so was late Mustangs), and we can recall that Mustang's radiator was evolving significantly with any major type change. Radiator similar to Mosquitos was proposed by NACA as a drag-reducing feature for P-38.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm afraid that is selling the Mosquito's radiator short. The system was copied on both sngle- and two-engined A/C (so was late Mustangs), and we can recall that Mustang's radiator was evolving significantly with any major type change. Radiator similar to Mosquitos was proposed by NACA as a drag-reducing feature for P-38.


.
.


Shortround6 said:


> The Mosquito probably had a better surface finish and quite possibly a better radiator installation than the P-38 but was a much larger aircraft in size. As already mentioned the P-38 was built to withstand a higher load factor.



Great information SR and Tomo but I was responding to the thread subject along the lines of the following. If you give an expert modeller a million matchsticks he can produce wonderful models of the Taj Mahal, the White House, Buckingham Palace or The Titanic. If you give me a million matchsticks you will get various versions of a haystack with windows.

I didnt mention the cooling of the Mosquito to start a discussion of which is best but to show that it was up there with those of advanced fighters, this has nothing to do with whether it is mainly wood or metal used . The P51 system would not lend itself easily to a twin engined design and Mosquito's extended engine nacelles were not part of the design. 

Similarly the surface drag of the Mosquito may or may not have been better than the P-38, the question is in some ways moot because by being close it shows how much de Havilland put into making it smooth, contours rounded and joints well finished. The Mosquito proved that a lightweight bomber could be made from wood, however other planes show that just building a plane from wood doesnt guarantee anything at all.

The diagram from Shortround showing the use of balsa, ash, birch, spruce, Douglas fir and plywood shows that these were carefully chosen materials. The Mosquito was designed by experts at what they did, they made racers and then they made military aircraft, using wood, was just a part of the story.

I dread to think of how many hundreds if not thousands of tons of trees were felled to produce even one ton of material suitable for an aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 16, 2017)

the tropics and wooden airframes is probably why they buried all those spitfires in Burma........and SEE what happened...they are no longer there.






lol

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 17, 2017)

Thought this might be at least interesting. its an on line source detailing the progress of a long term restoration of Mosquito A-52-600.

Restoring an RAAF de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito PR Mk.XVI

de Havilland Mosquito A52-600 images and history

Elsewhere ive read accounts about this restoration. The outer skin was in a very bad way, but even after forty years of abuse the inner skin was more or less intact. it has since been decided however that the balsa sandwiching should be replaced, although the hardwood skin surrounding this sandwich is still okay. that has to be amazing in any body's estimation.

The guys at the RAAF museum are finding it slow going because of the specialist skill needed to undertake the restoration. Ive read also that there is still a faint hop this aircraft will be returned to flying condition, which makes the task much more challenging.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jul 17, 2017)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2017)

Catching up to this late in the game. I've ranted about wood in the past. As a maintainer wood sucks, I hate inspecting and repairing it. Although there were many great aircraft made of wood, what you basically build is a "throw-away airplane." There are tons of discussions about this through out this forum.

As far as a wood P-38? Not going to happen. The area where the tail plane was connected to the booms were difficult to manufacture with aluminum, I could imagine trying to build the same structure out of wood.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Catching up to this late in the game. I've ranted about wood in the past. As a maintainer wood sucks, I hate inspecting and repairing it. Although there were many great aircraft made of wood, what you basically build is a "throw-away airplane." There are tons of discussions about this through out this forum.
> 
> As far as a wood P-38? Not going to happen. The area where the tail plane was connected to the booms were difficult to manufacture with aluminum, I could imagine trying to build the same structure out of wood.



Great post FB. I found this in Wiki about the Dh 88 racer and the lengths taken, in a wooden structure, to produce an advanced design.

Quote
Aerodynamic efficiency was the design priority and it was therefore decided to use a thin wing of RAF34 section. This was not thick enough to contain spars of sufficient depth to carry the flight loads and so the wing skin would have to carry most of the loads. However, the complex curves required for aerodynamic efficiency could not be manufactured using plywood. A construction technique previously used for building lifeboats was adapted. The majority of the wing was covered using two layers of 2 inch (50mm) wide spruce planking laid diagonally across the wing, with the outer layer laid crosswise over the other. These strips were of variable thickness, according to the loads they carried, reducing over the span of the wing from 0.5 in (12.5mm) at the root to 0.14in (3.5mm) towards the tips. It was built as a single assembly around three box-spars located at 21, 40 and 65 percent chord: there was an intermediate spruce stringer between each pair of spars to prevent buckling. The ribs were made of birch ply and spruce. The outboard 6 ft (1.5m) were skinned with various thicknesses of ply because of the difficulty of machining spruce planking to less than 0.07in thickness. The leading edge, forward of the front spar, was also ply covered. The centre section was reinforced with two additional layers of 0.07 spruce.[8] This method of construction had been made possible only by the recent development of high-strength synthetic bonding resins and its success took many in the industry by surprise.[9]
unquote

In the 1930s and 40s and in time of war all aircraft were disposable. If the Merlin used in combat needed a rebuild after 250 hours how many aircraft had their engine rebuilt more than once? I never considered the question in the original post to literally make a P-38 out of wood, wood and metal are completely different and need different designs. I believe a twin engine fighter could have been produced but it would have looked like a Hornet. The point made previously deserves repeating, wood is not a miracle material, de Havilland really knew what they were doing not only in wood but also aerodynamics including cooling technology. Lockheed, by the same token, were not fools. Just building a P38 out of wood would result in a disaster, if it made a first flight I doubt it would make a first landing. The compressibility problems of the P-38 were new but not unique to the P 38 and wooden construction woulnt have helped.

As a guy who worked with steel and stainless steel all my life I have a view on how quality is maintained controlled and assured. This is always based on chemical analysis, heat number, lot number, item number (or similar). In various steel production methods the names change and the meaning changes slightly but the principle remains the same. When it comes to wood, I have no idea how they maintained quality assurance between trees on a material that changes so obviously that by grandmother used to say things were "dry as sticks". The performance difference of a living tree in a high wind, bending with no permanent (plastic) deformation, compared to the same tree when cut and dried splitting and splintering is akin to the difference between normalised steel and cast iron. 

For those working in metals they had to develop new metals/treatments/processes but to those using wood they had to look for different woods and combine them in different ways.
,

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jul 20, 2017)

I would suggest that rather than a wooden plane you could think of the mosquito as a composite construction. It wouldn't have been possible to build without the glues and resins that had been developed.

Think of carbon fibre, that is layers of the fibre in a resin that bonds it together. That's what's different about the mosquito construction, it's not just blocks of wood screwed together.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2017)

I agree Ascent but I don't know how the discussions went when a pilot was told to fly over Germany using two engines producing 2,500 HP joined together by plywood.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2017)

The Russian and American planes were also of a sort of composite construction. The Russians using phenol formaldehyde resin not just to stick parts together but to actually impregnate the wood. 





The Langley light twin needed 50-60 gallons of resin. 

However not all composites are the same. Fiberglass can vary tremendously depending on not only the resin/s but wither woven matting or "chopped" fiberglass is used, not to mention weight and number of layers of the glass matting. 

One reason the US stopped using these construction methods was the large amount or resin which was needed for other war production and that the US (and Russian) methods needed large ovens to bake the pieces in making field repairs of small damage difficult. Either a weak spot was created or a large part/panel had to be replaced. In the Open cockpit trainer pictured earlier the entire fuselage was one piece and the wing another. On the wing you could NOT replace a rib and a few feet of skin in the field. You need a whole new wing _OR _access to an oven capable of holding the entire wing while the new parts and resin baked/bonded to the old parts. 

The Mosquito was more conventional than that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2017)

Ascent said:


> I would suggest that rather than a wooden plane you could think of the mosquito as a composite construction. It wouldn't have been possible to build without the glues and resins that had been developed.
> 
> Think of carbon fibre, that is layers of the fibre in a resin that bonds it together. That's what's different about the mosquito construction, it's not just blocks of wood screwed together.



Totally wrong! The only common factor is you have glues and resins that bond to a base material, out side of that the whole process for lay-up and repair is entirely different. I work with carbon fiber and it doesn't rot in humidity. Although time consuming, carbon fiber is a lot easier to make repairs on, where wood structures are limited in size and the amount of repairs that could be made on a given area.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 20, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Totally wrong! I work with carbon fiber and it doesn't rot in humidity. Although time consuming, carbon fiber is a lot easier to make repairs on, where wood structures are limited in size and the amount of repairs that could be made on a given area.



The only water-related problem with composites (I did some testing of helicopter rotor blades when working in aerospace) is that some will absorb water, which can cause corrosion problems with fasteners, and there may be some local swelling, and even delamination. This was, of course, after spending months in an unnaturally hot and humid environment, something like 130 Fahrenheit and 100% humidity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 20, 2017)

Back to the P-38:

It seems that the US aviation industry of 1940 had little recent experience in building large, high performance aircraft from wood; this would need to be relearned, which takes time. Part of that learning process would be to evaluate adhesives and construction methods for durability and reliability in service conditions, and those testing methods would need to be developed and validated. There may also need to be evaluation of fastening methods, finishes, repair procedures, and damage tolerance (although how much of this was done with aluminum and steel tube structures is uncertain). I suspect, after seeing Flyboyj's drawing in What if the P-38 was made of plywood a la Mosquito? | Page 2 | WW2Aircraft.net Forums that it would be impractical to build a wooden aircraft meeting the same specs as did the P-38 that has any external resemblance to that iconic, twin-boom aircraft.


----------



## Timppa (Jul 22, 2017)

Excerpt from J.E. Gordon (The New Science of Strong Materials):

Problems of rot were always with us but there were other problems as well which were just as serious. The general structure of those aeroplanes was quite different from the old fabric biplanes. The main spar booms and other main structural members were sizable pieces of laminate wood, several inches square, and were generally boxed in on three sides by the plywood skin and shear webs. Now the spruce bar boom wanted to shrink and swell about twice as far as the plywood which was glued to it and this naturally gave rise to serious stresses near to where the two met along the glued joints.

Large pieces of timber take some considerable time to come to equilibrium with the surrounding humidity and, because the English weather changes so often, there was generally no time to build up dangerous differences in swelling strains so that we had comparatively little trouble from this cause, so long as the aircraft were in this country. When they were sent overseas the situation was different. In many climates there are long dry seasons followed by long wet seasons, each season giving ample chance for the wood to dry thoroughly and then, in due time to soak up a great deal of water and swell. In such places there was serious trouble. Big stresses were built up near the glue lines; if the glue was in bad condition it broke; if not, the wood failed near the glue. There was really no cure for this except to bring the aircraft home.

Proposed Mossie rebuild in uk - discussion - Page 9

de Havilland Mosquito

It was eventually determined that the problems were initially the result of a combination of poor gluing practices and poor mate-up of structural members. Worse, in the tropical conditions of the Far East, water soakage led to swelling and shrinkage that gave rise to wing skin delamination and spar failure.

The Mosquito difficulties caused the Squadron several stand-downs from December 1945 and ultimately
apparently contributed to its disbanding in March 1946.


I'll end my part in this with some more of Jeff Jefford, from his Flying Camels Annex K account of the problem:

The second problem concerned the adhesion between the spruce spar booms and various plywood components. Although there was some evidence of inadequate gluing in these cases, which were far less prevalent, it was concluded that the cause was "probably due to swelling of the top skin" causing the securing screws to pull through.

On balance it now appeared, in the case of the Mosquito, that both the manufacturer and the weather had contributed to the failures but it was now beginning to be appreciated that, in the latter case, the shrinkage which had led to separation of components was not so much a cause as an effect; the real damage mechanism was swelling.

These emergent conclusions were confirmed at an MAP meeting on 1st January 1945 which heard an explanation of the Mosquito's defects from Maj DeHavilland who had now returned from India. He was able to report that the manufacturer had conducted strength tests on the suspect scarf joint using partially glued specimens and these had shown that the strength factor in that region of the wing was adequate; surprisingly this was even the case when unglued samples were tested. The more critical failures were those concerning the mutual adhesion of spar booms (particularly the front ones), spar webs and wing skins. The trouble was "attributed to water soakage in conjunction with differential shrinkage and some unsatisfactory initial gluing."

The company undertook to improve manufacturing techniques among the contractors building Mosquito components which would take care of the inadequate "initial gluing" problem entirely. The "differential shrinkage" aspect was less easily resolved. The root cause of this was considered to be the ingress of water and it had become apparent that a major factor here was the deterioration of dope and sealant on the upper surfaces of the aircraft; a factor which had not been widely reported at first.

Repair of defective aircraft, of which there were about fifty in India, would involve replacement of the entire front spar and leading edge assemblies. Prevention of future occurrences was to be achieved by applying a plywood strip spanwise along the entire wing to seal the whole of the upper skin joint which ran the length of the front spar. This was subsequently introduced as Modification (Mod) 638. Surprisingly, since it altered the aerofoil section, Mod 638 appears to have had no adverse effect on either performance or handling. Finally, to improve the protective finish further, Major DeHavilland reactivated an earlier proposal that reflective silver paint be introduced. Although this had previously been ruled out on tactical grounds it was agreed that the suggestion would be re-examined and on 14th February 1945 a silver finish was authorised for all Mosquitos based in India.

DeHavillands had, at first, been understandably reluctant to acknowledge that their construction techniques were lacking but there seems little doubt that this had been the case in 1944, although this was a problem of quality control rather than a fundamental fault in the Mosquito's design and seems in any case not to have been critical. There is little reason to doubt, however, that the aircraft's greatest deficiency was the inherent inability of its wooden structure to stand up to the demands of the tropical climate and it appears to have been impossible to make the aeroplane waterproof. While Mod 638 may have been sufficient to keep the rain out in Europe, continuing post-war problems with late-build Mosquitos would indicate that it evidently failed to do the job in southern Asia.

With the advantage of hindsight an additional contributory factor suggests itself. It seems likely that the inherent tendency for the integrity of the Mosquito's wing to become degraded under tropical conditions was exacerbated by the stresses imposed by low-level attack operations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 22, 2017)

On a vaguely similar line, there are apparently serious proposals for wooden skyscrapers (Vienna plans world's tallest wooden skyscraper, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/would-you-live-wooden-skyscraper). 

There are trade-offs for wooden vs aluminum construction. One is that wooden construction is bulkier, so that there is more volume required for structure. Another is that process and adhesive selection are critical. Obviously, (Mosquito) high performance aircraft can be built of wood, but DeHaviland had considerable experience in wooden aircraft _e.g., _DH.91 Albatross, and few US manufacturers had that kind of experience. Even so, the DH.91 had to be grounded because of a crash suspected to be due to structural failure.


----------



## perfectgeneral (Jul 16, 2019)

Thanks to shortround6 for inspiring this mess:





I shortened the journey of air out to contain the illustration a bit (so not to scale). The box spar at 21% of chord has the annular radiator cut into it and braced by steel sheet around it. This is glue and screwed to the wood of the box spar. Fingers crossed eh? Centreline circular cuts through the box spar at 40% allow the narrowed warm fast air to be jetted over the rear surface of the wing at about 55-60% of chord.

I used the same narrowed RAF34 foil to guide the air out, hoping to get good flow and a bit of lift. The little flap on the base of the air inlet area is to speed up the air to encourage drag as a speed break. Only for use when throttled back as it covers some of the radiator. You could control it as a continuation from zero throttle. I would not like to be the one to clean the literal bugs out of this one.

Since oil heat will be needed here too, guns, cameras and pilots will need their own heat source. Electronic valves?

PG is a computer wargame from the 1980s perfect is ironic (Platonic is an unreachable ideal) and small g general is jack of all trades.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 16, 2019)

the other question, why wasnt the Mosquito license built in the USA and used instead of the P-61


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> the other question, why wasnt the Mosquito license built in the USA and used instead of the P-61


By the time the need was identified it was a bit late I think.


----------



## rochie (Jul 16, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> the other question, why wasnt the Mosquito license built in the USA and used instead of the P-61


because both the P-38 and the P-61 were both much better at everything than the Mosquito was apparently, bit of a dog from de havilland, what were they thinking ?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2019)

pbehn said:


> By the time the need was identified it was a bit late I think.



One problem is that the US aero industry had less experience in wood aircraft and almost none in high performance wood aircraft


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 16, 2019)

rochie said:


> because both the P-38 and the P-61 were both much better at everything than the Mosquito was apparently, bit of a dog from de havilland, what were they thinking ?



Seems that bitter pill is still stuck in your throat Karl......


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> One problem is that the US aero industry had less experience in wood aircraft and almost none in high performance wood aircraft


Well it was produced in Australia and Canada I think the skills required are common in quality furniture production. The main issue I think was it was not one of their own. from wiki The trials set up future production plans between Britain, Australia and Canada. Six days later Arnold returned to America with a full set of manufacturer's drawings. As a result of his report five companies (Beech; Curtiss-Wright; Fairchild; Fleetwings; and Hughes) were asked to evaluate the de Havilland data. The report by Beech Aircraft summed up the general view: "It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes."[62] The Americans did not pursue the proposal for licensed production, the consensus arguing that the Lockheed P-38 Lightning could fulfill the same duties. However, Arnold urged the United States Army Air Forces to evaluate the design even if they would not adopt it. On 12 December 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the USAAF requested one airframe for this purpose.[59]

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 16, 2019)

Yet the US did use the Mosquito.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2019)

Milosh said:


> Yet the US did use the Mosquito.


What it was good at was not immediately obvious as a need to the USA. Phot and Met Recon was not given much thought and as a night fighter any US manufacturer could argue that they could or would produce better. Was there such a task as "met recon" in military terms in 1941?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2019)

pbehn said:


> What it was good at was not immediately obvious as a need to the USA. Phot and Met Recon was not given much thought and as a night fighter any US manufacturer could argue that they could or would produce better. Was there such a task as "met recon" in military terms in 1941?



They could certainly argue they could produce better; arguably, they did not do so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> They could certainly argue they could produce better; arguably, they did not do.


I would say the area of night fighter performance the US needed a Mosquito for was a short lived niche. The Mosquito was designed as a light bomber but first went into service doing recon, I think the need for recon just became after the war started. It isn't glamourous it just needs very high performance to do it in speed and range.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2019)

You have conflicting timelines and conflicting requirements. 

Good as the Mosquito was it was unproven in late 1940 and early 1941 when the P-61 project started. Arnold saw the unarmed light bomber prototype demonstrated in April of 1941, about 5 weeks _after_ the contract for 13 YP-61s was placed and about 80 days after the contract was placed for two prototypes and two wind tunnel models. In fact the P-61 mock up was ready for inspection within days of Arnold seeing the Mosquito. 
The first Mosquito night fighter doesn't enter service until Jan 1942

From Joe Baugher's web site" A letter of intent was initiated on December 24, 1941, which called for 100 P-61 production aircraft and spares. Fifty more were ordered on January 17, 1942. The order was increased to 410 aircraft on February 12, 1942, fifty of which were to be diverted to the RAF under Lend-Lease. " 

Which is obviously well before the Mosquito night fighter had established any sort of reputation. And let's not forget the British themselves spent of the summer of 1941 trying to figure out how to put a turret on the Night fighter Mosquito and Beaufighter. Had the joint British/American requirement for the P-61 dropped the turret requirement in the spring of 1941 (in the pre mockup or mockup stage) the Actual P-61 may have been somewhat different? 

It does seem the development of the P-61 dragged out and it only went into service over two years after the Mosquito night fighter went into service. 

at one point as many as 1600 P-61s may have been on order (or letters of intent issued?) but fewer than 700 were built during the war. Planes for 1200 of that number from a 2nd source were canceled in the summer of 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You have conflicting timelines and conflicting requirements.
> 
> Good as the Mosquito was it was unproven in late 1940 and early 1941 when the P-61 project started. .


Pretty much how I saw it, it was a light bomber until it was something else. When did the USA start looking for recon planes? Was there ever a design brief for one?


----------



## rochie (Jul 17, 2019)

Crimea_River said:


> Seems that bitter pill is still stuck in your throat Karl......


just a bit


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2019)

rochie said:


> because both the P-38 and the P-61 were both much better at everything than the Mosquito was apparently, bit of a dog from de havilland, what were they thinking ?


Officially the USAAF considered the Mosquito to be unsuitable for night flying. Which can be translated into, Not Invented Here

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 17, 2019)

Dec '41 I'm sure the USAAC thought it needed a night fighter as soon as possible to protect cities from a potential Blitz, in hind sight there wasn't a threat. All of the other primes had major design efforts. Northrup may have gotten the P-61 as much as by default that all the other primes had major design and fab contracts in the works.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 18, 2019)

A wood airplane isn’t necessarily lighter, just made of non strategic materials.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2019)

Macandy said:


> A wood airplane isn’t necessarily lighter, just made of non strategic materials.


Precisely, the metal skinned wings of a Hurricane were lighter than the dope covered ones.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Jul 18, 2019)

Well, from my understanding, the Mosquito used plywood (which is a composite, the grandfather of modern carbon fiber) so it wouldn't stress strategic resources. The British air ministry wasn't keen on the idea, so De Havilland had to think outside the box to develop the aircraft on their own. Using wood was an alternative that worked better than anticipated. These factors weren't present during P-38, or any other American aircraft outside the Spruce Goose, during design and production. Innovation is driven by circumstance. Where the Mosquito saves weight, is mostly in the frame, spars, ribs, stringers, longerons, and bulkheads, coupled with the use of adhesives, versus rivets, screws, and bolts. The P-38, if made using wood, may have been lighter, but there's no way to know if that alone would've significantly improved performance. Someone would have to use computer modeling to test the theory.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 18, 2019)

Couple of points.....

A Mosquito designed in metal would have been lighter and better - at the time it was designed, the UK thought it would run short of aluminium.

You can calculate the strength and load factors in a metal airframe to a very fine degree. Wood is a variable material. Every piece is different, so you have to build in excess material to cover that.
But once the structure is compromised, it’s quickly all but impossible to calculate the residual strength and ascertain wether the airframe is still fit for service.
You can take a Chance ‘it Should still be alright’ in wartime, but killing pilots is frowned upon once peace breaks out.
The RAFs mosquitos had led a hard life exposed all their lives to the elements.

Faced with the risks of non calculable airframe degradation, the RAF opted not to take the risk and gave most Mosquitos a petrol bath and a match as soon as the war ended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 18, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Couple of points.....
> 
> A Mosquito designed in metal would have been lighter and better - at the time it was designed, the UK thought it would run short of aluminium.
> 
> ...



As an example of produced: victories. Yak-1/7, 15100; 10 pilots got 8 or more aerial victories. Hurricane IIb/c, 2600 in USSR, 3 pilots got 8 or victories. Yak superior fighter to Hurricane. Hurricane still in use in 1944 in PVO. Twice as cost effective by numbers, don't know about price. I doubt if those Yaks lasted more than a year though with the extreme weather conditions on the Eastern Front.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Couple of points.....
> 
> A Mosquito designed in metal would have been lighter and better - at the time it was designed, the UK thought it would run short of aluminium.
> 
> ...


The Mosquito was produced until 1950 and used until the mid 1950s, post war the equally wooden Hornet was brought into service.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 18, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Mosquito was produced until 1950 and used until the mid 1950s, post war the equally wooden Hornet was brought into service.



Most wartime Mosquitos were very much showing signs of wear by VE Day, the ones in the Far East on VJ Day more so.
They went on to the ‘don’t waste any efforts fixing these up’ list and most were demolished in short order. The RAF had plenty of new ones in storage.
Post war, they could be cosseted and covered or stored in hangers to spare them the worst of the weather, a luxury wartime Mosquitos never had. The Mosquito was rapidly replaced by the Canberra in the bomber role, and Meteor in the Night Fighter role.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Jul 18, 2019)

The Mosquito is significant in the innovative repurposing of available materials and processes to manufacture a weapons platform that was highly effective and successful, while at the same time, reducing demand on scarce strategic resources. It's a means to an end. The fact that it doesn't last long is immaterial after serving its purpose.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Most wartime Mosquitos were very much showing signs of wear by VE Day, the ones in the Far East on VJ Day more so.
> They went on to the ‘don’t waste any efforts fixing these up’ list and most were demolished in short order. The RAF had plenty of new ones in storage.
> Post war, they could be cosseted and covered or stored in hangers to spare them the worst of the weather, a luxury wartime Mosquitos never had. The Mosquito was rapidly replaced by the Canberra in the bomber role, and Meteor in the Night Fighter role.


Only if you call ten years rapid, the Mosquito was only in the war 4 years. As far as aircraft being scrapped goes, the same goes for almost every type in service with anyone at the end of the war. No wartime aircraft lasted long, F-Freddy completed the most sorties of any allied bomber 213 sorties in two years.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2019)

Fighterguy said:


> Using wood was an alternative that worked better than anticipated. These factors weren't present during P-38, or any other American aircraft outside the Spruce Goose, during design and production. Innovation is driven by circumstance. Where the Mosquito saves weight, is mostly in the frame, spars, ribs, stringers, longerons, and bulkheads, coupled with the use of adhesives, versus rivets, screws, and bolts.



There were a few other wooden American aircraft. However without a lot of experience (and some innovation) a wooden airframe has trouble competing with a metal one on a strength for weight basis. We have very few designs where they tried to actually build the same airplane (or at least the same shape) out of wood and aluminum. 

The Mosquito was never designed to pull the same G loadings as the P-38, if had been designed for 8 G service load and 12 Gs ultimate (safety factor) it's structure would have been much heavier. It did have a much smoother surface finish which cut drag. 

Differences in shape and size also come into play. A thicker wing is stronger than a thinner wing if the material thicknesses are the same. This is for actual thickness, not aerodynamic thickness where the thickness is a percentage of the cord. When pulling Gs you are trying to compress the upper surface of the wing more (and stretch the underside more) on a thick wing than on a thin wing (assuming otherwise similar size and shape) and the thick wing can actually be lighter (requires lighter main spar/s and bracing) .

The Nakajima Ki-106 is one of the few aircraft where they tried to substitute a wooden structure for a metal one (a less strategic material Ki-84) and keep pretty much the same exterior shape/size (tail was bigger) 
Sources differ as to if the plane was all wood or just wood fuselage. All agree the plane was heavier with one book claiming a 600lb difference. Perhaps there was difference in the 3 prototypes? 

Bell and Curtiss both made a hash out of their attempts at wooden aircraft. It is not as easy as DH made it appear.  
.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2019)

The Mosquito was a light weight design for a bomber because you couldn't walk down the fuselage and had no turrets or defensive guns as much as because it was made of wood. De Havilland built wooden aircraft before the Mosquito some of which are still airworthy it also used wood for the Hornet as a material of choice and continued to use wood in places on its jets.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Only if you call ten years rapid, the Mosquito was only in the war 4 years. As far as aircraft being scrapped goes, the same goes for almost every type in service with anyone at the end of the war. No wartime aircraft lasted long, F-Freddy completed the most sorties of any allied bomber 213 sorties in two years.



The last Mosquito retired from RAF service in 1963. It was a target tug.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Most wartime Mosquitos were very much showing signs of wear by VE Day, the ones in the Far East on VJ Day more so.
> They went on to the ‘don’t waste any efforts fixing these up’ list and most were demolished in short order. The RAF had plenty of new ones in storage.
> Post war, they could be cosseted and covered or stored in hangers to spare them the worst of the weather, a luxury wartime Mosquitos never had. The Mosquito was rapidly replaced by the Canberra in the bomber role, and Meteor in the Night Fighter role.



Most Mosquitoes showing wear by VE day had, most likely, completed a lot of missions/hours.

It makes sense to dispose of war weary aircraft in favour of factory fresh ones, particularly those of later marks with improved performance.

As for being replaced with the Canberra and Meteor, they were later, much higher performance aircraft. However:

The Canberra entered service in 1951.

The first PR Meteor flew in 1950. The first NF Meteors entered service in 1951.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 18, 2019)

Fighterguy said:


> Well, from my understanding, the Mosquito used plywood (which is a composite, the grandfather of modern carbon fiber) so it wouldn't stress strategic resources.



The Mosquito's structure was composite in that it had a lightweight core (balsa) with plywood skinning top and bottom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Most Mosquitoes showing wear by VE day had, most likely, completed a lot of missions/hours.
> 
> It makes sense to dispose of war weary aircraft in favour of factory fresh ones, particularly those of later marks with improved performance.
> 
> ...




Barely 1000 Mosquitos built post war, and as soon as the jets turned up, even those were very quickly gone from front line service.
Wood was an historical anomaly, not a wonderful design innovation. The Mosquito would have been a better plane if all metal. While DH continued to use wood, it didn’t produce durable aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Most wartime Mosquitos were very much showing signs of wear by VE Day, the ones in the Far East on VJ Day more so.
> They went on to the ‘don’t waste any efforts fixing these up’ list and most were demolished in short order. The RAF had plenty of new ones in storage.
> Post war, they could be cosseted and covered or stored in hangers to spare them the worst of the weather, a luxury wartime Mosquitos never had. The Mosquito was rapidly replaced by the Canberra in the bomber role, and Meteor in the Night Fighter role.


All front line aircraft of all types, of all nations had a 'tough life' during the war and few if any served for any period after the war. The ones that did were invariably aircraft that were newbuilds as there was no need to use worn aircraft, even if the types had been used.
Also technology was moving at prodigious speed and WW2 types were often seen as being outdated in the near future a good example being RAF fighters where the future was recognised as being jet powered


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Barely 1000 Mosquitos built post war, and as soon as the jets turned up, even those were very quickly gone from front line service.
> Wood was an historical anomaly, not a wonderful design innovation. The Mosquito would have been a better plane if all metal. While DH continued to use wood, it didn’t produce durable aircraft.


1000 is a lot to build of a 1941 design in the post war era.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> 1000 is a lot to build of a 1941 design in the post war era.




Just a reflection of the poor state of Britains aircraft industry at the time.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> 1000 is a lot to build of a 1941 design in the post war era.



There were ~ 1,300 Canberras made, including 400 in the US and 49 in Australia.

Nearly 4,000 Meteors were built, but I am having trouble finding out over what period.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> There were ~ 1,300 Canberras made, including 400 in the US and 49 in Australia.
> 
> Nearly 4,000 Meteors were built, but I am having trouble finding out over what period.



Meteor production finished in May 1955.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 19, 2019)

I suspect that had the P-38 been designed in wood -- had the USAAF accepted it (wood was not considered an acceptable structural material for aircraft being used to transport passengers or cargo for hire due to multiple structural failures; wooden construction was not permitted for airliners by the CAA. This means it's quite likely that the USAAF would not _allow_ Lockheed or any other manufacturer to build a top-end fighter from wood) -- it would not be built in the twin-boom configuration chosen. It may be possible to design the outer wing panels in wood, but there would be quite severe trade-offs.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2019)

I do like the notion that using metal was the trouble free option. All sorts of lessons had to be learned about fatigue and stress corrosion.


----------



## K5083 (Jul 19, 2019)

There is nothing wrong with the P-38 that could be fixed by wood or Merlins. First, it was designed to use a wing section which wasn't suitable for a fighter. Second, its configuration compromised completely to allow for all the gear that goes with turbocharging was a restriction on its adaptability. Primarily because there was no room in the central pod after the pilot, armament and nosewheel were accommodated. This is not to say it wasn't a decent fighter for a twin but it was short on potential in any other area. A conventional twin might have worked better. Something like the F7F maybe, or a developed XP-50. Or maybe the right single-engine plane was always going to be better, or a twin more suited to multi-role.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> metal was the trouble free option




I don't think they thought metal was _trouble *free*_, just that it was _lesser_ of two evils. 

The push for metal "structure" had occurred in the late 20s and early 30s. A number of British Biplanes came in two versions, one with wood structure and one with metal structure. 
They were both fabric covered. The British air ministry at times would not accept a design that used wood "structure" in some design competitions. 

Now please note that "structure" generally meant *any load bearing components*. Wood was still used for fairing out the structural shape to desired aerodynamic shape. Even the Spitfire used wood on the very early ones as an attachment point/interface for the metal wing skinning? I believe that in order to use flush head screws instead of rivets thin strips of wood were attached to the bottom of the ribs and then the lower wing skins were screwed to the wood strips, avoiding the normal domed head rivets? 

The push for wood was often (but not always) from the wood industry, and the glue/adhesive industry.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2019)

K5083 said:


> There is nothing wrong with the P-38 that could be fixed by wood or Merlins. First, it was designed to use a wing section which wasn't suitable for a fighter. Second, its configuration compromised completely to allow for all the gear that goes with turbocharging was a restriction on its adaptability. Primarily because there was no room in the central pod after the pilot, armament and nosewheel were accommodated. This is not to say it wasn't a decent fighter for a twin but it was short on potential in any other area. A conventional twin might have worked better. Something like the F7F maybe, or a developed XP-50. Or maybe the right single-engine plane was always going to be better, or a twin more suited to multi-role.




They never really tried a bigger center pod, one plane adopted for experimental work of a different nature excepted. 

Please note that the F7F lost about 50-80 gallons of fuel when fitted out to carry a radar operator so it wasn't exactly operating with an abundance of extra space either. 
Two seat seat F7F carried 25 gallons less than P-38J or L, but it did carry more guns and ammo,

Trying to power a conventional twin with a wing area of 455sq ft and the size of the F7f that went with it using a pair of 1100hp Allisons wasn't going to get you a very effective fighter either.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't think they thought metal was _trouble *free*_, just that it was _lesser_ of two evils.
> 
> The push for metal "structure" had occurred in the late 20s and early 30s. A number of British Biplanes came in two versions, one with wood structure and one with metal structure.
> They were both fabric covered. The British air ministry at times would not accept a design that used wood "structure" in some design competitions.
> .


I don't disagree at all but it is a question of expertise and knowledge. You wont get me climbing aboard a wooden 747 but de Havilland knew generally knew what they were doing, and designed within the limits of what they knew. You cant just use "metal" just as you cant just use "wood".


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 19, 2019)

pinehilljoe said:


> the other question, why wasnt the Mosquito license built in the USA and used instead of the P-61



A USAAC squadron was equipped with Mossies for recce missions. Apparently many were crashed on takeoff due to torque swing and the air corps decided Mossies were to dangerous and that was that.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2019)

Red 3 said:


> A USAAC squadron was equipped with Mossies for recce missions. Apparently many were crashed on takeoff due to torque swing and the air corps decided Mossies were to dangerous and that was that.



What is your source for that?

As far as I am aware, two squadrons operated PR Mosquitoes for photo reconnaissance and weather reconnaissance from when they received them until the end of the war.

One squadron was equipped with NF.XXXs late in the war.

btw the Air Corps (USAAC) ceased to exist in 1941, when it became the US Army Air Forces (USAAF).


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> What is your source for that?
> 
> As far as I am aware, two squadrons operated PR Mosquitoes for photo reconnaissance and weather reconnaissance from when they received them until the end of the war.
> 
> ...



I was reading something about it a few days ago, that’s why my facts are a bit sketchy! I’ve been doing some casual research on the Mossies for fun, I don’t remember exactly where the info came from but it was trustworthy as your own knowledge backs up. I guess the relevant bit is that the US did use/try Mosquitoes but didn’t like them much.


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> What is your source for that?
> 
> As far as I am aware, two squadrons operated PR Mosquitoes for photo reconnaissance and weather reconnaissance from when they received them until the end of the war.
> 
> ...



Not what I originally read but try this:

De Havilland DH 98 Mosquito > National Museum of the US Air Force™ > Display


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2019)

They may not have enjoyed the F-8, the Mosquito B.XX converted to PR configuration, but went back to the Air Ministry and received 100 PR.XVIs and a few trainers. They also later received the NF.XXXs.

I believe the F-8 was one of very few foreign designed and built aircraft to receive an official USAAF designation.

Neither the Spitfire or the Beaufighter received a USAAF designation, though they were operated by USAAF units during the war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I don't disagree at all but it is a question of expertise and knowledge. You wont get me climbing aboard a wooden 747 but de Havilland knew generally knew what they were doing, and designed within the limits of what they knew. You cant just use "metal" just as you cant just use "wood".




True but metal was easier to work with from an engineering standpoint. If you had good quality metal (not defective) of a certain alloy you knew what it's yield and breaking strengths were, what the compression strength was and what the bending strength was. It was available in tables from either makers or a standards laboratory, wood was harder to get good figures on as wood is much more variable. Once you start using using composite structures (spruce veneers over balsa cores using glue brand XX,) or multiple layers of wood veneers impregnated with plastic resins and baked in ovens the engineers were in rather strange territories. Information was prepriority in some cases and duplicating lab tests might be iffy? 

Because airplanes are complicated structures with complicated loads (aircraft often had multiple loads acting on on piece of the structure in different directions at the same time) even metal was not quite the look up the number needed in the book/chart and make the part to the size specified. 

You can get structural strength charts for wood but sometimes they come with little notes attached like temperature and moisture content of the wood in addition to the density of the wood (how many pounds per cubic in of wood at what moisture content gives you strength XXX?? 

for those who are interested. 

https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch04.pdf 

Specifying and testing a certain grade of aluminum alloy is a lot easier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> They may not have enjoyed the F-8, the Mosquito B.XX converted to PR configuration, but went back to the Air Ministry and received 100 PR.XVIs and a few trainers. They also later received the NF.XXXs.
> 
> I believe the F-8 was one of very few foreign designed and built aircraft to receive an official USAAF designation.
> 
> Neither the Spitfire or the Beaufighter received a USAAF designation, though they were operated by USAAF units during the war.



This is a good overall View of the Mossie and also mentions both the US service and some of the handling issues.

https://www.historynet.com/the-miraculous-mosquito.htm


----------



## wuzak (Jul 20, 2019)

And yet the USAAF bought more of them (through reverse lend-lease).


----------



## K5083 (Jul 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They never really tried a bigger center pod, one plane adopted for experimental work of a different nature excepted.
> 
> Please note that the F7F lost about 50-80 gallons of fuel when fitted out to carry a radar operator so it wasn't exactly operating with an abundance of extra space either.
> Two seat seat F7F carried 25 gallons less than P-38J or L, but it did carry more guns and ammo,
> ...



I was thinking more on the lines of a slightly bigger Westland Whirlwind or FW187. I think a turbo could be fitted in a nacelle as it was in the B-17 and 24, and the XP-50 IIRC. The P-38, Whirlwind and the not-entirely-relevant Me262 were the only single seat twins to see squadron service, weren't they (oh yeah, Meteor.)? The problem is if you make it small it's OK as a fighter but not for anything else. If you make it bigger, give provision for a radar operator or whatever, internal bombs, you end up with a marginally competitive day fighter like a Bf110 or Mosquito. Of course, saying 'I wouldn't have done it that way, I know better than Kelly Johnson' after eighty years is not useful at all.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 20, 2019)

A Lightning made of wood would have been even slower in a dive perhaps unsuitable for combat everywhere.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 20, 2019)

Red 3 said:


> A USAAC squadron was equipped with Mossies for recce missions. Apparently many were crashed on takeoff due to torque swing and the air corps decided Mossies were to dangerous and that was that.



That would be the result of inadequate training in type.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 20, 2019)

Red 3 said:


> A USAAC squadron was equipped with Mossies for recce missions. Apparently many were crashed on takeoff due to torque swing and the air corps decided Mossies were to dangerous and that was that.



So if that is true why didn't the B-26 get canned?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 20, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Barely 1000 Mosquitos built post war, and as soon as the jets turned up, even those were very quickly gone from front line service.
> Wood was an historical anomaly, not a wonderful design innovation. The Mosquito would have been a better plane if all metal. While DH continued to use wood, it didn’t produce durable aircraft.


That’s a thousand more than any of it’s metal contemporaries. The A20 and B26 didn’t even make to the end of the war.
As to durability the Swiss Airforce kept their ancient Vampires ( wood and metal like the hornet) in service until 1990, a 37 year life.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 20, 2019)

Another successful twin engine fighter was the F-82 Twin Mustang, though it just missed the War it did perform in Korea.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> True but metal was easier to work with from an engineering standpoint. If you had good quality metal (not defective) of a certain alloy you knew what it's yield and breaking strengths were, what the compression strength was and what the bending strength was. It was available in tables from either makers or a standards laboratory, wood was harder to get good figures on as wood is much more variable. Once you start using using composite structures (spruce veneers over balsa cores using glue brand XX,) or multiple layers of wood veneers impregnated with plastic resins and baked in ovens the engineers were in rather strange territories. Information was prepriority in some cases and duplicating lab tests might be iffy?
> 
> Because airplanes are complicated structures with complicated loads (aircraft often had multiple loads acting on on piece of the structure in different directions at the same time) even metal was not quite the look up the number needed in the book/chart and make the part to the size specified.
> 
> ...


I agree, I worked in metals and testing of metals all my life and was fascinated by the use of wood, because you don't make it you can only cut down lots of it and select what you want based on experience and testing. In general de Havilland rejected 90% of woods presented to get what they wanted.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 20, 2019)

Don't flame me for saying this but I believe planes like the P-38 only survived because so much time an effort was put into their design it made it impossible to cancel them and start over. If we compared the P-38 to the P-47 and P-51, the later two started out as diamonds in the rough but the underlying designs were sound and both became excellent aircraft from the D series with the P-47 and the A/B series P-51, the P-38 on the other hand was a continuous re-design throughout its life as each new problem presented itself. The P-51, Spitfire, FW190 and Me109 as examples all had teething problems but nothing that could not be quickly overcome which shows in their production cost around the $50,000 mark and massive involvement in the air war, the P-47 became an expensive plane at double the price but it's contribution in breaking the Luftwaffe's back cannot be dismissed, the P-38 I believe is not in the same league. Lastly, is it worth using two Merlins in a P-38 instead of say a Mosquito, or two Merlins in two Spitfires or Mustang's?, I don't think it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2019)

The whole point of the P-38 design was that _at the time of it's design_ NO _single engine_ could supply enough power to meet the performance specification (weapons load, speed and _endurance_) which forced the twin engine solution. 

If Kelly had had a 1500-1600hp reliable engine available in 1937-38-39 when design and development work was going on for the P-38 the P-38 might very well have been a single fighter.
The US Army had not requested a twin. With no such engine available (or projected in a reasonable timeline _at the time_ , the only solution was to use a pair of 1000-1100 hp engines and use the extra power to counter the greater weight and drag of a twin engine design in order to give the US Army the endurance they requested. 

P-38 development lagged, in part due the crash of the sole prototype and engine development may have been faster than anticipated by Kelly. In part due to the development of higher performance number fuel/s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Don't flame me for saying this but I believe planes like the P-38 only survived because so much time an effort was put into their design it made it impossible to cancel them and start over. If we compared the P-38 to the P-47 and P-51, the later two started out as diamonds in the rough but the underlying designs were sound and both became excellent aircraft from the D series with the P-47 and the A/B series P-51, the P-38 on the other hand was a continuous re-design throughout its life as each new problem presented itself. The P-51, Spitfire, FW190 and Me109 as examples all had teething problems but nothing that could not be quickly overcome which shows in their production cost around the $50,000 mark and massive involvement in the air war, the P-47 became an expensive plane at double the price but it's contribution in breaking the Luftwaffe's back cannot be dismissed, the P-38 I believe is not in the same league. Lastly, is it worth using two Merlins in a P-38 instead of say a Mosquito, or two Merlins in two Spitfires or Mustang's?, I don't think it is.



The P-38 was indispensable over all areas where you had lots of water. Definitely effective against both the Japanese and Italians single seat fighters. A plywood Lightning, I don't think so. Better a Beaufighter than a Mosquito in the tropics at least you're plane doesn't fall apart. Just think about it, the humble Beaufighter gave the RAF 70 aces. Even in 1945 it could still successfully operate in daylight against the Japanese.


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 21, 2019)

Milosh said:


> So if that is true why didn't the B-26 get canned?



I don’t know about the B26 issue, but if you read the items that I linked to you can read for yourself about the USAAF experience with Mosquitos. My comment wasn’t meant as a slander, good men died or were injured from other countries as well as our own flying this airplane.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2019)

Red 3 said:


> I don’t know about the B26 issue, but if you read the items that I linked to you can read for yourself about the USAAF experience with Mosquitos. My comment wasn’t meant as a slander, good men died or were injured from other countries as well as our own flying this airplane.


All your link pointed towards was inadequate training. possibly because a weather recon plane isn't considered to be a combat plane. The PR versions swapped fuel for a bomb load, any pilot taking off in such a plane has to be trained in how to do it properly. As with the B-26 the issue wasn't with the plane itself but the training the pilots received. Some of the comments are comic. Are there acts that are natural or un natural to people born in North America as opposed to other parts of the globe? I thought the object of repetition in training was to make things become natural, even if at first they are not familiar or what you are used to.


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 21, 2019)

pbehn said:


> All your link pointed towards was inadequate training. possibly because a weather recon plane isn't considered to be a combat plane. The PR versions swapped fuel for a bomb load, any pilot taking off in such a plane has to be trained in how to do it properly. As with the B-26 the issue wasn't with the plane itself but the training the pilots received. Some of the comments are comic. Are there acts that are natural or un natural to people born in North America as opposed to other parts of the globe? I thought the object of repetition in training was to make things become natural, even if at first they are not familiar or what you are used to.



I watched a documentary on YouTube which included a veteran pilot talking to a new pilot, only six hours on the Mosquito, and he specifically warned him about this and some other dangerous characteristics of the aircraft so it wasn’t specific to the PR variants. One of the articles, I think maybe the second, was quite detailed on these issues and how many crews and aircraft were lost to take off accidents including RAF and Chinese personnel. I think it was indeed possibly linked to inadequate training. My original remark mentioned the US experience particularly as the question I was answering had specifically asked wether or not the US had used the Mosquito. To be quite clear, I had no intention of slighting the US aircrews

Below is the link to the article that best details the issues and it is quite clear that the Mosquito could be difficult. I apologize for any perceived negative opinions of US aircrews and their skills.

https://www.historynet.com/the-miraculous-mosquito.htm


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2019)

Red 3 said:


> I watched a documentary on YouTube which included a veteran pilot talking to a new pilot, only six hours on the Mosquito, and he specifically warned him about this and some other dangerous characteristics of the aircraft so it wasn’t specific to the PR variants. One of the articles, I think maybe the second, was quite detailed on these issues and how many crews and aircraft were lost to take off accidents including RAF and Chinese personnel. I think it was indeed possibly linked to inadequate training. My original remark mentioned the US experience particularly as the question I was answering had specifically asked wether or not the US had used the Mosquito. To be quite clear, I had no intention of slighting the US aircrews
> 
> Below is the link to the article that best details the issues and it is quite clear that the Mosquito could be difficult. I apologize for any perceived negative opinions of US aircrews and their skills.
> 
> https://www.historynet.com/the-miraculous-mosquito.htm


That was the link I was referring to. Particularly this remark "So a pilot had to use differential braking to catch takeoff swings, and in typical Brit fashion, a Mosquito’s pneumatic brakes were actuated by the rudder pedals but modulated by air pressure controlled via a bicycle-brake-like lever on the control column. Not a natural process." All of these aircraft could be difficult, the article explains why the Mosquito could be difficult. A P-51 with 100 gal external tanks was also difficult, and downright dangerous if you did things you were told not to.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 21, 2019)

Red 3 said:


> I don’t know about the B26 issue, but if you read the items that I linked to you can read for yourself about the USAAF experience with Mosquitos. My comment wasn’t meant as a slander, good men died or were injured from other countries as well as our own flying this airplane.



The B-26 is mentioned in the article you linked to.


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 22, 2019)

Milosh said:


> The B-26 is mentioned in the article you linked to.



Lol, guess I didn’t absorb that bit!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 23, 2019)

Red 3 said:


> Apparently many were crashed on takeoff due to torque swing and the air corps decided Mossies were to dangerous and that was that.



Hmm, a little simplistic. In fact, the Mosquito was liked by the Americans and requested in increasing numbers throughout the war. You need to read the book Mosquito by C Martin Sharp and Mike Bowyer. There's a chapter on its US use and the decisions behind its acquisition by the USAAF. There is a sometime contributor (an American) to this forum who supplied information on the US use of the Mossie for the book - can't remember his handle. He's writing a book on the subject.

From the book: "A postgram from Washington, received by the Air Ministry on 23 February 1943, brought the first official request from the Americans for Mosquitoes. it read as follows: 'We desire to re-equip photo reconnaissance squadrons in, or destined for, the European theatre at 65 UE and North Africa at 26 UE with the PRU version of your Mosquito aircraft modified for American cameras. When we compare our aircraft in production anfd the tactical operational range of your Mosquito with our F-5/P-38, there seems no doubt the purposes of our combined air forces will be best served if the AAF curtail their conversion of P-38 and rely on your Mosquito production."

"There was a further aspect to America's wish to have Mosquitoes, for the US Navy had acquired a Canadian Mosquito and examined it from the night fighting aspect for which the USAAF and Navy had no suitable aircraft in prospect."

According to the book, Hap Arnold pressed the British Air Ministry on 1 April 1943 for Mosquitoes, but was met with resistance since the British themselves did not have enough, then on 14 April he again requested Mosquitoes, stating that it was of, "vital importance for the Allied Theatre Command for special mapping projects and that the Moquito can go far byond the F-5 range". A week late the US Navy stated it wanted 150 Mosquitoes from Canadian production."

The USAAF then submitted a request for the aircraft again, breaking down what they wanted in numbers. From the book: "A total of 235 were resquested for use by the end of 1943, by the 13th Photo Squadron in the 8th AF, the 5th and 13th Photo Squadron in the 12th AF, also the 22nd and 23rd Squadrons at Colorado Springs the 27th and one other training squadron. Each needed to be 13 aircraft strong with three reserves and others to cater for attrition."

"October 1943 saw the USAAF pressing for more PR Mosquitoes to equip two squadrons in the Mediterranean area and basing its requirement on 16 aircraft as each unit's strength with another 50 in reserve and 20 per month to cope with wastage."

"Their 1944 requirements would be 125 PR Mosquitoes, delivered at 76 per month from July onwards. If 30 FB.VIs still on offer were accepted they estimated a need for an additional one per month in 1944..."

"The value of the Mosquito as a strategic and target reconnaissance aircraft deeply impressed the USAAF which had nothing remotely comparable. In March 1944 Gen Arnold had filed a request for reconnaissance Mosquitoes for use in the Pacific war."

Doesn't sound to me like 'that was that' at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 24, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmm, a little simplistic. In fact, the Mosquito was liked by the Americans and requested in increasing numbers throughout the war. You need to read the book Mosquito by C Martin Sharp and Mike Bowyer. There's a chapter on its US use and the decisions behind its acquisition by the USAAF. There is a sometime contributor (an American) to this forum who supplied information on the US use of the Mossie for the book - can't remember his handle. He's writing a book on the subject.
> 
> From the book: "A postgram from Washington, received by the Air Ministry on 23 February 1943, brought the first official request from the Americans for Mosquitoes. it read as follows: 'We desire to re-equip photo reconnaissance squadrons in, or destined for, the European theatre at 65 UE and North Africa at 26 UE with the PRU version of your Mosquito aircraft modified for American cameras. When we compare our aircraft in production anfd the tactical operational range of your Mosquito with our F-5/P-38, there seems no doubt the purposes of our combined air forces will be best served if the AAF curtail their conversion of P-38 and rely on your Mosquito production."
> 
> ...


That's how I have always understood it. The Mosquito filled a niche, doing something nothing else could but it was just a niche, producing Mosquitos in USA wasn't a sensible option for the few hundred aircraft needed. In a way it was serendipity, was any WW2 aircraft designed from the start for recon?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2019)

pbehn said:


> That's how I have always understood it. The Mosquito filled a niche, doing something nothing else could but it was just a niche, producing Mosquitos in USA wasn't a sensible option for the few hundred aircraft needed. In a way it was serendipity, was any WW2 aircraft designed from the start for recon?



As far as I am aware, no WW2 aircraft was designed as a reconnaissance aircraft, unless you count the Hughes XF-11 and Republic XF-12 which were both started in WW2, but didn't appear until a year or two after the war.

As for being a "niche" aircraft, the Mosquito was used by teh USAAF as more than just a PR platform. They were also used as pathfinders with H2X fitted, and as night fighters.

American production would have resolved the RAF's issues of not having enough of one or other type of Mosquito.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2019)

wuzak said:


> As far as I am aware, no WW2 *US or British *aircraft was designed as a reconnaissance aircraft, unless you count the Hughes XF-11 and Republic XF-12 which were both started in WW2



Fixed it 

the Japanese had designed/built reconnaissance aircraft, The Russias may have (or had variant designs of other aircraft but did not see production?) Germans had the Arado 234 jet and perhaps a few other _designs _(production is something else).


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Fixed it
> 
> the Japanese had designed/built reconnaissance aircraft, The Russias may have (or had variant designs of other aircraft but did not see production?) Germans had the Arado 234 jet and perhaps a few other _designs _(production is something else).



The Arado 234 wasn't actually designed as a reconnaissance aircraft.

But I take your point about the Japanese. I think there were dome designed specifically for the PR role.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 24, 2019)

In late 1940, the Reich Air Ministry (German: _Reichsluftfahrtministerium_, abbreviated RLM) offered a tender for a jet-powered high-speed reconnaissance aircraft with a range of 2,156 km (1,340 mi). Arado was the only company to respond, offering their E.370 project, led by Professor Walter Blume.[2] This was a high-wing conventional-looking design with a Junkers Jumo 004 engine under each wing.


----------



## Conslaw (Jul 24, 2019)

Remember that until the summer of 1943, with the coming of the P-47, the US Army Air Force had no other fighter capable of working at altitude except the P-38. If the P-38 wasn't available, they would have had nothing. A wooden P-38 would have had some advantages, but probably would have been stressed for lower g loading, which means it may not have been able to truly fill a fighter v. fighter role. The US did not have an indiginous engine capable of delivering high altitude fighter performance other than the turbocharged Allison. The P-38, despite its weaknesses, filled an important role, and it was probably the most important Army fighter from the fall of 1942 through the fall of 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 24, 2019)

wuzak said:


> As far as I am aware, no WW2 aircraft was designed as a reconnaissance aircraft, unless you count the Hughes XF-11 and Republic XF-12 which were both started in WW2, but didn't appear until a year or two after the war.
> 
> As for being a "niche" aircraft, the Mosquito was used by teh USAAF as more than just a PR platform. They were also used as pathfinders with H2X fitted, and as night fighters.
> 
> American production would have resolved the RAF's issues of not having enough of one or other type of Mosquito.


There is no doubt the allies could have used a lot more and possibly it could have justified production in USA but much is from what happened not what could have been foreseen and politics too would have been an issue.


----------



## HarryMann (Jul 24, 2019)

"I believe the P-38 was already more manoeuvable than the Mosquito, and had superior performance as a fighter. "

The dH Mosquito was designed as a bomber, fighter bomber, PR aircraft and soon became the exemplar for Multi-Role aircraft. But firstly as a fast unarmed bomber. Manoeuvrability, per se, wasn't a leading criterion?
Neither was wood used to save weight, per se. It was to justify their tender to the Air Ministry, who wouldn't countenance an unarmed bomber, the minimal use of wartime resources that other more favoured aircraft manufacturers were being allotted, namely aluminium and steel. Hence 'Freeman's Folly', after the man who took the risk in ordering it 'off the drawing board'.

I heard that Roosevelt's son, in the North Africa desert campaign, was asking Franklin R. to lobby the Brits for one to replace his P-38, and actually did end up about the only active US pilot with one at that time...

In answer to the discussion of US production... that would not have been feasible or practical. The logistics to get Canada producing and then Bankstown in Australia were very challenging..
PS. The Mosquito FB shadow factory at Leavesden, Herts is now the Harry Potter film studio and theme park  Hatfield, Herts, the Mosquito's home, and home of the Worlds first jet airliner by many years (1st flight July 1949), is sadly no more an airfield 
A truly groundbreaking company with an incredible legacy!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 24, 2019)

The Mosquito was designed as a bomber, but the specification to put it into production was named 'De Havilland Light Reconnaissance Bomber Aeroplane' and dated 1 March 1940, stipulating that it was to carry out 'reconnaissance by day and bombing by day and night'. The multi-role aspect came because the Air Ministry, specifically the likes of Tedder and Sholto-Douglas weren't too happy about the 'unarmed' aspect, and they didn't believe de Havilland's figures. Even then, the prototype was built on the proviso that a turret armed Mosquito bomber follow it into production. De Havilland were not happy about this and Freeman bet that the unarmed prototype would be exceptional, and that if it wasn't, then Sholto-Douglas would have his turret armed bomber. 

Building the aircraft as a two seat fighter gave it more credibility however and this came next in terms of specifications to put it into production (F.21/40). The first Mosquitoes built, at Salisbury Hall, were the prototype W4050, then the Photo Reconaissance prototype W4051, which was delayed in completion because W4050 had a landing accident that split its fuselage, which meant W4051 donated its fuselage to W4050's wing. The next to fly after the prototype was W4052, which was a fixed gun (night) fighter, and then W4053, which was the turret armed fighter for a night fighter spec. This became the T.III trainer prototype after the gun turret was found to be unworkable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## HarryMann (Jul 26, 2019)

Well Yes, thanks Nuuumannn.
That'd mean W4052 was the one flown straight out of the ploughed farmers field by Geoffrey junior with foreman Fred Plumb allegedly next to him.
This was to save a week or two disassembling and low loadering it the short distance to Hatfield.
Remember, they were setting records for time to first flight then time to first mission... both 11 months I believe.
PS. The farmer was most displeased at having to cut a tree down to make a wide enough gap but the Ministry and maybe a bottle of Scotch prevailed !


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Fixed it
> 
> the Japanese had designed/built reconnaissance aircraft, The Russias may have (or had variant designs of other aircraft but did not see production?) Germans had the Arado 234 jet and perhaps a few other _designs _(production is something else).



Japanese Ki-46 comes to mind, wonderful aircraft.
USSR did have dedicated recon aircraft before WWII: R-5, R-Z, R-10. They were used in various roles, but reconnaissance was the main designation. Also most of Beriev's flying boats as MBR-2 and others were designed as recon aircraft.


----------



## Red 3 (Jul 29, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Hmm, a little simplistic. In fact, the Mosquito was liked by the Americans and requested in increasing numbers throughout the war. You need to read the book Mosquito by C Martin Sharp and Mike Bowyer. There's a chapter on its US use and the decisions behind its acquisition by the USAAF. There is a sometime contributor (an American) to this forum who supplied information on the US use of the Mossie for the book - can't remember his handle. He's writing a book on the subject.
> 
> From the book: "A postgram from Washington, received by the Air Ministry on 23 February 1943, brought the first official request from the Americans for Mosquitoes. it read as follows: 'We desire to re-equip photo reconnaissance squadrons in, or destined for, the European theatre at 65 UE and North Africa at 26 UE with the PRU version of your Mosquito aircraft modified for American cameras. When we compare our aircraft in production anfd the tactical operational range of your Mosquito with our F-5/P-38, there seems no doubt the purposes of our combined air forces will be best served if the AAF curtail their conversion of P-38 and rely on your Mosquito production."
> 
> ...



Great info, I will look for that book!


----------



## pinehilljoe (Aug 1, 2019)

If the Mosquito were made of Aluminum you would have a Vickers Type 432


----------

