# Mosquito vs The Rest



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

There has been much discussion of the relative merits of the De Havilland Mosquito and it's various Luftwaffe counterparts (Fw 187, Ta 154, Me 210/410, He 219 and the rest)

I believe there is one simple hypothetical question that we should be asking.

_If, in 1940, after the flight of the Mosquito prototype, the Germans had been offered the type would they have been wise to take it and abandon all the rest?_

To me at least the answer is obviously yes. 

Can anyone advance an argument that they'd be better off without it and should continue to develop numerous different aircraft to carry out the roles that the Mosquito demonstrated itself, in operational service, to be capable of doing.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Jun 6, 2013)

They are getting it together with the necessary fuels and materials (such as exotic woods) they didn't have? Then the answer is probably yes.
If not then: no.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 6, 2013)

stona said:


> Can anyone advance an argument that they'd be better off without it and should continue to develop numerous different aircraft to carry out the roles that the Mosquito demonstrated itself, in operational service, to be capable of doing.



Like 4 x 250 lbs (454 kg) worth bombs...? Types in development (in particular the 210) that seem to offer (at the time) twice that bombload to be carried at equal speed, possessing no blind spots and armament for self defense ?

Heinkel's projekt P.1055 offered, at the time, a fast bomber capable of 750 kph, self defense armament, pressurized cocpit, ejection seat and capable of carrying a two twon bomb load, and having 4000+ km range.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Like 4 x 250 lbs (454 kg) worth bombs...? Types in development (in particular the 210) that seem to offer (at the time) twice that bombload to be carried at equal speed, possessing no blind spots and armament for self defense ?



It was quickly realised that 4 x 500lb could be used in the Mosquito's bomb bay. It also used 2 x 1000lb GP and MC bombs.

The Mosquito could, and did, fly rings around the Me 210. The argument for the Mosquito was that its defence was its speed, and so it proved.




Tante Ju said:


> Heinkel's projekt P.1055 offered, at the time, a fast bomber capable of 750 kph, self defense armament, pressurized cocpit, ejection seat and capable of carrying a two twon bomb load, and having 4000+ km range.



And how much of that was reality, and how much was fantasy?

It isn't surprising that the P.1055 would carry a larger load, considering its larger size and pair of coupled powerplants.

The P.1055 would not appear in the same timeframe as the Mosquito.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 6, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I would suggest to take a sheet of paper and try to calculate what speed you need to fly a circle around a flying plane…
> cimmex


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 6, 2013)

wuzak said:


> It was quickly realised that 4 x 500lb could be used in the Mosquito's bomb bay.



How quickly? The idea of the thread that in 1940 the plane is offered for the RLM. At the time its still just a prototype with teething troulbes, offering to carry just four tiny 250 lbs bombs, competing with other prototype with teething troulbes for an order, and all of them asking for two (in case of the P 1055, four, really) engines.



> It also used 2 x 1000lb GP and MC bombs.



When and where and in what configuration and penalties?



wuzak said:


> The Mosquito could, and did, fly rings around the Me 210.



Examples please.



> The argument for the Mosquito was that its defence was its speed, and so it proved.



Fact: when introduced, the Mosquito had twice the loss rate than other ordinary twin engined bombers. Doesn't seem to me its speed was such a great defense. In the end, it had to employ the same tactics as other RAF bombers: to hide in the dark and avoid LW's SE day fighters completely.

Fact: it achieved marvelously low loss rate when nobody was flying to intercept it, i.e. at the end of the war.



> And how much of that was reality, and how much was fantasy?
> 
> It isn't surprising that the P.1055 would carry a larger load, considering its larger size and pair of coupled powerplants.
> 
> The P.1055 would not appear in the same timeframe as the Mosquito.



Fantasy vs reality is not relevant, and it is un-ascertainable in any case for a plane that was never built. The P.1055, with its specs, however, was on the RLM's table in 1940. They declined it on the basis of complexity.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 6, 2013)

Good grief!


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> How quickly? The idea of the thread that in 1940 the plane is offered for the RLM. At the time its still just a prototype with teething troulbes, offering to carry just four tiny 250 lbs bombs, competing with other prototype with teething troulbes for an order, and all of them asking for two (in case of the P 1055, four, really) engines.



I believe the Mosquito was designed around 4 x 250lb GP or 2 x 500lb GP bombs. The Mosquito entered service with a maximum load of 2000lbs - not 1000lbs.

Teething troubles - some minor issues with installation (like undercarriage doors not closing fully in flight) and some moderate buffeting at speed. The latter was not considered serious enough to delay production, and was solved quickly with experiments on W4050 - the prototype.




Tante Ju said:


> When and where and in what configuration and penalties?



In the standard bomb bay of a Mosquito B.IV (ie the first bomber). Both 1000lb GP and 1000lb MC (GP ~30% charge to weight, MC ~50%) were used in the raid by 627 squadron on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo, December 1944. Though it was later in the war, they used standard B.IVs.










Tante Ju said:


> Examples please.



The prototype W4050 outpaced a Spitfire. Service B.IV series i were capable of 365-370mph. B.IV series ii with ejector exhausts 380mph. What was the Me 210's best - 350mph?




Tante Ju said:


> Fact: when introduced, the Mosquito had twice the loss rate than other ordinary twin engined bombers. Doesn't seem to me its speed was such a great defense. In the end, it had to employ the same tactics as other RAF bombers: to hide in the dark and avoid LW's SE day fighters completely.



Is that fact? Show me the numbers. Which other RAF twin engined bombers are you talking about?

Initial loss rates were high simply because the numbers used on operations were small. Often as little as 6 aircraft on a mission.

So one from 6 is 16% loss rate. If there were 12 it is likely that still only one would be lost.

It is the same theory the USAAF 8thAF used. In early 1943 some raids were losing as many aircraft as were lost in the Schweinfurt missions. But the loss rates were less - because they sent many more aircraft.

Mosquitos tended to be used on higher risk operations than their other twin engined bombers. More often sent deeper into enemy territory, beyond fighter escort range.

And when they operated with other RAF twins, they had to compromise their performance so as to not leave the others behind.

Also, if the Mosquito saw the German s/e fighter it was able to, more often than not, outpace it.




Tante Ju said:


> Fact: it achieved marvelously low loss rate when nobody was flying to intercept it, i.e. at the end of the war.



In the same night skies where Lancasters and Halifaxes were being slaughtered, Mosquito loss rates were much less. Even when they flew specifically to draw the defenders away.

Even at the end of the war their loss rates were lower than the heavies.




Tante Ju said:


> Fantasy vs reality is not relevant, and it is un-ascertainable in any case for a plane that was never built. The P.1055, with its specs, however, was on the RLM's table in 1940. They declined it on the basis of complexity.



Right, it was a paper plane that was years away from fruition. Even if the RLM wanted it, they couldn't have it now - they would have to wait 2 years, minimum.


----------



## rochie (Jun 6, 2013)

another possibly good thread ruined because it is proved anything designed and built in Britain is proven to be utter crap, didnt do anything in WW2 and only achieved any success because the Luftwaffe let it be successful and all these Luftwaffe wunder weapons that existed on paper but would of magically worked exactly as projected if not better and would of been ready on time every time but it was just that Germany wanted to give the allies a sporting chance so didnt build any of them !

why do i keep looking in these threads when i know how it is going to turn out ?


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

Well it was a hypothetical question (the assumption is that they could produce it so, yes, they have the relevant materials and engines) inviting a counter argument.

I included the words "in operational service" in my post to try and prevent all the fantasy German paper 'planes being proposed as examples of aircraft that may or may not have been capable designs. You might as well propose a super sonic Spitfire.

The Mosquito existed and flew in 1940.

I'm not seeing a coherent counter argument which more or less confirms what I expected.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Jun 6, 2013)

rochie said:


> another possibly good thread ruined because it is proved anything designed and built in Britain is proven to be utter crap, didnt do anything in WW2 and only achieved any success because the Luftwaffe let it be successful and all these Luftwaffe wunder weapons that existed on paper but would of magically worked exactly as projected if not better and would of been ready on time every time but it was just that Germany wanted to give the allies a sporting chance so didnt build any of them !
> 
> why do i keep looking in these threads when i know how it is going to turn out ?


A controversial thread seemingly started for the purpose of proving everything designed and built in Germany was utter crap. What do you expect?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 6, 2013)

stona said:


> I included the words "in operational service" in my post to try and prevent all the fantasy German paper 'planes being proposed as examples of aircraft that may or may not have been capable designs. You might as well propose a super sonic Spitfire.



You did not. You made a vague reference to be able to perform the duties the Mosquito historically did (which wasn't all that special, being the usual bomber/fighter/recce trio).



> The Mosquito existed and flew in 1940.



And certainly was not in operational service in 1940. In fact, not really operational until late 1942.



> I'm not seeing a coherent counter argument which more or less confirms what I expected.



The RLM would be fine with the Mosquito, if that whats you want to hear and be blind and deaf for anything else. It could get some bomb load rather farther away than existing Jabos, and given the general low speed of RAF fighters in the first half of the war, gotten away with it many times. It was more or less comparable to the RLM own light bomber development (Me 210/410) and as such could replace it. 

But you question was however whether the RLM would be shocked and awed in 1940 by a wooden aircraft prototype which was _proposed_ at the time to be capable a tiny bomb load (and hardly dropped any great number of bombs until 1943 in reality), years away from real operational service, no weapons and no multi-role capacity whatsoever which the RLM wanted, requiring the import of exotic woods from overseas when aluminium was readily available for the aviation industry and easier to mass produce, well, then the answer is a definite NO, especially given that they already had the multi-role Me 210 with comparable performance and having flown a year before in 1939, so at least apparently, further advanced in development (and in the end, turned out to be operationally ready at the same time as the Mosquito).

Though IMO they did not need so much diversification or light bombers at all, all they would be needing was to cancel all twin engined bomber production in favor of the Ju 88/188. It takes the same two engines, and delivers more with simpler production and logistics.


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

riacrato said:


> A controversial thread seemingly started for the purpose of proving everything designed and built in Germany was utter crap. What do you expect?



That is absolutely not the case. I am and always have been an admirer of German aircraft. The German aircraft of WW2 had roots in some of the most advanced aerodynamic designs of the time. You can advance a good argument that German aerodynamic research led the world in the 1930s. You could argue that it still did at the end of the war.

There are many reasons why the Germans never produced an aircraft like the Mosquito but none of them are anything to do with a lack of capability. We had men like Beaverbrook and Nelson in charge, converting our economies onto a real war time footing. Let's just say Nazi Germany didn't.

I am not arguing that German designs were "utter crap". I am arguing that they were trumped by a surprisingly uncomplicated stroke of genius and that the de Havilland Mosquito was one of the great aircraft of WW2.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> It was more or less comparable to the RLM own light bomber development (Me 210/410) and as such could replace it.



Ignore the material considerations, this is a hypothetical question. 

Is your argument that given a straight choice between the Mosquito and the Me 210 you would take the Me 210?

Incidentally I agree with you about the Ju 188, in the real world.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Though IMO they did not need so much diversification or light bombers at all, all they would be needing was to cancel all twin engined bomber production in favor of the Ju 88/188. It takes the same two engines, and delivers more with simpler production and logistics.


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ju88-luftwaffes-mosquito-34542.html
If the Ju88 wasn't compromised in its original design/intent, it could have been a Mosquito-esque aircraft until 1942/3. Keep close to the concept of the Ju88S, which was the V3 prototype version with some improvements, and the Ju88 would have been the early, metal version of the Mosquito, except with a rear defense gunner and smaller internal bomb load. Though I should note that the V3 prototype could carry external ordnance and would have been operational with a top speed in excess of 300mph with internal bomb load only or with 2000kg external bomb load around 300mph. 

In 1940 that would have been very hard for the Hurricane Mark I to intercept, which was the primary bomber killer in the BoB given its top speed of 316mph; the later Mark II, which only appeared in small numbers in late September 1940, wouldn't have had a problem catching the Ju88, but once the Jumo engine upgrade pushes the horsepower up, and assuming the LW doesn't add extra weight to the frame for some reason, a serious potentiality, then the Ju88 stays speed competitive. Plus once the later engines appear the Ju88S shows what sort of speed the Ju88 could be capable of in 1942-45.


----------



## DonL (Jun 6, 2013)

Nobody can deny this stona, from a rational viewpoint.
I also have serious doubts, that the Me 210/410 is at the same leage, to my opinion very far away.
But it is no secret that to me the Bf 210/410 is a bunch of crap not worthy to be developed.

My fear of a german Moussie (equal to the original) is, that the RLM would try to design a dive bomber out of it, with dive breaks, much heavier and less good aerodynamics. As a nightfighter, a operational german Moussie at 1941 had not a single original german counterpart (even not my prefered a/c) and I would say even till the end of the war.

Perhaps a Ju 88 which would be developed from the start to a nightfighter, without all this dive bombing crap, but then you can argue speed against little more range and arnament. A other question is, could a Moussie carry "Schräge Musik".


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 6, 2013)

The kind of woods the Mosquito was built, were not readily avaliable for the Germans. 
Even if they had been, the wooden construction is labour-intensive, while the Germans were doing everything possible to reduce the labour needed to produce their aircrafts. 
So, unless De Havilland could propose a metal Mosquito, I think Germans would have declined the offer anyway.
If De Havilland could propose a metal Mosquito, then we have to see if the Germans might need it. In the light of how it the war went, what would the Luftwaffe do with the Mosquito? The availiability of the Mosquito for the LW, would have had a real influence on the conduct of the air war?
And finally, if we can assume that the Mosquito would have been historically useful for the LW, we need to see if the plane that could have been proposed in 1940, would fit the vision of the air war that the Germans had in mind in 1940.


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

Yes. I think the saddest indictment of the Me 210/410 is that when Siegfried Knemeyer became Chief of Development under Milch in November 1943 he made it clear that he did not believe that the type was suitable as a high speed bomber or destroyer. This after years of development and millions of Reichmarks.
It sort of sums the whole debacle up.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Jun 6, 2013)

I've often heard the Me 210 was an unstable failure and rightfully so. But most of the same sources say the Me 410 was basically a 210 that had been fixed. The automatic leading edge slats achieved improved handling, too.

I've seen some pretty complimenrtary things written about the Me 410. Seems like it was decently fast and could cruise at 360 mph or so. Of course, it was no match for Allied single-seat day fighters, but had some success when the bombers weren't closely escorted.

Was the Me 410 really nearly as bad as the Me 210? Or was it what the Me 210 was supposed to be from the start?

I think they were mostly used in the recomaissance role from the summer of 1944 onward, but that is necessary duty, too. I know production was cancelled in August 1944, but that was to concentrate on emergency fighter production rather than for cause as far as I know.


----------



## DonL (Jun 6, 2013)

The main problematic of the early ME 210 was it's design, it had very problematic flight characteristics with several accidents.



> But most of the same sources say the Me 410 was basically a 210 that had been fixed. The automatic leading edge slats achieved improved handling, too.



Mainly a lenghten fulsage next to the automatic leading edge slats.



> I've seen some pretty complimenrtary things written about the Me 410. Seems like it was decently fast and could cruise at 360 mph or so. Of course, it was no match for Allied single-seat day fighters, but had some success when the bombers weren't closely escorted.
> 
> Was the Me 410 really nearly as bad as the Me 210? Or was it what the Me 210 was supposed to be from the start?
> 
> I think they were mostly used in the recomaissance role from the summer of 1944 onward, but that is necessary duty, too. I know production was cancelled in August 1944, but that was to concentrate on emergency fighter production rather than for cause as far as I know.



The ME 410 had DB 603 engines, so much more power then the ME 210

The ME 210 reached with 2 x 1350 PS DB 601F 565 km/h
The ME 210 reached with 2 x 1475 PS DB 605A 580 km/h

That was far away from the estimated performance and the promises from Messerschmitt, at the beginning of development 1937 and less speed then the Bf 110 with the same engines.

Do you think that an a/c (imagine for the RAF), that should have replaced a Beaufighter 1941/42 (at the RAF),which would be slower, would be named a success?


----------



## GregP (Jun 6, 2013)

No I don't think something slower than a Beaufighter would be called successful, but the Me 410 has had some good writeups and I was asking. 

Perhpas I shouldn't have after all.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 6, 2013)

riacrato said:


> A controversial thread seemingly started for the purpose of proving everything designed and built in Germany was utter crap. What do you expect?


anything build in either Germany and the UK was utter crap


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 6, 2013)

I think DonL is talking about the early Bf210s in comparision with the Bf110.


----------



## DonL (Jun 6, 2013)

Indeed tyrodtom.

The ME 410 was fast, something about 630 km/h, but in need to reach this performance of the DB 603.
But the DB 603 was a rare engine, nothing for mass production at 1942/43.

And we must looking of the timeline, the Me 210 should be introduced begin 1942 (start development 1937; first flight 1939)and was developed and scheduled for the DB 601/605 engine and not for the rare DB 603. But through the shortcomings of it's performance with the DB 601/605, it could be introduced after fixing all design problems and with bigger engines end of 1943.

To be honest I can't call this timeline, performance and design issues successfull, far away from it and the ME 210 was a major project of the RLM, with many hope in it, which exploded like some soap bubbles. 

Willy Messerschmitt and the Bayerische Flugwerke were very ambivalent on a rational view:

The good design of the Bf 109 A-F, but with real issues at the G
The average design if the Bf 110
The good design of the Me 262
The bad design of the Me 210, only could be fixed after 4 years
The real bad design of the Me 309 (development since 1940 till 1943), not faster then the Bf 109 and much worse to fly from handling and turning rates, also with a DB 603 engine.

There is not only gold shining where Messerschmitt did the work and design.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 6, 2013)

*DonL*, it is not Moussie but Mossie.

This is a Moussie,


----------



## davebender (Jun 6, 2013)

> If, in 1940, after the flight of the Mosquito prototype, the Germans had been offered the type would they have been wise to take it and abandon all the rest?


1940 Germany isn't going to build an aircraft from wood, power it with RR Merlin engines and arm it with Hs.404 cannon. They would test the Mosquito prototype and possibly incorporate some design features into the Me-210. Not sure what features though as early Mosquito prototype offered no advantage over early Me-210 prototype.


----------



## DonL (Jun 6, 2013)

davebender said:


> 1940 Germany isn't going to build an aircraft from wood, power it with RR Merlin engines and arm it with Hs.404 cannon. They would test the Mosquito prototype and possibly incorporate some design features into the Me-210. Not sure what features though as early Mosquito prototype offered no advantage over early Me-210 prototype.



Are you serious dave?

1. Other than the ME 210, the Mossie had no problems with several serious accidents and was able to stay in the sky.
2. The Mossie was much much faster with the same horsepower then the ME 210 and so had the much better aerodynamic.

This are hard facts and can't be denyed from a rartional viewpoint.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2013)

Germany would have been mad not to jump at the Mosquito for the same reasons the RAF(once they got over their intial caution) went for it. It had a long range, it was very fast and very very difficult to catch. A Spit IX and a Mosquito IX have a very similar top speed and there is no doubt which had the fuel to keep going for longer


----------



## davebender (Jun 6, 2013)

Are you saying Mosquito airframe had no technical glitches starting with prototype number one? That would be very unusual for a new aircraft type.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

davebender said:


> Are you saying Mosquito airframe had no technical glitches starting with prototype number one? That would be very unusual for a new aircraft type.



There were glitches - albeit minor ones.

The undercarriage doors wouldn't close properly in flight. 
The tail wheel had a problm castoring, leading to a damaged fuselage on the prototype W4050. This was replaced by the fuselage for W4051 (the PR prototype) which, in turn, had its fuselage replaced by a production fuselage. The tail wheel was changed and a strengthing strak was added to the right rear fuselage.
There was some buffeting at certain speeds. This was investigated and solved soon after the commencement of production. The solution was extended nacelles and longer span tail plane.

The prototype was trialed with different span wings. The original short span wing featured only on W4050. W4050 was also fitted with leading edge slats, but it was soon decided that these were not required, so they were wired shut and did not feature on subsequent Mosquitoes.

Geoffrey de Havilland Jr was performing single engine acrobatics on the Mosquito very early into flight testing. He would do it at demonstartions too.

The prototype achieved 392mph in early 1941 (the prototype having first flown late in 1940).


----------



## beitou (Jun 6, 2013)

Marcel said:


> anything build in either Germany and the UK was utter crap


As was anything built in Japan, The Ussr, Italy, USA, no hang on wait


----------



## davebender (Jun 6, 2013)

de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The left wing of E0234 also had a tendency to drag to port slightly
> 5 December 1940, the prototype experienced tail buffeting
> 24 February, as W4050 taxied across the rough airfield, the tailwheel jammed leading to the fuselage fracturing


Looks like technical glitches to me and fuselage fracturing from a rough taxi sounds like a serious structural problem.

Nothing that cannot be fixed but same holds true for problems experienced by early Me-210 prototypes.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 6, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> The kind of woods the Mosquito was built, were not readily avaliable for the Germans.
> Even if they had been, the wooden construction is labour-intensive, while the Germans were doing everything possible to reduce the labour needed to produce their aircrafts.
> So, unless De Havilland could propose a metal Mosquito, I think Germans would have declined the offer anyway.
> If De Havilland could propose a metal Mosquito, then we have to see if the Germans might need it. In the light of how it the war went, what would the Luftwaffe do with the Mosquito? The availiability of the Mosquito for the LW, would have had a real influence on the conduct of the air war?
> And finally, if we can assume that the Mosquito would have been historically useful for the LW, we need to see if the plane that could have been proposed in 1940, would fit the vision of the air war that the Germans had in mind in 1940.



Why does this myth keep coming around. The Mossie's wooden construction was not any more labour intensive than anything else. 
In fact it was specifically designed for mass production, just like the Mustang.

Focke Wulf produced the excellent TA-514 design, which was of wood construction (fortunately for the Allies cancelled mainly do to internal politics which favoured the markedly inferior 219).
Wood was increasingly used for components in other German plans (eg late 109G and 109K)


----------



## DonL (Jun 6, 2013)

davebender said:


> de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Looks like technical glitches to me and fuselage fracturing from a rough taxi sounds like a serious structural problem.
> 
> Nothing that cannot be fixed but same holds true for problems experienced by early Me-210 prototypes.



Such a statement is realy annoying me.
Several testpilots and normal pilots found their dead through the flight characteristic of the ME 210.
The ME 210 was very fragile to flat spin and overdrawing.
The prototype plus the first mass produced 210A had serious design issues!
The production was stopped and they need 2 years to sort all issues out with the longer fuelsage and automatic leading edge slats.

For reference:
[ MESSERSCHMITT BF 110/ME 210/ME 410 AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY BY MANKAU, HEINZ](AUTHOR)HARDBACK: Amazon.de: Heinz Mankau: Bücher

Can this be said to the Mossie development? No far far away from this. So please stay to the facts.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2013)

davebender said:


> de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Looks like technical glitches to me and fuselage fracturing from a rough taxi sounds like a serious structural problem.
> 
> Nothing that cannot be fixed but same holds true for problems experienced by early Me-210 prototypes.



The difference is that the problem was fixed in three months . Re the _fuselage fracturing from a rough taxi sounds like a serious structural problem_ the same article states that the structure failure was caused by a tailwheel jamming. So _not a Serious Structural _problem just a stuck tailwheel.

I would also suggest that the fact that the initial prototype was used for a number of different tests developing different models for approx three years, was a sign of the design being right from the start.

I note from Wiki that the Germans needed _It took 16 prototypes and 94 pre-production examples to try to resolve the many problems_ and the chief test pilot commented _that the Me 210 had "all the least desirable attributes an aeroplane could possess_

Compare that to the flight by Cunningham 4 months after the first test flight 
_With the buffeting problems largely resolved, John Cunningham flew W4050 on 9 February 1941. He was greatly impressed by the "lightness of the controls and generally pleasant handling characteristics". _


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Fact: when introduced, the Mosquito had twice the loss rate than other ordinary twin engined bombers.



I see that claim made a lot, though I never see any numbers to back it up. Generally speaking, the statement is that losses when introduced were higher than other bombers, but as you've determined they were twice as high, and presented it as fact, I assume you've done some comparative analysis. Can we see it?



Tante Ju said:


> In the end, it had to employ the same tactics as other RAF bombers: to hide in the dark and avoid LW's SE day fighters completely.



Mosquitos of 2 TAF flew 1532 bombing sorties in daylight in the six months from October '43 to March '44, for a loss rate of 1.9%. Hiding in broad daylight, clever.



Tante Ju said:


> Fact: it achieved marvelously low loss rate when nobody was flying to intercept it, i.e. at the end of the war.



Apparently the Luftwaffe abandoned the night skies in mid-43. Can't imagine what was happening to the heavies around then.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2013)

I find it very sad that both sides of this debate cannot acknowledge greatness when they are confronted with it.

The Germans were a truly gifted nation that produced some outstanding designs and were at the cuting edge of design.

So too the british.

The Mosquito was one of those designs that deservedly earned legendary status. 

How people can denigrate tru greatness is simply very sad in my opinion.


----------



## altsym (Jun 6, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Apparently the Luftwaffe abandoned the night skies in mid-43. Can't imagine what was happening to the heavies around then.


Ummm nope. Luftwaffe flew night missions right throughout 1944. I cant find anything for 1945, possibly because the allies suspended night operations by then IIRC.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

Nah, the RAF was flying night sorties right to the end, the Mossies were over Berlin regularly in 1945.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 6, 2013)

altsym said:


> Ummm nope. Luftwaffe flew night missions right throughout 1944. I cant find anything for 1945, possibly because the allies suspended night operations by then IIRC.





mhuxt said:


> Nah, the RAF was flying night sorties right to the end, the Mossies were over Berlin regularly in 1945.



Example:








Milosh said:


> *DonL*, it is not Moussie but Mossie.
> 
> This is a Moussie,
> View attachment 235214



And this is a Moosie


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> In the end, it had to employ the same tactics as other RAF bombers: to hide in the dark and avoid LW's SE day fighters completely.



Well except when it flew in the day ... and shot down the Luftwaffe's SE fighters, at pretty much parity.....


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

Well, not the unarmed bombers, of course...


----------



## altsym (Jun 6, 2013)

Just referenced a book of Mine, NACHTJAGER Volume Two, by David P. Williams, BF 109's, JU-88's, HE 219's, all flying night missions until the end.


----------



## davebender (Jun 6, 2013)

I agree. Mosquito was ideally suited to serve as path finder aircraft for RAF Bomber Command. However that doesn't mean it can replace Ju-88A and Me-210C dive bombers. Different aircraft types for different mission roles.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

Edit: Double-post


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

altsym said:


> Just referenced a book of Mine, NACHTJAGER Volume Two, by David P. Williams, BF 109's, JU-88's, HE 219's, all flying night missions until the end.



Don't forget the jets...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 6, 2013)

and "To Win the Winter Sky" chronicles numerous day missions through Dec 44 - Jan 45. and on......


----------



## altsym (Jun 6, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Don't forget the jets...


Yup. Me 262 B-1A's, and others like FW 190's, BF 110's, possibly Ta 154 A-4 Do 335 , etc.


----------



## DonL (Jun 6, 2013)

Not any Do 335 flew ever a combat mission


----------



## altsym (Jun 6, 2013)

Oh ok, scratch the Do 335. O/T but Didn't one get chased in France? Low level by some tempests or typhoons but couldn't catch it?


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

I believe Clostermann claimed to have chased one, but...

Apparently, one was lost on a transfer flight, IIRC in December '44. Folks have been trying for yonks to find a matching claim, might be the dreaded friendly fire.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2013)

Re the claim that the Mosquito had twice the loss rate of normal twin bombers. In blunt terms in the first missions the claim is correct. It however ignores the fact that the numbers used were small so any loss has a higher proportion. It also ignores the fact that the missions were often very high risk eg the daylight missions over Berlin many hundreds of miles behind the German controlled borders. It also ignores the long range PR missions which were going on at the same time, again many hundreds of miles behind german front lines. 

I don't have access to my books but from memory the first PR squadron lost about three aircraft in the first 12 months of operations from all causes. An almost unheard of loss ratio for any front line aircraft of any type in any any airforce. The Bomber loss ratios soon fell as the RAF learnt how to operate the aircraft. The claim that they didn't operate in daylight is clearly wrong and I would love to see some evidnece to support that claim, but admit to not holding my breath on that.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 7, 2013)

Still like to see some numbers.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Still like to see some numbers.



And what had half the loss rate of Mosquitoes?

Bostons?
Hudsons?
Mitchells?
Hampdens?
Wellingtons?
Blenheims?


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 7, 2013)

Both 105 and 139 were on Blenheims before Mossies, 139 had an especially exciting time in 1940.


----------



## rochie (Jun 7, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I find it very sad that both sides of this debate cannot acknowledge greatness when they are confronted with it.
> 
> The Germans were a truly gifted nation that produced some outstanding designs and were at the cuting edge of design.
> 
> ...



Totaly agree
Have felt for a while an anti British has developed in these sort of threads.
Any British design is dismisssed and Lufwtwaffe development projects promoted as being able to be put into production at a moments notice.

I believe the Mosquito would have done very well for the Luftwaffe but think they might have done just as well ditching numerus projects and concentrating on the Ju88, like the Mosquito another outstanding aircraft


----------



## parsifal (Jun 7, 2013)

I hear you, but to be totally honest I also believe a reaction has set in as well. The flip side to all this "British Bashing" is the total trashing of things German. 

We all need to develop a litle respect for viewpoints that are not in alignment with our own, and act a little more maturely when it comes to respecting other peoples beliefs.

I count myself in that need to rethink.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Why does this myth keep coming around.


Perhaps because the "myth" has authoritative support, and is based on some fairly simple observation. Pieces of aluminum can be directly printed by a press. Each piece of wood and / or plywood must be sawn and / or bent into the right shape by a worker. Furthermore, at the end of assembly, the aluminum should be just painted, while the plywood must first be covered with glued fabric, another work that must be done by hand (and that, thereafter, makes repairs more difficult).




OldSkeptic said:


> Wood was increasingly used for components in other German plans (eg late 109G and 109K)


When they began to have trouble obtaining other materials, and when they realized that the wood, precisely because it's less capital-intensive, could be worked in laboratories less easily damaged by bombings. But this, in 1940, was completely out of the LW predictions.
It 'the same reason why the Regia Aeronatica, in 1939, rejected the Caproni Vizzola F5 (also) for its wooden wings, and asked for the metal construction for the Cant Z.1018, and, two and half years later, ordered 2000 units of SAI.207.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

davebender said:


> de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Looks like technical glitches to me and fuselage fracturing from a rough taxi sounds like a serious structural problem.
> 
> Nothing that cannot be fixed but same holds true for problems experienced by early Me-210 prototypes.



There was a difference. The deletion of the slats (incidentally at the insistence of the RLM and against the wishes of Messerschmitt) on the 210 exposed serious handling problems. These were compounded by the small wing/high wing loading. They are well documented and there is no need to go over them here. Those most often mentioned were a tendency to slip into a spin at nose high attitudes and of course the unpredictable stall. The fix was not simple.

To fix the 210:

Lengthen fuselage by 950mm between wing and empennage (to eliminate yaw oscillation and tendency to ground loop on take off. Also to improve problem with spinning)

Dive brakes moved from inner wings to outer (to alleviate problems with elevator control. Elevators were also internally counterbalanced)

Fitting leading edge slats (to improve stall characteristics and cure tendency to spin)

Alter turbocharger air intake (reduce interference with engine air intake)

Other changes incorporated in the improved machines and post July '42 production, these all still designated Me 210 A-1 were.

Improvements to automatic dive recovery system and defensive armament

Armour for crew and engines factory fitted, not, as previously, applied post production.

Cockpit roll bar fitted.

All this took thousands of hours and millions of Reichmarks to do. I posted the exact figures per airframe somewhere else and can't be arsed to dig for them now!

The factory fitting of the armour_ may _have been to maintain CoG within limits, taking into account the extended fuselage boom.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 7, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> Perhaps because the "myth" has authoritative support, and is based on some fairly simple observation. Pieces of aluminum can be directly printed by a press. Each piece of wood and / or plywood must be sawn and / or bent into the right shape by a worker. Furthermore, at the end of assembly, the aluminum should be just painted, while the plywood must first be covered with glued fabric, another work that must be done by hand (and that, thereafter, makes repairs more difficult).



Obviously you haven't seen the photos of the mass production lines..... Have a look at Mosquito, the Illustrated History. Goes into great depth how they manufactured them. 

I think you have one of those pictures in your mind of a bunch of cabinet makers, clothe caps and all, carefully making a Mossie from bits of wood. Nothing like that at all.
In fact very similar to the Mustang production lines, including (independently arrived at) using the split fuselage approach, to make fitting everything internal easier.
Sub contractors made components, using specialised tools, brought together and assembled.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 7, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> The kind of woods the Mosquito was built, were not readily avaliable for the Germans.



I take it you have definitive information confirming this, because I know that Germany had more indigenous forest available during the 1940s than just about any other West European country, not to mention wood from Finland and all the other occupied countries. As for the types of wood:
http://www.ecotec-energiesparhaus.d...nd-wood-industries-in Germany at-a-glance.pdf



> Germany’s forests consist of 72 tree species. Of these, 26 non-coniferous and 7 coniferous tree species are used economically. The most important main tree species in this respect are spruce, pine, beech, and oak. Among the coniferous trees, larch and Douglas-fir play an important role in forestry in general, while the silver fir is important in Southern German



The main wood types used in the Mosquito were spruce and birch, and different thicknesses of plywood - European Federation of the Plywood Industry - What is plywood? Possibly the only wood Germany might have had trouble getting was balsa



Dogwalker said:


> Even if they had been, the wooden construction is labour-intensive, while the Germans were doing everything possible to reduce the labour needed to produce their aircrafts.



Doesn't really make much odds; Britain had large numbers of experienced wood workers who were quite capable of mass-producing wooden components with the same skill level, and in about the same amount of time as metalworkers could supply metal components. One reason the Germans needed to reduce the labour required was the increased need to use slave workers as the war progressed.



Dogwalker said:


> Perhaps because the "myth" has authoritative support



Well let's see the "authoritative support".



Dogwalker said:


> ...and is based on some fairly simple observation. Pieces of aluminum can be directly printed by a press. Each piece of wood and / or plywood must be sawn and / or bent into the right shape by a worker. Furthermore, at the end of assembly, the aluminum should be just painted, while the plywood must first be covered with glued fabric, another work that must be done by hand (and that, thereafter, makes repairs more difficult).


 
"simple" observation is right; I guess you haven't seen a woodworking factory or noted that shaping wood with templates can be done as a mass production process no more time consuming or difficult than stamping metal. Somehow the British, Canadians and Australians managed to build over 7,800 Mosquitos, in spite of the poor, hard-done-by workers having to use manual labour.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Obviously you haven't seen the photos of the mass production lines.....



He obviously hasn't.

I believe one of the concrete formers over which the fuselage sections were moulded turned up recently in High Wycombe (???)

It was mass production and used some very sophisticated techniques.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 7, 2013)

rochie said:


> Totaly agree
> Have felt for a while an anti British has developed in these sort of threads.
> Any British design is dismisssed and Lufwtwaffe development projects promoted as being able to be put into production at a moments notice.
> 
> I believe the Mosquito would have done very well for the Luftwaffe but think they might have done just as well ditching numerus projects and concentrating on the Ju88, like the Mosquito another outstanding aircraft



Though the Ju-88 was no Mossie. The Germans were (correctly) very interested in the schnellbomber concept, they just never managed to pull it off. 
Likewise the fast heavy twin fighter and again (with the exception of the TA-154) they never managed to pull it off (then again nobody else did either except DH).

There are good reasons why the 109, 190, Spit, Mustang and Mossie are considered by nearly all as exceptional designs for their time. The design and development teams just got it right. 
Oh none were perfect, but overall they were superior to everything else (except their immediate competition of course).
Though unlike the singles, the Mossie didn't really have a competitor.

Note one great success didn't mean future ones. 
North American did it with the F-86, then went down the tubes.
Supermarine never did again. 
Messerschmitt did it again with the 262, after a lot of duds though.
Kurt Tank did it again (Ta-154 and Ta-152), did that man ever design a bad plane? Germany's Mitchell, not only in his technical skills, but because he could (like Mitchell) lead and inspire a great design team.
De Havilland did it again (Hornet and Vampire), though the loss of Geoffrey basically ended the line.

So producing great planes is as much an art form as anything else. Look at Lockheed, from rubbish, to tragic, to great, to superb and back to tragic and rubbish, several times over. Though you can't help but think that post Kelly Johnston days (excepting the F-117) their glory days are over (imagine what he would say abut the F-35....).


----------



## Aozora (Jun 7, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Fact: when introduced, the Mosquito had twice the loss rate than other ordinary twin engined bombers. Doesn't seem to me its speed was such a great defense. In the end, it had to employ the same tactics as other RAF bombers: to hide in the dark and avoid LW's SE day fighters completely.



Okay, let's see the data instead of...oh, hang on I'm being ignored...



Tante Ju said:


> Fact: it achieved marvelously low loss rate when nobody was flying to intercept it, i.e. at the end of the war.



Again let's see your data rather than have your blather...darn it I'm still being ignored 8)



Tante Ju said:


> Fantasy vs reality is not relevant



Have noticed this with many of your posts. Guess I'm still on "ignore"...*sigh!*


----------



## DonL (Jun 7, 2013)

To me all this anti Mossie arguments are nonrational.

The Mossie was all the RLM had dreamed of the ME 210 and was feed with promises from Messerschmitt.

Nightfighter, fast recon, fast "light" Bomber, heavy fighter (especially over the oceans) , the only thing it didn't had, was dive breaks and to my opinion dive bombing is overestimated, especially of the german RLM.

History proved the success of the Mossie and the disappointment of the ME 210. Nobody can argue rational against this.

I'm not for nothing a die hardcore fan of the combination FW 187 and Ju 88, because from the real-life development at Germany,they represent all this dutys (plus some other goodies) in two a/c's. But also with some disadvantages, because the FW 187 had not the range and load of the Mossie and the Ju 88 not the speed.

So if germany could produce a Mossie since 1940/41 it would be without alternatives from a technical viewpoint.

Anyway I have still the question, if it is possible for a Mossie to carry "Schräge Musik"?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> Anyway I have still the question, if it is possible for a Mossie to carry "Schräge Musik"?



I don't see why not.


----------



## pattle (Jun 7, 2013)

I don't see the point in arguing over the Mosquito as the hard proof is there on the table for everyone to see, end of chat!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I hear you, but to be totally honest I also believe a reaction has set in as well. The flip side to all this "British Bashing" is the total trashing of things German.
> 
> We all need to develop a litle respect for viewpoints that are not in alignment with our own, and act a little more maturely when it comes to respecting other peoples beliefs.
> 
> I count myself in that need to rethink.



In some cases people want "their" favorite to be "better" when for _practical_ purposes it was just _different_. Two routes or paths to same goal. 

Both the English and the Germans ( and most other countries) were quite capable of making very good pieces of equipment and they could also make stuff that was absolute rubbish. Both in design and build quality. 

And the argument that just because item "A" was good does _not_ mean that item "B" was also good is a false one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I take it you have definitive information confirming this, because I know that Germany had more indigenous forest available during the 1940s than just about any other West European country, not to mention wood from Finland and all the other occupied countries. As for the types of woodnly wood Germany might have had trouble getting was balsa.



and that was pretty much the key.

from Wiki;

"Balsa trees are native to southern Brazil and Bolivia north to southern Mexico."

" but is now found in many other countries (Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Solomon Islands)"

"Ecuador supplies 95 percent or more of commercial balsa. In recent years, about 60 percent of the balsa has been plantation grown in densely packed patches of around 1000 trees per hectare (compared to about two to three per hectare in nature)"

Germany had no hope of getting large supplies of Balsa and England did NOT make Mosquitoes because they had "wood" in England.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 7, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> and that was pretty much the key.
> 
> from Wiki;
> 
> ...


 
The lack of balsa might have been a problem had the Germans used the same construction techniques as de havilland, but the Germans had long had experience of building all wood monocoques without the need to use balsa, and were surely clever enough to develop techniques which could compensate for the lack of balsa. The big difference was that de Havilland had at least a decade of experience in the construction techniques used for the Mosquito, with the likes of the Comet and Albatros being used to prove the technology which was further refined for the Mosquito. AFAIK Focke-Wulf were working from scratch to design the Fw 154.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 7, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> and that was pretty much the key.
> 
> from Wiki;
> 
> ...



Funnily enough Kurt Tank had no problem getting around that with the TA-154. Maybe not as cheaply, maybe not as easily .. but he (and his team of course) did that.

_I've just found myself in the strange position of arguing for another 'maybe' German 'uber' aircraft, an approach I have always criticised_
Then again I am using it to answer the usual complaint of "the Luftwaffe could have done it (building the uberplane that would sweep everything from the sky and only cost 50 cents a plane) if we had more time,. or we could have done it if we had the materials, or the fuel, it was all ready to go .. honest".


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

The Balsa used at least initially in Mosquito construction is described as "Ecuadorean", whether it was from Ecuador or that is a type of balsa I know not. 
The Birch came from Canada.

All this is irrelevant to my original_ hypothetical_ question. When the Germans did attempt wooden construction they had mixed results to say the least. Incidentally a typical Mosquito was also held together by about 50,000 screws!

49 of the original short nacelle Mosquitos entered service in the summer of 1941, long before the Me 210.

The Mosquito was used effectively for photo-reconnaissance and as a bomber, a fighter-bomber, a night-fighter, an intruder, a trainer, a pathfinder, a target marker, a torpedo-bomber, a U-boat killer, a minelayer, and a target tug. It could even be fitted to carry a "bouncing" mine. I've probably missed something.
The Mosquito was the fastest aircraft in Bomber Command until May 1951 so they got something right!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 7, 2013)

You all should consider, that the german industry developed a process 1942 to reclaim aluminium out of shut down or destroyed planes. (all enemy and german planes they could find)
So the german war economy had no real problems with the supply of aluminium and didn't investigate so much of alternatives.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Obviously you haven't seen the photos of the mass production lines.....


The photos of Mossie's mass production lines show wooden spars and plywood panels come out, hundreds of pieces per hour, by a press, and the fabric covering be laid by industrial robots? Otherwise obviously you haven't understood a word of what I wrote. 



OldSkeptic said:


> I think you have one of those pictures in your mind of a bunch of cabinet makers,


I think you have very little knowledge of what "capital intensive" and "labour intensive" means. The fact of seeing many planes lined up in various stages of completion, on an assembly line, do not say anything about the relative capital-intensity of a production. It tells you just that they are coming out of an assembly line. The assembly line is used to optimize the amount of labor and capital used, but different productions in assembly line have different capital-intensity.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> Anyway I have still the question, if it is possible for a Mossie to carry "Schräge Musik"?



Your other comments are well said.

As for for "Schräge Musik", no need. For defence as a night fighter is was up against light bombers like Ju-88s or Me-210s and 410s ... or FW-190s.
One book about John Cunningham tells the story about closing on a 190 with a 1,000kg bomb, getting close to identify it then slowly dropping back and firing ... 

As an an Intruder it was up against other Luftwaffe night fighters, like the Ju-88, Me-110 and so on .. easy meat.
Classic (from Braham's and other stories) tactics were to trawl around, pick up the radar from the Luftwaffe fighter, then quick turn, use their own radar to close and kill.

His (and others) story was that they were relegated to the Beaufighters, which could could not catch a 110 or 88 of the time, plus they didn't have enough range to really help the bombers.
When they finally got Mossies, they were all old clapped out IIs, which killed a lot of crews with engine failures.
I do criticise the Germans for their silly priorities at times. 
But no one, not anyone of any side in the air war, was so absurd in their priorities as the RAF's Bomber Command in 1943 up to late 44. 

_Moskito Panic_ was not a propaganda name, it was something that German night fighters felt all the time post mid 44 (once the British finally pulled the finger out and you would be amazed at the official RAF opposition to having night fighter support for the, ever more slaughtered, bombers).


----------



## DonL (Jun 7, 2013)

> As for for "Schräge Musik", no need. For defence as a night fighter is was up against light bombers like Ju-88s or Me-210s and 410s ... or FW-190s.



"Schräge Musik" is an attack weapon not to defend. The "Schräge Musik" was developed to go *under* the bomber and shoot right in to the wings and engines and it was very successfull. So to be a german nightfighter it would be good to carry "Schräge Musik".


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> "Schräge Musik" is an attack weapon not to defend. The "Schräge Musik" was developed to go *under* the bomber and shoot right in to the wings and engines and it was very successfull. So to be a german nightfighter it would be good to carry "Schräge Musik".



They installed a turret in one of the fighter prototypes. I don't think that installing "Schräge Musik" would have been such a problem.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I take it you have definitive information confirming this, because I know that Germany had more indigenous forest available during the 1940s than just about any other West European country,


Yeah, huge forests of balsa and douglas fir, both required for the Mossie.



Aozora said:


> The lack of balsa might have been a problem had the Germans used the same construction techniques as de havilland


And that's the key, since the initial question was: "If, in 1940, after the flight of the Mosquito prototype, the Germans had been offered the type would they have been wise to take it and abandon all the rest?". The type De Havilland could offer in 1940 requires balsa ("Hagg created a light, strong, very streamlined structure by sandwiching 9.5mm Ecuadorian balsa wood between Canadian birch plywood skins that varied in thickness from 4.5mm to 6mm" balsa was not an element of secondary importance in Mossies' construction) and douglas fir. We already know that the Germans have not made a redesigned Mosquito using different woods (unless you consider that the TA-154, and then we know what could happen trying to build a Mosquito with different woods).



Aozora said:


> Doesn't really make much odds; Britain had large numbers of experienced wood workers...


But who said a word about Britain? The question is about a German production.



Aozora said:


> I guess you haven't seen a woodworking factory


Infact. owning a furniture store from three generations, what can I know about woodworking?



Aozora said:


> Canadians and Australians managed to build over 7,800 Mosquitos, in spite of the poor, hard-done-by workers having to use manual labour.


Have you a clue about what labour-intensive and capital-intensive production means? It has nothing to do with "hard", "poor", "primitive", or whatever you are saying. It just means that even in order to do the same thing at the same price in the same time, it may take an hour of work, with a tooling of a certain value, or two hours of work, with a tooling of another value.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

If you look at the relatively small aircraft like the Bf 110 and Fw 189, into which the Germans very ingeniously installed upward firing weapons I can't see the British having any difficulty in developing something similar for the Mosquito. They just never felt the need for such a system. They engaged larger four engine aircraft in the traditional manner.
Mosquitos _claimed _ 44 He 177s but I've no idea how many they actually shot down.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> requires balsa and douglas fir.



Are you sure? I've always read that the composite was birch-balsa-birch but I'm not a carpenter. I believe Fir was one of the woods used in the stringers that ran within the skins (particularly those of the main plane) but Birch was also used for this. Spruce was also used in small amounts.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Funnily enough Kurt Tank had no problem getting around that with the TA-154.


Yeah, he managed to produce about 50 aircrafts affecterd by plywood delamination problems.


----------



## DonL (Jun 7, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> Yeah, he managed to produce about 50 aircrafts affecterd by plywood delamination problems.



This is a myth and has nothing to do with the reality. The Ta 154 had no structural problems, weather with the wood nor with the glue!
Source:
Focke-Wulf Nachtjäger Ta 154 "Moskito": Entwicklung, Produktion und Truppenerprobung: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann: Bücher


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

stona said:


> Are you sure? I've always read that the composite was birch-balsa-birch but I'm not a carpenter. I believe Fir was one of the woods used in the stringers that ran within the skins (particularly those of the main plane) but Birch was also used for this. Spruce was also used in small amounts.


You are right, Birch or douglas fir stringers were used in the production models. But were they interchangeable in the prototype?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 7, 2013)

I still wonder why would anyone build wooden aircraft - with all its inherent disadvantages (with mass-production, durability, sensitiveness to weather) that ultimately outweighed advantages - instead of stressed skin aircraft, unless there was a shortage of aluminium (and there wasn't). The Russians for one built virtually all of their fighters largely of wood (and being very good at that), but all their post war models of the same fighters switched to stressed skin construction.



stona said:


> 49 of the original short nacelle Mosquitos entered service in the summer of 1941, long before the Me 210.



In fact the first 210A-0 was in operational trial with Erprobungsgruppe 210 in 1940, probably before the Mosquito prototype was even flown (Nov 1940). The pre-production of Me 210 was in series production of 94 five months after (in April 1941) and two months before the first series of Mosquitos were even order by the British Air Ministry. It was bugged plane, sure, but it was there.

Indulge us in the details of this so called "entering service" of the Mosquito. Which Squadrons received it and how many being operationally ready. How many sorties were flown.

The intial Air Ministry order of June 1941 was 19 photo-reconnaissance models and 176 fighters. Further 50 unspecified, which after much hesitation were decided to be bomber versions at last. The PR aircraft had no guns or bombs, the fighter aircraft were incapable of carrying any bombs. The Me 210 at least could do both already. Later FB Mosquitos could carry two tiny bombs internally (250 pounders) but all the rest had to be carried externally, with a loss in performance. The 210/410 could carry a bit more and larger ones, and all of them inside the aircraft (compared to the FB version).

The first fighter Mossie could no more than about 360 mph, which was good, but not outstanding, merely a couple of miles faster than ME 110 or 210. They were of course much slower than RAF or LW s-e frontline fighters, and happless against them in air combat.

There were no bomber Mosquitoes in service until the end of 1941. In fact, the bomber prototype did not flew until September 1941, after it was decided to build a whole _TEN _of them in the first series. They did not flew a single operational mission until mid - 1942. Checking the details I have found that Bomber Commands Mosquitoes dropped _ZERO _tons of bombs in 1941. They received a _SINGLE _Mosquito first, W4064 in November 1941, but spent the next six monts "working up" what were essentially custom build pre-production planes and probably issued very, very slowly to operational units. They did not fly operational missions until May 1942, and they dropped something like 250 tons of bombs in the whole year, which was again marginal impact at best.

In any case, whether you would pick a Mosquito or a Me 210 in 1941, you would have to pick between a bugged aircraft in numbers, or a handful of aircraft that cannot do much yet, and, for such a capable light bomber, it cannot carry any bombs at all.



> The Mosquito was used effectively for photo-reconnaissance and as a bomber, a fighter-bomber, a night-fighter, an intruder, a trainer, a pathfinder, a target marker, a torpedo-bomber, a U-boat killer, a minelayer, and a target tug. It could even be fitted to carry a "bouncing" mine.



The major difference between them that the 210/410 could do all that but all could be done with the SAME aircraft. Not different Marks of bombers, fighters and so on, built as such at the factory and staying as such. The Mosquito was a very adaptable airframe in the same sense as the Ju 88 - many different variants could be developed. The 210/410 was a true multirole aircraft. One can argue how practical that was in practice, but that's still a plus for it.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 7, 2013)

Re: the Ta 154 - the German-language wikipedia page is miles better than its English counterpart. Don't know how it comes up in Google Translate or similar, but it's worth a look.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> The intial Air Ministry order of June 1941 was 19 photo-reconnaissance models and 176 fighters. Further 50 unspecified, which after much hesitation were decided to be bomber versions at last.



The Air Ministry kept changing their minds. They were not sold on teh whole concept of unarmed bombers.




Tante Ju said:


> The PR aircraft had no guns or bombs



No, and nor did it need them. It was to do photo reconnaissance. Carrying cameras was all it needed to do.

PR Spitfires also carried no guns or bombs.




Tante Ju said:


> the fighter aircraft were incapable of carrying any bombs.



The fighter aircraft weren't required to carry bombs - so they weren't equipped to do so.

But, it was entirely feasible. The FB.VI used the same gun armament as the F.II, but had the rear bomb bay set up to accept bombs.




Tante Ju said:


> Later FB Mosquitos could carry two tiny bombs internally (250 pounders) but all the rest had to be carried externally, with a loss in performance. The 210/410 could carry a bit more and larger ones, and all of them inside the aircraft (compared to the FB version).



The FB.VI could carry 2 x 500lb bombs internally plus 2 x 500lb bombs under the wing. Much the same as the 210/410.




Tante Ju said:


> The first fighter Mossie could no more than about 360 mph, which was good, but not outstanding, merely a couple of miles faster than ME 110 or 210. They were of course much slower than RAF or LW s-e frontline fighters, and happless against them in air combat.



The first ones yes. That performance improved quickly - with ejector exhausts speed in fighter versions went up to about 370mph. 2 stage engines took them to higher speeds still - the NF.XXX capable of 424mph.

The Me 210/410 was equally "hapless" against s/e fighters. Actually more so.

The RAF evaluated the Mosquito, in lightweight trim, as a heavy day fighter, and decided it wasn't going to cut it. But they did figure out that the Mosquito FB.VI had similar to or better performance to the Luftwaffe's se fighters in certain altitude bands.

As "hapless" as they were, Mosquito fighters and fighter-bombers downed more than a token few German s/e fighters during the war.




Tante Ju said:


> There were no bomber Mosquitoes in service until the end of 1941. In fact, the bomber prototype did not flew until September 1941, after it was decided to build a whole _TEN _of them in the first series.



I suppose that W4050 could be considered as a bomber prototype, since it came equipped with bomb bay doors. But generally it was considered just as the prototype.

The first bombers (B.IV series i) were converted from PR.Is. I doubt that there was much work in the changeover - install bomb racks, install bomb sight.




Tante Ju said:


> In any case, whether you would pick a Mosquito or a Me 210 in 1941, you would have to pick between a bugged aircraft in numbers, or a handful of aircraft that cannot do much yet, and, for such a capable light bomber, it cannot carry any bombs at all.



A "bugged" aircraft with, from what I am reading here, some serious vices. One that the Luftwaffe probably wished it didn't have!

Or an aircraft that handled beautifully, which was desired by many different branches of the RAF.

I don't get the idea you have that the Mosquito could not "carry any bombs at all".


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

The German wikipedia page about the TA-154, as far as I can view, reports, besides the known problem of the glue, also problems due to moisture in the joints between the wooden and metal parts (understandable, given that the moisture condenses on cold surfaces, such as metal.
As far as I know (but what do I know about woodworking?) plywood ruined by the moisture can not be repaired, it has only to be replaced.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2013)

1940s "wooden" aircraft may have a lot in common, or very little in common, with wooden furniture or boats or??????

It depends on the *EXACT* form of "wooden" construction. 












This plane used over 60 gals of vinyl-resin plastics in it's construction. You also needed an oven big enough to hold major parts while the vinyl-resins set under heat. 

The US Navy used 262 of these 'wooden' aircraft.






From wiki, usual disclaimer:

"It had an unusual feature in that the airframe structure was made from resin impregnated and molded plywood,, creating a composite material stronger and lighter than plywood. This process was patented as the Nuyon process and marketed as the aeromold process.[2] The S-160 received the first approval for a plastic-wood construction, (ATC #747), on 28 August 1941"

and this puzzling statement "Although popular and relatively reliable, the N2T-1 was not built for long-term use, especially being made almost entirely of a wood based composite material that proved to be susceptible to decomposing. Postwar, the N2T was sold to private owners and 10 remained on the U.S. civil aircraft register in 2001" 

The entire order was completed in 1943. How may other wartime aircraft had a survival rate of 3.8% in 2001?? for a production run of 15,000 aircraft that would mean 570 left flying in 2001?? 

The Russian aircraft used a Phenol formaldehyde resin as a bonding agent. 

I don't know what the Mosquito used but one has to be careful when comparing different wooden aircraft to "metal" ones BOTH types used a variety of construction methods.

The molded wooden fuselages of the early Lockheeds and the Mosquito often had a better surface finish than metal aircraft ( or were more 'fair'. no dishing between frames/stringers) for less drag. 

In some ways they were not as good as an all metal plane but without knowing a LOT of details/specifics it is hard to go on generalities.


----------



## altsym (Jun 7, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> The German wikipedia page about the TA-154, as far as I can view, reports, besides the known problem of the glue, also problems due to moisture in the joints between the wooden and metal parts (understandable, given that the moisture condenses on cold surfaces, such as metal.
> As far as I know (but what do I know about woodworking?) plywood ruined by the moisture can not be repaired, it has only to be replaced.


ALL wooden (mostly) planes have the same problem sooner or later. Mosikto is no different.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> The major difference between them that the 210/410 could do all that but all could be done with the SAME aircraft. Not different Marks of bombers, fighters and so on, built as such at the factory and staying as such.



Now you are being silly. The fact that the RLM kept changing the intended role for the type had a serious effect on production as one aircraft patently couldn't carry out all the desired roles, but rather several sub-types with different equipment and even different hand books. The only night fighter actually developed, by the Hungarians, even had three crew rather than two!

In May 1944 the OKL ordered that all Me 410 A1s and B1s (bomber versions) be converted to heavy fighters. It didn't happen when someone pointed out that the two types had different canopies and facilities and time were not available.
At the same time Me 410 A-1/U2s and Me 410 A-1/U4s as well as Me 410 B-2,B-1/U4s along with reconnaissance versions, Me 410 A-3 and B-3, were to be produced without dive brakes and other bomber related fittings.

It is obvious that there was a wide range of different versions of this aircraft, as disparate as the various marks of the Mosquito.

I haven't included numerous other versions like the B-5 (torpedo bomber) B-6 (naval zerstorer) or B-8 (night reconnaissance) which were planned but never developed, at least not for the Messerschmitt. 

Maybe the ultimate compliment to the Mosquito is that in March/April 1944 an Me 410 was tested with a cooling system based on the lay out of a captured Mosquito.

There was a plan to produce the Me 410 with wooden wings in the third quarter of 1945 which obviously never came to pass.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 7, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The Air Ministry kept changing their minds. They were not sold on teh whole concept of unarmed bombers.



Same thing with the RLM - they ordered a plane into production before it was properly tested, and Messerschmitt, expending a lot already and hard pressed, put it into production prematurely. Not really the fault of either the planes.



> No, and nor did it need them. It was to do photo reconnaissance. Carrying cameras was all it needed to do.
> 
> PR Spitfires also carried no guns or bombs.



So what can it do that existing 109 FRs could not do already (and cheaper)? 



wuzak said:


> The fighter aircraft weren't required to carry bombs - so they weren't equipped to do so.



So what are you planning to do with a fighter aircraft that cannot engage fighters on equal terms and cannot carry bombs?



> But, it was entirely feasible. The FB.VI used the same gun armament as the F.II, but had the rear bomb bay set up to accept bombs.



But again you have wait for that variant until after the Me 410 is already available, in 1943.. does it sound feasible to replace the Me 410 with it then?



> The FB.VI could carry 2 x 500lb bombs internally plus 2 x 500lb bombs under the wing. Much the same as the 210/410.



The Me 410 could carry 2 x 1100 lb bombs internally, with much less speed loss plus it can actually defend itself in formation, and was heavily armored.
AFAIK there were some modifications that enabled it to carry bombs under wings as well.



> The first ones yes. That performance improved quickly - with ejector exhausts speed in fighter versions went up to about 370mph. 2 stage engines took them to higher speeds still - the NF.XXX capable of 424mph.



Again the question is - when did this happen? The NF 30 appeared near the war's end IIRC, impressive as it was. Does that warrant waiting a lot more for another plane?



> The Me 210/410 was equally "hapless" against s/e fighters. Actually more so.



Because..? Neither could hope to win a maneuvering fight, though both could shoot up the occasional - and unfortunate - se fighter that happened to pose before the cannno batteries.



> The RAF evaluated the Mosquito, in lightweight trim, as a heavy day fighter, and decided it wasn't going to cut it. But they did figure out that the Mosquito FB.VI had similar to or better performance to the Luftwaffe's se fighters in certain altitude bands.



It simply had not. It was as fast or perhaps faster at certain altitudes, but could not hope to get into firing position if they were aware of it.



> As "hapless" as they were, Mosquito fighters and fighter-bombers downed more than a token few German s/e fighters during the war.



The same could be said about any other plane, including the Me 110 for example. What does it prove? 



> I suppose that W4050 could be considered as a bomber prototype, since it came equipped with bomb bay doors. But generally it was considered just as the prototype. The first bombers (B.IV series i) were converted from PR.Is. I doubt that there was much work in the changeover - install bomb racks, install bomb sight.



... and test them for center of gravity, bomb release reliability, iron out the bugs, produce the planes, train the crews. All this resulting in very few bombs actually dropped by Mosquito bombers until 1943.



> A "bugged" aircraft with, from what I am reading here, some serious vices. One that the Luftwaffe probably wished it didn't have!
> 
> Or an aircraft that handled beautifully, which was desired by many different branches of the RAF.



So again what are your planning to do with the beautifully handling plane that cannot bomb and cannot really engage fighters yet on anywhere near equal terms? Send them oer France to mix it up with 109Fs? The RAF tested them and considered them more of a liability than an asset for escorting bombers.



> I don't get the idea you have that the Mosquito could not "carry any bombs at all".



From the fact that they really could not, in 1941. Bombers were not ready, fighter could not, PRs obviously could not - yet. The whole point of this thread wheater its feasible or not to have the Mosquito replace equivalent German twins - which again, in 1941 were bugged, but at least could do that.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

altsym said:


> ALL wooden (mostly) planes have the same problem sooner or later. Mosikto is no different.


Infact the key factor is "how soon". Any structure will cede, sooner or later.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 7, 2013)

Mosquito Aircraft Production at Downsview

251 photos of Mosquito


----------



## altsym (Jun 7, 2013)

I don't know. Effects could show the next day, or the next decade. But I think a bigger issue would be weight VS strength survival. Example:

Stiffness is the product of the material modulus of elasticity and the section moment of inertia, or "EI." It determines deflection (sponginess), which is generally the controlling criteria anyway.

For a rectangular cross section, the moment of inertia is (bh^3)/12, where b is width and h is depth.

The modulus of elasticity of some materials is as follows:

Steel: 30,000 ksi
Aluminum: 10,000 ksi
OSB: 1,000 ksi

So the stiffness for a 12" wide strip of 5/8 nominal OSB (actual thickness 19/32") is:

12*(.594^3)/12*1,000,000=209,300lb*in^2

Now to get the same stiffness from aluminum, find X...

12*(x^3)/12*10,000,000=209,300

x=.276"

So to match 5/8 OSB, you need .276" thick aluminum. If you use 1/4", you'll get:

12*(.25^3)/12*10,000,000=156,200 lb in^2 which is only 75% as stiff as the OSB.

Go with 5/16" aluminum and you'll get:

12*(.25^3)/12*10,000,000=305,200 lb*in^2 which is 146% as stiff as the OSB.

Note that the extra 1/16" thickness doubled the stiffness. Also note that any grade of aluminum will be about this stiff. 

I would also suspect that a 20mm hit on wood, would be much more catastrophic then a hit on steel/aluminum. Ergo, a Moskito would be
much easier to shoot down.. if it could be caught.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 7, 2013)

> I still wonder why would anyone build wooden aircraft - with all its inherent disadvantages (with mass-production, durability, sensitiveness to weather) that ultimately outweighed advantages - instead of stressed skin aircraft, unless there was a shortage of aluminium (and there wasn't).



Lordy, not that ole chestnut again.... Here's a quote from a letter between Geoffrey de Havilland and Air Marshall Sir Wilfred Freeman on what eventually became the Mosquito:

"This would employ the well tried out methods of design and construction used in the [D.H.88] Comet and [D.H.91] Albatross and, being of wood or composite construction, would not encroach on the labour and material used in expanding the RAF.

These things (mass-production, durability, sensitivity to weather) did not affect the Mosquito as much as is thought. The issues with delaminating skins was due to faulty manufacture at a particular factory, not a general fault of the construction method of the aircraft. The change to a formaldehyde resin altered the problems encountered. Here's an excerpt from Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J.F. Bowyer on the Mosquitoes' wooden construction;

"The greater bulk of wood, for a given strength has advantages. A stressed skin was thick, therefore stiff without the need for much internal reinforcement, leaving clear spaces for tanks bombs, guns and equipment. For lightness, the wing was made in one piece from tip to tip, stressed to carry 82 tons. It accommodated ten tanks, 539 gallons, close to the centre of gravity, their weight spread economically along the span. Shell holes and bullet holes would represent a smaller percentage of the mass of a bulky wooden member; a shell fragment that might sever a strong metal member would scarcely weaken a thick, continuous wood shell or a stout wooden spar. Active service soon verified this. Buoyancy of wood was an advantage. No higher fire risk was expected."

"To develop compression in birch plywood double skins were employed, separated by spruce stringers in the case of the upper surface of the wing, by a thick interlayer of feather weight balsa wood in the fuselage. Thick wooden structures had been developed in the Comet wing and the Albatross wing and fuselage. Surface smoothness possible with wood was exploited. Adaptability of wooden units was proved as variants were built in 1940. Wood also lent itself to the making of the fuselage in halves, as a lobster is served, convenient for plumbing and installing equipment before boxing - especially as the fuselage was small. Wood made for ease of repair in field or workshop. And as expected, woodworkers were readily available. Weathering qualities were were known from experience with the Albatross. A notable improvement was the use of formaldehyde cement instead of casein for surface jointing; this synthetic resin was unaffected by moisture or micro-organisms, and it was a pity that it could not be available from the start."

Here's a section of Mosquito fuselage:






This close-up illustrates the cleanness of the Mosquitoe's finish.






Schrage Musik was not employed by British night fighters, however, night fighter Defiants used the same tactic against German bombers with their turret guns pointing upwards. The turreted Mosquito - a mock-up only, and Beaufighter - an actual Boulton Paul turret - were so equipped to meet a specification released in late 1940 for a turret equipped night fighter to replace the Defiant. None of the designs forwarded were adopted because of the emerging reputation of a certain balsa wood unarmed bomber that was also built as a night fighter...

...and one for the road...






Any excuse to post a picture of this aeroplane...


----------



## Readie (Jun 7, 2013)

I believe the case for 'greatness' lies in operational achievement. You can theorise till the cows come home but, it what an aircraft proved capable of is the key.

De Havilland Mosquito Operational History:

Entering service in 1941, the Mosquito's versatility was utilized immediately. The first sortie was conducted by a photo reconnaissance variant on September 20, 1941. A year later, Mosquito bombers conducted a famed raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo, Norway which demonstrated the aircraft's great range and speed. Serving as part of Bomber Command, the Mosquito quickly developed a reputation for being able to successfully carry out dangerous missions with minimal losses.

On January 30, 1943, Mosquitos carried out a daring daylight raid on Berlin, making a liar of Reichmarschall Hermann Göring who claimed such an attack impossible. Also serving in the Light Night Strike Force, Mosquitos flew high speed night missions designed to distract German air defenses from British heavy bomber raids. The night fighter variant of the Mosquito entered service in mid-1942, and was armed with four 20mm cannon in its belly and four .30 cal. machine guns in the nose. Scoring its first kill on May 30, 1942, night fighter Mosquitos downed over 600 enemy aircraft during the war.

Equipped with a variety of radars, Mosquito night fighters were used throughout the European Theater. In 1943, the lessons learned on the battlefield were incorporated into a fighter-bomber variant. Featuring the Mosquito's standard fighter armament, the FB variants were capable of carrying 1,000 lbs. of bombs or rockets. Utilized across the front, Mosquito FBs became renowned for being able to carry out pinpoint attacks such as striking the Gestapo headquarters in downtown Copenhagen and breeching the wall of the Amiens prison to facilitate the escape of French resistance fighters.

In addition to its combat roles, Mosquitos were also used as high-speed transports. Remaining in service after the war, the Mosquito was used by the RAF in various roles until 1956. During its ten-year production run (1940-1950), 7,781 Mosquitos were built of which 6,710 were constructed during the war. While production was centered in Britain, additional parts and aircraft were built in Canada and Australia. The Mosquito's final combat missions were flown as part of the Israeli Air Force's operations during the 1956 Suez Crisis. The Mosquito was also operated by the United States (in small numbers) during World War II and by Sweden (1948-1953).


Please see my next post Ju88...


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Same thing with the RLM - they ordered a plane into production before it was properly tested, and Messerschmitt, expending a lot already and hard pressed, put it into production prematurely. Not really the fault of either the planes.


No one should ever blame the aircraft.


> So what can it do that existing 109 FRs could not do already (and cheaper)?


Get the job done. From the earliest days of the war to the end the RAF using PR SPits and Mosquitos had close to total freedom to to anywhere they liked over Europe and Germany. The Luftwaffe never had such freedom after early 1941. SOme missons got through of course but PR needs constant access to targets to see what has changed. 



> So what are you planning to do with a fighter aircraft that cannot engage fighters on equal terms and cannot carry bombs?


 It was the case it wouldn't have worked and got the reputation it deserved.


> But again you have wait for that variant until after the Me 410 is already available, in 1943.. does it sound feasible to replace the Me 410 with it then?


PR aircraft operational in 1942, Bombers operational in 1942, NF operational in 1942. Shouldn't the question be _why bother with the Me410 when the Moquito is already operational_ 


> The Me 410 could carry 2 x 1100 lb bombs internally, with much less speed loss plus it can actually defend itself in formation, and was heavily armored.
> AFAIK there were some modifications that enabled it to carry bombs under wings as well.


Fair point but if the bomber is going 400 mph carrying the bombs, why lug around the extra weight which will only let the fighters catch you up?


> Because..? Neither could hope to win a maneuvering fight, though both could shoot up the occasional - and unfortunate - se fighter that happened to pose before the cannno batteries.


True but the Mossie was I believe better at this than the Me410. I could be wrong but beleive that at least one Mosquito pilot became an ace on daylight missions


> It simply had not. It was as fast or perhaps faster at certain altitudes, but could not hope to get into firing position if they were aware of it.


They could and did. The advantage was with the SE of course but I wouldn't say they didn't have a hope. Off Norway there were a number of clashes between Se fighters and the Mosquito
.


> .. and test them for center of gravity, bomb release reliability, iron out the bugs, produce the planes, train the crews. All this resulting in very few bombs actually dropped by Mosquito bombers until 1943.


The Bugs were all sorted out and the main reason for the delay in production was the pririty given to the NF and PR aircraft


> So again what are your planning to do with the beautifully handling plane that cannot bomb and cannot really engage fighters yet on anywhere near equal terms? Send them oer France to mix it up with 109Fs? The RAF tested them and considered them more of a liability than an asset for escorting bombers.


I thought they did quite a lot of things with the Mosquito. It wasn't ideal as an escort certainly but it was sometimes used as an escort for other mosquitos.


> From the fact that they really could not, in 1941. Bombers were not ready, fighter could not, PRs obviously could not - yet. The whole point of this thread wheater its feasible or not to have the Mosquito replace equivalent German twins - which again, in 1941 were bugged, but at least could do that.


I don't think the German twins could. IN 1942 the Me210 was put into production and after 90 were built were taken back out of production because they were so bad. Bugged doesn't come close to describing the fiasco. Whatever the Mosquito could or couldn't do, it clearly did it a lot better than the Me210 that wasn't even being produced.

It worth saying that I like the me410. In the role of precision low altitude strikes I think it could have had a lot of success but it didn't really get the chance.


----------



## Readie (Jun 7, 2013)

Operational history Ju88...continuing my post...

Polish Campaign
Only 12 Ju 88s saw action in Poland. The unit Erprobungskommando 88 (Ekdo 88) was responsible for testing new bomber designs and their crews under hostile conditions. They selected 12 aircraft and their crews and attached them to 1./Kampfgeschwader 25.[23] As a result of its small operational numbers, the type made no impact.
Battle of Norway[edit]
The Luftwaffe committed II./Kampfgeschwader 30 to the campaign under X. Fliegerkorps for Operation Weserübung.[24] The unit was equipped with Ju 88s and engaged Allied shipping as its main target. On 9 April 1940, Ju 88s of KG 30 dive-bombed, in cooperation with high-level bombing Heinkel He 111s of KG 26, and helped damage the battleship HMS Rodney and sink the destroyer HMS Gurkha. However, the unit lost four Ju 88s in the action, the highest single loss of the aircraft in combat throughout the campaign.

Battle of France


Ju 88A, circa 1940
The Luftwaffe's order of battle for the French campaign reveals all but one of the Luftwaffe's Fliegerkorps (I. Fliegerkorps) contained Ju 88s in the combat role. The mixed bomber units, including the Ju 88, of Kampfgeschwader 51 (under the command of Luftflotte 3) helped claim between 233 and 248 Allied aircraft on the ground between 10–13 May 1940.[26] The Ju 88 was particularly effective at dive-bombing. Between 13–24 May, I. and II./KG 54 flew 174 attack against rail systems, paralysing French logistics and mobility.[27] On 17 June 1940, Junkers Ju 88s (mainly from Kampfgeschwader 30) destroyed a "10,000 tonne ship", the 16,243 grt ocean liner RMS Lancastria, off Saint-Nazaire, killing some 5,800 Allied personnel.[28] Some 133 Ju 88s were pressed into the Blitzkrieg, but very high combat losses and accidents forced a quick withdrawal from action to re-train crews to fly this very high-performance aircraft. Some crews were reported to be more scared of the Ju 88 than the enemy, and requested a transfer to an He 111 unit.[29] By this time, major performance deficiencies in the A-1 led to an all-out effort in a major design rework. The outcome was a longer, 20.08 m (65 ft 10 1⁄2 in) wingspan, from extended rounded wing tips that had already been standardised on the A-4 version, that was deemed needed for all A-1s; thus the A-5 was born. Surviving A-1s were modified as quickly as possible, with new wings to A-5 specifications.

Battle of Britain
By August 1940, A-1s and A-5s were reaching operational units, just as the battle was intensifying. The Battle of Britain proved very costly. Its faster speed did not prevent Ju 88 losses exceeding those of its Dornier Do 17 and Heinkel He 111 stablemates, despite being deployed in smaller numbers than either. Ju 88 losses over Britain in 1940 amounted to 313 machines between July–October 1940. One notable incident involved ground fighting between the crew of an A-1 and soldiers from the London Irish Rifles during the Battle of Graveney Marsh on 27 September 1940. It was the last action between British and foreign military forces on British mainland soil.[30] Do 17 and He 111 losses for the same period amounted to 132 and 252 machines destroyed respectively.[31][32] A series of field kits were made to make it less vulnerable, including the replacement of the rear machine gun by a twin-barreled machine gun, and additional cockpit armour.

It was during the closing days of the Battle of Britain that the flagship Ju 88 A-4 went into service. Although slower yet than the A-1, nearly all of the troubles of the A-1 were gone, and finally the Ju 88 matured into a superb warplane. The A-4 actually saw additional improvements including more powerful engines, but, unlike other aircraft in the Luftwaffe, did not see a model code change. The Ju 88 C-series also benefited from the A-4 changes, and when the Luftwaffe finally did decide on a new heavy fighter, the Ju 88C was a powerful, refined aircraft.
Eastern Front[edit]
By the summer of 1941 the Ju 88 was to prove a very capable and valuable asset to the Luftwaffe in the east. The Ju 88 units met with instant success, attacking enemy airfields and positions at low level and causing enormous losses for little damage in return. 3./Kampfgeschwader 3 attacked Pinsk airfield in the morning of the 22 June 1941. It caught, and claimed destroyed, 60 Soviet bombers on the ground. The 39 SBAP Regiment of the 10 Division SAD actually lost 43 Tupolev SBa and five Petlyakov Pe-2s. Ju 88s from Kampfgeschwader 51 destroyed over 100 aircraft after dispatching 80 Ju 88s to hit airfields. In general the Soviet aircraft were not dispersed and the Luftwaffe found them easy targets.[33] A report from the Soviet 23rd Tank Division of the 12th Armoured Corps described a low-level attack by Ju 88s on 22 June, resulting in the loss of 40 tanks. However, the Ju 88s were to suffer steady attritional losses. At 0415 on 22 June 1941, III./KG 51 attacked the airfield at Kurovitsa. Despite destroying 34 Polikarpov I-153s, the Ju 88s were intercepted by 66 ShAP I-153s. 


Ju 88A of LG 1 over the Eastern Front, 25 September 1941
Due to the lack of sufficient numbers of Ju 87 Stukas, the Ju 88 was employed in the direct ground support role. This resulted in severe losses from ground fire. Kampfgeschwader 1, Kampfgeschwader 76 and Kampfgeschwader 77 reported the loss of 18 Ju 88s over enemy territory on 23 June. KG 76 and KG 77 reported the loss of a further four Ju 88s, of which 12 were 100% destroyed.
The Ju 88s units helped virtually destroy Soviet airpower in the northern sector.
Again, the Ju 88 demonstrated its dive-bombing capability. Along with He 111s from KG 55, Ju 88s from KG 51 and 54 destroyed some 220 trucks and 40 tanks on 1 July, which helped repulse the Soviet South Western Front's offensive. The Ju 88s destroyed most rail links during interdiction missions in the area, allowing Panzergruppe 1 to maintain the pace of its advance.[39]
Ju 88 units operating over the Baltic states during the battle for Estonia inflicted severe losses on Soviet shipping, with the same dive-bombing tactics used over Norway, France and Britain. KGr 806 sank the Soviet destroyer Karl Marx on 8 August 1941 in Loksa Bay Tallinn.[40] On 28 August the Ju 88s had more success when KG 77 and KGr 806 sank the 2,026 grt steamer Vironia, the 2,317 grt Lucerne, the 1,423 grt Artis Kronvalds and the ice breaker Krisjanis Valdemars (2,250 grt). The rest of the Soviet "fleet", were forced to change course. This took them through a heavily mined area. As a result, 21 Soviet warships, including five destroyers, struck mines and sank. 

Finnish Air Force Junkers Ju 88 A-4. The FAF aircraft code for Ju 88 was JK
In April 1943, as Finland was fighting its Continuation War against the USSR, the Finnish Air Force bought 24 Ju 88s from Germany.[42] The aircraft were used to equip No. 44 Sqn which had previously operated Bristol Blenheims, but these were instead transferred to No. 42 Sqn. Due to the complexity of the Ju 88, most of 1943 was used for training the crews on the aircraft, and only a handful of bombing missions were undertaken. The most notable was a raid on the Lehto partisan village on 20 August 1943 (in which the whole squadron participated), and a raid on the Lavansaari air field (leaving seven Ju 88 damaged from forced landing in inclement weather).[43] In the summer of 1943, the Finns noted stress damage on the wings. This had occurred when the aircraft were used in dive bombing. Restrictions followed: the dive brakes were removed and it was only allowed to dive at a 45-degree angle (compared to 60-80 degrees previously). In this way, they tried to spare the aircraft from unnecessary wear.


One of the more remarkable missions was a bombing raid on 9 March 1944 against Soviet Long Range Aviation bases near Leningrad, when the Finnish aircraft, including Ju 88s, followed Soviet bombers returning from a night raid on Tallinn, catching the Soviets unprepared and destroying many Soviet bombers and their fuel reserves, and a raid against the Aerosan base at Petsnajoki on 22 March 1944.[43] The whole bomber regiment took part in the defence against the Soviets during the fourth strategic offensive. All aircraft flew several missions per day, day and night, when the weather permitted.[44]
No. 44 Sqn was subordinated Lentoryhmä Sarko during the Lapland War (now against Germany), and the Ju 88s were used both for reconnaissance and bombing. The targets were mostly vehicle columns. Reconnaissance flights were also made over northern Norway. The last war mission was flown on 4 April 1945.


Mossie or Ju88?
Equals in my humble opinion.
Cheers
John


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

Readie said:


> I believe the case for 'greatness' lies in operational achievement.


Probably, and the Mossie was surely great, but I thought, however, that the question originally was not: "how great the Mosquito was", but: _"If, in 1940, after the flight of the Mosquito prototype, the Germans had been offered the type would they have been wise to take it and abandon all the rest?"_


----------



## Readie (Jun 7, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> Probably, and the Mossie was surely great, but I thought, however, that the question originally was not: "how great the Mosquito was", but: _"If, in 1940, after the flight of the Mosquito prototype, the Germans had been offered the type would they have been wise to take it and abandon all the rest?"_



Please see my case for the Ju88.
Cheers
John


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

Readie said:


> Please see my case for the Ju88.


You are right, we posted the same minute.
However, given that the informations are very interesting, that's the benefit of the hindsight, while a decision in 1940 would requires a prevision about how much an aircraft will fit the future LW needs.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> This is a myth and has nothing to do with the reality. The Ta 154 had no structural problems, weather with the wood nor with the glue!
> Source:
> Focke-Wulf Nachtjäger Ta 154 "Moskito": Entwicklung, Produktion und Truppenerprobung: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann: Bücher



As I recall, the original Ta 154 design was structurally sound. However, the glue source was bombed out and the substitute glue was unsatisfactory causing structural failures.

As a material wood has important advantageous as well as shortcomings relative to metal. The damping nature of wood and greatly diminished sensitivity to stress raisers lessens wood’s tendency to fatigue relative to metal.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

Readie said:


> Please see my case for the Ju88.
> Cheers
> John



In 1940 they already had the Ju 88. It was capable of development and I already agreed with someone that aside from the hypothetical adoption of the Mosquito the Ju 88/188 was a route the Germans should have taken.

When Me 210 production was first halted (9th March 1942) the current run (240 aircraft) was allowed to continue as was development of the type. This was a bad mistake. It should have been ditched once and for all but once again the decision was not entirely practical or purely military. The decision was effectively reversed on 1st May. By September we had the new designation Me 410. Of course the new name solved everything! It's just a modified Me 210 with DB 603 engines.

The original question was hypothetical, there are any number of practical reasons why the Mosquito was not an option for the Luftwaffe. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the lack of Merlin engines, never mind supplies of Balsa!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2013)

Balljoint said:


> As a material wood has important advantageous as well as shortcomings relative to metal. The damping nature of wood and greatly diminished sensitivity to stress raisers lessens wood’s tendency to fatigue relative to metal.


It could also be harder to repair.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 7, 2013)

Finally something interesting in this thread. Could the Mossie have performed as well or better with DB engines?


----------



## DonL (Jun 7, 2013)

Why should the Mossie doesn't perform with DB engines, I can't see any technical problems other then redesign pins and connections.

A spitfire V tested with a DB 601E engine (from DB at Rechlin) was faster, especially at altitude, then with a Merlin 45. I have posted this report a while ago in this forum.



> As I recall, the original Ta 154 design was structurally sound. However, the glue source was bombed out and the substitute glue was unsatisfactory causing structural failures.



As I have written, Dietmar Herrmann provided primary sources from FW, that every glue issue was solved from FW and also all glitch problems with the wood.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> Dietmar Herrmann provided primary sources from FW, that every glue issue was solved from FW and also all glitch problems with the wood.


 So the problems were a fact, not a myth.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2013)

It was actually DB-605 that was installed in the captured Spit V?

The chart comparing the Merlin 20 series with DB-60x. The pink line is applicable to the Merlin XX and 21, take off rating. The red line is applicable to the 'flying' XX and 21, and also as take off power and 'flying' Mk. 22 and 23 (+14 lbs in low gear, +16 lbs in high gear). The years by the lines for the DB should be taken with the grain of salt, the 601E and 605A were not flying with these power levels until 1942 and some time 1943, respectably.


----------



## altsym (Jun 7, 2013)

The Spit was flown with the DB 601E. A DB 605A was installed, but never flown because of technical failures IIRC.


----------



## Readie (Jun 7, 2013)

stona said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the lack of Merlin engines...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve




Steve, Believe me I have been tempted !! 
Cheers
john


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2013)

altsym said:


> The Spit was flown with the DB 601E. A DB 605A was installed, but never flown because of technical failures IIRC.



Either my German is really rusty, or this Spitfire was flown with DB-605A:


----------



## DonL (Jun 7, 2013)

Sometimes I'm realy annoyed that todays engineers haven't developed something like a Holodeck from the spacecraft Voyager, so I could see how my beloved FW 187 would perform with Merlin or DB engines.

Then we would have much less argumentations or clashes, it would be realy nice.8)


----------



## redcoat (Jun 7, 2013)

In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

– Hermann Göring, 1943.


----------



## Readie (Jun 7, 2013)

DonL said:


> Sometimes I'm realy annoyed that todays engineers haven't developed something like a Holodeck from the spacecraft Voyager, so I could see how my beloved FW 187 would perform with Merlin or DB engines.
> 
> Then we would have much less argumentations or clashes, it would be realy nice.8)



Your FW's performance would be good with either a Merlin or DB engine Don. 
It would be splitting hairs to argue either way.
Cheers
John


----------



## altsym (Jun 7, 2013)

@ tomo pauk, thanks for the document. But I'll stick with it flew with a DB 601 the DB 605 was a technical failure.

@ redcoat, Hermann Göring didn't know his a$$hole from his elbow. 

@ DonL, no kidding lol.


----------



## DonL (Jun 7, 2013)

altsym said:


> @ tomo pauk, thanks for the document. But I'll stick with it flew with a DB 601 the DB 605 was a technical failure.
> 
> @ redcoat, Hermann Göring didn't know his a$$hole from his elbow.
> 
> *@ DonL, no kidding lol.*



Hey man, I would realy appreciate the possibility to relax after a hard day of work with Lara Croft or Gwyneth Paltrow and look how my history what if's would play, that would be realy amazing. 8)


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 7, 2013)

Some great photos pf Mosquito KA 114. The newly built (in New Zealand) Mossie, now at its new home in the US..
Many more (and a lot of other planes) at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Classic-Aircraft-Photography/265224834712?hc_location=stream












And a nice Spit one.


----------



## pattle (Jun 7, 2013)

The Cant 1007 was built of wood, and if the Italians were able to build a large three engine bomber from wood then the Germans surely could have managed to build something along the lines of a Mosquito.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 7, 2013)

A number of things have been said in this thread about what the Mossie could not do, despite the statements being demonstrably wide of the mark. 

I've mentioned this report before, have attached it below. (Sorry about the quality, that's how it came out of N.A.)

The other encounter worth noting is the closest thing I've come to a "Knights of the Air" 1 vs 1 encounter - Mossie and 190 met at low level on reciprocal headings over France, ended with the 190 and its unfortunate pilot in pieces on the ground after losing a turning battle against the Mossie.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> So what can it do that existing 109 FRs could not do already (and cheaper)?



Range, speed and equipment.

Range: Mosquito PR aircraft had much greater range than any Bf 109
Speed: Mosquito PR would be faster than the Bf 109E based reconnaissance aircraft. I would think so, anyway.
Equipment: More and better cameras can be carried.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> From the fact that they really could not, in 1941. Bombers were not ready, fighter could not, PRs obviously could not - yet. The whole point of this thread wheater its feasible or not to have the Mosquito replace equivalent German twins - which again, in 1941 were bugged, but at least could do that.



That is a function of priorities.

The RAF wanted PRs first, then long range fighters and night-fighters (F.II NF.II) before they wanted the bomber. There is no reason why the bomber version cold not have been the first to be developed, apart from Air Ministry priorities.

The RLM may have opted for the bomber version first up. But knowing teh RLM, they would have probably wanted the design modified with forward facing guns and remote controlled defensive barbettes like the Me 210.

FWIW, wiki says that the Me 210 didn't go to operational units until 1942. So how many bombs did they drop in 1941? Probably as many as the Mosquito did. In 1942? Probably less than the Mosquito did.


----------



## altsym (Jun 7, 2013)

Found this interesting bit of information for victories over the Moskito.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 7, 2013)

> In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."
> 
> – Hermann Göring, 1943.



And here's what he thought his epitaph should have read; "He would have lived longer but for the Me 210"

I think the issue was a matter of timing; as unlikely as it was, if the Germans had the Mosquito from late 1940, I think they would have gladly put it into production, all things considered. The Bf 110 would have been the likely airframe for replacement by the Mosquito (or _Moskito_), rather than the Ju 88, but of course some roles would have merged between both types. The Germans didn't miss a trick and were likely to have rewarded the designer with a production contract based on its performance alone, although you can guarantee that changes in priorities and meddling from the RLM might have meant that its career might not have been as stellar as it was in reality. With the issues surrounding the development of the Me 210, if something came along that proved more straight forward in development that offered better performance, it's likely that it would have been put out of its misery sooner.

Test pilot Fritz Wendel had this to say about the 210; ""The Me 210 was the greatest miss-construction beside the He 177", and "Even the totally new designed Me 410 could not fulfill all of our expectations."

I agree, Wuzak, the issue that held up Mosquito development to begin with was perception of the concept by the Air Staff. Even before the prototype had flown, the RAF insisted on changes to the aircraft's armament or lack thereof and requested that a production contract would only be issued if it was fitted with a rearward facing gun turret. GdeH argued the loss of performance and he was allowed to produce the unarmed variant as a concept aircraft alongside the turret armed prototype. Freeman's intervention saw that the turret armed Mosquito was not built. This cautious approach still remained even after the prototype had flown, despite its excellent performance and it took some convincing the Air Staff of the feasibility of a high speed unarmed bomber, or a "Speed Bomber", as Ludlow-Hewitt put it.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 8, 2013)

altsym said:


> Found this interesting bit of information for victories over the Moskito.


 
Thanks for posting that - is it from a book, or something on the web? The list has to be taken with a very large chunk of salt indeed - pretty much all of those Welter night claims are (see above), there's stuff in there that was not credited by the LW authorities, etc etc.

Will have a trawl through it though, see if there's anything new.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 8, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> In fact the first 210A-0 was in operational trial with Erprobungsgruppe 210 in 1940



Total nonsense - the only aircraft type flown operationally by this unit in 1940 was the Bf 110. The 210 V-9 which was a test prototype for the forthcoming production models did not fly until 19 December 1940 - when tested against a 110E-1 the 110 was found to have far superior flight characteristics.








Tante Ju said:


> probably before the Mosquito prototype was even flown (Nov 1940). The pre-production of Me 210 was in series production of 94 five months after (in April 1941) and two months before the first series of Mosquitos were even order by the British Air Ministry. It was bugged plane, sure, but it was there.



More than "bugged" it was positively dangerous to fly and could not be used on operations until its major, deadly problems could be designed out of it:








Tante Ju said:


> The first fighter Mossie could no more than about 360 mph, which was good, but not outstanding, merely a couple of miles faster than ME 110 or 210.



In fact the Mosquito II was capable of 378 mph - the only factor that reduced its speed was the useless RDM2 "Special Night" finish applied to early Mk IIs which cut speed by between 15-26 mph. Otherwise as a nightfighter, which was its role, it was far faster than the 110 and 210 because it was not lumbered with the huge drag producing aerial arrays required by Lichtenstein radr equipment.



Tante Ju said:


> There were no bomber Mosquitoes in service until the end of 1941. In fact, the bomber prototype did not flew until September 1941, after it was decided to build a whole _TEN _of them in the first series. They did not flew a single operational mission until mid - 1942. Checking the details I have found that Bomber Commands Mosquitoes dropped _ZERO _tons of bombs in 1941. They received a _SINGLE _Mosquito first, W4064 in November 1941, but spent the next six monts "working up" what were essentially custom build pre-production planes and probably issued very, very slowly to operational units. They did not fly operational missions until May 1942, and they dropped something like 250 tons of bombs in the whole year, which was again marginal impact at best.



The first truly worthwhile operational 210s, with heavily modified structures, did not even reach an operational unit until August 1942, after which its impact was very small - no bombs dropped over Britain, no effect on the air campaign in Tunisia.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 8, 2013)

Eric Brown on the Me 410:


----------



## altsym (Jun 8, 2013)

@ mhuxt; Book, just can't remember which one. In regards to Kurt Welter, only three of the Mosquito kills coincide with RAF records. Then again, I havn't seen the complete record of _damaged_ or _missing_ Mosquitos during the time period of Welter's claims.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 8, 2013)

altsym said:


> @ mhuxt; Book, just can't remember which one. In regards to Kurt Welter, only three of the Mosquito kills coincide with RAF records. Then again, I havn't seen the complete record of _damaged_ or _missing_ Mosquitos during the time period of Welter's claims.


 
Thanks for that. I know there were a couple of Mossies which came home with damage from Berlin, I believe one of them was a Mossie night fighter which was hit in the nacelles. That type of thing is where the Nachtjagd War Diaries books will be useful.

Have been through the first scan - Green = there's a match, red = no match (in some cases I know which Mossie or other aircraft was involved), brown = my db has a LW kill which the scan doesn't list, yellow = maybe, insufficient info to tell for certain.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 8, 2013)

Take one 2 foot by 1 foot sheet of 3/8" marine plywood Lloyds of London BS 1088 grade and place it on 2 bricks at the short edges. Take one sheet of 2 foot by 1 foot Duralium of the *exact same weight* as the plywood and place it on 2 bricks at the short edges. Actually the Duralium was very slightly slighter but was all we could find.

Then take it in turn to stand on the two sheets. Oops whats happened to the Duralium oh no its not very well. The plywood well if your a big fat chunk like me there is some creaking and possibly a crack or two in the bottom lamination but its still in flyable (well floatable) condition.

Test 2 stamp on the Duralium to roughly flatten it out and prop it up against a wall, do the same with the plywood. Take one old but still in beautiful condition BSA Martini single shot .22 rifle firing Pivovar .22 LR and from 25 yards shoot the Duralium and then reload and shoot the Ply then reload and shoot the ply because you just missed 

The Duralium has a neat hole in it with some bulging at the rear. The Ply has a ragged hole in the front and a bulge at the rear with 2 laminates splintered but the .22 round has not penetrated all the way through.

Of course this test means nothing absolutely nothing and was utterly unscientific but it shows plywood despite what some people say is not weak. It did however prove that shooting things is fun


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 8, 2013)

Brilliant fastmongral, in the true spirit of the Mythbusters


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 8, 2013)

Thanks OldSkeptic, unfortunately that was all done in the pre digital camera and mobile phone era or I would have some pictures to show the results. Later on that same day we proved that 3 idiots drinking beer can make a ricochet go through a car windscreen with the same .22 rifle. Very funny till you sober up the next day and realise you have to get the windscreen repair fella out.

Still got the rifle though it is no longer used as it needed some gunsmithing doing on the Martini block and as its around a 100 years old I decided it was best to deactivate and hang on the wall.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 8, 2013)

And from this wonderful experiment we can conclude that the Mosquito was totally immune from attacks by .22 Martini rifles ... bet the same can't be said for a Me-210 or 410.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 8, 2013)

The 410 would have exploded in a giant Hollywood style ball of flame if hit by .22 everyone knows that. The Mossie on the other hand could be hit by a V2 rocket and it wouldnt even spill the pilots tea.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 8, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> The 410 would have exploded in a giant Hollywood style ball of flame if hit by .22 everyone knows that. The Mossie on the other hand could be hit by a V2 rocket and it wouldnt even spill the pilots tea.



 Only if it managed to catch him though ... might just if he was only on one engine


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 8, 2013)

Some more lovely shots of KA 114. Do you know the wings and fuselage were built by a New Zealander farmer as a hobby.

Have a look at his portfolio at http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151123003449713.447150.265224834712&type=3


----------



## Aozora (Jun 8, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Some more lovely shots of KA 114. Do you know the wings and fuselage were built by a New Zealander farmer as a hobby.
> 
> Have a look at his portfolio at
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXdgaGpCJMs_


----------



## Ascent (Jun 8, 2013)

It's been briefly mentioned but what kind of performance penalty would you expect in a Mossie fitted with a German NF radar set with all those aerials hanging off the front?


----------



## Milosh (Jun 8, 2013)

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/dh/_DH98 prodn list.txt

Mosquito production list with fate.

the first few Mosquitoes from the list:
Serial	Mk	Units	Fate	
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
W4050	P	AAEE/Mkrs/R-R	SOC 18.3.44 Mosquito Museum London
W4051	PRI	AAEE/PRU/1PRU/521/540/8OTU	SOC 22.6.45
W4052	NFII	Mkrs/AAEE/FIU/Mkrs	SOC 26.11.46
W4053	TIII	Mkrs/16OTU	Engine caught fire on approach Barford St John 1.7.45
W4054	PRI	Mkrs/AAEE/1PRU/540	Missing from PR mission to Trondheim 28.3.43
W4055	PRI	1PRU	Missing from PR mission to Trondheim 4.12.41
W4056	PRI	1PRU	Missing from PR mission to Trondheim 2.4.42


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 8, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> The Mossie on the other hand could be hit by a V2 rocket and it wouldnt even spill the pilots tea.


 
From the believe it or not file:

"Two aircraft went to Hundson to carry out an Intruder to N.E. Germany. (Pilot – W.O. Wieczorek N.Rad. W.O. Ostrowski, H). in the first aircraft were airborne from Hundson at 20.00 hrs but after 6 minutes the aircraft was hit while climbing through clod at 3.000 feet by a flying missile believed to be part of an A4 (ed. = V2) rocket. This missile carried away the upper third of the fin and rudder and the pitot head, also making a large hole in the port side of the fuselage near the tail. The pilot succeeded in flying the aircraft back to Hundson but the war-head of the rocket had in the meantime already fallen on the airfield rendering the lighting u/s. Inspite of this added setback the pilot made a successful landing. The second aircraft, which had been waiting to take off, was unable to do so owing to failure of lighting and overheated on the end of the runway. Consequently neither aircraft managed to carry out the intended operation. (Polish Air Force Operations Record Books 1940-1947 » 1944-12 - No. 307 Squadron - F540)"


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 8, 2013)

pattle said:


> The Cant 1007 was built of wood, and if the Italians were able to build a large three engine bomber from wood then the Germans surely could have managed to build something along the lines of a Mosquito.


Certainly they could if they wanted to but, just as obviously, in 1939-40, they were not interested in wooden construction. On the other hand, even the Italians were not in the same years. The Cant Z.1007 was built by the Cantieri Riuniti as an independent project outside of ministerial competitions, had flown in 1937, and imposed itself on the basis of its performances alone. But, for his designed successor, the Cant Z.1018, whose wooden prototype flew at the end of 1939, the Regia Aeronautica requested the metal construction for the production series.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 8, 2013)

Compared second scan to my db.

As suspected, as one gets later in the war and a certain pilot and unit appear more often, so the number of red lines increases.







I'm done for the day, my eyes are shot. I imagine the third scan will be mostly red lines.

Final note: There's some brown lines on there, between one date and another. Signifies a LW victory over a Mossie not noted on that list - mostly versus strike fighters over Norway, the occasional return fire from a bomber.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 8, 2013)

The Germans saw biggest threat in the daylight bombing by the US heavy bombers and therefore made great efforts to get a successful bomber killer instead of a Mosquito hunter. The damage made by the Mosquito was small compared to that was done by the heavy 4-engined bombers. Of course this fast and hard to catch plane scratched the Ego of the Luftwaffe leaders and especially Goering. There was no Mosquito panic in general but of course the night fighter crews feared this plane a lot because many were shot down during landing.
Cimmex


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 8, 2013)

What to say - another thread that that 'escaped' from petty arguing into posting the data and analysis. Great stuff, many thanks.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 8, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Take one 2 foot by 1 foot sheet of 3/8" marine plywood Lloyds of London
> ...
> the .22 round has not penetrated all the way through.


http://www.doghematerassi.it/shop/images/cat/rete_a_doghe_singola_acciaio_metallo_ferro_at_large.jpg
Many years ago, when plywood slats bed like this were still a novelty, my father (about 90kg), to demonstrate to dubious customers that it would stand their weight, often walked on the slats. But this is multiple layers bheech plywood. The birch-plywood / balsa / birch-plywood structure of the Mosquito, would not surprise me if it could be passed through by a nail pushed with the thumb (not surprisingly, to reinforce the joints, were used screws, not nails, to distribute the stress throughout the entire thickness of the sandwich, rather than only on the outer skin) its strength was given by the fact that the fuselage behaved like a monolithic structure, not by the impenetrability of the single square inch of plywood.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 8, 2013)

Didnt realise the shell was so thin.

From wiki "_The shell halves were made of sheets of Ecuadorean balsawood sandwiched between sheets of Canadian birch, but in areas needing extra strength— such as along cut-outs— stronger woods replaced the balsa filler; the overall thickness of the birch and balsa sandwich skin was only 7/16 in (11.11 mm). This sandwich skin was so stiff that no internal reinforcement was necessary from the wing's rear spar to the tail bearing bulkhead_

I have tapped on the fuselage of a Mossie fuselage that used to be kept outdoors at a museum inside Fort Perchrock in New Brighton near Liverpool. It made a hollow thunk noise much like the noise you get when you tap the middle of a double glazing unit.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 8, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> The birch-plywood / balsa / birch-plywood structure of the Mosquito, would not surprise me if it could be passed through by a nail pushed with the thumb (not surprisingly, to reinforce the joints, were used screws, not nails, to distribute the stress throughout the entire thickness of the sandwich, rather than only on the outer skin) its strength was given by the fact that the fuselage behaved like a monolithic structure, not by the impenetrability of the single square inch of plywood.



Surely if the shell was so soft as to allow a nail to be pushed through with a thumb it would be so soft the fuselage would end up full of dents where it was handled. After all I couldnt even push a nail through a 6mm Gyproc board with my thumb and that stuff dents if you look at it sideways.

This great youtube video doesnt show the fame workers being particulary gentle with it.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7cVvYdLeek_


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2013)

There are a _lot_ of different kinds of strength. Take an ordinary sheet of typing/copy paper.

Grab it at each end and try to pull it apart in a straight line, that is Tensile strength. there are several types of or conditions of Tensile strength. 

hold it horizontal between one set of fingers and watch it bend, that is bending strength. 

Now tear or cut it with scissors, that is shear strength. 

Now make a series of accordion folds _or_ roll it in a tube and place it on end, folds or tube opening perpendicular to to a table top and balance a book on it, that is compression strength ( don't over do the book, large dictionaries and the like 

Now how strong is paper? 

And don't get it wet while doing these tests. 

Aircraft need strength in lot of different directions at the same time, they need _enough_ strength at the _least_ weight. Some of it they get from the material and some from the shape of the material. Go back to our piece of paper and hold at both ends with thumbs under and four fingers over and then curve the paper. You can increase or decrease the curve very easily but trying to bend the paper at 90 degrees to the curve just got a bit tougher (it is just paper) because you are now trying, at the same time, to compress part of the paper (the upper part of the curve ) and pull apart the paper ( the bottom part of the curve). 

Wood _can_ provide a lot of strength for weight but at some point it hits it's limit. Just like there is a limit to how long you can make a wooden ship there are limits as to how big ( or how big and fast, aerodynamic loads go up with the square of the speed) you can make a wooden airplane. 
Other materials have lower limits. Trying to make a hang glider or ultra light aircraft structure out of steel isn't going to work very well. By the time the parts have enough strength to support themselves ( or take any abuse) the structure has become too heavy. 

Glued wood gets hard to figure out (pun partially intended). Does the glue just hold the wood together or is the wood a substrate for the glue? Acting something like the glass matting in fiberglass? OF course at that point quick and easy fixes in the field by a carpenter are pretty much out of the question. Some 'wooden' aircraft structures or parts needed several hours under pressure in an autoclave (large oven operating at higher than normal atmospheric pressure) in order to cure (set up) properly. An item not easily found at forward air fields. 

I figure the engineers who actually designed, built the airplanes knew an awful lot more than I ever will about the materials and processes they were using.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 8, 2013)

cimmex said:


> The Germans saw biggest threat in the daylight bombing by the US heavy bombers and therefore made great efforts to get a successful bomber killer instead of a Mosquito hunter. The damage made by the Mosquito was small compared to that was done by the heavy 4-engined bombers. Of course this fast and hard to catch plane scratched the Ego of the Luftwaffe leaders and especially Goering. There was no Mosquito panic in general but of course the night fighter crews feared this plane a lot because many were shot down during landing.
> Cimmex


 
Mosquito raids themselves might have been "small beer" compared with the strategic bombers, but you are overlooking aspects of Mosquito operations such as precision marking, using OBOE and H2S, which led to heavy damage by strategic bomber forces, precision raids which destroyed small but important targets, nuisance raids in which Mosquitoes were able to drop 4,000 pounders on Berlin, return to Britain to pick up a new crew and bomb then return to Germany in one night, and the fact that many nightfighters found themselves under attack while trying to penetrate a bomber screen - Mosquitos weren't just a threat when the fighters were landing. Compare this with the performance of Luftwaffe bombers during the Baedecker raids, where many were shot down by Mosquitos, for very little effect and part of the source of Goering's irritation becomes clear


----------



## Juha (Jun 8, 2013)

cimmex said:


> The Germans saw biggest threat in the daylight bombing by the US heavy bombers and therefore made great efforts to get a successful bomber killer instead of a Mosquito hunter. The damage made by the Mosquito was small compared to that was done by the heavy 4-engined bombers. Of course this fast and hard to catch plane scratched the Ego of the Luftwaffe leaders and especially Goering. There was no Mosquito panic in general but of course the night fighter crews feared this plane a lot because many were shot down during landing.
> Cimmex



One important element in Mossie raids were the diversion raids, which hampered, sometimes critically LW efforts against the BC Main Force attacks, e.g. during the Peenemünde raid. After Mossies began to drop 4000lb cookies, it became very difficult to immediately distinguish a diversion from a main attack.

Juha


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 8, 2013)

As others have noted, the Mosquitos were something of a "force multiplier", especially in terms of their Oboe marking efforts, and helped the main force not only by attacking night fighters but also by "spoofing" them away from the bomber stream. 

Harris himself told dH in early '43 he thought the Mossies were invaluable as markers - no doubt he felt the line to the defeat of Germany was shorter and straighter from target indicators burning inside the Krupp works than from 500 lbers bursting in the Paderborn marshalling yards.

As for the Germans simply not being interested in the Mosquito, the creation of two units specifically to combat them suggests otherwise.


----------



## Juha (Jun 8, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> A number of things have been said in this thread about what the Mossie could not do, despite the statements being demonstrably wide of the mark.
> 
> I've mentioned this report before, have attached it below. (Sorry about the quality, that's how it came out of N.A.)
> 
> The other encounter worth noting is the closest thing I've come to a "Knights of the Air" 1 vs 1 encounter - Mossie and 190 met at low level on reciprocal headings over France, ended with the 190 and its unfortunate pilot in pieces on the ground after losing a turning battle against the Mossie.



Thanks for that!

The most recent Mossie fighter kill I have come across was the following: 16.12.43 FW 190A-2 5495 12./J.G.5 Uffz. Willi Sürth Killed W of Gossen a/f shot down by Mosquito VI HP862/O from No. 333 Sq. B-Flight. Pilot: P/O Andreas H. Wyller, navigator kvm. Baard K. Benjaminsen.
And there of course the Biscaya actions against the Ju 88 fighters from V/KG 40 / ZG 1.

Juha


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 8, 2013)

Heya,

Yes, there's that one too. I don't have the full combat report for this one, but the brief summary in the squadron ORB read: "Time 09:43. In position 6252N 0638E saw two Fw 190s on a course of 260', which turned away. O/333 followed nearest and shot it down. Pieces flew off E/A and it spiralled down into the sea."

I've also had a look at the third scan of claims for Mossies shot down. Again, take this with a large grain of salt. The lack of consistent and full info from the German side make it very difficult to make a judgement in many cases, especially when there are multiple NJG 11 pilots claiming Mossies on an evening when only one was lost. Black lines are generally where a Mossie came down hundreds of miles from Berlin, after having been there. Brown lines are generally claims against strike fighters near Norway. 

I'm taking Roekker's kill on faith, I believe the Nachtjagd War Diaries says this was a 613 Sqn aircraft, but I don't have the book. The second edition should clear up much of the late war / jet stuff. Glogner's first claim was actually RTB, can't find any info to support the second one.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> There are a _lot_ of different kinds of strength. Take an ordinary sheet of typing/copy paper.
> 
> Grab it at each end and try to pull it apart in a straight line, that is Tensile strength. there are several types of or conditions of Tensile strength.
> 
> ...



If you take your piece of paper and try to pull the ends apart, that is a tension. As you have noted a sheet of paper is strong in that direction.

If you take your piece of paper and try to push the ends together, that is compression. But the sheet of paper doesn't hold its shape under this loading. It fails under buckling.

As you noted, it is easier to bend the page in one direction than the other. That is because of the bending stiffness of the paper's section - it is very low in one direction and (relatively) high in another.

However, in bending the paper in the plane of the paper it still fails. The paper buckles there too.

So, this is the same problem as for the plywood skinning of the Mosquito. It is strong in tension, but because it is thin it is prone to buckling when under bending or compression. That is where the balsa comes in. It stabilises the sheets of plywood and stops buckling. The glue and screws ensure that the skin stays connected to the balsa and prevents localised buckling.

The formers are there, obviously, to keep the shape of the skin, but they also add some to the stiffness.

The role of the balsa could be performed by any wood. But the reason balsa was chosen is its low density, and thus light weight.

The skin of the Mosquito takes almost all the loads.

Similarly in metal skinned aircraft, the skin takes most of the loads. The skin requires stiffening ribs to prevent it from buckling too. To make the skin thick enough to resist buckling would make it extremely heavy.


----------



## altsym (Jun 8, 2013)

For wood that's pretty good.. I'm surprised that 737's 747's A-320's, C-130's, F-18's/22's/35's, Cessna's, aren't all made from wood. What are ultralights made from again  

I don't know how true this is, but somebody told me once the Moskito was easier, faster to build from wood VS metal. Again, I don't know how true that statement is. The British had unique ways of doing things.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2013)

altsym said:


> For wood that's pretty good.. I'm surprised that 737's 747's A-320's, C-130's, F-18's/22's/35's, Cessna's, aren't all made from wood. What are ultralights made from again
> 
> I don't know how true this is, but somebody told me once the Moskito was easier, faster to build from wood VS metal. Again, I don't know how true that statement is. The British had unique ways of doing things.


Wood is difficult to repair and maintain in the field as larger repairs have to be done under controlled environments. 

I don't believe one could make an accurate comparison for construction time when comparing the Mossie to a metal aircraft - in the end, metal planes were the way to go as advances were made in aviation. Although some homebuilders still make wood airplanes, in the end metal airplanes were the way to go in the post war years - until composites came along.

Almost 35 years in aircraft maintenance, IMO flat out, wood sucks!


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2013)

Mosquito repairs didn't seem to need "controlled environments". 

W4050 was damaged during testing, with a hole in the port fuselage. It was repaired with a patch. In the field.

Replacing parts of damaged wings involved sawing off the damaged section and butt-joining a new section of wing.

The Mosquito's construction wasn't a simple wood structure. It was a _composite_ wood structure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Mosquito repairs didn't seem to need "controlled environments"..


Err, try doing a scarf patch in blowing wind with dust and debris all over the place. Can you apply glues in sub-zero temps? No.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 8, 2013)

> The birch-plywood / balsa / birch-plywood structure of the Mosquito, would not surprise me if it could be passed through by a nail pushed with the thumb



Well, I've spent a bit of time around Mosquitoes, static and flying and I can vouch for the fact that the skin was/is not that soft. Refer to my earlier post; a picture of a section of Mosquito fuselage. 






I also would say that the Mosquito had a near true _monococque_ structure (French for single shell) and required less in the way of internal stiffening than the average ali airframe. This is because of its inherent strength as a unit. As for the merits and disadvantages of wood as a structure, yep, metal was the way to go and as far as the Mosquito was concerned it wasn't designed to be any advance over metal structure, but an aside in case of shortages of the supply of aluminium in Britain. De Havilland made it work, but not in competition with metal, but to suppliment it. The Mosquito proved that with careful engineering the use of a predominantly wooden structure could survive successfully in a world of all metal structures.

Those beautiful images were taken by a local lad named Gavin Conroy, he's a bit of a whizz with a camera. I was at the airshow ehere the Mosquito made its public debut and have posted pictures on this site somewhere; very exciting. I can't wait to see others' pics of it once it makes its flying debut in the States.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 8, 2013)

Just as an aside to my post; the Mosquito was unique in WW2, in a large part because of its wooden structure; the press coined the term 'Wooden Wonder' for good reason, (well, it was better than 'Spruce Goose'!) the aircraft was truly remarkable as a piece of engineering and also because of its impressive performance and subsequent operational history. This is not to diminish the other brilliant aircraft of WW2, such as the Fw 190, Spitty, P-51 etc, but to emphasise why the Mosquito is so highly regarded; in concept and reality it had no equivalent elsewhere and its wooden structure was a large part of why.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Flyboy is right about longevity. It takes a lot longer for aluminium to corrode than for wood to rot/go bad. 

Aluminium usually corrodes from the outside in so if you can get a good visual on the parts (all sides or close to it) you have a good (not perfect) answer. Wood can start to rot at the surface or on the inside. The inside rot being really treacherous. 

How impregnating the wood with various phenol-formaldehyde or phenol-vinyl resins in autoclaves affects the way rot sets in I have no idea. The people promoting the processes claimed it made the wood rot proof and immune to various common chemicals. They said that about fiberglass too. Fiberglass will decay, it just takes a really long time. 

The US banned wood spar wings for commercial ( passengers for hire) aircraft back in the 30s. 

Wood can be used very well for smaller aircraft from a strength point of view. EVERYTHING in aircraft is weight related. What gives the best performance for It's weight. A number of aircraft have used steel spars. Steel is much heavier than aluminium. BUT if the loads you expect to have to deal with are large enough, and since steel IS stronger than aluminium ( in general, there are a lot of alloys of both) a steel part MAY provide more strength than an EQUIVALENT WEIGHT aluminium part. Same for wood depending on the loads involved, the size of the parts, and the type of wood. 

I would note that the Pitts Specials used wood spars for quite some time if they are still not using using wood spars. 

For a brief chart on the later see: Balsa Weight for Various Densities - RF Cafe

While Balsa is very strong for it's weight if the loads get too big you need way too much Balsa. As in you simply can't fit enough balsa inside the desired wing shape. 
Also please note that while Oak makes nice furniture and even boat/ships it is a lousy wood to make airplanes out of. 
Also please note that aircraft wood has to be straight grained and knot free. Which sometimes rules out some types of wood, you can't get _enough_ big, long pieces that are knot free and straight grained to make aircraft out of on a production basis. And even for a one-off the cost of such wood becomes astronomical.

Wood has limitations and the limitations get bigger the bigger the airplane becomes. But I believe that only aeronautical structural engineers who are familiar with wood ( in it's various forms/glues/resins) could really tell us if the Mosquito had exceeded the size/stress regime where wood was inferior to metal. From an empirical stand point it doesn't seem so but perhaps it was 50-200lbs over weight compared to metal, or more. 
The trouble is few of the wooden planes of WW II used the same methods of construction as each other (Ta 154 didn't use Balsa) so even trying to compare other wooden aircraft is difficult. 

The Japanese tried to make both wooden and steel Ki 84s but since few details seem to be around (aside from the wood one gaining 600lbs weight) we are still lost. Western books not giving much in the way of details for the Wood Ki 84 in the way of types of wood, thicknesses, type/s of glue or any special treatment of the wood ( resin coated or impregnated), etc.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 8, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Flyboy is right about longevity. It takes a lot longer for aluminium to corrode than for wood to rot/go bad.



Do you think that WW2 aircraft were designed for longevity? I wouldn't have thought so.

Corrosion isn't the only factor - there is also fatigue.




Shortround6 said:


> A number of aircraft have used steel spars. Steel is much heavier than aluminium. BUT if the loads you expect to have to deal with are large enough, and since steel IS stronger than aluminium ( in general, there are a lot of alloys of both) a steel part MAY provide more strength than an EQUIVALENT WEIGHT aluminium part. Same for wood depending on the loads involved, the size of the parts, and the type of wood.



Depending on grades, steel and aluminium hav much the same tensile strength to weight ratio. That means that for pure tensile loading steel and aluminium members that take a certain load will weight the same. But the aluminium section will be bigger than the steel one.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 8, 2013)

> Wood has limitations and the limitations get bigger the bigger the airplane becomes. But I believe that only aeronautical structural engineers who are familiar with wood ( in it's various forms/glues/resins) could really tell us if the Mosquito had exceeded the size/stress regime where wood was inferior to metal. From an empirical stand point it doesn't seem so but perhaps it was 50-200lbs over weight compared to metal, or more.



Which is more evidence, if it is needed that de Havilland really got their sums right with the Mosquito. I've never worked on wooden structures, being of the tin bashing generation (although I don't do much of that these days), but I used to work with plane wrights, guys who used to work on Avro Ansons and de Havilland Vampires post war, both of which had wooden structurual elements. These guys were pretty clever and I was surprised to learn that wooden strutures was still being taught and applied in the RAF for some time post war. The Anson was around until 1968 (I think) as a transport.


----------



## altsym (Jun 9, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Do you think that WW2 aircraft were designed for longevity? I wouldn't have thought so.


For example in Germany something as simple as paint, RLM lacquers that reached basic approval stage were then tested for tensile strength and fade qualities after 6 month exposure to weather and sunlight, and had to meet a minimum requirement of 2 year life span in open air conditions or 1500 flying hours. *5 years* being set as realistic maximum. Paint care products were used, and a single application had to last for 100 takeoffs or 2 months of bad weather operations. The end results was a very high quality finish. The rest of the aircraft had to meet greater standards. So yes, in this case, longevity is the case. Whether it lived long enough though....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Do you think that WW2 aircraft were designed for longevity? I wouldn't have thought so.


I once read somewhere that statistically a WW2 combat aircraft airframe had a life expectancy of something like 250 hours. With that said there was an element of longevity especially when considering operating environments. When the Mossie was on the drawing board, I bet there was little consideration given to operating environments and field maintenance in climates different from Europe. Factor this in with some other negative factors concerning wood construction and that's why wood construction in combat aircraft quickly faded after WW2.


wuzak said:


> Corrosion isn't the only factor - there is also fatigue.


Unless the airframe is really getting abused or there was a design flaw, you're not going to have fatigue as a major factor in aircraft with under 500 hours.



nuuumannn said:


> . De Havilland made it work, but *not in competition with metal, but to suppliment it.* The Mosquito proved that with careful engineering the use of a predominantly wooden structure could survive successfully in a world of all metal structures.



Sums it up right there!!!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 9, 2013)

We should possibly stop calling the Mossie a wooden plane and start calling it a composite plane.

A list of ingredients

Hard woods, Balsa and Mahogany
Soft woods, Spruce, Fir
Glues, originally Cascemite resin made of Casine which is extracted from milk, later Urea Formaldehyde resin. Plus whatever was used to glue the Plywood laminates.
Sheathing, Egyptian Cotton and dope made from Nitro cellulose or acetate not sure what the RAF used possibly both.
Metals, Brass, Phosphour Bronze, Aluminium, Steel.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 9, 2013)

Also for other wooden aircrafts of the time were used different types of plywood, wood, nails, screws, glues, and fabric coverings. The Encyclopedia Britannica define plywood itself as composite wood. The definition "wooden aircraft" is convenient, since it tells what's the basic material of the composite.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 9, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wood is difficult to repair and maintain in the field as larger repairs have to be done under controlled environments.
> 
> I don't believe one could make an accurate comparison for construction time when comparing the Mossie to a metal aircraft - in the end, metal planes were the way to go as advances were made in aviation. Although some homebuilders still make wood airplanes, in the end metal airplanes were the way to go in the post war years - until composites came along.
> 
> Almost 35 years in aircraft maintenance, IMO flat out, wood sucks!



Does any of this actually _matter_? - fact is that the Mosquito was highly successful and thousands were operated successfully by air forces that were far more familiar with all metal structures, often in highly adverse conditions; that should say something about the design qualities of the Mosquito and the qualities of those who had to service and maintain the aircraft in the field 70 odd years ago.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 9, 2013)

Nice work on the list Mark! Thanks also for posting the 333 Squadron Combat Report.



Juha said:


> The most recent Mossie fighter kill I have come across was the following: 16.12.43 FW 190A-2 5495 12./J.G.5 Uffz. Willi Sürth Killed W of Gossen a/f shot down by Mosquito VI HP862/O from No. 333 Sq. B-Flight. Pilot: P/O Andreas H. Wyller, navigator kvm. Baard K. Benjaminsen.
> And there of course the Biscaya actions against the Ju 88 fighters from V/KG 40 / ZG 1.
> 
> Juha



Fwiw here's a couple of Mossie kills of Fw 190s that I've come across in my research recently:

W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 23/24th August, 1943
W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 8/9th September, 1943
F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 2nd/3rd January, 1944 
F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 22/23rd March, 1944 (I've posted this one here before.)
S/L C. A. Cooke, D.F.C., 151 Squadron, 6th May, 1944 
Lt. A. A. Harrington USAAF, 410 Squadron, 29th October, 1944


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Does any of this actually _matter_? - fact is that the Mosquito was highly successful and thousands were operated successfully by air forces that were far more familiar with all metal structures, often in highly adverse conditions; that should say something about the design qualities of the Mosquito and the qualities of those who had to service and maintain the aircraft in the field 70 odd years ago.


No it doesn't matter if you want to talk about it's operational history - the Mosquito was one of the best combat aircraft built during WW2 - the point here is it was made from materials that presented other maintenance and operational challenges that metal aircraft didn't have to deal with and that's why there was never another combat aircraft like the Mosquito built in the post war years. The Mosquito offered a solution to a requirement despite having some limitation.

BTW, I'm probably one of the few if not the only maintainer on this forum who has worked with both wood and metal, so I think I know a little something about this if that matters to you or not...



fastmongrel said:


> We should possibly stop calling the Mossie a wooden plane and start calling it a composite plane.
> 
> A list of ingredients
> 
> ...



The basic structure still had a majority of "wood." In the composite world today the rule of thumb is when there is 30% or more of another material (fiberglass/ Kevlar or fiberglass/ graphite for example) The glues and resins are normally not considered.


----------



## altsym (Jun 9, 2013)

IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 9, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No it doesn't matter if you want to talk about it's operational history - the Mosquito was one of the best combat aircraft built during WW2 - the point here is it was made from materials that presented other maintenance and operational challenges that metal aircraft didn't have to deal with and that's why there was never another combat aircraft like the Mosquito built in the post war years. The Mosquito offered a solution to a requirement despite having some limitation.



The challenges of maintaining and operating a wooden aircraft didn't seem to be much of an obstacle during WW2; note that 105 and 139 Sqns, the first operational bomber units, both converted from all-metal aircraft, as did the original NF and reconnaissance units, and there seemed to be few problems encountered with the transition. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW, I'm probably one of the few if not the only maintainer on this forum who has worked with both wood and metal, so I think I know a little something about this if that matters to you or not...



Your experience is not in question.



altsym said:


> IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
> And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.



The Mosquito was a very handy "blip on the radar" to have in the arsenal and it was definitely needed, considering the miserable experiences of all too many Blenheim crews who were forced to operate a thoroughly obsolescent aircraft well past its use by date. Having 20mm HE shells zinging around any aircraft, whether wooden or metal, was unhealthy and there were many Mosquito crews who were very grateful about the amount of damage the wooden structure could take and still get them home.


----------



## Readie (Jun 9, 2013)

altsym said:


> IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
> And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.



A blip? ... blimey.


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2013)

altsym said:


> IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
> And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.


Not required or needed!!


----------



## Milosh (Jun 9, 2013)

The Moskito, aka the Ta154, was most certainly a blip on the overall WWII radar.

The DH100 and DH103 had quite a lot of wood used in their construction. Was there any problems with these a/c?


----------



## redcoat (Jun 9, 2013)

Mike Williams said:


> W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 23/24th August, 1943
> W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 8/9th September, 1943
> F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 2nd/3rd January, 1944
> F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 22/23rd March, 1944 (I've posted this one here before.)
> ...


These are all night fighter victories.
The Luftwaffe went through a period of using the Fw 190 at night as nuisance raiders, but they were very vulnerable to night fighters due to a lack of a tail warning radar


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 9, 2013)

Mike Williams said:


> Nice work on the list Mark! Thanks also for posting the 333 Squadron Combat Report.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No worries Mike. As I say, the late-war stuff should become clearer in the next couple of years. There are obviously more Mossies missing, fate unknown, however most of these are low-level 2 TAF or Intruder aircraft, so flak or misadventure are more likely causes, especially given the extent of knowledge regarding LW fighte claims, NJG 11 excepted.

Thanks also for those combat reports!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2013)

Aozora said:


> The challenges of maintaining and operating a wooden aircraft *didn't seem to be much of an obstacle during WW2*; note that 105 and 139 Sqns, the first operational bomber units, both converted from all-metal aircraft, as did the original NF and reconnaissance units, and there seemed to be few problems encountered with the transition.


It wasn't - but in hindsight we know that it is easier for the most part to maintain and repair a metal aircraft than a wooden one. Both squadrons never left Europe, therefore didn't have to deal with changing climate conditions resulting in wood shrinkage, fungus and possibly dry rot although I doubt either units aircraft ever had to deal with the latter.

For those interested, here's a little info about maintenance and repair of wood structures...

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...raft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch06.pdf


----------



## Aozora (Jun 9, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It wasn't - but in hindsight we know that it is easier for the most part to maintain and repair a metal aircraft than a wooden one. Both squadrons never left Europe, therefore didn't have to deal with changing climate conditions resulting in wood shrinkage, fungus and possibly dry rot although I doubt either units aircraft ever had to deal with the latter.



I only cited two squadrons out of the many that used Mosquitos, some in some of the most hostile weather/climate conditions imaginable: eg: 2 TAF operated Mosquitos during the winter of 1944-45 - one of the worst on record; Coastal Command units had to operate the Mosquito in a salt water environment while operating out of some pretty bleak airfields



FLYBOYJ said:


> For those interested, here's a little info about maintenance and repair of wood structures...
> 
> http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...raft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch06.pdf



Which runs to 28 pages...And here's a little info about maintenance and repair of metal structures - 114 pages, 34 of which are devoted to equipment needed.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...raft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch04.pdf

The Mosquito Repair Organisation:


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2013)

altsym said:


> IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
> And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.



But it was the RAF aircraft I would want to fly to stand the best chance of survival. 

I'm not sure that having a few millimetres of dural as opposed to a few millimetres of composite wooden material between me and the incoming rounds would make the slightest difference

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Kryten (Jun 10, 2013)

Neither is going to stop a 20mm so the protection issue is a moot point either way, but sandwich construction spreads damage loads over it's area whereas riveted aluminium applies them to the nearest joint leading to a stress failure point!

contrary to common thinking the sandwich also insulates heat far better than thin alloy skins, resists burning just as well and alloy burns through more easily than a sandwich construction!

Mossies were reknown for getting crews back to base with considerable damage!

As flyboy mentions though, considerably more difficult to repair!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 10, 2013)

Why do some people call the DH Mosquito the Moskito surely the Moskito is the TA 154


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 10, 2013)

Every time I click on this thread I get an ad trying to sell me fly screens/mozzie screens.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I only cited two squadrons out of the many that used Mosquitos, some in some of the most hostile weather/climate conditions imaginable: eg: 2 TAF operated Mosquitos during the winter of 1944-45 - one of the worst on record; Coastal Command units had to operate the Mosquito in a salt water environment while operating out of some pretty bleak airfields


As long as there is a consistency in temperature/ moisture there is no problem, it when you have a wood aircraft operating in an environment (like Europe) and you move it to a place that is really hot or hot and humid.


Aozora said:


> Which runs to 28 pages...And here's a little info about maintenance and repair of metal structures - 114 pages, 34 of which are devoted to equipment needed.
> 
> http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...raft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch04.pdf



I know those pages well, it shows shop and fabrication equipment, use of tools and processing equipment (some of the same equipment used on wood aircraft). Because there are more metal aircraft flying today than there are wood, that textbook emphasizes on metal structural repair. I don't understand your point, are you trying to say that because there are more pages in this book written about repairing metal airplanes that it's harder than working on wood airplanes?

"Never judge a book by its cover - or the amount of its pages."


----------



## Kryten (Jun 10, 2013)

wood being cellulose absorbs moisture and swells, if you build a Mossie on a wet humid day in the UK then fly it to Egypt, it's not rocket science that its going to suffer some shrinkage as it dries out!

I'm unclear exactly how much tolerance would be built into the design to cover that however, and i'm pretty sure the guys who design these things already considered and tested this and the main frame all being wood should have a similar absorption/dessication rate?

repairing a sandwich is not simple either as if you just square off the hole and patch it your introducing a stress raiser at the joint, I would think whole panels would have to be replaced to maintain the stiffness?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

Kryten said:


> I'm unclear exactly how much tolerance would be built into the design to cover that however, and i'm pretty sure the guys who design these things already considered and tested this and the main frame all being wood should have a similar absorption/dessication rate?


I believe some aircraft do have that calculated. On wood aircraft I've worked on what I have found is shrinkage at metal fittings that are attached to the wood structures. At areas as such you are inspecting for looseness and you would tighten or re-adjust where possible, hopefully without cracking or splitting the wood structure. 


Kryten said:


> repairing a sandwich is not simple either as if you just square off the hole and patch it your introducing a stress raiser at the joint, I would think whole panels would have to be replaced to maintain the stiffness?


It depends how deep the damage is, its location and if it goes completely through the structure. Sometimes you could plug holes with glue impregnated plugs and reinforce on the interior side of the structure. Usually manufacturers will come up with a "Standard Repair Manual" or SRM that will detail "allowable" repairs.


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2013)

Kryten said:


> wood being cellulose absorbs moisture and swells, if you build a Mossie on a wet humid day in the UK then fly it to Egypt, it's not rocket science that its going to suffer some shrinkage as it dries out!



Do you have any evidence for that or are we in the realms of supposition?

As someone has already pointed out the de Havilland Mosquito was not made from wood but a composite material containing, amongst other things, two or three types of wood.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

stona said:


> Do you have any evidence for that or are we in the realms of supposition?


How about information from people who worked on wood aircraft?


stona said:


> As someone has already pointed out the de Havilland Mosquito was not made from wood but a composite material containing, amongst other things, two or three types of wood.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Gotta disgaree, go to my earlier post - wood is wood, you could call is "composite wood" meaining that you have several types of wood making up the structure, but it is still wood, and we don't count adhesives or things that are "bolted on."

As mentioned earlier "In the composite world today the rule of thumb is when there is 30% or more of another material (fiberglass/ Kevlar or fiberglass/ graphite for example) we call it composite. The glues and resins are normally not considered."


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2013)

I'm not well acquanted with wooden aircraft, but I am with wooden canoes. Hasn't anyone ever heard of varnish, not that's what's used on modern canoes.
But I started to buy a parlty compleleted homebuilt several years ago. A Pietenpol, wooden construction, a late 20's design, all wood structure. All the wood was covered with polyurethane varnish.
Regular varish has been around for hundreds of years. They surely didn't just put protectrant on the outside surface of those wooden aircraft.
I've seen well maintained wooden canoes last in use, 50 years, they're family heirlooms.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> I'm not well acquanted with wooden aircraft, but I am with wooden canoes. Hasn't anyone ever heard of varnish, not that's what's used on modern canoes.
> But I started to buy a parlty compleleted homebuilt several years ago. A Pietenpol, wooden construction, a late 20's design, all wood structure. All the wood was covered with polyurethane varnish.
> Regular varish has been around for hundreds of years. They surely didn't just put protectrant on the outside surface of those wooden aircraft.
> I've seen well maintained wooden canoes last in use, 50 years, they're family heirlooms.



Canoes generally remain in a constant temperate. Think of the temperature changes from ground level to altitude let alone changes in relative humidity. Varnish helps the exterior but only for so long, you can still pick up shrinkage, dry rot and other not so desirable conditions


----------



## Kryten (Jun 10, 2013)

stona said:


> Do you have any evidence for that or are we in the realms of supposition?
> 
> As someone has already pointed out the de Havilland Mosquito was not made from wood but a composite material containing, amongst other things, two or three types of wood.
> 
> ...



well, in it's simplest form, how about a door that swells and sticks when the weathers wet?

wood absorbs moisture, that's an undisputable fact, the interesting part of the Mossie construction would lie in the relative expansion of the differing woods, bear in mind the ply outer skin would be subjected to a greater degree of humidity than the balsa sandwich sealed away between the two skins, I really don't believe this would be ignored by people who can design loading and stressing of an airframe, it must be designed in and as such I think the Mossie construction is simplicity and brilliance combined!

I built my own race cars a few years back and used sandwich construction to build the tubs, we wanted to use alloy skins with alloy honeycomb as the filler, but, as ever funding constrained us as the cost of the resin and materials exceeded our budget, we ended up using alloy skins with polyurethane foam sheet as the filler, it was only slightly heavier than the honeycomb yet was still immensely stiff!

When you first mess around with sandwich constructions you are subjected to a real eye opener in regard to strength to weight, ending up with much thinner materials than you ever thought possible to achieve the strength, the mossie and it's ilk are the ancestors of the construction techniques used today on all aircraft from airliners to fast jets, it's a marvellous design !


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 10, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Similarly in metal skinned aircraft, the skin takes most of the loads. The skin requires stiffening ribs to prevent it from buckling too. To make the skin thick enough to resist buckling would make it extremely heavy.



A bit after the fact, but that’s why honeycomb aluminum is used to provide light-weight volume between load-carrying skins.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2013)

I've increased the strength of some thin wall tubbing just by drilling small holes and filling them full of structual foam.
It surprized me how much it added to it's bending resistance.
In racecar fabrication, we'll often fill a tube full of sand, to keep it from collasping when we bend it at extreme angles.


----------



## altsym (Jun 10, 2013)

Not for me, tubs for example I just roll in simple stiffening ribs onto the sheet. Same with floor pans. Super strong super light is the end result.
And as for building wood fences.. wood does not like to go from hot to cold to hot, warping and such will happen. And that's fencing wood (fur, pine, etc.). Never mind plywood. Wetness in this case is your enemy. Balsa seem to be really temperature resistant (20 year building RC aircraft), water though, forget about it.


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2013)

Whatever the repair and maintanence issues that may or may not be a factor in using wood in the construction. The fact remains that the Vampire/Venom also had a fair amount of wood in their construction, they were built in large numbers and served all over the world. So its safe to assume that the the problems around the use of wood had been resolved.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

Glider said:


> Whatever the repair and maintanence issues that may or may not be a factor in using wood in the construction.* The fact remains that the Vampire/Venom* also had a fair amount of wood in their construction, they were built in large numbers and served all over the world. So its safe to assume that the the problems around the use of wood had been resolved.


AFAIK only on some of the forward fuselage access doors and non-structural members in later models. I believe just the fuselage of the earlier models were made from wood.


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wood is wood, you could call is "composite wood" meaining that you have several types of wood making up the structure, but it is still wood, and we don't count adhesives or things that are "bolted on."



How can you not count adhesives or resins etc? A piece of carbon fibre mat is about as structural as a piece of newspaper until you construct it in bonded layers to give a material with entirely different properties. Exactly the same applies to the wood composite used to construct the Mosquito.

The original proposition is that wood being cellulose absorbs moisture, which is generally true, but has little to do with the construction of the Mosquito. I wasn't asking for some evidence that wood absorbs moisture but rather for evidence that this was a problem for the materials used by de Havilland.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

stona said:


> How can you not count adhesives or resins etc?


You don't unless you're talking pre-preg fabric, and even then the dominat construction material is always made reference to as the main structural component. 


stona said:


> A piece of carbon fibre mat is about as structural as a piece of newspaper until you construct it in bonded layers to give a material with entirely different properties Exactly the same applies to the wood composite used to construct the Mosquito.


And at the end of the day that Carbon fibre is "carbon fibre" as at the end of the day the Mosquito is constructed of "wood."


stona said:


> The original proposition is that wood being cellulose absorbs moisture, which is generally true, but has little to do with the construction of the Mosquito.* I wasn't asking for some evidence that wood absorbs moisture but rather for evidence that this was a problem for the materials used by de Havilland.*Cheers
> 
> Steve


In the end ALL wood, be it from a deHavilland aircraft (Mosquito) or any other mnufacture will have the potential to absorb moisture or shrink. I cannot find the original article but because of wood shrinkage, the IDF got rid of their Mossies after the Suez crisis as they were becoming harder to maintain. I do believe that DeHavilland probably had the best processes to ensure that any natural degadation of the wood was minimized, but in the end you'll only be able to do so much to a wood structure, especially if you're using it in a military application.


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In the end ALL wood, be it from a deHavilland aircraft (Mosquito) or any other mnufacture will have the potential to absorb moisture or shrink.



Yes ...... but having the potential to do and doing something are not the same thing. Many things can absorb moisture and most can be treated to prevent it. 

I'm not suggesting that there might not be some problems of degradation specific to wood or wood composites, just as there are those specific to metal structures (heaven knows how many gallons of zinc chromate were applied to US aircraft of the period). I just haven't seen any evidence that moisture absorption was a problem for the materials used in the de Havilland Mosquito. 

I don't know if it was a problem or not which is why I asked in the first place. I will not assume that it was on the grounds that wood was used in the construction process 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 10, 2013)

Obviously anything designed to be used in the bone dry, warm, calm and sunny conditions of Britain would fall apart as soon as it saw a raindrop


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

stona said:


> Yes ...... but having the potential to do and doing something are not the same thing. Many things can absorb moisture and most can be treated to prevent it.


 If it has potential to absorb moisture it will, and that's why aircraft (especially wood aircraft) are so heavily inspected.


stona said:


> I'm not suggesting that there might not be some problems of degradation specific to wood or wood composites, just as there are those specific to metal structures (heaven knows how many gallons of zinc chromate were applied to US aircraft of the period). I just haven't seen any evidence that moisture absorption was a problem for the materials used in the de Havilland Mosquito.


 I haven't seen anything specific on it either, but it is usually a problem, as is corrosion on metal planes as you so stated.


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> AFAIK only on some of the forward fuselage access doors and non-structural members in later models. I believe just the fuselage of the earlier models were made from wood.


I'm sure that you are right but I cannot help feeling that if there had been a problem using wood, they would have made the change to metal in the Vampire. There must have been a reason for sticking with it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2013)

Glider said:


> I'm sure that you are right but I cannot help feeling that if there had been a problem using wood, they would have made the change to metal in the Vampire. There must have been a reason for sticking with it.


Eventually they did - I believe the Sea Venom had most of the larger wood structures replaced. I think the era of wood for any type of large component on combat aircraft ended there for many of the reasons mentioned earlier.l


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2013)

The floorpans of 2005 or there abouts Corvettes are a sandwich of balsawood and metal.


----------



## altsym (Jun 10, 2013)

This 80" span beauty is also mostly balsawood and metal.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 10, 2013)

That's a real sweet looking model (it's missing a prop blade  )



> I believe just the fuselage of the earlier models were made from wood.



Yep, from the firewall forward on the fuselage pod was wood in both the Vampire and Venom. It was a practical choice though, the rest was all metal. In the Vampire two-seaters, the first being the NF.10, the dimensons of the width of the cockpit section was designed to exactly that of the cockpit of the Mosquito, which they used as a template for the radar equipped night fighter variant. The NF.10 was a bit of a disaster and most were given to the Egyptians. The same dimensons were applied to the T.11 trainer.

The concept of the Mosquito was the last word in wartime expediency; everything about it was designed to benefit or be in aid of a wartime economy and workforce, from the use of non-strategic materials in its construction to using a labour force and skills not engaged in existing wartime expansion. Its engines and systems were existing designs that didn't have the added development time owing to the usual teething troubles with new technology and it was designed with ease of construction, maintenance and repair in mind. It was very much a product of its time, taking advantage of known factors in its design and offered no real technological advance over its contemporaries; all aspects of it could have been built by anyone engaged in aircraft design and construction elsewhere in the world. Its purpose was also with economy of use in mind; a two-seat twin engined bomber carrying a similar war load to larger medium bombers that had poorer performance and required a larger number of people to operate; Beaverbrook's accountants must have been rubbing their hands together with glee when they first heard about the D.H.98! It couldn't have come at a better time for the British; at the time the Mosquito entered service its military was desperate for a high performance aircraft that could match and beat the efforts of a cunning and determined enemy - the RAF Air Staff just needed a little more convincing of its potential, however.


----------



## altsym (Jun 11, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> That's a real sweet looking model (it's missing a prop blade  )


That two blade was just for running in the engine. Thanks for the compliment. 

Here's the hand made scale flyable prop blade in the works:


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 11, 2013)

i got late to this dance...but its pretty interesting.

has anyone duplicated the mossie design in metal to see if and how the flight characteristics would compare? i would be curious to see the comparison....i think if it could have been done and achieved the same results or better they would have been made that way. for some reason wood must work best in this situation.

one thing you have to remember about wood structure is you have to allow specific times for glues to cure ( like 24 hours ) and those items need to be clamped or compressed in some sort of jig. that is where you may get a huge amount of man hours. wooden frames are "usually" constructed in environments were you have acceptable tolerances to humidty and temp...as both will effect the curing of components. the colder it is the longer the glue will take to dry. also after assembly wooden frames, etc are usually varnished or painted to keep the absorbing humidity ( and the glue from coverings ). 

i have a friend who is building a wooden spitfire....a full size flying version that uses an allison engine. the method he is using for the fuse and wings is the exact same thing as the mossie. its 2 thin pieces of playwood sandwiching a matrix of balsa ( with the grain running perpedicular not crossways )....that stuff is freaking STRONG and light. but again its 3 processes opposed to just riviting a skin in place.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 11, 2013)

I've seen a video of an interview with Ralph Hare, who was on the design team, who said that a review had been done (not sure how detailed), and that dH believed that a metal Mossie would be heavier for the same strength.

Anyway, a dH design for a metal mossie would have been a sheet of white paper - the whole concept was inextricably linked to wood construction from the very start. 

They were using microwaves to cure the fuselage shells IIRC.

Never read anything about varnish, however the wood surfaces were covered with fabric, madoplam (sp?) I believe.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2013)

I am no engineer, but my "schoolboy" understanding of the mosquito structure was that it was a "bonded" sandwich construction, with a basic balsawood core, "bonded" by glues to a hard plywood in layers. The bonding agent was part of the composite structure and helped to give it great strength. There were problems in the beginning with the early bonding agents in that they were not waterproof (I think). I expect that might cause the commposite material to swell at differing rates which would weaken the material and probably cause breakages and or structural failures eventually. Particularly true in the tropics where moisture got into everything. 

But i also understand this was addressed by siply changing the bonding agent and making it water resisitant. 

On that basis the bonding agent is part of the structure and is part of the "formula" that gives the mosquito its great strength.....

Of course this could all be the rantings of a an ingnorant primary school level non-engineer.....

A measure of just how successful the bonded sandwich construction pioneered by De Havilland is that it is now a major boat building material, completely waterproof and with life expectancies in excess of 30 years......


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 11, 2013)

i will be going over the guy's house who is building the spit. i will see if i can snag a few up close pics of the construction and materials. he's an A&P...former airline pilot and friend. i am going to have him inspect the elevator i just repaired and recovered...for my E-LSA.


----------



## GregP (Jun 11, 2013)

Hey Bobysocks,

It must be a Jurca Spitfire. He should contact Joe Yancey (Yancey Enterprises) in Rialto, California for the Allison. Joe builds a reliable, great-running Allison and he has a couple flying in Jurca Spitfires. Maybe he'd like to see one in person and talk to an owner of a Yancey's Allison for some firsthand knowledge? One of the Jurcas we did the engine for has an original Spitfire control stick, seat, and instrument panel and it looks VERY real ... except for no rivets. He gets 95% of the performance of the real pPitfire for 20% of the cost. No bad!

The aircraft in question is finished as a Mk V, but you can finish them as alomst any Mark.

If so, let me know and I can give you cantact information.

Best regards, - Greg


----------



## Airframes (Jun 11, 2013)

I thought the Jurca 'Spitfire' was around 1/2 scale, using the same basic design layout as his other types, such as the Jurca Tempete, a 1/3rd size Tempest, of sorts? There used to be a Jurca Spit at my club back in the 1980s.


----------



## GregP (Jun 11, 2013)

The Jurca Spitfire I am familiar with is full scale and is engineered for the Allison V-1710. If flies VERY well and is a big hit when it attends our annual airshow. It cruises right where the real Spitfire does and is a bit more maneuverable.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 12, 2013)

> Here's the hand made scale flyable prop blade in the works:



That's real nice work, Altsym; I like the exhaust ports, too.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 12, 2013)

Ah, right. Shows how out of touch I am since having to stop flying! I've just had a quick search and found the one you mean - heck of a change from his original 'home built', small design, and looks almost like the real thing.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 12, 2013)

The only problem I can see with a metal Mossie is the surface finish. Until you see a Mossie in the flesh next to a contemporary metal a/c you dont realise how smooth the finish is. No joints (or very few) no rivets, no rippling between frames, no panel gaps its one smooth whole almost looking like it has been extruded from a giant machine. DH werent very experienced with metal construction so there design team might have erred on the side of caution when doing a design excersise for a metal Mossie.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2013)

There was a plane nicknamed as "Tin Mosquito" namely the Vickers Type 432


----------



## Kryten (Jun 12, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> The only problem I can see with a metal Mossie is the surface finish. Until you see a Mossie in the flesh next to a contemporary metal a/c you dont realise how smooth the finish is. No joints (or very few) no rivets, no rippling between frames, no panel gaps its one smooth whole almost looking like it has been extruded from a giant machine. DH werent very experienced with metal construction so there design team might have erred on the side of caution when doing a design excersise for a metal Mossie.



I don't believe they had adequate resins which could work with alloy , when I built my race cars I had a major problem identifying glues that worked with different materials, I think it was Redux we ended up using, aluminium is a bit of a bitch to bond to!


----------



## altsym (Jun 12, 2013)

Was it a 'wood' type glue used on the Mosquitos? Or was it an epoxy resin? Reason being is that epoxy will bond anything to anything.


----------



## Elmas (Jun 12, 2013)

Epoxy resin won't bond at all on polietylene or over waxed surfaces.......otherwise how could you do to extract something from a mold?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 12, 2013)

The glues were cold water glues. Originally Cascemite glue which is made from casein extracted from cow's milk. After mid 44 the glue was changed to Aerolite Urea Formaldehyde. 

You can still buy both Cascemite is made by Humbrol iirc and is a brilliant glue for dovetailing because you mix it from powder and can easily control the consistency and prevent runs whilst having good strength. Aerolite is still used for model aeroplanes and boats.


----------



## altsym (Jun 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> That's real nice work, Altsym; I like the exhaust ports, too.


Thanks again. Funny little story. I probably couldn't fly a real plane if my life depended on it. Most of the real commercial pilots I see at our flying field,
couldn't fly these scale replicas if their life depended on it. I have no clue as to why. They're built to fly almost exactly like there real life counterparts.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 12, 2013)

Kryten said:


> I don't believe they had adequate resins which could work with alloy , when I built my race cars I had a major problem identifying glues that worked with different materials, I think it was Redux we ended up using, aluminium is a bit of a bitch to bond to!



The key to the adhesive is chemical setting, i.e. crosslinking rather than solvent evaporation. The Ta-154 used a phenolic impregnated sheet (Tego) that cured with heat. However, when the Tego plant was destroyed by bombing, the substitute was unsatisfactory leading to failures and abandonment of the project.


----------



## GregP (Jun 12, 2013)

I am both a private pilot and also flew RC for about 15 years. I would like to do so again.

About the real pilots not being able to fly the models, there are two or three thing at work there. As you know, real pilots use their feet for rudder, noit their left thumb. Also, when an RC is flying away from you there is little problem. When it turns around and starts flying back at you, the elevator is the same but aileron reverses, and that takes some getting used to.When you are inverted, elevator and rudder are reversed by aileron stays the same as when upright. Last, there is no "feel" for when the aircraft is about to stall ... that comes from experience.

Back in the bad old days, we tried to stay about 2-mistake height or higher. Today, with a trainer cord option, you can let the novice fly lower and closer in safety. Personally, I have trained maybe 10 people with a trainer cord and ALL learned much quicker than when we had to use just one transmitter.

Nice 109! I've never flown one, but have flown scale Fw 190's, a Thunderbolt, several Mustangs and one scale Spitfire. Mostly I prefer semi-scale since you can scale down the plane but you can't scale down the air. Semi-scale let's you use a slightly thicker-than-scale airfoil and retain good flying characteristics. Most actual scale planes I have flown had rather bad flying characteristics. I hope your flies well since it looks great!

Would love to try a scale Mosquito and would not care which mark was modeled. They all look good to me. Have seen one scale Sea Hornet fly (at an Arizona meet) and it was absolutely beautiful in flight. 

Sorry for responding to the off-topic ... perhaps we should start an RC thread?


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 12, 2013)

Kryten said:


> I don't believe they had adequate resins which could work with alloy , when I built my race cars I had a major problem identifying glues that worked with different materials, I think it was Redux we ended up using, aluminium is a bit of a bitch to bond to!


 
Wiki says it was Redux that was used on the dH Hornet, specifically: "In the case of the Hornet it was used to join the aluminium lower-wing skin to the wooden upper wing structure, and in the fabrication of the aluminium/wood main wing spar, both forms of composite construction made possible by the advent of Redux."

The first formaldehyde glues used in Mossie construction came quite early. Of the first four Mossies sent out to India (mid-43, from memory), two had casein, two formaldehyde. The intent was to simply park the aircraft on airfields and observe how they aged, however the aircraft were pressed into service. The later difficulties with FB,VIs in India / Burma were down to production issues at Standard Motors.


----------

