DH Mosquito

[kiwi2wheels]

This is an interesting Mosquito video ;

 

[Crimea_River]

Thanks, haven't seen that one. Bookmarked for later.

 

[GregP]

I suppose some British posters never think about their own build-up of British products while simultaneously putting down every other nation's products, but they definitely see ours and just have to comment. Perhaps it is called nationalism. There were some Mosquito features Kermit didn't like, and maybe he should have just said that he didn't like that feature rather than add what seemed like "humor" to him but not to some in here. But ... it WAS his video.

In my experience, things that are considered common sense to a US designer and things that are considered common sense to a British designer somehow do not define the same set of requirements. I think neither one is "correct," they just emphasize different sets of what seems right to the designer at the time, or perhaps different sets of minimum requirements. If something is not specifically required, then how it is addressed is NOT correct or incorrect. It's just the way that design works. If it IS specifically required, then it adresses the requirements document, not what the designer "wanted." Military airplanes always meet some requirements document. Civil airplanes cna embody designers desires, but usually wind up adressing marketing's customer requests instead.

I CAN say this from personal experience: A Spitfire is WAY more fragile than any US warbird. Perhaps that isn't too hard to understand if you just look at the empty weight of a Spitfire Mk.V next to a P-51D. A few thousand pounds WOULD add some robustness, wouldn't it? I suppose it depends on which you'd rather have in combat. Everyone would likely choose the Spitfire until he was being shot at and actually was being hit by the shots. When that happens, he'd likely rethink his choice. Therein lies the rub: combat pilots don't get to choose; they fly the airplanes their unit gets assigned, not what they want to fly.

Maybe the best compromise between European and US design was on my old Bultaco Sherpa T 350 motorcycle. You could put the shifter and rear brake on whichever side you wanted them to be on since the actuator shafts extended out both sides of the crankcase. Now THAT was pretty nice and never, at least in MY ownership, resulted in a shaft failure from the other side of the shaft hitting anything.

I've heard that most US pilots who flew both US and British aircraft (WWII warbirds anyway), preferred the Britith split stick that pivoted part way up the control stick rather than at floor level. I have never flown a British warbird, but would eagerly try a split stick in an aerobatic aircraft. Who knows, it COULD be better.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Never saw a Mosquito with those type of engine/radiator sets.

 

[nuuumannn]

It was trials only, the NF.II DD723 was fitted with Merlin XX "power egg" engine installation by Rolls-Royce at Hucknall, the installation was from a Lancaster, which originally was fitted to the Beaufighter Mk.II. Performance was, not surprisingly poorer than the standard Mosquito installation with its rectangular radiator in the inboard wing leading edge, although I've not been able to located performance figures.

 

[nuuumannn]

In my experience, things that are considered common sense to a US designer and things that are considered common sense to a British designer somehow do not define the same set of requirements.

In this context you might be overthinking it, Greg, one thing I have noticed is how little informed US readers are about the impact the British had on US aircraft before the US entered the war. Americans have preconceived notions about their own equipment and their development and British influence is almost universally ignored. also, things such as radar, gun turrets and jet engine development, Britain led the USA through the first few years of the war, examples of British equipment went to the USA for study - there's a reason why the Sperry top turret on B-17Es and Fs looks exactly like a Boulton Paul Type T turret (not to be confused by the BP Type A Turret in the Halifax and Defiant or the Type C in the Hudson).

The truth of the matter was that both sides benefitted hugely from each other's collective experiences and there was a constant stream of letters and equipment that went between the UK and the USA throughout the war - the Mustang was a great example of the joint co-operation between both countries - it most certainly wasn't a US only project; the British put a vast amount of input into the type's development, although based on US readers' understanding, you'd never know it.

Yes, there are preconceptions on both sides, like the FAA's use of the F4U and that does need to be rectified, but the B-17's use in Britain in 1941 is an example of how little informed US readers are about the situation, blaming the poor showing of the type on the British, when that simply doesn't explain the poor serviceability, icing issues at altitude and constant engine failures under operational conditions, which claimed aircraft. The type's use by the RAF was monitored closely by US advisors as well - it simply wasn't ready for combat operations in mid 1941 and it wouldn't be so until nearly a year later.

I don't like to criticise nationalities like this, but I have noticed a distinct bias, like criticising aircraft like the Wellington and Whitley when the best the USA could do at the time was the B-18 Bolo, which was slower than the Whitley, had a lower ceiling, a smaller bomb load and was poorly defended compared to the British bombers.

It just boils down to perspective.

 

[nuuumannn]

I CAN say this from personal experience: A Spitfire is WAY more fragile than any US warbird.

I wouldn't say the Spitfire was fragile, perhaps its not as structurally robust as US types, but fragile? Never heard of Spitfires suffering any form of failure due to structural weakness or fragility. One thing here the US manufacturers were better than British was in the manufacture of aircraft, US production methods were faster and their aircraft were strongly built, but this doesn't mean British ones weren't. The British tended to overly complicate things structurally, but fragile? Nope.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I wouldn't say the Spitfire was fragile, perhaps its not as structurally robust as US types, but fragile? Never heard of Spitfires suffering any form of failure due to structural weakness or fragility. One thing here the US manufacturers were better than British was in the manufacture of aircraft, US production methods were faster and their aircraft were strongly built, but this doesn't mean British ones weren't. The British tended to overly complicate things structurally, but fragile? Nope.

Spitfires were designed for absolute structural efficiency, which made them lightweight, and which allowed them to maintain competitive performance throughout the war. This was the work of Reginald Mitchell. The Hawker aircraft all were sturdily built.

There was a meeting of the Aeronautical Research Committee (ARC), in which Arthur Roderick Collar was asked why a Spitfire was 40mph faster than a Hurricane in spite of both aircraft having the same engine. The Spitfire's advantage mostly was more sophisticated aerodynamics. The Hurricane was also substantially heavier than the Spitfire, and needed more lift to stay airborne. Without a much better lift to drag ratio, this causes extra drag.

The Aerodynamics of the Spitfire, (PDF file) by J. A. D. Ackroyd

The Spitfire's low weight resulted in better acceleration and climb, a higher top speed, and better manoeuvrability. It does not need to be sturdy if it does not get hit. The other guy needs to be sturdy. This is the Mitsubishi Zero discussion again. By mid-war, they were getting 350mph top speed out of the Mitsubishi Zeros, which is phenomenal for a 28litre radial engine. The problem is that they were facing aircraft either with 46litre radial engines, or two 28litre V12s with two stages of supercharging. These new aircraft had no need to hang around and dogfight Zeros. By this time, the 27litre Spitfires had two stage superchargers. They were just introducing 36litre two stage superchargers engines. If you did not want to dogfight a SpitfireXIV, you needed to not piss it off.

 

[nuuumannn]

This was the work of Reginald Mitchell.

Initially, yes, but all the work in improving the design and advancing it to meet threats was Joe Smith. He was definitely the driver of the Spitfire's bid to remain relevant.

All of what you are saying is of course true, but the Spitfire was not fragile. I don't know whether you are making that as a point, but structurally it was quite sound and, as I mentioned earlier, I can't recall anywhere any mention of structural fragility.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Initially, yes, but all the work in improving the design and advancing it to meet threats was Joe Smith. He was definitely the driver of the Spitfire's bid to remain relevant.

All of what you are saying is of course true, but the Spitfire was not fragile. I don't know whether you are making that as a point, but structurally it was quite sound and, as I mentioned earlier, I can't recall anywhere any mention of structural fragility.

The fundamental design was Reginald Mitchell. Joe Smith maintained and supported it. Subsequent Supermarine designs lacked Mitchell's brilliance. I have a book here with a couple pages full of damaged Spitfires which I was going to scan and posts. I was unable to find it.

Distinguish between structural failures in flight, and structural failures in response to holes shot in it. I don't think Mitsubishi Zeros had structural problems from anything other than battle damage.

 

[nuuumannn]

The fundamental design was Reginald Mitchell. Joe Smith maintained and supported it

While Mitchell was alive, yes, but Smith led the design following his death and was responsible for what happened to the Spitfire during its lifetime. It had not entered RAF service by the time Mitchel died in 1937. Smith succeeded him in the boss' chair.

I don't think Mitsubishi Zeros had structural problems from anything other than battle damage.

Now, we don't want to counter the accusations of many that the Zero was made of tinfoil and couldn't handle any sort of rough treatment with truth, now, do we

 

[nuuumannn]

Distinguish between structural failures in flight, and structural failures in response to holes shot in it.

Well, that's kinda obvious and even the strongest airframe would suffer being shot at. Doesn't make the Spitfire fragile. Look, I've done maintenance on museum spits, I've watched one being restored from a gate guard at a static museum example over a period of several years and have hundreds of pictures of the internals of the Spits' structural elements. I've interviewed pilots and watched Spits at displays. I've never heard anyone, either involved in their restoration or operation, both past or present state the Spitfire was fragile.

 

[MiTasol]

The DVD you are referring to is called "The Mosquito Explored" but I'm getting no hits on Google. I'm not aware of any recent digital publications of a similar nature but that does not preclude the possibility.

Ignore Gobble and use Dogpile as your search engine - Dogpile do not get paid to put crap in front of what you are looking for

https://www.dogpile.com/serp?q=%22The+Mosquito+Explored%22&sc=DpCbnGUAQYvM00

Tom Jones can follow the links and see if any are what he seeks

 

[BiffF15]

Gents,

Casual observation. It appears the "frailty" measurements seem to be based on the weight of comparable airframes (more weight = more robust). I'm not sure that is a good comparison, however I understand it (think cars of the 50's/60's as compared to cars made today). I think the manufacturers made good planes (I'm not debating the merits of the P-39 ), on all sides of the pond, and that according to its military requirements the US made the heaviest, and probably Japan with the lightest. Heck even the US wanted to lighten the P-51 (H model) and looked at Spitfire designs to gain "weight loss" ideas. This last part should negate any thoughts of it being considered frail from a North American point of view.

I don't know that I would call any of them frail. Some were more susceptible to burning (no self sealing fuel tanks) or lacked robust armor. While others were flown by inexperienced and poorly trained guys (varies by country and time and includes basic / advanced flying plus combat tactics) which would include the US in the early stages and Germany / Japan in the latter years.

Just a guys opine.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

Spitfires were designed for absolute structural efficiency, which made them lightweight, and which allowed them to maintain competitive performance throughout the war. This was the work of Reginald Mitchell. The Hawker aircraft all were sturdily built.

I think this is a misunderstanding. The Spitfire and Hurricane of 1936 had to win a contract. The engines of the time with a twin blade fixed pitch prop had around 660BHP for take off (any higher RPM meant the prop was stalled). The Hurricane was heavier than the Spitfire but that doesnt mean more sturdily built. Until 1939/40 Hurricane wings were fabric covered and treated with dope. When these wings were changed for stressed skin they were stronger but also lighter and gave a much higher dive speed. The Hurricane was a stop gap plane that was kept in service way beyond what was planned, Hawkers themselves were working on its replacement before it flew.

 

[pbehn]

Gents,

Casual observation. It appears the "frailty" measurements seem to be based on the weight of comparable airframes (more weight = more robust). I'm not sure that is a good comparison, however I understand it (think cars of the 50's/60's as compared to cars made today). I think the manufacturers made good planes (I'm not debating the merits of the P-39 ), on all sides of the pond, and that according to its military requirements the US made the heaviest, and probably Japan with the lightest. Heck even the US wanted to lighten the P-51 (H model) and looked at Spitfire designs to gain "weight loss" ideas. This last part should negate any thoughts of it being considered frail from a North American point of view.

I don't know that I would call any of them frail. Some were more susceptible to burning (no self sealing fuel tanks) or lacked robust armor. While others were flown by inexperienced and poorly trained guys (varies by country and time and includes basic / advanced flying plus combat tactics) which would include the US in the early stages and Germany / Japan in the latter years.

Just a guys opine.

Cheers,
Biff

This has been discussed a few times, there was an investigation into how British planes were designed and constructed. From what was posted the British designed to different load limits, not for the aircraft in flight which were the same but for landing "G" loads and sideward "G" loads on the undercarriage. This may have been due to aircraft manufacturers in USA having half an eye on the "carrier market" in my opinion with no proof whatsoever. Or it may have just been that the main British design was the Spitfire which started off with a very low power set up, so it had to cut all corners in weight just to win a contract to be built. No one would call the Typhoon a lightweight.

 

[nuuumannn]

Agree with all your points pbehn and Biff. To me, structural fragility is unintended damage or failure of an aircraft's primary structural elements because of design weakness through normal, not excessive use, like the Typhoon, whose tail kept falling off, or the Bf 109F, in whose early models the hori-stab fell off, for example. The Zero was structurally light, but I have never heard of it suffering undue structural failure, nor the Spitfire for that matter.

 

[MiTasol]

I suppose some British posters never think about their own build-up of British products while simultaneously putting down every other nation's products, but they definitely see ours and just have to comment.

Agree - and they are not alone - Germans, Russians, Italians etc all believe their products were superior. In some things in specific time frames all are correct.

In my experience, things that are considered common sense to a US designer and things that are considered common sense to a British designer somehow do not define the same set of requirements.

And I personally prefer to fly US aircraft because they at least thought of what is now called ergonomics and put controls in logical locations.
Example - during takeoff/landing (and combat) you do not want to be swapping hands on the control column every few seconds so the US put the engine, landing gear and flap controls on the left allowing you to keep your right hand on the control column at all times. Less important controls like radios were usually on the right but that is fine as you are not changing radio channel during initial takeoff or short final.

On the Spitfire and Hurricane the engine controls are still on the left but the undercarriage control is on the right as is the Hurricanes flap control. The Spit only had two positions for the flaps - full up or full down. In some Supermarine documents they are call air brakes which is a more accurate description and describes their limited abilities better. Flaps are primarily a high lift device and almost always have multiple positions, even if only take off and landing though many also have approach settings.

I will give the Brits full points for the basic six instrument panel though

I CAN say this from personal experience: A Spitfire is WAY more fragile than any US warbird.

And many of the skins and frames are no heavier than those on the A6M - an aircraft that is much maligned for being flimsy and fragile.
Like the Spitfire (but not Seafire) the aim was an aerodynamically clean light weight interceptor. Unlike the Spitfire the A6M had a retractable tail wheel from day one and the complete tail wheel assy including "doors" and actuator weighed about the same as the fixed Spitfire unit and far far less than the later Spitfire and all American tail gears. The A6M arrestor hook weighs a small fraction of the same unit on a Spitfire and unlike the Spitfire and any US hook was able to release the deck cable. Unlike the Spitfire and many US hooks it was also free to move sideways. Unlike the British and all US hooks its extension and retraction system weighed grams instead of pounds. All those things resulted in a far lighter aircraft.

Why did I exclude the Seafire - the arrestor hook installation and the additional parts fitted to the tail leg to stop the deck wire fouling were aerodynamic arseholes to put it politely.
The early Seafire hooks pivot points a classic example - this sticking out each side and the hook attached to it are not aerodynamically clean - unlike the A6M one that is fully retracted inside the belly

In this context you might be overthinking it, Greg, one thing I have noticed is how little informed US readers are about the impact the British had on US aircraft before the US entered the war. Americans have preconceived notions about their own equipment and their development and British influence is almost universally ignored. also, things such as radar, gun turrets and jet engine development, Britain led the USA through the first few years of the war, examples of British equipment went to the USA for study - there's a reason why the Sperry top turret on B-17Es and Fs looks exactly like a Boulton Paul Type T turret (not to be confused by the BP Type A Turret in the Halifax and Defiant or the Type C in the Hudson).
It just boils down to perspective.

And most of the advanced radios and radars that the US used early on were either licence built Brit units or developed from Brit units. The Hispano cannon was licence built from the Brits tho they stuffed it up because the two countries used different drawing datums (first and third angle projections)

as I mentioned earlier, I can't recall anywhere any mention of structural fragility.

Read the Aus reports of the trials of Spitfire versus A6M - inflight structural failure in the tail tho the aircraft was able to land.

 

[nuuumannn]

inflight structural failure in the tail tho the aircraft was able to land.

Interesting, in the Spitfire? How many aircraft did this affect and was it a fleet wide thing - meaning every Spit V was affected? Can't say I've heard of this before, sounds like an isolated incident on one airframe to me. Most likely the pilot overstressed the airframe - can't find any reference to Spit Vs suffering weakness through normal usage.

 

[BiffF15]

Interesting, in the Spitfire? How many aircraft did this affect and was it a fleet wide thing - meaning every Spit V was affected? Can't say I've heard of this before, sounds like an isolated incident on one airframe to me. Most likely the pilot overstressed the airframe - can't find any reference to Spit Vs suffering weakness through normal usage.

Also was the failure pilot induced?