Hawker Hurricane and de Havilland Mosquito both used a lot of wood, but would assume they were built differently?

[Todd Secrest]

The Hurricane and Mosquito both used a lot of wood in their construction, but would assume they were built differently?
Any know the differently in their building techniques?

 

[MikeMeech]

The Hurricane and Mosquito both used a lot of wood in their construction, but would assume they were built differently?
Any know the differently in their building techniques?

Hi

The wood used in the Hurricane was a secondary structure of frames and stringers around the rear fuselage covered in fabric to give the 'shape', the strength was in the Warren girder steel tube structure of the fuselage to which the secondary structure was attached. It was not a 'wooden' aircraft, the wood being a 'minor' part of the structure.
The Mosquito was a wooden aircraft using a ceder ply and balsa wood fuselage and wooden wings, it was a wooden aircraft. The aircraft were totally different.

Mike

 

[rednev]

hawker restorations Hawker Restorations Limited Restoration of Hurricane G-ROBT

 

[Crimea_River]

Hi

.....The Mosquito was a wooden aircraft using a ceder ply and balsa wood fuselage and wooden wings, it was a wooden aircraft.....

Mike

The plywood inner and outer skins were typically birch, not cedar. The only "soft" plywood was in the nose of the fuselage ahead of the rad intakes.

 

[pbehn]

If you remove the wood from a Hurricane, it still looks like a Hurricane with a hurricane shaped metal lattice behind the pilot. Remove the wood from a Mosquito and you have two engines, landing gear, some instruments. and "bits and bobs"

 

[Crimea_River]

Well, not quite. If you remove the wood from a Hurricane, the lattice looks like this:

With the wood:

 

[pbehn]

Well, not quite. If you remove the wood from a Hurricane, the lattice looks like this:

View attachment 590363

With the wood:

View attachment 590365

View attachment 590364

But with the engine covers and wings combined with the lattice behind the cockpit it still has a Hurricane shape. (great pics BTW)

 

[Crimea_River]

True, but I was responding to this part:

...... with a hurricane shaped metal lattice behind the pilot.......

The pics are of RCAF Hurricane 5389 taken during its restoration.

 

[pbehn]

True, but I was responding to this part:



The pics are of RCAF Hurricane 5389 taken during its restoration.

I was referring to various pics you can find on the net of burned out Hurricanes, they still look like Hurricanes. The Hurricane wasn't a wooden plane, it just used some wood. Its girder structure and engineering design wasn't based on wood, when it changed from dope covered to metal skinned wings it got lighter, the original design strength came from a metal lattice structure not from the wood.

 

[MikeMeech]

The plywood inner and outer skins were typically birch, not cedar. The only "soft" plywood was in the nose of the fuselage ahead of the rad intakes.

Hi

That will teach me NOT to rely on my memory, as I checked in 'De Havilland Aircraft Since 1909' by A J Jackson, p. 405, which stated "cedar ply", while my memory said 'birch'.
Below are some construction drawings, first two from 'Aeroplane' magazine Database of November 2000, second two from 'Mosquito' by Sharp and Bowyer 1971 edition, and the final drawing is of the Hurricane fabric covered and metal covered wing from 'Aeronautical Engineering' Edited by R A Beaumont, published during WW2.

Mike

 

[fastmongrel]

The Mossie was finished with a layer of doped linen then painted to smooth out any joints and to weather proof the airframe.

No Mossies did not dissolve in high humidity or they wouldn't have lasted in British weather. They were used for years in the tropics.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, not quite. If you remove the wood from a Hurricane, the lattice looks like this:

View attachment 590363

With the wood:

View attachment 590365

View attachment 590364

Could the wooden parts be replaced with metal? Were Canadian Hurricanes made of wood?

 

[Crimea_River]

Could the wooden parts be replaced with metal? Were Canadian Hurricanes made of wood?

Could they? Of course. Were they? No
Canadian built Hurricanes were built the same as British ones with a few minor differences.

 

[fastmongrel]

Could the wooden parts be replaced with metal? Were Canadian Hurricanes made of wood?

Why would you. It's not going to save weight, will be more expensive and will need draughtsmen to draw up new blueprints then go through lots of testing. All this for a 2nd rate (from 1942) fighter bomber.

 

[nuuumannn]

Just a wee bit of history here: Hawker Hurricanes were not made of wood. The rear fuselage incorporated wooden stringers and frames to give it shape beneath a fabric covering, as visible in the images already posted. The section just aft of the cockpit was wooden and gave it its distinctive hump and was named the Dog Box, but that was it. None of the structural load bearing elements of the Hurricane were wooden, they were all of metal.

In this photo you can see clearly where the fabric section of the rear fuselage begins and ends. The Dog Box is covered by the slid back canopy.

Hurricane ground-1

Here is a similar image of a Hawker Demon and you can see the commonality of the fuselage construction between the two aircraft. The same metal tube structural element with wooden frames to give the fabric covered rear fuselage shape.

Demon ground-2

 

[nuuumannn]

The primary reason behind the Mosquito's wooden structure was twofold; the aircraft was put to the Air Ministry as a means of building a high performance aircraft of non-strategic materials, not because Britain had a shortage of aluminium - this is a myth perpetuated by wargamers and internet trolls - and because de Havilland had built its business making wooden aircraft and its workforce worked to its strengths.

The other advantage of building the Mosquito out of wood was the drag factor. It was a very slippery aircraft with a smooth finish.

1007 East Kirkby Mosquito NF.II

 

[fastmongrel]

Mosquito in a Tutu

Prototype night fighter with experimental Youngman air brake

 

[MIflyer]

I doubt there was very much wooden furniture being made during the war and I assume that meant they had some excellent craftsmen available. And besides, it greatly annoyed the Germans, who did have a serious shortage of aircraft materials. Goring raged about the British being able to build a very fast aircraft out of wood when it was the Germans that were short of aluminum.

Interestingly enough, in WWI the Germans introduced the steel tube fuselage because they were out of suitable wood.

 

[MIflyer]

And don't forget the Hornet!

 

[Elmas]

Does anyone know the number of fuselages that were produced every day for each individual mold?

I imagine that at least two or three hours of curing were necessary to allow the glue to be catalyzed and, considering at least another two or three hours to place plywood and balsa on the mold, I do not think that with single mold they could build more than four raw fuselages per day.

But these are only assumptions, some additional information would be very welcome.