Metal Mosquito built massively in the US

[gruad]

Metal Mosquito built massively in the US

The attache of the USAAF to Britain recommended the Mosquito as 'exceptional' and a plane was taken to the US for evaluation once the US came into the war.

The feedback from manufacturers was poor, citing the wooden construction as an act of desperation to utilise limited resource, unable to survive stress or a hit from an enemy weapon.

But what if those same manufacturers decided that the US, without the metal shortage of the UK, could produce a metal version of the Mosquito?

Were the Mossie's advantages a result of its wooden construction, or would it have been even better in a metal construction with Packard Merlins? Could it have surplanted the B17 and B24 as the US's primary bomber given that its bomb carrying capacity was similar?

The precedent is there - post war the US produced its own version of the Canberra, an unarmed superfast bomber, the B57.

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Gruad,

Hap Arnold demanded a study of possible US production of an aluminum Mosquito. It was not found to be an efficient use of American factories. As the Mosquito wasn't effective as a daylight strategic bomber, American interest was limited to photo reconnaissance and (pending delivery of the P-61) night fighting - both of which could more effectively be handeled through reverse Lend Lease.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[pbehn]

Metal Mosquito built massively in the US

The attache of the USAAF to Britain recommended the Mosquito as 'exceptional' and a plane was taken to the US for evaluation once the US came into the war.

The feedback from manufacturers was poor, citing the wooden construction as an act of desperation to utilise limited resource, unable to survive stress or a hit from an enemy weapon.

But what if those same manufacturers decided that the US, without the metal shortage of the UK, could produce a metal version of the Mosquito?

Were the Mossie's advantages a result of its wooden construction, or would it have been even better in a metal construction with Packard Merlins? Could it have surplanted the B17 and B24 as the US's primary bomber given that its bomb carrying capacity was similar?

The precedent is there - post war the US produced its own version of the Canberra, an unarmed superfast bomber, the B57.

There are a huge number of misconceptions around the Mosquito. Nice of the attache to say it was exceptional, it was, but not because it was made of wood. The P-51 was as good as it was because of its wing profiles, low drag cooling system and excellent surface finish /clean lines. Look at the Mosquito's lines and finish, look at its cooling set up with wing leading edge radiators. The RAF profiles of the Mosquito cannot claim to be as advanced as the P-51 but they were in that direction.

The feedback from people in USA was nonsense just basically we don't build it so we don't like it and we have the P-38. The Mosquito wasnt built from duralumin but it was built using balsa wood and mahogany laminates, there are as many duralumin trees in UK as there are mahogany and balsa trees, these woods had to be imported. De Havilland used the use of wood as a selling point, not so much for the materials but for the work force, there were thousands of people skilled in working with wood from the furniture industries but few who were skilled in working with aluminium. All manufacturers had to train their workforce and that took time. How much enemy fire a plane can take is a matter of debate, but the philosophy of the mosquito was to not take much if at all. The USA did use the Mosquito for recon and wanted them as nightfighters.

The Mosquito couldnt carry the bomb load of the B-17 and B-24. The 4,000lb "cookie" that the Mosquito dropped wasnt a "bomb" in the conventional sense, in conventional bombs it could carry 4 x 500lb it was a light precision bomber. The USA had not even contemplated building the Mosquito until it joined the war, this means it couldnt build it in any numbers before the end of the war while the B-17 were already in production.

There is no doubt a metal Mosquito could be made, the de Havilland Hornet and Grumman Tigercat were twin engined fighters with very similar performance, just specify what you want. Asking for a bomber with no guns was the big step, building it out of wood was a quite sensible idea after that.

 

[swampyankee]

Due to some serious crashes in the 1920s and early 1930s, wooden primary structure was virtually banned for large aircraft, so the companies the USAAF would put bids out to had little experience with building high-performance aircraft.

The USAAF report seems more of a diatribe than a serious assessment.

 

[Shortround6]

Some US companies tried using wood, but it takes a bit of experience/knowledge.

Not one of Curtiss's better efforts.

Building a metal version of the Mosquito sounds easy (don't have to find those pesky Basla trees in Ecuador/Honduras)

But basically it means keeping the general shape/outline of the Mosquito and some of the features (like engines/cooling systems/landing gear) and designing/engineering
a whole new structure within those constraints. Not really much easier or quicker than designing a whole new airplane.
Now throw in you can't copy any of the jigs/fixtures used to manufacture the wooden version.
What are the Americans gaining in trying to devote a factory and engineering staff to this project?
Douglas flew the XA-26 in July of 1942 and presented the B-42 Mixmaster proposal to the USAAF in May of 1943.

I would note that the demand for the B-29 caused a lot of 1942-43 projects to stay on paper rather than take up factory space (or Wright R-3350 engines) during planning stages.

 

[pbehn]

Some US companies tried using wood, but it takes a bit of experience/knowledge.

Not one of Curtiss's better efforts.

Building a metal version of the Mosquito sounds easy (don't have to find those pesky Basla trees in Ecuador/Honduras)

But basically it means keeping the general shape/outline of the Mosquito and some of the features (like engines/cooling systems/landing gear) and designing/engineering
a whole new structure within those constraints. Not really much easier or quicker than designing a whole new airplane.
Now throw in you can't copy any of the jigs/fixtures used to manufacture the wooden version.
What are the Americans gaining in trying to devote a factory and engineering staff to this project?
Douglas flew the XA-26 in July of 1942 and presented the B-42 Mixmaster proposal to the USAAF in May of 1943.

I would note that the demand for the B-29 caused a lot of 1942-43 projects to stay on paper rather than take up factory space (or Wright R-3350 engines) during planning stages.

As I understand it, all was based in Europe around wiping the LW out in early 1944 and landing in France in early summer, anything that didn't fit that schedule was binned. There is no chance of a brand new strategy that involves cutting down a few million more trees being accepted.

 

[nuuumannn]

There is no doubt a metal Mosquito could be made

No doubt, but at what cost and for what purpose?

But basically it means keeping the general shape/outline of the Mosquito and some of the features (like engines/cooling systems/landing gear) and designing/engineering a whole new structure within those constraints. Not really much easier or quicker than designing a whole new airplane. Now throw in you can't copy any of the jigs/fixtures used to manufacture the wooden version.
What are the Americans gaining in trying to devote a factory and engineering staff to this project?

Yes, yes and yes. Agree with SR on this. A few things to remember, the Mosquito was specifically designed to be made of non-strategic materials (there is quite a bit of metal in a Mossie, just not its main structure) using manufacturing techniques that did not pose an interruption to existing production lines or utilise resources, the supply of which might come under threat in wartime, therefore building a metal one defeats the purpose of it.

As SR points out, you might as well design a new aeroplane from scratch, if you are gonna build one out of metal. The Mosquito isn't built like a conventional metal stressed skin aeroplane. It's not sheet metal rivetted to conventional metal framework assemblies, like the majority of metal aircraft built in WW2. The thing is built out of a ply-balsa-ply sandwich and laminated spruce - to my knowledge mahogany was not used in its structure - it's too dense, although the forming moulds were made of mahogany, sheets of which are compressed together in a forming mould to create two halves of the fuselage, like a plastic kit, within which the interior was fitted out, then the lot was assembled. The wing and tailplane were more or less conventionally built, but again, the outer covering was a compressed sandwich. The lot was covered in light weight fabric for smoothness.

There's no way you could make a metal aircraft like that with the techniques used. You would have to start from scratch to redesign the entire interior structure to enable it to be made of metal. This would take time to re-draw and then construct all the jigs and stuff to do it.

It simply isn't worth it. If the USA wanted Mosquitoes so badly, it would have built them as the type was intended, under licence. Once its abilities became known, every British command wanted it and the factories making them couldn't build enough airframes quickly enough. Certainly a production line in the USA makes sense, if only to fulfill quantity orders for British needs, but I can't see the USA doing that. Historically, US manufacturers turned the offer down to build it under licence, precisely because of its wooden structure.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The precision strike the Mosquito was designed to accomplish in the "tactical" role was most certainly it's niche, however the "strategic" flavor of the day was to rain massive amounts of bombs over a given target, either by precision daylight bombing or by night area bombing. I don't think you were going to rain down the same amount of destruction on a given target using low level Mosquitos as you would using a massive formation of B-17s, B-24s or Lancasters and the physiological effects of massive bomber formations also played a major role. An alternative was to use the Mosquito at high altitude like the heavies which I've heard some argue could have been done (based on bomb load), but you would have had to accomplish a bomb run that would take away the Mosquito's best asset - it's speed. Too many people look at speed and bombloads and attempt to put out a "what if" scenario but fail to consider that given the technology of the day, you're either going to destroy a target by heaving a massive amount of bombs over it or by flying like a bat out of hell over a target and hoping your aim is perfect on the first attempt. As far as a "metal Mosquito"? Not worth the time and effort as pointed out by nuuumannn.

 

[Crimea_River]

With Grant on the mahogany as it was not used to my knowledge. Apart from the main fuselage sandwich of birch-ply and balsa, the other woods were spruce ply used in the nose sandwich construction, spruce stringers in the fuselage, solid birch or ash in other structural components, and walnut under the vertical stab and other areas.

 

[fastmongrel]

I notice that the "Mosquito was invisible to Radar because of its wooden construction" myth is still alive and kicking on the interwebs. Didn't anyone notice those two big spinning Radar reflectors stuck on the wings.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I notice that the "Mosquito was invisible to Radar because of its wooden construction" myth is still alive and kicking on the interwebs. Didn't anyone notice those two big spinning Radar reflectors stuck on the wings.

Yep! It did have a "lower" radar signature than other metal aircraft was was not "invisible" to radar.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I notice that the "Mosquito was invisible to Radar because of its wooden construction" myth is still alive and kicking on the interwebs. Didn't anyone notice those two big spinning Radar reflectors stuck on the wings.

It was certainly not invisible, but was most certainly considerably harder to pick up than metal aircraft were. I have read this directly in German Air Ministry meeting records, so I would
not call that a "myth".

18th March 1943: Görings Karinhall lodge, (Martini is the Luftwaffe head of radar and radiowave technology)

Generalfeldmarschall Milch Microfilm Records: 35mm Vol-62, Frames #5495..5498

 

[Elmas]

Building a metal Mosquito has the same sense than building a wooden P-38...

 

[Elmas]

...not to speak of the necessity to completely re-draw the bluprints by U.S. standards.
By the end of this work and building the jigs, the war would have been already finished...

 

[pbehn]

It was certainly not invisible, but was most certainly considerably harder to pick up than metal aircraft were. I have read this directly in German Air Ministry meeting records, so I would
not call that a "myth".

18th March 1943: Görings Karinhall lodge, (Martini is the Luftwaffe head of radar and radiowave technology)

Generalfeldmarschall Milch Microfilm Records: 35mm Vol-62, Frames #5495..5498
View attachment 596996

I think the important word is "vectored". Being smaller they had to vector interceptions closer to be "in visual range". The cruising ground speed of a Mosquito was higher than the ground speed of the interceptors and most missions were not planned in straight lines but on a series of way points.

 

[pbehn]

Building a metal Mosquito has the same sense than building a wooden P-38...

That is a great idea, I am starting to see all the positives already.

 

[Elmas]

That is a great idea, I am starting to see all the positives already.

Not to speak of a wooden P-39: what a wonderful airplane it could have been!

 

[pbehn]

No doubt, but at what cost and for what purpose?
.

It is a common discussion and goes hand in hand with "get the Merlin engined P-51 in service sooner". There is no doubt both the USA and the UK could have made use of more Mosquitos. It just needed someone to identify that it would be needed before it proved what it could do, which was a bit too late. If there was someone who identified the need for a recon aircraft to note the weather over Europe in 1939/40 and the need for an S/E escort fighter with up to 8 hours endurance he would be seen as a genius today but a bit eccentric at the time.

 

[swampyankee]

The USAAF management didn't see the need for an aircraft with the general capabilities of a Mosquito until they were involved in WW2. If they had then immediately decided they needed a US Mosquito emulation in aluminum, they'd be able to get one: they had quite a few aircraft manufacturers capable of producing high-speed, two-engine aircraft, even though the only one to actually enter service was the P-38. In this particular case, it is likely the USAAF would find it more sensible to buy Mosquitoes, which is exactly what happened in WW2: the USAAF operated significant numbers of both Mosquitoes and Spitfires because they were better for particular roles than any available US aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

The trouble with a lot of these threads with the Mosquito is that people want to use the capabilities of the Mosquito as it existed in 1944. And then say how ____________________(insert derogatory phrase) the Americans were for not jumping all over it in late 1941 or 1942 and devoting large amounts of manufacturing capacity to it.

The Americans had the P-38 and a photo recon version was in service in the spring of 1942 in Australia/New Guinea.
The Americans were building A-20s with R-2600 engines and a top speed of just over 340mph in 1941
The Americans had both the B-25 and B-26 with the early versions capable of a bit over 300mph in 1941/42.
The Americans also had several twin engine bomber prototypes with pressure cabins and turbocharged engines in development. The NA B-28 first flew in April of 1942.
And Douglas flew the Prototype A-26 in July 1942 less than 5 weeks after Midway.

At the time General Arnold saw the Mosquito it had a bomb load of 1000lbs. did it not?

In the Spring/summer of 1941 the Mosquito was nowhere near the capabilities it would show later.

For the Americans, many of their planes kept the same engines almost from beginning to end.
The B-25 pretty much started with 1700hp engines and ended with them, the B-26 started with 1850hp engines and ended with 2000hp engines.
The A-20 started (in American service) with 1600hp engines and ended with 1700hp engines. (the 1900hp R-2600s went into TBM and SB2Cs and a few other planes)

It took quite a while for the Mosquito to get the 4000lb cookie. While planning started in the spring/early summer of 1943 (?) first actual use was Feb 22nd 1944(?)
which if true, was right in the midst of 'Big Week" which is way to late to change the types of bombers in production.

BTW the Lockheed project that lead to the XP-58 was started in 1940, but the cancelation of the first 3 engines it was to use delayed things considerably (as did changing requirements as to what mission it was supposed to do. )

The Mosquito did turn out to be one of the all time greats. But seeing that in the summer of 1941 calls for a mighty good crystal ball.
Production of a metal version by the US might not have shown up until 1943/44 and the US might have screwed it up by trying to stick a pressure cabin on it, use turbos and norden bombsight and try to bomb from 30,000ft