Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.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.
There is no doubt a metal Mosquito could be made
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?
Yep! It did have a "lower" radar signature than other metal aircraft was was not "invisible" to radar.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.
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.
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.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
That is a great idea, I am starting to see all the positives already.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.
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.No doubt, but at what cost and for what purpose?
.