Metal Mosquito

[GregP]

The closest thing to a metal Mosquito I have seen is the post-WWII Argentine FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu.

Looks more like a Hornet, had Merlins, but was WAY faster than a Mosquito. Unfortunately they only built one ...

 

[wuzak]

The closest thing to a metal Mosquito I have seen is the post-WWII Argentine FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu.

Looks more like a Hornet, had Merlins, but was WAY faster than a Mosquito. Unfortunately they only built one ...

But not faster than the heavier, but slightly smaller, Hornet.

It was smaller and lighter than the Mosquito, and had later Merlins. Also couldn't carry the load of the Mosquito.

 

[GregP]

It was better-looking than the Mosquito, but that is subjective and personal. Since they only made one, the combat-proven choice is the Mosquito. Still the Namcu was METAL and the closest to the Mosquito in metal I kow of ... which is, after all, the title of the thread.

 

[wuzak]

It was better-looking than the Mosquito, but that is subjective and personal. Since they only made one, the combat-proven choice is the Mosquito. Still the Namcu was METAL and the closest to the Mosquito in metal I kow of ... which is, after all, the title of the thread.

I suppose it is the closest thing to a metal Mosquito - but, as you noted earlier, it resembles the Hornet. It's roles are more like the Hornet's than the Msoquito's too.

 

[wuzak]

I have some more data from The de Havilland Mosquito Page

This gives me 1694 bombers of all types.
1939 fighters and night fighters
2828 fighter bombers
739 photo recon types
454 trainers
66 torpedo bombers

Plus the original prototype, W4050, and a turret fighter prototype.

The numbers above show the Mosquitos constructed as those types. Some were converted into other types - some PRIs were converted into BIV series i, for example, but not constructed as such.

These add up to 7722 units - still some 59 short of the listed number built (7781).

Some types were built after the war - such as the B35, PR32, PR34, NF36 and NF38.

Best I can figure some 1416 bombers were built during the war, not including prototypes.

 

[Juha]

Re more Mosquitos. The existing carpentry industry was pretty well at capacity with Horsas, Hamilcars, Albermarles, Master, Martinet and Mosquitos.Perhaps the Albermarle and Master/Martinet capacity could have been diverted to Mosquito production but the biggest increase possible in Mosquito bombers would have been to divert all Mosquito production to bombers. No fighters. Let Beaufighters do the nightfighting etc. Squeeze as hard as you like but I doubt if you could end up with more than 50% more Mosquito bombers so what will you use if you choose not to mass bomb at night with heavy bombers?

IMHO it would have been easy to limit Albemarle production, of course one would has needed more glider tugs, but one needed trainers and high speed target tugs, so Master/Martinet production was very important so difficult to cut back.

Juha

 

[mhuxt]

I have it in my head that 6,671 Mossies were built during the course of the war, but of course many of those built in late '44 and during '45 will not have made it to operational units.

My db has:

FB.VI 2176
F.II 561
NF.30 530
PR.XVI 435
B.XVI 400
FB26 398
T.III 358
B.25 330
B.IV Series II 292
NF.XIX 280
B.35 276
NF.XIII 270
B.XX 245
FB.40 206
PR.34 181
NF.36 162
FB.VI series I 113
NF.38 101
PR.IX 90
B25 70
B.IX 54
TR.33 52
T29 37
B.VII 25
F.II (Special) Intruder for 23 Squadron 25
T27 19
FB.XVIII 17
TR.37 14
PRU/Bomber conversion type or B.IV Series 1 9
T22 6
PR.4 6
PR.1 5
Production T.III (or II dual control) 5
PR.32 4
NF.XV 4
PR.VIII 4
FB21 3
PR.1 (long-range/tropicalised) 2
PR.1 (long-range) 2
Turret fighter. T.III prototype 1
Prototype Mk.XII 1
Prototype 1
Second turret fighter prototype mod to T.III 1
Mk. XV pressure cabin prototype bomber 1
Bomber prototype. B.V 1
F.II prototype 1
NF.38 prototype 1
First production F.II (single control) 1
PR.1 prototype 1
Grand Total 7777

Which gives a total of 4850 armed Mossies, 2927 unarmed.

I have a videotape here somewhere which features an interview with Ralph Hare, who was one of the original design team. later becoming Head of Structures at BAe. He makes the statement that dH undertook a study of a similar design in metal, based on the dH Flamingo (I think it's the Flamingo), the study concluding that had the Mosquito desigin been continued in metal, it would have been heavier for the same strength.

Bear in mind dH's experience with high-performance aircraft was pretty much all in wood - even the Vampire jet fighter had a wooden cockpit pod.

I love the Mossie but there were jobs it couldn't do - shutting down the French railways required lots and lots and lots of 500 lb bombs per acre of target. The Hallies and Lancs could deliver them, the Mossie not.

 

[wuzak]

This is what I have..at the moment
B.25 400
B.35 276
B.IV Series II 292
B.IX 54
B.VII 25
B.XVI 400
B.XX 245
Bomber prototype. B.V 1
F.II 561
F.II (Special) Intruder for 23 Squadron 25
F.II prototype 1
FB.40 206
FB.VI 2176
FB.VI series I 113
FB.XVIII 17
FB.21 3
FB.26 313
First production F.II (single control) 1
Mk. XV pressure cabin prototype bomber 1
NF.30 530
NF.36 162
NF.38 101
NF.38 prototype 1
NF.XIII 272
NF.XIX 280
NF.XV 4
PR.1 5
PR.1 (long-range) 2
PR.1 (long-range/tropicalised) 2
PR.1 prototype 1
PR.32 4
PR.34 181
PR.40 6
PR.IX 90
PR.VIII 4
PR.XVI 435
Production T.III (or II dual control) 5
Prototype 1
Prototype Mk.XII 1
PRU/Bomber conversion type 9
Second turret fighter prototype 1
T.III 358
T.22 6
T.27 49
T.29 35
TR.33 52
TR.37 14
Turret fighter. T.III prototype 1

Total 7722.

 

[wuzak]

I have a videotape here somewhere which features an interview with Ralph Hare, who was one of the original design team. later becoming Head of Structures at BAe. He makes the statement that dH undertook a study of a similar design in metal, based on the dH Flamingo (I think it's the Flamingo), the study concluding that had the Mosquito desigin been continued in metal, it would have been heavier for the same strength.

Bear in mind dH's experience with high-performance aircraft was pretty much all in wood - even the Vampire jet fighter had a wooden cockpit pod.

Yes, I believe I have the same video.

I love the Mossie but there were jobs it couldn't do - shutting down the French railways required lots and lots and lots of 500 lb bombs per acre of target. The Hallies and Lancs could deliver them, the Mossie not.

Sure, a Mosquito couldn't carry as many 500lb bombs as a Lanc or Halibag. Nor could a B-17 or B-24.

For short range missions the Mossie could carry 6 500lb bombs (from the IX on) with one under each wing. With the bulged bomb bay doors they could carry 6 internally (same goes for B.IV) using the infamous Avro carrier. For the later marks with the strengthened wing 8 could be carried. I know a lot of B-17 missions were flown with 10 x 500lb bombs - just not sure if B-17s could actually carry more internally (you could carry them externally, but not sure if slowing the thing even further would be wise).

The B.IV (just), B.IX and B.XVI could carry the 4000lb HC "Cookie" blast bomb, as well as the 4000lb MC bomb - which was designed for low level use because the "Cookie" could break apart in low level operations.

Getting "lots and lots and lots of 500 lb bombs per acre of target" for Mosquitos would mean multiple attacks, rather than single raids. But then it is likely that they would attack at low level and achieve a larger percentage of bombs dropped into the target area.

The main jobs the Mossies couldn't do which the heavies could relate to the big bomb jobs - Chastise, Tallboy, Grand Slam, 8000lb HC bomb and 12,000lb HC bomb. Which the B-17 and B-24 couldn't do either.

 

[mhuxt]

But then it is likely that they would attack at low level and achieve a larger percentage of bombs dropped into the target area.

Agreed. I sometimes wonder, when I see pics of "Mosquito X drops Y bombs through the roof of target Z", what the corresponding cost of the same effect would have been had the heavies been asked to do the job.

Hmm, Mossies vs German oil, woulda coulda shoulda.

 

[wuzak]

Agreed. I sometimes wonder, when I see pics of "Mosquito X drops Y bombs through the roof of target Z", what the corresponding cost of the same effect would have been had the heavies been asked to do the job.

Hmm, Mossies vs German oil, woulda coulda shoulda.

The RAF had the evidence in 1943. IIRC the calculations showed the Mosquito to be as much as 6 times more efficient than the Lancaster.

But there was a lot of impetus behind the heavy bomber campaign.

 

[mhuxt]

Yep, the RAF wasn't going to be able to pull 600 Mossie bombers from its hat at any point after February 1942 really. The Mossie did well to stay on the Bomber Command OOB at all, and even then it was a near-run thing.

 

[wuzak]

Yep, the RAF wasn't going to be able to pull 600 Mossie bombers from its hat at any point after February 1942 really. The Mossie did well to stay on the Bomber Command OOB at all, and even then it was a near-run thing.

Should have had at least 400 bombers by mid 1943 - B.IV production was 400 during 1942 and early 1943, with 54 B.IXs (and 90 PR.IXs) coming off the lines from April 1943. PR.XVIs started rolling off the lines late in 1943, and the B.XVI not long after.

If priorities were changed there were 561 F.IIs built in 1942 and the first few months of 1943.

Canada production began in 1943, but not sure how quickly they were delivered. 245 B.XXs would have been handy.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the informative posts

 

[wuzak]

The other problem was that early Mosquito daylight raids appeared to have high loss rates. But that was largely because the raids were small, often having little more than 3 or 6 bombers on a mission. The loss of a single or two bombers made the loss rates high (1/6 = 16.7%).

It has been my belief for a while that it was the capacity of the defenders that determined loss rates moreso than the numbers of attacking bombers. So if the LW was able to down 1 Mossie in a raid using 6, it is unlikely that they would be able to down 17 in a 100 bomber raid. Maybe get a couple more.

It was something that changed the loss rates for the USAAF 8th AF too. In mid 1943 when they sent around 300 bombers to Schweinfurt they lost around 60, yet in early 1944 when they sent as many as 1000 bombers on a raid they still lost around the 60-80 mark.

 

[Timppa]

Most sources suggest that an all-metal Mosquito would have been heavier.

Most ?
OK, list some of your sources.

AFAIK, there is no specific study between any aircraft made all wood or all metal.

However there were some aircraft I know of, where single components were switched from wood to metal or vice versa. The wooden one was heavier, without exception:

1. La-5FN. Wooden wing spars and some ribs were changed to aluminum alloy. Weight saving 100 kg.

2. Some of the late Bf109G's had wooden tails (due to material shortage). They were so much heavier, that they needed a 25kg counterbalance in the nose. In Finland, as the material deteriorated rapidly due to exposure to the elements, they were changed back to metal tails.

3. In Finland, wings of one Brewster were changed to locally designed wooden ones. Total weight increase was 250kg.

The post war De Havilland Hornet wings were partially made of Al-alloy also.

 

[mhuxt]

The other problem was that early Mosquito daylight raids appeared to have high loss rates. But that was largely because the raids were small, often having little more than 3 or 6 bombers on a mission. The loss of a single or two bombers made the loss rates high (1/6 = 16.7%).

It has been my belief for a while that it was the capacity of the defenders that determined loss rates moreso than the numbers of attacking bombers. So if the LW was able to down 1 Mossie in a raid using 6, it is unlikely that they would be able to down 17 in a 100 bomber raid. Maybe get a couple more.

It was something that changed the loss rates for the USAAF 8th AF too. In mid 1943 when they sent around 300 bombers to Schweinfurt they lost around 60, yet in early 1944 when they sent as many as 1000 bombers on a raid they still lost around the 60-80 mark.

Dadblang it, where do I upload zip files? Have a file on day Mossie bomber losses that puts the absolute number in perspective..

 

[cimmex]

Most ?




.

2. Some of the late Bf109G's had wooden tails (due to material shortage). They were so much heavier, that they needed a 25kg counterbalance in the nose.

There never was a shortage of aluminum during the war in Germany. The reason why more and more aircraft parts were made of wood was quite simple. The aircraft production was decentralised and spread over the country to avoid bombing damage. Skilled sheet metal workers were limited but there were a lot of well trained workers in the furniture industry and so those companies made the wooden aircraft parts.
cimmex

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A metal Mosquito wasn't something out of the question. I think it "would had" made a better over-all aircraft had the performance not been affected by any changes in weight and structural strength. Going with a metal structure would mean an entire redesign of the structure and stress analysis done to the replacement metal parts. I would guess that more structural components would have been necessary to achieve the same strengths that the wood monocoque construction achieved. Lastly I think the Mosquito, if able to been built of metal "would have" remained around many more years than it actually did.

A metal Mosquito with a turbo-prop, engine! A perfect counter-insurgency aircraft!

 

[yulzari]

The point I wanted to examine was that the RAF in 1941 realised it could not hit specific targets in the dark nor could it's heavy bombers survive in daylight over Germany. It also was seeing that Mosquito in 1942 was able to do just that. If you ran the RAF then could you have switched strategy to daylight low level point bombing or were you locked into night heavy area bombing.

Whist I see the 'Mosquito' route as the one I would have preferred, and one could point to this design or that as a metal alternative (not literally a Mosquito made in metal), I can see no way it could have been achieved in a possible timescale. Industrial inertia was locked into the heavy night bomber. The best they might have done was to enhance Mosquito bomber production but it could not replace the heavies.

I do accept that the Beaufighter was a lesser night fighter but it would release Mosquitos. War involves unpleasant compromises and my underlying theme of the post is which is the most effective compromise the RAF could actually have made at that point in time. The USAAF managed on (well worn) Beaufighters in the Mediterranean into 1945.

FLYBOYJ. I think you will find that this is called an FMA IA 58 Pucará and easier to hit with an L7A2 GPMG than a Douglas A4 Skyhawk.

Just in case somebody suggests one could move the Beaufighter into a daylight low level bomber over Germany can I remind them that it is in the Boston/Baltimore performance bracket. Good but needing escort.