wuzak
Captain
Ok, so not all-metal.
Anything about the Mosquito's size and performance made in all-metal which could be used as a comparison?
Metal Mosquito
- Thread starter yulzari
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ok, so not all-metal.
Anything about the Mosquito's size and performance made in all-metal which could be used as a comparison?
Cheers.
View attachment Day Moss Loss vs BC 2.zipBrief file I put together on daylight Mosquito bomber losses. Go through it from the first tab down. First tab shows overall losses, looks pretty high. Second tab shows that as time went on, the overall loss rate diminished. Third tab shows how the loss rate was brought down, by looking at loss rate over the previous 100 sorties. Fourth tab shows the trendline (logarithmic) for the previous 100 sorties. Fifth tab contrasts the prevoius graph with BC night losses by month. Fifth to seventh show all of the above, with info for the two squadrons, 105 and 139. Eighth tab shows how and when the focus changed from high- to low-level sorties. Next shows high vs low vs monthly loss rate, and trend of monthly loss rate. Next shows aircraft sorties by size of formations dispatched. Next shows both high/low and size of formation. Next tab ("format size pivot") is just data for the graph. Final tab with any meaning for the current discussion is "format size losses" which shows that the most effective / low-loss raids were at low level, by formations of 6-12 aircraft, also reason for losses - note losses through collision on raids with more than 12 aircraft.
Loss info tab has description of individual losses.
The rest is calculations / data for the graphs.
Loss info tab has description of individual losses.
The rest is calculations / data for the graphs.
Last edited:
On the glue issue, I can't get to my copy of "Mosquito" as the Wicked Witch of the West stands between myself and the book, and I've had enough of her **** for today.
The glue was not changed after the India crashes, nor was it the cause thereof. Two of the first four Mossies to go to the CBI, mid '43 IIRC, had formaldehyde glue. The aircraft were there to be parked outside to test deterioration, but were pressed into service.
The crashes which caused concern in India were both on 20 October, 1944, HP919 and HP921. As you can tell from the serial numbers, they were both from the same series, FB.VIs built by Standard Motors. All the FB.VIs in theatre were grounded (recce Mossies, again IIRC, stayed on ops uninterrupted) and the fault was found to be in the manufacture of the wings at Standard, faulty gluing to one of the ribs. Mossies were back in action three weeks later, and stayed in action beyond the end of the war, fighting the insurgency in what is now Malaysia.
The very last operational RAF Mossie sortie was flown from Singapore, in 1952.
The glue was not changed after the India crashes, nor was it the cause thereof. Two of the first four Mossies to go to the CBI, mid '43 IIRC, had formaldehyde glue. The aircraft were there to be parked outside to test deterioration, but were pressed into service.
The crashes which caused concern in India were both on 20 October, 1944, HP919 and HP921. As you can tell from the serial numbers, they were both from the same series, FB.VIs built by Standard Motors. All the FB.VIs in theatre were grounded (recce Mossies, again IIRC, stayed on ops uninterrupted) and the fault was found to be in the manufacture of the wings at Standard, faulty gluing to one of the ribs. Mossies were back in action three weeks later, and stayed in action beyond the end of the war, fighting the insurgency in what is now Malaysia.
The very last operational RAF Mossie sortie was flown from Singapore, in 1952.
wuzak
Captain
Interesting data Mark.
From this we can conclude that:
1) Mosquito losses during the day were higher than other BC losses at night
2) Mosquito daytime losses were trending down and converging with BC night bomber losses.
3) The loss rates became lower when low level bombing.
4) BC ignored this and switched them to bombing at night as pathfinders.
We also know that low level bombing was more accurate than high level bombing.
Would be interesting to see how other unescorted day bombers fared in the same time period. Particularly B-17s.
From this we can conclude that:
1) Mosquito losses during the day were higher than other BC losses at night
2) Mosquito daytime losses were trending down and converging with BC night bomber losses.
3) The loss rates became lower when low level bombing.
4) BC ignored this and switched them to bombing at night as pathfinders.
We also know that low level bombing was more accurate than high level bombing.
Would be interesting to see how other unescorted day bombers fared in the same time period. Particularly B-17s.
wuzak
Captain
And looking at the low level statistics, it may have been a good thing to have made at least one series of two stage powered Mosquitos with the low level Merlin 66.
Heya,
Yes, those are my conclusions. As you know, 105 and 139 were switched to night ops at the end of May '43, same day as the other light bombers in 2 Group were hived off to the new 2 TAF. Harris apparently had told dH that the Mossies were invaluable as markers, so brought the 2 Mossie squadrons over to night ops. No doubt this was a result of the handful of 109 Squadron aircraft, equipped with Oboe, had marked Essen accurately enough for the heavies to smash the place up in March of that year.
I posted in another thread 8th AF losses by month.
I think the only direct comparison would be with the B-26, which had a very bad experience unescorted by day against targets in Holland, only real direct parallel to the Mossie.
Ultimately, 2 Group / TAF went back to Mossies, though they were armed fighter bombers, as opposed to the bombers.
Yes, those are my conclusions. As you know, 105 and 139 were switched to night ops at the end of May '43, same day as the other light bombers in 2 Group were hived off to the new 2 TAF. Harris apparently had told dH that the Mossies were invaluable as markers, so brought the 2 Mossie squadrons over to night ops. No doubt this was a result of the handful of 109 Squadron aircraft, equipped with Oboe, had marked Essen accurately enough for the heavies to smash the place up in March of that year.
I posted in another thread 8th AF losses by month.
I think the only direct comparison would be with the B-26, which had a very bad experience unescorted by day against targets in Holland, only real direct parallel to the Mossie.
Ultimately, 2 Group / TAF went back to Mossies, though they were armed fighter bombers, as opposed to the bombers.
wuzak
Captain
Looked at the combined sheet you posted on the other thread. It would seem that, for the most part, 8th AF losses were similar or higher than the Mosquitos the last few months before they switched to night bombing.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
In all this, you're bypassing some fundamental problems:-
1) What are you going to do with de Havilland, since they were, first and foremost, experts in wooden airframes?
2) How are you going to make a metal airframe in the way that the wooden structure was made?
Fuselages (and wings) left here (my home town High Wycombe) in identical form, with the fuselages (especially) as hollow shells (one company's employees, throughout the war, thought they were building boats.) When their service needs were assessed, the shells' interiors' wood was cut to receive the requisite Mark's half bulkheads and internal equipment, then the two halves glued together, the wing "hole" cut out, then the whole thing fitted over, and glued to, its purpose-fitted wings. As far as I know, metal aircraft start with the bulkheads, followed by longerons, followed by the metal skin, which requires a completely different type of workforce.
3) What are you going to do with the hundreds of woodworking companies, with most of their workforce well beyond the age when they can be useful to armed forces? There was huge satisfaction in High Wycombe's factories that they were doing their bit in the war. Please, no twaddle about them going back to making furniture, which nobody wanted.
1) What are you going to do with de Havilland, since they were, first and foremost, experts in wooden airframes?
2) How are you going to make a metal airframe in the way that the wooden structure was made?
Fuselages (and wings) left here (my home town High Wycombe) in identical form, with the fuselages (especially) as hollow shells (one company's employees, throughout the war, thought they were building boats.) When their service needs were assessed, the shells' interiors' wood was cut to receive the requisite Mark's half bulkheads and internal equipment, then the two halves glued together, the wing "hole" cut out, then the whole thing fitted over, and glued to, its purpose-fitted wings. As far as I know, metal aircraft start with the bulkheads, followed by longerons, followed by the metal skin, which requires a completely different type of workforce.
3) What are you going to do with the hundreds of woodworking companies, with most of their workforce well beyond the age when they can be useful to armed forces? There was huge satisfaction in High Wycombe's factories that they were doing their bit in the war. Please, no twaddle about them going back to making furniture, which nobody wanted.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think we're looking at "could have" the Mosquito been made out of metal, not the hypthetical impact on the industry supporting it. I think if you look at my post (39) I address on the fabrication process in applying metal fabrication as a replacement for wood, very "doable" even during WW2. As far as concerns in 1 3? I'm sure there were PLENTY of other industries that could have used all the personnel involved in producing the Mosquito, again highly hypothetical here.
wuzak
Captain
I think a metal successor to the Mosquito would be a better option than a metal Mosquito.
If you have to redsign the whole structure in metal you may as well expand on the Mosquito concept with a newer design. Something like teh Hawker P.1005 project.
If you have to redsign the whole structure in metal you may as well expand on the Mosquito concept with a newer design. Something like teh Hawker P.1005 project.
GregP
Major
The woodworkers could have made ... BOATS! How about PT boats?
They could have made Morgan sports cars (wood frames). They could have fitted out the interiors of ships. They could have made accordians. They could have made hordes of Tiger Moths or Dragon Rapides.
But a metal Mosquito? Naaaahhh ... if you ditched, you couldn't make a raft out of a metal Mosquito! All you needed for the real Mosquito was a hatchet and an outboard motor ... it was already pretty much of a boat shape, huh? of course, you WOULD have to get rid of the wings / engines before you sank, so the hatchet had better be sharp and you had better be quick about it.
They could have made Morgan sports cars (wood frames). They could have fitted out the interiors of ships. They could have made accordians. They could have made hordes of Tiger Moths or Dragon Rapides.
But a metal Mosquito? Naaaahhh ... if you ditched, you couldn't make a raft out of a metal Mosquito! All you needed for the real Mosquito was a hatchet and an outboard motor ... it was already pretty much of a boat shape, huh? of course, you WOULD have to get rid of the wings / engines before you sank, so the hatchet had better be sharp and you had better be quick about it.
A hybrid mixed metal wood solution would probably be best. Wood does have the advantage of producing a very smooth surface especially after covered in doped fabric. The Soviets used aircraft with metal spars and wooden skins and ribs for instance that the Germans found very strong.
The Heinkel He 162 Volksjaeger used a metal fueselage; it looks beatifully streamlined to me and was obviously built for mass production. This suggests to me a good smooth fueselage could be built in metal. However, it used wooden and plastic wings. The main spar which was of constant thickness was made of a material called Ty-Bu which was laminations of bakelite and wood. This started at 25% of chord at the root and ended up being at 50% at the wing tip.
A wooden fueselage was not considered viable for a single engined design: the cutouts for guns, cockpit, 3 undercarriage legs, engine mounting etc being seen as too much for the sake of structural integrity for a wooden design. A twin engine design such as the Mosquito keeps the fueselage clear of penetrations by placing the undercarriage into the wing mounted engine nacells.
The Heinkel He 162 Volksjaeger used a metal fueselage; it looks beatifully streamlined to me and was obviously built for mass production. This suggests to me a good smooth fueselage could be built in metal. However, it used wooden and plastic wings. The main spar which was of constant thickness was made of a material called Ty-Bu which was laminations of bakelite and wood. This started at 25% of chord at the root and ended up being at 50% at the wing tip.
A wooden fueselage was not considered viable for a single engined design: the cutouts for guns, cockpit, 3 undercarriage legs, engine mounting etc being seen as too much for the sake of structural integrity for a wooden design. A twin engine design such as the Mosquito keeps the fueselage clear of penetrations by placing the undercarriage into the wing mounted engine nacells.
rank amateur
Airman 1st Class
I have never though about it, but could the Mosquito stay afloat when landed on water?
It could, but ditching a Mossie generally seems to have resulted in the aircraft breaking its back.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
And put British Power Boats and Vosper Thorneycroft out of business at the same time. If you check the map, you'll find a distinct lack of sizable water around Hatfield, too.
All of which would have done wonders for the war effort, especially for an aircraft company.
.
They already did.
