Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For example in Germany something as simple as paint, RLM lacquers that reached basic approval stage were then tested for tensile strength and fade qualities after 6 month exposure to weather and sunlight, and had to meet a minimum requirement of 2 year life span in open air conditions or 1500 flying hours. 5 years being set as realistic maximum. Paint care products were used, and a single application had to last for 100 takeoffs or 2 months of bad weather operations. The end results was a very high quality finish. The rest of the aircraft had to meet greater standards. So yes, in this case, longevity is the case. Whether it lived long enough though....
I once read somewhere that statistically a WW2 combat aircraft airframe had a life expectancy of something like 250 hours. With that said there was an element of longevity especially when considering operating environments. When the Mossie was on the drawing board, I bet there was little consideration given to operating environments and field maintenance in climates different from Europe. Factor this in with some other negative factors concerning wood construction and that's why wood construction in combat aircraft quickly faded after WW2.
Unless the airframe is really getting abused or there was a design flaw, you're not going to have fatigue as a major factor in aircraft with under 500 hours.
Wood is difficult to repair and maintain in the field as larger repairs have to be done under controlled environments.
I don't believe one could make an accurate comparison for construction time when comparing the Mossie to a metal aircraft - in the end, metal planes were the way to go as advances were made in aviation. Although some homebuilders still make wood airplanes, in the end metal airplanes were the way to go in the post war years - until composites came along.
Almost 35 years in aircraft maintenance, IMO flat out, wood sucks!
No it doesn't matter if you want to talk about it's operational history - the Mosquito was one of the best combat aircraft built during WW2 - the point here is it was made from materials that presented other maintenance and operational challenges that metal aircraft didn't have to deal with and that's why there was never another combat aircraft like the Mosquito built in the post war years. The Mosquito offered a solution to a requirement despite having some limitation.
Not required or needed!!
These are all night fighter victories.
It wasn't - but in hindsight we know that it is easier for the most part to maintain and repair a metal aircraft than a wooden one. Both squadrons never left Europe, therefore didn't have to deal with changing climate conditions resulting in wood shrinkage, fungus and possibly dry rot although I doubt either units aircraft ever had to deal with the latter.
