Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Flyboy is right about longevity. It takes a lot longer for aluminium to corrode than for wood to rot/go bad.
A number of aircraft have used steel spars. Steel is much heavier than aluminium. BUT if the loads you expect to have to deal with are large enough, and since steel IS stronger than aluminium ( in general, there are a lot of alloys of both) a steel part MAY provide more strength than an EQUIVALENT WEIGHT aluminium part. Same for wood depending on the loads involved, the size of the parts, and the type of wood.
Wood has limitations and the limitations get bigger the bigger the airplane becomes. But I believe that only aeronautical structural engineers who are familiar with wood ( in it's various forms/glues/resins) could really tell us if the Mosquito had exceeded the size/stress regime where wood was inferior to metal. From an empirical stand point it doesn't seem so but perhaps it was 50-200lbs over weight compared to metal, or more.
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....Do you think that WW2 aircraft were designed for longevity? I wouldn't have thought so.
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.Do you think that WW2 aircraft were designed for longevity? I wouldn't have thought so.
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.Corrosion isn't the only factor - there is also fatigue.
. De Havilland made it work, but not in competition with metal, but to suppliment it. The Mosquito proved that with careful engineering the use of a predominantly wooden structure could survive successfully in a world of all metal structures.
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!
The most recent Mossie fighter kill I have come across was the following: 16.12.43 FW 190A-2 5495 12./J.G.5 Uffz. Willi Sürth Killed W of Gossen a/f shot down by Mosquito VI HP862/O from No. 333 Sq. B-Flight. Pilot: P/O Andreas H. Wyller, navigator kvm. Baard K. Benjaminsen.
And there of course the Biscaya actions against the Ju 88 fighters from V/KG 40 / ZG 1.
Juha
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.Does any of this actually matter? - fact is that the Mosquito was highly successful and thousands were operated successfully by air forces that were far more familiar with all metal structures, often in highly adverse conditions; that should say something about the design qualities of the Mosquito and the qualities of those who had to service and maintain the aircraft in the field 70 odd years ago.
We should possibly stop calling the Mossie a wooden plane and start calling it a composite plane.
A list of ingredients
Hard woods, Balsa and Mahogany
Soft woods, Spruce, Fir
Glues, originally Cascemite resin made of Casine which is extracted from milk, later Urea Formaldehyde resin. Plus whatever was used to glue the Plywood laminates.
Sheathing, Egyptian Cotton and dope made from Nitro cellulose or acetate not sure what the RAF used possibly both.
Metals, Brass, Phosphour Bronze, Aluminium, Steel.
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.
BTW, I'm probably one of the few if not the only maintainer on this forum who has worked with both wood and metal, so I think I know a little something about this if that matters to you or not...
IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.
IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.
Not required or needed!!IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.
These are all night fighter victories.W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 23/24th August, 1943
W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 8/9th September, 1943
F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 2nd/3rd January, 1944
F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 22/23rd March, 1944 (I've posted this one here before.)
S/L C. A. Cooke, D.F.C., 151 Squadron, 6th May, 1944
Lt. A. A. Harrington USAAF, 410 Squadron, 29th October, 1944
Nice work on the list Mark! Thanks also for posting the 333 Squadron Combat Report.
Fwiw here's a couple of Mossie kills of Fw 190s that I've come across in my research recently:
W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 23/24th August, 1943
W/Cdr. J. Cunningham, D.S.O. Bar, D.F.C. Bar, 85 Squadron, 8/9th September, 1943
F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 2nd/3rd January, 1944
F/L N. Head, 96 Squadron, 22/23rd March, 1944 (I've posted this one here before.)
S/L C. A. Cooke, D.F.C., 151 Squadron, 6th May, 1944
Lt. A. A. Harrington USAAF, 410 Squadron, 29th October, 1944
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.The challenges of maintaining and operating a wooden aircraft didn't seem to be much of an obstacle during WW2; note that 105 and 139 Sqns, the first operational bomber units, both converted from all-metal aircraft, as did the original NF and reconnaissance units, and there seemed to be few problems encountered with the transition.
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.
For those interested, here's a little info about maintenance and repair of wood structures...
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...raft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch06.pdf
IMO. Moskito not required or needed. It was a blip on the overall WWII radar. Not taking anything away from its grace elegance mind you.
And as I said before, the last place I would want to be is in a wooden aircraft with 20mm HE rounds behind me.