P 51 Mustang vs Mosquito?
- Thread starter Blitzrockie
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In the examples you cite you're looking at metal aircraft that became obsolete very quickly and were basically surpassed by technology. The Mirage III came along during a time where the advances made in aircraft fighter design and construction ensured its longevity.
Give examples of wood aircraft operated in a high use military role after WW2! And I'm not talking mapping or target tugs! The RAAF Mossies had issues as was previously shown. As shown, Mustangs that saw combat in WW2 were still being operated in a combat role into the 1980s.
Some delivered in 1945 saw combat as late as 1969.
C-47's as bombers, P-51 Mustangs vs Corsairs, the very last All Piston Prop Aerial War! - The Dakota Hunter
Bottom line, wood aircraft in military applications during the post war years was not an option for continual. The IDF was the only operator to use the Mosquito in a combat role into 1957 and even then they had issues. Iit was a miracle the IDF operated the Mosquito for as long as it did!
As with many antique wood airframes with low yearly operating hours, but look at how they are maintained, flown and stored - basically pampered as they should be.
Gumbyk hit the nail on the head in his post last page;
"Wood does have its advantages, mainly that it doesn't fatigue anywhere near as much as aluminium does However, storage and maintenance is much more critical.
Our tiger has only just had its 70+ year old tailplane replaced due to damage, and there is still a lot of original structural wood in there, so it would have been possible to maintain a Mossie. But the cost and effort required to do this would be disproportionate. And that's just the cost of maintaining the fuselage - you've still got to maintain and feed two hungry V-12's."
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
This is part of the explanation but the real root is that the Parasite drag increase is almost linear with change to CL/angle of attack - from a low of Zero lift to a significantly higher value based on increase to CL.
This is a MAJOR factor to loss of energy in high AoA maneuver - namely the increase to Parasite Drag over cruise or level flight envelope.
The thing with wooden structure is that it very easy to get into a situation where it is beyond economical repair; either because of the labour and skills required or due to the amount of material needing to be replaced.
So while a wooden aircraft could have been continued in service - it wasn't economical to do so, IMO.
parsifal
Colonel
Wood continued to be used for at least 10 years after the war in military aircraft in the eastern block, because the formula they were using for airpower was totally different to the formula employed in the US where such shortages and economies were never an issue. . The use of wood is, (especially un-laminated) inherently weaker and more prone to critical damage than metal, but it has its advantages that are especially useful in wartime. It uses non-strategic materials, it uses skill and a workforce generally underutilised in wartime and frees up more specialised metal working and alloy production for more critical jobs. in the case of the Soviets they opted for those wood construction. Using wooden airframes with fabric coverings allowed them to divert their meagre alloy production and metal working capable workforce to the production of AFVs which they played to their maximum advantage. they didn't produce more than 80000 T-34s with only the 5th largest economy using our formulas for production. They also used steel framing in their IL-2s and 10s, a non-strategic material, another variation to avoiding use of critical materials and skills
in the post war situation where wartime pressure don't exist, it doesn't make sense to build in wood. it is an inherently weaker material, but this is not a major factor in determining airframe longevity. mentioning the so-called issues about RAAF mossies post war, it was just one of perhaps half a dozen types that we had in surplus in 1945, and yet it was the mosquito that was selected to map half of SE Asia and then provide recon as late as 1954. RAAF mosquitoes incidentally that were selected for retention were all photo recon variants, so they retained their primary roles until retiremement at the beginning of malaya.
ive deliberately kept my comments confined to RAAF, to maintain some semblance of comparability. Talking about some Sth American airforce and how it retains a wwii crate in service for 50 years may not be comparable to another user. they may have lower airworthiness criteria, lesser annual hours per airframe, just plain acceptance they don't need top shelf toys for their forces. I don't know that the claim that these air forces, if equipped with a mosquito or two instead of a p-51 or two, might not still try and fly them 30 years after their use by date, once or twice a year, or how ever many times, or accept attrition rates totally unacceptable to a modern western air force. the two subsets are just not that comparable
in the post war situation where wartime pressure don't exist, it doesn't make sense to build in wood. it is an inherently weaker material, but this is not a major factor in determining airframe longevity. mentioning the so-called issues about RAAF mossies post war, it was just one of perhaps half a dozen types that we had in surplus in 1945, and yet it was the mosquito that was selected to map half of SE Asia and then provide recon as late as 1954. RAAF mosquitoes incidentally that were selected for retention were all photo recon variants, so they retained their primary roles until retiremement at the beginning of malaya.
ive deliberately kept my comments confined to RAAF, to maintain some semblance of comparability. Talking about some Sth American airforce and how it retains a wwii crate in service for 50 years may not be comparable to another user. they may have lower airworthiness criteria, lesser annual hours per airframe, just plain acceptance they don't need top shelf toys for their forces. I don't know that the claim that these air forces, if equipped with a mosquito or two instead of a p-51 or two, might not still try and fly them 30 years after their use by date, once or twice a year, or how ever many times, or accept attrition rates totally unacceptable to a modern western air force. the two subsets are just not that comparable
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Parsifal - please provide some sources for your claims! The only East bloc post war military aircraft that I could think of off the top of my head that used some wood in it's primary structure was the AN-2 and maybe some of the early Yak jets.
AFAIK the IL-10 used no wood in any primary structure
Sorry, but you're wrong - wood has an eventual "shelf life" dictated my mother nature and eventually you could only do so much to maintain it unless you have very deep pockets. Either maintenance costs or mother nature will eventually catch up with it, especially if it's flown in environments that could easily produce dry rot and if you're flying the aircraft "hard." Again, if you have some documented "proof" to show that this is just not an opinion, I'd like to hear it.
Now you're really showing that you don't know what you're talking about. As stated, the Dominican AF operated the P-51 (about 30 of them) regularly for over 30 years, and as shown, some of the same airframes flew in WW2 - If you could provide proof that they lowered their maintenance standards, please do tell, I'm all ears!!!!
Do you have operational statistics or attrition rates of these airforces to back up your claims????
As far as frequency of operation - look into the history of Central and South American airforces and then let's have a realistic conversation. BTW, the Dominican AF operated the Mosquito as well, 5 FB.6s they lasted 6 years before they were retired.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Just for the record, the Spartan Aviation of Otowa operated late model B.35s starting in 1955 that were refurbished for high altitude mapping. These were commercially flown and lasted into the mid1960s, and from what I understand these aircraft were not stressed, hangared and meticulously maintained, but eventually mother nature caught up with them too.
Don't forget that De Havilland continued to use wood post-war, including in the Venom and Vampire jets, so the fact of utilising other skills for manufacturing doesn't hold water, IMO. Post-war aluminium workers would have been a dime a dozen.
Comparing Al with unlaminated wood is a bit of a straw-man argument, as unlaminated wood was very rarely (if ever) used in an airframe.
If there was a will to have maintained these aircraft, they would have been. The IAF managed to retain their Vampire trainers in service from 1953 to 1982...
Comparing Al with unlaminated wood is a bit of a straw-man argument, as unlaminated wood was very rarely (if ever) used in an airframe.
If there was a will to have maintained these aircraft, they would have been. The IAF managed to retain their Vampire trainers in service from 1953 to 1982...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The most stressed parts of both aircraft were metal. The cockpits and gun bay doors were wood (varied from model-to-model) and from what I understand some operators replaced some of the wooden doors and panels with metal.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think the cockpit area and exterior was where most of the wood was located. In that case I could see better management of the wood structure as opposed to the wings. The Vampire that was raced at Reno last year was defiantly wood and if I remember it was the whole cockpit area
Last edited:
The whole forward fuselage of Vampires and Venoms/Sea Venoms is wood, forward for the firewall. The same construction method as the Mossie. The wings and tail booms are metal.
I don't think it's fair to include restored airworthy aircraft as examples here, because not a scrap of original wooden structure in these flying oldies is as built - it'd all be new build components, post restoration. This includes the Mossie 'restorations' here in New Zealand. These aircraft are, despite the 'restoration' tag, new build machines; all the wooden structure is built from scratch, and therefore these wooden structured machines are kept in as pristine condition as possible, I.e. constantly hangared, good inspection and maintenance, as well as not subjected to the kinds of flight loads that a combat aircraft is subject to etc.
I don't think it's fair to include restored airworthy aircraft as examples here, because not a scrap of original wooden structure in these flying oldies is as built - it'd all be new build components, post restoration. This includes the Mossie 'restorations' here in New Zealand. These aircraft are, despite the 'restoration' tag, new build machines; all the wooden structure is built from scratch, and therefore these wooden structured machines are kept in as pristine condition as possible, I.e. constantly hangared, good inspection and maintenance, as well as not subjected to the kinds of flight loads that a combat aircraft is subject to etc.
The 109 briefly flirted with Meredith only with the F series. Key to the effect is laminar flow, and to achieve this a boundary layer bypass duct was installed but the very abrupt divergence of the forward volume of the duct caused the flow to stall at high speed - just where you're counting on it not to (exact same issue on the Spitfire). Because of this the G series and subsequent had this bypass duct removed to make room for a slightly larger cooler as it was deemed the bypass volume was essentially wasted space if it couldn't do it's job.. (The Mustang moved the scoop intake away from the airframe to avoid boundary layer turbulence in the first place.)
As for the Mosquito's underwing cooling exhaust not being able to provide thrust ... of course it could. There are lots of examples of thrust recovery outlets on aircraft that are parallel to the local airframe. I'm not sure where your assertion comes from. And even if a cooling duct doesn't increase frontal area in can still create a bunch of drag. (One could say a radial engine doesn't increase frontal area - lol).
I was reading the link below, from what I can glean the considerations of thrust/meredith effect were tied in with achieving low turbulence in the airflow. To my simplistic mind the more effective any meredith effect is the more likely you are to create drag at the inlet. The target was to achieve as close to zero cooling drag,
Some questions after reading the DH Hornet book...
Exactly. Meredith requires laminar flow which is difficult to maintain in the divergent duct, not so much in the convergent and, ultimately, is all about eliminating cooling drag - if done right. In your (rather interesting, actually) reference mention is made of the Hornet's cooling flap making the airflow slightly turbulent, however that would only be when the flap was open, typically on the ground, climb and slower speeds, and at high speed the flap would be designed to be flush (or nearly so) with the resulting opening having the appropriate area for achieving Meredith Effect in that situation. What these guys accomplished back then is amazing, frankly.
This site has a rather good cooling-drag explanation including a Mosquito cooling system cross-section (down a-ways): Contrails ! Radiator aerodynamics
drgondog
Major
First - Cooling Drag is not eliminated by 'Meridith Flow'. The key part of the Mustang design with respect to Meridith flow was the plenum behind the radiator into which the cooling air impinging on radiator heat exchangers flows into the plenum with higher energy and then passed through a squeezed down exit chute at high velocity. At low speed there is not enough thrust to contribute to reducing the effect of Cooling Drag.
At best, the Meridith effect contributes Net Thrust to offset Net Cooling drag.
BTW - "Chuter" seems curiously close to "Shooter" - hopefully by coincidence only.
The Boundary layer improvements (Gutter and lowered intake cowl on the P-51B/D) were made to eliminate the 'rumbling noise' created by the much greater turbulence flowing into the intake cowl before dropping it outside the BL.
At best, the Meridith effect contributes Net Thrust to offset Net Cooling drag.
BTW - "Chuter" seems curiously close to "Shooter" - hopefully by coincidence only.
The Boundary layer improvements (Gutter and lowered intake cowl on the P-51B/D) were made to eliminate the 'rumbling noise' created by the much greater turbulence flowing into the intake cowl before dropping it outside the BL.
My fellow pilots, in their infinite wisdom, used the term to refer to individuals who would willingly and repeatedly jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Needless to say, the individuals themselves didn't take it as a term of endearment, preferring to be called "jumpers" or skydivers. I went along with this disparagement until I became one and suddenly the tune changed.
drgondog
Major
My father disparaged my choices there also. During WWII he rode it down once behind enemy lines rather than bail, and three times belly landed with really bad battle damage.
No, the reference to Chuter was also to NeoconShooter and Shooter8..
I suppose you could look at it that way. The physicists among us may take umbrage, as it isn't an exact analogy, but yes air gets rammed in the front, it acquires additional energy thru heating, and is ejected at higher velocity thru the tailpipe. And it doesn't acquire useful thrust until the ram velocity achieves a certain threshold.
