Were wooden Mosquitos more vulnerable than metal planes once they were hit

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Mosquitos relied on speed and stealth but if that failed and they were hit by flak or cannon fire did the wooden construction prove less durable?
We need a sense of perspective here. The following is part of a discussion on an engineering forum. Somebody brought up Ford Pintos, and an automotive engineer from Australia replied...
Incidentally that article that was linked is credulous rubbish, thousands of Pinto passengers were not burnt alive, the actual figure is 27 deaths in fires, all causes. Two million Pintos were built. That is, 14 deaths per million.

Here's the average fatality rate per million vehicles for the competitive set in 75-76, lower is better.

Gremlin 345
Vega 299
Datsun 1220/210 405
Datsun 510 317
Pinto 310
Corolla 313
Beetle 374
In 1975/1976, Ford Pintos were a bit safer than average.

We lack similar data on WWII battle damage. I would guess that loads were well distributed in the Mosquito's plywood structure. My books show photos of Mosquitos which returned to base with quite large holes blasted in them. Obviously, fire is a problem. Did the Germans load extra incendiary ammunition in anticipation of Mosquitos?

Mosquito loss statistics are tricky because the aircraft flew a wide variety of missions. Over the course of war, Mosquitos had a loss rate of 0.63% per mission. I would guess that much of this was photo reconnaissance over Germany at altitudes high enough that single-stage supercharged German aircraft could not catch them. From May 1942 to May 1943, 105 squadron and 139 squadrons flew 726 day day bombing sorties, and they lost 48 aircraft. This is a loss rate of 6.6%. If two RAF squadrons lose 48 aircraft, what are the overall chances of survival?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back