Yes, just give North American Aviation the design brief and they would do it in metal. An unarmed twin engined plane with high speed, a two man crew and internal bomb load that can take a 4,000Ib cookie or equal weight/volume of fuel, cannons, bombs or other equipment. The Mosquito had advanced aerofoils, low surface drag, low cooling drag using Meredith effect, just like the P-51.
What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Donald Johnson
- Start date
- Status
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
And it looks cool.
Take the guns off a fighter bomber variant, paint it in nice colours and anyone would love to fly one as a "sports plane" better than a Ferrari for picking up some young impressionable female.
So victim culture started waaaay before modern politics, then?
We've been over this Mossie built in the USA business. The US didn't need the Mossie as a bomber, it had sufficient bombers of its own design, which, carrying the same loads as the Mossie did just as good a job as the Mosquito did. The B-25, B-26 and A-20 were excellent types and fulfilled their requirements adequately. As has been said before, the British are going to establish production lines for their own needs first, and if the US want them, they are gonna have to wait in line. The US saw the type for night fighting and recon and received British and Canadian-built aircraft out of British stocks. Building Mossies in the USA would be as the type was intended, out of wood, but for whom? The Brits? Because they'll want them first.
Indeed.
Given the timescales, I rather suspect that *if* this had happened, we'd have seen an aircraft rather like a turretless A-26... Which again begs the question... why bother drawing up a spec for a bomber that the USA hadn't requested - and didn't need - ? (Which in turn pretty much addresses the entire postulation made in this epic thread!)
The A-26 first flew in July '42 - the Mosquito in Sept '41... The A-26 checks the boxes in most aspects discussed previously; it's metal construction, has two big radial engines and even when festooned with .50 cals can still manage a top speed of around 360mph @ 17,000ft. It can carry 6000lbs of bombs - 4000 of them in the bomb bay - and given these are presumably the larger finned US munitions, if there still wasn't room for a cookie, the bomb bay could presumably be bulged to incorporate it (should we all be presuming that this UK weapon was suddenly perceived as a vital necessity for the USA to start fielding anyway!)
If the US had become convinced by the unarmed bomber concept, they could have lost the extra crewman and the remote turrets and cleaned the thing up in an effort to squeeze some more speed out of it to put it in the Mossie bomber variant category. But it would seem clear that there was never any indication of an operational need - and the concept didn't fit with US doctrine anyway.
So I'm inexorably lead back to the soft thwack of a long dead horse being flogged here... The USA *could* have built mosquitos. But it didn't want to. It didn't need to. And for an undefined role in an order of combat filled by capable existing designs. And in wartime, it would have been a major distraction trying to adapt a very specialised overseas design to USA production.
Not going to lash Dobbin any more
(... as a post-script to all of this, the idea that hidebound US officials were somehow totally inured to the idea of the unarmed high speed bomber is challenged a bit, when we look at the Mosquitos successor, the Canberra....)
Howard Gibson
Staff Sergeant
The Lockheed Vegas were all plywood according to all the sources I have found, although some of the photos on Wikipedia look like metal. Lockheed had the experience to build Mosquitos. They were being built by de Havilland in Downview, which now is part of Toronto, Canada.
wuzak
Captain
The Mosquito first flew in November 1940.
In April 1941 the Mosquito prototype was demonstrated to a group which included General Arnold of the USAAC.
The prototype PR.I, W4051, was sent to the PRU in mid 1941and did its first mission in September 1941.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Do you really think the Gross brothers would want to build "a competitor's" aircraft under license when they had their own design successfully being sold to the AAF?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I really, really, REALLY dislike the 4000lb cookie bomb in these discussions.
Yes the Mosquito was a very, very good airplane.
The 4000lb Cookie was a very good bomb (after some development work.)
But the RAF didn't drop any cookies at all, even in testing until 1941. While some were dropped in combat testing in 1941 it wasn't "officially" introduced until Jan 1942 and the first use of the 4000lb cookie on operations by a Mosquito was in Feb of 1944.
Talks about how to do it started in April of 1943.
Mid 1943 to early 1944 is more than a bit late to start deciding to build Mosquitos in the US to use 4000lb cookies.
Four 500lb bombs inside and two 500lb bombs outside isn't going to impress the US as far as a bomber goes in 1941/42.
Yes the Mosquito was a very, very good airplane.
The 4000lb Cookie was a very good bomb (after some development work.)
But the RAF didn't drop any cookies at all, even in testing until 1941. While some were dropped in combat testing in 1941 it wasn't "officially" introduced until Jan 1942 and the first use of the 4000lb cookie on operations by a Mosquito was in Feb of 1944.
Talks about how to do it started in April of 1943.
Mid 1943 to early 1944 is more than a bit late to start deciding to build Mosquitos in the US to use 4000lb cookies.
Four 500lb bombs inside and two 500lb bombs outside isn't going to impress the US as far as a bomber goes in 1941/42.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Lockheed's DL series was the all metal Vega.
Many American aircraft manufacturers had aircraft that contained wood and the ones manufactured for the Military were mostly trainers (AT-10, AT-18, etc.), but there was no need for combat types to be made with wooden components.
Also, why would Lockheed (or any other manufacturer) want to build a Mosquito when they had their own products being sold to the U.S. Military?
This says it all. The strength of the US / British manufacturing lay in the different ideas and processes with the result being particular aircraft able to specialise
in certain tasks and theatres. Not putting all your eggs in one basket is definitely a good thing.
drgondog
Major
Mosquito commitment anywhere in US, particularly Lockheed, would be faced with Packard commitments for both R-R engines to Canada for Lancaster and Mosquito and absolute higher priority of P-38. Additional balsa supply for US I suspect would impact Canada/UK delivery for Mosquitos.
Lockheed could never keep up with demand for P-38 in 1942 and 1943 - requiring another plant devoted to Mosquito - maybe 2 years before first deliveries from contract?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
What the Mosquito was able to achieve in 1943-44 was not envisaged in 1939-41 when other twin types (fighter, bomber and attack) were either being designed or manufactured.
When the Mossie first appeared on the scene, it was seen as a fast bomber/recon among comparable types that were either entering service or soon to be.
No one knew what it's potential was just as no one knew that the P-51 (no suffix) would become a future scourge of the Axis within a few short years.
When the Mossie first appeared on the scene, it was seen as a fast bomber/recon among comparable types that were either entering service or soon to be.
No one knew what it's potential was just as no one knew that the P-51 (no suffix) would become a future scourge of the Axis within a few short years.
Well not really, because it was still wedded to defensive armament. It had a 5 man crew and 6 mgs. Ditch three of the crew and all the defensive stuff and produce a bomber that when loaded with bombs and fuel has no internal free space. With 4,000HP it could have had fantastic performance and many uses complimentary to the Mosquito.
There should be a word for theories that have gained traction in the internet age that previously did not spread with such voracity before the internet and could not have come to pass in reality because circumstance did not demand it and/or could only have come about with huge doses of hindsight.
Such as our rubber chicken Fw 187 that can be and do anything, and this one...
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Well, it did do 372mph at around 25,000ft and that was with engines and Turbos roughly equivalent to a P-47B. What could it have done with slightly later engines and later turbos/turbo controllers? Compare it to a summer (or fall) of 1942 Mosquito, not late 1943/44 Mosquitoes.
The B-28 had 3680hp at 25,000ft in the summer of 1942. Not saying to couldn't have gone faster without the turrets. Just that there wasn't much else that could touch it....................except the A-26. The XA-26 prototype first flew July 10th 1942 and hit 370mph at 17,000ft with mock up gun turrets (perhaps lower drag than actual turret with gun barrels.)
But the Air at 17,000ft is about 30% denser than the air at 25,000ft and the engines in the XA-26 were good for 3200hp (total) at 13,500ft (no RAM) so the XA-26 must have been pretty slippery. This is probably the plane the US would have been comparing the Mosquito to. There was a night fighter version planned while everything was still in the paper stage but this was dropped.
drgondog
Major
The B-28 died because of lack of mission. Superb design with developmental issues cooling the engines, but lacked the range with full bomb load to fit into the B-17 and B-24 range with greater payload. Nobody felt a need to include high altitude/medium range doctrine for tactical. Chilton was almost killed in the prototype when engine blew up over the ocean. With engine cooling/drag issues cleaned up, it was projected to exceed 400mph at 25K with full internal load.
The P-61C was faster but it was 3 years later with better developed R-2800/2 stage SC
Had a little time to kill this morning and read the entire thread. It seems to me that the original post is based on the inherent belief that "precision" placement of ordinances will be the ultimate game changer in conflict. This was the same precision delivery of ordinance belief that the Bomber Mafia based their theories of air combat on, but differing in the platforms for delivery. I think the postwar studies by the 8th Air Force are insightful on how effective the bombing campaign was, or wasn't, and how wrong allied planners were in what targets were most critical to the German war effort. IIRC, where the air campaign was most successful was in the inadvertent (as in unplanned) destruction of Germany's coal stocks and infrastructure as Germany ran on coal vs oil for industry/transportation/power. This had a greater effect on hindering German war efforts than any of the other targets. Second was the attack on German mobility especially leading up to D-Day and its impact Nazi military effectiveness. Third was the destruction of the Luftwaffe. Fourth, and last was the drain on the German economy and resources to support ever greater anti-bombing defense infrastructure and damage repair. These successes are far less about targeted precision attacks and more about campaigns that rely on mass and overbearing weight of attacking forces.
The Mosquito is a formidable aircraft and it has a devoted cult following, but it wasn't the aircraft to carry out the type of air campaign that ultimately proved most decisive. The belief in targeted precision air attacks often overestimates actual effectiveness and in the 1940's that precision was very hard to achieve on a regular basis. Even today, with the kinds of technologies that we have precision is not always that precise, I'm still struck by how many dumb bombs vs smart bombs are dropped in combat today.
The Mosquito is a formidable aircraft and it has a devoted cult following, but it wasn't the aircraft to carry out the type of air campaign that ultimately proved most decisive. The belief in targeted precision air attacks often overestimates actual effectiveness and in the 1940's that precision was very hard to achieve on a regular basis. Even today, with the kinds of technologies that we have precision is not always that precise, I'm still struck by how many dumb bombs vs smart bombs are dropped in combat today.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
Victim culture started roughly April 10, 1865.So victim culture started waaaay before modern politics, then?
We've been over this Mossie built in the USA business. The US didn't need the Mossie as a bomber, it had sufficient bombers of its own design, which, carrying the same loads as the Mossie did just as good a job as the Mosquito did. The B-25, B-26 and A-20 were excellent types and fulfilled their requirements adequately. As has been said before, the British are going to establish production lines for their own needs first, and if the US want them, they are gonna have to wait in line. The US saw the type for night fighting and recon and received British and Canadian-built aircraft out of British stocks. Building Mossies in the USA would be as the type was intended, out of wood, but for whom? The Brits? Because they'll want them first.
- Status
