What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?

[wuzak]

Maybe they need to make the Merlins in England. So far as I know the only firm in the US which made Merlins was Packard, and I think that applies for Canada too.

A production facility was made to build Continental I-1430s. Late in the war that factory began producing Merlins, having been used to produce radials for a time.

If the USAAF had given up on the I-1430 earlier the factory could have started building Merlins earlier. A useful number of Merlins could have been built at that facility.

Due to the deal they made some of the Packard Merlins were going to the UK, the rest (once they got to the 60 series) mostly went into P-51s.

Most went to the UK. For Lancaster B.III, Canadian (and Australian) built Mosquitoes, and Spitfire XVI.

The original deal was for 6,000 Merlins to Britain, 3,000 for the USAAC/F.

Could Allison make Merlins?

They could, but that would most likely screw all the V-1710 powered aircraft, require a changeover period and a lot of modifications for aircraft to accept the Merlin.

Possibly a better option would be to make low-level performance Mosquitoes using V-1710s.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[wuzak]

You are taking the various aspects of the Mosquito and cherry picking. The 2.000 Lb cookie was better described as an aerial mine, not only did it have the aerodynamics of a brick, it couldnt be dropped at low altitude because the shock wave could and did damage the aircraft.

I believe you mean the 4,000lb HC "cookie".

The 4,000lb MC bomb was developed because the HC couldn't be used at low level. As the name suggests, it was general purpose (medium capacity) bomb, which had an aerodynamic shape.

 

[wuzak]

I will say again, if you cut production of FB.VI you will be able to have more bombers.

 

[pbehn]

Spot on! Also to add, with wood there is a constant battle to ensure structural integrity, especially when operating areas where you have a wide temperature range. While using different types of wood, in a composite assembly I've found you also had different rates of expansion/shrinkage and moisture absorption. I have found when this happens and you start getting moisture entrapment between 2 bonded structures, you start getting delamination and fungus if moisture is allowed to remain within the structure.

It also happens with steel and steel products, at a certain manufacturer of mechanically bonded pipes in Germany any moisture or rust containing moisture trapped between the pipe and liner resulted in the liner being blown across the pipe bore. Steel can delaminate, due to centre line segregation, again a certain manufacturer in Japan supplied pipes that when tested split along the test piece, before splitting across. The problem with Liberty ships was in part due to the steels used being good in the rolling direction and transverse to the rolling direction but rubbish in the through wall thickness direction (Z value). None of this applies to aircraft but the problems are not exclusive to wood.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It also happens with steel and steel products, at a certain manufacturer of mechanically bonded pipes in Germany any moisture or rust containing moisture trapped between the pipe and liner resulted in the liner being blown across the pipe bore. Steel can delaminate, due to centre line segregation, again a certain manufacturer in Japan supplied pipes that when tested split along the test piece, before splitting across. The problem with Liberty ships was in part due to the steels used being good in the rolling direction and transverse to the rolling direction but rubbish in the through wall thickness direction (Z value). None of this applies to aircraft but the problems are not exclusive to wood.

When I worked at Lockheed and Rohr Industries I spent a lot of time at foundries, did a lot of inspection on casting and forgings and seen some of what you describe. There was a spell in the early/ mid 1980 where we had issues with Aluminum from Alcoa to the point where we stopped buying sheet and bar stack from them.

 

[pbehn]

When I worked at Lockheed and Rohr Industries I spent a lot of time at foundries, did a lot of inspection on casting and forgings and seen some of what you describe. There was a spell in the early/ mid 1980 where we had issues with Aluminum from Alcoa to the point where we stopped buying sheet and bar stack from them.

Where I live is where much of the industrial revolution started. You can still see Locomotion No 1 as a museum exhibit and ride on a replica, Locomotion No II exploded because the steam locomotive came before the boiler safety valve. They used to carry spare wheels because they broke and no one knew why, a bridge was built from steel and it collapsed before it was opened. The original Big Ben was cast and shipped down to London in what is now a housing estate between where Rochie and myself live. They destroyed it by testing over winter in temperatures down to minus 20C basically because they didnt know what they were doing. They re cast Big Ben and that was cracked too, like almost all bells of its size, they are cracked and dont ring because the people making bells didnt really know a lot about casting (the guys in the foundries you worked at could probably have put them right). There are all sorts of problems with metals, but we have got used to them, like special protection on maritime aircraft, ensuring there is no electrolytic corrosion and just routine examination. There are/were certain rivets on a Spitfire that could start to develop micro cracking after 120 hrs of hard use, there were problems with P-51 bolts due to heat treatment. There are were all sorts of problems with metals, but metals are made and you can work towards a solution, wood is selected, all you can do is try to find a better selection or processing regime.

 

[SaparotRob]

Re: FlyboyJ's post #697
8 hours just to form the laminated fuselage. Weren't entire B-24s built in less time than that? I think the time to build a B-24 was mentioned in vid about the Willow Run Plant.

 

[pbehn]

Re: FlyboyJ's post #697
8 hours just to form the laminated fuselage. Weren't entire B-24s built in less time than that? I think the time to build a B-24 was mentioned in vid about the Willow Run Plant.

That is production engineering. Producing one aircraft per hour doesnt mean that an aircraft is made from the ground up in one hour, although documentaries at the time would like people to believe that. If it takes 8 hours to do something and you have eight stations doing the same thing, then you have on average one per hour. From what I have seen about Mosquito production almost everything needed time for adhesives to set in various assemblies, so you need a lot of floor space and tracking.

 

[Shortround6]

A few aspects of building more Mosquitoes and Merlins.

The Mosquito, as noted a number of times, used a lot of balsa wood in the fuselage construction.
Just about all of it came from Ecuador and Honduras. during WW II there were no plantations, it was all harvested from wild. Balsa trees do not grow in groves, there are only a few per hectare. Which makes it rather difficult to increase production by thousands of aircraft.
There are alternatives, not in type of wood that could be used but redesigning the fuselage to either different types of wood and glue or using a metal or part metal fuselage with a wood wing.
Getting enough aircraft grade spruce for the wing spars might also be difficult. Aircraft spruce and boat spruce are not the same stuff.


Redesigning the fuselage to be made of other materials is not a matter of a few days or even a few weeks. Yes it could be done but the time table starts slipping.


Merlin contract signed by Packard was for 9000 engines with a max production rate of 800 engines per month. This contract was not completed until the Spring of 1943.
The US was to get 3000 and the British 6000 engines. It is doubtful if the US got the full 3000 engines.

Packard hit 800 engines in month in July of 1942. other companies in July of 1942 built

Allison..........1265 engines
Buick...............750 R-1830s
Chevy..............325 R-1830s
Ford.................570 R-2800s
P & W ............877 R-1830s
"".......""...........500 R-2800s
Studebaker...600 R-1820s.
Wright (C).....709 R-2600s
Wright (P).....776 R-1820s
"....."...............600 R-2600s

Nash-Kelvinator and P & W K.C. were both under construction/tooling up.

Packard had signed the Merlin deal in Sept of 1940 but was looking at a sample engine and some drawings in July of 1940. Two years from first talks to reaching full production. Packard later built many more engines per month but that was after a plant expansion. All machine tool supply was controlled by the US government.

Production numbers went up drastically if the succeeding months. Ford was originally contracted to build 800 engines per month. The Ford plant was just about tripled in size by mid 1944.

Picking winners in 1941/42 and arranging for large scale production was not easy.
!941/42 Mosquito would be being compared to the A-20, not the B-17/B-24.

Wooden aircraft often had design problems, yes the Russians built wooden airplanes, as noted by others it was due to necessity, not choice. Often some rather hard compromises had to made in regards to armament or fuel capacity. Later versions with metal spars had room for significantly more fuel.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If anyone wants to learn more about wood structures and what it takes to maintain and repair them. Keep in mind this publication is for civilian applications but a good portion of this would apply to an aircraft like the Mosquito.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/78261/download?token=N9ZlZusy

 

[Schweik]

Although Soviets built several 'good' wooden aircraft, I can think of none in 1940/41 that remotely had the performance capabilities of the Mossie, or attained serial production in the same numbers. As to engine development, it was the tough concept to product step to improve performance.

Wait a minute. Woah. Hold on padnuh. IIRC the Mosquito bomber wasn't flying in any numbers until 1942.

By then, you have thousands of Soviet aircraft made of wood, many of them with speeds of ~ 350 mph, and in mid 1942 they introduced the 400 mph La 5. All of these made of wood. The Soviets made tens of thousands of aircraft made of laminated plywood and resin during WW2.

If the Soviets could make ~20,000 Yak series fighters, and 9,000 La 5s I am certain the US could make at least that many Mosquitos if they really wanted to.

The English made about 7,000 Mosquitos. The US could certainly have doubled that before the war ended. That would have been enough to make a big difference right there.

Many of the arguments claiming otherwise are completely spurious.

Not enough workers? Give me a break. The US had huge industries making things out of wood - boat and shipbuilding (including tens of thousands of military vessels) made of wood, often complex plywoods, plus there was the whole furniture making industry, and many others. And they did make wooden aircraft as some have noted in the thread. Major scale production of wooden aircraft wasn't done in the US simply because unlike the Soviets, they didn't have any reason to do so. Give them a reason they will do it.

US had more than sufficient technical capability, more than sufficient industrial capacity, and more than sufficient resources to make it happen. I don't buy that line of argument, sorry.

 

[Schweik]

A few aspects of building more Mosquitoes and Merlins.

The Mosquito, as noted a number of times, used a lot of balsa wood in the fuselage construction.
Just about all of it came from Ecuador and Honduras. during WW II there were no plantations, it was all harvested from wild. Balsa trees do not grow in groves, there are only a few per hectare. Which makes it rather difficult to increase production by thousands of aircraft.
There are alternatives, not in type of wood that could be used but redesigning the fuselage to either different types of wood and glue or using a metal or part metal fuselage with a wood wing.
Getting enough aircraft grade spruce for the wing spars might also be difficult. Aircraft spruce and boat spruce are not the same stuff.


Redesigning the fuselage to be made of other materials is not a matter of a few days or even a few weeks. Yes it could be done but the time table starts slipping.


Merlin contract signed by Packard was for 9000 engines with a max production rate of 800 engines per month. This contract was not completed until the Spring of 1943.
The US was to get 3000 and the British 6000 engines. It is doubtful if the US got the full 3000 engines.

Packard hit 800 engines in month in July of 1942. other companies in July of 1942 built

Allison..........1265 engines
Buick...............750 R-1830s
Chevy..............325 R-1830s
Ford.................570 R-2800s
P & W ............877 R-1830s
"".......""...........500 R-2800s
Studebaker...600 R-1820s.
Wright (C).....709 R-2600s
Wright (P).....776 R-1820s
"....."...............600 R-2600s

Nash-Kelvinator and P & W K.C. were both under construction/tooling up.

Packard had signed the Merlin deal in Sept of 1940 but was looking at a sample engine and some drawings in July of 1940. Two years from first talks to reaching full production. Packard later built many more engines per month but that was after a plant expansion. All machine tool supply was controlled by the US government.

Production numbers went up drastically if the succeeding months. Ford was originally contracted to build 800 engines per month. The Ford plant was just about tripled in size by mid 1944.

Picking winners in 1941/42 and arranging for large scale production was not easy.
!941/42 Mosquito would be being compared to the A-20, not the B-17/B-24.

Wooden aircraft often had design problems, yes the Russians built wooden airplanes, as noted by others it was due to necessity, not choice. Often some rather hard compromises had to made in regards to armament or fuel capacity. Later versions with metal spars had room for significantly more fuel.

Like I said, you could get most of the Merlin engines you needed in say 1943 from Hurricanes which were being taken off the line in many Theaters about then. Work out a swap to the FAA to give them a few more TBFs, Martlets and Hellcats in exchange for the engines that would have gone into Fireflies and Barracudas. Dare I say maybe replace some of those Seafires too. Cancel the Henley a bit earlier and don't make Beaufighters with Merlins. You probably have enough right there.

 

[Schweik]

I'd quit while you're ahead!

EDIT: I guess Bill broke it down for you!

Lol nice try

 

[FLYBOYJ]

By then, you have thousands of Soviet aircraft made of wood

Actually, depending on the aircraft, they were partially made of wood

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not enough workers? Give me a break.

Yes, not enough workers - aside from finding the manpower, they had to be trained. Do you think people were plucked off the street and handed a rivet gun?

The US had huge industries making things out of wood - boat and shipbuilding (including tens of thousands of military vessels) made of wood, often complex plywoods, plus there was the whole furniture making industry, and many others. And they did make wooden aircraft as some have noted in the thread. Major scale production of wooden aircraft wasn't done in the US simply because unlike the Soviets, they didn't have any reason to do so. Give them a reason they will do it.

US had more than sufficient technical capability, more than sufficient industrial capacity, and more than sufficient resources to make it happen. I don't buy that line of argument, sorry.

As been shown to you, building boats and building airplanes are just a little different!!!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I don't think an industrial pivot in the middle of a war is advisable. Even in the best circumstances you'll incur production slowdowns and production conflicts.

 

[Schweik]

Actually, depending on the aircraft, they were partially made of wood

I didn't include the biplanes because their performance wasn't high enough

The I-16 was mixed but mostly wood, 10,000 were made almost all before 1942. (270 -300 mph depending on the model)
The Yak 1 was mostly-wood aircraft, with wooden wings. 8,700 made, mostly before 1944. (340-360 mph depending on version)
The Yak 7 also had wooden wings and partly wood fuselage, 6,300 made, also mostly before 1944 (350 mph)
The Yak 9 was 'partly wood' a mix of wood and aluminum (aluminum covered wings) 16,000 built (420 mph)
The LaGG-3 was all wood, 6,500 made, all prior to 1944. (340 mph)
The La 5 and La 5F and FN was all wood, 9,900 made, mostly replaced by La 7 in 1944 (400 mph)
The La 7 was mixed wood and metal, 5,000 made (410 mph)
The MiG-3 was mixed, including mostly wooden wings, 3,400 made (400 mph) (image here gives you an idea what parts were wood and what parts aluminum alloy)

By my count that is 16,000 all-wood (except for engine and guns), 25,000 'mostly' wood, and 24,000 mixed or partly wood aircraft. May of them successful, all in the 300-400 mph range (except some of the earlier I-16s)

I think this demonstrates that the Soviets made a very large amount of high performance wooden aircraft. They had some problems with the designs and the manufacturing, but the Mosquito wasn't entirely without problems either, and both England and the US had superior industrial capacity to the Soviet Union. Any of you commies going to argue with that?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Work out a swap to the FAA to give them a few more TBFs, Martlets and Hellcats in exchange for the engines that would have gone into Fireflies and Barracudas.

How about selling the Brits a bunch of prewar Chevys and asking then to drive on the other side of the road? I think your chances are better for that!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Any of you commies going to argue with that?

OK - now you get a warning! Pull your head out of your butt