- Thread starter
-
- #61
Donald Johnson
Airman
- 71
- Apr 16, 2021
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I disagree about Schweinfurt, in particular. The B-17 raids took massive losses while inflicting quickly repaired damage. Pinpoint bombing could have done as much with far fewer losses. Flak defenses were no good against Mosquitoes.The Mosquito's "tree top" missions with "pinpoint accuracy" were done in small groups.
Their max. load of 4,000 pounds were done on certain occasions - and that load both shortened their range as well as compromised their speed.
You are not going to destroy a manufacturing site (ball bearing plant or aircraft factory) with a hand full of 4,000 pound specialized bombs.
Additionally: oil refineries, ball bearing plants, aircraft manufacturing sites, marshalling yards, etc. were all staffed by civilians - how does one go about bombing these targets without collateral damage?
Here in Detroit, Chriscraft was already building high quality wood boats. It would seem to have been easy to redirect those craftsmen toward the Mosquito.A google of "alternatives to balsa" does come up with a few suggestions and alternatives. The Germans developed some alternatives, which had their problems, but they shouldn't be judged harshly because the effect of bombing on German industry forced them to substitute. They did come up with a material called 'formholz' (formed wood) which was glue, sawdust and graphite that was used as the filler/spacer between two sheets of multiply but it can't have been as light as balsa. There was also TyBu or Ty-Bu which was a laminate of wood and Bakelite used as the spar on the He 162.
Then there is the possibility of an all metal Mosquito.
I don't see this as a problem at all for US industry. The three dimensional compound curves of the US metal mosquito would be stretch formed over wooden dies in the same way Martin made the B-26 Marauder and in the way the Spitfire wing was eventually made.
There was also a gentlemen by the name of Howard Hughes who developed Hughes H-4 Hercules (cruelly called the Spruce Goose though it was made of Birch) which I suspect didn't need balsa.
They used many thin layers of birch (not spruce) to create a new material, in fact a composite material called Duramold. Wikipedia explains about this material:
Duramold
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View attachment 621797
The Hughes H-4 Hercules, made of birch ply Duramold
Duramold is a composite material process developed by Virginius E. Clark. Birch plies are impregnated with phenolic resin, such as Haskelite and laminated together in a mold under heat (280 °F, 138 °C) and pressure for use as a lightweight structural material.[1] Similar to plywood, Duramold and other lightweight composite materials were considered critical during periods of material shortage in World War II, replacing scarce materials like aluminum alloys and steel.[2][3]
The material has some advantages over metal in strength, construction technique, and weight. A cylinder made of duramold is 80% stronger than a cylinder made of aluminum.[4] There are over 17 varieties of Duramold, using various quantities of birch or poplar wood, with as many as seven plies.[5] The Duramold process has also been used to make radomes for aircraft as well as missile bodies.[6]
The Fairchild Aircraft Corporation patented the process, designing and constructing the AT-21, (NX/NC19131) as the first aircraft made using the Duramold process.[7] Several aircraft used Duramold in parts of their structure but the largest aircraft manufactured with the process is the Hughes H-4 Hercules designed by Howard Hughes and Glenn Odekirk, which was almost completely built with Duramold in very large sections.[8] Hughes Aircraft had purchased rights to the process for this use.
The Duramold and Haskelite process was first developed in 1937, followed by Gene Vidal's Weldwood and later the Aeromold process produced by the Timm Aircraft Company. In the United Kingdom, the De Havilland Aircraft Company (founded by Geoffrey de Havilland, a cousin of Olivia de Havilland, the actress who dated Howard Hughes in 1938) used similar composite construction for aircraft including the DH.88 Comet, DH.91 Albatross, the Mosquito, and Vampire. The aeromold process differs in that it is baked at a low 100 °F at cutting and forming, and 180 °F for fusing together sections after the resins are added.[9]
In reality the US probably had a better material than balsa plywood sandwitch.
The Mosquitoes followed road and railroads when low, and a very high reminder was put on navigators. Flak would be ineffective if thMany of the Mosquito's famous targets were not defended because they were not considered targets, like Gestapo offices and prisons. Flying at tree top height doesnt negate flak defences, you can be hit by any machine gun or rifle and means it is very easy to get lost.
we're talking an exceptional pilot and navigator, that's all. The Mossie had by far the best survivability rate of the war, therefore you're not losing crews.And none of that addresses the enormous task of retraining the 8th AF's bomber crews for an entirely different suite of tactics and doctrine called-for by the switch to ultra-low-level bombing
The Mossies outran their fighter escorts.The Mosquito excelled at running from enemy fighters due to it's speed - this is not how a long range fighter defends bombers.
we're talking an exceptional pilot and navigator, that's all. The Mossie had by far the best survivability rate of the war, therefore you're not losing crews.
Enlighten me. Treetop flying negated flak defenses. Route changes at that speed provided less reaction time. They were flying over Berlin even late in the war with impunity.
(The Brits built several bombers that were absolute junk).
USA making Mosquitoes is a good thing in general. We might 1st know the goal post: is it being made instead of B-17, or instead of B-24, or instead B-25 or/and B-26? Or a combination? Perhaps something not listed should be axed instead?
Before all of that - timing is the crucial issue here, and before it is well defined we're unlikely to arrive at plausible scenarios.
While anything is possible it would have been impossible to produce the amount of Mosquitoes needed to launch a campaign that would have equaled the amount of bombers eventually produced to mount the air war over Europe.Here in Detroit, Chriscraft was already building high quality wood boats. It would seem to have been easy to redirect those craftsmen toward the Mosquito.
To put it mildly, this statement is "out in left field." Profit driven? How is that when "the customer" (USAAF or a foreign government) sets the speciation for procurement to include materials and equipment.I strongly suspect that turning down the Mosquito in 1941 had more to do with a profit-motive decision than anything else.
Building these things involves finding and training high specified woodworkers. Far more profit to be had in building metal planes on assembly lines. Why else would it have been rejected summarily?While anything is possible it would have been impossible to produce the amount of Mosquitoes needed to launch a campaign that would have equaled the amount of bombers eventually produced to mount the air war over Europe.
To put it mildly, this statement is "out in left field." Profit driven? How is that when "the customer" (USAAF or a foreign government) sets the speciation for procurement to include materials and equipment.
Let's also keep in mind that the further the Mossie flew (combat radius), the lighter the bomb load. So how many Mossies would it take to equal the hundreds of B-17s that struck Berlin on a typical raid?
Building these things involves finding and training high specified woodworkers. Far more profit to be had in building metal planes on assembly lines. Why else would it have been rejected summarily?
>>In April 1940, U.S. Army Air Forces General Hap Arnold brought to the U.S. a complete set of Mosquito blueprints, which were sent to five American aircraft manufacturers for comment. All were contemptuous of the British design, none more so than Beechcraft, which reported back, "This airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use construction material that is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes." Beech couldn't have gotten it more wrong if they had tried.<<
The Miraculous Mosquito
>Blackburn Botha is one of the rare aircraft in the history of aviation that has been replaced with an older version. It happened after a very brief war career that began in 1939 and lasted for only 18 months.
Roc was another poor design from the Blackburn aircraft manufacturer. It appeared at the same time as the Botha and had a similar career. The Blackburn Roc entered the service of the Fleet Air Arm as a two-seater fleet defense fighter.<<
The Manchester was another unsatisfactory abortion.
The Manchester had its bad points, issues with aerodynamics, electrical systems and bad engines, but the problems with the Vulture were mostly solved by the time the Manchester III prototype first flew, which, because of its four Merlins was renamed the Lancaster. The Vulture was discontinued because RR had a greater requirement for Merlins. The airframe, with its massive 33 foot-long unobstructed bomb bay, which was unique in a WW2 bomber, required very little structural change to make the Lancaster, and, as I've said before, it was a worthy basis for Britain's best heavy bomber of the war.
Fixed that for you.
The problem for the Manchester was that it was probably too large for a twin engine bomber with a maximum bomb load of over 10,000lb. Even at the expected power of the Vultures (1,800hp).
Building these things involves finding and training high specified woodworkers. Far more profit to be had in building metal planes on assembly lines. Why else would it have been rejected summarily?
>>In April 1940, U.S. Army Air Forces General Hap Arnold brought to the U.S. a complete set of Mosquito blueprints, which were sent to five American aircraft manufacturers for comment. All were contemptuous of the British design, none more so than Beechcraft, which reported back, "This airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use construction material that is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes." Beech couldn't have gotten it more wrong if they had tried.<<
The Miraculous Mosquito
Thanks for the post; I just joined and this is precisely what I was chumming for. I hope to write a book about Vance Chipman and this is one of the topics I hope to address.We beat this to death in another thread several years ago. Mosquito - the alternative strategic bomber