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

[FLYBOYJ]

More Mosquitoes earlier could have disrupted more infrastructure.

BTW, to slightly change the subject - in you research have you discovered the challenges of operating wood aircraft?

 

[Donald Johnson]

BTW, to slightly change the subject - in you research have you discovered the challenges of operating wood aircraft?

I've got Bowman's book that goes into this in detail. My main problem is with how the British offering of this was summarily dismissed by five American companies and their "engineers." At least one should have given it a shot even if it meant subcontracting it to a boat company. Note that Hughes thought wood construction was a good enough idea that he built "the Spruce Goose." This likely would have meant just a few initially, but once these things were in the air here and compared to other light bombers, that production may have been amplified.

 

[Snautzer01]

Told you. Read about bowman.
What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?

 

[Ovod]

Note that Hughes thought wood construction was a good enough idea that he built "the Spruce Goose."

That was a US Gov. requirement, surely, an effort to conserve on scarce metals, if I recall. It was certainly not Hughes' decision - he didn't try to build the XF-11 out wood.

 

[special ed]

May 2021 issue of Air Force mag has article on F-35 by John Tirpak. Two items stood out to me were, the govt didn't order enough engines and modules for spares and the change over from ALIS to ODIN information system. ALIS was based on a twenty year old system.. I'm sure Adler can give a much better explanation than I can.

 

[MIflyer]

There was a raid on Ploesti that involved nothing but P-38's, both as fighter escort and as bombers. They had to stage through a tiny island in the Aegean to make it. I don't know how good the results were, but I understand the pilots involved were highly unenthused about ever doing it again.

Some have used missions of that nature as well as those by the Mossies to claim we could have knocked out the RR lines to Auschwitz or the crematoriums there, but I do not know what good that would have done.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've got Bowman's book that goes into this in detail. My main problem is with how the British offering of this was summarily dismissed by five American companies and their "engineers." At least one should have given it a shot even if it meant subcontracting it to a boat company. Note that Hughes thought wood construction was a good enough idea that he built "the Spruce Goose." This likely would have meant just a few initially, but once these things were in the air here and compared to other light bombers, that production may have been amplified.

You keep bringing up the 5 engineers, GIVE IT A REST!!!! I told you why all 5 manufactures dismissed the Mosquito!!! Here - a good reference from Wikipedia (which I try to avoid unless references are shown) -

On 20 April 1941, W4050 was demonstrated to Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Aircraft Production. The Mosquito made a series of flights, including one rolling climb on one engine (which a P-38 can do as well, my note). Also present were US General Henry H. Arnold and his aide Major Elwood Quesada, who wrote "I ... recall the first time I saw the Mosquito as being impressed by its performance, which we were aware of. We were impressed by the appearance of the airplane that looks fast usually is fast, and the Mosquito was, by the standards of the time, an extremely well-streamlined airplane, and it was highly regarded, highly respected."

The trials set up future production plans between Britain, Australia, and Canada. Six days later, Arnold returned to America with a full set of manufacturer's drawings. As a result of his report, five companies (Beech, Curtiss-Wright, Fairchild, Fleetwings, and Hughes) were asked to evaluate the de Havilland data. The report by Beech Aircraft summed up the general view: "It appears as though this airplane has sacrificed serviceability, structural strength, ease of construction and flying characteristics in an attempt to use construction material which is not suitable for the manufacture of efficient airplanes. "The Americans did not pursue the proposal for licensed production, the consensus arguing that the Lockheed P-38 Lightning could fulfill the same duties. However, Arnold urged the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) to evaluate the design even if they would not adopt it. On 12 December 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the USAAF requested one airframe for this purpose.

It got no further...

Even "IF" they said the Mosquito was the greatest thing since sliced bread, until Uncle Sam came with his checkbook and contract in hand, the only place you were going to find wood at these factories was at the toothpick dispenser in the cafeteria!!!!

Before you do anymore Wikipedia or generic history site searches I can tell you as a mechanic with over 40 years in the industry, wood aircraft suck! Some of my fellow maintainers on here may somewhat disagree with me but they are hard to maintain, repairs can be troublesome because of environmental factors, and the more you repair the airframe, the weaker it can potentially get, it's a lot harder to repair a wood airplane than it is a metal one, and wood planes will eventually rot and may post war Mosquitoes did!

The Mosquito was a great combat aircraft and it certainly has it's place in history, if things were different it "could have" been used in other roles but in the bigger picture it was not going to be the "answer all" to WW2 combat aircraft!

 

[Donald Johnson]

Told you. Read about bowman.
What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?

Yeah, Bowman's book uses this picture of my SO's Uncle that states that he was a Racetrack Driver in Chicago, highly unlikely since he was 17 and here in the Detroit area working as a projectionist to get money to fly a Piper Cub. This is one of the many bullshit stories he told drinking buddies using a convincing British accent.,

 

[Snautzer01]

I have seen this one one and posted. Recently.

 

[pbehn]

I've got Bowman's book that goes into this in detail. My main problem is with how the British offering of this was summarily dismissed by five American companies and their "engineers." At least one should have given it a shot even if it meant subcontracting it to a boat company. Note that Hughes thought wood construction was a good enough idea that he built "the Spruce Goose." This likely would have meant just a few initially, but once these things were in the air here and compared to other light bombers, that production may have been amplified.

Apart from the issue of it being made out of wood there were other reasons to be unenthusiastic about the Mosquito. It didnt have a big pay load in 1941, it had a two man crew, no defensive armament and had high take off, landing and stall speeds plus lots of speeds abbreviated with V that meant losing an engine was dangerous. Much of this changed with time, the B-26 had similar issues, it just means more and better training.

 

[MIflyer]

It was certainly not Hughes' decision - he didn't try to build the XF-11 out wood.

HH as very enthused about the Duramold process and in fact the initial version of the XF-11 was made out of wood. Only after the Duramold version caught fire and burned did he design an AL version. And that required replacing the R-2800's with R-4360's using counter rotating props - which caused the crash when one prop reversed.

 

[Donald Johnson]

I have seen this one one and posted. Recently.

Yeah, I came here with this seeking information action to expand on article/book about him. One way to engage readers was to pose this issue which may be old hat for you guys, but an intriguing point of controversy for the novice. I grew up reading about WW2 planes, but as a teacher, rarely saw warbirds even mentioned in history textbooks. Perhaps it was because they were on cereal boxes in the early sixties. I suspect a more PC outlook from mostly female teachers who saw such interest as glorifying war.

My intent is to raise issues about how weapons are conceived and procured; nothing I read here justifies our totally overlooking the production of this beauty. It is a point of access, raising an issue that can be discussed and researched. I'm not that concerned about resolving it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

nothing I read here justifies our totally overlooking the production of this beauty

Your biased opinion - several of us given you the technical, historical and operational reasons why the US never operated the Mosquito outside of the PR role.

 

[special ed]

The Hughes wooden plane was the D-2 if my memory is correct. It was long before the XF-11 and was built in "secret". Since it was a twin boom aircraft, he claimed Lockheed stole his design for the P-38. Much conflicting data on this, but he may have never flown it. I have only seen two photos (poor shots) taken clandestinely. When no interest was shown by the Army, he stopped work, dismissed workers and after a time there was I mysterious fire in the hangar destroying the plane. This is from my faulty memory and I would have to find the book for proof.

 

[pbehn]

Yeah, I came here with this seeking information action to expand on article/book about him. One way to engage readers was to pose this issue which may be old hat for you guys, but an intriguing point of controversy for the novice. I grew up reading about WW2 planes, but as a teacher, rarely saw warbirds even mentioned in history textbooks. Perhaps it was because they were on cereal boxes in the early sixties. I suspect a more PC outlook from mostly female teachers who saw such interest as glorifying war.

My intent is to raise issues about how weapons are conceived and procured; nothing I read here justifies our totally overlooking the production of this beauty. It is a point of access, raising an issue that can be discussed and researched. I'm not that concerned about resolving it.

Are you saying that the facts you have been given will not change your mind? That is a strange attitude to learning. I can give you two very good reasons why the Mosquito wasnt taken up apart from the many already given as to why it doesnt work.
1 Ignorance of weather in UK and Europe. Obviously there are places with crap weather in USA but not to the same level. Military aviation started with planes taking pictures of enemy trenches, fighters were developed to stop them then pilots started dropping things on the people in trenches and we had bombers. It is strange that when WW2 broke out no one had a proper PR machine and everyone suddenly started making them, but only when they themselves had the need forced on them The USA as everyone else only discovered the need for accurate information on the target before and after the mission and also the weather at your own airfields and the target all the time the mission is being executed.

2 Ignorance of your enemy. Its easy to assume that your enemy will do what you would do, in fact the LW especially in Northern Europe didnt do what many would expect and so conclusions drawn from what happened were sometimes wrong. Joachim Marseille and his fighter group managed to go into combat and make him a legend without bothering to shoot down any allied bombers or affect the war in Africa to any real extent, I doubt any US military commander would stand for that.

As an example the first raid on Rouen 17 August 1942 has many articles and reports written. Initially it was reported as a very accurate attack, later phot surveys showed it was anything but. Reports differ about escorts, some just mention it was escorted, others that 4 squadrons of Spitfire Mk IX were used, another says that 3 squadrons of MIXs and 5 of MkVs for withdrawal were used. Few mention that 3 Spitfires were lost but do mention that 3 LW aircraft attacked and 2 bombers were damaged. It is assumed that the LW would attack the bombers no matter what, but the LW pilots were not suicidal or particularly motivated to protect French countryside. They did what they had done all through 1941, bided their time and waited to bounce the escorts and have a go at the bombers when safe to do so. 1 LW FW 190 was lost in the attack.. The conclusions drawn from this and other similar raids led commanders to believe unescorted raids were safer than they actually were. While the US Airforce were learning about bombing missions they were teaching the LW the range and tactics of escorts and the various fields of fire of a B-17 combat box.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

but *IF* the Mossie was such an obvious solution to strategic bombing, I'm fairly sure the British would have jumped at the chance first...

Some British tried to jump in exactly that fashion... and whats more, other than the major error of thinking it would work in the Pacific, just about everything else in these
pages is absolutely correct.

Would it ever have really happened ? Probably not, but if I could go back in time with hindsight, who in their right mind would have wasted even one rivet on a Manchester, Hampden Wellington or Stirling lieu of a Mossie?

(I think probably its just dreaming to imagine the USA would have ever done it, but ought the British to have ditched their 4-engien heavies ? that, is a REALLY serious and genuine question). In my view just about all British heavies were pathetically armed death-traps which cost tens of thousands of airmen their lives. I dont think (Britain) needed them, really, I dont.

As for the American view of the plane, the files bring forth interesting commentary.

 

[wuzak]

Just for drill, get your combat loading vs Combat Radius charts for any Mosquito type you propose to use for Ploesti and pick the airfield launch site out of range from LW intruders in Med and propose a Plan (altitude and airspeed) to attack Ploesti. Do Not fly a straight line course.

I looked at it some years ago - it would not be possible using the same airfields as the B-24, unless you could launch the Mosquitoes from an aircraft carrier and then return to the air base.

 

[Dana Bell]

Also present were US General Henry H. Arnold and his aide Major Elwood Quesada, who wrote "I ... recall the first time I saw the Mosquito as being impressed by its performance, which we were aware of. We were impressed by the appearance of the airplane that looks fast usually is fast, and the Mosquito was, by the standards of the time, an extremely well-streamlined airplane, and it was highly regarded, highly respected."

I keep reading about Quesada writing this about the Mosquito, but he never wrote it -- still, he did say it in my 1977 interview with him! My interview was shared with Norman Malayney back when we were trying to make sense of the AAF/Mosquito story; he shared it with Bowman, and now it's general history.

At the time of the hour-long interview Quesada was recovering from a minor stroke. He was lucid and focused - and he absolutely lit up with enthusiasm when he spoke of that first encounter. His eyes brightened, and his voice took on a romantic - almost poetic - glow. I'll remember his reaction to the questions long after I've forgotten his answers.

Here's Arnold returning from his UK visit; behind him, still wearing his fedora, is Pete Quesada looking a but worn and carrying a briefcase full of technical documents.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Nice one Dana! Thanks for posting!!!!!

 

[Donald Johnson]

Your biased opinion - several of us given you the technical, historical and operational reasons why the US never operated the Mosquito outside of the PR role.

Bias?

I've read through everything written here and while I acknowledge this craftsmen limitations, the upside of a 400-mph bomber with the best survivability rate of the war delivering relatively small loads but at pinpoint accuracy makes this discussion worth have. A similar number of Lancasters were produced, but did they do more to defeat Hitler?

>>An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons! ((raf.mod.uk))<<

More Mosquitoes would mean fewer V-1's, right? (Interesting side-note on how they perfected methods of taking then down in flight before the Typhoons. More Skeeters would have meant fewer V-1s hitting London, right?)

The authoritative finality of you and several posters on this thread that seeks to demolish an opposing view rather than to engage it bodes poorly for continued re-learning of history. How are we to engage today's youth to the point that they take another look at these issues if all of them have been resolved?

This is not a settled issue and the ramifications of bomber theory of that era and procurement principles still resonate in the Pentagon.

The de Havilland Mosquito and the heavy bombers