What if: Mosquito vs P-38

Shortround6 · Jul 26, 2009

Maybe I missed it but what difference does glue make?

Some "wooden" aircraft used wood that was impregenated with large amounts of resin (and not just at joints) and sometimes baked in large ovens.
In fact some US trainers were refered to as "plastic" aircraft at the time.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 26, 2009

Shortround6 said:
Maybe I missed it but what difference does glue make?

Some "wooden" aircraft used wood that was impregenated with large amounts of resin (and not just at joints) and sometimes baked in large ovens.
In fact some US trainers were refered to as "plastic" aircraft at the time.

The glues used during WW2 will deteriorate over time. Despite being resin impregnated, over time wood structure swells and shrinks depending on the environment.

"Plastic aircraft." Can you show a source for that?

fastmongrel · Jul 26, 2009

Colin1 said:
So the alum perforated, the plywood split

If it's split from side to side then it's not in one piece. Now add load forces from an aircraft engaging in violent evasive manoeuvres.

I think some useful points have been made here concerning the viability of wood for airframes construction, I don't think that this was one of them.

The plywood was in one piece the underside ply had bulged and split after 11 hits but it took another 2 blows to make a hole. The plywood is still in 1 piece and still resists twisting. The duralium with 2 fewer blows has suffered a great deal more damage tearing the holes I drilled to pop rivet it to the frame work and coming away frome the frame. The holes I drilled in the ply are intact and it was not detached from the frame.

I said it was a rubbish test because I am not testing like with like but it is a useful demonstration of the strength ply construction. If you dont believe me go to a timber merchant and get an off cut of half inch ply and start hitting it. Go on hit it harder. Here try a 14 pound sledge hammer hard work isnt it. Now go and find a car prefferably belonging to someone you dont like and have a go with the same tools. Now tell me that wooden ply structures are weak.

Shortround6 · Jul 26, 2009

Try:

langley monoplane | flight january | priority materials | 1942 | 0084 | Flight Archive

and:

1941 | 2545 | Flight Archive

For an online source.

See also the

N2T Tutor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which, although not refered to as "plastic" in Wiki is refered to that way by Joseph Juptner in Vol. 8 of" U.S. Civil Aircraft."

I know that these are not "plastic" in the sense that we think of plastic now but the Langley twin was supposed to use about 60 gal. of Vinyl-resin plastic per airframe.

Vinyl-resin wound up in even shorter supply than aluminium during the war so this construction technique was cut short.
The long term durability of these resins may or may not have been what the developers hoped for, I don't know. Just pointing out that "wooden" structure may have much more than "wood" contributing to it's strength or structural integrity.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 26, 2009

Shortround6 said:
Maybe I missed it but what difference does glue make?

Are you serious?

Think about it, if you use the wrong kind of glue or a glue that will deteriorate faster, what is going to happen to the plane?

pbfoot · Jul 26, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
The glues used during WW2 will deteriorate over time. Despite being resin impregnated, over time wood structure swells and shrinks depending on the environment.

"Plastic aircraft." Can you show a source for that?

might it be the finish applied to the Ryans Pt22 my dad said the ones made in the US had a baked expxy finish

FLYBOYJ · Jul 26, 2009

pbfoot said:
might it be the finish applied to the Ryans Pt22 my dad said the ones made in the US had a baked expxy finish

The PT-22 had a metal fuselage from what I remember. Baked epoxy is a paint.

pbfoot · Jul 26, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
The PT-22 had a metal fuselage from what I remember. Baked epoxy is a paint.

The wings IIRC correctly amd it was on the PT26 not 22 my error , I was getting a lesson in the difference between the various models and how to tell which company made each one. the easiest way to tell the difference between the Fleet version and the ones made in the US was the baked on finish on the wings whereas the Fleet version looked much cruder with the standard linen

Shortround6 · Jul 26, 2009

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Are you serious?

Think about it, if you use the wrong kind of glue or a glue that will deteriorate faster, what is going to happen to the plane?

Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly.

I was refering to the contribution the glue could make to the structure of the aircraft, both as to strength and ability to absorb damage.

Some Russian aircraft have been described as being made of "layers of birch strips glued cross grained, impregnated with VIAM-B-3 (phenol-formaldehyde resin, borax and boric acid) -- used in conjuction with bakelite ply( layers of birch strips bonded at 150deg C with bakelite film)"

This was developed at a Propellor and ski factory and was supposed to be both fire resistant and of greater strength than untreated wood. Experimental spars were constructed for test by the Lavochkin OKB in the Spring of 1939.

So yes, I am serious.

What difference can the glue or bonding agent between the layers of "plywood" make in the strength of an aircraft.
Or what differnce is there between "cold molded"--"hot molded" and simply sticking bits and pieces of wood together with glue or trying to use flat sheets of ready made plywood and "bending" them to shape.

Please note that there could be different results even if the "glues" all worked as advertised.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 26, 2009

Shortround6 said:
Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly.

I was refering to the contribution the glue could make to the structure of the aircraft, both as to strength and ability to absorb damage.

Some Russian aircraft have been described as being made of "layers of birch strips glued cross grained, impregnated with VIAM-B-3 (phenol-formaldehyde resin, borax and boric acid) -- used in conjuction with bakelite ply( layers of birch strips bonded at 150deg C with bakelite film)"

This was developed at a Propellor and ski factory and was supposed to be both fire resistant and of greater strength than untreated wood. Experimental spars were constructed for test by the Lavochkin OKB in the Spring of 1939.

So yes, I am serious.

What difference can the glue or bonding agent between the layers of "plywood" make in the strength of an aircraft.
Or what differnce is there between "cold molded"--"hot molded" and simply sticking bits and pieces of wood together with glue or trying to use flat sheets of ready made plywood and "bending" them to shape.

Please note that there could be different results even if the "glues" all worked as advertised.

Different glues for different bonding application as you stated, there are some processes that require heat and pressure. Sometimes these glues deteriorate. Others may cure in a way that vibration and stress loads could cause them to fail, again application dependant.

There's a puplication called AC.4313 put out by the FAA - it has a good chapter on wood

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 26, 2009

Shortround6 said:
Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly.

I was refering to the contribution the glue could make to the structure of the aircraft, both as to strength and ability to absorb damage.

Some Russian aircraft have been described as being made of "layers of birch strips glued cross grained, impregnated with VIAM-B-3 (phenol-formaldehyde resin, borax and boric acid) -- used in conjuction with bakelite ply( layers of birch strips bonded at 150deg C with bakelite film)"

This was developed at a Propellor and ski factory and was supposed to be both fire resistant and of greater strength than untreated wood. Experimental spars were constructed for test by the Lavochkin OKB in the Spring of 1939.

So yes, I am serious.

What difference can the glue or bonding agent between the layers of "plywood" make in the strength of an aircraft.
Or what differnce is there between "cold molded"--"hot molded" and simply sticking bits and pieces of wood together with glue or trying to use flat sheets of ready made plywood and "bending" them to shape.

Please note that there could be different results even if the "glues" all worked as advertised.

As Joe pointed out, depending on the type of glue and where it is being use, and how it is to be applied, can all make the difference.

flakhappy · Jul 26, 2009

red admiral said:
Normal load for the B-17 when bombing targets in Germany was 3600lbs, whereas the Mk XVI had a bulged bomb bay that enabled a 4000lb cookie to be carried to similar targets. The B-17 could carry more bombs over a greater distance, but usually didn't.

Wood is a good construction material apart from in hot or humid environments. In terms of strength and stiffness/weight it compares very well with aluminium (obviously depends exactly what sort of wood). The laminate used for the Mosquito was fairly damage resilient and gave a nice smooth surface finish, no rivet heads poking into the airflow. Its not possible to say that aluminium is conclusively better for this type of aircraft.

Oops! I have to cut in here and correct that bomb load figure for a B-17. The normal bomb load for a B-17 in the 15th AF (and I presume the 8th) was 6,000 pouinds, except when carrying frag clusters or incendiaries, which were not as compact as regular bombs. I have pulled the safety pins on 12 500 pounders and six 1,000 pounders enough times to be certain on that.

parsifal · Jul 26, 2009

I thought the rated load for the B-17 was 8000 lbs whilst the Mossie was 4000. There will always be instances where less warload is carried for certain missions, but as a generalization, surely the Mosquito is a lighter bomber.

Having said that, the Mosquito had two attributes worth noting. Firstly it was highly survivable. I believe (but have not absolutely checked) that it had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any allied bomber used on active operations. It was the only bomber that could attack a target, by day, with relative impunity. Once its bombs were dropped, the unarmed version of the Mosquito was reputed to have a top speed of over 400 mph. Thats fast, very fast.

The second attribute was its accuracy. It was often used for pinpoint attacks, requiring great levels of accuracy, like its at45tacks on Gestapo HQS that required parts of the building only to be destroyed. I do think that the Mosquito crews were specially trained, certainly the pathfinders were special crews, however the Mosquito was also selected for these missions because of the inherent stability of the platform, according to my human source. He reckons they flew exceedingly pleasantly. They were not docile, but they didnt bounce around the sky whilst you were trying to hit a target.

Both the US and RAF heavy bomber forces had high degres of innaccuracy in their bombing. The mosquito (and other aircraft liker it) dropped a lower load of bombs, but more of those bombs hit the target, and more of the crews dropping those bombs returned alive

Butters · Jul 26, 2009

It seems to me that any superiority in the accuracy of Mosquito bombardiers vis others, is either because of superior aiming devices, bombardier training, or most likely (IMO) because the attacks were made at much lower altitudes.

No WWII bomb can be dropped from 15-25 thousand feet with enough accuracy to hit a specific part of a specific building. You would have to be on the deck to get that kind of result. Something that only an a/c with the speed and manouverability of the Mosquito could possibly do and survive.

JL

Watanbe · Jul 26, 2009

parsifal said:
I thought the rated load for the B-17 was 8000 lbs whilst the Mossie was 4000. There will always be instances where less warload is carried for certain missions, but as a generalization, surely the Mosquito is a lighter bomber.

Having said that, the Mosquito had two attributes worth noting. Firstly it was highly survivable. I believe (but have not absolutely checked) that it had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any allied bomber used on active operations. It was the only bomber that could attack a target, by day, with relative impunity. Once its bombs were dropped, the unarmed version of the Mosquito was reputed to have a top speed of over 400 mph. Thats fast, very fast.

The second attribute was its accuracy. It was often used for pinpoint attacks, requiring great levels of accuracy, like its at45tacks on Gestapo HQS that required parts of the building only to be destroyed. I do think that the Mosquito crews were specially trained, certainly the pathfinders were special crews, however the Mosquito was also selected for these missions because of the inherent stability of the platform, according to my human source. He reckons they flew exceedingly pleasantly. They were not docile, but they didnt bounce around the sky whilst you were trying to hit a target.

Both the US and RAF heavy bomber forces had high degres of innaccuracy in their bombing. The mosquito (and other aircraft liker it) dropped a lower load of bombs, but more of those bombs hit the target, and more of the crews dropping those bombs returned alive

Exactly, the Mossie doesn't have to twist and turn with a German fighter, it completes its mission and if something is sent up to intercept the Mossie just opens the throttle and escapes. FB Mossies did shoot down single engine fighters, but I wouldn't imagine them wanting to get in a dog fight. Complete your mission, maybe fire a few shots at an enemy fighter and then get out of there and in that role it was brilliant

river · Jul 27, 2009

Hi,

parsifal said:
Having said that, the Mosquito had two attributes worth noting. Firstly it was highly survivable. I believe (but have not absolutely checked) that it had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any allied bomber used on active operations.

I think the lowest loss rate of Allied bombers goes to the B26 Marauder. However, I am not sure if those stats would include the Mosquito, as it was such a versatile aircraft and calling it a bomber covers only a part of its operations. On the flip side of the coin, maybe they did include the Mosquito in those stats and included all variants under the generic name of "Mosquito".

river

Glider · Jul 27, 2009

river said:
Hi,

I think the lowest loss rate of Allied bombers goes to the B26 Marauder. However, I am not sure if those stats would include the Mosquito, as it was such a versatile aircraft and calling it a bomber covers only a part of its operations. On the flip side of the coin, maybe they did include the Mosquito in those stats and included all variants under the generic name of "Mosquito".

river

I don't know which bomber had the lowest loss rate but their were major differences between the operations undertaken by the B26 and the Mossquito. B26 operations were almost always undertaken in daylight with heavy fighter escort and didn't go that far into enemy territory. Mosquito's often didn't have any escort and ranged far behind enemy lines including some daylight raids over Berlin.

RAF No 2 Group in 1944 had a loss rate of 1.84% for Mosquito's on daylight raids, whereas its Boston and B25 Squadrons had a loss rate of 0.37% on daylight raids for the year. I recognise that this isn't quite the same as B26 operations by the USAAF but my belief is that the B26 and No 2 Group Bostons and B25's had similar missions.

bowfin · Feb 24, 2012

I've got a Mosquito book (Mosquito at War, Chaz Bowyer- Ian Allen, '73) with plenty of pictures of badly damaged Mossies that made it back home.

They couldn't very well put in any pictures of Mosquitos that were badly damaged that didn't make it home, could they?

An analogy could be made on the premise that dolphins are likely to help injured swimmers because there are stories told by said injured swimmers of dolphins pushing them to shore. For all we know, 99% of the injured swimmers encountered by dolphins are either pulled under or pushed out to sea, but we never hear about THOSE swimmers' experiences.

Likewise, some pictures of heavily damaged Mosquitos might represent the exception rather than the rule. We don't have pictures of a Mosquito burning up from a single 7.7mm incendiary round and crashing into the North Sea because only survivors were photographed.

bowfin · Feb 24, 2012

By the way, the above is not a knock on the Mosquito. It was HUGELY successful, and had the added bonus of doing so while saving on aluminum to be used elsewhere.

Gixxerman · Feb 24, 2012

You can't knock the Mossie.
Not only a beautiful aircraft (and genuinely outstanding in its roles, especially unescorted fast high altitude bomber photo reconnaissance) but one that set the rules of the bomber game for the next 20yrs or so too
(I think it's fair to say from '45 - '65 the orthodoxy was as per the Mossie way, high fast as opposed to the later under the radar necessity of very low a lot more slow).

What if: Mosquito vs P-38

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Sergeant

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman

Colonel

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Airman

Captain

Airman

Airman

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads