Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th September 2011 at 03:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting questions and assumptions.
There were no official speed records set during W.W.II, and top speeds quoted all depend on configuration, task, source etc. 'We' didn't know what 'their' top speeds were. But it's generally accepted that a Mosquito could outrun any enemy fighter given a start, until the arrival of things like the 262. That, not some absolute speed, was what was important.
There were no 'guided' rockets available - they were all unguided; the Axis had some guided bombs at the war's end, the Allies some experimental bombs. But not guided rockets as modern style missiles.
Main load was carried in the bomb bay, including the 4,000 lb 'cookie' - AFAIK, no other medium could carry that.
What was hung on the wing was essentially secondary or specialist armament.
However few aircraft had 4 .303, 4. 20mm, a 1/2 bomb bay and 1/2 bomb-bay fuel tank potentially plus wing stores as the FB.VI had.
Beaufighter had heavier gun armament. (Except the Molins Cannon equipped 'Testse' Mosquito).
The wooden construction of the Mosquito wasn't more fire-prone than a metal monocoque, I think you'll find - the issue was if a fire started with the avgas 'fuelling' it, neither construction method was proof against such a high intensity fire. Without a fuel fire, the wooden construction wasn't any more fire prone, and in fact had some strength advantages over stressed skin metal for structural redundancy.
There's fascinating photos of a Mosquito that flew through a (V-1?) fireball that stripped most of the fabric covering, but it made it back. The wood was singed, but despite the layperson's view, wood does not automatically combust until consumed - ironically in building fires, wooden beams retain strength on a declining but predictable scale through a fire, unlike metal based or many other structural materials.
(Wood as a material is one of the most poorly understood and under-rated building materials in the modern era. In many ways it beats synthetic composites hands down, but so often it's believed to be 'old fashioned' and supplanted.)
The Hornet was the 'streamlined' Mosquito. As for the layout of the Mozzie, the side by side layout is very cramped - the crew have to be staggered, and the decisive factor was the size (depth / width) of the bomb bay - the cockpit gets narrower than that.
OTOH, a number of Mosquitos were lost being ferried to the UK from Canada, and fuel explosions may have been the cause. Type, not construction issue, however.
Also it was possible to over-stress the one piece wing - I've heard that if the cookie didn't release the wing could be stripped in the post shallow-dive launch - I'd be interested in more knowledgeable confirmation / denial of that.
BTW - it's a de Havilland Mosquito - note spelling and lower case 'd'; a common error.
Good questions!
HTH.
By: - 12th September 2011 at 06:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Firstly, many thanks for your reply in patience.
Main load was carried in the bomb bay, including the 4,000 lb 'cookie' - AFAIK, no other medium could carry that.
Since medium mentioned, don't you think the B-25 Michel was a medium bomber, and if I go to check my data, will be more controversial medium there,which were capable of 4000 lb internal load in believe.
However few aircraft had 4 .303, 4. 20mm, a 1/2 bomb bay and 1/2 bomb-bay fuel tank potentially plus wing stores as the FB.VI had.Beaufighter had heavier gun armament.
As a layperson, my curious drag me to request a photo to show me a more firepower armed Beautifighter. In my memory, even B-25 only carried one more cannon, although it was 75mm big.
The wooden construction of the Mosquito wasn't more fire-prone than a metal monocoque, I think you'll find - the issue was if a fire started with the avgas 'fuelling' it, neither construction method was proof against such a high intensity fire. Without a fuel fire, the wooden construction wasn't any more fire prone, and in fact had some strength advantages over stressed skin metal for structural redundancy.
Humm, perhaps the ignite temperature of wood used by UK and Japonaise were far different, perhaps the wooden structure by British was made more skillfully, perhaps the internal fuel piper wasn't arranged rightly by Japanese, even fuel tank, perhaps the gun fire out of American are more powerful than what out of Nazi's, and most likely, you will come to tell me there was some metal material protecting the important structure from foe's gun fire, am I right?
BTW - it's a de Havilland Mosquito - note spelling and lower case 'd'; a common error.
what a fool mistake I have done:eek:
Dont worry, I corrected it in the title! - Bruce
By: - 12th September 2011 at 06:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Firstly, many thanks for your reply in patience.
No problem!
Since medium mentioned, don't you think the B-25 Michel was a medium bomber, and if I go to check my data, will be more controversial medium there,which were capable of 4000 lb internal load in believe.
The point was the Mosquito could carry a 4,000 lb bomb, not a set of bombs making 4,000 lb total. AFAIK, no other medium could carry that bomb.
As a layperson, my curious drag me to request a photo to show me a more firepower armed Beautifighter. In my memory, even B-25 only carried one more cannon, although it was 75mm big.
Standard Beau carried 4 x .20mm, 6 x .303 mg forward firing armament. It is just the first one of a number of types with a standard heavier than Mosquito forward firing armament.
Look up the Molins cannon.
Humm, perhaps the ignite temperature of wood used by UK and Japonaise were far different, perhaps the wooden structure by British was made more skillfully, perhaps the internal fuel piper wasn't arranged rightly by Japanese, even fuel tank, perhaps the gun fire out of American are more powerful than what out of Nazi's, and most likely, you will come to tell me there was some metal material protecting the important structure from foe's gun fire, am I right?
The Mosquito's fuselage wooden structure was a laminated sandwich, and not particularly easy to break up or ignite - the wing was likewise a lot tougher than those who misunderstand wood realise. Cutaways and the video of the construction of the Mosquito would help in understanding.
Certainly not all wooden aircraft were the same in robustness.
The de Havilland method of building the Mozzie was not the same as the earlier 'tea chest' wooden framework with ply interfilling as seen on the Dragon family. It was a lot tougher, as it had to be as the Mosquito was a very high performance aircraft, and required significant structural strength.
Like most Allied aircraft the Mozzie had self-sealing tanks and crew armour - the Japanese, notoriously, shortcut on these and airframe strength in favour of performance - but that's a more general discussion.
what a fool mistake I have done.
Easy error, I pointed it out mainly so the correct name is able to be noted. :)
Regards,
By: - 12th September 2011 at 08:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Was that 41 tons be hold on its wing without damage a complete BS?
I believe the Mosquito wing could support the equivalent of 82 tons before catastrophic failure, ie. 41 tons on either side meant the thing would break.
So, if a Mossie with fuel, bombs etc weighing 11 tons pulled 7 Gs, in theory the wing wouldn't break. If it pulled 8 Gs in the same condition, in theory the wing would break.
So, the 41 tons on either side thing isn't so much BS as mis-interpretation.
By: - 12th September 2011 at 08:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, totally 82 tons, I noticed clearly. A strong a/c indeed.
The point was the Mosquito could carry a 4,000 lb bomb, not a set of bombs making 4,000 lb total. AFAIK, no other medium could carry that bomb.
OMG, the fuselage must be refitted! And is it possible to know the maximum external payload of Mosquito? 4000lb internally plus ***** externally at a same time? :p
By: - 12th September 2011 at 08:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting to see reference to the 'Mollins Gun' in this thread. I interviewed Desmond Molins (please note spelling with one 'L') when I was putting together the first version my Mosquito book for Arms and Armour - I was able to go back to my original material and greatly expand on this for Pen & Sword. Of Cuban heritage, Desmond was the head of the Molins Machine Company which made machines that made cigarettes - amongst other things. Apart from making Verey pistols cheaper and more quicker than Webley, during WW2 they made assorted feed mechanisms for guns - Desmond saw gun rounds as nothing more than a larger version of a cigarette.
As has been stated, there are common misconceptions regarding the use of timber - in fact 'wood' is really natures composite material that could be enhanced by man. Some of the work done to develop the Molins Gun and the Mosquito I described - If I may be allowed to quote myself:
'In 19 March 1943, J E Serby from the Ministry of Aircraft Production asked Ronald Bishop at de Havilland to investigate the possibility of installing a six-pounder cannon, weighing l,800 lb, in the Mosquito.
This request originated from discussions within the Air Ministry for a replacement of the 40mm anti-tank gun fitted with such success to the Hawker Hurricane IID used in North Africa. Under the leadership of GF Wallace, a series of ground firing tests was carried out by the RAF's Gun Section. The gun was found to be trouble-free, although feed unit problems were feared under the stress of actual combat. The head of the department sent a favourable report to the Controller of RAF Research and Development, Air Marshal Sir Ralph S. Sorley, who was instructed by the Air Staff to make the necessary requests to the aircraft manufacturers.
The gun intended was an adaptation of a weapon designed originally for naval use, with the addition of an automatic feed. It was designed and manufactured by Molins Machine Company, one of the world's leading manufacturers of cigarette-making, packing and handling equipment. Desmond Molins had already done considerable work on the automatic feed, intending to adapt the gun to be fitted to a tank-busting armoured car.
The automatic feed mechanism was to store rounds in groups of four or five, with an electrical drive to move the next group into position over the breech feed. The upwardangled magazine took up relatively little space, and allowed the heavy shells to be fed automatically into the weapon without the use of case links. While working on the gun's feed unit, Molins discovered that the gun needed modification to allow the recoil mechanism to operate the magazine. In time this gun became known as the 'Molins Gun' or, in official parlance, the 'Airborne Six-Pounder Class M Gun'.
Bishop, while knowing little of the Molins gun, stated that rough calculations indicated that few problems would be encountered in dealing with the envisaged 8,000lb recoil reaction. De Havilland had already studied the mounting of a 94mm/3.7 inch anti-aircraft gun in the Mosquito and, during December 1942, had already made detailled weight estimates for a ground-attack version with extra armour plating.
Serby therefore gave instructions in April 1943 to proceed with the prototype installation. De Havilland had previously adopted policies to ensure that every modification of the Mosquito family was developed as rapidly as possible. Illustrating the excellence of their system, just one day later they had cut the nose from a crashed machine, installed a normal six pounder gun measuring over twelve feet in length, and fired the weapon into the Hatfield butts to study the blast effects on the nose. During the first week of May another mock-up was made to see how the ammunition would be placed and, later the same week, a FB.Mk.VI, HJ732, was taken into the experimental shop for the first 'big gun' to be installed. This task was completed on 6 June, allowing the test firing of all 22 rounds in the magazine in one burst into the sand of the stop-butts; when fired into a jump-card set at 400 yards range, the mean point of impact was ten inches.
This adaptation of the Mosquito design was allocated the designation Mk.XVIII and the code-name of 'Tsetse' after the African tsetse fly, an insect that causes human sleeping sickness and animal tripanosomiasis. To fit correctly, the gun had to be mounted four inches to starboard of the aircraft's centre-line, and aligned to fire at a slightly downward angle of 3 3/4 degrees to the aircraft's horizontal datum. It was not overlooked that when fired, the gun emitted a flame between 15 and 30 feet long and therefore required a flash-eliminator.
The aircraft made its first flight two days later. No difficulties were encountered with either recoil or blast, so the machine was passed to A&AEE Boscombe Down for air firing trials. In the first week alone 100 rounds were fired into the butts to try to cure the problem of overpowering the feed unit drive during combat, a problem that had been predicted by the RAF's Gun Section. These stoppages occurred because rounds failed to reach the correct position when the feed mechanism was subjected to loads over 2.5G on the final run. On 22 June the aircraft was returned to Hatfield for further modifications.
Another problem arose during the testing of the gun. It was known that when any weapon was mounted in the closed compartment of an aircraft, and most especially if the barrel was facing forward directly into the airflow, some of the gases produced from firing were blown back when the breech was opened to eject the spent shell case. However, the ‘blow through’ created by the six-pounder when the breech was open was incredibly powerful; it could be likened to a 57mm-diameter column of air moving at up to 350mph into the fuselage of the Mosquito. It was discovered that the intense air pressure was enough to hinder the operation of the automatic loading mechanism, not to mention the effects of gas fumes on the crew in the cabin. To overcome this problem - which existed on all guns but was particularly noticeable on the Class M gun because of the barrel diameter - Desmond Molins set about devising a solution. The result was a multi-sectional, spring-steel muzzle cap that screwed on to the end of the barrel that was provisionally patented under No.581817 on 12 January 1943. This date is interesting, for it demonstrates that research into fitting large bore guns into the fuselages of aircraft must have been going on for some time before the Ministry of Aircraft Production notified de Havilland of its thoughts on 19 March 1943.
The muzzle cap was connected to the automatic loading mechanism, and only closed when the breech was actually open. It was also designed failsafe, in that if the mechanism did jam in the closed position, it was possible for the shell to be fired through the spring steel strips.
HJ732 returned to Boscombe Down for further trials, during which the valuable prototype was nearly lost to the Germans when navigational errors were made one weekend. Wing Commander Garland, accompanied by David King of de Havilland, was conducting tests over Lyme Bay in the West Country when the pilot contacted Boscombe Down for a fix and course to steer after the air firing trials had been completed. He was given it, and set the course on his compass. As they flew out to sea they saw haze on the horizon, which turned out to be the French coast! It seems that the corporal on radio duty had given them not a course to steer, but the reciprocal. Luckily the Wing Commander made a successful, if later than planned, landing at Boscombe.
Meanwhile a second machine had been fitted with extra armour around the nose and cockpit, weighing 900 lb in all. The first accuracy shoot took place two weeks later against a tank target at Larkhill on Salisbury Plain. The 57mm cannon could be fired either single shot or, with the automatic feed engaged, one shell could be fired every one and half seconds. Many people observing the tests wondered how the Mosquito structure could stand up to such stresses and still stay together the answer of course lay in the fact that the wooden structure was flexible and therefore absorbed shocks safely and efficiently.
Following this successful testing, work began at Hatfield to convert 30 Mosquito FB.Mk.VIs into Mk.XVIIIs. Crates containing Molins Guns were received and placed in secure storage until needed.
The firing trials continued, however, and in July and August HJ732 was back at Boscombe Down to help devise and practise operational tactics, using a dummy submarine conning tower built of wood and rigged up on the ranges. It was found that if a straight and level run-in at 50 to 100 feet altitude was made, it was possible for the pilot to fire off around seven shots during the mile-long approach. The gun was exceptionally accurate, with an average of six out of the seven shots finding the target. The rifling of the barrel began to show signs of wear and tear after 300-500 rounds had been fired, but this was considered acceptable if it translated, as expected, into 20 sorties each expending a full load of ammunition. A more worrying sign was the damage which 450 rounds - regarded as 'excessive use' - inflicted on the undersurface of the inner flaps of the aircraft, notably to the starboard side. This 'sucking away' effect was cured by fitting a heavier skin and by adding strengthened longitudinal ribs to the existing flap structure.
Blast effect problems also affected the nose area, with cracks appearing between the 'Big Gun' and the four Browning 0.303in machine guns. It was decided to remove the outer pair of machine-guns and strengthen the area with tie-rods fitted between the gun mounts and nose cone. A drop in fire-power was averted by enlarging the ammunition tanks and thus doubling the firing time of the remaining machine-guns.
By October three production aircraft had reached Boscombe Down. A minor modification, the fitment of 65 gallon fuel tanks in the fuselage, allowed the aircraft to range out far over the Bay of Biscay. A big-gunned, long-range Mosquito offered plenty of promise.
With many of the technical problems overcome, operating procedures could now be worked out. It was thought that the Barr and Stroud Mk.IIIa reflector sight, normally mounted in turrets and on free guns, could be used since it gave a better peripheral view and, when fitted with a dimming screen to reduce the reflections from the surface of the sea, it would be better than the larger GM2 fighter gunsight. The alignment of the Brownings and the six-pounder was not the same and therefore two graticules, or aiming dots, were incorporated in the sight with the central one for the Molins Gun and a slightly higher one for the machine-guns.
One of the delights of interviewing Desmond was to copy the original patents for the blast tube (which I still have) and also to view an 8mm test film of the gun being fired at the test butts. The Mossie was 'dug in' to a depth that was about tyre deep to set the aircraft at the correct attitude and to watch the thing firing on 'full automatic' was a sight to behold!
By: - 12th September 2011 at 08:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My apologies for mis-spelling Molins from memory. I should've really checked Alex Crawford's book on the 'Tse-tse' that we published a couple of years ago.
http://mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=44
The point about fitting fixed large calibre cannon on aircraft like the Mosquito and the Mitchell was that the job was simply done better by eight rockets - a parallel, and ultimately more effective weapon development. No recoil, no complexity, and the punch of 'a medium cruiser' available in salvo, ripple or simultaneous fire rather than limited by a fixed rate of fire of the gun. Radical thinking rather than traditional, 'scaled-up'.
OMG, the fuselage must be refitted! And is it possible to know the maximum external payload of Mosquito? 4000lb internally plus ***** externally at a same time? :p
I'm not sure what you're driving at. The internal payload, avoiding drag and thus the loss of speed and range was the point - it wasn't a Christmas tree competition. The structure of the bomb-bay (internal area) was not modified to undertake the task AFAIK.
The Mosquito thus equipped could, theoretically (IIRC - I'm sure it'll be corrected if required!) undertake two raids a night to Berlin in the time it took one Lancaster, or a B-17 to undertake one raid - and a B-25 couldn't take the 4,000 lb to Berlin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb#Use
The B-25 was a great medium bomber design; a measure of its crews achievements recognises that. The Mosquito was simply one of the most effective and versatile aircraft in history, undertaking numerous roles - bomber, PR, fighter, fighter bomber, etc.
Regards,
By: - 12th September 2011 at 11:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The wing is the key - everything hangs off it. The fuselage is basically a fairing to keep the pilots dry, and to support the tailplane.
The bomb load is supported by the wing. On the BXVI, the aircraft could carry one 4000lb bomb, but nothing else; the outer wing positions carried drop tanks (also wooden).
Bruce
By: - 12th September 2011 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So the 'wing failure' on cookie hang-up was probably a myth then, Bruce?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdSOmA7DHdM&feature=related
Here's the film I mentioned earlier on building Mosquitos. In this case, the Australian production, which, sadly was not nearly as successful as the propaganda film implies. Several fatal structural failures were traced to poor glue practice in production, and put back the Australian contribution to pretty much the war's end.
But the film does give you an idea of the simplicity and monocoque strength of the fuselage. As Bruce says, the wing was the real key though, and that's like a built-up box girder - very solid.
By: - 12th September 2011 at 15:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point about fitting fixed large calibre cannon on aircraft like the Mosquito and the Mitchell was that the job was simply done better by eight rockets - a parallel, and ultimately more effective weapon development. No recoil, no complexity, and the punch of 'a medium cruiser' available in salvo, ripple or simultaneous fire rather than limited by a fixed rate of fire of the gun. Radical thinking rather than traditional, 'scaled-up'.
At some cost in accuracy?
By: - 12th September 2011 at 15:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It wasn't so much poor glue practice, as unsuitable glue; the wooden structures were built in hitherto furniture factories, and used the same glue as had been used, for years, on furniture. This was mixed, then heated, and kept hot, while it was brushed onto, and into, the required areas; when it cooled, it did its job, largely because the liquid had soaked into the grain of the wood, helped by pressure bands wrapped round the parts. Unfortunately, the heat, in the Far East, was enough to soften the glue, and make it lose its adhesion. The problem was solved by a High Wycombe man, Andrew Oliver; infuriatingly, I worked with him for several years (well, "with" is stretching it a bit - he was the buyer, and I was a lowly stock controller,) and never knew about his involvement until recently.
Edgar
By: - 12th September 2011 at 16:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unfortunately, the heat, in the Far East, was enough to soften the glue, and make it lose its adhesion.
The failures I was referring to were on acceptance, from production, in Australia. Are you referring to Australian built examples, or the general 'far east' problem?
D1566, yes.
By: - 12th September 2011 at 16:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The glue issue is one of those that grows in the telling.
The glue initially used on the aircraft was specified by de Havilland, and was glue approved for aircraft production. Moving form furniture production to aircraft production was no easy feat; de Havilland specified tolerances measure in thou, to which the wood had to be manufactured; particularly for the spar, and as such, the temperatures also had to be carefully controlled. A far cry from the manufacture of furniture and school desks!
Two glue types were used - Casein glue was the initial adhesive, which was susceptible to heat and humidity. This failed in the far east. Aircraft assembled using formaldehyde resin glue were not affected.
Thanks to Ian Thirsk's excellent dH Mosquito, An Illustrated History (Part2)
Bruce
By: - 12th September 2011 at 16:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was a problem with glueing - early production used casein glues, later production was switched to 'manufactured' products - I know Ceiba Geigy at Duxford were involved with the change - I believe they used urea formaldehyde adhesive, but those notes are in my storage!
Regarding the problems with Australian production. My own notes and access to the Harry Povey material records thus. Again, to quote myself:
The first delivery to the RAAF occurred on 4 March 1944, but soon a cementing fault was discovered that could have led to fatal accidents. After the first few sets of wings had been built at Bankstown, the wing assembly work was contracted to the Pagewood factory of General Motors Holden, the Australian car builders. They experienced difficulties in manufacture, so production was halted pending the results of non-dcstructive testing. This problem became confused with the failure of the wing on A52-12 during pre-acceptance tests, which resulted in a fatal accident. Investigation revealed that the failure was caused by wing flutter at high speed and high G. The method of fixing the detachable plastic wing-tip and the gluing process for this item were therefore modified.
It was discovered at Holdens that the fitting of a blind joint between the top of the spar and a member that formed the edge of the top skin could be done incorrectly, leaving a gap instead of a solid bond. By the time the Director of Aeronautical Inspection called for modifications to cure this fault, 49 wings had been built, with the 50th in the jig. Twenty-two aircraft were almost complete and this hold-up caused disastrous effects on deliveries.
By: - 12th September 2011 at 17:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks, Bruce, Graham.
By: - 12th September 2011 at 18:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Glue specs
James,
Didn't you get your glue sample analysed yet or has your wallet contaminated it !!
MRP
By: - 13th September 2011 at 19:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1) Was the Mosquito the fastest fighter/bomber (maybe merely for twin-engine) when it made its maiden flight? Perhaps the speed mentioned by Doc film not means speed record but speed available?2) I noticed external fuel tanks, rockets maybe guided, bombs could be alternatively loaded under its wing, but take it as twin-engined a/c it seems didn't load more than some single-engined a/c, P-47 for example. Was that 41 tons be hold on its wing without damage a complete BS?
3) Was this a/s the most firepower twin engined fighter? While considered twin engine, only B-25 armed more guns but it's a bomber isn't it?
4) With experience, an a/c was made of wood would easily be turkey, burned by slight hit. Why the Mosquito lost so few according to the film?
5) Want to be fast a/c, was that cockpit designed badly as side by side? why De Havilland didn't chose tandem seat for drag reducing?
Just to answer one point with Four.
The Westland Whirlwind Designed in 1936 first flown November 1938 was the RAF's FIRST twin engined SINGLE seat CANNON armed ALL METAL fighter.
And a further point when it first went into service at low level it could out fly and was faster than an ME109 ,an FW190 and a Spitfire flown by the average pilot.
And not a lot of people know that !!!!!!
Mike E
By: - 15th September 2011 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
De Havilland had already studied the mounting of a 94mm/3.7 inch anti-aircraft gun in the Mosquito and, during December 1942, had already made detailled weight estimates for a ground-attack version with extra armour plating.
lapsus calami or it was really an anti-aircraft gun? I don't think there was such heavy bomber owned or were designed by Nazi worth to shoot by this kind of caliber.
Just to answer one point with Four.
The Westland Whirlwind Designed in 1936 first flown November 1938 was the RAF's FIRST twin engined SINGLE seat CANNON armed ALL METAL fighter.
And a further point when it first went into service at low level it could out fly and was faster than an ME109 ,an FW190 and a Spitfire flown by the average pilot.
Since no official record, I have to checked wiki
Westland_Whirlwind_(fighter)
and
De_Havilland_Mosquito
as we can see the Mosquito was faster than Whirlwind on normal speed.
Posts: 559
By: emile - 12th September 2011 at 03:22
1) Was the Mosquito the fastest fighter/bomber (maybe merely for twin-engine) when it made its maiden flight? Perhaps the speed mentioned by Doc film not means speed record but speed available?
2) I noticed external fuel tanks, rockets maybe guided, bombs could be alternatively loaded under its wing, but take it as twin-engined a/c it seems didn't load more than some single-engined a/c, P-47 for example. Was that 41 tons be hold on its wing without damage a complete BS?
3) Was this a/s the most firepower twin engined fighter? While considered twin engine, only B-25 armed more guns but it's a bomber isn't it?
4) With experience, an a/c was made of wood would easily be turkey, burned by slight hit. Why the Mosquito lost so few according to the film?
5) Want to be fast a/c, was that cockpit designed badly as side by side? why De Harvilland didn't chose tandem seat for drag reducing?