By: Snoopy7422
- 30th May 2014 at 14:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 21;-
'Resources' are not simply materials, - they include skilled workers, production facilities and machinery. Those were all reasons as to why the Mosquito was wooden. Of course, they were not the only reasons. The Mosquitos fuselage was produced in two halves, like an Airfix kit, and both halves were fitted-out, before the two halves were joined. This was a highly efficient method of production. A composite aircraft can be very stiff. The surface of a composite a/c can also be very smooth and even, and since the whole concept of the Mosquito ( - and this was always something Bomber Command struggled to accept..) was pure speed, lowering drag was vital. Look at a lot of metal aircraft of the period, and rivets aside, you will see a lot of drag-inducing 'panting' in the skin. Now try finding a photo of a Mosquito with panting. You simply will not.
De Havillands had huge experience with wooden aircraft, especially fast and efficient ones. The DH88 was fast....but if you look closely at the fuselage, it betrays earlier thinking, with it's flat sides and panting between the frames. Then look at the Albatross, which needed to be even more efficient.....gone was the panting etc.....
Mosquito's were used if the Far East even after the war. The glue issues were acknowledged, but the aircraft remained in service and effective. The aircraft proved that it was practical and effective in every theatre of the war. (Lets see what happens when the JSF has to step up to the mark....ahem....!).
With regard to post war usage of the Beau. All one can read into that was that the Beau was a simpler more practical aircraft to operate, and no more than that. In peacetime, performance margins matter relatively little..... During the war, 25kts - or less, was life or death for a bomber crew with a fighter in hot pursuit.... Time and time again, Mosquito's outran pursuing fighters underscoring the value of De Havilland's pursuit of the 'Speed Bomber' concept against institutional inertia.
By: Orion
- 30th May 2014 at 15:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mosquito was, in design and operational terms, a generation on from the Beaufighter so it isn't altogether a fair comparison. Apart from that I think everything above is just fine.
By: Snoopy7422
- 30th May 2014 at 15:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Busy Nights.
With regard to my comments on Mosquitos making several trips a night. My Bible on the Mosquito, the peerless Sharpe & Bowyer book, is in storage, and I haven't read it for years. However, my recollection - and it may easily be faulty, as I haven't read the book for so long - is that some a/c - crews did even more than two trips... Now whether these occasion were bombing, target-marking or other, I cannot recall. Also, it is my recollection that some of the Mosquitos making more than one trip did so with the same crew. Perhaps some kind soul with access to that tome could put us right...?
It shouldn't particularly surprise us anyway, as the Mosquito was, in practice about twice as fast as the 'heavies'.
If one dabbles in todays light aircraft, one gets ingrained ideas about time and distance. A pal who used to fly Mosquitos related a tale of a trip back from Germany just after the wars end. He was flying fast and low with a navigator who was from some unspecified European country. They were heading for somewhere like Tangmere or Manston to refuel, I forget for sure. The vis wasn't brilliant, but the landfall on the English coast was miles from where it should have been. My friend was not impressed and said 'Lets try that again shall we..?', and promptly hurled the aircraft around back to their waypoint on the French coast to repeat the exercise. The next crossing of the Channel yielded similar results, and, my freind, determined not to let this clot off the hook repeated the exercise about ten times. My reaction was that 'You must have had plenty of fuel'. 'Nooooo - ' said he, ' - it only took about three or four minutes to cross'. The point being, that it's easy to forget just how much faster than other bombers of it's time the Mosquito was...
By: David Burke
- 30th May 2014 at 16:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The comparison is in some ways similar to the Hurricane /Spitfire evolutions . The Beaufighter was conceived using an evolution process from the Blenheim and Beaufort meaning that it was comparitively simple to mass produce and could use existing tooling. The Mosquito was a fresh design -it owed very little to what deHavilland had previously produced and introduced new methods of production.
By: Vega ECM
- 31st May 2014 at 11:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mosquito was, in design and operational terms, a generation on from the Beaufighter so it isn't altogether a fair comparison. Apart from that I think everything above is just fine.
Regards
I'm not sure that's correct. What normally defines a "generation" is a step technology change which is first incorporated and then adopted by others i.e. the steel & fabric construction of the Hurricane to the all metal of the Spitfire. Although the mossi is wood and Beaufighter metal, its wooden construction represented a unquie pinical, but also a cul de sac which could not be emulated by others i.e Ta154.
Also the Mossi wooden structure was the result of an evloution of wooden designs i.e. the Comet to the Albatross etc, not unlike the Beaufighters metal structure evolving from the Blenhiem via the Beaufort.
Although, sure he Mossi was outstanding, the Beaufighter was really very good by the standards of the day. Consider the following;-
Uncle Sam had vast resources at his disposal and so could be very choosy as to what equipment they deployed in combat. Its well known that the Spitfire and Mossi saw front line service with the Americains but its much less well known that so did the Beaufighter. Futhermore twice as many Beaufighters saw service with the USAAF as Mossi's. And when the Beaufighters replacement showed up, the P61 Black Widow, they kept the Beaufighters in front line service. It most have been doing something they liked!
By: alertken
- 1st June 2014 at 10:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
mm #7: Mossies instead of Heavies. It's a fun what if...but ahistorical, posed from hindsight.
Industrial resources (otherwise idle DH+carpenters) applied without diversion from Heavies, put up the first Mossie bomber sortie 31/5/42. We then saw the type's possibilities and built 7,781 (dribbled into 1947). It would have been, ah, courageous, for Marshals and Ministers sometime after first flight, 25/11/40, to have undone the industrial resources assigned to Heavies once September,1940 had been endured. RAF “Target Force E” of 4,000 Mediums+Heavies was planned 5/41 for 12/43. VCASFreeman/USAAC Gen.Arnold agreed to source 500 p.m ex-US, 500 ex-UK/Canada. FDR approved 4/5/41: “additional bombers (could) of course be used by (USAAC)”. PM’s “instructions (7/9/41 for) drastic increase in bomber production...entire attack on Germany hinged upon bombers, (yet) supply was insufficient. (To) achieve a first-line strength of 4,000 medium and heavy bombers, RAF required 22,000 to be made (7/41- 7/43); of these 5,500 might be expected from (US) production” (MAP, mid-’40, had explored not B-24, but US-built Stirling/Halifax. H.D.Hall, Official History, N.American Supply, HMSO, 1955, P.181; now MAP urged US-built/RAF-operated Lancaster. A.Furse, W.Freeman, Spellmount, 2000,Pp.216-23). 2/3/44 SecState. for War: “RAF programme is already employing more than the Army(’s) I dare say that there are as many engaged in making heavy bombers as on the whole Army programme”. 7% of UK war effort {12% ’44/5 “measured (as) production and combat man-hours” R.Overy,Why the Allies Won,Cape,1995,P128 - truly more, as the King’s Forces took even more US-built B-24 than Stirling}. Add on the infrastructure put in place from 9/40 to train 7, not 2 crew members...truly inconceivable to dump it all after 31/5/42, and to abandon the assault glider concept (so shocking when used against Belgium, 5/40) {in order to assign more carpenters to Mossies}, and to undo UK's crucial success, Arcadia Conference, 12/41, in causing US to go for Germany First, initially with a Heavies Combined Bomber Offensive.
The wonder is not that we did not shift to the Wooden Wonder, but that we were able to do both - Fast and Heavy.
By: John Green
- 1st June 2014 at 11:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 33
Isn't a 'strike aircraft' one that attacks the enemy - regardless of bomb capacity ?
I've read somewhere that the total of the explosive power of the solid propellant missiles carried by both Mosquito and Beaufighter was equivalent to the broadside from an 8 inch gun cruiser.
By: Moggy C
- 1st June 2014 at 12:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I recall 6" cruiser, but give no guarantees that my memory isn't at fault.
The Mossie was adapted to carry the 4,000lb Cookie, which was about the same weight as a B17 could haul to Berlin. The Fort could carry more, but then wouldn't be able to upload enough fuel to get back from The Big City.
By: dhfan
- 1st June 2014 at 14:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm also intrigued as to the mention of torpedo trails undertaken by Mosquitos, is there any more information on this available?
Sea Mosquito TR.33 (and a few TR.37s - same aircraft but U.S. radar). Folding wings, four-bladed props, oleo undercart, four cannon and torpedo gear. 2 x 500lb bombs in rear of bomb bay as F.B.VI instead of torpedo.
100 ordered Jan '45, only 50 built and remainder cancelled presumably due to war's end approaching.
By: dhfan
- 1st June 2014 at 23:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Short of re-reading all of the Sharp & Bowyer tome, as opposed to the quick scan I've just done, in the hope it's in the text, no idea. Eight B.Mk.XVIs with 2 x 50 gal drop tanks dropped cookies on Berlin and had to climb to 28,000 ft on the way to clear storm clouds so it can't have hurt the altitude much.
Posts: 797
By: Snoopy7422 - 30th May 2014 at 14:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 21;-
'Resources' are not simply materials, - they include skilled workers, production facilities and machinery. Those were all reasons as to why the Mosquito was wooden. Of course, they were not the only reasons. The Mosquitos fuselage was produced in two halves, like an Airfix kit, and both halves were fitted-out, before the two halves were joined. This was a highly efficient method of production. A composite aircraft can be very stiff. The surface of a composite a/c can also be very smooth and even, and since the whole concept of the Mosquito ( - and this was always something Bomber Command struggled to accept..) was pure speed, lowering drag was vital. Look at a lot of metal aircraft of the period, and rivets aside, you will see a lot of drag-inducing 'panting' in the skin. Now try finding a photo of a Mosquito with panting. You simply will not.
De Havillands had huge experience with wooden aircraft, especially fast and efficient ones. The DH88 was fast....but if you look closely at the fuselage, it betrays earlier thinking, with it's flat sides and panting between the frames. Then look at the Albatross, which needed to be even more efficient.....gone was the panting etc.....
Mosquito's were used if the Far East even after the war. The glue issues were acknowledged, but the aircraft remained in service and effective. The aircraft proved that it was practical and effective in every theatre of the war. (Lets see what happens when the JSF has to step up to the mark....ahem....!).
With regard to post war usage of the Beau. All one can read into that was that the Beau was a simpler more practical aircraft to operate, and no more than that. In peacetime, performance margins matter relatively little..... During the war, 25kts - or less, was life or death for a bomber crew with a fighter in hot pursuit.... Time and time again, Mosquito's outran pursuing fighters underscoring the value of De Havilland's pursuit of the 'Speed Bomber' concept against institutional inertia.
Posts: 699
By: Orion - 30th May 2014 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mosquito was, in design and operational terms, a generation on from the Beaufighter so it isn't altogether a fair comparison. Apart from that I think everything above is just fine.
Regards
Posts: 797
By: Snoopy7422 - 30th May 2014 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Busy Nights.
With regard to my comments on Mosquitos making several trips a night. My Bible on the Mosquito, the peerless Sharpe & Bowyer book, is in storage, and I haven't read it for years. However, my recollection - and it may easily be faulty, as I haven't read the book for so long - is that some a/c - crews did even more than two trips... Now whether these occasion were bombing, target-marking or other, I cannot recall. Also, it is my recollection that some of the Mosquitos making more than one trip did so with the same crew. Perhaps some kind soul with access to that tome could put us right...?
It shouldn't particularly surprise us anyway, as the Mosquito was, in practice about twice as fast as the 'heavies'.
If one dabbles in todays light aircraft, one gets ingrained ideas about time and distance. A pal who used to fly Mosquitos related a tale of a trip back from Germany just after the wars end. He was flying fast and low with a navigator who was from some unspecified European country. They were heading for somewhere like Tangmere or Manston to refuel, I forget for sure. The vis wasn't brilliant, but the landfall on the English coast was miles from where it should have been. My friend was not impressed and said 'Lets try that again shall we..?', and promptly hurled the aircraft around back to their waypoint on the French coast to repeat the exercise. The next crossing of the Channel yielded similar results, and, my freind, determined not to let this clot off the hook repeated the exercise about ten times. My reaction was that 'You must have had plenty of fuel'. 'Nooooo - ' said he, ' - it only took about three or four minutes to cross'. The point being, that it's easy to forget just how much faster than other bombers of it's time the Mosquito was...
Posts: 1,311
By: Dr Strangelove - 30th May 2014 at 15:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both types featured amongst my favourite Dogfight Doubles.
Used to think of them as equally capable aircraft, suited to very similar roles, maybe the Mosquito comes slightly ahead in the bomber role.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 30th May 2014 at 16:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The comparison is in some ways similar to the Hurricane /Spitfire evolutions . The Beaufighter was conceived using an evolution process from the Blenheim and Beaufort meaning that it was comparitively simple to mass produce and could use existing tooling. The Mosquito was a fresh design -it owed very little to what deHavilland had previously produced and introduced new methods of production.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 30th May 2014 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It must be said that's one torpedo that certainly isn't going to find a target
Moggy
Posts: 1,496
By: Denis - 30th May 2014 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe the pilot of the Beau, jettisoned his torpedo to make it a little more maneuverable against the fighter that had bounced him!
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 30th May 2014 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe the gunner could help out !
Posts: 472
By: Vega ECM - 31st May 2014 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not sure that's correct. What normally defines a "generation" is a step technology change which is first incorporated and then adopted by others i.e. the steel & fabric construction of the Hurricane to the all metal of the Spitfire. Although the mossi is wood and Beaufighter metal, its wooden construction represented a unquie pinical, but also a cul de sac which could not be emulated by others i.e Ta154.
Also the Mossi wooden structure was the result of an evloution of wooden designs i.e. the Comet to the Albatross etc, not unlike the Beaufighters metal structure evolving from the Blenhiem via the Beaufort.
Although, sure he Mossi was outstanding, the Beaufighter was really very good by the standards of the day. Consider the following;-
Uncle Sam had vast resources at his disposal and so could be very choosy as to what equipment they deployed in combat. Its well known that the Spitfire and Mossi saw front line service with the Americains but its much less well known that so did the Beaufighter. Futhermore twice as many Beaufighters saw service with the USAAF as Mossi's. And when the Beaufighters replacement showed up, the P61 Black Widow, they kept the Beaufighters in front line service. It most have been doing something they liked!
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 31st May 2014 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And someone might want to wake up the rear gunner! :D
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 1st June 2014 at 10:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
mm #7: Mossies instead of Heavies. It's a fun what if...but ahistorical, posed from hindsight.
Industrial resources (otherwise idle DH+carpenters) applied without diversion from Heavies, put up the first Mossie bomber sortie 31/5/42. We then saw the type's possibilities and built 7,781 (dribbled into 1947). It would have been, ah, courageous, for Marshals and Ministers sometime after first flight, 25/11/40, to have undone the industrial resources assigned to Heavies once September,1940 had been endured. RAF “Target Force E” of 4,000 Mediums+Heavies was planned 5/41 for 12/43. VCAS Freeman/USAAC Gen.Arnold agreed to source 500 p.m ex-US, 500 ex-UK/Canada. FDR approved 4/5/41: “additional bombers (could) of course be used by (USAAC)”. PM’s “instructions (7/9/41 for) drastic increase in bomber production...entire attack on Germany hinged upon bombers, (yet) supply was insufficient. (To) achieve a first-line strength of 4,000 medium and heavy bombers, RAF required 22,000 to be made (7/41- 7/43); of these 5,500 might be expected from (US) production” (MAP, mid-’40, had explored not B-24, but US-built Stirling/Halifax. H.D.Hall, Official History, N.American Supply, HMSO, 1955, P.181; now MAP urged US-built/RAF-operated Lancaster. A.Furse, W.Freeman, Spellmount, 2000,Pp.216-23). 2/3/44 SecState. for War: “RAF programme is already employing more than the Army(’s) I dare say that there are as many engaged in making heavy bombers as on the whole Army programme”. 7% of UK war effort {12% ’44/5 “measured (as) production and combat man-hours” R.Overy,Why the Allies Won,Cape,1995,P128 - truly more, as the King’s Forces took even more US-built B-24 than Stirling}. Add on the infrastructure put in place from 9/40 to train 7, not 2 crew members...truly inconceivable to dump it all after 31/5/42, and to abandon the assault glider concept (so shocking when used against Belgium, 5/40) {in order to assign more carpenters to Mossies}, and to undo UK's crucial success, Arcadia Conference, 12/41, in causing US to go for Germany First, initially with a Heavies Combined Bomber Offensive.
The wonder is not that we did not shift to the Wooden Wonder, but that we were able to do both - Fast and Heavy.
Posts: 1,966
By: WP840 - 1st June 2014 at 11:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow, I never knew this! I thought the Mosquito was an (ultra) light bomber, really more a strike aircraft.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 1st June 2014 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 33
Isn't a 'strike aircraft' one that attacks the enemy - regardless of bomb capacity ?
I've read somewhere that the total of the explosive power of the solid propellant missiles carried by both Mosquito and Beaufighter was equivalent to the broadside from an 8 inch gun cruiser.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 1st June 2014 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I recall 6" cruiser, but give no guarantees that my memory isn't at fault.
The Mossie was adapted to carry the 4,000lb Cookie, which was about the same weight as a B17 could haul to Berlin. The Fort could carry more, but then wouldn't be able to upload enough fuel to get back from The Big City.
Moggy
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 1st June 2014 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would be interesting to find out the performance penalty for the Mosquito carrying such a heavy load.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 1st June 2014 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 35
Or, mine for that matter.
Posts: 95
By: Jon Petersen - 1st June 2014 at 13:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bob Brahams book "Night Fighter" gives a good account of the merit of both aircraft, Bob having flown both with great succes, as most here will know.
Braham, John Randall Daniel (1962). Night Fighter. New York: Norton. LCCN
Jon
Posts: 2,915
By: dhfan - 1st June 2014 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sea Mosquito TR.33 (and a few TR.37s - same aircraft but U.S. radar). Folding wings, four-bladed props, oleo undercart, four cannon and torpedo gear. 2 x 500lb bombs in rear of bomb bay as F.B.VI instead of torpedo.
100 ordered Jan '45, only 50 built and remainder cancelled presumably due to war's end approaching.
Posts: 35
By: Pim Pouw - 1st June 2014 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First "Cookie" drop by a Mosquito was on February 23, 1944 on Düsseldorf ( source www.aviationclassics.co.uk )
Düsseldorf - London 265 Nautical Miles
Berlin - London 505 Nautical Miles
Posts: 2,915
By: dhfan - 1st June 2014 at 23:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Short of re-reading all of the Sharp & Bowyer tome, as opposed to the quick scan I've just done, in the hope it's in the text, no idea. Eight B.Mk.XVIs with 2 x 50 gal drop tanks dropped cookies on Berlin and had to climb to 28,000 ft on the way to clear storm clouds so it can't have hurt the altitude much.