I saw the newly launched Mosquito external model redo these days, and it didn’t feel particularly good.

[grafspee]

17 minutes ago, Bozon said:

Not an issue, the wood skin is very thick and rigid. Fabric skins had issues at high speeds.

So mossie was fabric free? So all cover was done from wood?

[Bozon]

3 minutes ago, grafspee said:

So mossie was fabric free? So all cover was done from wood?

The fabric was glued on top of the wood. This is different from the classic wood and fabric construction of older planes where there was no wood skin - the fabric covered the wooden spars and ribs to form the skin.

 

If you want a very detailed description of the mossie construction you can find one here:

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Mosquito/Mosquito_Av_4405-06_DA.html
 

[rkk01]

Mossie was effectively the first carbon composite monocoque airframe

 

in terms of…

 

”no argument metal was better than wood” (excuse abbreviated quote…)

 

… it’s more a question of “different” rather than better

 

being serious, stating the Mossie was wood and therefore a retrograde step is very superficial.  The plywood laminations used oriented sheets to manage stresses in different direction - as per the laminate directions in modern carbon composites…

 

The adhesives used were improved, especially after tropical service, but early resin based adhesives like cascamite were revolutionary and widely used in composite wood construction in wooden boats as well.  My father was a Royal Navy shipwright and similar wood composite laminate techniques were used for MTBs, MGBs and minesweepers.

[grafspee]

I think no one has doubts that metal construction is way better then wood in planes.

You can make wooden plane, but it has handicap.  Power , speed weapons become bigger and bigger so planes core construction had to be much stronger.

Mossie production was independent from aluminium supplies, so it was very good thing.

And carbon composite is just taking metal place, just simply because it is better then metal.  Same as metal took wood out of business. 

Simple question is what is max G for mossie and max for P-38? Wood vs metal clash.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by grafspee

[Mogster]

In the 1930s the UK had a huge cabinet making cottage industry, simply loads of skilled carpenters.
 

The Mosquito is described as easy to build and repair, presumably by anyone with decent carpentry skills. Albert Speer described the Mosquito as an aircraft any cabinet maker could build, and it was a very good aircraft at that.

[qcheck]

14 hours ago, grafspee said:

I disagree here. Metal build fuselage isn't  much heavier then wooden type.

Being light does not mean that you can fly fast. You can climb fast. Flying fast require very strong fuselage and control surfaces. Able to fly fast depends mostly on power and aerodynamic design, not much on the weight.

ether metal or wooden based fuselage does not provide any protection from fire arms like mgs or infantry rifle. In planes things which provide protection are engines, metal plate armor, armor glass, fuel tanks.

 

Note that, the Mosquito had one of the lowest loss rates of any aircraft during the war-- and at the same time it was being used in the most dangerous low level attack runs of any aircraft-- so that combination of stats was simply incredible.  At some point the Luftwaffe tried to make a fighter squadron which had the only purpose to fight Mosquitos, but afaik they kinda gave up on it since it was not possible.

 

The speed of the aircraft kept it as fast or faster than the German fighters sent to defend against it.  Its speed also made it difficult for AA guns to hit, especially during night attacks.  The Mosquito was a plane that could carry more bombload than a B-17 and could fly as fast or faster than a fighter, a very successful combination of abilities.  You don't need armor if they can't hit you.

 

The mostly wood construction was helpful in that metal had become a precious resource near the end of the war for the UK, and by making this plane out of wood, it freed up metal to be used in other aircraft.  Also, there were thousands of very talented wood furniture craftspeople who could be employed to make these airplanes now, also freeing up the metalworkers to make other planes and weapons.  

Also, DeHaviland was an expert designer of wood aircraft, and had previously designed a wood racing plane that broke records and beat every other metal racing plane it flew against-- so he could put that design knowledge to use here.   

 

Important note-- that wood + laminate is exactly like what a composite type honeycomb structure is that is used on advanced aircraft today.  The plane doesn't care if part of the laminate composite comes from a tree, or from a machine.  It works the same.  Saves a little weight, and is very strong.

 

The Mosquito is one of my all time favorite airplanes, I can't wait to fly it in DCS!!!

Edited July 15, 2021 by qcheck

[fastfed]

so funny how everyone is always bringing up the fact this plane was made of wood, you realize all planes were made of wood early. Shoot the first hurricane was wood.

ALL of Russia's planes were wood, yep the LA5 is wood, all the yaks.

 

[fastfed]

14 hours ago, rkk01 said:

 

 

Regarding wood construction vs protection, I’m not sure a few mm of aluminium would be any more useful than a wood laminate.  Most references cite the ease of repair of Mosquitos using simple and well known carpentry skills

Except the fact that when wood is hit by bullets it literally shatters and explodes, unlike metal. there is no question about it, you want to be in a metal plane over a wood one when in a fight. I hope dcs models this plane right, because honestly a few hits to the wings on this should have them pretty much rip right off

[rkk01]

I’d respectfully suggest a little more research around the subject, and perhaps more thoughtful and considered opinion?

 

As posted above, by me and others, the “made of wood” label is kind of misleading - perhaps some classic British understatement???

 

This aircraft wasn’t the outdated wood frame and doped fabric of WW1 and the inter-war years.  

The fuselage was a laminated clamshell structure, IIRC from birch and balsa layers with an early resin bonding of the laminates.  Watch videos of the construction and it is instantly recognisable to anyone who has seen fibreglass boat hulls being built, or for that matter a carbon composite layup (thin timber sheets in resin bonded ply being lignin, ie a natural, largely carbon containing polymer, structurally layered and aligned for strength and lightness)

 

As for battle damage, the facts speak for themselves - aircrew were more likely to survive the war in this aircraft than any other (I think in Bomber Command, but might apply more widely to frontline  RAF squadrons) 

[AndyJWest]

Quote

Fire-damaged De Havilland Mosquito NF Mark XVII, 'O', of No. 85 Squadron RAF, back at its base at West Malling, Kent, following the destruction of an enemy bomber on the night of 24/25 March 1944. Flying Officer E R Hedgecoe (pilot), and Flight Lieutenant N L Bamford (radar operator), flying 'O for Orange' intercepted the Junkers Ju 188 off Hastings, closing to 100 yards to deliver a burst of cannon fire upon which the enemy aircraft suddenly exploded, enveloping the Mosquito in burning oil and debris. The fabric covering of the aircraft caught fire and it was enveloped in flames. Hedgecoe ordered Bamford to bale out, but had second thoughts when the fire went out and he found the Mosquito to be stable in flight, despite the loss of rudder control due to the fabric being burned off. After wiping a clear patch in the soot-blackened cockpit canopy, Hedgecoe flew back to a safe landing at West Malling. Hedgecoe and Bamford were an experienced night-fighting crew, Hedgecoe having shot down eight enemy aircraft and Bamford taking part in the destruction of ten, before both were killed in a flying accident on 1 January 1945.

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Havilland_Mosquito_wreck_West_Malling_-_Royal_Air_Force_-_Air_Defence_of_Great_Britain_(adgb),_1944_CE136.jpg

[fastfed]

47 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

I’d respectfully suggest a little more research around the subject, and perhaps more thoughtful and considered opinion?

 

As posted above, by me and others, the “made of wood” label is kind of misleading - perhaps some classic British understatement???

 

This aircraft wasn’t the outdated wood frame and doped fabric of WW1 and the inter-war years.  

The fuselage was a laminated clamshell structure, IIRC from birch and balsa layers with an early resin bonding of the laminates.  Watch videos of the construction and it is instantly recognisable to anyone who has seen fibreglass boat hulls being built, or for that matter a carbon composite layup (thin timber sheets in resin bonded ply being lignin, ie a natural, largely carbon containing polymer, structurally layered and aligned for strength and lightness)

 

As for battle damage, the facts speak for themselves - aircrew were more likely to survive the war in this aircraft than any other (I think in Bomber Command, but might apply more widely to frontline  RAF squadrons) 

 

 

Its still wood. lol , as for the battle damage facts speak for themselves statement, what facts? aircrew were more likely to survive this aircraft is not because it takes damage, I think that easily goes to the P47. a simple search shows tons of pictures of P47's with damage, because pilots made it back to take the pictures, lol. I see maybe 1 or 2 of the Mossy. They survived because they didn't get hit..

 

actually this picture here is probably from a few hits and like all wood it will shred

Edited July 16, 2021 by fastfed

[grafspee]

6 hours ago, fastfed said:

so funny how everyone is always bringing up the fact this plane was made of wood, you realize all planes were made of wood early. Shoot the first hurricane was wood.

ALL of Russia's planes were wood, yep the LA5 is wood, all the yaks.

 

But late yaks got metal construction, so this is matter of development.

After all everyone switched to metal construction and cover.

I only said that wooden based plane does not have any magic powers, that because being made of wood does not make it faster stronger.

Speed does not come from wood it self and armor protection does not as well.

Edited July 16, 2021 by grafspee

[grafspee]

4 hours ago, fastfed said:

 

 

Now when i see this damage, its extreme but, in case of metal construction you just need to remove some rivets and attach missing part and done plane fixed. In wood case when everything is glued together, what do you do ? saw it off  unrepairable  you need whole new wing.

Once proper tools were developed, metal covered planes were much easier to repair, you could remove all plane's cover by simply drilling rivets, i some how not seeing thins in case of glued wood cover

If you had skilled carpenters the repair could be possible, but it required very skilled ppl, in case of metal it could be everyone with some teaching, special drill to remove rivets , special tool to apply rivets, no manual work.

Edited July 16, 2021 by grafspee

[rkk01]

I’ve spent a lot of time reading about WW2 air and naval operations, over about 40 years, and specifically trying to research the wartime service of a couple of relatives…

 

It’s pretty hard work.  The majority of British service personnel shared no or very limited info even with their closest family.  I always thought this was to avoid reliving wartime trauma, undoubtedly part true, but also the “Careless Talk Costs Lives” mantra was deeply embedded in the wartime culture.
 

Photos of military eqpt and bases are rare - most people couldn’t afford a camera / film / processing, and in any case the British censors were very thorough. Unlike US forces in UK / Europe, Brits (in the main) did not make the same records for posterity. Photography on military airbases was strictly forbidden and the rules rigorously policed. Photos of damaged / wrecked RAF aircraft aren’t likely to be common

My aircrew relative was in 214 Squadron. Having found out more about the squadron, and a single photo of him with his crew, I can understand the secrecy. As far as I have found out, not one single member of his family including his surviving sons had a clue what he was up to during the war - apart from being Bomber Command aircrew…

 

How does this relate to the thread - well there is pretty scant record of much of what went on in the UK armed forces in WW2, save for the officially sanctioned media and rare personal collections. There has been a belated effort over the past 20 years to try and capture this as veterans aged, but sadly much has been lost

 

A fascinating site for anyone interested:

 

214 Squadron

 

and snippet from the home page:

 

Quote

The question "Why are there not more pictures of the squadron and personnel?" has been raised on numerous occasions. The answer is that candid unofficial photos of the squadron are very rare. The reason for this is that cameras were strictly forbidden and this policy was enforced out of the real possibility that the film or camera could fall into enemy hands thereby providing all sorts of clues to assist them that you or I might not consider. You will note that many of those found here are official pictures either sanctioned or taken by the RAF. In fact most people would be surprised to learn that very many Britain based squadron veterans do not have a single photograph, official or otherwise. This however mainly applies to the Squadrons based in Britain where enforcement was easier. It does not hold true with Squadrons based in other countries where often massive personal collections can be found. 

Anyway, very much looking forward to the DCS Mosquito, and believe that ED will do this legendary aircraft justice.

 

I agree with @grafspee that she promises to be a demanding aircraft to master, but look forward to the challenge

[DD_Fenrir]

4 hours ago, grafspee said:

Now when i see this damage, its extreme but, in case of metal construction you just need to remove some rivets and attach missing part and done plane fixed. In wood case when everything is glued together, what do you do ? saw it off  unrepairable  you need whole new wing.

Once proper tools were developed, metal covered planes were much easier to repair, you could remove all plane's cover by simply drilling rivets, i some how not seeing thins in case of glued wood cover

If you had skilled carpenters the repair could be possible, but it required very skilled ppl, in case of metal it could be everyone with some teaching, special drill to remove rivets , special tool to apply rivets, no manual work.

 

 

You're clearly not familiar with carpentry...

 

There's a huge amount in wooden airframe construction that is still common to metal; they are still modular in their construction, there are ribs and spars and the skin can't be one big, piece, it is still broken into panels for maintenance access. Patching would be done in a similar way to metal, but with the added benefit that glue could be used, either to reinforce or even in lieu of rivets/screws.

 

The photo you reference shows some significant headaches, sure (as would a metal airframe), but is nowhere near as much of a write of as you would make out.

[grafspee]

I know that construction is still modular, but since everything is glued together, it is not easy to disassembly stuff, and this resin could be strong enough to make it impossible w/o damaging glued parts. Unless there is no resin and only nails then you can disassembly easy.

Edited July 16, 2021 by grafspee

[Krupi]

12 hours ago, fastfed said:

 

 

Its still wood. lol , as for the battle damage facts speak for themselves statement, what facts? aircrew were more likely to survive this aircraft is not because it takes damage, I think that easily goes to the P47. a simple search shows tons of pictures of P47's with damage, because pilots made it back to take the pictures, lol. I see maybe 1 or 2 of the Mossy. They survived because they didn't get hit..

 

actually this picture here is probably from a few hits and like all wood it will shred

 

I would just like to highlight that if you look for the LH engine it is completely missing, from a book I have it indicates that the LH engine and RH tip were shot off by flak and they made it back home. That should tell you all you need to know about the durability of the Mossie! 

Apparently they had intended to fix the aircraft, upon inspection the true extent of the damage became clear and the airframe was scrapped.

"Mosquito MM401 Damaged by flak attacking V-1 site in Pas de Calais 21.2.1944
W/o on landing after only one month's service.
Severely damaged MM401 'SB-J', of 464 Sqn RAAF based at Hunsdon, Hertfordshire, parked at RAF Friston Emergency Landing Ground, Sussex. The aircraft, flown by S/Ldr Oxlade and F/Lt Shanks, was hit by anti-aircraft fire while attacking a flying-bomb site in the Pas de Calais on 21 February 1944. The port engine was shattered, and the port undercarriage and most of the outer starboard wing was blown off. Despite the damage, the crew flew MM401 back and crash-landed safely at Friston ELG. The port engine nacelle is seen here supported by a caterpillar tractor to enable the aircraft to be moved off the runway. The aircraft was initially categorised as repairable (Category B), but this was changed to a write-off (Category E) after the full extent of the damage became clear.
Crew:
S/Ldr (Aus400733) Arthur Geoffrey OXLADE (pilot) RAAF - Ok
F/Lt (Aus400839) Donald Mckenzie SHANKS (nav.) RAAF - Ok"

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/137741

I have actually posted about this particular incident before, here is the view from the LH.

 

Note the contradiction between the book and the aviation safety website, one state damage from a Nightfighter and Flak respectively. I have no idea which is correct.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Krupi

[Krupi]

I also suggest this youtuber video, Gregs videos are fantastic and he gives a nice overview of the Mosquito from assumptions made by the American aerospace industry at the time.
 

 

[Beirut]

I don't care if it's made from cotton candy and used rabbits.

 

I want it. 

[rkk01]

@Krupiamazing images… which book is that??

[Krupi]

This one, it's lacking in much depth but they do have some interesting interviews with veterans.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mosquito-Typhoon-Tempest-at-War/dp/1856482278

Edited July 16, 2021 by Krupi
Forgot link

[Bozon]

10 hours ago, grafspee said:

But late yaks got metal construction, so this is matter of development.

After all everyone switched to metal construction and cover.

I only said that wooden based plane does not have any magic powers, that because being made of wood does not make it faster stronger.

Speed does not come from wood it self and armor protection does not as well.

 

De Havilland’s construction was different from what was done with other wooden or partially wooden planes. It was not easy to copy either, especially the glue they used - the Germans tried and failed. There was no magic about it - it contributed to lowering the drag by resulting in very smooth surfaces without any rivets. The end result was also not “stronger than a metal construction for the same goal design”. The reason is simple - planes are designed for spec. If your design is stronger than required, it will be toned down to save weight or space. Wood naturally offers some advantages and some disadvantages in the way it absorbs battle damage vs. metal.

 

This kind of construction was not continued much after the war for several reasons. First as planes became supersonic, heat was more of an issue and the fabric covered wood was ill suited to handle the heat. Second, wood is a “living” material, which means that over time it deforms and changes properties. Wood construction clearly does not age well, and as time progressed planes were expected to serve longer and longer. Lastly, wood is ill suited for modern production where everything is standardized - the same kind of wood varies significantly from tree to tree and from forest to forest. The mass density of balsa wood may change by as much as factor of 6 - de Havilland tried to minimize the variance by carefully selecting the wood logs they used to have densities within a narrower range, but this is nothing like the uniformity you get from metals.

 

[zcrazyx]

3 hours ago, Bozon said:

De Havilland’s construction was different from what was done with other wooden or partially wooden planes. It was not easy to copy either, especially the glue they used - the Germans tried and failed. There was no magic about it - it contributed to lowering the drag by resulting in very smooth surfaces without any rivets. The end result was also not “stronger than a metal construction for the same goal design”. The reason is simple - planes are designed for spec. If your design is stronger than required, it will be toned down to save weight or space. Wood naturally offers some advantages and some disadvantages in the way it absorbs battle damage vs. metal.

 

This kind of construction was not continued much after the war for several reasons. First as planes became supersonic, heat was more of an issue and the fabric covered wood was ill suited to handle the heat. Second, wood is a “living” material, which means that over time it deforms and changes properties. Wood construction clearly does not age well, and as time progressed planes were expected to serve longer and longer. Lastly, wood is ill suited for modern production where everything is standardized - the same kind of wood varies significantly from tree to tree and from forest to forest. The mass density of balsa wood may change by as much as factor of 6 - de Havilland tried to minimize the variance by carefully selecting the wood logs they used to have densities within a narrower range, but this is nothing like the uniformity you get from metals.

 

Pretty much nailed it, one thing I will not as well wich is also a shame is that the shift in skillset required also changes over time. Its why price for repairing the older aircraft has gone up significantly over the years as the skills become lower and lower in how many people posses it. 

 

Heat is a big issue but also as you said is the purpose, a point i would is that the mosquito was not expected at least to my knowledge, to sustain massive G forces. though some aircraft made of even older wood construction can sustain high g'.  Though I will say that metals have a much better time in much more varied climates. 

 

Some mosquitos actually did last in service till the 60s with aerial mapping companies in Canada and South America. https://youtu.be/skvHQ0YPZEQ

 

edit: i'd also say that comparing the mosquito to the p38 is not exactly a fair assessment of metal vs wood, as each aircraft had different roles, the mosquito being more a mutli role combat aircraft with secondary fighter characteristics vs the p38 being a twin fighter with secondary ground strike role.

Edited July 16, 2021 by zcrazyx

[fastfed]

23 hours ago, zcrazyx said:

Pretty much nailed it, one thing I will not as well wich is also a shame is that the shift in skillset required also changes over time. Its why price for repairing the older aircraft has gone up significantly over the years as the skills become lower and lower in how many people posses it. 

 

Heat is a big issue but also as you said is the purpose, a point i would is that the mosquito was not expected at least to my knowledge, to sustain massive G forces. though some aircraft made of even older wood construction can sustain high g'.  Though I will say that metals have a much better time in much more varied climates. 

 

Some mosquitos actually did last in service till the 60s with aerial mapping companies in Canada and South America. https://youtu.be/skvHQ0YPZEQ

 

edit: i'd also say that comparing the mosquito to the p38 is not exactly a fair assessment of metal vs wood, as each aircraft had different roles, the mosquito being more a mutli role combat aircraft with secondary fighter characteristics vs the p38 being a twin fighter with secondary ground strike role.

 

I think pretty much every plane was built originally as a fighter first then converted to dual roles. P38 included. (talking American planes here)

 

P47/P38/Mustang/Hellcats/P40's all fighters

[grafspee]