Great Footage - Dam Busters Bouncing Bomb
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
People fight wars, not machines. People make decsions based on their knowledge, opinions and prejudices. And they also fight wars with equipment that was designed before the war started.
As far as aviation was concerned, most of the "war winning" aircraft were designed before hostilities commenced. Only a handfull of aircraft designed post 1939 had a major impact on the war, the B-29 and the P-51 being the most important, in my opinion.
The Mosquito was a great aeroplane but it had its limitations too.
I can sympathise with the Air Ministry, after being badgered by the manufacturers to start ordering modern metal monoplanes, when they do, another manufacturer arrives stating that wood is best.
Also, De Havilland did not have any history of building modern military aircraft. The last De Havilland designes used by the British military were from WW1. The Air Ministry were also dubious about the structural integrity of a wooden monoque held together by glue - with some justification,
People do, but its when "people" become a (very powerful) person, with a strong view of how things should be that problems arise. You see that even now with defence procurement projects and the "this is what worked in my day, so why should it be different now" attitude. The stuff I've read about it during the wars suggest that it was even worse back then.As far as aviation was concerned, most of the "war winning" aircraft were designed before hostilities commenced. Only a handfull of aircraft designed post 1939 had a major impact on the war, the B-29 and the P-51 being the most important, in my opinion.
The Mosquito was a great aeroplane but it had its limitations too.
I can sympathise with the Air Ministry, after being badgered by the manufacturers to start ordering modern metal monoplanes, when they do, another manufacturer arrives stating that wood is best.
Also, De Havilland did not have any history of building modern military aircraft. The last De Havilland designes used by the British military were from WW1. The Air Ministry were also dubious about the structural integrity of a wooden monoque held together by glue - with some justification,
De Haviland didn't say wood was best though did they? I thought it was a left-field idea of theirs to utilise the wider craftsman skill base that existed within the UK at the time, and to reduce reliance on ally and steel - or is that an urban myth?
knight said:
I still find it mighty impressive that the Mosquito could carry a similar weight of bombs as the B17!
Yes, but when you look at the differences between the two, it's is clear why that is. The B-17 was very strongly built (a good job considering the state some of them managed to get home in) and carried 13 .50" machine guns. The ammunition for those weighed a considerable amount. There was a gunship version that had an even heavier armament, that were supposed to act as escorts in the formation but they were unsuccessful as once the bombers had dropped their loads, the YB-40s were much slower due to the weight of their extra ammunition and got left behind.As Eric said, a very different philosophy.
rhinochopig said:
People do, but its when "people" become a (very powerful) person, with a strong view of how things should be that problems arise. You see that even now with defence procurement projects and the "this is what worked in my day, so why should it be different now" attitude. The stuff I've read about it during the wars suggest that it was even worse back then.
De Haviland didn't say wood was best though did they? I thought it was a left-field idea of theirs to utilise the wider craftsman skill base that existed within the UK at the time, and to reduce reliance on ally and steel - or is that an urban myth?
De Havilland had built up some experience with wood monocoque construction techniques with their DH88 Comet racer and DH91 Albatros airliner. Both these aircraft were exceptionally fast for their time and very efficient aerodynamically (although the Comet had some vices).De Haviland didn't say wood was best though did they? I thought it was a left-field idea of theirs to utilise the wider craftsman skill base that existed within the UK at the time, and to reduce reliance on ally and steel - or is that an urban myth?
However, there were some structural problems with both aircraft, especially with the Albatros, which would have made the Air Ministry wary of ordering into large scale production a bomber based on similar principles.
However, because of the problems with the Albatros, De Havuilland did largely solve the bonding failures and other strength problems which meant that the Mossie was quite robust. They were still vulnerable to debonding however, especially in hot and humid theatres of war.
rhinochopig said:
People do, but its when "people" become a (very powerful) person, with a strong view of how things should be that problems arise.
Then again Geoffrey de Havilland must have been a very forceful person too, to have achieved as much as he did (autobiography 'Sky Fever'). So we need forceful and right, not forceful and wrong 
Eric Mc said:
rhinochopig said:
People do, but its when "people" become a (very powerful) person, with a strong view of how things should be that problems arise. You see that even now with defence procurement projects and the "this is what worked in my day, so why should it be different now" attitude. The stuff I've read about it during the wars suggest that it was even worse back then.
De Haviland didn't say wood was best though did they? I thought it was a left-field idea of theirs to utilise the wider craftsman skill base that existed within the UK at the time, and to reduce reliance on ally and steel - or is that an urban myth?
De Havilland had built up some experience with wood monocoque construction techniques with their DH88 Comet racer and DH91 Albatros airliner. Both these aircraft were exceptionally fast for their time and very efficient aerodynamically (although the Comet had some vices).De Haviland didn't say wood was best though did they? I thought it was a left-field idea of theirs to utilise the wider craftsman skill base that existed within the UK at the time, and to reduce reliance on ally and steel - or is that an urban myth?
However, there were some structural problems with both aircraft, especially with the Albatros, which would have made the Air Ministry wary of ordering into large scale production a bomber based on similar principles.
However, because of the problems with the Albatros, De Havuilland did largely solve the bonding failures and other strength problems which meant that the Mossie was quite robust. They were still vulnerable to debonding however, especially in hot and humid theatres of war.
Simpo: Agreed forceful and right is a great combination. The problem is having the capability to realise when that's not the case and change tack - a rare personality trait in the senior military and politicians
Agreed. For far too long Brits have assumed that we won WW2 DEPSITE the people who ran the war and the country - rather than because of.
There is a huge amount of mythology in the UK on this issue and it often centres on "plucky little inventor man stands up to dumb establishment".
Often, the plucky little inventor is actually carrying out the orders of the "dumb establishment".
There is a huge amount of mythology in the UK on this issue and it often centres on "plucky little inventor man stands up to dumb establishment".
Often, the plucky little inventor is actually carrying out the orders of the "dumb establishment".
I think also that when you've got the most powerful unbeaten army and air force in Europe piling up on the French coast pointing your way it tends to focus the mind somewhat.
If it happens again then hopefully the Greenies will at least STFU. I don't expect them to hold a nasty gun - explosions make CO2 of course - but they can dig for victory instead.
If it happens again then hopefully the Greenies will at least STFU. I don't expect them to hold a nasty gun - explosions make CO2 of course - but they can dig for victory instead.
Bedazzled said:
Eric Mc said:
Often, the plucky little inventor is actually carrying out the orders of the "dumb establishment".
Not in the case of the Mossie though, according to Wiki the establishment completely missed the point and wanted to put defensive gun turrets on the thing. They only realised what they had when the prototype beat a Spitfire in a speed test.The original archive footage was filmed in Chesil beach (IIRC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb
Eric Mc said:
A 400 mph wooden aeroplane must have sounded quite fanciful to the Air Ministry - but, to give them their due, once they saw what the aircracft could do, it was ordered into full scale production.
Not just the fact that it was different, but that as far as aircraft were concerned, wood was obsolete; the future was metal. So it would have seemed a vastly retrogressive step, perhaps like suggesting to the RAF now that they should buy propeller-driven fighters instead of jets.Simpo Two said:
Not just the fact that it was different, but that as far as aircraft were concerned, wood was obsolete; the future was metal. So it would have seemed a vastly retrogressive step, perhaps like suggesting to the RAF now that they should buy propeller-driven fighters instead of jets.
Ahem.
Not quite the same theatre of war though.
As a boy I made many flying models but never got to radio control. I did however amuse myself sketching a design for a fully armed remote controlled miniature airplane. The control panel, as well as having lots of knobs and buttons, featured a TV screen so I could see where it was going. It was, naturally, equipped with a fearsome array of weaponry and a range sufficient to reach the park a few miles away in order to bomb and strafe my friends...
Should have kept working on it!
As a boy I made many flying models but never got to radio control. I did however amuse myself sketching a design for a fully armed remote controlled miniature airplane. The control panel, as well as having lots of knobs and buttons, featured a TV screen so I could see where it was going. It was, naturally, equipped with a fearsome array of weaponry and a range sufficient to reach the park a few miles away in order to bomb and strafe my friends...
Should have kept working on it!
There's wood and wood. Wood comes in many varieties and all the different woods have their own characteristics. The Mossie used a number of different woods in its construction with the main technique being a balsa infill between a ply sandwich. More important was probably the development of glues and other bonding methods - which are now used extensively in the aerospace industry.
Wood is also highly flammable. I was chatting to a chap once who was a navigator on Mossies and he flew all the way back across the North Sea with smoke coming into the cockpit. There was obviously something smouldering somewhere and any second they expected the whole thing to burst into flames. On this occasion they were lucky and no fire ensued.
De Havilland went on to use similar construction methods in the Hornet and Vampire. They switched back to all metal with the Comet (look what happened there), and the DH110 (look what happened there). Maybe they should have stuck to wood.
Bill Gunston has made the comment that De Havilland had a track record of building aircraft that had a habit of coming apart.
Bill Gunston has made the comment that De Havilland had a track record of building aircraft that had a habit of coming apart.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff