Mosquito on More 4
Discussion
I'd say that the Spitfire performed pretty well from the off.
The Mosquito was by no means perfect either. There were certain theatres of war where it just couldn't be used effectively because of its propensity to come apart in hot and humid climates. I know a chap who worked on them in Egypt after the war and he told me that the wing spars were de-bonding in the heat. He said they shouldn't really have been flying them.
Having said all that, it was a truly inspirational design and it would be great to see one flying again in the UK.
The Mosquito was by no means perfect either. There were certain theatres of war where it just couldn't be used effectively because of its propensity to come apart in hot and humid climates. I know a chap who worked on them in Egypt after the war and he told me that the wing spars were de-bonding in the heat. He said they shouldn't really have been flying them.
Having said all that, it was a truly inspirational design and it would be great to see one flying again in the UK.
Different philosophies and the Lancaster owed its ancestry to a1936 requirement. The Mossie wasn't even dreamt of in 1936.
The Mosquito was really a suggestion from De Havilland so that De Havilland could get a "piece of the action" as it had not really had any front line military aircraft in its recent design history (at least not since the DH9 and DH10 of World War 1). De Havilland had very little experience of metal aircraft ( I think the Flamingo was the only metal aeroplane they had built before World War 2) o the Mossie could make use of their area of expertise - wooden airframes.
The Air Ministry were not convinced as to them "modern" aeroplanes had to be metal. They were persuaded as much by the argument that underutilised segments of the economy (i.e. woodworking industries such as furniture manufacturing and piano making) could be drafted in to the war effort.
.
The Mosquito was really a suggestion from De Havilland so that De Havilland could get a "piece of the action" as it had not really had any front line military aircraft in its recent design history (at least not since the DH9 and DH10 of World War 1). De Havilland had very little experience of metal aircraft ( I think the Flamingo was the only metal aeroplane they had built before World War 2) o the Mossie could make use of their area of expertise - wooden airframes.
The Air Ministry were not convinced as to them "modern" aeroplanes had to be metal. They were persuaded as much by the argument that underutilised segments of the economy (i.e. woodworking industries such as furniture manufacturing and piano making) could be drafted in to the war effort.
.
Sorry, but I've had to stop watching it. Far too much of the programme was more about the presenter's personal journey than the Mosquito. Presumably they struggled to find enough archive material to fill an hour but endless shots of the presenter dicking around with irrelevant light aircraft had me reaching for the delete button.
V8LM said:
I know many had flame shields over them, but why only 10 exhausts on most (pictures of early aircraft show 12).
The rear two stubs of each bank on earlier versions were combined to give more clearance to the wing. Later ones had 12 stubs because the engines were further forward due to a two stage supercharger being fitted.Simpo Two said:
One of the advantages of the Mosquito often overlooked was its bombload per crew member. It made the Lanc look quite shabby!
Lancaster: 14,000 lbs / 7 crew = 2000lbs/personEdited by Simpo Two on Sunday 1st April 14:49
Mosquito: 4,000lbs / 2 crew =
2000 lbs/person.
Don’t you mean B-17 rather than Lancaster?
World War 2 was mainly fought by aircraft designed in the early to mid 1930s. When the war kicked off, it quickly became apparent that a number of concepts which had been held in high esteem in the 1930s were not working out in the reality of actual modern air fighting.
One of the dearly held assumptions of the 1930s was that "the bomber would always get through" i.e. a heavily armed bomber (fitted with power operated turrets, if British) would be able to fight its way through the target in daylight and use its powerful self defence armament to ward off fighter attack, Speed, although useful, was not crucial.
The Americans also held a similar belief. They took the concept to even higher levels when they designed the B-17 believing that a well defended stratospheric bomber which was also fast (at the time it was designed) would provide even more certainty that the bomber would reach the target and bomb it accurately from extreme altitude (30,000 feet) using its special computer controlled Norden bombsight.
Both the RAF and the USAAF discovered that these assumptions were flawed. The RAF switched to night bombing but the USAAF persisted in their pre-war beliefs that high performance, high altitude bombers could get through to their targets. It was only when proper long range escort fighters became available that the US system began to pay off.
The Mossie emerged at a time when the flaws in the pre war ideas were beginning to emerge and De Havilland saw their design as an alternative methodology.
One of the dearly held assumptions of the 1930s was that "the bomber would always get through" i.e. a heavily armed bomber (fitted with power operated turrets, if British) would be able to fight its way through the target in daylight and use its powerful self defence armament to ward off fighter attack, Speed, although useful, was not crucial.
The Americans also held a similar belief. They took the concept to even higher levels when they designed the B-17 believing that a well defended stratospheric bomber which was also fast (at the time it was designed) would provide even more certainty that the bomber would reach the target and bomb it accurately from extreme altitude (30,000 feet) using its special computer controlled Norden bombsight.
Both the RAF and the USAAF discovered that these assumptions were flawed. The RAF switched to night bombing but the USAAF persisted in their pre-war beliefs that high performance, high altitude bombers could get through to their targets. It was only when proper long range escort fighters became available that the US system began to pay off.
The Mossie emerged at a time when the flaws in the pre war ideas were beginning to emerge and De Havilland saw their design as an alternative methodology.
It was never intended that the Mosquito would replace the main force of Bomber Command. It was ideal for specialist missions and was an adaptable airframe - so could be used for many different types of missions.
It excelled as a night fighter quickly supplanting other types in service in that role, such as the Beaufighter. Its main shortcoming was its unsuitability for use in humid climates - even though they were used in India and Borneo they did have a habit of coming apart.
Goring was furious that the British could produce such an excellent aircraft using wood and ordered that the Luftwaffe have an equivalent. The resultant Focke -Wulf Ta154 was less than spectacular -
It excelled as a night fighter quickly supplanting other types in service in that role, such as the Beaufighter. Its main shortcoming was its unsuitability for use in humid climates - even though they were used in India and Borneo they did have a habit of coming apart.
Goring was furious that the British could produce such an excellent aircraft using wood and ordered that the Luftwaffe have an equivalent. The resultant Focke -Wulf Ta154 was less than spectacular -
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff