De Havilland Mosquito vs. ?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ส.ค. 2020
- Is it true that the U.S. considered building Mosquitos under license? If so, why didn't they?
Why was the Mosquito built out of wood? The standard answer is that it's because aluminum was a "strategic material", but does that explanation hold water? In this episode I dig into the origins of the Mosquito and answer these questions.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Corrections and amendments:
The Gloster Gladiator was not primarily wood, although it was partially wood. It was a poor choice to use as an example, but the main point is still relevant. The switch over the metal took a lot of time.
Kaiser Aluminum still exists. I forgot about that one. There are a few other companies with the name Kaiser but most are not part of the Kaiser group of companies, they only share the name. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
One of the biggest advantages of the Mosquito, it used a whole lot of things we didn't use to build other planes, and didn't use a lot of things we needed to build those other planes, yet still turned out to be a great plane for the war effort....
One of the "unknown" unknowns re Mosquito production was the actual available supply of vital balsa wood which came solely from South American jungles.
That fact alone must have given those required to "sign the cheques" to get the mass production program going more than a few sleepless nights.
@@t5ruxlee210
Probably one of the main reasons they had their main production line in Canada....
That was the theory. In reality, the Mosquito gobbled up huge amounts of resources that were either strategic or limited in quantity. Shipping capacity, Merlin engines, high grade lumber, and skilled woodworkers.
The reality is that anything that truly didn't use strategic materiels, XP-77 just wasn't competitive. Anything that was competitive, Mosquito, used up strategic materiels.
The Mosquito employed the otherwise non-strategic skills of those in the woodworking industry. An important consideration.
@@Jack-bs6zb THAT was one of the main attractions towards building the Mossie. Even small towns in Suffolk had cabinet making works using elderly and unfit workers as well as lots of women who made Mosquito bits. There was little other use for them and, even in 1942 the need to retain skills ready for peace was recognised. The other factor was the need for a high flying aircraft (to receive bomb target signals from the UK) to mark targets for the night bombing campaign, a task the Wellington was adapted for but was stretching the design a little too far. During an early demonstration of sky markers the Wellie dropped 4 only the rest hung due to a loading error. The four worked almost as well and 109 squadron breathed a sigh of relief as they would use Mossies for Pathfinding which could carry the 4 needed at sufficient altitude.
The P-38 was a great aircraft too but it was an American solution to a similar issue, horses for courses.
Un-catchable! Met a WW2 RAF pilot in the 90's who had flown virtually everything during his service. He finish the war flying Photo Recon in "Pressurised Mosquito's" and in those missions had only encountered enemy aircraft once when 6 FW190's "Jumped him " and added a few new holes in his tail. When I ask how did you get away he said "I just opened up the throttles and waved goodbye!" (Would also like to note the the Mosquito's had the lowest lose ratio of any allied aircraft of WW2. By 1945 only 1 aircraft was lost for every 2000 sorties.)
"When I ask how did you get away he said "I just opened up the throttles and waved goodbye!""
A very Blackbird reply there.
@@scottgiles7546 it was the fastest plane at that time.
Piston contemporaries: P-51B/C was 6% faster (440 mph vs. 415 mph maximum speed), Dornier Do-335 Pfeil was 14% faster (474 mph vs. 415 mph), FW-190D-9 was 2% slower (407 mph vs. 415 mph), Grumman F8F Bearcat was 10% faster (455 mph vs. 415 mph), Grumman F7F Tigercat was 11% faster (460 mph vs. 415 mph), P-38L Lightning was almost as fast (414 mph vs. 415 mph).
@@redfalco21you re right.
Late in the war, there were unarmed moskito versions going up to 450 mph
@@johnbrewer8954 for a fighter, you also have to be maneuverable. Most single engined fighters would out-turn and out-maneuver any twin. The Mosquito was fast, but not as agile as most single engined fighters.
You should mention that DeHavilland continued their plywood fighter plane technology into the early jet age with the largely wood Vampire and Venom jets.. 3300± Vampires and 1400± Venoms were built and they did yeoman's service. The Royal Navy's first jet aircraft carrier landing was performed by a Vampire.
Also, the DeHavilland badge lived on in Canada for decades producing their own civilian and military designs (all out of metal!).They eventually became part of Bombardier.
The worlds FIRST jet landing on a Carrier per se was carried out in 1946, the pilot was Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown. Who was credited to flying more type of aircraft then anyone else (A record that may still stand to this day!) Eric even teste4d the Me109 Komet! He was a superb test pilot who was even admired by a certain 'Neil Armstrong'
DeHavilland Australia lasted into the late 80s/early 90s as a separate entity. They have since become part of Boeing Australia, along with the old Government Aircraft Factories and Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (both formed in the 1930s, and both based side-by-side in Port Melbourne).
IIRC, the wing of the Vampire was metal. Also, de Havilland Canada no longer belongs to Bombardier but to Longview Aviation Capital, and is now based in Alberta.
There are some fine Vampires in Alberta museums. In the main Calgary one, the Goblin engine on display still turns over very nicely.
@@awuma There is another one at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton Ontario. I saw a Venom (with Swiss air force colours) flying in an airshow there in the 1980s.
My Dad was RAAF in the Pacific and was in awe of the Beaufighter. Always referred to as "whispering death". Great platform for a range of armaments and missions.
Indeed. An underrated plane
@@TheHarryMann it was based on the Blenheim, it was a great aircraft not as fast as a Mosquito but equally deadly as a night fighter and also was good as multi role aircraft
And basically, the Beaufighter did (almost) everything the Mosquito later did. Dropping 4000 pounders on Berlin and photo-reconnaissance were probably the only Mosquito-specific tasks that the Beaufighter didn't do.
@@TheHarryMann precisely . This warbird don't get it's due respect . It was the armament on the Beau they put in the Mossie . The only thing the Mossie had over the Beau was speed
The Beaufighter was just as good.
My late father once said the the most thrilling and terrifying thing he experienced in the war was racing over Europe and realizing that the chimney pots were higher than he was.
a brave man
@Feeds Ravens I think most Mosquito pilots once they felt that 450kt speed felt like Supermen and they flew their planes like it.
The Pole was waving his arms above his head
Years ago in Wales, we were walking on a hillside and looked down into the cockpit of a Tornado motoring up the valley. I bet the crew's feelings were similar.
There's footage of that in the video I shared above.
I remember sitting in a Mossie cockpit as a child in New Zealand. It was in a dark and dusty old shed and had the wings chopped off. That plane was rebuilt here and is flying now.
@Matt allen Warbirds did rebiuld it but it was done at Ardmore in Auckland NZ
@Matt allen KA114 flew at the Hood aerodrome airshow about 2013. It was built for Jerry Yagen and that is now it's home.
You are very lucky... I Joined aviation soon after that left NZ... The guys I work with helped restore it...
I bet YOU chopped 'em orf, you little bugger.
I have the same story, except I played in an early model F-86 fuselage. Had it wings off laying on the ground next to it. Wasps everywhere but I didn't care. Frankenmuth Michigan airport late 1980s. My F-86 is now cosmetically restored, sitting in front of a museum on a stand. Less than half a mile from where it laid in pieces for my enjoyment for years.
The mosquito was built just down the street from me in fort Erie Canada. Directly across from Buffalo NY. My grandfather worked there during the war. We had one of the first big autoclaves. It was called Fleet aircraft .
I fly RC planes, and I like the old school balsa wood planes over the modern foam planes. I can't say which flies better or which is tougher. But I have found if you perform a sudden stop test using the ground. It doesn't matter what the plane is made of the ground always wins.
that's happenedto you few times as well then lolll
Yea but do your RCs get shot by flak and whatnot?
It's never the dive that kills you....
It's always that sudden stop at the bottom 🙄
Mr Jeff? RC? I discovered these guys videos... Crazy fun! Have to share.
Here's a couple of links:
.
th-cam.com/video/4qzuCSSeuFY/w-d-xo.html
👁️👁️
th-cam.com/video/f0BPiNFRKas/w-d-xo.html
Well said! I do not know how many planes I destroyed as a boy trying to build my own designs before my dad taught me the basics of weight and balance rules, etc.
I consider the Mosquito to be a very 'modern ' aircraft design even though it is constructed of wood. The way they used wood is more in line with the way we now use composites. It is also the first modern fighter bomber as we use the term today.
I have also seen somewhere that the loss rate was the lowest of any aircraft in the war.
A fitting testament to its design.
Yep and the thread that runs through that, is the factory that made the adhesive, down the road from Duxford aerodrome, is still there making carbon fibre prepreg.
It was a good night fighter - but not a day fighter. Calling it a fighter bomber is a stretch.
@Ross Cox It is one of the favorites of WWII. Good looking too - except when they put that thimble nose radar dish on it.
@@danzervos7606
A "fighter bomber" in the likes of F-111, Tornado, F-105.
@@DrsharpRothstein Yeah, none of them were fighter bombers either, well maybe the Tornado.
Ken Dunaway was my 1st ground instructor when I was hired by American Airlines in 1985. He flew Mosquitos in the RAF before the US entered. He said the German fighters could never catch them when they did photo recon. He loved the plane.
The Mossie was by no means invulnerable. The attitude towards this airplane (and for instance the Spitfire) in anglophone countries is somewhat exaggerated and irrational.
@@fasold2164 you really should do some research before you make silly comments
@@fasold2164 Your probably Right about the spitfire, Although it improved all way through the 2nd World War, and after my I add ,The Mosquito was used in every different theatre of War. And excelled in all of them .So I think your Argument doesn't add up .old boy .Talley Ho .
@@fasold2164 agree with the spitfire. That evolved slowly through the war. But the mossie was nearly right from the first. Only adding more weapons later . The main reason it was made of wood was the clean lines and low weight. Also it's radar picture was confusing. Plus only two crew.
Great piece of research. My uncle was an RCAF nav in Lancasters and actually survived his tour. He was given the option of just going back to Canada to be an instructor, or going to Mosquito's for another tour. He said, "it took me about 1 minute " to decide. His folks weren't overly pleased though...
Aussie version made of Malle root, red gum and Iron bark. Bullet proof plane from factory. if it catches on fire, that fire will last for days.
If that thing hit the ground...the grounds screwed.
Only Oz could have a long enough runway. Rotate at Alice Springs.
Plus in freezing conditions u could light it on fire 🔥
Probably not a concern for the pilot. He'd either survive, and be long gone...or dead!
Six hour mission and it will burn for days, you say. Ok. Fire her up. If you'll pardon the pun. Less to fix on the way back and we can have a sausage sizzle later.
The "Wooden Wonder", looking forward to this one Greg, even more than usual.
I second that.
Losses of the mosquitoes was lower than any other bomber due to its sheer speed and manoeuvrability and all with no defencive arms
@@markmitchell450 Airframe losses were indeed lower than other types but aircrew survival from shot-down Mossies was slim. The airplane was very hard to bail out of. No canopy jettison, had to exit through the belly hatch (right next to the starboard prop). I've been in one, it's tight!
@big cheese Have only one word to describe you "IDIOT "
@@zephyrold2478 q
Great video about my favourite plane. Had the pleasure of talking to a pilot of a Tetse Mosquito (a mossie armed with a quick firing 6 pounder anti tank gun!) many years ago. He told me he felt that the mosquitos wooden construction helped dampen the recoil of such a big gun.
I seem to recall that they had trials with even heavier guns than the Molins (17 or even 32 pounders)
Maxwell Beer he told me he’d heard of a pilot that actually managed to shoot down a Ju-88 with his 6 pounder, the force of the solid AP round carried one of the 88s engines completely out of its mountings
@@maxwellbeer6757 Not heard that, I shall ask at the Mosquito Museum, Salisbury Hall, just up the road from here.
Clive Smith I wouldn’t normally quote Wikipedia but it was the easiest to find:
Despite the preference for rockets, a further development of the large gun idea was carried out using the even larger, 96 mm calibre QF 32-pounder, a gun based on the QF 3.7-inch AA gun designed for tank use, the airborne version using a novel form of muzzle brake. Developed to prove the feasibility of using such a large weapon in the Mosquito, this installation was not completed until after the war, when it was flown and fired in a single aircraft without problems, then scrapped.
@@maxwellbeer6757 A 32 pounder was fitted and fired with no problems.
Thanks for the endpiece about Castle Baldenau! I was stationed at a USAF storage area in Wenigerath in the late 1970's and lived both in Bischofsdhron and in Wenigerath during my tour of duty. The castle was always a nice reminder of the history of the area and made me appreciate how fortunate I was to be able to really explore and learn about Germany.
The one aircraft that Goerring envied above all others - read his diaries.
I’m not reading Herman Goering’s diaries lmao
@@JohnMaxGriffin It might be interesting to see how the devil operates. I mean, if you are a WWII historian, it might be very important.
Göring (disputed) quote goes as this: "In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."
Source: quotepark.com/quotes/1946919-hermann-goring-it-makes-me-furious-when-i-see-the-mosquito/
@@user-xh1lr3yo3y Yes. His thoughts are fascinating. You can learn alot from good and bad.
Also the reason the ta154 was designed
After World War One, Henry "Hap" Arnold wrote adventure books for boys, about flying and aircraft in general. I own one of them, (it belonged to one of my uncle's when he was a boy). It isn't bad. When World War Two arrived, Arnold was too old to be a regular pilot, so he was stuck behind a desk. He made the most of his predicament.
This aircraft was built here in Canada at Downsveiw , Toronto , as well . MK X's ,
I believe .
Yes, I worked there :). Well I didn't have any part in the mosquito due to lack of time travel.
Another great video.
I recently read Sidney Camm's biography and its surprising how much time he spent talking to the man at the Ministry. De Havilland probably did the same. Alfred Prices book on the history of the Spitfire goes into some detail about how the RAF only saw the Spitfire as an interim measure until the Westland Whirlwind, with its 4 centrally mounted cannon was ready, and which itself probably only second reserve to the Hawker Tornado, so when RR pulls production on both the Peregrine and the Vulture engines both these planes are basically dead( indecently, chopping the Vulture kills of the Avro Manchester at this time as well ). Hawker do have a back up plan with the Typhoon, but at that time in 1941 the Sabre is so far from being a reliable engine, so one can imagine the man from the Ministry desperately asking De Havilland 'what can you do quickly for us?'
Its interesting but in literature the Camelot fables tells us that in time of need the wizard Merlin will always be there to help us. How true that was in 1941.
An excellent and fair appraisal of the Mosquito, as you said it was widely used by the RAF during the war and on many daring and dangerous missions, my favourite being Operation Jericho.
The casualty rate on the Mossie was incredibly low . Thank you . Four versions , bomber , intruder , night fighter, fighter bomber , and a web foot warrior ,anti shipping strikes and anti sub patrols .
The light construction and (sometimes) no armament made a recon mossie a speedy bird that was very hard to catch==but when it was caught...
@Dennis Moore Quite! But it's hard to find an equivalent aircraft like the Phantom: it could tangle with single engine fighters, with no problem (due to it's robust design and good thrust to weight ratios--especially when it had good to great pilots in the 'pit), the Mossie was a hell of a plane, but I don't think the odds of dogfighting with an Me or FW were going to be good unless there was a hell of a pilot at the controls.
It was also used by the OSS, ( forerunner to the CIA. ) for insertion and communication with their agents. A Radio operator rode in the bomb bay. There was also a "civilian cargo" version that flew to Stockholm to pick up consignments of ball-bearings. They were nominally owned by an airline to get around Sweden's neutral status.
@@colinkepple7555 Yes. BOAC Mosquitos. A few were shot down. One brought Nils Bohr the nuclear scientist back from Stockholm, to eventually join the Manhattan Project
@@nickmitsialis it was rarely if ever caught, one of the reasons the USAAF bought them for photo recon.
The Mossie ranks right up at the top of my favorite all time aircraft - in that lofty realm of "I can't decide". That indecision is mainly because so planes got too specialized by upper level decisions that limited the ways they were utilized. In the age before electronic computing, the engineers did amazing things with slide rules...
Got through college with a slide rule in the 70s. Probably the last of the lot.
Thanks a lot for another interesting docu-video. I remember reading that story too, I can't recall which book now. However there are some facts we can repeat. Hughes was trying to sell USAAC/USAAF his "Wooden" Hughes D-2 up until 1943 so there was no way he'd agree to build Mosquito. Not least he had no production facilities so he'd only get his contract cancelled for nothing. Fairchild, a close friend of Hughes, was also almost obsessed with wood but was probably not at all keen to produce something he didn't invent. These were entrepreneurs and inventors with egos larger than Mt. Everest. To be fair, the wooden construction techniques seemed different with Americans keen to use Duramold plywood while Mosquito had what we call composite layering today. There is another important point to mention. Fairchild Company did not necessarily made an incorrect statement about strength but it was of course misleading. British load factor requirements were less than US requirements. US requirements for load factors were based on years of peace time use which was nothing but useless ballast weight during war for an aircraft that may or may not last a year. For example North American asked USAAF to redesign Mustang with British factors to make it more competitive in climb and were allowed to do so. Resulting P-51-H was about 500 lbs lighter in empty, about a very substantial 6-8% less than P51D. Fairchild clearly honed on this difference without explaining why. Considering Canada quickly tooled up and built over 1,100 Mosquitos alone shows what an opportunity was missed with US built Mosquito. As such I don't think the real reason had anything with P-38, not remotely. They are not even aircraft of similar class.
"Greetings, this is Greg"! My computer said - I looked up and saw it was about the Mosquito, my favourite WWII bird. I'm in! Thanks Greg for your great material.
A great book that I read many years ago is "Terror in the Starboard Seat," the at-times hilarious memoir of a Canadian Mossie navigator (Dave MacIntosh) who was paired with a wild-man American pilot (Sid Seid) who had joined the RCAF prior to the US entry into the war.
If you want a good laugh pick up the book 'Maverick' on a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. His call sign was 'Magnet Arse'. LOL I think I remember he was a legend for never bringing a helicopter back from a flight into injun country without getting bullet holes in it. One of the first to get a Cobra and an incident he was involved in wrote a few new rules in a way to make tears of joy. :-)
I put both on my reading list. Thanks. If you haven’t read Malta Spitfire yet, give it a try.
“Terror in the starboard seat” is one of my favorite aviation biographies. Certainly the best written one. Dave and Sid flew 39 missions without seeing an enemy plane and Dave still describes the fear and sarcasm in the most engaging way. Then they had the most crazy day ranger mission that won them their DFC. A must read for mosquito fans.
@@thelizardking3036 Ive read it (about George "Buzz" Beurling), thanks for the tip though.
@@sadwingsraging3044 Sounds great, thanks ("Magnet Arse," LOL).
If you think this aircraft is beautiful you should check out the de Havilland Hornet.
It was a single seater long range fighter version of the Mosquito, developed towards the end of WW2.
It was a brilliant aircraft but the RAF thought the war was won and there was no reason to rush it's development as the Mosquito was doing the job.
Same engines as the Mossie - but a slimmed down single seat aircraft, with a better power to weight ratio, and hence faster and more manouverable.
Eric Brown loved it.
Some squadrons were equipped with this phenomenal aircraft ( including carrier versions) and those used in the far East found it faced a problem unique to its type ....termites !
The engines were not the same as those of the Mosquito. Far too late in the day, RR built Merlins which were handed - one clockwise, one anti-clockwise. This solution was applied much earlier in the P38 and completely solved the main drawback of the Mosquito - having to take-off under full right rudder to stop the aircraft flipping at low altitude.
It used an even more powerful merlin, over 2000hp each for a total of 4000hp, in a plane that was barely a ton heavier than a p47
I went to the De Havilland Museum near St Albans, England where they have several Mosquitoes. They also have pieces of Mosquito that crashed in the Thames that it was possible to hold. The balsa pieces of fuselage are curved and insanely light.
Was grooving on Mosquito yesterday and came around to this video again. Another great video, Greg. Contra-rotation earlier in the program would have been nice but no question this machine was a VERY successful design which made a big contribution to the war. P-38 was a great machine but one thing the Mosquito had that the Lockheed did not is a sizeable bomb bay you keep the payload out of the slip stream.
That's true, the Mosquito has advantages, but so does the P-38.
Not listened to any if your videos before and I've watched a lot of mosquito videos. Really enjoyed your work, seemed a very measured review, based on fact not emotion, as can happen on aircraft videos.
Oh yeah, Greg's the real deal. No BS but real numbers from primary literature. Check out his older videos, they are fantastic.
Siliconjim you should watch his P-47 videos! Master class on the topic
@Jack Tangles Yes he is. So what?
Armoured glass is also interesting and important in any perspextive. lol
I see through what you armored there HAHAHA
I believe that it was called "Terror in the Left Hand Seat" and it was a good read, penned by a Canadian navigator detailing his experiences with his Jewish, American pilot and his personal war with Nazi Germany.
Canada also built Hurricanes, Lancasters, Ansons and cdn-designed aircraft. Spitfires required very complex tooling & techniques in its construction.
Running the German gauntlet day after day and surviving was the Mosquito"s calling card. The combined psychological, surveillance, and tactical value of those missions was incalculable.
Didn't Goebbels write in his personal diary ---in the last months of the war, that---''The people of Berlin have been shaken psycologically , by the daylight low level attacks of the Mosquito's.'' ? I think he included himself in that. On one MORNING, a squadron of Mosquito's, attacking Berlin, caused the abandonment of a national Radio broadcast, when Georing began a long-winded propaganda speech. THAT AFTERNOON---Goebbells was also, forced to abandon HIS speech, because Bombs and straffing, by another Mosquito Squadron, could be heard all over Germany on the nations radios, drowning out that little shits speech. Makes me swell with pride.
True. sadly, Guy Gibson, VC, was lost flying one over Germany. Even in a Mosquito, the guns can get you.
My father was a navigator in Mosquitos in India. A beautiful aircraft
@pencilpauli Based on your reference I had never even heard of this movie. And I am a Greg Peck fan. It was quite good with the Mosquito featured in a starring role.
Hi Greg, and thanks for creating the best WW2 aircraft channel on TH-cam. Well done.
I just wanted to comment on what I believe the answer is to one of your proposed questions as to why early Mosquitos had structural failures, especially in tropical climates. The early build machines used casein glue in assembly and by its nature (byproduct of cheese) attracted moisture and fungal growth. The change to formaldehyde based glue solved 1 of these early flaws. It was interesting talking with one of the team that built the latest airworthy Mosquitos (NZ2308) about the different, modern glue systems available and the pros and cons of each. Si, Christchurch, NZ.
Mosquito and Beaufighter were always my most favourite WWII planes. Beautiful planes. Great video.
Mossie and Beau are often mentioned together, although I've never understood why.
They were very different aircraft, IMO. Neither one seems to compare in the other's roles.
The Beau engine is an amazing design. There used to be a cutaway on display in the aircraft museum at the Nanaimo Airport, Nanaimo, BC, Canada.
If nothing else, the British built some of the most beautiful airplanes used in warfare and this one was one of the most beautiful and purposeful
You mean THEE most beautiful--surely?
And a few ugly ones just to prove a point, Blackburn Roc and Vickers Wellesley spring to mind
@@MrDaiseymay well I didn't want to make that distinction in a world that has Spitfires!
@@Tubespoet every nation has a few ugly dogs in the mix...America has more than a few , as did every other nation.
However it does seem the old saying "if it looks right, it is right" rang very true with the Spitfire and Mosquito
@@MrDaiseymay The Mustang is pretty and the Spitfire is pure Glamore. Mosse is so handsome.
Loving the glass nosed touring panorama coupé version. A personal fav over guns or radar.
I like the glass nosed version as well, not just with the Mosquito, but also on other airplanes.
I had a 1/72 model of the bomber version with the glass - it was okay but i really wanted to have the fighter bomber version like the ones in the film where they drop earthquake bombs onto a mountain above a factory deep in Germany.
Ramon Lewis that would be “633 Squadron”.
@@maxwellbeer6757 Sure was, thanks forgot it was the name of the squadron :-)
Ramon Lewis has a brilliant soundtrack too!
I really appreciate your breakdowns avoiding conjecture and rumor. Facts, pure facts.
Wow the original Comet is a beauty. That design screams "fast".
@AwakeAmericanow. You're referring to the DH106 Comet jet airliner. I think Talon One was talking about the DH88 Comet piston-engined racer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The comet racer still flies,based at Old Warden part of the shuttlworth collection.
Well from the Mossie's documented history, Beechcraft's quote at could not have been more wrong even if they tried!! Also, one undoubted fact is that during the Mosquito's service life, it recorded the lowest operational loss rate for any aircraft in WWII.
Still some were in civilian service till 1960s
no small fact--for consideration.
The Brits even landed them on carriers (as a test, not operationally). That should show a sturdy airframe if anything does.
@Andrew Sarchus Wood also allowed it to be made by boat builders. Tapping into a major skill pool which was a great move
@Andrew Sarchus Well, 1) Beechcraft had MADE the transition to metal already - their designers were thinking in metal, their supplies of metal for construction were good, and their workforce was trained to work with metal. For Beechcraft to 'go back' to working with wood would have been HARDER than just designing and constructing an all-metal plane.
But it was egotism to make blanket statements like whomever did on Beechcraft's behalf; I'll agree there. :)
Also, it was less 'limited metal stock' (the wood for the Mossie had to be imported, too), but as Greg points out; the skilled metalworkers in the British workforce were already engaged in MANY other things; this was an opportunity to make use of an idle resource - skilled woodworkers.
...either way, the end result was a useful and beautiful aircraft.
Your usual great video!
Most “old fashioned” wood frame aircraft used a space frame (or truss) a determinate structure where the geometry of the members provided a rigid structure, as long as the individual members don’t fail. The de Havilland structure is completely different. Most structures fail in compression due to elastic instability. If a compressed member is so stressed that any elastic deformation of the structure increases due to the compression. Recursion of this effect causes the stressed member to fail in bending. If you don’t believe me just ask Leonard Euler. The de Havilland solution: make the skin of the aircraft a sandwich of covered inside and out with a strong wood like spruce and filled with an ultra lightwood like balsa. The fact that aircraft skins “want to be curved” enhances the effect. A good example of this is the common cardboard box the lightweight corrugated filler vastly strengthens and stiffens the box. (Interestingly the Junkers aircraft uses a corrugated skin aligned with the presumed airflow but I doubt if it really doesn’t cause a lot of drag anyway). The problem is that structures like this while very strong are also very rigid and fail catastrophically, Wood shatters, metal bends. As you point out wood is almost transparent to full metal jacketed bullets, and just initiates the fuse in explosive ones. De Havilland gambled and won by going all out for speed. No armor nor defensive armament. I’m still working on the sidewinder drive.
I think the right way to think about the Mosquito is as the first composite plane not the last wooden one. The fuselage construction is especially similar to a modern composite.
Greg is the only one in TH-cam that does unimportant the length of the video, I don't care if last 20 min or 2 hours.
I really enjoy your videos. Many of the technical details are over my head, but the general information about military aircraft you give is intriguing to me. Keep it up!!
For someone who grew up building balsa/tissue models, this is particularly interesting. For 1940, wood was a fine construction material. After that everything changed, but the Mosquito was a VERY special aircraft in its time. Every other nation in the world was trying to copy Britain's Mosquito.
The Mosquito used rubber balls in the oleo legs for suspension springs/dampers.
Outstanding!
Very clever.
I think there was a Moulton connection. First the Mozzi, then the Mini.
Mozzie has to be one of the most amazing stories from WW 2.
It could be built mostly by craftsmen Britain already had and freed up metallic materials for other uses.
It flew faster, higher than any German plane for most of the war.
The Mosquito carried the same bomb load as a B 17 but, with a crew of two, higher faster and suffered less than 10 % losses.
Add to which it was good for just about any other task including photography, weather reporting, sinking u boats, night or day fighter, pathfinder for heavy bombers, low level precision attacks including with such accuracy they even broke open a Gestapo prison releasing a large number of French prisoners condemned to death by the Gestapo; and so on.
Now name another plan to match that record ?
I have never noted the sources I read from but the anecdotesare that Mosquitoes were based on the skilled wood construction workforce that was based on a 30 year plus skillset that would not transfer.
ive seen this comparison with the B17 many many places but never found the source. please assist me to find the manual or book where it lists the bombload, at range and altitude. best i have seen is 4K lbs @ a comparable range with the B17s 6K lbs, but it doesnt give the alt, range or cruising speed.
Higher than any German aircraft? A service ceiling of 26k ft wasn't exceptional, even BoB He111 was 27k same as Do17, Ju88 26.5k etc
@@jakeb6703 these 'facts' are often thrown about 🤔😉
What he has done is take the mosquitos maximum load and compared it with the B17's minimum. The Mosquito load for a bomber could be a 4,000lb cookie bomb which could not be dropped below 6000 ft due to blast effect and could not be accurately aimed apart from on a city or built up area, other than that it was 4x500lb bombs load. There are records of B17's carrying 6,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin.
That’s crazy, about 2 days ago I started re viewing some mosquito documentaries.... fantastic to hear you talking about them !!!
Excellent video, really interesting. I think it demonstrates that DeHavilland did a fantastic engineering job with the Mosquito as they used existing tried and tested designs and production techniques combined with a wise choice of existing Rolls Royce engine to produce an outstanding aircraft. Arguably, DeHavilland new what the RAF needed better than any government committees? Perhaps the head of the WW2 Luftwaffe, Hermann Göring, summed the Mosquito quite well: “In 1940 I could fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now!” .... “It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminum better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building….They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops.”
In Canada, during the war, plywood was declared a strategic material with douglas dir being shipped to the UK and Australia
Part of the genius of Geoffrey De Havilland and the Mosquito, is that it took advantage of the same sort advances in material sciences that were improving aluminum planes. The Mosquito wasn’t simply constructed from wood, it’s fuselage was a rather advance plywood wrapped around aluminum frame components.
The single biggest advantage of this was actually that it allowed an otherwise industrial sector to be tapped for the construction of the Mosquito. Furniture, cabinet, and piano maker shops and factories could all be employed and sub contracted to build Mosquito, putting their often exceptional skill to use that was otherwise being under utilized in a war economy primarily based around steel and aluminum.
Although wood was certainly the right decision for de Havilland, I feel like the decision to use wood construction gets an outsized amount of credit in comparison to other factors, most notably the aerodynamic design. The aircraft's streamlining (as you mentioned) is outstanding. It featured:
- Fully-enclosed main gear
- Retractable (semi-enclosed) tail gear
- No defensive armament
- Excellent nacelle design, including the spinner and air intakes
- In-wing radiators
- A wing of moderate aspect ratio without excessive area
- I don't know anything about de Havilland's airfoil, but it can't have been horrible
No need for rivets.
the airfoil was NOT NACA-approved.
...it was BETTER.
Modified RAF (Royal Aircraft Factory, subsequently RAE ?) aerofoil (similar to the DH88 Comet)
DH Vampire jet built late war and just to late to become operational during WW2 was still partially of wood construction.
ISTR the Candberra also had some wood in the tail construction.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 if that's true then that's quite amusing, as the Canberra was was of the few foreign designed aircraft the USA ever licenced to build. They called it the B-57.
@@juststeve5542 one of my favorites.
@@juststeve5542 I believe the pilots loved it!
The Two seat side by side seating DH Vampire used the Mosquito canopy.
Those many people who talk Spitfire, could never have shared my experience of standing riveted under an unexpected ,low flying formation of Mosquitos. My introduction to Classical music MERLIN`S Sextet !
Most interesting. As you say the Mosquito was built by de Havilland primarily because of its long experience with timber construction. They knew that by designing this aircraft in wood it would perform as well as any metal built aircraft (realising that they also had the work force and could call upon the rest of the timber construction industries in the UK to assist - then being
underutilised). Remember this aircraft was a private venture by de Havilland due to the Air Ministries thoughts that a frontline aircraft built out of wood was not suitable, like the US manufacturers they were biased in their thinking, wood was 'old fashioned'. Plus the Air Ministry couldn't get their heads around an unarmed bomber relying just on speed. The thinking back then was that the bomber will always get through if its saddled with multiple gun turrets. de Havilland continued to have little support for the aircraft, but Sir Wilfred Freeman championed their cause in Whitehall as the clouds of war gathered. The Air Ministry started to listen, but insisted on a turret which meant a third crew member as they felt it needed some form of defence. A life line was thrown when the Air Ministry agreed on a recon version of the aircraft and that is essentially how the Mosquito was born, as a reconnaissance aircraft. When the prototype first flew in November 1940 and was faster than a Spitfire, the block heads at the Air Ministry couldn't get down to Hatfield fast enough to see this 'Wooden Wonder'! and the rest is history. As to its construction, the Albatross airliner was the true ancestor of the Mosquito as its fuselage was built in the same way as the later Mosquito. The DH 88 Comet whilst looking similar was built in a traditional style befitting wooden aircraft of the early 30s.
I was thinking labour supply right before you mentioned it. There were tons of skilled woodworkers about in the UK like cabinet and piano makers for example. The old DeHavilland factory was in my town. There are tons of old runway strips about this area even now. Thanks for the upload. Great well researched and concise video.
As a Brit with a father fascinated with aircraft, I too grew up with the belief that is was due to available labour.
Isn't that where the Beechwood forests are, and Furniture maker's ?
@@MrDaiseymay I don't think they built Mosquitos at the factory in my town (Christchurch, Dorset) I think they did the float planes and civil aircraft here. There are tons of old grass runway strips here though in the New Forest plus a fair few concrete ones as well.
De Havilland's factory was in Hatfield Hertfordshire. The main office building, which is now a preserved listed building is stil there today, and is now Hatfield police station. The rest is now a industrial estate with roads called mosquito way and comet road!
You're the Aviation Dracinifel! This is one random click on my feed that I'm very glad that I've made!
Thank you, although I don't see it that way.
I watch Drachinifel religiously and I can hardly believe the TH-cam algorithm finally threw me a bone with some meat on it and recommended Greg’s Airplanes channel to me!
I read once that one of the difficulties constructing Hughes' "Spruce Goose" was that the required mahogany (not spruce) was earmarked for Mosquito construction.
The Goose and IIRC Mosquito both employed "plastic" composite construction using wood as the matrix molded under heat and pressure. Two such processes were named Duramold and Vidal {the latter apparently after Gore Vidal's father Eugene, sec'y of commerce). I learned about them researching another "plastic" plane, the Langley Twin (Navy XNL-1), which I doubt you've ever heard of.
A plastic Spitfire was built, to explore the possibilities, incase we couldn't get aluminium it was wood fibre, and phenolic ! resin I believe...
That's for your comment, interesting.
@@clive373 Yes. Phenolic resin was used in the Duramold process, e.g. the Spruce Goose, and probably others.
Remember the beautiful Albatross fighter of Germany in WW1
@@AnthonyTolhurst-dw1nc Indeed! Sources to hand aren't clear, but the Hughes H-4's wood was molded and saturated with plastic resin, while the Albatros was laminated with conventional glue. IDK which process most resembles the Mosquito's construction, but de Havilland's Comet racer pioneered the use of synthetic resins.
The H-1 was built largely of birch. I worked for Hughes Aircraft many years later and often wondered if the "Goose" was the reason the union at Hughes was the Carpenter's Union.
The hawker hurricane was also made out of Irish linen, this was a very good material for a hurricane because the bullet holes could be repaired in a few hours.
Thanks Greg. Another great video with tons of information to unpack. Can't wait for your P-38 vs Mosquito comparison.
probably because it was primarily a bomber... P38 would have no problems running down and shooting down mosquitos as they were much faster. One is a better fighter, one us a better bomber.
@@garrington120 440mph was the p38 top speed. I dont know where your getting your data from. Most of the "issues" your probably speaking of are from the RAF field testing of the non supercharger equipped version they decided to import despite warnings from lockheed. They are both great planes, but I would take a P-38 at high altitude with longer range over the mosquito in the Pacific theater any day. I would take the mosquito on raids across the channel at low level avoiding radar any day over the p 38. They both are iconic, great planes that arent a direct matchup so theres no need to get in a shouting matchup about it. Both were also highly envied by the enemies they faced.
@@garrington120 top speed listed for mosquito is only 408mph...
@@garrington120 dude the lightning variants were faster then the mosquito variants as technology and the war progressed, not by much but they were. I'm not taking anything away from the mosquito, I'm just saying your under rating lightning. Have a good day
51 Spitfires gave this video a thumbs down.
Hell hath no fury like a jealous bird.
You get 10 points for that one!
@@ianlowery6014 ditto
This channel is gold! The algorithm finally worked. Thank you for your videos, incredibly educated and straight forward, covers things I've never heard anywhere else
Mind blown again. Greg you are like our own squadron signal Research department and aviation expert for us fans and model builders. Can't thank you enough!
Two points about the Beaufighter, The were very quiet due to the fact that the engine exhaust was ducted around the engine cowling thus cooling exhaust gas so you couldn't hear them coming. When armed with eight rockets they also packed a terrific punch.
Hence the name "Whispering death . When the enemy gives a plane such a dubious name ,it says a lot .
I’m just going to fill in some blanks… Britain had been developing advanced plywood composites from the late 1800's, a material lighter than aluminium with a tensile strength higher than steel/weight why would you not use it. Trams, underground trains, buses and Malcolm Campbells Blue Bird were made using wood composites. The dh.88 comet racing plane and Albatross mail plane owed their speed to rigid, light weight and smooth wooden composites (no rivets).
These advanced materials were the carbon fiber of pre-war Britain, building a wooden bomber was not as daft as the Americans thought and using materials no-one else was using, was a bonus. However, ply/composites had to be shaped over wooden formers requiring precise workman ship, aluminium was easily stamped out and riveted making it perfect for mass production by lightly trained operators.
While the Mosquito’s wooden construction aided in it’s phenomenal speed, the incredible low weight/high tensile strength also saw the air frame carry 4x it’s original proposed bomb load maxing out at 4000lbs just short of that carried by B-17’s on long range raids. So robust, one variant installed an auto-cannon based on the British Ordinance QF 6lb anti tank gun….or M1 57mm in US Service. Firing 58 rounds a minute, from a 22 round clip, German shipping and U-Boats were especially nervous of this MK18 Fleet Air Arm variant.
Probably the worst US decision with regard to the Mosquito was not using it to drop “high-ball.” A variant of the bouncing bomb proposed for Japanese barge/ship busting. Using B-25’s, they were to slow to avoid the bombs splash, a number of US crews were lost trying to use the weapon. One "Highball" was enough to break a battleship in two from 1600 yards. Eric "Winkle" Brown the Worlds best/most experienced test pilot, was the first to land/take off from a carrier using a twin engine plane.... A Mosquito, he was not told why until years later.
th-cam.com/video/8zBp1NCbAr0/w-d-xo.html (HIGHBALL)
Trees are in short supply in England and balsa had to be shipped in. That is the only down side in production of an excellent aircraft.
The variant that had that anti tank gun was called the Tse Tse! (more deadly than the mosquito). They were, however operated by Coastal Command.
@@unclebullfrog7319 Tsetse all as one word as in the name of the fly that had a nastier bite than a Mosquito.
th-cam.com/video/pX-IxiZyGRk/w-d-xo.html
@@markgranger9150 Balsa trees are in VERY short supply here, seeing as we don't have a tropical climate...
I have all the respect in the world for Eric Brown, but he wasn't the first to take off and land on a carrier in a twin-engined aircraft. The first such feat was by the French in September 1936, many years earlier, a modified Potez 56 that conducted trials on the carrier "Bearn".
I enjoyed seeing the Mosquito at the Air Force museum in Dayton ,Ohio. It is a USA recon version in a beautiful light blue.
Back in the early 80’s as an engineering apprentice, my technology Teacher was ex-RAF ground crew, who had been assigned to a Mosquito pathfinder squadron. We soon discovered that it didn’t take a lot to get him to go off topic and talk about the Mozzy. I remember him telling us, that the planes would come back shot full of small holes and to turn them around as quick as possible, they would use chicken wire and papier mache, to fill them. When quizzed on what constituted a small hole, he stated, any hole that wasn’t big enough to get your head in.
That attribute contributed to the Hurricane being at least as decisive as the Spit in the Battle Of Britain.
@Badness Bob
Bob from Australia, meet Bill from Australia. :)
@Xen
Point taken, but the Poles of 303 Sqn. flew Hurricanes. They downed more than a few ME 109s. :)
The Mustang was the best of type, but wasn't there when it was needed most so is marked down in my book.
I have 2 tales to relate about Mozzies;
My Grandfather's best friend was "The Wingco", who had been a Wing Commander of Mosquito reconnaissance aircraft in WWII. I never heard him say a bad thing about the planes. However, I also suspect that he privately wished that he had had more flying time and less commanding time.
My other experience was my sadness on realising that one of the places I used to go on regular business had been the principle DeHavilland factory where they built these gorgeous planes. By then it was a nondescript north London suburb.
There again, some of the factors relating to the Mozzy's success are pretty legendary. The one that landed with its entire tail section shot away and had been steered back to its airfield by engine differentials and the ones that had outrun some of the fastest planes Germany could could produce.
But probably the greatest feat that the Mozzy performed was as a pathfinder, day in, day out, for raids over Germany. Its success rate meant that it was never supplanted. Although there were many more glamorous roles it could perform with equal aplomb, it was the bread and butter that largely defeated the Fascist war machine.
@big cheese So, when did the Mosquito come into service? And when did Germany get their first jet engines?
In that interval, the allies gained such as spectacular advantage in the air that even the 262 couldn't have any effect.
So my question, what was the point in your post?
Apart from anything else the Germans had such restricted supplies of strategic materials that, by the time the 262 went into production, the engines needed to be rebuilt every 6 (yes, that's right, six) hours.
BTW, I am not aware of a single occasion in which a 262 or 234 came into contact with a Mosquito, they tended to be used against bomber formations (in the case of the 262), or in reconnaissance/bombing (in the case of the 234) I believe.
Or am I mistaken? I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
But my question is still; why post that? It really is entirely irrelevant. The Mosquito was needed, it did a tremendous job, it filled multiple roles, was easy to manufacture, easy to fly (once the landing speed problems were sorted) and tremendously loved by those that had contact with it.
I am just confused what you were trying to get at.
Greg, all I can say is that every time I see a notification from you, I am genuinely cheered up. Good and proper WW2 channels are a rarity as most have joined a 'cabal' of sorts.
That's cause they're all working on WW II week by week.
@@Saberjet1950
No, they're deliberately part of a cabal. Its a bit of a conflict of interest when several dozen people try to control a narrative/history.
@@ThatZenoGuy that tends to happen when people work on a project together.
@@Saberjet1950
What project? They all make different videos who waste my time promoting other channels I might have no interest in.
In one case a channel deliberately left out information to force viewers to go to another channel.
Just gimme the damned information like Greg does and stop wasting my time!
@@ThatZenoGuy You should check out the channel "Mark Felton Productions".
Also the first accidental stealth aircraft, it was noted by both sides that the plane was hard to detect on radar until it was much closer than regular planes.
I believe the germans recalibrated rather quickly, but it is... somewhat true. They really needed to remove any curved surfaces (that form a tangent to the radar) to do it properly.
And of course the second accidental stealth aircraft to judge by performance in the US was the Avro Vulcan :)
I always enjoy your work. Thank you for your research and your production efforts. I often watch each release several times over and will use the videos to settle me down before sleep to wash away stresses of the day. Very immersive content and technical detail. Great work!
Australian built Mosquitos had some glue (and craftsmanship) issues initially but after this was sorted they went on to serve successfully.
Boy, the DH Comet is a beauty.
Both ... :-)
I’m lucky to live near the Shuttleworth Collection where that DH88 resides and is regularly flown at shows.
Producing aluminum requires a huge amount of electricity. Aluminum was for a long time a semiprecious metal. By WW2 due to hydroelectric dam construction the USA had more surplus electricity than all the rest of the world. We had an abundance of aluminum!
The top cap of the Washington Monument is an aluminum pyramid. They chose aluminum because at the time of its construction, it WAS a precious metal.
www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9511/binczewski-9511.html
I see comments about the Mossie costing much less to build than a P38 because Mossies were made of wood. Fairly certain engines are the most expensive parts of aircraft.
About 1/6 of wartime-built Mossies were built with Lend Lease Packard Merlins.
Also Mossies had a very high stall speed and were no picnic to land on one engine and they did not have counter rotating props.
I've been building and flying RC scale models since 1971 and I would hesitate to fly in a plane with that much balsa. It does very strange stuff with changes in temp and humidity. Combined with the nature of wood to metal joints, I think that's why there aren't a bunch of Mosquitos still flying.
The Mossie, with such sharply tapered wings, also doesn't scale down well. I've seen some very good pilots get caught by situations that wouldn't be a problem with other planes, even twins, and end up with a pile of splinters.
Oddly enough, the much maligned Bf 110 makes a fantastic model. But then again, the 110 did pretty well as everything but a close escort, which is a failure of tactics rather than the plane itself, and it's bad reputation might be undeserved.
Cheers!
This is a wonderfully researched and presented video on the DH Mosquito. I am so pleased to have seen this.
Thanks Mark, I'm glad.
Another important factor in building the aircraft in Canada and Australia, was that DeHavilland already had subsidiary companies in those countries, which I would have thought would have made setting up production in those countries much easier. As far as I know, most other companies didn't have this, although Hurricanes would also be built in Canada.
The crash that killed Geoffrey DeHavilland Junior can't really be attributed to the change to all-metal construction. The aircraft went totally out of control in a supersonic dive, pitching up and down so violently that his head hit the canopy, breaking his neck. I doubt that any airframe, wood or metal would have withstood such forces.
The last gasp of DeHavilland was really in 2013. In the early 60's they designed the DH125 "Jet Dragon," which entered production as the Hawker Siddeley HS125. Ultimately this aircraft became the Hawker 800, which ended production in 2013.
On the contrary, I know there are several British companies that had Canadian subsidiaries. During WWII, there was Avro Canada (who also owned Orenda Engines, which would become somewhat famous in the jet age), Canadian Vickers that later became Canadair, and of course, de Havilland Canada. After WWII there would also be a Hawker-Siddley Canada, and the Bristol Aerospace Company of Canada, which is now simply Bristol Aerospace and entirely Canadian-based.
@@smittywjmj Absolutely right! I forgot about those.
Corerct hangarrat. The Swallow crash was nothing to do with metal construction but all about early transonic stability problems, particularly on a tailless aircraft. Eventually, though terrifyingly, the Swallow went through the sound barrier over Bedford, but not before being modified.
Australian aircraft industry eventually manufactured 755 Wirraways, 705 Beauforts, 250 Boomerangs, 365 Beaufighters, 104 Mosquitoes, 16 Mustangs and almost 2000 aircraft engines.
*Hears about Kaiser Fleetwings*
*Laughs in Ed Nash*
Another man of culture, I see !
Greg, thanks for the well balanced approach to your presentation and research. It's also nice to hear a pilot talking pilot stuff, vice someone taking their best guess or repeating bad information.
Great job as always, Greg! The P-47 Firepower video and this one are super good stuff.
The USA using the P-38 makes sense over adding the Misquote to the Logistics chain. We were definitely going to be using the P-38 so it was going to be in the Logistics chain.
I'm going with wet balsa. We had 15 cent balsa-wood airplanes with rubber band engines and yes, they flew but not in the rain.
I love these detailled technical drawings.
Thanks for another informative video. It may be a little silly of me, but I enjoyed stopping the video and reading the ads you included as well.
I"m glad to hear that, that's part of the reason I use them, there is a lot of forgotten history in those ads, plus they don't create any copyright problems for me.
Mosquito delivered: reliable Europe-wide PR coverage for most of the war, the best night fighter of the war (and it's prey was other sharks, not whales). Best long range precision interdicter, best long range maritime attacker, and on and on. What plane drove the Germans most nuts? Best plane of the war, period. Easy.
Best night fighter of the war. Considerably better than the purpose-built P-61 Black Widow which arrived too late on the scene to make much of an impact.
I'm a bit hesitant to use the word best, but it was certainly one of the best.
The Brits wanted the P-61 to be big, it was created before the invention of the stable cavity magnetron which allowed much smaller radars.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 I don't believe the British had any interest in the P-61, so I am not sure what you are referring to. If it was being built with the intention that it would surpass the best British night fighters I think it was a failure because it clearly didn't.
@big cheese are you just copying your comment wherever you want? Your comparison is fallacious anyway. you are comparing aircraft designed years apart. It isn't even fair if comparing a Mk1 Spitfire with a Mk12, the same aircraft with 3 years in service development.
Thank you for a great introduction to the DH98 Mosquito or 'Mossie' as it was often referred to as, it was also slated early on on WWII as 'Freemans Foley', as the Air Ministry could see the advantages that it would bring with it?
Like a whole new skilled work force to produce airframes and wings for an aircraft that was so fast when it was flown in a demonstration for the RAF 'Big Wigs', the fastest plane they had available to them at the time was a Spitfire, that was unable to catch up/intercept it, then they took it seriously.
'I just opened up the throttles and waved goodbye', I love that!
Thorough review with insightful details, thanks.
The Comet airliner was developed into the Hawker-Siddley Nimrod which only left service with the RAF in 2011. Pretty successful design after all, I'd say.
The Comet airliner suffered from fatigue failure caused by not properly rounding the corners of cutouts for windows and antennas. The corners were too square and this caused a fatigue to rapidly grow starting in the corner. Properly rounded corners will not cause this issue though fatigue will be an issue with aluminum in aircraft, just that the fatigue life will long with good maintenance and inspection.
Meh. The Nimrod was in service for so long because the Brits couldn't afford a replacement. It was in service at all because of "Buy British". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the Nimrod wasn't better than any of its contemporaries, it was just locally produced.
@@Mishn0 Well, I thought it's was the Shackleton that was overdue for retirement and it was Nimrod that had constant trouble with the radar if memory serves, so much so the Boeing AWACS was bought instead. I was all for soldiering on with Nimrod but sometimes things just don't work out, that's life I guess. Look at the Americans with Skybolt.....
@@washingtonradio actually no this is a myth. DH to save money not only did not drill but "punched" out rivet holes, the metal sheets were also not glued together either. the combination of not glued, punched window holes and square windows caused the failures. also the decision to use the same fuselage for all the testing (overpressure tests performed before the cycle tests) meant that fatigue failures never occurred.
@@rob5944 indeed billions were poured on the platform (nimrod AEW3). it was also ugly as hell with that long nose and the radar could not tell the difference between cars and helicopters as well as many other issues. then later the Nimrod MRA4, more billions were spent. they were so bad that major structural defects meant that the new aircraft did not have any other use apart from the chipper after the project cancellation.
Another interesting and well researched episode, thanks.
17:40 I looked up”I thought wood was more bulletproof”. Interesting vid. This vid by the way was the third return in the search results.
Greg, great video, subbed 👍, like how you dig in to the history and articulate facts are facts, have worked in the furniture industry for 35 years and over the past 5 years been running the foundry so I see exactly what they were dealing with back then, even today designers will ask for aluminum, brass, steel or SS and I often times tell them to use wood!
This Is a Must See Episode The Mosquitos Were Awesome Night Fighters 😎😮😀😊 Reminder Set Greg 👍🏼
My favourite WW2 aircraft ! , this video contained some info I didn't already know and would probably never have found out otherwise .Thanks for Your nicely researched show .Stay Safe & Stay Well !.
The generalized term "wooden construction" is woefully inadequate! De Havilland's construction technique was highly innovative. De Havilland came up with the concept of an ultra light weight compressive core encapsulated in highly tensile stressed skin. The "plywood" wasn't just flat pieces cut to size or even steam bent. It was pressure laminated together in it's final shape creating an incredibly strong layering of multiple grain structures. Jeffery De Havilland innovated with balsa wood cores encapsulated in precisely (grain) contoured plywood - Burt Rutan evolved it to a foam core with carbon fiber skin. It's the same concept that surfers use on their boards. A hippy surfer dude showed me how it is done back in the 60's. When I first saw a documentary about the mosquito I thought to myself: flying surf-boards!
In this video, I have a picture of the pressure lamination machine and a description of the process.
Another awesome video!! Thank you, Greg. Fascinating topic and beautifully presented.
People bang on about the spitfire and the Lancaster but the mosquito was a far more important airplane. It managed to do everything and more as an aircraft, nearly every role was taken on by the mosquito and was very successful. The mosquito was THE BEST airplane that flew in WW2. They actually went on quite a few years after the war and served in many conflicts, it’s just a shame it never gets mentioned.
If I had been of age in my father's day, and had my wits about me, I should have decamped to Canada, signed up with the RAF, and did whatever it took to fly Mossies
Great video yet again Greg, appreciated.
Greg, what a great channel fantastic mate. I really like your professional delivery.
Thanks for a really informative unbiased video - these are the facts - just the facts - and no musical distraction - thank you .