http://www.pprune.or...b-26-ka114.html
http://rnzaf.proboar...d...6707&page=1
Edited by Patrick Fletcher, 07 August 2012 - 09:54.
Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:32
Edited by Patrick Fletcher, 07 August 2012 - 09:54.
Advertisement
Posted 07 August 2012 - 14:10
If you are around the Ardmore area in Auckland NZ on 29th September then listen out for a great sound in the air.....
http://www.pprune.or...b-26-ka114.html
http://rnzaf.proboar...d...6707&page=1
Posted 07 August 2012 - 14:11
If you are around the Ardmore area in Auckland NZ on 29th September then listen out for a great sound in the air.....
http://www.pprune.or...b-26-ka114.html
http://rnzaf.proboar...d...6707&page=1
Posted 08 August 2012 - 10:00
Posted 08 August 2012 - 13:36
Have you ever seen some of the classic car restorations ?That looks more like manufacture than restoration to me.
Posted 08 August 2012 - 13:48
That looks more like manufacture than restoration to me.
Ah, like the Lancia D50 someone hoped to make that was based on having a foot of tread from a Dunlop racing tyre and a gallon of Monte Carlo seawater.Have you ever seen some of the classic car restorations ?
Edited by Allan Lupton, 08 August 2012 - 13:50.
Posted 08 August 2012 - 15:41
Advertisement
Posted 08 August 2012 - 15:51
I gather that Kermit Weeks is still hopeful that his Mossie will be flying again, having last flown in 1989.I took this photo at an Avro Woodford show in the 70s; it depicts the last flying Mosquito,
Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:46
Any dates and where - lots of people travel lots of miles to see a Mosquito fly.I gather that Kermit Weeks is still hopeful that his Mossie will be flying again, having last flown in 1989.
Posted 09 August 2012 - 18:38
I gather that Kermit Weeks is still hopeful that his Mossie will be flying again, having last flown in 1989.
Posted 09 August 2012 - 18:42
I think you are correct, however, in order to get a CoA there is much that needs to be done to an air-frame made of plywood, balsa wood, tissue and dope! None of the (non-metallic) structural parts would be much use after approaching 60 years, I'm guessing (Mech. Eng. not Aero Eng speaking here!).That looks more like manufacture than restoration to me.
Posted 09 August 2012 - 20:21
Posted 09 August 2012 - 20:54
None of the (non-metallic) structural parts would be much use after approaching 60 years.
Posted 09 August 2012 - 22:50
Oh no doubt at all, and nearer 70 than 60 years old one might say.I think you are correct, however, in order to get a CoA there is much that needs to be done to an air-frame made of plywood, balsa wood, tissue and dope! None of the (non-metallic) structural parts would be much use after approaching 60 years, I'm guessing (Mech. Eng. not Aero Eng speaking here!).
Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:22
Not enough for some posters. Apparently.Wonderful project - how big a heart and how much skill does it take to embark on such a task?
DCN
Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:43
Wonderful project - how big a heart and how much skill does it take to embark on such a task?
DCN
Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:12
Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:17
Yes it was supposed to have been at Hatfield for the 50th anniversary symposium the day before but was unable to join us because the weather was too foul. John Sadler had a rather interesting time getting to Salisbury Hall on the Sunday, but he did make it. Written up in our book of the symposium!Another little reminder of the late-lamented in its proper element - this was at the 50th birthday party at Salisbury Hall in November 1990, hence the rather leaden skies.
Posted 10 August 2012 - 14:35
Yes it was supposed to have been at Hatfield for the 50th anniversary symposium the day before but was unable to join us because the weather was too foul. John Sadler had a rather interesting time getting to Salisbury Hall on the Sunday, but he did make it. Written up in our book of the symposium!
Posted 10 August 2012 - 17:45
John Sadler wrote that "only on the second run did I notice the enclosure full of white-haired veterans looking for all the world like a field of daisies."As did the DH88 Comet Grosvenor House (in loco parentis?) and a goodly bunch of ex-Mosquito crew. A memorable Sunday indeed.
Posted 10 August 2012 - 18:53
Posted 10 August 2012 - 19:56
Posted 10 August 2012 - 20:05
OT: Was the DH88 also built mainly of wood?
Posted 10 August 2012 - 20:16
OT: Was the DH88 also built mainly of wood?
Posted 10 August 2012 - 21:22
Our first all-metal aeroplane was the 1938 DH75 Flamingo, a 12-18 passenger high-wing twin-engined airliner and the next was the slightly smaller postwar DH104 Dove. The Flamingo was overtaken by war but the Dove was reasonably successful.Yes! And some of their jet-age aircraft had many timber parts too... it has been argued that DH lost the plot when they moved to all-metal aircraft.
Posted 10 August 2012 - 22:35
Edited by Lee Nicolle, 10 August 2012 - 22:37.
Advertisement
Posted 11 August 2012 - 00:01
It was, but most aircraft were, I think...
Posted 11 August 2012 - 00:47
The Mosquito's fuselage, like that of the Albatross, was made of a sandwich of balsa between exterior layers of plywood about two millimeters thick, wrapped around seven bulkheads built as a sandwich of spruce blocks between plywood layers. Spruce was used in the fuselage where greater strength was needed, for example around doors or in the wing roots. The fuselage was built in halves, split lengthwise vertically, with the halves formed around male molds and the assembly held together by steel straps while the glue dried.I wonder what the expected service life of a Mosquito was? Obviuosly they were built cheaply so really in effect it was not very long. A bit like cheap cars.
A wooden composite aeroplane while good engineering at the time would be unviable really to make fly again at 60+ years old. Even when new timber varies greatly with grain etc they must have been over engineered to compensate. An when they were built, at the rate they were built I bet some some average quality wood got into some to keep the lines moving.
To a degree that is why there is not many wooden boats made anymore either, plus the premium woods desireable to build them are either too expensive or near unobtainable.
Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:31
Posted 11 August 2012 - 14:42
Edited by David Birchall, 11 August 2012 - 14:42.
Posted 11 August 2012 - 16:54
Like apples and onions, if I can draw a parallel, since they were designed for very different roles.How did the Mosquito and the P38 Lightning compare-anybody knowledgable know?
(Dons tin 'at and gets in bunker)
Posted 11 August 2012 - 19:34
The Mosquito's fuselage, like that of the Albatross, was made of a sandwich of balsa between exterior layers of plywood about two millimeters thick
Posted 11 August 2012 - 20:42
I've been wondering about the availability of balsa in wartime, a 'non-strategic' material certainly, but back then the only source of the stuff in commercial quantities was Ecuador, which meant convoys across the U-Boat infested Atlantic. These days some of the stuff in varying qualities comes from from plantations in Australia, Malaysia and Mexico, but Ecuador produces the best stuff, and back then that country was the only practical source. It must have been quite difficult to keep De Havilland adequately supplied.
Posted 11 August 2012 - 22:16
Edited by Allan Lupton, 11 August 2012 - 22:22.
Posted 12 August 2012 - 00:08
Like apples and onions, if I can draw a parallel, since they were designed for very different roles.
Let me remind you the Mosquito was designed to be a high speed unarmed bomber and the P38 (as its "P" designator shows) was a (single seat) fighter from the beginning.
If you mean the Lightning rather than the P38 let me remind you that the Lightning was the RAF's name for the Lockheed 322-61 (more or less a P38D) which had no turbo-supercharging unlike the "real" P38, so it was inferior to its US equivalent.
Posted 12 August 2012 - 00:41
Posted 12 August 2012 - 02:11
Likewise, I worked with a bloke who (IIRC aged 18) navigated Mosquitos, baled out over Germany and spent some time as guest therein. Sadly, he was one of those who, for whatever reason, took too much comfort from a bottle, and therefore was more productive before lunch than after, but who was always treated with respect and tenderness in the workplace.All of this comes from a bloke who worked for me years ago; really quiet chap, just got on and did his stuff #+ a bit more#, turned out that he flew Mosquitoes #sp?# to Berlin and back twice a day when he was 19!
Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:01
As I wrote, David, the Mosquito was designed as a bomber - the fact that another role was identified quite early doesn't affect that. Moreover it was as a two-seater night fighter which wasn't the same as a single-seat fighter that the P38 was.Not to be picky Allan but it isn't that simple is it? The very first order for Mosquito fighters was in July 1940-before the prototype had even flown so there was not that much difference in anticipated use. I am not sure that the Americans didn't adopt the English name "Lightning" for all types but that is a red herring anyway. I know the RAF was not that happy with the P38 but the Americans were--horses for courses?
Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:43
Edited by Doug Nye, 12 August 2012 - 08:52.
Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:48
Depends on the complexity of the engine. Some engines are simple to make run backwards, really only cam and starters etc. Plus a dissy.And a fixed magneto really doesnt care which way it goesCan't help with balsa supply except to say it can't have been seen as a problem or it wouldn't have been used in the design.
Yes the P38 had handed props and the Mosquito didn't however . . .
For some reason unknown to me the Allison company produced a version of the V1710 that ran the other way rather than doing what anyone else would do and adding an idler to the reduction gearbox. Royces did that for the DH Hornet in due course.
Just thinking of the complexity of redesigning an engine like that to run backwards is bad enough and then one can't help thinking how much handed duplication there would have to be in the spares inventory to cope. Not very clever when you're at war.
We heard about Berlin and back twice in a night from Sir Ivor Broom who made it clear that the aeroplane did that but with different crews. He just reckoned the slogan was "Berlin and back before the bar closes"
Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:04
This link does not mention Mosquito's but contains a little reminder of Ron Flockhart and an interesting mention of a family from Kent in post #9.For a different slant on the Mosquito's versatility I would recommend a look at this - http://www.pprune.or...mosquitoes.html - covering the ball-bearing/passenger-on-oxygen-in-bomb bay BOAC flights from Scotland to Sweden and back. The best of British - lateral-thinking, brave...and sneaky...
I am also reminded of Australian cricket great Keith Miller - a wartime Mosquito pilot - being asked how he handled the pressure of a finely-balanced, vital, Test match; "Pressure?", he replied; "Nah, that's not pressure. Pressure is when you've got a Messerschmitt on your arse..."
Something lacking from so many sports these days - a proper sense of perspective.
DCN
Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:43
Continuing this OT diversion, the level of integrity you want in aviation, even in military aviation in wartime, is much greater than you'd need in those boats and cars.Depends on the complexity of the engine. Some engines are simple to make run backwards, really only cam and starters etc. Plus a dissy.And a fixed magneto really doesnt care which way it goes
Though with a geared prop possibly simpler to run one prop the other way.
Offshore power boats often run tne engines both ways, generally Chevs. Sprintcars were doing it for a while too, makes them drive off the inside tyres harder.
Posted 12 August 2012 - 13:08
...the RAF Lightnings had no turbo-supercharging so were just less satisfactory and therefore the RAF had a machine that was simply inferior to those the USAAF were happy with.
Posted 12 August 2012 - 17:03
Posted 12 August 2012 - 18:09
Rob, part of that is an interestingly different tale from what one might call "received wisdom".For reasons best known to themselves, before any production or even pre-production USAF aircraft flew, the RAF ordered 667 of them, but requested removal of the turbochargers and the counter-rotating handed propellers & Allison engines. Lockheed warned the RAF that the resulting planes would be hopeless, and that's what they proved to be. The RAF rejected these planes, and they only saw service eventually back in the US, employed to train USAF pilots. I don't think any of these emasculated planes ever saw active service, so our only minor contribution to them was the name Lightning.
Posted 12 August 2012 - 19:26
I understood the latter part, i.e. the US government did not want the supercharger technology supplied to Britain, another example of this embargo was the Bell Airacobra being supplied without blower to the RAF.Rob, part of that is an interestingly different tale from what one might call "received wisdom".
Other sources tell that the GEC turbo-supercharger was not fitted either because of supply problems or because the US government did not want them exported to Europe at that stage of the war even under Lend-Lease (either was not the RAF's doing). Declining the use of the widdershins engine makes good sense from a service support standpoint so I'd like to think the RAF got that right!
Advertisement
Posted 12 August 2012 - 19:31
I understood the latter part, i.e. the US government did not want the supercharger technology supplied to Britain, another example of this embargo was the Bell Airacobra being supplied without blower to the RAF.