Jump to content


Photo

de Havilland Mosquito


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#51 Patrick Fletcher

Patrick Fletcher
  • Member

  • 678 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:32

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


Edited by Patrick Fletcher, 07 August 2012 - 09:54.


Advertisement

#52 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: January 08

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



Many thanks for the links. That unclothed Mossie suddenly looks such a fragile little thing.

#53 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: January 08

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



Many thanks for the links. That unclothed Mossie suddenly looks such a fragile little thing.

#54 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 757 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 August 2012 - 22:38

Teaser video here

#55 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 August 2012 - 07:30

Teaser video here

That looks more like manufacture than restoration to me.

#56 fatbaldbloke

fatbaldbloke
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 August 2012 - 10:00

I'd understood the NZ aircraft to be a recreation, though with old aircraft, especially ones that are significantly wooden, very little of the original would remain on a resto anyway. The Dragon Rapide that's being restored at Coventry only seems to have retained some metal gusset plates, spar mountings and various fittings with all of the wooden framing and fabric covering replaced completely.

Back to the NZ Mossies, there is also talk among the airshow organisers that I've had contact with of it hopefully doing a tour over here next summer. Fingers crossed, such a beautiful and effective machine.

#57 ianselva

ianselva
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 08 August 2012 - 13:36

That looks more like manufacture than restoration to me.

Have you ever seen some of the classic car restorations ?


#58 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 August 2012 - 13:48

That looks more like manufacture than restoration to me.

Have you ever seen some of the classic car restorations ?

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. :lol:

The video shows that fuselage and wings are clearly new build - not necessarily the worse for that but there are airworthiness rules that must be different for restored old aeroplanes and modern recreations of old aeroplanes

Edited by Allan Lupton, 08 August 2012 - 13:50.


#59 PAUL S

PAUL S
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 August 2012 - 15:41

who cares what it is, as long as we see a mossie back in the air thats all that matters :love: . Plenty of lifeless old ones to be found in musuems if that floats your boat.

Advertisement

#60 Alan Cox

Alan Cox
  • Member

  • 7,622 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 08 August 2012 - 15:51

I took this photo at an Avro Woodford show in the 70s; it depicts the last flying Mosquito,

I gather that Kermit Weeks is still hopeful that his Mossie will be flying again, having last flown in 1989.

#61 Patrick Fletcher

Patrick Fletcher
  • Member

  • 678 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:46

I gather that Kermit Weeks is still hopeful that his Mossie will be flying again, having last flown in 1989.

Any dates and where - lots of people travel lots of miles to see a Mosquito fly.
Please keep all informed.
Thanks

#62 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: September 08

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.


I only take a passing interest in these things but his Mosquito flew from the Strathallan Collection in Scotland to his base in the US (departure videos on you-tube) and, as far as I can tell, did not get much (if any) use after that. Any experts know what the situation is?

#63 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 August 2012 - 18:42

That looks more like manufacture than restoration to me.

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!).

#64 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,307 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 09 August 2012 - 20:21

Wonderful project - how big a heart and how much skill does it take to embark on such a task?

DCN

#65 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,130 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 09 August 2012 - 20:54

None of the (non-metallic) structural parts would be much use after approaching 60 years.


Undoubtedly true, but I'd guess that the main problem here would be 60 year old adhesives, almost certainly rather more than the 60 year old wood itself.


#66 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 09 August 2012 - 22:50

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!).

Oh no doubt at all, and nearer 70 than 60 years old one might say.
I'm no structural engineer and if I were it would be with metal not wood, but I can say that some timber retains its quality for a very long time (e.g. in buildings). The main mouldings of the fuselage, which we see them making in the video, are laminated from layers of ply sandwiching a layer of balsa and depend on the adhesive for any integrity. As said, the adhesive won't be reliable by now and more to the point there cannot be an easy way to inspect or test it.
I'm impressed that someone can be bothered to do it and wish them well, and it's just the term "restoration" I'm unhappy with.

#67 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:22

Wonderful project - how big a heart and how much skill does it take to embark on such a task?

DCN

Not enough for some posters. Apparently.

#68 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: September 08

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


Fortunately there are several Mossie projects on the go; I followed Ed Zalesky's long slog in Canada to get his airworthy (until he sold it, after which I lost track of where it went, surely it must be about ready now, if progress continued?). Then there was Tony Agar in Yorkshire, rebuilding his Mosquito in his garage/garden, until it grew too large; I think it is now at Elvington, more or less complete, with engines ready to run.

Good luck to these sort of folks.

#69 Hamish Robson

Hamish Robson
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:12

That must be this one:

http://www.yorkshire...quito-dh98-nfii

I saw it in the museum a couple of years ago (no photos with me sorry) and it looked fairly complete, with the covers off the engines as if in mid service.

#70 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:50

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 Image


#71 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:17

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.

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!


#72 Odseybod

Odseybod
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: January 08

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!


As did the DH88 Comet Grosvenor House (in loco parentis?) and a goodly bunch of ex-Mosquito crew. A memorable Sunday indeed.


#73 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 17:45

As did the DH88 Comet Grosvenor House (in loco parentis?) and a goodly bunch of ex-Mosquito crew. A memorable Sunday indeed.

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."
The DH88 was still kept at Hatfield then so had no trouble getting there, but the Mosquito was too late for the planned display of both aeroplanes together.

and I was there too!

#74 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 18:53

OT: Was the DH88 also built mainly of wood?

#75 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 19:56

It was, but most aircraft were, I think...

#76 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 20:05

OT: Was the DH88 also built mainly of wood?


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.


#77 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,130 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 10 August 2012 - 20:16

OT: Was the DH88 also built mainly of wood?


Yes, but spruce and plywood with fabric covering, not the ply/balsa sandwich construction used in the Mosquito.

#78 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 21:22

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.

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.
As Peter says the DH 100 Vampires and DH112 Venoms still had wooden fuselages (constructed much as the Mosquito) but metal wings, etc.

#79 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,642 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 August 2012 - 22:35

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 egree 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.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 10 August 2012 - 22:37.


Advertisement

#80 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 757 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 August 2012 - 00:01

It was, but most aircraft were, I think...


Pre WW2, I suspect most (virtually all?) aircraft would ( :rolleyes: ) have had at least one significant wooden component, often the mainspar or wing ribs. However steel tube was popular for fuselage construction.

#81 WGD706

WGD706
  • Member

  • 956 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 11 August 2012 - 00:47

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.

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.

The split fuselage scheme allowed many critical systems to be installed before the two halves were bonded together. That reduced the need for workers to crawl around in the fuselage and sped up assembly, though getting the halves to fit was something of a chore for early prototypes. However, work crews claimed that modifying the airframe was not difficult, the only tool required being a saw. Once fitted together, the fuselage was covered with fabric and painted. The fuselage was sawed out to allow fit of the wing, with part of the sawed-out piece replaced after wing installation. Holes for doors were also sawed out of the fuselage.

The glue and wood construction not only led to light weight, elegant lines, and reduced demand for strategic materials, but also minimized demands on production tooling, meaning that subassemblies could be and were built by such firms as furniture and piano manufacturers. The modular design of the machine also helped support distributed production, with various subcontractors providing subassemblies that could be integrated in the factory.

There were potential drawbacks. The casein glues were strong, but there were worries that they weren't up to high temperature, high humidity tropical conditions found in South Asia -- and so Mosquitos sent there might come "unglued". There were in fact some structural failures of Mosquitos in the Far East, but it is possible they were blamed on the glues partially because nobody in charge wanted to suggest to aircrew that they were riding in badly-manufactured machines. In any case, the casein glues were completely replaced by synthetics, and the problem was declared solved.

Except for the flaps, which were made of fabric over wood frames, the framework for the flight control surfaces was made of light alloy, with metal skinning on the ailerons, fabric on the tail surface, and wood on the flaps.

http://www.airvector...t/avmoss_1.html

#82 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:31

Posted Image



#83 David Birchall

David Birchall
  • Member

  • 2,998 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 14:42

How did the Mosquito and the P38 Lightning compare-anybody knowledgable know?

(Dons tin 'at and gets in bunker)

Edited by David Birchall, 11 August 2012 - 14:42.


#84 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 11 August 2012 - 16:54

How did the Mosquito and the P38 Lightning compare-anybody knowledgable know?

(Dons tin 'at and gets in bunker)

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.

#85 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,130 posts
  • Joined: August 05

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


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.


#86 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: September 08

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.


... cough... I thought you would never ask...

Battle of the River Plate thread, anyone?  ;)

wrt DH vs, Lockheed, the Mosquito props rotating in the same direction and could cause something of a swing on fully-laden take-off; the twin-boomer had props going in opposite directions and therefore less affected by sudden changes in revs.
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!

#87 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 11 August 2012 - 22:16

Can'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"

Edited by Allan Lupton, 11 August 2012 - 22:22.


#88 David Birchall

David Birchall
  • Member

  • 2,998 posts
  • Joined: March 03

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.


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?

#89 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,022 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 August 2012 - 00:41

According to a book I have on US WW2 aircraft, the P-38D Lightnings supplied to the RAF did not have turbochargers, presumably because of an export ban, so were grossly underpowered. The Lightning was not asvesatile as the Mosquito and had its drawbacks as a fighter in the European/ North African theatre - it was not as manouverable as the Messerschmitt and its superior performance was limited to high altitudes. But it did have a role as a long-range fighter and was very successful in the Pacific theatre.
A curiosity about the counter-rotating propellors is that the P-82 Twin Mustang prototype use Merlins with counter-rotating propellors but the production aircraft use V-1710s with common rotation.


#90 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 757 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 August 2012 - 02:11

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!

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.

#91 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:01

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?

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.
As I wrote, and Duncan repeated, 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.

#92 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,307 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:43

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

Edited by Doug Nye, 12 August 2012 - 08:52.


#93 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,642 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:48

Can'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"

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.

#94 Patrick Fletcher

Patrick Fletcher
  • Member

  • 678 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:04

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

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.
http://www.pprune.or...tall-tails.html
Good reading

#95 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:43

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.

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.
To reverse an Allison V1710 you need a couple of left-handed camshafts and then either left-handed versions of oil pumps, fuel pumps, coolant pumps, supercharger, magnetos, starter and generator or else different drive gearing for each, arranged to do what the idler in the prop reduction 'box would do better.


#96 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,130 posts
  • Joined: August 05

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.


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.

#97 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,307 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 12 August 2012 - 17:03

Hmm - Nye is a more common name than one might think. And my Surrey/'Ampshire/Sussex branch commoner than most.

DCN

#98 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,019 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 12 August 2012 - 18:09

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.

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!

#99 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,315 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 12 August 2012 - 19:26

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!

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.

Advertisement

#100 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,130 posts
  • Joined: August 05

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.


I'd have thought it was more likely that the RAF were seeking commonality with the Allison engines in the large number of P40s they and the French had on order.