Talk:de Havilland Mosquito/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Invidious Comparison of Mosquito vs "heavies" such as Lancaster

This is in Operational History, near the end of the section on bombers: - Post war, the RAF found that when finally applied to bombing, in terms of useful damage done, the Mosquito had proved 4.95 times cheaper than the Lancaster.[121] No basis is provided for the ridiculously precise statistic of "4.95" and I expect citation no. 121 is hard to find. Furthermore in the exigencies of total war (WWII for e.g.) costs ("cheaper") are by no means the only criterion. And what is "useful damage"? I find the sentence almost offensive to the designer and manufacturers, crews, and men such as Barnes Wallis, who were involved with Lancasters and indeed earlier "heavies."

The simplest solution is just to delete the sentence, and this is what I propose. A sentence or two could be added in its place enlarging a bit on final-years Mosquito losses - data available in Harris - Despatch - already in Bibliography. Harris dismisses in no uncertain terms post-war speculation on whether exclusive use of medium bombers would have been a viable alternative. Maybe some sectors of the press and/or so-called "intelligentsia" were on about this in around 1947. I was mainly reading "Knockout" and "Beano" then!

The statement relies on whatever they mean by "useful damage done". As such, it's pretty meaningless. It sounds like something said by someone with an axe-to-grind against Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you should have looked at the cite. It is actually from a book by Harris.TheLongTone (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You are quite right - I forgot Harris said that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.148 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Maximum speed of fighter version given in performance data at the bottom

Hi. The figure of 366 mph (589 km/h) at 21,400 ft (6,500 m) seems low when compared to the figures earlier in the text. Any comments from people who know the topic?

Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The figure of 366 mph (589 km/h) at 21,400 ft (6,500 m) seems about right for an early Mosquito fighter with single-stage Merlins. It is still faster than a Battle of Britain Spitfire Ia or Messerschmitt Bf 109E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.148 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, a team were intending to enter a Mosquito XIV in the 1969 Daily Mail Trans-Atlantic Air Race but were unable to get the aircraft civilian-certificated at the required weight in time. I suspect it may have been one of the aircraft that appeared in 633 Squadron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Mosquito was also known affectionately as the "Duppy" to its crews" - never heard of it. The Mosquito was almost universally referred to as the 'Mossie' - pronounced Mozzy.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Havilland Mosquito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130105071443/http://www.theaviationindex.com/aircraft-types/de-havilland-mosquito to http://www.theaviationindex.com/aircraft-types/de-havilland-mosquito

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Taking Issue - Achilles Heel, Wood Construction etc.

The fourth para of the Introduction contains the following:- However, the Mosquito's unique construction, whilst conferring the defensive advantage of high speed, was also its "Achilles heel" on close air support or anti-shipping operations. The Mosquito's wooden airframe, fuselage and surfaces made the aircraft more vulnerable to AA and cannon fire than its contemporary, the Bristol Beaufighter. This contributed to the longevity and esteem in which the latter was held...

These statements are not supported by any cite (let alone a good quality, scholarly one). They are unsubstantiated; have no aircraft engineering or scientific basis, and are entirely inappropriate for a good quality, encyclopedic Article. A few brief points:

1. No airframe, irrespective of materials or design principles, can withstand impact from high velocity projectiles. Aircraft are not armour plated as if they were Tiger Tanks! They are designed in other ways to evade enemy fire - still true of RAF Typhoons today.

2. Why should the criticism be singled out for close air support or anti-shipping? Mossies were very successful in extreme low-level pinpoint bombing ops in 1941-2. Did they have a Achilles Heel then?!

3. Who held the Bristol Beaufighter in high esteem? Did they write this down somewhere?

In any case - so what? The Wellington is still rightly held in high esteem. Its geordetic construction made it very rugged, and after enemy damage it had what structural engineers call high resistance to disproportionate collapse - rather like the Mossie, in fact!

So I am giving notice! Anyone who doesn't agree, please don't just blog, but suggest alternative wording, read what is said elsewhere in the Article e.g. under "Development" and "American interest" (protecting vested interest of their "aiplane" industry, actually), maybe directly alter the offending paragraph, with a cite. Otherwise, I shall just delete this section in a few week's time. Happy days! Okan 14:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete away. The claims in question are made-up nonsense. You could put a 20mm cannon shell through a wooden structural member on a Mosquito and it would keep its integrity better than the equivalent thin alloy web on an all-metal aircraft, as noted in any number of books on the subject. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There's film of damaged Mosquitoes being repaired with simple woodworking tools, including the grafting-on of a new outer wing panel to replace a flak-damaged one, at the link in the 'Development' section below. The damaged outer part of the wing is shown being sawn-off with a wood hand-saw of the type you might have in your shed. The replacement panel is then just glued on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file TMA45 de Havilland Comet.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Expanded bomb bay"?

It says a in Variants that "Series 2 bombers also differed from the Series 1 in having a larger bomb bay to increase the payload to four 500 lb (230 kg) bombs, instead of the four 250 pounds (110 kg) bombs of Series 1." I was always under the impression tat this was done ONLY by cropping the tails of the 500lb bombs, not by altering the size of the bomb-bay as well. If they were going to re-engineer the bay, why not just make it a few inches longer and eliminate the need to crop the tails of the 500lb bombs at all? It's not like they were stuck between wing spars or something. A 500lb bomb isn't physically very much longer than a 250lb bomb; the original bay had enough extra room fore and aft of the 250lb bombs that someone looked at it and thought if we cut some of this ridiculously long tail off a 500lb bomb, we could fit 4 of THOSE instead of these 250lbers. If they really did enlarge the bay as well, I certainly haven't heard about it, other than the later bulging to fit the cookies. Since this sentence doesn't appear to have a specific citation, I'm going to tentatively remove it, just that one sentence, leaving the following, cited sentence about cropping the bomb tails. The text is exactly as I quoted above, in the Bombers pararaph of variants.

70.109.163.78 (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The 500lb bomb was fatter than the 250lb one so it is possible they altered the height of the bomb bay roof or hanging arrangements, e.g., the shackles used, to simply deepen the bomb bay by a few inches rather than extend the length of the bay, which would have been a more involved engineering job. Shortening the tail of the bomb could be done simply by introducing a new shorter type of tail assembly (the No. 28 Mk I) for the 500lb bomb - the tail assemblies were only fitted to the bombs (along with the fuzes) by the armourers shortly before delivery to the aircraft.

The depth of the bomb bay was ultimately limited by the wing centre section which is why for the 4,000lb 'Cookie' the bomb bay had to be bulged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with IP.70 all that they did not modify the aircraft just put a shorter tail on the 500lb bombs so it would fit. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. Maximum bomb load BTW for the Mk XVI and B.35 was 5,000lb, one 4,000lb HC internally, and one 500lb MC on each wing, although the wing racks were usually used for the drop tanks, either 2 x 50 Imp gal, or 2 x 100 Imp gal each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Development

So the Mossie was developed in a total vacuum, and was not at all related to or inspired by similar concepts like the schnellbomber, and other small, fast, light bombers that appeared in the 1930s? Funny, I'd have said the Mosquito was right up the same alley as the original Do 17, which was totally unarmed and meant to be faster than the enemy fighters. Surely the British aviation engineers read Aviation Weekly or Flight magazine, and would have at least been aware of these attempts? Even if it wasn't directly inspired by, surely it is significant that this category existed and the Mossie belonged to it? The topic is clearly related to the topic of schnellbomber, and it ought to be mentioned in te development section, and linked. It even mentions the Mossie in the schnellbomber article, altou it could be a much improved article.

70.109.163.78 (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

German advanced military aircraft development pre-war was carried out in secret, the Versailles Treaty forbidding the Luftwaffe from having much of an offensive capability, (although the Treaty did allow the production of 'defensive' aircraft such as fighters, etc.) therefore the first knowledge of aircraft such as the Do 17 and He 111 being used as bombers was in 1936 when they were used in the Spanish Civil War, both types having previously been touted by the Nazi leadership as 'airliners'. Previously the Luftwaffe had confined its 'bomber' types used to the Ju 86 and the Ju 52. The Ju 88 was first used in Poland in 1939 IIRC. Because of this secrecy much of German pre-war aviation history and aircraft particulars was only learnt about in the UK after the German surrender in 1945.

The main influence of the development of the Mosquito was de Havilland's own previous Airco DH.4 which had also been faster than the opposing fighters, and the later Comet racer and the Albatross airliner both of which had excellent performance on relatively low power, the latter's wood monocoque construction and low-drag engine installations leading DH to consider a light, fast bomber built around two of the 1,000hp Merlins using similar techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The original design ideas were based on a smaller Albatross with Merlin engines. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. There's an official de Havilland film on the Mosquito here: [1], BTW, the officer giving the briefing at 25:38 and later leading the attack is John Wooldridge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The secrecy surrounding Nazi Germany's pre-war build up of armaments, and specifically, the Luftwaffe, was the reason for Sidney Cotton's clandestine reconnaissance flights just before the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Glue used

The original adhesive used on the Mosquito was "Beetle Cement" made by The British Cyanides Co., and was in fact the German adhesive "Kaurit" made under a UK licence. [2]

While good, Kaurit, a resin-based, not a casein based, glue, had a tendency to deteriorate over time and in high temperatures and humidity, which is why it was replaced in the Mosquito with Aerolite, and as a result of this, most British wooden aircraft built prior to Aerolite had airworthiness issues in the tropics leading to some pre-war aircraft built by the likes of Miles and Percival being denied airworthiness certificates in these areas post WW II as it was impossible to test or gauge the structural integrity of the many glued joints. Several German glider types built post-war also suffered from this problem. [3] and [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.130 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you propose to improve the article with this information? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tsetse fly - Rounds Carried

Changing between 21 & 25

On the Ordnance QF page, the rounds carried is referenced at 21 yet this article states 25 & I really can't be arsed arguing the toss when I'm only trying to be consistent, change both BAM but let's not leave it different, you can check Williams quite easilyTHE 6 PDR 7 CWT AND THE MOLINS GUN If there is a statement that it's 25 than prove that fact & back it up Steve Bowen (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No need, the fact is sourced to page 165 of this book: Bowman, Martin. de Havilland Mosquito (Crowood Aviation series). Ramsbury, Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK: The Crowood Press, 2005. ISBN 1-86126-736-3

Under the principle of assuming good faith we assume that the source supports this figure. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

23 rounds carried according to Williams and Gustin's Flying Guns: World War I (2003) p. 202, but Sharp and Bowyer's Mosquito (1995) p. 433 says 25 rounds. So reliable sources differ.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Can, Worms, Everywhere

Steve Bowen (talk) 15

55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that the Williams web source actually says 23 (21 + 2) rounds. Perhaps we just reflect in the article that sources disagree.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

At a rough guess the difference might be due to whether one counts the rounds in the feed chute or not, e..g., 23 rounds in the magazine plus two in the feed chute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.25 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for fun, Graham M. Simons (who actually interviewed Desmond Molins on the subject) says in Mosquito: The First Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (Pen & Sword, 2015) that the prototype FB XVIII 'fired off all 22 rounds in the magazine' during its first gunnery trial at the butts. Bowman 1997 says, p.69, that 'the gun was fed armour-plated HE 6-lb shells, capped with tracer, from an arc-shaped magazine that could hold 24 rounds.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

G-AGKR

If I read article right this aeroplane disappeared in 1944 but was on a bomb run in 1945? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1806:A000:4983:6D7B:F057:F36D (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Good spot, the paragraph was added here by an IP editor showing only two edits and the second was apparently by a non-native English speaker. It was an odd edit, the date and casualties refer to Operation Carthage which was carried out by RAF aircraft. The section header 'Civilian accidents and incidents' is not meant for listing civilian casualties of raids so there has been a misunderstanding there. I've removed the paragraph entirely, the citation used would most likely not cover this event (it was the same citation used for the disappearance of G-AKDR). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

To be completely accurate whatever Mosquito was involved in the incident did not bomb the school but crashed into it after hitting a lamp post, the following aircraft thought the smoke and flames was the target and dropped their bombs on it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Soviet Union (1936–1955).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)