Jump to content

Talk:de Havilland Mosquito

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.172.235 (talk) at 15:12, 25 November 2018 (→"Expanded bomb bay"?: Minor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:


Bomber - low radar signal of Mossie

Ref. 90 is about the "Blackbird" or a similar modern, proper stealth bomber. I propose deleting this ref. Subject has been dealt with in a note right at the start of this Article. Okan 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read the cited book, have you? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, just looked at the cover page - do you have a copy? But it is clearly not prinicipally about the Mosquito. Frankly, I don't attach a lot of significance to this idea, for several reasons. (looking over what I've written, there have become six reasons!):

1. If it did have a low radar signal it was fortuitous, not planned - not included in G. deH.'s reasons for preferring timber. (Might as well say his 1916 DH4 fast bomber had a low radio detection shadow too!) 2. Our aircrews were pretty unaware of what the Germans were doing in the field of radar detection until well into the war - read A.V. Jones about this, and even "Bomber" Harris' Despatch - more often we were giving ourselves away inadvertently e.g. by leaving IFF switched on, and in other similar ways. 3. The mossie was so fast - Berlin and back twice in a day, so enemy was more often than not alerted by other means e.g. gunners and observers near the coasts of Europe - certainly the case in the first year of daylight low level ops. 4. It would have a radar shadow anyway, from the engines for example. 5. In a big raid, during the time of the pathfinder and protection ops., the relatively small numbers of Mossies would not be distinct in the general fuzz and flutter of radio patterns. 6. No author whom I regard as authoritative makes much or anything at all about it - except perhaps Galland, whom we credit with bringing it up by means of referring to him in the existing note right near the start of the Article.

In addition to all of the above, it is in an inappropriate place at present, just at the end of a section discussing wing design and construction.

I hope you didn't write it and that I am not offending you? I wouldn't mind moving it or merging it with the Galland note if you prefer?

Regards. Okan 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book is by Bill Sweetman. Who knows just a thing or two about aircraft, and particularly stealth and other "black" aspects. This book isn't about Mosquitoes, it's about stealth, and it's only a passing mention. But also, in this article, it's only a passing mention too. It's an entirely adequate reference to support the vague hand-wave that's here. If anything, this needs to be expanded and covered in reasonable detail.
1. Yes it was fortuitous, not planned. If it had been deliberate, the design might have been different. After all, plenty of the Mosquito is still metal, the control surfaces, the fuel tanks, most of the engine mounts, a lot of the tail, and most of all, the propeller blades. Mind, WWI aircraft aren't invisible - those flying wires make very effective reflectors.
2. R V Jones is not a reliable source on almost anything. He is fairly good on the things he had first-hand knowledge of, less so on the others. He's not good (at least very partial) on some aspects, such as much radar, particularly British and Japanese (just compare to Louis Brown's Radar History of WWII). Even in the early '80s, Jones' history of Colossus and Ultra was showing the cracks (as a young sprog electronic engineer I worked at Horwood and Bletchley).
4. The radar cross section of the engines is quite small, as they're small, inside the nacelles and overshadowed (by far) by the propellers. The propellers also have their rotating signature as a dead giveaway - something that the Germans exploited far more than others. Although not relevant in hindsight, this propeller signature and its ease of demodulation (as an older electronics engineer I was at the Philips site in Nuremburg) was a key part of German anti-aircraft missile control and particularly their fuzing.
5. The first Pathfinders were ahead of the swarm and were tracked as such. Once they realised their importance, they were intercepted specifically, even at the cost of missing the main stream. After this, they stopped leaving with the main force and were delayed, so that they'd cross the coast simultaneously and use their greater speed to pass through.
6. Every writer and their dog claims that the Mosquito and the Vulcan were "stealthy" before this was recognised. Neither are true (the Vulcan has both an enormous vertical tail, and a brick wall of a vertical reflector at the rear of the radome and the pressure hull - I have an inverted Vulcan schnozz as a summerhouse). Yet this story won't die, and ought to be discussed. Sweetman's coverage is about right.
I'm fine with reworking and clarifying this, but we ought to go forwards, not throw it away. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, Thanks for your quick and courteous reply. I'm glad you are happy with re-working and perhaps moving this topic. We are going to friends Golden Wedding lunch soon. Will get back to you with constructive suggestions later. Regards. Okan 10:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy - despite my previous Talk item about Design - Overview, to which nobody has responded, at present, Design - Overview seems the best place to move the sentence on low radar response and its ref currently in Wing (design) and also to move the nb1 at present second sentence of entire Article (completely inappropriate there, especially in view of low significance of the whole "stealth" thing - about which you and I seem to agree). I would place this change/addition right at the end of the section. What do you think about this rearrangement suggestion? Thanks for your last reply, it helps to know about your radar and electronics expertise. Mine is in structural timber, funnily enogh! B.W. Okan 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mosquito's low radar reflectivity is mentioned in the Luftwaffe's Official History, i.e., the one commissioned by the then-West German Government, there was a link to it on one of the talk pages somewhere, perhaps now archived.
At the time the Mosquito was being designed it is almost certain that very few at de Havillands had any idea of the existence of what later became known as 'radar. So any such low reflectivity of the Mosquito was simply fortuitous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we need to move forward, as you said. - It might fit reasonably sensibly under "Prototypes and Test Flights", after the last present para that starts: "During flight testing, the Mosquito prototypes were modified to test a number of experimental configurations." I shall use the phrase "presented a low radar profile" and definitely avoid the word "stealth"! I will move the sentence presently at the end of the Design - Wing Section (goodness knows how it got there?). I shall retain but move the Galland note but possibly modify it slightly. I will add another sentence containing the word "fortuitous." I don't want to amend anything, anywhere in the entire Article, that cannot be substantiated with a Reference (what our US friends cal a Citation). Okan 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The German official history I mentioned above is here: [1] The Mosquito's 'weak radar echo' is mentioned on Page 166 (see below).

"A special concern for Goring, one that, with an eye to the impression created on the public, was also a domestic policy issue, was the daylight incursions by the RAF's Mosquitoes: flying high and fast, they were at first beyond the reach of German fighters, and being made of wood gave only a weak radar echo."

Just read this in Wikipedia Article "H2S (radar)" - justifies a little further my earlier skepticism (shared by Andy). Anyway, the whole issue is done now. Just thought you might like to know! : - Quote : - The first experimental system flew on 27 May with a Mosquito providing a target. The Mosquito clearly appeared on the display, and photographs of the display caused much excitement.[32] 32 = Lovell 1991 p. 208

H2S was a centimetric radar. The Germans had no such equipment until the Berlin Gerat of late 1944.
The German radar most relevant would have been the metric-wavelength Wurzburg and Freya early warning radars, and it is likely these the quote above is referring to.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The original design ideas were based on a smaller Albatross with Merlin engines. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know that. There's an official de Havilland film on the Mosquito here: [2], 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:De_Havilland_Mosquito&oldid=870547947"