DH Mosquito

[DeepFriar]

Saw a vid today that some may enjoy. It's one of the NZ test pilots discussing the flying characteristics of a recently completed Mosquito restoration. Maybe the only flyable one left? Don't know. Really interesting and presented in typical no nosense NZ/Aussie style. Made me want to watch "633 Squadron" again.


https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lCUk2L7RTnE

 

[Virtus_Probi]

My pop was a big fan of the Hawker Typhoons, he said they helped save his butt when his US 2nd Armored division faced off against the 2nd Panzer at Celles during the Bulge...the German ran low on fuel and then got softened up by the Typhoons' rockets and cannons. It was still a [censored] of a fight to basically wipe out the 2nd Panzer, but dad told me that they expected to lose a tremendous number of men and tanks (maybe to the point of mutual annihilation) and the 2nd Armored was, fortunately, still an effective fighting force after the battle. And, dad survived to begat me later in life...

I thought the Mosquitos tended to fall apart in humid climates due to the wooden construction...probably just my US chauvinism, but I'd take the P38 Lightning "Fork Tailed Devil" instead.

 

[fdcg27]

Another example of a really great aircraft from this relatively small British firm.
Would you have expected less from the company that built the first commercial jet transport to enter service? More than half a decade before the B707 or DC-8 entered service, there were DH Comets flying the line for BOAC.
Yeah, the original design of this jet proved to have fatal flaws resulting in a number of losses in service, but everyone who followed learned from these failures and avoided the design errors DH made.

 

[WobblyElvis]

It could be made by relatively unskilled woodworkers in many parts of the country and shipped to assembly plants cheaply and quickly without using up rare/expensive metals. It performed roles of reconnaissance, night fighter, ground attack, bomber and pathfinder with the lowest loss rate of any aircraft that flew over Berlin. With less than a third of the crew of B17 and only half the engines it delivered about more than half the same bomb load all while remaining almost untouchable. The right aircraft at the right time and place for Britain.

 

[OneEyeJack]

You had to be really committed to fly one in combat. There is one door on the lower right side for both crew members to climb out of if something bad happens. By the time both crew members get out and miss getting hit by the right wing or the propeller you'd probably be dead.

It's too bad that a similar plane the P-38 was cursed with mismatched turbo/superchargers and suffered at high very cold temperatures in the Western European theater. You can always wonder what if would have done had it been equipped with a Packard/Merlin engine like the Mosquito, Spitfire and Mustang.

 

[Surestick]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
You had to be really committed to fly one in combat. There is one door on the lower right side for both crew members to climb out of if something bad happens. By the time both crew members get out and miss getting hit by the right wing or the propeller you'd probably be dead.

It's too bad that a similar plane the P-38 was cursed with mismatched turbo/superchargers and suffered at high very cold temperatures in the Western European theater. You can always wonder what if would have done had it been equipped with a Packard/Merlin engine like the Mosquito, Spitfire and Mustang.


The two planes had very different roles. The Mosquito excelled in the reconnaissance, pathfinder, night-fighter, anti shipping, and precision bombing roles. The P38 was a long range day fighter.

 

[HerrStig]

aj. Richard Bong tore up the Pacific in a P38.

 

[chrly919]

My dad was in Europe in WWII in a photo reconnaissance unit. They used an unarmed P38 to make their photo missions. There's a nice Mosquito at the air museum at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, OH.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Yeah, the original design of this jet proved to have fatal flaws resulting in a number of losses in service, but everyone who followed learned from these failures and avoided the design errors DH made.


The uni that I was at was doing F.E. for the Boeing Cargo doors blowing out...

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Yeah, the original design of this jet proved to have fatal flaws resulting in a number of losses in service, but everyone who followed learned from these failures and avoided the design errors DH made.


The uni that I was at was doing F.E. for the Boeing Cargo doors blowing out...


The difference in those two cases is that the one passenger 747 with a Cargo door blow out made it back to land with a loss of 9 passengers and crew while the several Comets broke up in flight killing everyone on board.

The Comet was first to market. 5 years ahead of the 707. But several fatal crashes, with a loss of everyone on board, due to engineering/manufacturing flaws meant that it would never be a commercial success.

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Yeah, the original design of this jet proved to have fatal flaws resulting in a number of losses in service, but everyone who followed learned from these failures and avoided the design errors DH made.


The uni that I was at was doing F.E. for the Boeing Cargo doors blowing out...


The difference in those two cases is that the one passenger 747 with a Cargo door blow out made it back to land with a loss of 9 passengers and crew while the several Comets broke up in flight killing everyone on board.

The Comet was first to market. 5 years ahead of the 707. But several fatal crashes, with a loss of everyone on board, due to engineering/manufacturing flaws meant that it would never be a commercial success.



Could the cargo door plane in question have been the Turkish crash in '74? That was an MD
DC-10 I think.

 

[Astro14]

The cargo door was UAL 811, a 747-200, in 1989.

Cargo door latch system was faulty. Door ripped out, damaging the wing, and destroying engines 3 and 4.

The crew did a magnificent job of getting the damaged plane back to Honolulu. It wasn't going to stay in the air at maximum weight with two engines out, and damage to the wing and fuselage, but they managed the airplane exceptionally well, and flew it back. They landed with partial flaps, at far higher than maximum landing weight, with a damaged wing, a big hole in the side, and two engines out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

Captain Cronin passed away recently. He was an outstanding pilot. We study his leadership and decision-making to this day.

 

[DeepFriar]

Understood. I wasn't questioning the 747 incident. Just wondering if Shannow had perhaps worked on followup to DC10 TAL Paris crash (also cargo door related) and had transposed the two. I always thought one of the strangest 747 losses was the Japan Air Lines (?) crash following failure of the rear pressure bulkhead that took out most if not all of the tail controls. And there were some survivors IIRC! Incredible.

 

[Shannow]

No, the uni, and those around the world with Finite Element capability were all being utilised to work out what was happening (I thought it was structural failure AROUND the latch/hinge, rather than the mechanism itself - semantics probably)...that was the year ahead of me, they did these presos to us second years with the usual F.E. reds and yellows).

Astro14, yeah, I know the Comet was different, the uni was teaching us about metal fatigue, using the Comet and the pressurised pools that they tested the airframe in at the same time as the Boeing cargo door was being investigated.

Still fatigue, still due to unanticipated cause and effect.

 

[fdcg27]

The DH 106 failures and those of the 747 and DC-10 lower deck loading doors had nothing in common, but you already know this.
The Comet had too little structure to support its very large square cornered windows and nothing to stop the propagation of the inevitable fatigue cracks.
In the case of the DC-10, the ground handlers could easily overcome the design of the lower door latching mechanism and think that they had a securely closed door when they really didn't. This is what caused the Paris blowout and fatal crash.
Not sure about the B747 failures, and there was more than one.
The Comet was doomed as a commercial success anyway. Its buried in the wing engines and lack of sweep resulted in a design that could not take advantage of the rapid development of gas turbines in these years and the fairly straight wing meant that it could never be a very fast aircraft. Combine those factors with the lack of useful load and the aircraft was doomed as a commercial proposition even had it had no structural problems at all. It was Boeing that found that a very flexible swept wing with pylon mounted engine was the correct way to build a large jet aircraft. They discovered this with the B-47 program and every jet transport using wing mounted engines has followed the same design concept ever since.
The B707 and the DC-8 were just a few years away, but the Comet was still the first jet transport used in scheduled service.

 

[Surestick]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The DH 106 failures and those of the 747 and DC-10 lower deck loading doors had nothing in common, but you already know this.
The Comet had too little structure to support its very large square cornered windows and nothing to stop the propagation of the inevitable fatigue cracks.
In the case of the DC-10, the ground handlers could easily overcome the design of the lower door latching mechanism and think that they had a securely closed door when they really didn't. This is what caused the Paris blowout and fatal crash.
Not sure about the B747 failures, and there was more than one.
The Comet was doomed as a commercial success anyway. Its buried in the wing engines and lack of sweep resulted in a design that could not take advantage of the rapid development of gas turbines in these years and the fairly straight wing meant that it could never be a very fast aircraft. Combine those factors with the lack of useful load and the aircraft was doomed as a commercial proposition even had it had no structural problems at all. It was Boeing that found that a very flexible swept wing with pylon mounted engine was the correct way to build a large jet aircraft. They discovered this with the B-47 program and every jet transport using wing mounted engines has followed the same design concept ever since.
The B707 and the DC-8 were just a few years away, but the Comet was still the first jet transport used in scheduled service.


The Comet had swept wings. Are you thinking of the Avro C102 Jetliner?

 

[fdcg27]

Now you've forced me to search up some images of the Comet.
You're right, those wings do have a little sweep to them.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi


I thought the Mosquitos tended to fall apart in humid climates due to the wooden construction...


IIRC the main problem (in the tropics, mostly) was glue failure, because the casein-based glues weren't fully waterproof. Partly fixed by burning the drain holes rather than drilling them as they had initially. Drilled holes had loose exposed wood fibres which soaked up more water and tended to cause the holes to clog up.

Mouse damage (crews eat sandwiches) much reduced by putting cats in the planes on dispersal.

THINK that was in "The New Science of Strong Materials" but I read it about 100 years ago so may be wrong.

 

[cjcride]

From Janes Aircraft Publishing

Mosquito FM.MK XIX Night Fighter
First Flight April 1944
2 Rolls Royce Merlin 25 engines @ 1,635 HP each
Max Speed 378 MPH
Service ceiling 34,500 feet
Range 1,830 miles
Weight gross 21,750 lbs
Armament 4 20mm Hispano Cannons

 

[Ducked]

In later production I think they replaced the casein-based glues with Aerolight urea-formaldehyde ones which had better water resistance. I used that on my boat about 20 years ago.

Good stuff, very safe, economical and convenient to use, but no longer available. Now you have to use more toxic (permanent hypersensitivity is a real possibility), pricy and fussy epoxies.

Progress.