DH Mosquito, daylight bombing offensive?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
SABS wasn't necessary for their precision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_XIV_bomb_sight
It was around since 1939 and continuously improved getting and average similar to the SABS.

Creep back was actually something that really only impacted very large bomber raids, if you're using a few dozen Mossies that's not going to be a feature.

In squadron service the best the Mk XIV got was 195 yards with two special squadrons and 270 yards in widespread service. What's more these 'high' accuracies were not achieved on regular 20-30,000' altitude, high-speed bomb runs but at 10-16,000' at lower speeds which negates the single advantage of the Mozzie; performance.

Assuming a Mozzie bomber force could get closer to the 195 yards like the PFF, Master Bombers and other special squadrons were able to achieve (by special, low and slow bombing techniques that bring it into the engagement envelope of regular defences) it would still not be accurate enough to dispense with large numbers of bomber per raid which introduces more inaccuracies and things like creepback.

I think the loopholes in the technical details, such as the inability to match the Mozzie's peerless performance with the requirements of 'precision' bombing would only allow a modest rebalancing of Bomber Command toward Mozzies with any serious expectation of better results.

BTW, the RAAF is taking forever to restore the one at Point Cook Museum, they're done bugger-all on it for years.

Mosquito.jpg
 
An aluminum Mosquito would not be a "true" Mosquito. It would be an aluminum aircraft that looks like a Mosquito. So the million dollar question is:
1. Would it be feasible to design and build a aluminum Mosquito?
2. American aircraft companies rejected building the wooden Mosquito. Do you think some company would be interested in making the aluminum version?
I just had to ask.
 

Deleted member 1487

An aluminum Mosquito would not be a "true" Mosquito. It would be an aluminum aircraft that looks like a Mosquito. So the million dollar question is:
1. Would it be feasible to design and build a aluminum Mosquito?
2. American aircraft companies rejected building the wooden Mosquito. Do you think some company would be interested in making the aluminum version?
I just had to ask.
American companies probably wouldn't want to license a British design if possible given that they want the full profits from the contract with their own design (though post-war they did license the Canberra).
Likely De Havilland would just license the aluminum version to a British company if they were going to make a metal version. De Havailland specialized in wood airframes, so I'm not sure they'd have the in-house expertise to make an aluminum version. If the Lanc isn't getting full mass production perhaps Avro or another British company could design/tool for the metal Mossie.
 
Likely De Havilland would just license the aluminum version to a British company if they were going to make a metal version. De Havailland specialized in wood airframes, so I'm not sure they'd have the in-house expertise to make an aluminum version.

The DH Flamingo was all metal stressed skin construction, first flown in Dec 1938.
 

Deleted member 1487

The DH Flamingo was all metal stressed skin construction, first flown in Dec 1938.
Sure, their very first and they made only 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Flamingo
The BOAC Flamingoes were not popular, and following three accidents – one of which was fatal – and with a lack of spares, the airline decided to withdraw the type. In 1943 the five airworthy aircraft were shipped back to the United Kingdom. They did not return to service and were scrapped in the early 1950s.
They didn't have the infrastructure to make a whole bunch of metal aircraft in wartime AFAIK; it wasn't as if they couldn't develop that capacity with time, it was a question of developing that capacity quickly in wartime, which would probably be easier through a license to experienced manufacturers of metal aircraft.
 
Sure, their very first and they made only 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Flamingo

They didn't have the infrastructure to make a whole bunch of metal aircraft in wartime AFAIK; it wasn't as if they couldn't develop that capacity with time, it was a question of developing that capacity quickly in wartime, which would probably be easier through a license to experienced manufacturers of metal aircraft.

The Avro Anson was an example of the type of aircraft Avro was producing, with tube and rag fuselage and wooden wings. Would they now be considered an experienced manufacturer of metal aircraft? They certainly became so with less aluminum experience than de Havilland.

BTW, Standard Motors became a shadow factory, produced 500 Mossies, and shifted production to Beaufighters for a year, before switching back to Mossies. Now, that's versatility, and lack of focus.

Also BTW, the Wiki Mossie states that Cabot and Myers performed the second inquiry into tropical Mossie failures in response to Hereward de Havilland's first inquiry, and before the definitive Ministry of Aircraft Production inquiry performed on non-tropical Mossies at Defford which determined that Mossies were not built well, regardless of shrinking wood and cheesy glue, at Hatfield and Leavesdon. The official word was to stick with the glue story, rather than tell pilots yet to fly, that their aircraft may have been an example of shoddy assembly practice. Anyway, years ago, there was a movie called "Chabot Solo", about the man referred to as "Cabot" by wiki. Lovely film, charming man.
 
Remember that stressed-skin aluminum construction was brand-new technology introduced during the 1930s. One reason that rivets were so popular was all the thousands of riveters trained in British shipyards.
That is why British shipyards and tank factories continued riveting hulls together long after American factories welded hulls.
 
Redux bonding was an even newer technology in the '40s, and de Havilland blazed the trail and wrote the book. The Hornet and Dove used it, and the Comet bathed in it, allowing wing skins for integral fuel tanks without rivet holes, and the use of thinner skinning. An unfortunate side effect was when the thin skin was drilled for bolt and rivet holes, a whole new book was required.
 
We saw wooden versions of metal aeroplanes made to circumvent material shortages. Might it be possible to design a metal version of the Mosquito? I am doubtful it could be done in time.

As a small increase change the Horsa production to a metal type to release some extra wood based production for some extra Mosquitos. Aluminium was not a material in short supply in the UK during the war.
An earlier introduction of the Hornet?
With a combined Balsa/ Aluminium Structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet
First flew in April 1944, but did not enter service until 46.

(And incidentally Eric Brown's favourite, he preferred it to the Spitfire, the P-51, and the Sabre; and since he flew more types of aircraft than any man ever we have to listen).
 
Hornet was an excellent fighter, but as a bomber?
BTW - did Eric Brown ever flew the P-51H? The Sabre was a high subsonic fighter, not sure Hornet comes close.
 
What if the Hornet is used as a long range fighter-bomber on Mosquito missions? You could have the Hornet part of a strike package. The Hornets could act as a flak suppressor?
 
Use them as escort? Granted, if we have the Hornet with Merlins of late 1942/43/44, the turn of speed will not be spectacular, but it still be faster than P-38 of the era (and without compressibiity issues, so it can chase down LW fighters that tried to dive away; also better visibility for the pilot), let alone the Fw 190s. Combat radius to well past Berlin from the UK.
 

Deleted member 1487

What if the Hornet is used as a long range fighter-bomber on Mosquito missions? You could have the Hornet part of a strike package. The Hornets could act as a flak suppressor?
As far as I've been able to discern Flak suppression in WW2 was a fool's errand and really did not turn out well on balance, even if they win, which was not likely, risking an expensive airplane for a cheap light AAA and trading a highly skilled and valuable pilot for a medium skilled AAA gun crew was not worth the risk. One pilot in a good I read on the subject of Allied straffing in WW2 described Flak suppression by fighters and fighter-bombers as like 'a man trying to bite a dog'. Remember when the Luftwaffe was effectively a non-entity and suffering very negative loss rates in combat against the Allies in Normandy in 1944 the Allies lost over 4400 aircraft during the campaign. Most of that was from ground fire.
Not only that, but as British Typhoons tried to bounce German jets in extremely well defended airfields, the so-called 'rat scramble' they were getting shot up so bad they gave up. The P-51 was able to pull it off later in the war, but it was often costly.
 
Top