Mosquito dataplate & constructor numbers

Bump!

Is there an online (or offline) reference for Mosquito constructor’s numbers? I’m particularly curious about DZ542 and TE881.

Thanks to Winston Brent (African Aviation Series of books – Freeworld Publications) for another Vampire c/n plate, from SAAF FB.5 208 at SAAF Museum, Ysterplaat.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]256210[/ATTACH]

Great pic – NERO DH 600, ‘nero for black’, I wonder what the legalities of selling Vampires to the Rhodesians was and whether this was a ‘Black project’ !

Rhodesian Vampire FB.9 R1382

From said Vampire:

Fascinating stuff, I’ve always liked plates. The standard mod plates were certainly used right up to and including Hawk.

Parts or Assemblies with Serials

Usually parts or assemblies have serial numbers because they are removable or have some other reason for needing independent traceability. Control surfaces, undercarriage legs and engines are all good examples. They can have maintenance, mods or repair work done on them away from the aircraft. Like the airframe itself, the hours on them need to be tracked. I may be saying some obvious stuff, but this needs to be said considering some of the discussion points in this thread. The aircraft log tracks these removable parts – sometimes a part with a different serial is installed in lieu of what was removed. Not all such serialised parts are removed as easily as a rudder or main junction box. On the Vampire, the main wing attachment fittings, joints A & B, are serialised because they are fatigue critical and don’t have the same life as other parts of the aircraft. They are held in with a lot of ‘permanent’ bolts.
Things like the control surfaces, undercarriage legs, and engines have plates with engraved or stamped serials. These markings are not easily obliterated. The main wing attachment fittings do not have room for plates. The part numbers and serial numbers are stamped or engraved directly in them. This practice was maintained throughout the Australian Vampire programme – into the sixties. A fatigue critical part; but if the design team can pick the right location, it wont affect the part’s life. My point being that it is not necessarily a problem at all for such an aggressive part marking method. Acid etching did not become any more dominant than any other method, and the method chosen was determined by a number of factors. Single-seat Vampire side instrument panels, which are made from Tufnol, carry both stamped part numbers and ink marking. The Mosquito panel (bulkhead or floor?) in post 48, if my interpretation is correct, is a fixed fuselage part (glued & screwed) and any modifications, servicing, or repair work would most likely be done in-situ. If the part mark was obliterated, nothing would be lost as long as the airframe is still there; there would be no doubt what the part was and everything would be in order as long as the quality system prevailed when the part was first made and glued and screwed in place.
On Mosquitos and Vampires the simplest of parts just had single digit batch numbers for manufacturing traceability. Some more complex parts that I have seen, which may have been sourced externally had two numerics followed by two alphas followed by four or five numerics.

Nicko,
Thank you for the great info on Vampires and pictures of dataplates.
I concur that the DHP stamp is not linked in any way to the UK – a owe it to the scholarship of the late John Hopton in Australia who corrected me that it in fact stood for De Havilland Proprietary, the term ‘Proprietary’ describing a term for an Australian business entity more familiar to the world in the example of the mining company BHP – Broken Hill Proprietary.
Hopton also had pictures of Mosquito production at Bankstown which showed, in numerous example, the painted code MNXXX (Machine Number XXX) painted on the fuselage under the canopy. The painted MN number could then be matched to the painted RAAF serial on the same fuselage within the series of photos, supporting a list generated by Hopton matching MNs to RAAF IDs. Hopton had the advantage of speaking with folk who were there in the day.

I have been to HARS and their Archives are both magnificent and accessible, with volunteers only too keen to help.

After all this time I would posit that the Vampire dataplate was a postwar DH/DHP practice, and the Mosquito had no singular dataplate carrying a constructor or service identity.
So no dataplate new build Mosquitos ! You have to start with something else, like Guy Gibson’s instrument panel clock, with attestations from the ebay seller !

Why no constructor’s plates?

If it is correct that the Mosquitos did not have constructor’s plates, then I suggest it was because these aircraft were only expected to have one owner. One reason for having the plates is to maintain the aircrafts identity through different owners or change in registration or air force serial numbers. DH civilian pre-war types had these plates, and the Vampires resumed this practice, perhaps because of the wide export market for the latter.
Constructor’s numbers in plate form (in theory) survive through aircraft damage, repaint, and major re-builds. One major difference between the Mosquito and the Vampire is that you can’t unbolt the entire backend from a Mosquito by unbolting it, as you can on the Vampire. The heart of the Mosquito with it’s c/n (even if in name only) remains attached to the part that carried the air force serial.
Noting your post #5, P&P, the c/n number matches the series:
Mosquito – 3xxx
Vampire – 4xxx
Drover – 5xxx

My gut feeling is that we may eventually discover that Mosquitos did carry c/n plates. I don’t think that my above suggestion is really a good one. Maybe someone can come up with a better reason. I tried to come up with others, but most of them don’t hold much water.

Constructor’s numbers

The Australian-built Vampire’s had dedicated constructor’s plates. Below is the one from Mk.31 A79-308. The plate is on display at the Air Force Association museum at Bullcreek in Western Australia. The aircraft ended its days, as far as I remember, at an ATC in Fremantle. I’m not sure of the location for the single-seaters, but the trainers had theirs fitted to the RHS canopy sill – just below the aluminium capping. I remember seeing that the trainer plate of course reads ‘DH 115’ rather than ‘DH 100’, and I think the plate is generally of different arrangement.
One place, P&P, that you may be able to find references to c/ns for Bankstown-built Mosquitos is in the DHA monthly reports to the DAP. I have copies covering the entire period where Vampires are mentioned up until when monthly reports ceased being prepared. This batch only covers the last 2 or 3 Mosquitos built and does not mention c/ns. Vampire c/ns are often mentioned over the 4 year period, usually when an aircraft is assigned as a prototype for mods, as an incorporation point for production mods, or if an aircraft had an accident. The full set of monthly reports is in the DHA/Hawker de Havilland archive at HARS.

Engine Data Plate

Here is the engine data plate that would have been fitted in Australian built trainers, the T.35s and T.35As.

DHP Inspection stamp

Hi all.
I saw this thread for the first time only about 5 days ago and have taken I bit of time to digest it and round up some associated info.
Coming in at this late stage, I apologise for upsetting one of the older conclusions.
There is a problem with the view that DHP is de Havilland Portsmouth.
Most of the DH-drawn parts in the Australian built Vampires – both the single-seaters and the trainers – were actually made at Bankstown. This includes detail sheet metal parts, castings and assemblies. The only major departure was the first 7 (if I remember rightly) T.33 fuselages, which were imported. Looking at the history of the company through letters, reports to the DAP, publicity, delivery of plant, etc, there is all the evidence that the Bankstown facility was built up with this capability for the Vampire project. The capability was of course used on the Drover as well. Also, many of the parts for the single-seater were unique to the Australian build as it was powered by the Nene. (Some Nene-related parts did actually have the same p/ns as the French-built aircraft, but that is another long story). Anyway, back to DHP: Australian-built Vampire parts have DHP inspection stamps. The final wing assemblies, which without doubt were built in Bankstown, have DHP stamps. Pictures attached of the RH wing of A79-733 are a good example – picture of mod plate included for good measure.
There are a number of possible explanations:
Portsmouth held a register of issue of inspection stamp numbers or supply of stamps;
Portsmouth Inspectors were located in Bankstown – I think this is unlikely as the programme ran for more than a decade, and the Inspector(s) would just have taken up local residence;
DHP does not always mean DH Portsmouth – the number on the stamp is quite large and I doubt there were that many inspectors at Portsmouth over a period 10 years – and maybe P means ‘production’.
The VMS number (Vampire Main Starboard) and partnumber – this is the top-level wing part-number and is the same wing that was installed when the aircraft was first delivered – refer to snippet of delivery list.
VMP (Vampire Main Right) and part-number – lower level assembly – this I believe is the main structural assembly of the wing before equipping.

Another dataplate

Another example of Mosquito ‘data plate’, markings on armour panel underneath Navigator’s sitting position, ie – protecting navigator’s calves and where flare cartridge holder is on some variants. Again, this information would rapidly be lost in an aircraft left out in the elements.

Wing tip ID

Here is a Mosquito wingtip which has an individual alpha numeric part number ink stamped on the inboard rib. It is self evident that this ID would disappear as the timber decayed away. In discussing Mosquito IDs with someone who recovered some remnants of British built Mosquitos from Narromine in Australia, significant alpha numeric part numbers were ‘cut in’ with a nail to a thick wipe of black paint on the timber, so obviously nothing would remain after all these years. The fuselage did have a brass plaque, which was affixed to the rearmost bulkhead near the tail. As the aircraft decayed out in the open, the rear would settle to the ground, admitting termites to dissolve the timber. Only an odd outline on the ground would remain, with scattered metal components in their relative positions, and this fuselage plaque near the rear wheel position, starboard side.

So I am coming to a clear understanding that there is no such thing as a distinct Mosquito aircraft ID in the form of a dataplate, beyond the service serial painted on the outside. What is possible to find are some small brass plaques with alpha numeric codes for major sub assemblies, eg AA 123 for wings or fuselage, and AAA 123 for minor assemblies such as undercarriage doors or wing tips and in most cases the cost of these brass plaques on what was originally considered a disposable aircraft has been obviated by the use of internal paint markings instead.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235538[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235539[/ATTACH]

I agree that the pitch of the blades cannot be relied upon due to the nature of the impact, though i still feel there may be something in it.
I am in the process of trying to track down the reports but nothing has surfaced as yet.
Haven’t yet obtained the 1180 or AM F-412 / F-765 but work in progress. I’m led to believe that if there was a full investigation the report is now lost, along with all the accident reports for RAF aircraft from the end of Jan 44 through to the end of Dec 44.

Off to the Mosquito Museum in the morning armed with multiple cameras and a list of questions. More parts to ID coming soon, i’ll just see how i get on tomorrow first.

The aircraft was reported to have broken up in mid air. eyewitness states that it ‘exploded in the air, wood flakes came down like snow’.

That cooling pipe was found some 150+yards from the main impact site in the approximate area where the separated engine was reported to have landed. This may well help point towards it being the Port engine that separated in flight.

It looks to me as though there is a lot of pitch on that propeller, almost to the point of it being partially feathered?

I have been unable to confirm if this is the Left or Right engine, does anything in the picture help? Any thoughts welcomed!

What a terrible, catastrophic accident.
Bit hard to rely on evidence of feathering when the blades may have impacted with aircraft, surrounding trees and ground and any of these forces would be sufficient to force the blades around or snap the feathering gear ring mechanism at the root of the blade.

In terms of port or starboard engine in the picture it is hard, for me, to see any handed feature that would help clarify this.

Sometimes in the detail of reports (court of inquiry?) there is enough information to reconstruct what may have happened. If the direction of flight of the P38 pilot is known (on finals in an ordained pattern around a known airfield), the traverse of the Mosquito (across left or across right), the position of debris, the gyroscopic action of a Mosquito with either port or stb engine detached might be surmised.

Interestingly, this Aircraft i am researching, LR343 was a potential stablemate of HR339, having been with RNZAF 487sq at Hunsdon until its demise 24.02.44 (i say potential because it could never have happened as LR343 was destroyed before HR339 arrived)

Also, Note there is a big chunk missing out of the back of the propeller blade. Is it possible that the damage occurred when the engine separated from the aircraft, possibly ripping through a wing in the process? this could explain the ‘snowing wood’ as described by eyewitnesses? One eyewitness (an American P.38 Pilot on finals) described the Mossie as going across his nose ‘like a bat out of hell’ before breaking apart. I should imagine that, being a pilot himself, he would be a good judge of speed and wouldn’t say that unless it was going at a considerable pace. Eyewitness on the ground says he heard an aircraft making ‘one hell of a screaming racket’ He looked up to hear a whoomph as the aircraft ‘exploded and rained to earth in tiny pieces

I’m currently working on the theory that the aircraft possibly experienced a runaway prop or over rev on the Port engine. If the Pilot was unable to control this through engine RPM or Propeller pitch control, the vibration that followed could quickly cause the engine to break free from it’s mountings. A complete mosquito engine assembly (like you see in the above photograph) is essentially being held on with just 4 big bolts. It is also possible that the engine then went through the Port wing, causing total loss of control from that point. Does the photo add any weight to these ideas?

What can this photo tell us?

Thanks P&P for the confirmation on that. The aircraft was reported to have broken up in mid air. eyewitness states that it ‘exploded in the air, wood flakes came down like snow’. The crash photos show that one engine separated from the airframe in flight and landed fairly undamaged some distance from the main impact site. It looks (from the post crash photographs) as though the main body of the aircraft hit the ground with one engine still in place. The fuselage from the nose to aft of the centre section and one engine ended up in one impact hole, whilst the Empennage broke free on impact, snapping off horizontal and vertical stabilizers and compressed into a ball, rolling some distance from the impact site.

That cooling pipe was found some 150+yards from the main impact site in the approximate area where the separated engine was reported to have landed. This may well help point towards it being the Port engine that separated in flight.

The following is the photograph of the engine that separated and landed away from the main impact site. A few questions on this one.
It looks to me as though there is a lot of pitch on that propeller, almost to the point of it being partially feathered? I also noted that the prop blade is bent sideways, but not backwards, showing that the propeller was possibly still turning on impact with something, it almost looks like it has slashed through the tree roots as it landed. The lack of damage to the front of the exhaust cowling is surprising and the way the engine sits in the hole suggests that it ‘dropped in’ rather than ‘ploughed in’. I have been unable to confirm if this is the Left or Right engine, does anything in the picture help? Any thoughts welcomed!

[QUOTE=HR339;2174376]Bingo. Confirmed independently offline. Apparently the bearing for the bomb winch. Thanks for that.

Pleased to hear i was heading in the right direction!

Im not sure if this is helpful but i have S98182 as being ‘Pulley Bomb Inst’. Numbers don’t quite match but possibly an associated …

Bingo. Confirmed independently offline. Apparently the bearing for the bomb winch. Thanks for that.

We have the FBVI/TIII parts manual and the Swedish NF19 illustrated parts manual. These both can be very frustrating as they deal with anything foward of the firewalls as complete assemblies. Likewise, for example in the Swedish book the entire radiator assembly is given a single part no.