Mosquito Question (Zombie from 2004)

Hornet

I had the privilege of having dinner recently, in a small group, with Eric “Winkle” Brown, Capt, RN. (If you don’t know much about him it is worth a “Google”).

When asked what his favourite aircraft is/was, he quickly and without second thought said, “The Hornet”. With over 437 types to his credit, that is saying something.

And we have to remember that the Mosquito and Hornet were built like most other World War II era aircraft–they weren’t really given much of a life expectancy, and were often built as such. The average WWII fighter was given an average life expectancy of 100-200 flying hours at most before they were shot down, force landed, crashed, whatever fate may await them, before being destroyed or damaged beyond immediate repair. And in the latter event, it was often just as cheap to order a new aircraft and cannibalize the damaged one for spares as it was to repair it.

This is why there are currently no flyable F-82 Twin Mustangs–most were scrapped and cannibalized to keep healthier ones flying in Korea and elsewhere, though at least two are being restored to flying status. And there are a few Mosquitos being restored, and we can have hope that one day some really rich guy can make a flyable Hornet replica built to the original DH plans.

But that will be key as far as Mosquitos and Hornets go if any get built/rebuilt to flying status–wooden aircraft that are flown typically end up in better shape long term because of how much care has to go into them routinely to keep them airworthy. It’s just like cars–cars need some wear and tear on them to keep them working right, and aircraft it seems are much the same, because to keep them air or road worthy, it encourages their owners to keep up with upkeep and maintenance. Otherwise, they’ll basically slowly but surly rot. That’s why British Aerospaces’s Mosquito was airworthy for so long until it crashed–BAe keep it flying a few times a year at air shows after they refurbished it, and that’s why so many Vampires and quite a few Venoms are airworthy, because they’re flown, along with the fact that the front fuselages aren’t as load bearing as the wings or tail units are.

The Albatross did. Broken back on the airfield. dH put a lot of effort into stopping the photos of the a/c being published.

He managed to hide the mossie …

It wasn’t hidden if you knew where to look for it. 🙂 It spent some time in one of the blister hangars at Panshanger, although I didn’t know then that it was the prototype.

As Bruce said, design work on the DH99, an enlarged Sabre-powered Mossie was started. It was later renumbered to DH101. They were then told that Sabres wouldn’t be available and Griffons would have to be used. As the performance would have been lower it was abandoned.

Construction started on the DH102, a lower performance night bomber with Griffons or Merlins to carry a 5,000lb bomb load. It was abandoned when the Hornet took priority.

Despite my admiration for all things de Havilland, they do seem to have had a bit of a blind spot about rear fuselage strength. IIRC, one or more of the Albatrosses (Albatri?) suffered the same problem.

I think the fundamemtal problem was that there were no museums at that point. The RAFM didnt open until the early seventies, same with the FAAM. The science museum was preserving aeroplanes, but only particularly significant types.

The Hornet prototype survived up until the mid fifties, but it, the Sea Vampire and the prototype Mossie came under threat when Bill Baird, in the PR dept at de Havilland, was told to burn them. He managed to hide the mossie, and place the Vampire with the science museum, but the Hornet was indeed burnt. It was one of his biggest regrets.

Bruce

I think a good many if not all the airworthy Hornets were shipped to the far-east and scraped out there when retired, and that resulted in the type retiring from service out of reach of any museums and the like.

James et al,

I’m not sure I have all the answers, hence my silence!

As regards glues, Redux was a form of bonding, but was not used for the production of the wooden shells. On the hornet, it was used to bond the metal wing skins to the wooden structure (there is a bit more to it than that simple statement!). On the Comet, Vampire, Dove etc, it was used to ‘glue’ stringers on to structure. Much of the comet was Redux assembled.

I am 99% certain that there have been no flight trials of a Mosquito with a Griffon. There was one with a Lanc power egg (DD723??), which was converted by Rolls at Hucknall. I have a feeling there was a design study to determine if Griffons or Sabres could be used – DH99 and DH101 if memory serves.

The Mosquito with a broken back could well have been W4050, which was the first of its type, and the first to suffer from these problems.

As to why there are no hornets, I suspect the answer is a simple one – first they didnt build many, and second, they were obsolete before they went into service. I bet the RAF and RN couldnt decommission them fast enough. A fine aeroplane, as many will attest, but too late! The Vampire has survived in such numbers as it was a useful aeroplane operated well into the seventies and eighties by a number of airforces. Crucially, the preservation movement came into being at about the same time, which meant that as they were retired, there were people prepared to take them on.

Thats my slant – hope it helps!

Bruce

If the wood is the reason there are no Hornets around then why are there Vampires? Didn’t these also have a ply/balsa/ply laminated fuselage?

A:
Numbers
Useage (fighter vs trainer)
mainly wooden (inc load bearing parts) a/c vs wooden pod; structural, but it’s not the wings and tailbooms!

A better answer could be got from (say) Bruce…

Don’t knock wood!

Used the right way, it’s a great material, including for aircraft construction. The real issue is because of a lack of good NDT tests for wood in high stress and strain uses; it not having been required. In a/c it’s not got a long parking life; flying (maintained) wooden a/c are great; wooden a/c which have to be re-evaluated after a long period static aren’t worth refurbishing…

I’m trying to simplify a complex field at the end of a long day. Bear with me folks…

Cheers!

Ah! You mean other than there being none left due to the type being extinct?

Flood

surely for the same reason??

A composite of glued wood was a great “non-strategic” material to to use on an aircraft with a short useful combat life, but this is also the reason why no hornets…fly now, compared to many of their contemporaries.

Ah! You mean other than there being none left due to the type being extinct?;)

Flood

dh98 to dh103 design progression

I cannot remember the exact details, but at the time when the dh98 mosquito successor was first proposed, the dh100 vampire, and dh103 hornet were on the drawing board as well.

There were engineering proposals put forward for having a larger mosquito powered by sabres, but these were in too short supply, and the resulting airframe would have poorer performance on paper than a tweaked current production model.

dehavilland aircraft company had seen the future in the shape of jet aircraft, and it was only by a slim chance that the hornet was produced at all.

As for “glue technology”, there are plenty of photo’s of hornets with broken backs! This may seem blasphemous coming from myself, but the sooner dehavilland started making aluminium aircraft, the better!! A composite of glued wood was a great “non-strategic” material to to use on an aircraft with a short useful combat life, but this is also the reason why no hornets or mosquitos fly now, compared to many of their contemporaries.

Hi
Yep !!

Occured to me too even at twelve years old !!!!

Regards
Much older
John P

“Griffon or Sabre (I can’t remember which) was apparently trialed on one side of a Mossie in the UK”

Ok … why would they have tried on one side only? I’m no engineer but that sounds to me like an experience destined to be problematic. I know they do that with jets. But on a small two engine aircraft like the Mossie it seems to me to not be the best idea. What not try on both sides, so that there is equal power on both sides?

Hi

As you probably know the Mossie was produced in Australia as well as importing some from the UK including the 4 Blade 618 Sqn Hot ships based at Narromine for abortive “Bouncing Bamb ops” that never eventuated. The experiance here and in Asia with the Mossie was that there was some inital difficulty with the glue and delamination , the issue was addressed and the Mossie became very sucessful and the glue was not a longer term issue at all.

A Griffon or Sabre (I can’t remember which) was apparently trialed on one side of a Mossie in the UK and resulted in a rather spectacular structural failure before it even left the ground. There was a picture of this in a Flight or Aeroplane Magazine when I was growing up in the 1960’s – i remember it well because it was the first photo I had seen of a Mossie with it’s back broken!!!

Regards
John P

Thanks for the reply.

I knew about the glue problems on the Mossie, but didn’t realize glue technology had changed that much by the time the Hornet came along.

Certainly a good point with respect to the fuel economy. Key factor in the Pacific as you say. And “handedness” is certainly a plus for carrier ops. Last thing you need is pull to the left or right when you apply full throttle on a carrier!

I’m still surprised, though, that more thought was not given to the use of Griffins. The extra performance in terms of speed would, I think, have been valuable for European Mossies, especially once the Me 262 came along. Mossie still would have been slower of course, but added speed would have been helpful I suspect.

The Griffin is bigger. Could that have posed a problem as well, I wonder?

Of course, there is the old saying – if it aint broke, don’t fix it — in a piston engine world, the Mossie was still at the top of it’s game with Merlins.

Charles