Seaborne Mosquito

Hi dh,

Yep, I know (It’s also the LMA ‘do’ at Cosford on the 10-11th July, too). However, my Mossie will not have passed it’s CAA exemption stuff by then. So, I couldn’t fly it there even if I wanted to.

That Mossie video was (I assume it still is) available from The Mossie Museum. It’s very good.

Cheers,
Neilly

I have to think that the wood would’ve not taken all too well to the stresses of combat flying from carrier decks and there would have been some structural failures of the plane at one point or another

Don’t knock the original natural composite. The right woods, used the right way, can be tougher better building materials than steel, stone and some modern composites. It was one of the few materials used which gave warning and part failed rather than ctastrophic sudden failures such as steel and aluminium. Up untill the 1950s the woods were fine as an aircraft building material, the glues failed first.

Just because we aren’t used to using wood as a primary building meterial these days, and mainly because there isn’t the NDT testing infrastructure, people are suspicious that it isn’t a ‘good’ material. It’s still very competative…

Mozzies generally were fine for structural failure issues – glue failure due to humidity in 1944/5 were the only issue I was aware of. Carrier flying, though demanding, wean’t that much of a bigger demand on the Mozzie IMHO.

Cheers

Yes, I’ve seen some pics, and I think a film clip, of the Highball tests. Very grainy from memory.
Haven’t heard of that video, I’ll have to keep my eyes open for it.

Get your finger out with the model, it’s the RR scale weekend at Hucknall in 4 weeks time!

Hi All,

Not dead, yet, still shakin’ boss! I keep an eye on the posts, but I don’t have to much time these days. Lots of effort going into finishing off my model, but I’m getting there! I do have some pictures of the Highball being dropped, but I’m blowed if I can find it at the moment. The picture quality isn’t very good, but……..if I can find I’ll post it.

A good video to get, which includes Capt. Eric Brown & his escapades with the Mosquito carrier landings, is Men & Mosquitoes.

TTFN,
Neilly

I did! Thanks a lot, Neilly, I’ve never seen those pix before.

After me!
Thanks, Neilly, I thought you’d pop up sooner or later.

I must say, that looks almost “indecent” 😮

I did! Thanks a lot, Neilly, I’ve never seen those pix before.

Who said Highball?
DK 290

Neilly

This one has. Sorry about the centrefold joint. I fixed it as best I could.
—
Allan

Don’t worry about the join!
Confused – like I said, all that I have seen have had three-bladed props. And no, they weren’t the prototypes…

Flood.™

Again without looking it up, I would imagine the B.IV would be the obvious mark. No use for pressurised cockpits and 2-stage Merlins at 60 feet!

I have a note about a Highball trials aircraft (DK290): In original B IV state with 4 x 500lb G.P short-tailed bombs, auw. 20 670lb. With bomb bay modified, and without drive, but with mock stores each of about 1 100lb., take-off weight was 18 760lb., cruise speed 260mph. Envisaged take-off weight 21 000lb with full load and fuel.

I think the original idea was to use the Mossies in the Pacific with smaller versions of Barnes Wallis’ bouncing bombs against Japanese shipping.

YR

The “bouncing bomb” Mossies did actually go to the Pacific, but were never used. They weren’t TR.33s but without digging a couple of books out, I don’t what mark they were. The project was called Highball.

I still believe the TR.33 was the only production variant with 4 blades. Any others would be re-furbished or modified.

I agree, the TT.39 is by far the ugliest Mossie and fairly well up the list of ugliest aeroplane ever.

TTMk 39 Nose

Hi
Here is a piece of a TTMk 39.
It is quite a chunk as although the frame is Magnezeium casting the glazing is plate glass.

There was also a target tug Mossie used by the RN which had a fully glazed camera position in the nose. This a/c also had 4 blade props. Probably the ugliest Mossie ever!
—
Allan

No they didn’t have 4 blades! At least, not on all the pix I have ever seen of the type anyway…

TT Mark 39 With an extended and heavily glazed nose the Mark 39 was a singular Mosquito. It was a B Mk XVI conversion built for the Royal Navy to specification Q.19/45 for target towing.

Agree that it was ugly though!

Flood.™

I guess you’re right about the guy not flying them during the war – my guess is that he flew something else during the war, and moved on to TR33s shortly after. He certainly seems to have been involved in them in some way.

Rob – maybe he was involved with the original trials on HMS Indefatigable? Maybe he was seconded to an RAF unit that flew them – that did happen fairly regularly. It is just the mind that lets us all down as the years flow past.
I can appreciate him not wanting to talk about the war and his activities in it – I was once approached by the strapping offspring of one old gentleman who I had reduced to tears at a museum event several years ago; it was his opinion that there shouldn’t be any aircraft in museums to remind him and the survivors of his squadron of the part they had played in the war.

Papa – it is hard for me to tear myself away from Anna; sometimes, though, it just has to be done…;)

Corsair – apparently the rear fuselage was reinforced by the introduction of additional longerons to help withstand the high loadings associated with arrested landings. Later a long-stroke undercarriage was introduced to reduce its predecessors standard ‘bounce’.

Flood.™

Hey Mark,

I have the video that has all of the C-130 landings there were six in all. Encluding three complete stops and then the 130 back up and did at STOl take off. Very Impressive.

I always wondered if the 130 was set aside for the USAFM.

Cheers

I have to think that the wood would’ve not taken all too well to the stresses of combat flying from carrier decks and there would have been some structural failures of the plane at one point or another…but an ‘A’ for effort and ingenuity on behalf of those who thought of the idea….they did achieve the first ever landing of a multi engine aircraft on a carrier, opening the door for a lot of more signicant ‘twins’ in military service….anyone know where the link to the footage of a C-130 landing on a carrier deck can be seen?

Mark

I guess you’re right about the guy not flying them during the war – my guess is that he flew something else during the war, and moved on to TR33s shortly after. He certainly seems to have been involved in them in some way.

Many thanks, Flood, just the information I was looking for!
Glad you can tear yourself away from Anna for a moment!

At last year’s Project Propeller fly-in at Elvington, Capt Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown gave a talk on all the aircraft he had flown. One of these was the carrier trials of the Mosquito.

Apparently, the problem they had was that the stalling/landing speed of the Mossie was way above what the arrester wires could handle (from memory of what he said, this was about 80-85 knots for the wires).

That is why they fitted four blade props and more powerful engines, so they could drag the Mossie in slower using power at a higher angle of attack. He said that if an engine had so much as coughed in that configuration the aircraft would have been inverted in less than 2 seconds.

A very brave man, who simply took these things in his stride. Obviously, as these aircraft went into service, a more effective solution was found to the problem – maybe the arrester wires could handle higher speeds/loads. the Sea Hornet would have been just as much a handful to land.

I think the original idea was to use the Mossies in the Pacific with smaller versions of Barnes Wallis’ bouncing bombs against Japanese shipping.

Interesting thread. I’ve learned a lot.

YR