powerandpassionPart numbers
That refers to the elevator as a complete assembly. The elevators are not ‘handed’, which is interesting.
The engine dataplate is missing from the cockpit of NZ2328. The engine dataplates are present on the engine bearers, and I can think of a few a bit like David’s above riveted onto other sub assemblies (and painted onto the fuselage bulkheads, but I am not aware of an airframe data plate with constructor numbers etc in the cockpit. I’ll look into it today.
Thank you. Immediately forward and above the throttle box is the area I would love to get a close up of. There are a number of plates fixed in this position, but photos never give enough resolution to make out the plate content.
[/QUOTE]While we are at it, and somewhat O/T, does anyone recognise this part, which is attached to the top of the bomb bay aft bulkhead, inside the fuselage. It appears to be a bearing or bush of some sort, with a X98xxx part number, but we have never seen another one on any other Mossie, and no possible combination of the numbers we can make out are in any of the parts manuals. Something like S.98186(0?)A. Any guesses?
[/QUOTE]
Guesses. S98100A, which is what it looks like to me from peering at the photo is given as ” S98100 -Adjusting collar for 20mm cannon aft support” in Canadian FB AP 2019T 1945. The A suffix denotes an assembly, so I am not entirely convinced that my interpretation is right. All S part numbers relate to either cockpit controls or bomb equipment or special order. Perhaps the history of the aircraft in use can hint to the application. There never was an aircraft more adapted to more variety of roles than the Mosquito. There are bits and pieces that you come across from time to time that never match any parts catalogues that you can only try and logic out. In Australia, highball equipped Mosquitos introduced an element of secret adaptations that would never appear in any parts list, but would fall under the S part number system.
Was your Mosquito ever involved in anti shipping work with 57mm cannon ? The bracket looks very heavy, is centrally mounted and would allow the rotation of a support tube or lateral stability of what may be part of a recoil mechanism.
What part number catalogues/APs do you have ?
I have Canadian AP 2019N Vol III Pt I (Bomber) 1944, AP 2019T Vol III Pt I (Fighter Bomber) 1945 and RAAF Vocab of Stores Fuselage – Fuel (no index) 1946
powerandpassion[QUOTE=powerandpassion;
I have before me a 1955 DEHAVILLAND AIRCRAFT Inspection Handbook (LJ Woodward Chief Inspector :”You will ensure that all inspectors under your control are familiar with the procedures laid down..”) which describes the blue part etching fluid, using rubber stamp pads and a fluid based on copper sulphate and hydrochloric acid. [/QUOTE]
Chemical Etching of Parts (1955 DH Inspection Handbook)
Acid Composition :
Hydrochloric acid 150mL
Copper Sulphate crystals 25 grams
Nickel Nitrate crystals 25 grams
Selenium Dioxide 20 grams
Water 200mL
Marking Methods :
Castings : casting number raised on platform during casting, separate platform for DH marking of assembly number, batch number and inspection mark.
Forgings : similar to castings
Large Components : when a series of operations is carried out on a large component, additional markings will not be made on the component, but its progress will be recorded on the Inspection History Card which will accompany the component through the shops.
Large Component Assemblies : Large component assemblies such as fuselage bulkheads will be marked with a suitable ink on a white painted patch (I have seen this on the front fuselage of Canadian Mosquitos in photographs) protected by a temporary adhesive cover during detail assembly and varnished over on final clearance.
Major Components : Wings, Ailerons, Elevators etc will bear a label securely attached by rivets etc to the component. The label, made of black anodised aluminium alloy is 3″X 1 1/2″ in size, the markings being in white letters 1/8″ high, with 1/16″ spacing between rows.
powerandpassiondataplate
[QUOTE=HR339;2167165]With that in mind, any idea what this number might be? It was found under the fabric on the fuselage of NZ2328/TE758, immediately aft of the trailing edge on the port side, and appears to have been stenciled on.QUOTE]
HR399, are there any dataplates on your aircraft that correspond to Hornet/Vampire onwards ?
On the Mosquito the entry door and electrical/fuel gauge box on the starboard side occupy the zone where Hornet/Vampire dataplates are.
On DHA PR41 there is refererence in cockpit diagrams and corresponding logbooks to an engine dataplate on the port side, above the usual plate above the throttle controls instructing on RPM,pitch settings.
Given that the corresponding logbooks show that a number of engine changes occurred over the life of the airframe I cannot imagine that this dataplate was an etched or stamped metal plate. From the cockpit diagram it looks like the frame of an old compass corrector card, which would allow a paper card slip with engine details to be fitted in.
I understand that in RAAF and RAF service the Aeroplane Maintenance Form (RAAF E/E 77 Travel Copy) was carried on board the aircraft (in map case?) and had to be updated by the pilot after each flight. In this respect, via the Maintenance Form which had the Air Force serial clearly marked on the cover, the aircraft serial was clearly obvious to pilot and fitters inside the cockpit. For most of these folk, a squadron code such as ‘B’ for Baker would have been a more obvious means of communicating identity.
I wonder if the move to designs with overhead canopies for entry and egress shifted deHavillands to change their practice in respect of airframe dataplates.
I wonder if Hornet (?) and early Vampire assembly in DHP-Portsmouth introduced a practice of dataplate use at that facility that was later adopted throughout the DH empire. What component dataplates I have seen on Mosquitos to date are Brass with stamped numbers, rather than etched aluminium.
I wonder if a growing appreciation within DH for the potential of stress cracking to develop from stamped identification codes on parts, or the riveting on of separate plates, shifted the emphasis to acid etching of part numbers postwar. Certainly DHP Vampire parts seem to be acid etched rather than stamped in my experience, while Mosquito parts are stamped. Mosquito fuel and oil tanks, however, have always seemed to have painted dataplates, which shows some wartime appreciation of the potential for stress cracking. I have seen these painted decals on period photos of RAAF PR41 tanks and the oil tanks on the originally Canadian KA 114 restored in NZ.
I have before me a 1955 DEHAVILLAND AIRCRAFT Inspection Handbook (LJ Woodward Chief Inspector :”You will ensure that all inspectors under your control are familiar with the procedures laid down..”) which describes the blue part etching fluid, using rubber stamp pads and a fluid based on copper sulphate and hydrochloric acid.
So I wonder if postwar, with a lot more time on their hands, the inspectors of DH convened and discussed improvements to manufacturing practice that resulted in the adoption of better methods of identification that incorporated a move away from part stamping, the use of stamped brass or irregular and ad hoc component ID plates, future acid etching of part numbers and a consistent method using fuselage dataplates.
powerandpassionDunlop Air Brakes
Mathieu,
What a great project, and a fascinating aircraft.
Below are some photos of another (small size) Dunlop air bottle, though the ends are welded on. It appears that soon after the introduction of the product welded bottles replaced riveted bottles, as in this country (Australia) they would have come as welded units with Avro Ansons from 1937. So it is most unlikely that there ever were a large number of riveted examples, and no doubt later production G1s would have a welded unit, if I am assuming that your photograph is of the prototype G1.
There are also photos from Air Annual of the British Empire 1937, describing Dunlop brakes, which show your riveted bottle and the system, no doubt fitting the timing of the introduction of the G1 prototype.
There seem to be three sizes all of the same diameter, only the length changes. For a non functional bottle, perhaps a wood mockup would do? A wood turner making staircase features could probably turn the shape out quickly and cheaply. A pattern maker could no doubt do the same, using pattern making timber and sealers to create a good finish. Then you could drill into the timber and glue in rivets to create the look you are after.
I think in wartime this simple 1930’s bottle design may have been replaced with a different looking ‘pineapple’ design with higher capacity, as aircraft designs went to twin brakes per wheel and required more air. I have not seen any of the 1930’s type anywhere, except for the one pictured, and you can see the affects of corrosion.
Please keep posting updates of progress.
powerandpassionGreat picture
Hi,
The Hornet data plates are located on the right hand inner wall of the cockpit.
Thank you.
powerandpassiondH didn’t have a factory in Preston – that was English Electric. DHP is de Havilland Portsmouth – or Airspeed division.
You might also see DHB which is the factory at Broughton, Chester.
With regard to Mosquito serials, the airframes were serialled 98xxxx on the production line, though I cant see it in my references at present. The RAF serial was applied some way down the line.
Bruce
Thank you for putting the P in DHP, so now we have :
DHS – deHavilland Standard
DHA – deHavilland Australia
DHB – deHavilland Broughton
DHC – deHavilland Canada
DHP- deHavilland Portsmouth (Airspeed)
powerandpassionThank you
As a starter, here is the one for the Hornet. All the post DH.100 data plates I have seen have the same format.
Thank you, good to see the Hornet sample. I have not seen anything like it (yet) for Mosquito.
Where are these plates located on Hornet and Vampire?
powerandpassionLove Demands Sacrifice
If you’d like to see photos of the memorial, please head to Facebook. The church was packed in the end, supported by the Polish community from Hull and those who remembered the Poles fondly.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Memorial-to-302-Squadron-City-of-Poznan/273271996034455
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231533[/ATTACH]
Thank you for sharing this, nice to know that the story is remembered and honoured. The motto “Love Demands Sacrifice” is pretty accurate.
powerandpassionHand in the cookie jar
Hi PaP, you know where there’s a Linc spinner or 3, you’re welcome to measure them at any time.
Paul
Already put my hand in the cookie jar! 🙂
powerandpassionHamilton Standard
Does the diameter of the spinner not depend on the shape of the aircraft cowl, defined on the drawing board of the aircraft manufacturer responsible? Thus it would be no surprise that a Lancaster spinner is a different model to that of a Mosquito.
Thank you for all the replies and suggestions, will follow through with NZ.
My understanding is that the spinner and spinner backplate were Hamilton Standard designs, adapted by aircraft firms according to specific needs. There seems to be a high degree of commonality in the mounting arrangements of the spinner to backplate and dome assembly. I have access to a Lincoln four bladed spinner and the detail of its manufacture and size, pending confirmation, looks identical to a Mosquito three blade spinner, and I would bet that it is the same as a Mosquito four blade spinner.
With all the competition between radials and inline vees, where the key argument in favour of the inline was small frontal area, no doubt much wind tunnel work was done on spinners and engine cowlings, which I would have expected to feed back to users of the Merlin and develop a consistent approach. Bristols put immense work into engine mounting to address this issue for radials. I understand the spinners of the Mosquito were a key part of its speed formula. No doubt, if there was more time back then, commonality for spinners between Lancaster and Mosquito could have been arrived at, though I wonder if a half inch of difference represents a luxury that would have been intolerable in wartime and quickly addressed. If anybody has actual Lancaster spinner plans I would love to lay them up against Mosquito spinner plans.
powerandpassionDid the Lincoln use the same prop blade (type 6519) as the Lancaster ?
powerandpassionI am really not sure where the idea that what can be achieved now was unimaginable back then comes from. The fact is whilst material formulations have been continuously developed as have the manufacturing processes for billet especially. The original material and quality of prop blades is excellent. It is not simply a case of finding a billet of a modern material of sufficient quality and consistency. The reason the blades were manufactured from forgings was to concentrate the grain flow in specific areas of the blade to impart strength and flexibility in the blade. This would be impossible from a billet, it is simply not possible as the grain flow would not conform to the shape of the blade and concentrate where required. The original process was used for very good reasons and making new blades would need to follow this process. Alloy blades are still used now and are manufactured from forgings, if it was possible to machine them and impart the same properties I have no doubt that prop manufacturers would be doing it.
With regards to overhaul intervals the 3 and 6 year inspection requirement was not the standard previously but a one size fits all easa rule. Frankly many blades are scrapped unnecessarily due to this process.
As previously mentioned Avia are still making blades to order including small runs for HS props.http://www.aviapropeller.cz/products.htm
I will dig out an article on manufacture of prop blades from the 1940’s that should illustrate the process.
p
Thanks Pat, the Avia site is a good read. Basically they only make heritage propellors for the Mustang, being the 24D50 hub and 6547 blade. Can this fit a Lancaster or Mosquito ?
The Brit stuff had the 23EX hub ( two slight variants, 23EX-319 & 23EX –493) and the 24D50 had 13 slight variants, the Avia information is not specific about which variant it makes.
Looking in the HS interchangability list the following direct matches can be made in the hub :
Barrel assembly—No
Distributor Valve assembly—No
Dome assembly—No
Deicing assembly—No
Extra parts Group—Yes.
So the direct answer is that you cannot take a Mustang hub and fit it to Lancaster or Mosquito, however there are some common parts in these non interchangeable hubs.
Getting deep into this can require a bottle of whiskey and a back massage, however on the barrel assembly of the 23EX (part 57470) and the variants of 24D50 (parts 57285 & 59648) the following individual parts are interchangeable : nothing !
Before automatically going for another bottle of whiskey and a slump more detailed analysis of the actual 23EX hub could show that what differences there are with the 24D50 and whether or not they may be insurmountable for adaptation to other, British aircraft types : really a Mustang would have a Packard Merlin and the 24D50 would have to fit a Merlin type shaft for starters. The Lancaster/Mosquito is a three blade and the Mustang is a 4 blade which is a subtlety , but probably the 4 blade barrel assembly is designed to handle more feathering fluid which could be usable for a three blade.. I know the feathering pumps on 4 bladed Lincolns are identical to three bladed Mosquito feathering pumps…probably need to go for a holiday to somewhere near Avia and work this out with them.
The 6547 Mustang blade and 6519 Mosquito Lancaster blade, now it is too late an night to explore that one right now..
powerandpassionThank you
For what its worth, here’s what I know on the subject:
What is commonly referred to as an aircraft data plate would contain the fuselage assembly construction number, and the RAF identifying serial if built for them, and other info. I will update this posting with a photo of one or two examples, including one from my Hornet DH103.
I have seen examples of DH data plates and mod plates from Vampires DH100, Venoms DH112, Doves DH104, Sea Vixens DH110, etc. and they all show the same information in the same format. I haven’t seen one for a pre-DH100 type aircraft though, so I don’t know if they used them or indeed used the same format.
Wooden fuselages of Hornets, Mosquitos and Vampires were frequently (but not always) painted with the construction number of the airframe on the side of the cockpit exterior, prior to being finally painted. I have also seen the actual serials being chalked onto the fuselage sides prior to being painted in the factory too.
Thank you David, I would love to see the later dataplates.
powerandpassionCan anyone confirm this and the basics on DHP = DH Preston, DHA = DH Australia, DHC = DH Canada.
What other codes are there, eg for Hatfield production ?DHP Vampire parts seem to come in a drab green and I have seen the same colour on DHC Caribou parts. Does anybody know what this colour is?
Bump. Or because it’s Mosquito : …..rrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrr……:love-struck:
powerandpassionHeavy Metal
i’d always heard the peregrine was the fall back if the PV12(merlin) didnt succeed……a late model; kestrel with a merlin styled super charger .
I don’t know too much about the Peregrine : it’s too modern for me! I understand it as the evolution of the proven Kestrel design accomodating the tweaks and inspirations discovered during the problematic development of the Merlin. If the Merlin didn’t end up being reliable then the Peregrine could fill the breach, but its swept volume was 20% smaller than the Merlin, so it was not really a contender. The Merlin now sits assured in history, but it would have been a nervous bunch at Rolls Royce grappling with Merlin development issues while German DB 600 engines proved their mettle over Spain and Bristol sleeve valves made radials seem like holding the future.
From Air Annual of the British Empire 1939 : ” The RR Peregrine…has a swept capacity of 21 litres, the same as that of the Kestrel engines (but) the Peregrine has a rated output of 860 b.h.p as compared with the 480 b.h.p of the original Kestrel.” So how do you double the output of the same engine, which is the essential difference ?
I think much has to do with progress in metallurgy. RR invested much effort in this and there as a large group of alloys known as the “RR alloys”. So a cylinder head casting made from an identical casting pattern could contain twice as much cylinder pressure using RR alloys in 1939 than the less developed alloy in the Kestrel of 1928. Another example is pistons, using “Y alloy” in the early thirties that expanded and scored the cylinder wall, compared to “Lo-Ex” alloys in 1939 that didn’t, allowing the engine to reliably develop more horsepower. In this context, the RR “R” racing engines used in the Schneider Trophy races developed as much bhp as the Merlins of a decade later, but the R engines only had a life of hours before they self destructed. This metallurgical progress went hand in hand with the development of fuels with higher octane ratings, allowing the development of higher cylinder pressures. So you could put high octane fuel in the Kestrel but it would not last as long as the Peregrine with its better metallurgy. Certainly there was constant development through the thirties of nickel chrome moly steels for conrods and crankshafts to cope with higher engine stresses.
The Kestrel had supercharging from its early days and later Kestrels had auxiliary drives for hydraulic pumps, CSUs and vacuum pumps, so you can’t say this is an essential difference with the Peregrine. Probably there are lots of little things. I understand a great deal of effort went in to the optimisation of supercharger designs, so the Peregrine, which was boosted to +8 may have had a different supercharger vane and passageways to the Kestrel boosted to +4. I do not know whether the Peregrine had Gilman bearings in the conrod big ends or the removable shell type bearings used in the Merlin, but this might be a typical improvement and major difference. Certainly RR had to pay America’s GM royalties for the use of Gilman bearings in Kestrels, something management would no doubt want to shake off. Gilman bearings are pictured here : http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?128767-RR-Kestrel-Gilman-bearings&highlight=
I think late model Kestrel Xs were just re-badged as Peregrines and the difference between the Kestrel of 1929 and Peregrine of 1939 is largely in the metallurgy.
Sign In
