Hi ChernKStewfan,

The Hornet aerodynamic issues were mostly resolved, but as with the other few prop-driven aircraft that were pushing the achievable speeds to the limits a few issues still remained, that could have been resolved given more development time.

The specific aerodynamic issue that was never fully resolved was the partially turbulent airflow between the engine nacelle and fuselage, from the lower lip of the radiator flap and the main wing flap itself. No aircraft design is perfect, and merely the best comprimise to achieve the goals for the type.

If you look at the evolution of the DH twin engined wooden tail-dragger “family” The Hornet had better aerodynamics than the Mosquito, and the Mosquito had better aerodynamincs than the Comet racer, so it can be seen as an improvement/evolution on those particular types.

Comparing the Lockheed Lightning and de Havilland Hornet is an interesting study that could be made. They were both concieved as long range escort fighters, but executed in different ways, using different materials. There are outstanding features on both, but neither is the perfect flying machine.

Hi ChernKStewfan,

Firstly, thank you for buying the book, and I hope you have enjoyed it.

To try and broadly answer your question, and according to several interviews with former design staff, the Hornet aerodynamics were never a fully optimised design.

Yes, power assisted ailerons, would have improved roll rate, and alternative flaps, detail design to hinge joints, etc may have improved things further, as well as several other potential improvements, but this was constrained by two main factors:

– The minimal time to design a long-range fighter for the projected Far East conflict in 1946.

– The constantly improving technology, that saw new types quickly obsolete, so rather than maturing/improving designs, they were replaced by better types more rapidly.

To further discuss your point about powered ailerons in detail though, remember that to increase the roll rate would mean increasing the loading on the wings. I don’t have the loading figures for the Hornet, but I suspect that this improvement may well have been more than the (part wood/part aluminiumn) wing could take? Using the Venom as an example, their wings were all aluminium, and had structural problems that could have been accentuated by the addition of powered ailerons.

I have continued to follow this thread with increasing interest/bemuzement in equal measure!

Discussions of re-designing, materials selection, repeated rumour, this, that and the other…

The original Mosquito design was excellent. It is still excellent.

Some original airframes could have a 10 year useful life, based on their average flying hours and duty cycle, kept in less than ideal conditions.

Any newly recreated or restored airframe would no-doubt be kept in perfect conditions, and only flown in fair-good weather, from good airfields, with a close eye kept on G-loading.

There would be no reason why any new-build Mosquito (constructed in the original method) couldn’t have a good usefull flying life nowdays, if only ever used for display flying. A “life” could be established, and once that is reached, then maybe a replacement wooden fuselage could be created on the same tooling, and replace the existing time-expired one. This would avoid the inherent difficulties with examining a composite, in which the only real way to test its real condition is to open it up.

Remember that the airframe is only one part of a flying machine, and certainly not the most expensive in terms of man-hours/materials. Systems, brackets, metal structures could be transferred from one “life expired” wooden structure to another.

Yes, part of the problem is that there is an assumption that there will be a degree of armchair expertise coming to the fore, so when sensible ideas are mooted, they are taken as derision.

Incidentally, the Stirling, Hornet et al projects, have not been to airworthy standards. Their supporters would agree that it would be a completely different scale if they were working to that level.

Bruce

Yes, I couldn’t agree more!

Static re-builds for eventual museum display (ie. Stirling, Hornet, etc) are dimensionally accurate, using mostly the correct materials and methods, but there is little or no paperwork trail for material tracability, approved premisis, or certified parts used therein. This does not reduce their eventual historical worth, but they are never to be considered in the same breath as airworthy re-builds. The cost difference is dramatic.

Incidentally, when I refer to “material differences” an example would be castings made from commercial aluminium alloy instead from Magnesium Alloy. The Projects referred to are still well engineered recreations rather than fibre glass full-size models.

Going back to the Mosquito discussion, where the will exists in a coherant well funded group, almost anything can be done. If a group exists that wants to put a flyable Mosquito into the UK skies, raise the money and use the experience now firmly established in NZ.

Just out of interest what are the stumbling blocks of rebuilding a Mossie?
Is it the lack of a rebuild aircraft to start with or just the lack of skill and experience with wood?
I think it would be great to have one back on the flying list here in the UK. I remember that last one and it was simply one of the best aircraft displays I’ve seen.

I think the only thing hampering this from happening in the UK is cost.

There are still the skills, facilities, and parts can be found. You just need serious money, and be prepared to spend a lot more than it is finally worth.

Yesterday, my cousin gave me this rudder trim control. Her father (my uncle) was in the RAF in WW2 and would have picked up this piece then. I know that he worked on the Wellington and the Mosquito, but I am unable to identify the aircraft that this rudder trim came from.

The base shows the numbers 3-A975 and also 3 CJ5. The shaft has CK7 on it.

Does anyone know please?

Its not from a mosquito.

Well 193 is the right length again now 🙂

First trial fit of the floor and front bulkhead. Everything looking promising (alignment etc) though need to figure out why the top of the front bulkhead is 2″ out…….

Jon

Hi Jon,

Please could you e-mail me the various measurements that you have for this assembly? I’ll compare it all with the various references I have, and let you know what is potentially in error.

Well I had to trial fit a few more goodies 😉

I wanted to put the rudder pedals on as well, but they are well and truly buried at the moment!

Jon

I recognise those control column parts! 😉

Looking good!