ChernKStewfanI think that very few aircraft could’ve made the record flights that Mosquito PR34s made in the late 40s until jet bombers and airliners like the Canberra, Comet and Boeing 707 came about in the 1950s. And we can’t forget the record flights that were made by Hornets in the same time frame, including one from Gibraltar to Bovingdon at over 435 mph.
Of course, the Hornet owed it’s origins to the Mosquito (though the Hornet was a very different aircraft), and the Mosquito and Hornet housed at least twice the fuel of single seaters internally, never mind the huge drop tanks they could carry. Only USAAF/USAF fighter that can boast similar performance and range figures were the Merlin powered F-82 Twin Mustangs. Though I do also remember a Vampire jet fighter flying from Hatfield to Rome non stop in 1948 with Derry at the controls.
ChernKStewfanNow a Mosquito technical question: what is that “stripe” of wood that’s attached to the starboard fuselage? I know that on KA114, it’s only on the starboard side, and it seems that almost Mosquitoes have it at least on that side. What was it supposed to be for, and why is it only on the starboard fuselage?
ChernKStewfanHaving watched it AGAIN, I was suddenly reminded of the Mosquito flicking through the clouds, formating on the lost Vampire in ‘The Shepherd’ novella by F
ForsythThey also have a Vampire down there, a good director could shoot a stunning film of that story, a guaranteed Christmas hit !
They did have the Mosquito flying in a pair with a Vampire trainer at one of the airshows in NZ in the fall.
I also caught the film and have seen some photos on the internet, and I have to say that for a plane that has almost a 55′ wing span and is about 41′ long, you’ll be surprised at how small the Mosquito seems when you look at photos of people sitting in the cockpit–the canopy seems to be barely sitting above the pilot’s head!
Also nice to see it pulling some (albeit easy–it’s currently the only of it’s kind in flyable condition after all!) maneuvers. I’ve heard various sources talking about the Mosquito’s maneuverability, and how it compared to single seaters of the period. Some have said that it could turn with (or at times better than) the likes of a FW190, others have said that it wasn’t at it’s best in a conventional dogfight. Fact is that I’ve seen RR299 videos and this new KA114 film, and I have to say that it’s got a very tight turning radius for a twin, but I can see that roll rate would be a big problem, as it was for the DH Hornet and early P-38s before they were fitted with powered ailerons.
However, I doubt that few non-jet aircraft could beat the Mosquito as far as getting to a distant point and getting there very quickly.
ChernKStewfanThe bombers had the yoke and the fighter versions a stick.
Great vid of a beautiful aeroplane and rebuild. Unfortunately the tinny little speakers of my lap top don’t do justice to the roar of the mighty Merlins.
Anon.
Oddly, DH were about the only British company to use a “stick” control, more inline with most German and American aircraft of the period, as opposed to the then more common “spade” grip that for example Spitfires and Hurricanes had. The Hornet, Vampire and Venom had a similar stick, and I think that the Hornet’s was almost a carbon copy of the Mosquito fighters’.
ChernKStewfanMostly what I’m trying to figure out is what dictated the differences in frontal area between a Hornet nacelle and a Mosquito nacelle, and if the 130 engines were truly unique specimens, (ie, few if any parts would interchange with other members of the 100 family, or earlier 2 stage Merlins). I don’t think that the engine frontal area is much different aside from accessory arrangements (supercharger intake mainly, and the Hornet’s intercooler being integrated with the radiator/oil cooler matrix)
Also, I’ve been wondering why the area between the spinner and exhaust outlets on the Hornet vs the Mosquito seems to be longer. Of course, it doesn’t help that I haven’t been able to see any HQ photos of a Hornet’s engine bay recently (DC’s Hornet/Sea Hornet book is part of my collection, and is buried in a plastic tote with all other kinds of collectable stuff in it’s original box). But, and this is a rough estimate, it seems that the armored spinner back plates on the Sea Hornet assembly line stills on British Pathe and photos of the final build of KA114 (the only currently fully airworthy Mosquito), the back plate diameter looks about the same, and surface area seems similar, along with those that I’ve seen of the back plates fitted to Packard V-1650 powered Mustangs.
ChernKStewfanBased on the tube frame construction and the tail unit shape, it’s probably remains of a Fiat CR42 biplane fighter pictured.
ChernKStewfanThe DH Ghost engine wasn’t much larger or heavier than the Goblin. It did burn more fuel to make its power, though, and the Venom was hoped to have range similar to the Vampire, which is part of why the wing tip tanks were fitted–also, like the extra fuselage tanks on the Hawker Tempest vs the Typhoon, the Venom’s thinner wing couldn’t hold the same tankage as the Vampire.
The big disadvantage that the Ghost had was that the R-R Nene was slightly smaller and made about the same power–the RD-45/VK-1 engines in the MiG-15 were Nene derivatives. But the Ghost was a DH product, and DH wanted their own 5000lb thrust-class engine, and it meant that the Vampire airframe could be used without much modification. Of course, the wing LE sweep back might be due to shift in CG because of fuel tank rearrangement, but it might be due to compressibility at low alt. or to accommodate the changed control surfaces that the Venom used.
I’d argue for compressibility because the Nene-engined Vampires (the Sud-Est Mistral and the Australian F.30 Vampires) topped out at about 570-580mph tops, and that’s for the Mistral, which lacked the “elephant ear” intakes that the F.30 and DH’s own experimental Mk 2 Vampires had (where were Mk1 and Mk3 airframes converted to use the Nene), while the Venom had the same power, but topped out at 640mph.
ChernKStewfanThe figures I found for the MiG-15 seem to be for the early models, because the MiG-15 “bis” was quoted with a top speed of 670+mph at altitude.
But even the MiG-15 family had their share of difficulties due to compressibility, namely that it couldn’t break Mach 1 in a dive (why the F-86 could out-dive it), and also caused the MiG to have issues with entering a flat spin after certain maneuvers.
Basically, it seems like the RAF stuck with “straight” wings for so long because they knew that early jets tended to perform like crap at high altitude because of lack of engine power, and that they relied on centrifugal flow engines, which were wider and hence less areo-efficent, and that for low-alt tactical fighters, the straight wing was a safer bet for handling/agility at low alt, even with a speed penalty, especially at higher alt.
It may strike some as odd that the RAF knew about the aero advantages of swept wings because of the DH 108, but that aircraft, though (like the Venom) an obvious step in the right direction, had it’s flaws, too, some of which the Venom and Comet helped cure, but for the Venom’s lack of a true “swept” wing. It’s also ironic that the DH 110 (Sea Vixen) was designed with a swept wing before the Venom was designed, but neither the RAF or Royal Navy were interested at the time, probably for the reasons I and others have suggested.
Perhaps if the Venom had the wing sweep of the DH 108 and the narrow chord of the Venom itself, the Venom could’ve been the RAF’s first fully successful transonic fighter. But the Venom did prove one thing, ironically–that many aircraft to the present day have tried to emulate/improve upon it’s low alt performance per tactical requirements.
ChernKStewfanThe only speed figures for the Venom that I ever saw was the 640mph at sea level that’s claimed. In that respect, it was faster than the MiG-15, which wasn’t the best low/medium altitude fighter of its time, being designed as an interceptor. At sea level, the MiG-15 is claimed to have a speed of “only” 590mph. Of course, the F-86F had a speed at that same altitude of over 680mph.
So it’s not inconceivable that as long as the MiG-15 didn’t get caught in a low altitude dogfight, that it was at least somewhat superior to even most early F-86 variants, especially above 30-35,000 ft.
Problem is for the Venom if it was used against the MiG, I’d bet that it’s performance would drop off (like the Vampire did) above 20-30,000 ft, and the performance drop off would be almost like the single stage Allison V-12s during World War II, which were set up for low alt. work, which allowed P-40s and for sure early P-51 Mustangs to perform as well or even better than many Axis fighters in low altitude theaters (the MTO–North Africa and Southern Europe–and the Pacific), but made them not especially useful in air battles over mainland Europe/Northern Europe.
Basically, it would seem that the Venom could’ve given the MiG a tough time in low altitude air battles, but it seems that it wouldn’t be the interceptor that DH hoped it would originally be, because it seems that if you’re right, it wasn’t great at high altitudes. And that seemed to be a trademark of DH fighters of the time–the Hornet, Vampire and Venom. All were capable low and mid level performers, but lacked the speed and/or the handling to be anything more than adequate at higher alts.
ChernKStewfanI’ve only seen him credited/named as R.E. Bishop and Eric Bishop in anything from Wikipedia to actual books featuring 1940’s and ’50’s DH aircraft as the designer of record, or at least as the leader of the design projects.
Other noted designers that collaborated with him included John Wimpenny, who worked with him on the Hornet, Vampire, and Venom as chief aerodynamicist, and John Frost, best known as the designer of the Avro Car when he worked for Avro Canada, but he got his start at DH by designing a type of high drag/high lift flap intended for aircraft such as the Hornet and the Vampire/Venom. He was perhaps mostly known in his DH years for being credited alongside Bishop (who designed the fuselage, which was a DH Vampire item) as chief designer of the DH 108 “Swallow” swept wing/high speed research aircraft.
Of course, the fact does remain that the chief designer (overall leader of the group of designers) usually gets most of the credit, but like the star in a film or play, that guy probably wouldn’t have covered so much ground without a good supporting cast so to speak.
ChernKStewfanPersonally, I think that the Vampire/Venom front fuselages do bear some resemblance to that of the Hornet, and the on the night fighter/trainer versions that they bear some resemblance to those of the Mosquito. However, such similarities are the consequence of coincidence, and not the intent Eric Bishop and his team, who designed all of those aircraft. Add to that the closer that you look, the more distant the resemblances become, to the point where it becomes just a passing resemblance–ie, the broad design was the best way to design it for what the designers wanted to achieve, but the more we get into detail, the more that the designs separate.
The Vampire, Venom, Mosquito and Hornet were all separate designs in their own right, and unless we’re talking about the Vampire and Venom as far as the front fuselage goes, I don’t think that many if any parts (especially major ones) will interchange. So it’s definitely not as simple as that.
ChernKStewfanThe issue with the Venom vs say the F-86 and the MiG-15 is that the Venom had competitive climb rates in the single seat versions, was very maneuverable, but by the time that the Venom reached production, 640mph wasn’t anything special.
The MiG and the F-86, depending on the variant, were about 40 or so mph faster than the Venom. I’d bet that the Venom could probably out maneuver the F-86 or the MiG in a turning dogfight, just as the Meteor or Vampire probably could. But from World War II, an aircraft’s speed usually dictated combat tactics, and the faster planes can usually dictate the combat by using their speed to make surprise attacks, or break off combat. It wasn’t as bad as being 40mph slower in WWII, but 40mph was still 40mph.
If I were a MiG pilot, I wouldn’t want a Venom on me with those 4 20mm cannons, but those MiGs could simply run–or at least walk or jog–away in a straight line sprint to top speed.
If the Venom had a swept wing or even a delta wing the speed deal might have placed the boot on the other foot, but that’s speculation, but DH did make up plans for a swept wing Venom two seat night fighter/Sea Venom fleet fighter called the DH 116, but was canceled because of the advent of the DH 110 Sea Vixen, which had two engines and swept back wings, and this only retained the front fuselage and engine of the Venom.
ChernKStewfanSorry to try and revive that dead thread, but I think I might have a lead on what John Wimpenny said about the Hornet’s ailerons in the DH Hornet book and why he didn’t approve of the type used on the Hornet.
I was asking about some of the developments of the DH Vampire and Venom in another thread, and the subject of power boosted ailerons were brought up. It seems that DH were investigating that issue shortly after World War II ended, and the DH Swallow research aircraft lead DH to put more research into the project after John Deery flew the Swallow.
This connects to the Hornet’s aileron issues in that DH suspected that as speeds rose that things such as compressibility and flutter (a then little known aspect of transonic flight) would become major issues. The Venom there for was fitted with ailerons that had the convexity deactivated by extending the wing trailing edge back a certain amount.
Could the Hornet’s ailerons been experiencing the effects of flutter at high speeds due to compressibility or some other factor? Because DH went from using convexity ailerons on the Vampire and Hornet, but ditched it on the Venom and also used power boosted controls, in part it seems to counter high speed flutter issues and compressibility, or at least that’s the problem that they were hoping to solve or reduce. It may not have been a big issue on the Hornet (which combined with it rapidly approaching obsolescence is why DH didn’t put a lot of effort into fully solving the issue), but it seems to maybe have pointed out something that would become a big problem later as jet engines became more powerful and new jet fighters and bombers became much, much faster than any piston engined fighter and the WWII era jets.
Edit: I finally found out what convexity is and why it was felt by DH to be a not very desirable feature. Convexity was basically fitting a blunt trailing edge to control surfaces (namely the ailerons) instead of the then more common tapered edge. This was felt, due to production issues related to the design, to be a source of trouble on the Hornet according to Wimpenny’s commentary. How this was remedied on the DH Venom was that the aileron’s TE was extended back to form a tapered edge, like on a wing.
It would be interesting of Mr. Collins was some day able to find a set of Hornet ailerons in good to decent condition and compare them to the Mosquito, Vampire, and Venom ailerons as far as the trailing edges go.
ChernKStewfanWell, then, we can’t really call the F-16, the Eurofighter Typhoon or any other delta winged aircraft out as having a fully swept wing, in spite that the principal of the delta wing was for pure and simply high speed flight and high speed maneuverability. Even the Venom’s wings were (albeit broadly) delta shaped.
Again, I don’t think that using the swept back leading edges had anything to do with gaining speed as opposed to addressing some other design issue such as CG or trying to address DH’s issues with convexity ailerons that they had with the Hornet, though this doesn’t seem to have effected the Vampire, and that the Hornet used a wing planform very similar to the Vampire’s and was intended for high speed performance as far as speed and handling went. Perhaps the Venom’s broad delta planform was better suited, but I do doubt that the swept back leading edge was to gain speed, and much of the Venom’s increase in speed over the Vampire was due to a much more powerful engine and the thinner wing section.
I’ve also asked about the DH Hornet and about Wimpenny’s comments on the Hornet’s “convexity” ailerons causing handling issues, and that on the Venom the “convexity” part was rendered in operative. Could it have been those flutter issues that may’ve caused that shift? I do remember that Wimpenny said that it was manufacturing issues with the Hornet that caused that plane’s issues, and that it wasn’t worth it to fight with it on the Venom.
Also, the Mk 1 was described as having a relatively poor roll rate compared to the Vampire, especially with the wing tip tanks filled. It seems that it could’ve been another reason to fit power boosting controls, which were said to have improved the Venom’s roll rate at all speeds and fuel loads. Could that have also been a factor to fit the power boosted controls, especially as more fighters were adapted to carry larger and larger bomb and rocket loads (as well as AAMs) when used as ground attack aircraft and as AAM-armed interceptors?
ChernKStewfanIf you think that the quality of some of the films are bad on that site, I’d suggest watching them with the widescreen mode–believe me, it’s probably worse, because I’ve seen the #33 Squadron Hornet video on there, and it’s not the greatest. The distortion issue is largely fixed, but overall picture quality takes a bit of a hit.
Sign In
