Since we're all snowed in today up in the Pacific Northwest, how about having some fun w/ our (fertile) imaginations.
How about a What-if 1/48 Mosquito. Kitbashing, chopping, and channeling are preferred. This is based on my deeply disappointing Airfix PR.XVI that just may be unbuildable save for the complete -VI included. That leaves the fuselage as a starting point.
My ideas:
Bomber fuselage.
Wings similar to the Hornet
Twin gas-turbines w/ contraprops-3 blades
ASW in Luftwaffe (post-war)markings. Appropriate antennae
Grey over Sky
And you?
Daryl J.
Well, there was that article that came out 34 or so years ago on kitbashing a Hornet from a Mosquito. I'd probably put in Napier Sabres or R-R Griffons with contraprops. If you want something hideously over-powered, use a pair of the engines from a P-3 and use much of the nacelles, too.
Ski-equipped Mosquito?
Would that be the Icequito? Russquito? :lol: :lol:
Then we could endlessly debate whether it is white, off-white, greyish off-white, fawnish off-white, off-white with a slight bluish overtone, off-white that looks like massively lightened sky (or would that be duck-egg blue)?????
Daryl
Mmmmm
a post-war Kreigsmarine Mossie with turbines sounds sweet !
Go for it ! Move ahead !
B) :ar:
Hey Daryl,
Would it be possible to just slap it together real quick with masking tape and whatnot and take a picture of it for me? I'm not sure exactly what the issue is.
Tom,
This kit, besides the new 1/48 AV-8B, is The One I've been waiting for for a decade. So I bought two PR.XVI's sight unseen.
The issue is with the fuselage-to-wing fit.
It just may be nigh unto unbuildable due to a rather huge discrepancy in the bomber fuselage and the already existing fighter fuselage. The trenches, misplaced panel lines don't bother me a whit but......
When the wings are put in the slot as moulded, they sit at a near-10 degree anhedral. Also, there is nearly a 3mm gap in the leading edge of the wing-root that goes beyond the fill-and-forget type of repair.
The original fuselage in cross-section, for visualization purposes, is like an "O".
The bomber (new) fuselage' cross-section is like an "0". In otherwords, the wings and the fuselage aren't made for each other. Grafting the bomber nose onto the FB.VI fuselage would be difficult due to their difference in X-section. Also, that complicates the fit of the inner, lower wing. You'd have to see a picture.
If I can find some masking tape, I'll photograph the problem and send copies to you.
Since the nacelles are *very* close to Tamiya's, I'm simply going to amputate the requisite parts and transplant them onto the Tamiya PR.IV. That will leave a complete old-issue Airfix Mossie...not a bad thing at all... and a fuselage for what-iffing; hence the origin of this thread. Perhaps this will lead to the Russian-flown Icequito.???? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Given the tight purse model companies are using, this *has* to have the good folks at Airfix steaming. A retool of the fuselage is in order at a minimum.
I *hate* raining on a new release' parade but that's just facts..........................
Daryl J., who'll get a PR.XVI or two built yet.
Some better news on the Airfix kit.
My second one doesn't seem to have nearly as bad of a problem. Perhaps it's just an isolated incident.
Daryl (with fingers crossed)
On the decal sheet that just arrived today, is included a gorgeous PR.34 in Aluminium/PRU Blue :wub:
How would I go about making one of these in 1/48? From my limited knowledge of the Mossie, it has 2 stage engines & the bulged bomb/camera bay. Can I just stick the two stage merlins from the Airfix NFXXX onto the Airfix PR.XVI or is it more complicated than that?
For my FB.VI which I shall start in the next couple of days, I am unsure about which props to use. The Tamiya kit has 2 types, one with thin blades, one with fat. Looking at the few piccies of Far East Aluminium painted Mosquitos that I have, it seems that FB.VI's carried both types, unless my eyes deceive me. Can anyone clear this up? (Lee I'm looking in you direction :P )
Archibald's post on the Breguet has reminded me of a reference I thought I had read (but for the life of me I can't remember where) about a 4-engined, Mosquito-like project studied by DH mid war. I think there may even have been a model at Hatfield at some point in time. I know the DH98 (?) was a 'Super Mosquito' which eventually was realised by more powerful Merlins and the buldged bomb bays of the later marks, but has anyone else come across such a fast, unarmed, 4-engine-bomber project?
Regards
GeorgeC
Two proposals made by De Havilland to the RAF are mentioned in Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950, the first was for a four Merlin powered Mosquito development and then in 1941 for a high-speed unarmed night bomber in the 46,000 lb weight category...Buttler believes that both proposals refer to the same design. He also states that it is known that a general arrangement drawing was made but that so far a copy hasn't turned up.
So if Buttler is correct we have 4 Merlins and an all-up weight of 46,000 lbs, if we give it empty-vs-loaded numbers similar to the B. Mk. IV and allow for weight creep due to increased size (still much lighter than a Lanc or Halibag)...so 29,000 lb empty with a wingspan between 88' and 90' and fuselage length somewhere between 65' and 70'.
Cheers, Jon
Sorry to hijack the thread a bit...
The Bloch (future Dassault) MB-174 was really the French Mosquito, a nightmare for the Luftwaffe (at 545 km/h, it was nearly as fast as a 109E).
A four engined version was planned, the MB-140. Quite paradoxically, the 4-engine was better than the 2-engine variant so speed and weapon load were even better!
The MB-140 was to fly at 600 km/h with 3000kg of bombs, over 2500 km. Building of the first prototype was speed up at the outbreak of WWII, but it was still unfinished in june 1940. The plane was so powerfull that everything was destroyed, to avoid falling in German hands... this plane has become a myth since then...
Thanks Jon, I haven't got a copy of that Buttler book (yet). I still wonder where I picked up the original reference. The weights and dimentions you quoted bear an interesting comparison to the Canberra. I wonder...
Regards
GeorgeC
QuoteI would be interested in seeing some kind of reference drawing to get an idea of what design was supposed to look like. If anyone has the means to transmit electronically to me a three view drawing or whatever is available, I would be most grateful.
I am seeing something in my mind at the moment that could be created by using a pair of 1/48th scale Mosquito kits and the older Revell 1/32nd scale Mosquito fuselage for a sized up fuselage with greater wing span and maybe the addition of the engines from a Lancaster.
Hmmmmm, now that the cost of creating it has gone up, perhaps rethinking this to a scale that is more affordable is better using the 1/72nd scale Mosquito offerings with the fuselage of a 1/48th scale Mosquito and the engines/nacelles from a 1/72nd scale Lancaster to obtain the larger fuselage, greater wing span, and retain the overall shape and appearance of the original Mosquito lines. Of course the 1/72nd scale cockpit/windscreen/canopy would have to be retained and grafted on to the 1/48th scale fuselage to keep it in perspective.
Anyone care to give feedback?
Hi Jeffrey,
as I mentioned in my previous post Tony Buttler and others have been searching for the 46,000 lb Mossie GA drawing that DeHavillands are known to have produced...they've had no luck so far.
As to the Sabre Mossie here is a side-view drawing I've posted previously that was printed in an Air Britain quarterly last year,
and Aircraft A was a jet-powered Mossie.
Note that while both of these were larger than the Mossie it was only be matter of a few feet in wingspan and length and as such are much smaller than the 4 Merlin 46,000lb night-bomber.
I'd say that your concept of using a 1/48th Mossie to build a 1/72 model of the night-bomber is spot on as a 1/48th kit of any given subject is 1.5 times larger than the same aircraft in 1/72.
A 1/48th scale Mossie would give, in 1/72nd scale, a bomber with a wingspan around 81' 3" and a length around 60' 9"...a little smaller than my WAG dimensions made using peformance figures as a scaling factor, but close enough for guvment work.
As a suggestion I'd go with your plan of the wings and fuselage from the 1/48th Mossie, but modify the engine nacelles from two 1/72nd scale Mossies rather than use Lancaster nacelles as De Havillands would not have been happy with something as lumpy looking as the AVRO nacelles. :D
Cheers, Jon
OK using Jeffrey's notion as starting point here's a first stab at a 4-engined Mossie bomber.
Note that along with using Mossie style canopy, engine nacelles and radiator assemblies I also ended up reducing the wing chord of the design by scaling the wingtips down by the same factor as the engines and canopy and then moved the trailing edge up to match.
The proportions of the flaps, ailerons, trimtabs etcetera also need modifying.
I'll be working up the other views over the next few days.
Cheers, Jon
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi729.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww291%2Fjoncarrfarrelly%2F4MOSSIE-02.jpg&hash=bfbcd2f64b6228074ac45fb3e5185b7cda3cb323)
Perhaps we should be looking at something that follows the Mosquito 'philosophy' but not the shape. The DH95 Albatross shows us how DH handled a 4-engine wing. The Canberra fuselage, especially the front, has always had a 'hint of Mosquito' about it for me, and was actual outcome of the fast, unarmed approach to bomber design. The Canberra's payload, weights and dims are very similar to the numbers Jon quoted from Buttler.
A tail dragging Canberra, fitted with a DH95 wing and 4 Merlins, would be an interesting project.
Regards
GeorgeC
QuotePerhaps we should be looking at something that follows the Mosquito 'philosophy' but not the shape. The DH95 Albatross shows us how DH handled a 4-engine wing. The Canberra fuselage, especially the front, has always had a 'hint of Mosquito' about it for me, and was actual outcome of the fast, unarmed approach to bomber design. The Canberra's payload, weights and dims are very similar to the numbers Jon quoted from Buttler.
A tail dragging Canberra, fitted with a DH95 wing and 4 Merlins, would be an interesting project.
Regards
GeorgeC
Actually the only number I quoted from Buttler was the 46,000lb weight, the others were my estimates using the B. Mk. IV performance as a baseline.
The Albatross was the DH 91, the DH 95 was the all-metal Flamingo...the DH 91 wingshape was the culmination of forms seen in DH designs predating the DH 88 Comet and continuing through the DH 90 biplane. In someways the Albatross is an enlarged monoplane DH 86, which was a very elegant 4-engine biplane. De Havilland's later high performance wing shapes went through a variety of forms starting with the DH 93 Don. As elegant as the DH 91's wings were I personally find it doubtful that it would have been used on the 4-engine Mossie as, unlike the DH 98 Mosquito, the shape and construction did not really lend itself to rapid mass production.
Cheers, Jon
How about the 4 engined Mossie being along the same development as the Junkers 488 being derived from the 388? Plugs & stretches being more appropriate than a 1.5X enlargement?
Jon, I think you are going in the right direction with your drawing except the cockpit could be recessed even further with minimal interference with the fuselage lines, perhaps similar in appearance to the Republic R-12 Rainbow. With the larger fuselage, it would be possible to do that and still have enough room for bombadier, pilot, flight engineer, radioman, and navigator.
Perhaps going one step further and converting it from a tail dragger to a more conventional tricycle landing gear arrangement. This would be possible with a small rearrangement of the cockpit and crew positions and perhaps placing the wing a little further back to regain the center of gravity for balace purposes.
If this larger Mosquito was designed for to carry a 16,000 pound bomb load to Berlin, I now wonder if that would include a pair of the 8,000 pound blockbuster weapons or four of the 4,000 pound cookies as a standard load. Or would the bomb load have been 16 X 1000 pound bombs or equivalent weight in incendiary bombs? For shorter distance missions would the aircraft have been able to carry the 22,000 pound Grand Slam?
As a Coastal Command aircraft, I could see this aircraft carrying 8 X 2,000 pound mines for anti-shipping missions.
I think the 'super Mosquito' and 4 engine projects are being confused. The twin Sabre-engined project was supposed to carry a 4000lbs bomb load and basically ran out of steam and as the evolution of the Merlin allowed the developed MkXVI to meet pretty much all of the requirements.
Carrying 16 000 lbs in a 46 000 lbs, fast, unarmed bomber looks a bit much; the Lancaster's 'routine' load was up to 14 0000 lbs in a 63 000 lbs aeroplane while the Canberra, with jet engines, fitted 6000 lbs internally on a 46 000 lbs airframe. On the basis that a twin-engined Mosquito could carry 4000 lbs of bombs perhaps a four-engined should carry about 8000lbs - mathematically simple but consistent with the other payload and weight figures.
I would also tend towards a 3-man crew like the Canberra - the tasks and technology the crew would have had to manage would have been reasonably similar. Weight management would be critical to this aircraft to maintain the height/speed capabilities which would allow it to avoid most night fighter attacks.
Regards
GeorgeC
Thanks for the reality check, had to take another look at the figures, I would hazard to say that a Mosquito-like design capable of carrying a 16,000 pound payload would border on the size of the B-36 and take a large forest to build and many more engines than would fit on the the wings.
A 6-engined Mosquito - now we are getting somewhere!
Regards
George
QuoteA 6-engined Mosquito - now we are getting somewhere!
Regards
George
The question is would that buzzing noise be the aircraft or all of the termites chewing away at it?
QuoteI think the 'super Mosquito' and 4 engine projects are being confused. The twin Sabre-engined project was supposed to carry a 4000lbs bomb load and basically ran out of steam and as the evolution of the Merlin allowed the developed MkXVI to meet pretty much all of the requirements.
Carrying 16 000 lbs in a 46 000 lbs, fast, unarmed bomber looks a bit much; the Lancaster's 'routine' load was up to 14 0000 lbs in a 63 000 lbs aeroplane while the Canberra, with jet engines, fitted 6000 lbs internally on a 46 000 lbs airframe. On the basis that a twin-engined Mosquito could carry 4000 lbs of bombs perhaps a four-engined should carry about 8000lbs - mathematically simple but consistent with the other payload and weight figures.
I would also tend towards a 3-man crew like the Canberra - the tasks and technology the crew would have had to manage would have been reasonably similar. Weight management would be critical to this aircraft to maintain the height/speed capabilities which would allow it to avoid most night fighter attacks.
Regards
GeorgeC
No confusion on my part between the two projects.
Anyhow George my original figures were based on a scale up using the maximum load to airframe tare figures of the B.MK IV and I never said the load was 16,000 lbs of BOMBS rather I was making a guesstimate of an airframe tare weight of around 29,000 - 30,000 lbs with an MTOW of 46,0000lbs...which was Buttler's figure. Anyhow my "dimensional" scaling factor was not a direct 1.5X (that came from the 1/72 to 1/48th comparo) but rather 1.6X.
B. Mk. IV tare weight was13,400 lbs, MTOW was 21,462 lbs. Load factor of 1.6.
Lancaster tare weight was 37,000 lbs, MTOW was 65,000 lbs in the I, II, IX, 68,000lbs for the VII. Load factors of 1.75 and 1.83 respectively.
Halifax III tare was 38,900 lb, MTOW 65,000 lb with 13,000 lb of bombs. Load factor of 1.67.
So using the known figure of 46,000 lbs and multiplying by .62 (factor generated by dividing the B.Mk.IV tare of 13,400 by the MTOW of 21,462) we arrive at an airframe weight of 28,520...more than double the tare of the Mosquito. I then added a fudge factor for weight increase caused by airframe growth and pushed it up to between 29,000 lbs (ideal) and 30,000 lbs (more likely). The resulting load factor is in the 1.5 range...less than both the Halifax and the Lancaster, and thus entirely within the range of possibility.
An 8,000lb bomb load would be at the top end, 10,000 lbs of fuel and 6,000 lbs of bombs would be more likely for a long-range mission.
Cheers, Jon
Jon,
The confusion was certainly not yours but in the quote from Greg Gobel's website which had associated a 16,000lb bomb load with the twin-Sabre project, closer, as you point out, to the the aircraft's tare weight than its intended bombload of 4000lbs. It is interesing that the MkXVI could double its bombload by addressing a volume issue, bulged doors to carry one big fat 'cookie' compared to 4 streamlined 500lbs, rather than power or basic structure issues. Your meticulous calculations certainly beat my 'double the engines double the bombs' rule of thumb!
Has anyone a view on crewing this beast. The DH team fought off many attempts to impose weight, mainly guns and turrets, on the basic design and would proabably have taken the same approach to the 4-engined ac. Could a single pilot physically handle this much larger aircraft all the way to Berlin and back? Would one 'nav' be able to handle all the other tasks?
Regards
GeorgeC
Quote
Has anyone a view on crewing this beast. The DH team fought off many attempts to impose weight, mainly guns and turrets, on the basic design and would proabably have taken the same approach to the 4-engined ac. Could a single pilot physically handle this much larger aircraft all the way to Berlin and back? Would one 'nav' be able to handle all the other tasks?
Don't see why you'd need another pilot, Halifax and Lancaster were both single pilot aircraft.
As to crew, three would be most likely: pilot, bomb aimer/navigator and flight engineer/radio opreator would be the likely mix. As in the other heavies the flight engineer would assist the pilot during tkeoff and landing.
I'm also thinking that putting the pilot offset to port under a bubble canopy, Canberra style, would look very cool.
Cheers, Jon
Interestingly and according to Tony Buttler's book British Secret Projects-Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950, while de Havilland was in the design stage of the DH.98, one of the options they were looking at was a single engined Napier Sabre version (page 77 for those that have the book). This would have had a wing span of 47ft. It goes on to say that the twin Merlin version was a scaled up design of this design. It suggests then that a Sabre engined Mosquito would have looked similar but smaller.
:cheers: Robert
QuoteInterestingly and according to Tony Buttler's book British Secret Projects-Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950, while de Havilland was in the design stage of the DH.98, one of the options they were looking at was a single engined Napier Sabre version (page 77 for those that have the book). This would have had a wing span of 47ft. It goes on to say that the twin Merlin version was a scaled up design of this design. It suggests then that a Sabre engined Mosquito would have looked similar but smaller.
:cheers: Robert
Yet the later Sabre "Super-Mossie" would have been an aircraft slightly larger than the Mossie.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.braynededesigns.com%2Fimages%2FSABRE-MOSSIE.jpg&hash=dc09ac07f940de1bf6752a3d3f2508fd7ed246dc)
The thing to keep in mind about a Sabre-engined Mossie is that De Havilland's would likely not have used a "beard" radiator installation...such an aesthetic monstrosity would have given Geoffrey palpitations.
A twin Sabre Beaufighter or P-38 on the other hand...
Cheers, Jon
suggestions please for a radial engined mossie... :wacko:
airfix 1/72 mkII/VI/XVIII mosquito kit and two aeroclub bristol hercules engines are
starting things off.
i was thinking of a NMF USAAF example but i am sure some will have some suitably
interesting suggestions as the USAAF example in azure blue with a red tail that is in
the 1/48 airfix mossie is also appealing.
trevor
didn't the Argintinians build something that looked a lot like that??
Well you could always go with the Argentinian Calquin.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeroespacio.com.ar%2F538%2Fsite%2Fimagenes2%2Fcalquin4.jpg&hash=e967d3487abeadcb7a4dacd771eb63528a68a38c)
Brian da Basher
Trevor, how about a couple of Centaurus's or even R-2800's, The Australians did an R-2800 Beaufighter.
Robert
P&W Twin Wasps?
QuoteP&W Twin Wasps?
Rat you nailed it! Those were indeed the engines used on the Calquin. Hopefully Trevor will find the inspiration he's looking for here. :)
Brian da Basher
QuoteTrevor, how about a couple of Centaurus's
My thoughts exactly! :wub:
Beyond the actual engines, I'd be inclined to make it more exotic than USAF.
I'd paint it high speed silver and put it in Korean War SAAF markings, you know the old early post war blue/white roundel with the impala in it. I'd cram a load of rockets under its wings, convert its weapons bay to a big gun bay and stick it in the COIN role.
Alternately, I'd paint it sea grey over sky, stick Indian Navy markings on it and load it with guns and depth charges for the anti shipping role.
You could also do it up in Royal Egyptian Air Force markings for one of their earlier
spats with Israel.
Quotesuggestions please for a radial engined mossie... :wacko:
Blasphemer!
:dum:
QuoteQuotesuggestions please for a radial engined mossie... :wacko:
Blasphemer!
:dum:
Its not blasphemy until he puts tricycle landing gear on it! :dum:
Unless its a turboprop, tricycle landing gears set ups don't look right on prop driven aircraft.
(muses quitely to himself "Mosquito with a pair of Darts and contraprops...." :wub: )
Quote
(muses quitely to himself "Mosquito with a pair of Darts and contraprops...." :wub: )
After reading the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust's book on the RR Crecy a few years ago, I have always wondered how this engine would have impacted aircraft design.
The Crecy concept looked a lot like a jet turbine, what with the compessor at the front and the exhaust turbine at the back.
What would aircraft, like the Mossie, involved into using these engines. Would it have been underdesigned for the power that was envisioned from this engine?
Robert
I wouldn't go as far as a pair of Darts, but how about these two re-engine jobs??
:)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2006-8%2F1203417%2FReenginedMossies.jpg&hash=cbfd09f381ace5df4da45b2d1f8d5e20768ee72e)
How about later model P&W Wasp series like the R-3350 for a late war bird or R-4360 post-war? You could then paint it up with oil blowing all over ther wing & fairing, Skyraider style! I know it's an inline, but Napier Sabre's would look seriously grunty & would be one hell of a talking point!
Radial engined mosquito, thats so... damn.
QuoteAs for the Calquin, the Argies wanted Merlins originally but the Ministry of Supply said no - but they could buy Mosquitos instead!
And people think defence export sales lunancy is a new thing!
Regards,
Greg
QuoteWell you could always go with the Argentinian Calquin.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeroespacio.com.ar%2F538%2Fsite%2Fimagenes2%2Fcalquin4.jpg&hash=e967d3487abeadcb7a4dacd771eb63528a68a38c)
thanks BdB! that is exactly what i was aiming for but with a standardish fighter
nose rather than a bomber version. it won't be having tricycle u/c btw.
and to the nay-sayers hereabouts. tough! its my model and if i wanted to i'd paint
it red, so there. :P i was planning to do a twin radial engined
F-82 but thought that was too far for now.
t.
Since you're going with radials, I like the US idea. Maybe even a USN carrier bird ? Since they only wanted radials at sea........
Any road, have fun ! And let's see a few pics !
:cheers:
Quote
Its not blasphemy until he puts tricycle landing gear on it! :dum:
Unless its a turboprop, tricycle landing gears set ups don't look right on prop driven aircraft.
I'd have to take exception with that statement, the Grumman F7F Tigercat was one of the most beautiful radial engined aircraft ever built and it sat on a tricycle gear. :D
I like the radial engined Mosquito idea, how about a Russian reverse engineered aircraft usin available Soviet radials instead.
Mark
I think the mosquito actually looks a bit Meaner with the radials more Butch than Sleek & Sexy
Quotei was thinking of a NMF USAAF example
I've only just picked up on this Trev!
NMF??? NWF more like, wasn't known as the wooden wonder for nothing! Although you might be able to come up with a back story as to why the Americans went with an all metal version, maybe due to the problems the Mossies had with the humidity in Burma & such, maybe extra strength for a pair of grunty radials?
QuoteHow about later model P&W Wasp series like the R-3350 for a late war bird or R-4360 post-war? You could then paint it up with oil blowing all over ther wing & fairing, Skyraider style! I know it's an inline, but Napier Sabre's would look seriously grunty & would be one hell of a talking point!
Minor point, the R3350 is a Wright engine, not a P&W one (I suspect partisans of both companies would be after you for that ;) ). I really don't see more than a two-row radial working on the Mosquito, anything more would severely muck up the weight and balance as well as play hell with the pilot's view. Now, if you've got four R3350s and don't mind doing some surgery, there was a proposed R4090 that used the same cylinders as the R3350, but added two per row.
Not radial, but could a mosquito be fitted with Napier Sabres? They're about a foot wider than the merlins, but they're not as tall. Length is shorter or longer, depending on the model merlin.
Sabre-Mossie
Cheers, Jon
Cool pic Jon, thanks!
QuoteFrankly, given the problems with the Vulture engined Manchester, I think a twin Sabre Mosquito would be daft. The Sabre wasn't a very forgiving engine as it had very close tolerances.
Interesting, thanks for the comments. I read the numbers and they looked attractive, but wasn't aware they were troublesome.
QuoteWell you could always go with the Argentinian Calquin.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aeroespacio.com.ar%2F538%2Fsite%2Fimagenes2%2Fcalquin4.jpg&hash=e967d3487abeadcb7a4dacd771eb63528a68a38c)
Brian da Basher
According to The Definitive 1-72 Scale Model Census you can get a 1/72 scale kit of this aircraft which is made by Llama (a company I've never heard off BTW) Maybe Rafa could find something out about it?
Edit: Well now guess what I've just found!!
http://llama84.tripod.com/ (http://llama84.tripod.com/)
You know, the more I read this thread the more I like the idea of a radial Mossie. I may have to try one myself.
I was looking at my stash and I have a Smer reissue of Heller's 1/72 Breguet 693 that I doubt I'll actually build. From the information I can find, it seemed to be in about the same size bracket as the Mosquito.
What I could find out about its engines, the Gnome Rhone 14M, is that it was quite a popular engine and widely lisence built, I think the Germans even copied it for some of their own birds.
I think it might look good on the Mossie as it was quite compact and tightly coweled for a radial and so still had something of a streamlined profile to it.
Anybody think that engine would work with the Mossie?
Back to Trev's original thought of Hercules on his Mossie...
Merlin 20 Series 1,450-1,465 lbs; 1,390 hp
Bristol Hercules XVI (Beaufighter VI, VIF, TFX)) 1,845 lbs; 1,615 hp;
weight increase in the area of 800 lbs for a power increase of 450 hp...
or using this selection:
Bristol Hercules XVII (TFX)) 1,845 lbs; 1,725 hp;
weight increase in the area of 800 lbs for a power increase of 670 hp.
Removal of the Merlin's liquid cooling associated equipment will reduce airframe weight somewhat, thus reducing the delta, but exactly by how much would require knowing the weight of the various parts.
The Bristol 101 series engines were the first with the rear-swept exhaust, and chronologically fit into the mid-war period, so why not give your Hercules powered Mossie rear-swept exhaust and tighter cowling? You could go separate pipes as later used on the Bristol 170 Freighter or a Tempest/Fury type combined ejector exhaust...which would look pretty cool.
BTW the Centaurus is 2,695 lbs, the Sabre went 2,375 to 2,540 lbs, the R-2800 was in the same weight range as the Sabre, R-3350 started at around 2,500lbs and only went up from there.
The R-4360 you ask? Fuggedaboudit, 3,200lbs at the low end.
All pretty much non-starters for a DH 98 based airframe.
Cheers, Jon
The liquid cooling system easily weighs 100 kg incl fluids, but that's offset by the increase in drag of an air-cooled radial.
Quote
What I could find out about its engines, the Gnome Rhone 14M, is that it was quite a popular engine and widely lisence built, I think the Germans even copied it for some of their own birds.
The 14M was only 700hp.
Jon
Weren't they the type fitted to the Me-323 (6 in total)?
Mav
And if we're doing things exotically, how about BMW 801s off the Fw-190A?
Beautifully cowled an compact, could be a post war jigger.
Mav
QuoteAnd if we're doing things exotically, how about BMW 801s off the Fw-190A?
Beautifully cowled an compact, could be a post war jigger.
Mav
Actually it was not really all that 'compact' an engine, the installation had a lot to do with the appearance of compactness.
BMW 801; 79" long, 51" diameter, 2,325 lbs.
R-2800 as mounted in P-47D; 75.72" long, 52.5" diameter, 2,265 lbs.
Hercules; 52" diameter (55" as power egg-including cowling), I've been so far unable to locate length data, 1,845 lbs.
From a horsepower standpoint the 801 and Hercules are in the same class, but the 801 is a lot heavier and of a larger displacement: 41.8 liters vs. 38.7 liters.
Cheers, Jon
O.K. no M14 if I decide to go ahead with a radial Mossie.
How about a Shvetsov ASh-58 like what they put in the Lavochkin LA-5?
From what I can find, it had a dry weight of about 1914 pounds and could crank out 1700 h.p.
I did find out last night that the M14 was actually liquid cooled so removing the Mossie's leading edge coolers is really a non option with it.
The Shvetsov unit is trully air cooled so the coolers could come off if it could be used with the Mossie.
Would make for an interesting Russian copy and the Russians certainly had enough wood available to open their own Mosquitoski assembly line.
Forget french engines - radial 14M was 700hp, 14N of the Bloch 174 was 1100 hp only. So you'll actually LOSE power
Well, there was the 14R but this was post WWII, rated at 1580 hp, and this one,too, was "a piece of junk"
I like the idea of As-82 engines :wub: Reverse engeniered Mossies ? :wub:
QuoteQuoteAnd if we're doing things exotically, how about BMW 801s off the Fw-190A?
Beautifully cowled an compact, could be a post war jigger.
Mav
Actually it was not really all that 'compact' an engine, the installation had a lot to do with the appearance of compactness.
BMW 801; 79" long, 51" diameter, 2,325 lbs.
R-2800 as mounted in P-47D; 75.72" long, 52.5" diameter, 2,265 lbs.
Hercules; 52" diameter (55" as power egg-including cowling), I've been so far unable to locate length data, 1,845 lbs.
From a horsepower standpoint the 801 and Hercules are in the same class, but the 801 is a lot heavier and of a larger displacement: 41.8 liters vs. 38.7 liters.
Cheers, Jon
Damn German engineering! Making something that big look so small! :lol: :lol:
QuoteForget french engines - radial 14M was 700hp, 14N of the Bloch 174 was 1100 hp only. So you'll actually LOSE power
Well, there was the 14R but this was post WWII, rated at 1580 hp, and this one,too, was "a piece of junk"
I like the idea of As-82 engines :wub: Reverse engeniered Mossies ? :wub:
ASh-82s could be a goer, however, they are just as massive as a BMW 801. Again a brilliant job of installation makes them appear smaller.
'Reverse engineer' what exactly? The Russians made wide use of wood and wood-phenolic composite sheeting in their aircraft construction. In terms of general aerodynamic design and theory they were on a par with the other combatants.
Also they had their own 'Mossie', the Pe-2.
Anyhow, a shpon aircraft in the general shape of the Mosquito powered by ASh-82s would be cool.
Cheers, Jon
QuoteQuoteForget french engines - radial 14M was 700hp, 14N of the Bloch 174 was 1100 hp only. So you'll actually LOSE power
Well, there was the 14R but this was post WWII, rated at 1580 hp, and this one,too, was "a piece of junk"
I like the idea of As-82 engines :wub: Reverse engeniered Mossies ? :wub:
ASh-82s could be a goer, however, they are just as massive as a BMW 801. Again a brilliant job of installation makes them appear smaller.
'Reverse engineer' what exactly? The Russians made wide use of wood and wood-phenolic composite sheeting in their aircraft construction. In terms of general aerodynamic design and theory they were on a par with the other combatants.
Also they had their own 'Mossie', the Pe-2.
Anyhow, a shpon aircraft in the general shape of the Mosquito powered by ASh-82s would be cool.
Cheers, Jon
Well, I wasn't thinking reverse engineered Mosquito so much as just a plain old licensed assembly line.
However, I had forgotten about the Russian's own Mossie (Pe-2) so I won't chase that premise further.
Based on whats said here and what I got from Jon in a PM (Thanks by the way Jon) I think I'll not pursue a Francophile Mossie either.
The ASh-82 it is for me (I just picked up an Airfix 1/72 Mossie today) Kopro LA-5 and LA-7 kits can be had for next to nothing around these parts so the engines will be real easy to get.
I think my renewed premise might be closer to the Calquin, that of a nation that could get the airframe but had to look elsewhere for the engines.
Now, what nations could concievably find themselves in such a position and obtain Russian engines for the Mossie?...
Would that Finnish Mossie of fine Baltic Birch ply be in a lovely natural blond finish? :D
There's a 'what-if?' for ya, what-if Alvar Aalto had designed aircraft?
Cheers, Jon
If comfortable with chopping, channeling, smoothing and the like, one could reprofile the tailplane to be shorter and more round ie He-70-ish. Watts twin blade props, fewer canopy braces, and perhaps a tail skid instead of a tyre. Reprofiling the engine nacelles to match the prototype would be very trick, but also very tricky to accomplish.
When whiffing an aircraft, somehow a visual change that's noticeable seems to be a key point in success, even if somewhat subtle.
Hopefully, the above-mentioned tricks are doable in part at least.
What a great idea you have! :party: :party: :party:
Daryl J.
As well as the twin-blader props, add an open cockpit and spatted u/c.
Why not add a rear gunner?
I like this idea.
I have a couple of 1/48th Airfix Mossies too.
Can you imagine the JMNs if you did the necessary to a 1/24th Heritage kit?
Colour scheme?
Earth/Green uppers with white/black undersurfaces?
Silver dope, pre-war squadron markings?
This gets better and better!! :party:
Hey....cut off the engine nacelle fronts and add some "open" uncowled radial engines courtesy of Aeroclub? Lots of opportunity for oil spils, spraying it around, and weathering! :party:
Would an open cockpit have twin fairings behind the crew's heads? The FB has a flat windscreen yes? If so, that would make an open cockpit variant easier for a modeler to construct.
If the tail height is reduced, one could introduce some sort of ventral strake in front of the tail skid to enhance surface area.......
Edit: Do Aeroclub make early exhausts for the Hurricane? Or, does anyone make the exhausts where the six holes just dump out the sides individually immediately at the aircraft's skin? That may be a wanted detail....perhaps.
Another penny worth,
Daryl J.
Another change is that it could have retained the turret proposed for the Mosquito - see below for mockups:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fhe-162%2Fscan0002-1.jpg&hash=6f183a75175784cbe4b0f19aabda9582a48b1d52)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fhe-162%2Fscan0003.jpg&hash=116449dd01bb8683528c3de64c09aee41e646721)
Regards,
Greg
turret. Cool.
I prefer a full "retro" though, so it'll be silver dope, A-type roundels, open canopy, no u/c doors and somehow I'll fashion "spats" onto the u/c. Thinking a thin piece of card "curved" around the existing u/c with a LOT of filler to merge it into the nacelle.
All rigged too.....gorra have rigging.
Different fin/rudder....V-tail?
Whooo-hoooooo.......I'm excited by this.
Aeroclub do various engines/propellers in 1/72nd and 1/48th.
Just ordered a pair of Gladiator twin-bladers from Hannants.
Thanks guys, I'm purely thinking of an early war version rather than going back, so it'd retain the retractable undercarriage & probably three blade props & definately be finished in green/earth, probably night white undesides although skys a possibility. The turret is nice addition & I only vaugely remember reading about it, thanks for that Greg. If the Mossie had acquired the turret, would it have been the wonderplane it became? It seems that it would have watered down DH's original intention, but it wouldn't have been the only time that doctrine had got in the way of a great design.
Does anyone have any more pics of the prototype? I can only find the odd few on the web, so I'm really going to have to find some good reference books on the Mossie, especially since it's my namesake!
With night/white undersides, two bladed props would match the Spitfires of the day and give it just that "different enough" look.
QuoteIf the Mossie had acquired the turret, would it have been the wonderplane it became?
From what I've read, de Havilland didn't want the turret, but the Ministry wanted it. The turret apparently cut speed by around 20mph.
QuoteDoes anyone have any more pics of the prototype?
I have a few, but I think they're all B&W - is that ok? Are there any specific shots/views you are after?
Regards,
Greg
Black & whites great Greg, apart from a couple the only pics I can find are ones of the prototype in it's later PR guise. Nothing specific I'm after, just general shots of shape & what have you to see what kind of work would be required to backdate a Mossie kit.
These are the only photo's I've found on the net:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FMosquitoProtoype01.jpg&hash=68132736ec6b14cc2df683b2e8dfb0ca71ae61df)
Not sure if this the prototype, looks like a standard NFII to me
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FMosquitoProtoype02.jpg&hash=9cb25d9b85cc1147fdf397fca84c907889360358)
Nice detail shot of a complex circular airbrake setup
Nope, not the prototype. Mosquito #1 had no nacelle fairing extending past the trailing edge of the wing. Unfortunately, the shorter nacelle caused no small amount of instability if I recall correctly.
Was the circular airbrake known as the Buzz Saw???? :lol:
Edit: try www.Mossie.org I've not given it an explore but it should have photos of W4050, the yellow prototype.
Second Edit: try this
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb6%2FDe_Havilland_Mosquito_Prototype.jpg&hash=2c65a31eaeab95288bd7f19caecdf329c845dbf4)
HTH,
Daryl J.
PS: Isn't Jennings some sort of Mosquito Guru? And if so, I'd love to know which of the 1/48 kits has the too-short tail...............for a whiff only......thanks
So if we "retro" a Mossie, would it still be a De Havilland Mosquito or a de Havilland Mosquito Larva?
How about a retroed Mossie in:
Finnish
Latvian
Lithuanian
Chinese
Dutch
Belgian
Japanese
markings? :party:
How about fitting one of those new fangled in flight refuelling probes as seen on Westland Whirlwinds.
It'd come in handy for those long boring flights out to the sub killing grounds in the North Atlantic :)
Nurse ! :wacko:
Hey....bonzer idea for a "late" Mossie!!
White all over, Dark sea Grey "plan-view" uppersurfaces....bonzer!! B)
Got some nice squadron markings for my retro-Mosquito (or Larva Mosquito F.2), in '30s colours....from a Hornet. :party:
I have the PR.XVI and NF.38 kits in 1/48th by Airfix, but there's a huge number of parts to do it all justice. :party: :party:
Rad, how about your retro Mossie with a Comet racer wing, maybe keep the Gipsy six engines too??? That swallow shape to the DH.88 wing is just gorgeous! :wub:
The Comet is really a very small aircraft.....but a 1/72nd one with two cannon in the nose could look good.
I expect to have to change quite a few bits to try to make it look even more different....certainly thinking of having a fabric rear fuselage! :lol:
If I was TOTALLY BONKERS, how about this scenario......
engine at the front of the fuselage PLUS a pusher at the back....
no engines on the wings, clipped, but these carry the armament...
nose whell u/c plus X-tail with tiny runners on the lower tailplanes?
Sounds more of a "future" Mossie though.
Here's an idea I thought up while strafing a lego space station with my 1/48 monogram mosquito. I half heartedly built it as a kid and although the airframe is in good shape, the cockpit is shot and so are the engines, landing gear, guns, radar... basically anything that'd break when used as a toy.
Scale-o-rama it into a 1/72 four engine bomber or PR plane using a couple smaller scale mosquito kits.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maj.com%2Fgallery%2Fgooberliberation%2Fairplanes%2Fmoscale.gif&hash=e1efdf2474c4eb90018e19d6c3a2fee14b5696f5)
Here's a quick-and-dirty .gif mockup of what I had in mind. Wingtips of the smaller kit have been grafted on to add span. The biggest obstacles I see, aside from the canopy(MORE PUTTY!!) would be the outboard nacelles and their radiators. I figure that the inboard ones could use the ones already there, mabye reduced in area by blocking off the front a bit. Mating the existing nacelles to engines that are 1/3 smaller would also be an issue.
Aside from the rescaled parts, a fin fillet and tricycle landing gear would be on order. If I attempt this, I most likely wouldn't add gun turrets, not that I have any donors for such parts.
What would I call it anyway..
hornet... no
mosquito... no
gnat... nah
botfly... mabye
locust... mabye
Cockroach? :lol:
I have build a master for a manufacturer some time ago.its in 1/72 scale.I planned to make one in 1/48 scale too.not sure for which kit....tamyia or airfix? the finnish one has another wheels and the props are like the late FW190 blades.
I will start with my own label this year so I will make it too.I know you could make it too so i will aks this guy about the material I had to build the master.
best regards
Peter
Joe, I take it this was a real project, not just a random idea?
For the new Revell Germany chin-scooped Mossie:
Green 79/ Green 102/ Tan 219/ Flat Black. SUU-11, nape tanks, or smaller daisy cutters. Metal construction (since it is whiff-land after all... construction defugelties be despised)
Overall Hemp, lo-vis Canadian Air Force, Kuwait 1992.
Overall GSB, USMC. Korea land based, 1952
:cheers:
Daryl J.
Quote from: Daryl J. on May 03, 2008, 11:49:05 AMFor the new Revell Germany chin-scooped Mossie:
Green 79/ Green 102/ Tan 219/ Flat Black. SUU-11, nape tanks, or smaller daisy cutters. Metal construction (since it is whiff-land after all... construction defugelties be despised)
Overall Hemp, lo-vis Canadian Air Force, Kuwait 1992.
Overall GSB, USMC. Korea land based, 1952
Since you brought it up, why not dispense with the wood construction altogether? New build Mosquito using metal for everything. No more worries about termites or the glue debonding issues associated with extreme tempratures and climates.
Korean war, Malaysia, and early Vietnam and Laos era Mosquitos could be fitted to carry the wing and fuselage mounted package machine guns (twin or single) as seen on the SBC Helldiver, TBF/TBM Avenger, B-25 Mitchell, A-26 Invader, and B-26 Marauder. Replace the 60 pound RP with 5.0" HVAR and 11.0" Tiny Tim for something intimidating. Smaller fragmentation bombs in cluster adapters would probably be the preferred weapon with these being caried internally. The fire bombs would be carried under the wings.
Another possibility would be to replace the .303" and 20mm weapons with a battery of six .50" machine guns in the nose. I don't believe eight weapons would fit but that is something that could be checked if anyone has the resources on hand to perform a "check-fit."
This is the 8 .50 gunpack on the F-82, it doesn't look much bigger than the Mossie nose.
:bow: :bow: :bow: Superb ideas gents! And here I was, about to start on a Mossie projects thread!
To make you aware, I'm doing a very small whif of a Mossie, a new-build one for my own personal use, essentially just a normal FB.VI with made up Kiwi serial. Keenly awaiting my Airfix kit to arrive (ordered last week but shop's gotta wait for the supplier to ship it to them!), and then look into a 1:48 one.
Regards that Finnish Daimler Mossie, over the past fortnight I've been suffering from Mosquito fever, reading every available review on the net, and found this one at http://hsfeatures.com/finnishmosquitodp_1.htm (http://hsfeatures.com/finnishmosquitodp_1.htm). Yes, Hyperscale! Which has become a great resource for me. The DB601s(?) look perfect on the DH.98!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa388%2FZacYates%2Ffinnishmosquitodp_3.jpg&hash=9a95179f82dd017eebbf461df69cb23138dcf90c)
One of many superb Mossie builds at HS by Mr Pennington.
That it is! In the build report Derek comments on various aspects he incorporated to make it believable -ie substitution of the original undercarriage with that from Blenheims. He goes into some detail, it's very admirable and adds to the believability.
Ey mang, you put the engines on upside down ;D
Seriously, though, the DBs actually give it a touch of mean-ness.
I'm going to do an "Ultimate Mosquito" one of these days. I am intrigued by the "torpedo-bomber" aspect of the "Highball" bouncing bomb, and am going to incorporate that into my "what-if" carrier-capable Sea Mosquito. I am going to take a good 1/72 Mossie kit, add "Spiteful" engines with five-bladed props, hinge the wings, bulge the bombbay, and put in the twin-Highball aftermarket resin set I acquired twenty years ago. I had thought of a low-profile rear-facing gun turret (also mocked-up by DeHavilland) but have rejected it. I really like the look of the "bomber" version with v-shaped windshield, but most likely such a low-level "torpedo-bomber" would have the "fighter" windscreen for better visibility directly out in front. Since this plane would be aiming off to one side or another of a moving ship, maybe the angled windscreen would be better after all. I also really like the glass nose better than the solid bulge, but I would presume that a radar set would be better for night attacks. Dunno. It's still in the planning stage.
Hey Gooberlib! I just saw your 4-engined mossie drawing and wanted to tell you I have "already built one". The backstory is that Gloster of Canada was making Mossie fuselages to some sabotaged plans that made the finished product three times the size! Not wanting to "waste" production, the fuselages were mated to Lancaster wings, and some defensive armament incorporated into the oversized fuselage. It's the "Gloster Goatsucker" (Goatsucker is a whip-poor-will bird in Britspeak). I love the fitting look of four Merlins. Whaddya think?
I would have used the Vickers Winsor wings :wacko: wicked build though, and yes more pics please.
Very very cool :thumbsup:
It has a very B-17esque vibe to it.
The model is 1/72. I used a 1/48 Monogram Mossie kit (had never noticed the slightly slab-sided fuselage of the "incorrect" Monogram model until last week when it was pointed out by a Mossie modeler) for the fuselage, tail, and landing gear. A nice new-Airfix Lanc in 1/72 provided the wings, cockpit detail, and "Dambuster" bomb--this time for use flying from Singapore against Japanese battleships (hence "Danger Down Under" for the ordnance and the Aussie crew). The top turret is from a Monogram Snap-tite Marauder (VERY nice, by the way, and the only early-model B-26 around), the side gun positions came from some B-25.
Here is the same angle look but from farther away--the only other pic I have of it. I have won several awards in local model contests with it. Despite the designated scale of 1/72, I always have to put my stuff in "miscellaneous" because they are not "real" aircraft.
Craig Burke
I WANT ONE!!!!!!!! Maybe I'll have a use for my Airfix Lancaster after all.....
Please, we demand more pics! Many, many more! What kit did you use for the Mossie fuse - Revell 1:32 or one of the 1:48s?
The idea of a Griffon-powered Super Mosquito is a really cool idea too, I can imagine five-blade props would make the lady look like a real mean b**ch! Please let us know if you go ahead with the build...I wouldn't mind doing one in 1:72....
EDIT Didn't see your post above...sorry :drink:
Somewhere above I heard mention the DH 88 Comet as a possible source of "what-if" somewhat like a Whirlwind. "Mossie" and "Radish" were talking about it in replies #36-37. Well...........yes, I have done one!
I took the Frog DH 88 kit (Better than the Airfix one!) and used up THREE Frog S6B kits (bunged one of them up) for the engine cowlings, used Whirwind nacelles/landing gear, interior, and nose (without the protruding guns--but the holes for them for four .303's), and an Ar-96 canopy. I cut down the V-12's to V-8's, as if the Merlin V-12 had been down-sized (components the same, roughly) to a 700HP engine for possible commercial use or military trainers.
Portugal acquired one of the real DH-88's, so I made this twin-engined, long-ranged light fighter in Portuguese markings for escorting "neutral" flights from spy-infested Lisbon to the UK. As you might know, in 1943 the British actor Leslie Howard was killed aboard a KLM airliner by a German Ju-88 intercepting it over the Bay of Biscay on its way from Lisbon to Britain. There is a story (apparently just an unsubstantiated rumor but a GOOD story) that the Germans believed Churchill was on the plane. In my backstory, through counter-intelligence Churchill finds out about the upcoming shoot-down and takes an earlier plane, but the DH 88 "Cometa" fighter escorts the planned flight anyway, underscoring the possible importance of the flight to German agents. The DH-88 shoots down one of the intercepting Ju-88s (notice the same numbers!), but only after the airliner is afire and doomed, and the Cometa itself has taken hits and is smoking. The Cometa pilot feels responsible for Churchill's death (no one told him about the switch, to keep the illusion) so finds a German coastal patrol ship and deliberately crashes into it to atone. The Belgian-style "Comet" insignia is there, and sure enough, a surviving German sailor described the incident as a "brown comet", trailing smoke, hurtling toward his ship.
Anyway, here are some pictures:
:o :thumbsup:
That is awesome! Hats off! Ok, it seems my idea of the DHGB may have to be brought forward to allow these ideas to remain at the forefront....methinks November may be too far away!
Superb sir! Can't get enough of these DH whiffs! Any more Mossies you've done?
Pretty soon we're gonna have to rename this the SequoiaRanger site. I'm freakin jealous. :cheers:
>Superb sir! Can't get enough of these DH whiffs! Any more Mossies you've done?<
No more Mossies...YET. Somewhere above I trolled my ideas for a super Highball Mossie. As far as DeHavilland stuff goes, I had also thought of a DH 86 Dragon Rapide with four engines and an open top gun position as a light bomber for "colonial" work (engines from DH Heron--might have just made a "Heron" bomber). Won't happen. I have too many projects and WAAAAY too many unbuilt models (1500+).
Couldn't help but notice the NZ tag--I went fairly near you this February, driving a campervan from Tongariro NP to Palmerston North on my way to Wellington. We were at Okahune and were trying to get to Wellington as fast as possible to catch a late Cook Ferry (didn't make it).
Quote from: sequoiaranger on May 17, 2008, 06:29:41 PMThe model is 1/72. I used a 1/48 Monogram Mossie kit (had never noticed the slightly slab-sided fuselage of the "incorrect" Monogram model until last week when it was pointed out by a Mossie modeler) for the fuselage, tail, and landing gear. A nice new-Airfix Lanc in 1/72 provided the wings, cockpit detail, and "Dambuster" bomb--this time for use flying from Singapore against Japanese battleships (hence "Danger Down Under" for the ordnance and the Aussie crew).
Craig,
Using the Lancaster wings on the Mosquito fuselage was an ideal solution to the engine problem but you do loose those signature wing mounted radiator inlets with the Lancaster wing and engines. It does strike a B-17-like stance with your last image. The Super Mosquito is definitely much sleeker in appearance.
A couple of construction questions for you:
*How much of a difference in size was there between the original Mosquito landing gear and that of the Lancaster?
*Did the Lancaster wing mate up exactly with the original wing outline on the Mosquito?
>*How much of a difference in size was there between the original Mosquito landing gear and that of the Lancaster?
*Did the Lancaster wing mate up exactly with the original wing outline on the Mosquito?<
I did this model in the late '80's, so I don't remember fine details except what I wrote down in my construction notes. I did use the 1/48 Mossie landing gear, but altered in a now-unknown way. I think they were very close in size. Probably the Mossie gear was a little too long (for the larger propellers to clear). As far as the wings went, I think I recall the Lanc wings fitting into the recesses of the Mossie fuselage pretty well, but the 1/48 Mossie wing was thicker, so I had to fill in the space.
Oh, and looking at my notes, I didn't use the Airfix Lanc at all; I used the Matchbox Lanc for the wings and engines, and the Revell "Dambuster" Lanc for the ordnance.
"Losing" the wing-root radiators was not an option, according to the backstory---there were Lanc wings available to mate to the oversized Mossie fuselages, so they were used as-was.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on May 19, 2008, 11:31:08 AMaccording to the backstory---there were Lanc wings available to mate to the oversized Mossie fuselages, so they were used as-was.
I recently acquired a trashed 1/32nd scale Mosquito for the purpose of a scale-o-rama into a 1/48th scale Super Sized Mosquito with four engines. The obstacle I currently see is how to best adapt four 1/48th scale engine nacelles to the larger wing. The quick solution might be to go with just the engines and ignore the entire radiator portions as that would make it a lot easier to adapt but then the question of engine cooling comes up for the realism of it all and then it is back to looking at how to best adapt the radiators as well as the engine nacelles to the wing.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on May 18, 2008, 02:55:45 PM
Somewhere above I heard mention the DH 88 Comet as a possible source of "what-if" somewhat like a Whirlwind. "Mossie" and "Radish" were talking about it in replies #36-37. Well...........yes, I have done one!
So
that's what it'd look like! Like it! :wub:
Yeah, mentioned it in Zac's 'Ah, De Havilland' GB thread, great to see it in plastic. If it gets the go-ahead I guess you'll be building a brace of models eh??? :thumbsup:
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on May 19, 2008, 01:42:33 PM
Quote from: sequoiaranger on May 19, 2008, 11:31:08 AMaccording to the backstory---there were Lanc wings available to mate to the oversized Mossie fuselages, so they were used as-was.
I recently acquired a trashed 1/32nd scale Mosquito for the purpose of a scale-o-rama into a 1/48th scale Super Sized Mosquito with four engines. The obstacle I currently see is how to best adapt four 1/48th scale engine nacelles to the larger wing. The quick solution might be to go with just the engines and ignore the entire radiator portions as that would make it a lot easier to adapt but then the question of engine cooling comes up for the realism of it all and then it is back to looking at how to best adapt the radiators as well as the engine nacelles to the wing.
I see a problem of scale here, in wing thickness. I used true 1/72-scale wings with the 1/48 Mossie fuselage because the 1/48-scale wings would be too thick, relatively. The fuselage is just a "box", but the wing's airfoil has proper ratios that I think get out of whack, especially if you are going to have a fast bomber--thick wings have more lift at slow speeds, but too much air resistance at high speeds--look at the early-war French bombers for some non-inspiration. If I were you I would look at other large 1/48 wings with the similar straight leading edge and severe taper of the trailing edge (if you want to keep the Mossie look). As far as radiators go, I like the planview 4-motor somewhere else here [gooberliberation #38] that had the leading-edge radiators for each engine. Or, you could consider using a 1/72 B-49 flying wing for a swept-wing Mossie!! I have an old vac-form B-49 that would have good wings, or even the injected-mold version.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on May 19, 2008, 04:45:14 PMI see a problem of scale here, in wing thickness. I used true 1/72-scale wings with the 1/48 Mossie fuselage because the 1/48-scale wings would be too thick, relatively. The fuselage is just a "box", but the wing's airfoil has proper ratios that I think get out of whack, especially if you are going to have a fast bomber--thick wings have more lift at slow speeds, but too much air resistance at high speeds--look at the early-war French bombers for some non-inspiration. If I were you I would look at other large 1/48 wings with the similar straight leading edge and severe taper of the trailing edge (if you want to keep the Mossie look). As far as radiators go, I like the planview 4-motor somewhere else here [gooberliberation #38] that had the leading-edge radiators for each engine. Or, you could consider using a 1/72 B-49 flying wing for a swept-wing Mossie!! I have an old vac-form B-49 that would have good wings, or even the injected-mold version.
Craig,
Thanks for the feedback. You have brought up a very valid point about keeping the wing airfoil to scale. Perhaps the B-49 wing would be a much better alternative. I had been focused on keeping the planform of the Mosquito wing since it is so recognizable. I have a B-49 kit in protective custody and that could provide all of the necessary parts to make this work. The pusher propeller arrangement would also necessitate conversion to a tricycle landing gear to keep the propellers from striking the ground during rotation which means the B-49 landing gear could be put to good use for this scale-o-rama.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on May 19, 2008, 09:47:58 AM
>Superb sir! Can't get enough of these DH whiffs! Any more Mossies you've done?<
As far as DeHavilland stuff goes, I had also thought of a DH 86 Dragon Rapide with four engines and an open top gun position as a light bomber for "colonial" work (engines from DH Heron--might have just made a "Heron" bomber).
De Havilland produced a military version of the D.H. 89 Rapide.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935%20-2-%200700.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935%20-2-%200700.html)
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935%20-2-%200701.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935%20-2-%200701.html)
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935%20-2-%200580.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935%20-2-%200580.html)
The larger four-engined D.H. 86 was called the
Express Air Liner.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%200171.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%200171.html)
Jon
I've an Airfix Rapide in the stash - will either be built as an RNZAF DH.89M or a DH.92 Dolphin retractable airliner. May load up the 89M with some more guns and external bombs.....hehe....57mm Molins cannon :banghead:
Quote from: sequoiaranger on May 19, 2008, 09:47:58 AM
Couldn't help but notice the NZ tag--I went fairly near you this February, driving a campervan from Tongariro NP to Palmerston North on my way to Wellington. We were at Okahune and were trying to get to Wellington as fast as possible to catch a late Cook Ferry (didn't make it).
:) I'm in Wanganui, about 45min-hour north of Palmerston North on the coast. Haha next time you're here look me up!
According to Putman' De Havilland Aircraft since 1909 only three Mosquitos (W4050, W4053 & W4073) were converted to have a turret, all dummy installations, and the experiment didn't go any further.
Phil Butler also told me the same thing after he said he'd spent considerable time scouring the archives after hearing a similar tale of a completed one. He sent me a photo which Greg (GTX) has posted back on page three of this thread, the solid one not the perspec one. He told me he found some reference to one of the dummy installations being blown off in the slipstream while the aircraft was taking off and very nearly caused a major wreck.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 21, 2008, 01:56:11 PM
Scouring my various references, I came across the possibility of US production as a set of drawings was sent over. Twin Allisons rather than Merlins? Not one I'd build (although KG200 "Zirkus Rosarius" is possible...) but a nice idea nonetheless.
On the subject of other engines, a proposal for twin Napier Daggers rather than Merlins. Toying with this one for when I get a mould done.
Australia was interested in the FBXVIII Tse-Tse Fly.
At least one aircraft was fitted with a turret but I can't find any photos other than the one of the mock up turret. This was proposed re for convoy protection.
As for the four engined one, it looks to have some basis in reality, although it would have been more likely with Sabres rather than Merlins.
This one seems to be of a real turret although the quality is a bit dodgy, from Secret Projects:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FMosquitoTurret02.jpg&hash=710e32d41afc83ced577544548a27e87db14dc61)
Mock up pic too:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FMosquitoTurret01.jpg&hash=f8d11f8f68b62bb577d3781380ad976f566e4934)
About American engines, the P&W R2800 might be a good option late war, it'd have plenty of power. A Mossie with an R2800 would look similar to the Calquin, if beefier, the R2800 being directly related to the Twin Wasp used in that aircraft. You could rob a couple from a Tigercat kit.
Like the idea of Napier Daggers, would give a different look. The Vulture would have given some more power, had the bugs have been ironed out, it would give a chunkier look to the Mossie.
The second photo Simon has posted is the same as the one Phil Butler sent me. I asked him if he knew whether this would have been a remote turret, if you notice the group of four holes in the side where it was tested with the mock guns sticking out sidewards, because as far as I can see there's no room for a gunner the way the guns are grouped. He said he didn't have any info on what the turret was or how it would have it's guns fired.
Might it be possible to incorporate P-38-style turbochargers on the nacelle tops?
I did a whif using Mosquito wingsa nd nacelles, but put pointy spinners (from an early-style P-38) on it. Hmmm. Shoulda used my own suggestion and "transferred" the whole P-38 nacelle and turbocharger onto the Mossie wings!
I know you're not a fan of radials on the Mossie & the Calquin does look kind of odd, but I think think something the size of the R2800 might suit it better. They look a little out of place on the slim F7F, I think they might suit the Mossie better. Hmm, got me thinking, how would a pair of Griffons look on a F7F?
Think you're right about the Dagger. Except for it's proposal as an emergency alternative for the Merlin, it's use wouldn't make much sense, not much development in it, let alone aerodynamic problems. It's why I mentioned the Vulture, okay, real world it was sh!te, but if RR's engine development had gone according to plan it, would be interesting to see what kind look it would have given.
Everything I've read about the Dagger is that the intention was to use it on 'Second Line' aircraft, training, hacks etc. to relieve Merlin production which then could be concentrated on 'Operational' types. I've not come across any reference that says different.
Alternatively, what about a turboprop Mosquito?
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 22, 2008, 08:40:29 AM
Everything I've read about the Dagger is that the intention was to use it on 'Second Line' aircraft, training, hacks etc. to relieve Merlin production which then could be concentrated on 'Operational' types. I've not come across any reference that says different.
It probably won't have applied to the Mossie anyway, as by the time it went into production the Merlin was very well established. Possibly if it had entered service early war, as there weren't many second line types using the Merlin at that stage?
Quote from: GTX on July 22, 2008, 08:58:15 AM
Alternatively, what about a turboprop Mosquito?
Regards,
Greg
We always bring up COIN aircraft, why not the Mossie? Turboprops & large amounts of ordanance carried in the bay & under the wings?
Quote from: Mossie on July 22, 2008, 09:03:10 AM
We always bring up COIN aircraft, why not the Mossie? Turboprops & large amounts of ordanance carried in the bay & under the wings?
Especially with tandem seats.
Probably would be everything a Pucara isn't (and never will be). ;D ;D
Quote from: Mossie on July 22, 2008, 09:03:10 AM
We always bring up COIN aircraft, why not the Mossie? Turboprops & large amounts of ordanance carried in the bay & under the wings?
I am
SO trying that.
Quote from: kitbasher on July 22, 2008, 11:28:53 AM
Especially with tandem seats.
Probably would be everything a Pucara isn't (and never will be). ;D ;D
Your probably best off using a Hornet fuse for a tandem aircraft, keep the slim shape.
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 22, 2008, 11:40:50 AM
I am SO trying that.
Go for it! If you're thinking of RAF in Vietnam, let me know, I've been giving an RAF SEA camouflage scheme thought for some time.
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 22, 2008, 11:40:50 AM
Quote from: Mossie on July 22, 2008, 09:03:10 AM
We always bring up COIN aircraft, why not the Mossie? Turboprops & large amounts of ordanance carried in the bay & under the wings?
I am SO trying that.
Maybe as either a RAF, RAAF or RNZAF contribution to Vietnam and thus Commonwealth counterpart to the USAF's Invaders:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fd2%2FDouglas_B-26K_Counter_Invader_USAF.jpg&hash=ee0a190b5f7273fc03b080fbe0e984842c9b4124)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 28, 2008, 10:57:40 AM
As for the Napier Dagger, it was part of the engine proposals in the beginning.
Now that interesting Lee, I've got a number of books on the Mosquito and have only just finished reading the section on Mosquitos in the Putman book by A.J.Jackson and there's no mention of it there, where did you manage to find that snippet of information?
Here's a bit of info I found out from reading the Putman book though which you might know about, F.Halford designed the basis for the Dagger, De Havilland had an agreement with Napier that they build their bigger engines over a certain hp.
Cheers Lee, I found another issue on Barnes and Noble, I don't buy through EBay
Edit: bought it.
>It's why I mentioned the Vulture, okay, real world it was sh!te, but if RR's engine development had gone according to plan it, would be interesting to see what kind look it would have given.<
The Vulture engine was fitted to the Avro Manchester AND to the Hawker Tornado (Typhoon-looking aircraft). Though the Vultures were vilified and troublesome on the Manchesters, the few Tornado prototypes had no trouble at all with them. I especially like the look of the double-row of exhausts.
I will someday do a Hawker Henley with this double-row exhaust look, but it will be RR Exe-powered (necessitating cooling flaps for the air-cooled inline engine) instead of Vulture. As for the Mosquito, I think the Vulture is too big an engine/cowling for the slim Merlin nacelles (though I suppose the nacelles could be changed also).
My dream-whif Mossie will have Griffons and five-bladed props.
>Except that the Mosquito simply wouldn't have lasted long in that [Vietnam/jungle] environment. Their wooden structure was eaten to hell by termites whilst it absorbed moisture like a sponge. You simply have to look at how long they lasted in the far east with the war against the Japanese.<
As far as moisture is concerned, it seems the British Isles are pretty damp almost all the time (I don't live there, but have visited there in all seasons--ALL of them wet)---if it were strictly a moisture-absorption problem, why were they OK in Britain? At least as far as termites are concerned, it would seem that Sea Mossies on board aircraft carriers would be spared insect infestations.
Reading my way through the Sharp/Bowyer book, the moisture problem in the UK seemed to stem more from incorrect sealing of all the access panels. The problem was resolved after a lot of trial and error. A more worrying major problem was the burning through of the cowling panels which wasn't totally overcome even with all the modifications done to them, these were made of metal BTW.
There was a plan for a scaled up Mossie bomber, from what I've read it would have been just that, but there's not much in hard evidence as to what it would have looked like. It would have been a good candidate for the Vulture I think as the planned engine for it was the Sabre in high altitude mode. Of course there was a 'four' engined bomber planned too with Merlins or Griffons, both were to be un-armed for defense, speed being the prime factor.
Just finished the 'Far East' chapter in the Sharp/bowyer Mosquito book, seems like initially early built Mosquitos assembled using 'Casein' based glue were sent out there and after only a few months a Mosquito broke up in mid-air when one of it's wings came apart. All Mosquito were then grounded and inspected, with further aircraft being found to have glue seperation. The solution was to use aircraft solely assembled using formaldehyde based glue and the Mosquito didn't have any more problems with humidity or moisture (or bugs), in fact they served for a good number of years in the Far East, even after the war, where the last Mosquito operation was done on Dec 15 1955.
Don't think it's been mentioned yet, how would you go about a single engined Mossie or Hornet? I don't think it's a case of simply bolting an engine onto the front, you'd need to reduce the fuselage length & probably relocate the cockpit. You'd probably be better off with a new design, but maybe one that was largely influenced by the Mossie or Hornet?
>Don't think it's been mentioned yet, how would you go about a single engined Mossie or Hornet? I don't think it's a case of simply bolting an engine onto the front, you'd need to reduce the fuselage length & probably relocate the cockpit. You'd probably be better off with a new design, but maybe one that was largely influenced by the Mossie or Hornet?<
Perhaps the key to the "single-engined Mosquito" might be assymetry, like the Blohm und Voss BV-141. For a plane as large as the Mosquito, the engine might need to be an "Eagle" or some other 3000hp-type, considering that the original Mossie in later marks had that or better with two engines. Assymetry, however, would be OK for a recon model, but heavy ordnance in either "fuselage" would un-balance the plane unless you carried external ordnance.
"They" slapped a turbo-prop onto the nose of the B-17, and it had more power than the original four engines combined, so I don't know why something similar couldn't be done with the Mossie if "we" wanted to keep the familiar configuration.
Hadn't thought of an assymetric Mossie. I was thinking on more conventional lines with a Centaurus for a Mossie & probably a Griffon for the Hornet. The Eagle is a good idea for the Mossie. I think that single engined Mossie development would be something along the lines of an A-1E Skyraider.
Quote from: Mossie on October 05, 2008, 09:10:09 AM
& probably a Griffon for the Hornet.
Considering that the two Merlins had just over 4000 hp together on the Hornet, one Griffon would be just a little bit under powered I think.
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 05, 2008, 10:02:57 AM
Quote from: Mossie on October 05, 2008, 09:10:09 AM
& probably a Griffon for the Hornet.
Considering that the two Merlins had just over 4000 hp together on the Hornet, one Griffon would be just a little bit under powered I think.
I don't mean a straight re-engine of the Hornet/Mossie, I think they'd it'd be more of a completley new design but very much influenced by their shapes & construction. So lose some length in the fuselage, the engine mounts & fairings, new undercarriage, & you start to loose a bit of weight so a Griffon might just do?
The basic shapes of the DH 93 Don could be used as an inspiration point for a single engine Mossie type.
Jon
My Air-Britain quarterlies arrived today, there's a nice article in one of them on the Calquins plus quite a few photos including one showing them being assembled, just like a Mossie --- almost. A comment to one photo is that they could almost be compared to a Beaufighter as well as the Mosquito, a photo of the engines do look remarkably like Beaufighter nacelles and u/c
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 06, 2008, 04:58:19 PM
I'm sure there was mention of the type or a variant with either a single Centaurus or Sabre. Pretty sure it's before thinking crystalized around the Merlins.
My 633 Sqn FBX "Special" is now on the blocks and will end up as D-Danny (in overall PRU Blu) from Operation Rhine-Maiden, one of the easier to find books in the series. There are ten altogether - i thought there were four at most!
I've got a three volume book with 633 Squadron, Operation Rhine Maiden & Operation Crucible, they're the easier ones to get hold of. Amazon do a fair few of the others, some at bargain prices, some ridciulous. I've not read them yet, I read the first few pages of 633 Squadron to get a feel for it & it reads just like a strip straight out of
Battle!. How'd you find them Lee?
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 07, 2008, 06:10:53 AM
I wish someone - anyone - would release a kit of the Calquin. There was a vacform kit some years ago but it's rough at best.
Our best hope is MPM/Special Hobby but they seem to be redoing stuff that Airfix & Frog released years back.
Llama Models does the vacuform in 1/72 (1/48 too), I got one a couple of years ago from Aviation World Toronto. Last time I looked at AWT they still had some but right now they are doing a website upgrade so you can't view what they have. As far as I know they are still available direct.
http://llama84.tripod.com/
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 06, 2008, 04:58:19 PM
I'm sure there was mention of the type or a variant with either a single Centaurus or Sabre. Pretty sure it's before thinking crystalized around the Merlins.
Nothing is mentioned in the Sharp/Bowyer book Lee, the official requirement was always for a twin engined bomber (but with defensive turrets). I've had a look at the Putman book too, and there's nothing listed as such, even in the last chapter which lists project numbers that were thought about but not proceded with.
Just read this review over at MODELING MADNESS:
http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/books/m3/shipbuster.htm
A new book on the Mk XVIII, an operational history no less.
I've been giving a Sabre Mosquito conversion some thought, the Sharp/Bowyers books just says it was to be a scaled up Mosquito, Jon posted a profile of it in another thread (see below) which appeared in Air-Britain which I remember seeing in one of the magazines they put out (can't find it at the moment) but there's no dimensions given to see how much bigger it might have been. I was thinking of using a 1/48 Mossie and doing a scale-o-rama but I've a suspicion that 1/48 would be too big. The only concrete dimensional evidence that has surfaced is that the props would have been 15 feet in diameter, if we use that as a benchmark and compare the prop diameters of this to a regular Mossie which had a prop diameter of 12'-6", this would work out that the scaled up Mossie was only 1.2 times bigger, this would mean I need a 1/60th Mosquito.
Does anyone know if there has ever been an odd scaled kit of the Mosquito which is close to this scale.
Edit: of course I could always print this profile off and then do some scaling using the props in the profile as the benchmark and see if 1/60 actually does fit the bill --- Duh!
Edit II: Well I got one of my 1/72 Mossie kits out and did some measuring, then using the props in the profile as 15 feet, backtracked the scaling. Well are you ready for this -------- the profile measures out at ----- 1.26 bigger than a regular Mossie. So my estimate was about right, I need a 1/60th Mosquito to do a scale-o-rama and make a 1/72 sabre Mosquito.
... or going off on a tangent here you could convert a 1/72 Mosquito into a 1/87(HO) Sabre-Mossie and make a diorama with some model railroad
accessory vehicles and figures. ;D
87/72=1.20833
Cheers
>the scaled up Mossie was only 1.2 times bigger, this would mean I need a 1/60th Mosquito.<
It might be more work than you want, but in looking at the fuselage, the Heinkel He-111 "B" version looks to be a good base candidate for an enlarged Mossie. That is, you would have to hack a lot of plastic off, but it might be the right size. You might need TWO He-111's in order to keep the cross-section round, and that means mega cutting and pasting of the fuselages around the wing portion, but...! If you put the 1/72 Mossie nose on the forward end of a He-111 fuselage you would have THAT part done, but the wings....? You might try a 1/72 Hampden that has a similar wing planview (but is a larger size) cut down a bit.
I did a whif of a four-engined Mossie heavy bomber with a 1/48 fuselage mated to 1/72 Lancaster wings, but it is giant compared to a 1/72 Mossie. The tailplanes of the 1/48 are also "too big" for a SLIGHTLY enlarged Mossie.
Don't let "a lot of work" deter you from using your imagination for creation. Whiffing ain't for wusses!!
PS--Just now, I am thinking I **MAY** have a pair of Frog 1/96 Hampden wings left over from a long-ago project. I am leaving shortly for a four-day holiday, and won't have time to look for it today, but....it has potential--He-111 fuselage, Hampden wings....Hmmmm! I will look when I get back!
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on October 20, 2008, 10:43:59 AM
... or going off on a tangent here you could convert a 1/72 Mosquito into a 1/87(HO) Sabre-Mossie and make a diorama with some model railroad
accessory vehicles and figures. ;D
87/72=1.20833
Cheers
Oooo! hmmm! let me think about that --- na, na, na, won't do --- I build 1/72 ;D :rolleyes: good idea though :thumbsup:
Quote from: sequoiaranger on October 20, 2008, 10:46:28 AM
It might be more work than you want, but in looking at the fuselage, the Heinkel He-111 "B" version looks to be a good base candidate for an enlarged Mossie. That is, you would have to hack a lot of plastic off, but it might be the right size. You might need TWO He-111's in order to keep the cross-section round, and that means mega cutting and pasting of the fuselages around the wing portion, but...! If you put the 1/72 Mossie nose on the forward end of a He-111 fuselage you would have THAT part done, but the wings....? You might try a 1/72 Hampden that has a similar wing planview (but is a larger size) cut down a bit.
'nother good idea, I'll give that some thought too :thumbsup:
>the scaled up Mossie was only 1.2 times bigger<
Hampden wing: 69 feet
Mossie wing: 54 feet
ratio: 1.27 (!!!)
There ya go! No need for 1/96---it's right there in 1/72! Plus, the radial nacelles of the Hampden should be just about the right diameter for the "enlarged" Sabre engine!
Quote from: sequoiaranger on October 20, 2008, 12:52:53 PM
>the scaled up Mossie was only 1.2 times bigger<
Hampden wing: 69 feet
Mossie wing: 54 feet
ratio: 1.27 (!!!)
There ya go! No need for 1/96---it's right there in 1/72! Plus, the radial nacelles of the Hampden should be just about the right diameter for the "enlarged" Sabre engine!
:o :o (in my best A Team voice) 'I love it when a plan comes together' :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 07, 2008, 03:02:21 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 07, 2008, 08:15:21 AM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 06, 2008, 04:58:19 PM
I'm sure there was mention of the type or a variant with either a single Centaurus or Sabre. Pretty sure it's before thinking crystalized around the Merlins.
Nothing is mentioned in the Sharp/Bowyer book Lee, the official requirement was always for a twin engined bomber (but with defensive turrets). I've had a look at the Putman book too, and there's nothing listed as such, even in the last chapter which lists project numbers that were thought about but not proceded with.
I know I've read it in one of the books, I just can't remember which one.
Are you into Flight Sims Lee? The Latest Combat Aircraft magazine has an advert for three Mosquito Flight Sims which you add to the regular program. Check out www.justflight.com
So I reduced the image of the Sabre Mossie down until I was able to get 15 feet on the props in 1/72, 1.2 bigger doesn't sound like very much but it does end up quite a bit bigger as you can see in these photos. You can see in the close up the canopy is still a regular Mosquito canopy.
From the looks of your scaleorama (I like to call them "pantographed", but the term commonly used here is "scaleorama") the tailfin is too small in 1/72 unless you add a whole lot to the "bottom". You might try a 1/48 scale Mossie HORIZONTAL tailplane to mimic it.
So it looks like you are on your way to a new whif of Mossie proportions. Good luck!
You know sequoiaranger, I might just get a 1/48 Mossie kit to see how much could be used on this project, I think you could use quite a bit of the rear fuselage.
Quote from: TsrJoe on October 23, 2008, 03:13:23 AM
wasnt the Sabre engined Mosquito just a standard airframe with the Sabre engine fitted? the drawings iv seen on the project seem to show same in wing arrangement and span ???
cheers, Joe
In the book Mosquito by Sharp & Bowyer, it says it was a 'scale-up' Mosquito which was to have 15 foot dia contra-props. From what I understand the idea was to carry 4000lb as far as Berlin from the UK, in the end they ended up fitting bulged bomb bay doors to a regular Mossie plus the two stage Merlins. But if I can find any other concrete evidence to the contrary ----
On the ATF forum, there's a fellow there who volunteers at the DH Museum and he's asking around there some of my questions for me. I hope to find something fairly soon. Also got an enquiry with Phil Butler (who's helped me quite a few time with questions)
Cheers,
Robert
Any word on the release date of the new-tool Revell kit?
Daryl J., who's been out of the loop
>[kitnut]You know sequoiaranger, I might just get a 1/48 Mossie kit to see how much could be used on this project, I think you could use quite a bit of the rear fuselage.<
I used a Monogram 1/48 Mossie fuselage for my 4-engined Mossie whif. I wouldn't recommend it for your whif. The Monogram's fuselage is a "racetrack" oval rather than near-round in cross-section. That is, the Monogram Mossie has a bit of slab-side to its fuselage that is inaccurate to the real plane. It was fine for my whif (and, embarrassingly, I had not compared the Monogram kit to real drawings prior to making it) so I have no regrets, but....!
The He-111 has a nice, round cross-section, at least the part aft of the ventral gun tub.
Thanks sr, out of all the kits in my stash I don't have an He.111 (actually I don't have very many German ones at all) but I think I'll have to source a cheap one just to see how feasable it would be.
>Thanks sr, out of all the kits in my stash I don't have an He.111 (actually I don't have very many German ones at all) but I think I'll have to source a cheap one just to see how feasable it would be.<
Let me look through my stash of leftover parts. I would bet I have several Italaeri He-111 fuselages. When I made my 1/72 "He-211" I used TWO "Zwilling" kits, so I am sure I had some leftover fuselage parts! I am going to re-do the He-211 sometime, with a larger fuselage from the Lindberg 1/64 kit, but I intend to keep the present fuselage. Give me a few days---I may have a FREE fuselage or two for you!
What if the original plans to fit the Mossie with a turret continued - maybe we'd have something a bit like this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FTurretmossie.jpg&hash=9ab46fe31b1df5f7f92bfe9efe2302d0cca5e31c)
Regards,
Greg
Later on, these were updated with a remote turret:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FTurretmossie2.jpg&hash=302cf4ef03c1fde7e5bd82d3787fcb9f68740bfc)
Regards,
Greg
And due to a concern for a shortage of RR Merlin engines, the Hercules engine Mossie was trialed:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FHercMossie.jpg&hash=afbc098d3799630f8c5acf6b446c3ee753b75f25)
Regards,
Greg
Oh, what to do with old Mosquito airframes:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Fsmmis.jpg&hash=7fe6a595103f34f03c447a0cd7e09ad7d5eab88c)
regards,
Greg
Quote from: sequoiaranger on October 25, 2008, 10:59:37 AM
Let me look through my stash of leftover parts. I would bet I have several Italaeri He-111 fuselages. When I made my 1/72 "He-211" I used TWO "Zwilling" kits, so I am sure I had some leftover fuselage parts! I am going to re-do the He-211 sometime, with a larger fuselage from the Lindberg 1/64 kit, but I intend to keep the present fuselage. Give me a few days---I may have a FREE fuselage or two for you!
That would be really appreciated, thanks sr.
I have two right sides and one left side fuselage for an Italaeri He-111 that I can send you. I think you can cut up the extra fuselage half to "fill in" the ventral gondola or some other body part. I honestly do not need these, so you are welcome to them. I will include the vertical and horizontal stabilizers that you MIGHT be able to use with a 1/72 Mossie tail grafted on the ends to extend it a little. Dunno.
PM me and give me your mailing address.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on October 25, 2008, 09:06:52 AM
I used a Monogram 1/48 Mossie fuselage for my 4-engined Mossie whif. I wouldn't recommend it for your whif. The Monogram's fuselage is a "racetrack" oval rather than near-round in cross-section. That is, the Monogram Mossie has a bit of slab-side to its fuselage that is inaccurate to the real plane. It was fine for my whif (and, embarrassingly, I had not compared the Monogram kit to real drawings prior to making it) so I have no regrets, but....!
The He-111 has a nice, round cross-section, at least the part aft of the ventral gun tub.
I've been doing a search for Mosquito drawings (found quite a few too) and have made a bit of a discovery, while at any one station from the trailing edge of the wing to the rear end of the fuselage they have almost the same dimension side to side as top to bottom at the widest point BUT they are not round, in fact there's no section anywhere on the fuselage which is exactly round except maybe some very close sections right in the nose area in front of the windsheild. What I've found is that the fuselage is 'egg-shaped' all the way through from the cockpit to the end of the rear fuselage.
So your 'oval' fuselage might be closer to the real thing afterall.
>What I've found is that the fuselage is 'egg-shaped' all the way through from the cockpit to the end of the rear fuselage.
So your 'oval' fuselage [Monogram Mossie] might be closer to the real thing after all.<
Perhaps, but the Monogram Mossie's "slab" sides are parallel to each other (more like a Navy ship hatchway), rather than the "egg-shape" (a continuous curve all the way around) you might want.
I am not precisely sure what the He-111's cross-section is like (it's "rounded", but maybe not really "round"), but I will send the fuselages/tailplanes to you anyway for whatever they are worth for your whif.
Hmm! if they're that bad I see what you mean, but the He.111 fuselages will definitely help whatever way it goes. Thanks again Craig.
I don't usually do the eBay thing but there was this for sale that I just won, although I was the only bidder ----- It will come in very handy for what I want to do.
It's a G.R.Duval drawing and the sheet is 850mm wide, that would be on a 24"x36" piece of paper and I was doing a bit of scaling from the small print off I did (which BTW is virtually unreadable because of the low resolution of the pic) and the drawing is around 1/16 scale, I'll find out for sure soon enough. Then I can take it to my bro's workshop and print some copies to 1/60 scale.
My quick Sabre Mossie:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Fsabremossie.jpg&hash=9d35c757f5f2c9702a362eb657a2d129ffe81b86)
Regards,
Greg
How about a 3 motor Mossie:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2F3Mmossie.jpg&hash=de61cf31f71007341c96eb9a9e09a719d893bd10)
Regards,
Greg
Or maybe a single seat Canopy variant:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Fsinglecanopymossie.jpg&hash=0953675590e1837bba245b9d56f00e1bcd6fa0b8)
Regards,
Greg
Keep this up and Geoffrey de Havilland will be haunting you for desecrating his design.
The single seat canopy might have been better served by using the fishbowl canopy of the bomber version of the Canberra or perhaps the later offset canopy of the interdiction version.
Not even going to attempt a comment on your tri-motor Mosquito or the Sabre engine version. You are a sick puppy. :^)
Quote from: The Wooksta! on November 10, 2008, 07:46:53 AMSingle seat canopy? Offset? So yesterday. I've built that:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21390
But only as far as being primed. Needs more filling and sanding.
Lee,
Somehow I missed that thread on your Mosquito swarm when it was first posted. Interesting line up you have there. Looking forward to seeing what they will look like when you are finally done with them.
G'day Gang,
Just got a bunch of DVDs, including 633 Sqn, A Bridge Too Far, The Dambusters, The Desert Fox and the Great Escape.
A question to the enthusiasts. Does anyone know what Mark of Mossie they used? Obviously they're bombers with their noses painted over and guns added, equally obviously later versions with bigger Merlins and bulged bays. I'm thinking post-War B.35s, possibly.
Regards,
Mav
From the Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com):
Four of the De Havilland Mosquitos seen in this film were airworthy and three could taxi on the ground. The same crash at Abindon Airfield, U.K., shot from a different angle, was used with matte painting (by 'Tommy Howard (IV)''s Special Effects team) to look like it was crashing in Norway. No shooting was done in Norway in fact. For "Norway" scenes, the mountains of Scotland were pressed into service.
The German "fighters" were actually 4-seat Messerschmitt 108 "Taifuns," painted to look like Me-109 fighters.
Cliff Robertson, an accomplished pilot, wanted to buy one of the Mosquitoes after filming had finished, as he was so impressed with the type. He was not permitted to do this but he later bought a Spitfire Mk IX which he owned until the late 1990s.
Most of the attack on the Fjord at the end of the film was done with 1/48th scale Mosquito models.
Three of the airworthy Mosquitoes used in the film were TT35 models (target tug versions of the B35 bomber). These were made to resemble FB MkVI (fighter bomber) versions by painting over the clear perspex nosecones and side windows and fitting dummy machine gun barrels. The fourth airworthy Mosquito was a T3 model with a solid nose which only required the fitting of dummy gun barrels.
The Mosquito's used in the film were RS715 Cockpit section only TJ118 Cockpit section only TV959 At Bovingdon airfield, but did not fly in film TW117 Flew in film RS709 Flew in film RS712 Flew in film TA639 Flew in film TA719 Flew in film
The 3-Barreled Anti Aircraft 'Nordenfelt Gun' is a triple mounted MG151/20 Drilling flak weapon that was also adopted by Yogoslavia as it was very versatile and had effective anti aircraft capability.
Thanks for that info Tigercat.
Regards,
Mav
TW117, was in fact a Sea Mosquito TR33.
Glad to help. BTW, the Internet Movie Data Base is an incredible resource, and there are many, many cross references to almost any movie.
Wes W.
All the photos I've seen of TW117 indicate that it's a standard T3 - normal tailplanes and u/c, plus the wing has no fold line or fold mechanism blisters on it. Not conclusive as the first 17 or so Sea Mosquitoes had standard wings and u/c. The giveaway is the lack of a strengthener strip on the port side and no hook attachment points. It does have the tropical filters that seem to have been fitted to most T3s.
The only odd thing about it is that I can't find a reference in my library to it in the production blocks:
TW101-109, T.3 built at Leavesden 20.7.45 - 31.5.46
TW227-257, TR33 built 46-47.
However, this from mossie.org
TW117
Serial: TW117
Build Type: T.III
Build Location: Leavesden
Contract Number: 1576/SAS/C.23(a)
Contract Date:
Delivery Period: Between 20-7-1945 and 31-5-1946
They also have T3 in the range starting TW101 going up to TW119. So I'm presuming that the published references are wrong (possibly the original one was a typo which was then copied?) - how else do we have a real aircraft with a fictitious serial?
The Navy used a considerable number of T3s, inc. TW103 and TW105 used by 762 sqn (FAA) at RNAS Ford. They also used both the FB.VI and the TR33 so perhaps that's where the confusion about TW117 being used by the Navy comes from?
TW117 is extant and lives in Norway. Thankfully, it is not deceased but just resting.
VL.Vihuri reverse engineered DH. Mosquito
some notes courtesy of a Finnish colleague ...
1944 x2 Mosquito aircraft to be supplied from Germany to Finland
1 to be restored to flying condition for evaluation, other for disassembly and structural analysis
Flying aircraft to be reengined with Me109 type DB.605 engines for comparitive evaluation
Prototype to be completed after Pyorremyrsky (x1 example) and before Puuska (x2) prototypes
intended chronology as follows ...
01 Jan 44, decision to proceed with the project
01 Oct 44, project due to start
01 Dec 45, production of prototype to start
31 May 45, prototype completion
01 July 45, x3 prototypes
01 Jun 46, first production type aircraft completed
01 Jul 47, air force delivery of initial aircraft
first batch of x40 aircraft for delivery by end 1947, second batch of x60 aircraft for delivery Oct 47 - Jul 48
it would be interesting to speculate if the war had continued further or differing situations ensued in the post war era how long the type would have remained in service?
and some more ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWiBBlS6o5o&feature=player_embedded#
Now that is really very interesting Joe :thumbsup:
re. captured Luftwaffe 'Mossie' for use as the VL. Vihuri prototype ...
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev1/501-600/Rev558_CED48256/rev558.htm
Quote:
...the first aircraft is a Mosquito Mk IV flown by 2./VVB OKL from Konigsberg, Neumark in July 1944. This Mosquito was painted RLM 74 green on the topside and RLM 04 Yellow on the underside and tail. Marking codes were T9+XB
If this had gone ahead, I wonder if the Germans would have wanted a return for their investment? We might have seen Mossie versus Mossie. I'm not sure how many the Soviet Union took, so we might have seen it with Finland too?
was there ever a proposal to fit the DH mosquito with RR griffon engines?
i an sorely tempted to try the idea in 1/72 as i have a spare airfix 1/72 mosquito and two
suitable spitfires to donate the griffons.
trevor
i dont recall seeing anything re a possible Griffon fit for the Mosquito, but there were proposals to fit Napier Sabres as an upgraded bomber/pathfinder variant (as well as another proposal to fit DH. jet engines to the type)
cheers, joe
The Mosquito follow on types DH 99 & 101 were schemed with the Griffon as an alternative of the Merlin but nothing came of them.
Quote from: TsrJoe on February 24, 2010, 05:51:17 AM
but there were proposals to fit Napier Sabres as an upgraded bomber/pathfinder variant
cheers, joe
Something I've been looking into, only problem is to build one in 1/72 scale I need to find a 1/60 scale kit of a Mosquito to scale-o-rama.
Hi Joe,
According to the Sharp / Bowyers book (supposedly the bible on Mosquitos), it says it would have been an exact scaled up version of the Mossie. The only dimensional information I have been able to find for it is in the same book (and I've looked everywhere), which says it would have had fifteen foot diameter contra-props. So I took a photo of the drawing in the book and scaled it until I got 15 feet across the prop tips with the resulting comparison I did with a regular Mossie. I noticed that the canopy of the Sabre Mosquito stays the same as a regular one though which matches almost perfectly in this photo.
There was mention of an upgraded Mossie with more powerful Merlins in the book, is that the one you're thinking of ?
Robert
EDIT: I overlaid a Tempest Mk.I fuselage conversion I have over the drawing and the cowling almost matches the nacelle perfectly too.
EDIT 2: Not doing to good here am I?. OK the Sharp / Bowyer book says it would have been a scaled-up Mosquito, but there's no dimensions given. The Putman book 'De Havilland Aircraft since 1909' says it would have been a scaled-up Mosquito with 15 foot contra-props (my copy it's on page 521 under DH.99/101). The side-view drawing, I got from Phil Butler. HTH's
>was there ever a proposal to fit the DH mosquito with RR griffon engines?<
There is in sequoiarangerland! One of these days---a "Sea Mossie", carrier-capable, twin-Griffon, 5-blade props, with Highball. Won't happen anytime soon, but it WILL happen!
Quote from: NARSES2 on February 24, 2010, 05:57:16 AM
The Mosquito follow on types DH 99 & 101 were schemed with the Griffon as an alternative of the Merlin but nothing came of them.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on February 25, 2010, 05:13:45 PM
was there ever a proposal to fit the DH mosquito with RR griffon engines?
The two books I mentioned in my last post has the DH 99 and DH 101 as Sabre Mosquitos. The DH 99 designation got changed to DH 101 so is not really a different design. But De Havilland were told that the Sabre would not be available to them and to consider using the Griffon instead, De Havilland said that the Griffon wouldn't be powerful enough and within a month they dropped the whole project. So the Griffon was suggested for the scaled-up Mosquito, not a standard one.
Thanks Kitnut. My reading was that DH had seriously looked at the Griffon after being told the Sabre wouldn't be available and had then come to the conclusion it wouldn't do the job. Didn't realise the decision was made so quickly. Thanks for clarifying that.
Chris
Yes, the Sharp/Bowyer book says 'within a month' and the Putman book says 'dropped immediately' It suggests De Havilland just didn't want the Griffon. Interestingly, reading on through the chapter on the Sabre Mosquito in the Sharp/Bowyer book, it says the standard Mosquito with 2-Stage Merlins and a bulged bomb bay could do almost what the Sabre Mosquito was planned to do. So in the end that's the route that was taken.
Quote from: kitnut617 on February 25, 2010, 07:36:12 AM
Quote from: TsrJoe on February 24, 2010, 05:51:17 AM
but there were proposals to fit Napier Sabres as an upgraded bomber/pathfinder variant
cheers, joe
Something I've been looking into, only problem is to build one in 1/72 scale I need to find a 1/60 scale kit of a Mosquito to scale-o-rama.
How about 1/144? There are 1/100 and 1/120 scale Mosquitos around. You could claim they were 1/144 scale. Would that work?
Would the Sabre have had the chin radiator of the Typhoon/Tempest or enlarged the wing radiators of the original Mosquito design?
How about one powered by the Centaur?
Quote from: rickshaw on February 26, 2010, 06:26:22 PM
How about 1/144? There are 1/100 and 1/120 scale Mosquitos around. You could claim they were 1/144 scale. Would that work?
Would the Sabre have had the chin radiator of the Typhoon/Tempest or enlarged the wing radiators of the original Mosquito design?
How about one powered by the Centaur?
Hi Rick, the way I'm reading it is that it would have been a straight scaled-up Mosquito, so radiators where the radiators are. Although only a few issues ago in an Air-Britain magazine, there was an article about experiments with chin radiators on Mosquitos and Welkins. The Mosquito had Lancaster type 'power-eggs' installed (to keep as much commonality as possible with other aircraft) and a fairing over the original radiator inlets and the testers were amazed to find out the performance was exactly the same. Only De Havilland didn't like it so the wing radiators stayed. I've not considered a Centaurus although with the larger nacelles it could work --- hmm, I'll have to think on that :thumbsup:
I've thought about doing it in another scale but as 99% of my models (built and in the stash) are 1/72 so I want to do one in 1/72. I bought some nice plans last year which were originally drawn in 1/48 and has lots of section views, but where I got them from had scaled them up to 1/32. I'm going to scale it back down to 1/60 and build one from scratch starting with balsa and then if it goes good, I'll do it in styrene. I might even have a go at making a vacuform ----- we'll see ;D
You might be able to kitbash-hack an "oversized" Mosquito in 1/72 by using a He-111 fuselage (cylindrical fuselage tapering to a point in the tail) and HP Hampden wings (same planform).
Quote from: sequoiaranger on February 27, 2010, 10:23:04 AM
You might be able to kitbash-hack an "oversized" Mosquito in 1/72 by using a He-111 fuselage (cylindrical fuselage tapering to a point in the tail) and HP Hampden wings (same planform).
My apologies for not remembering, but was it you who sent me a He.111 fuselage for this purpose ? (I thought I had saved your emails too but I can't find them). I did some comparisons with the drawing I have and unfortunately it doesn't match very well, I think it would be easier to start from scratch than to do all the changes the fuselage needs. It was a good thought though.
BTW, the side profile I got from Jon way back on page 4 of this thread, not Phil Butler.
>My apologies for not remembering, but was it you who sent me a He.111 fuselage for this purpose ? (I thought I had saved your emails too but I can't find them).<
Looking back....Yeah, it was! The Hampden wing still would work, yes?
>I did some comparisons with the drawing I have and unfortunately it doesn't match very well, I think it would be easier to start from scratch than to do all the changes the fuselage needs. It was a good thought though.<
Another thought: if the He-111 fuselages are too big, after finishing my "Aichi 119" I now have some "extra" vac-form fuselages for the He-119. The He-119 is a "size smaller" than the He-111 but similarly shaped. There are no "protuberances" like the bottom gun tub, nor "openings" like the upper gun positions or windows to try to fill in or obscure. Lemme know.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on February 28, 2010, 08:56:00 AM
Looking back....Yeah, it was! The Hampden wing still would work, yes?
Sorry about that, and yes the Hampden wing will work.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on February 28, 2010, 08:56:00 AM
Another thought: if the He-111 fuselages are too big, after finishing my "Aichi 119" I now have some "extra" vac-form fuselages for the He-119. The He-119 is a "size smaller" than the He-111 but similarly shaped. There are no "protuberances" like the bottom gun tub, nor "openings" like the upper gun positions or windows to try to fill in or obscure. Lemme know.
Well one thing these drawings I have show, is that the Mosquito fuselage is not actually round, it's 'egg' shape. Which is the main reason why the He.111 doesn't work, because that is almost round. It would be interesting to see what the shape of a section is of the He.119.
>the Mosquito fuselage is not actually round, it's 'egg' shape. Which is the main reason why the He.111 doesn't work, because that is almost round. It would be interesting to see what the shape of a section is of the He.119.<
The He-119 is roundish near the tail, but becomes a slightly "FLATTENED" oval (top-to-bottom) around the wings. I guess it does so to accommodate the widened engine and crew space on either side. Hmmm. Back to the drawing board.
Quote from: kitnut617 on February 25, 2010, 07:58:10 AM
Hi Joe,
According to the Sharp / Bowyers book (supposedly the bible on Mosquitos), it says it would have been an exact scaled up version of the Mossie. The only dimensional information I have been able to find for it is in the same book (and I've looked everywhere), which says it would have had fifteen foot diameter contra-props. So I took a photo of the drawing in the book and scaled it until I got 15 feet across the prop tips with the resulting comparison I did with a regular Mossie. ...
Looking at the image, I get the feeling the props might be three-bladed. The prop cone does not show a blade in the horizontal position (which you'd expect if there were a 4-bladed prop with 2 blades vertical and 2 horizontal). In that case, your measurement is off, because the drawing does not show the full length of the blade but shows a blade at a 60 degree angle (i.e. shorter). Does the Sharp/Bowyers book say what props were to be used?
Quote from: Hobbes on February 28, 2010, 11:11:04 AM
Looking at the image, I get the feeling the props might be three-bladed. The prop cone does not show a blade in the horizontal position (which you'd expect if there were a 4-bladed prop with 2 blades vertical and 2 horizontal). In that case, your measurement is off, because the drawing does not show the full length of the blade but shows a blade at a 60 degree angle (i.e. shorter). Does the Sharp/Bowyers book say what props were to be used?
Good point and one I took into consideration, the image actually doesn't show either way. If it was a three blader and the two are shown at 60 degrees, you would either see the horizontal prop on the near side if the two props shown were on the far side, or you would see the root of the blades inside of the spinners profile if the blades were drawn on the near side. Same with if it was a four blader, you would definitely see the horizontal prop which doesn't show at all, in either scenario . All I can say is that the two that are shown measure the same length, but a couple of things did tally. First was when I placed the Tempest Mk.I front fuselage over the drawing once I had scaled the props as shown to 15 feet, it was almost an exact match, the second thing is the opening for the cockpit in the drawing almost matches the the opening on the 1/72 Mosquito I overlaid which you can see in the photo I posted. I've used one of the Tempest Mk.I conversions already but I have another --- somewhere, I'll try to find it and the drawing I printed off some time ago and take a photo of it overlaid.
But I do agree everything is very speculative and as there isn't any concrete evidence to scale it with, I'm going to go with what I've got. The only mention of the prop size is actually in the Putman book.
As an aside, I do drafting and design for a living and when I do a concept I just generalize what the shape will look like, exact details are worked out later. So if I was doing this very basic drawing, I would have drawn it like it's shown, which is why I've gone the route I've taken.
I found an example of how a three bladed prop would look like when detailed better and shows what I'm trying to describe in the last post. I did this for a design I did some years ago which you can see in the 'Gallery' section of the forum.
OK, while looking for something else in the stash, I found my 1/72 Tempest Mk.I conversion, here's what I mean when I scale Jon's pic down to have 15 feet across the prop tips and then overlay the Tempest conversion, practically bang on IMHO.
EDIT: added Putman quotation
I found I had another photo to add to my case that this might be the right size, I did this one sometime ago. The cockpit canopy ends up being the same size as the regular Mossie and when I lined up a Mossie kit with the cockpit on the drawing, that almost matched up. The only thing I need to find out is where the drawing came from, I know I've seen it in a book somewhere. The spinner BTW, almost matches a Sea Fury spinner.
EDIT: Just did some more accurate measurements on the scaled down drawing. I measured the length of the fuselage from the nose tip to tail tip (not including the spinner) and I got 8 11/16" (221mm), then taking the real dimension of a Mk.IV as an example ( the nose protrudes in front of the spinner here) which is 40'-6", I found I actually need a 1/56 kit of a Mosquito to make a 1/72 Sabre Mosquito.
Hi Robert,
I pulled the side view out of Air-Britian Aeromilitaria Vol. 31, Issue 121, Spring 2005, its from an Out of The Archives
piece written by Tony Buttler. The text gives a wingspan of 65 feet and a length of 47 ft 6 in for the Sabre aircraft.
The Sabre powered 'Aircraft B' drawings are accompanied by drawings of a similarly sized twin Halford powered 'Aircraft A'.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 03, 2010, 10:52:09 AM
Hi Robert,
I pulled the side view out of Air-Britian Aeromilitaria Vol. 31, Issue 121, Spring 2005, its from an Out of The Archives
piece written by Tony Buttler. The text gives a wingspan of 65 feet and a length of 47 ft 6 in for the Sabre aircraft.
Jon
Thanks Jon, I knew I had seen it somewhere. I've got that issue but not here -- in the storage container. The length is interesting as I've scaled the drawing to 52'-10 when I make the props 15 feet, I've got five feet to lose somewhere. I think some of it might be in the tail area though, it's truncated a bit so doesn't exactly match the standard Mossie's tail end. I'll play around with it a bit more. I wonder where Tony got the dimensions from, I haven't been able to find anything in the books I have.
Here's something that has been puzzling me, a Mk.IV overall length is 40'-6" (reference out of Putman's book), a Mk.XVI is 44'-6" and the difference between the two are the engines. On the Mk.IV, the fuselage nose sticks out in front of the spinners but on a Mk.XVI the spinners stick out in front of the fuselage. But the extent that the Mk.XVI spinners stick out is only about 9" to 1 foot, so where is the other three feet? Does this mean the fuselage on all the two-stage Merlins was longer than a standard one? This would be something to take into account when trying to scale this Sabre Mossie.
Buttler's quoted length is fuselage length rather than overall length, so just for giggles
I rescanned the drawing and scaled it to approx. 1/72 using the 47' 6" measure, however
I measured from the nose to the rudder post rather than nose to tail.
I then scanned a two-stage Mossie NF 3-view from the Putnam British Fighters and scaled it to approx. 1/72
using the 44' 6" overall length measure and then overlayed the profile onto the Sabre Mossie. Now if my guess
on the Sabre Mossie fuselage length figure being measured from the rudder post was correct the difference would
be three scale feet or 1/2 inch. On the overlay its a shade under 9/16ths, which considering the line weights and
questionable source drawings is pretty close.
I also overlayed the NF profile and plan views on a Sea Mosquito 33 drawing also from the British Fighters volume,
make what you will of the result. ;D
Jon
is there a concensus as to the size of the design? id measured the design as an overall length when making an example for photography (scale didnt matter for the useage being merly a 3d represeantation)
if you have a side and plan view of the 'sabre mossie' to hand, ill happily make it as a vacform for the group on here (are the wings a direct scale up too?)
cheers, Joe
I've done some scaling up and down too, when I scaled to Jon's posted dimensions, 47'-6" total length, a few things changed. One, the nacelles became not much bigger than the Merlin nacelles on a standard Mosquito, and two, the cockpit canopy diminished in size too, being much smaller than a standard Mosquito cockpit canopy. On the other hand, going by Hobbes suggestion that the view was actually showing the two prop blades at 60 degrees, it matched quite well, the vertical dimension for the blade tips being 12'-11 7/8" when at 60 degrees and the drawing measured 13'-2" when I put the rule to it.
But when I used the scaled down drawing with the props measuring 15 feet tip to tip, the measurement of 47'-6" from the rudder post to the nose is awfully close but I had to go to the tip of the spinner to get it.
Here's a couple of photos of the profile which was scaled to 47'-6" overall overlaying the profile scaled to have 15 feet over the prop tips. Second photo just shows the difference between the nacelles better. It shows that the smaller profile has nacelles no better than a Merlin, including the spinner, and also the difference between the canopy, I had already found that the larger profile almost matches the 1/72 kits for canopy and nacelle. I know the standard Mosquito cockpit was really crowded so I can't imagine it would have been smaller.
One other thing, going back to where I needed to find where the difference of five feet was (back four or five posts) I think I've found it. The tail end of the Sabre Mosquito is different to a standard Mossie (most of the fuselage is really), the Sabre Mossie doesn't have a nice tapering end to the fuselage. If I was to make this have a nice tapering end I get this in the photo, about five feet :o it is of course just guess work.
Regarding the EXACT dimensions of the up-sized Mossie:
I think it is always fun to re-create a "real" whif and bring it alive. To me, however, it seems that "we" are trying too hard to come up with the EXACT dimensions when, in most cases, a REAL aircraft evolves a bit from its drawings anyway. No sheet metal (plywood?) was cut to make this enlarged Mossie, as I recall, so "we" can easily excuse minor design changes in order to achieve a believable end product.
I just *WISH* I had my 1500-kit stash (sold off a couple years ago). I'm sure there is a Russian, Italian, or Japanese aircraft kit out there that would form a reasonable base fuselage for you to recreate the enlarged Mossie, and that's JUST the sort of thing I used to enjoy doing (sleuthing a whif from the shapes and sizes of my stash). But Alas!
You MIGHT try (as I did with my Grumman Gander pedastal float) merely adding some thick spacer(s) to a 1/72 fuselage to enlarge it diametrically, and some constant-diameter "rings" (maybe even several thick spacer "bulkheads") to lengthen it where the wings (Hampden?) meet it.
I think it is do-able, and I am excited to think that it might happen. Never Despair!
Quote from: sequoiaranger on March 04, 2010, 08:46:48 AM
Regarding the EXACT dimensions of the up-sized Mossie:
I think it is always fun to re-create a "real" whif and bring it alive. To me, however, it seems that "we" are trying too hard to come up with the EXACT dimensions when, in most cases, a REAL aircraft evolves a bit from its drawings anyway. No sheet metal (plywood?) was cut to make this enlarged Mossie, as I recall, so "we" can easily excuse minor design changes in order to achieve a believable end product.
You MIGHT try (as I did with my Grumman Gander pedastal float) merely adding some thick spacer(s) to a 1/72 fuselage to enlarge it diametrically, and some constant-diameter "rings" (maybe even several thick spacer "bulkheads") to lengthen it where the wings (Hampden?) meet it.
I think it is do-able, and I am excited to think that it might happen. Never Despair!
You're right --- the object on my investigation was to see what was available so I wouldn't have to do too much scratch building, the Hampden wings are a good example, along with the Tempest Mk.I conversion (it's still available) and standard Mossie canopy. The drawing I have will go a long way towards checking out which parts fit best. I even think a B-17B rear fuselage might work too, your He.111 idea got me thinking along that route.
In the Air-Britain piece Buttler does state the following:
"However, it must be borne in mind that these drawings, for designs which do
not show official De Havilland designations, were most probably preliminary
sketches and not part of a full brochure. Consequently, perhaps one should
not attach too much significance to them."
:cheers:
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 04, 2010, 10:17:26 AM
In the Air-Britain piece Buttler does state the following:
"However, it must be borne in mind that these drawings, for designs which do
not show official De Havilland designations, were most probably preliminary
sketches and not part of a full brochure. Consequently, perhaps one should
not attach too much significance to them."
:cheers:
:lol: :lol:
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 03, 2010, 10:52:09 AM
Hi Robert,
I pulled the side view out of Air-Britian Aeromilitaria Vol. 31, Issue 121, Spring 2005, its from an Out of The Archives
piece written by Tony Buttler. The text gives a wingspan of 65 feet and a length of 47 ft 6 in for the Sabre aircraft.
Jon
Found my copy Jon, and had a re-read. But here's something to ponder, the article says the wingspan was to be 65 feet, well if you divide 65'-0" by 72 you get 10.83". Now if you divide 54'-2" (Mosquito wingspan) by 60 you get ------ 10.83". I remember now where I got to the point of 'I need a 1/60th kit of a Mosquito' -------- ;D
Also 44'-6" divided by 60 = 8.9", the side profile when I scale the prop to 15 feet measures 8.875". So specifically, I need a 1/60 kit of a two-stage Merlin Mosquito.
Right! now I'm totally confused with the published overall lengths of the various marks of the Mosquito. This Sabre exercise has got me looking through all my books I have on the Mosquito. I have my Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, Putman's De Havilland Aircraft since 1909, Sharp/Bowyer's Mosquito and the Modellers datafile.
It is well published that some Mosquitos were 40'-6" (mostly single stage Merlin types) or 44'-6" (mostly two-stage Merlin types) . Single stage Merlin Nightfighters were 41'-2". Out of all the lists and drawings, none mention or show where the 4 foot difference is between the two engine types, although they all do agree that the spinner on the two stage Merlins, protruded about 6" in front of the fuselage nose (for bomber types). So where is the other 3'-6" ??????? This is about 5/8" of an inch in 1/72 scale, 15/16" in 1/48 scale
I should mention that the Datafile listing has dimensions all over the place with the majority not matching with the other lists. An example is a good many of the two stage Merlin types listed have the same length as the single stage Merlin types, one even being a inch shorter.
Checking the drawings of AotFP's book (I know they're not the most accurate sometimes) the two engine type variants are draw the same size, 40'-6", even when the stated length in the text are different. The same can be said of the drawings in the Datafile, all the various types shown in side profile measure the same, so neither of these publications are of any use. In the Sharp/Bowyer I couldn't find any list of the different lengths (I'll have to read it through again) and the Putman book just has a listing of the various marks with dimensions, no scale drawings.
Lumsden's British Piston Aero-Engines give a length difference of 17.7 inches between the single-stage, two-speed (Mk XX and similar) and
a two-stage, two-speed (Mk 60 and similar) Merlin types, with the bulk of the length difference at the back of the engine.
The nacelles of the two-stage Mosquitos are clearly not a foot-and-a-half longer, and anyhow that is nowhere near the
claimed 48 inch difference in length.
I think somebody got the numbers wrong a long time ago and the mistake has just been compounded, frankly I think the problem may be with the Putnam to whit, the T.T. Mk. 39 is listed as being 1 foot 2 inches shorter than a Mk. XVI when it is obviously longer than the Mk. XVI, or any other Mosquito for that matter.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us%2Fpicturep%2Fae36.jpg&hash=844bf1709ea6b9c4e0ff6b187a6cfbf34f593152)
FWIW William Green's Warplane's of the Second World War Vol.2 Fighters, gives a length of 40' 10.75" for the F.B VI, N.F. XIII (single stage) and N.F. 30 (two-stage).
I think everyone here knew about the other Mosquito variant that had cloth wings, twin blade props, and shorter tail right? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: Tamiya's 1/72 gun nosed Mossie came home today with an Eduard Zoom etch set and just might have to make an appearance here. Black and White undersides anyone?
Metal structure included of course.
Skeeters Is Cool ! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:,
:cheers:
Daryl J.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 03, 2010, 10:52:09 AM
Hi Robert,
I pulled the side view out of Air-Britian Aeromilitaria Vol. 31, Issue 121, Spring 2005, its from an Out of The Archives
piece written by Tony Buttler. The text gives a wingspan of 65 feet and a length of 47 ft 6 in for the Sabre aircraft.
Jon
After reading the article over I saw that Tony Buttler credits Bill Taylor of De Havilland Support LTD for supplying the drawings to him. I decided to email Bill myself to see if I could get a copy of the drawings and see if he had anything else. The reply I got was the drawings were a complete 'chance' discovery, being on a single piece of paper and what Tony published was all there is about it.
further to back on page 12 of the thread ...
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/4-Others/01-Finland/VL-Vihuri/VL-Vihuri.htm
That "Vihuri" Mosquito is intriguing. As you may know, the Germans did put a DB-601 on a captured Spitfire (and flew it), and the engine swap was fairly easy because of the similarity in size and shape. The markings for my DB-powered Spit (below) are whiffery, but the aircraft itself was really made!
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=1656
Oughta work for a Mossie!!
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 14, 2010, 08:36:05 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 03, 2010, 10:52:09 AM
Hi Robert,
I pulled the side view out of Air-Britian Aeromilitaria Vol. 31, Issue 121, Spring 2005, its from an Out of The Archives
piece written by Tony Buttler. The text gives a wingspan of 65 feet and a length of 47 ft 6 in for the Sabre aircraft.
Jon
After reading the article over I saw that Tony Buttler credits Bill Taylor of De Havilland Support LTD for supplying the drawings to him. I decided to email Bill myself to see if I could get a copy of the drawings and see if he had anything else. The reply I got was the drawings were a complete 'chance' discovery, being on a single piece of paper and what Tony published was all there is about it.
Bit of an update on this, I bought a dwg of the Mosquito from an outfit in New Zealand, which was originally drawn in 1/48 scale. This NZ outfit has scaled the drawing up to I think was supposed to be 1/32 scale but the copy I have is actually 1/30.68 scale. So yesterday I took it to a photocopy outfit in Calgary and had it scaled down to 1/60 and after spending an hour or so this morning doing some checks, found that 1/60th is a tad small. When I go to Calgary next time I'm going to get some copies made at 1/56th and 1/58th scale and then I should be close.
In 1/60th a lot of the features come close though, like the profile, but as you can see it's a bit short, 3 scale feet short. The paper cutout of the Sabre Mosquito I've scaled to make the props 15 feet. One of the problems with using 1/60 scale is it's very hard to get the 15 foot prop to fit between the fuselage and nacelle center.
I'm still convinced there was a metal and cloth Mosquito sporting short nacelles, fixed gear, and a shorter tail. I'm sure of it. :party: :party: :party: :party:
:cheers:
Daryl J., looking at his Tamiya PR Mosquito chuckling.
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 06, 2010, 09:44:14 AM
One of the problems with using 1/60 scale is it's very hard to get the 15 foot prop to fit between the fuselage and nacelle center.
That might be because you're assuming that
everything needs to be scaled to 1/60. In reality, the nacelles, spinners, etc, would remain the same size as the 1/72 scale versions of those items (with suitable changes for the slightly larger engines, etc). If you do that, you'll more than likely have plenty of room between the fuselage and the nacelle for the props.
Quote from: rickshaw on November 06, 2010, 07:25:14 PM
In reality, the nacelles, spinners, etc, would remain the same size as the 1/72 scale versions of those items
No, they don't. Just compare any Mosquito with a Tempest or Typhoon. I've got a Tempest Mk.I forward fuselage conversion which happens to match the nacelles of the paper cutout of the Sabre Mosquito exactly once I scaled the props in the picture I have to 15 feet. The only thing that stayed the same in 1/72 scale once I scaled the picture, is the canopy. Go back a page and you can see the photos I posted of the parts overlaying the cutout drawing.
Anyway, I'm interested in finding out where Tony Buttler got his overall dimension from, the 1/60 scale drawings measure out to 65 feet exactly for wingspan, but the length measures to 49 feet down the fuselage center.
I think I'll drop him a line and find out from the horses mouth ---
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 07, 2010, 06:47:43 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on November 06, 2010, 07:25:14 PM
In reality, the nacelles, spinners, etc, would remain the same size as the 1/72 scale versions of those items
No, they don't. Just compare any Mosquito with a Tempest or Typhoon. I've got a Tempest Mk.I forward fuselage conversion which happens to match the nacelles of the paper cutout of the Sabre Mosquito exactly once I scaled the props in the picture I have to 15 feet. The only thing that stayed the same in 1/72 scale once I scaled the picture, is the canopy. Go back a page and you can see the photos I posted of the parts overlaying the cutout drawing.
Thats interesting. According to the references I have, the Merlin and Griffin are approximately the same width. In fact the Griffin is whisker narrower with the Merlin measuring in at 30.8 inches while the Griffin is 30.3. So why would the nacelle need to be appreciably wider? Taller perhaps (Merlin is 40 inches and the Griffin 45) but not necessarily longer (Merlin is 88.7 inches versus the Griffin at 81 inches). Remarkable how Rolls Royce managed to get another 500+ HP out of an engine smaller than the Merlin. The Sabre OTOH, is the same width as the Merlin (40 inches), the same height as the Griffin (45 inches) and 1.5 inches longer (82.5)
Might it be that the Tempest and Typhoon are poor representatives of what is required in a multi-engined fighter/bomber nacelle? Remember, the Typhoon was originally designed to take either a Sabre or a Vulture and the Vulture is, damn I can't find its width but must have been approximately the same as a Sabre. Tempest was also designed to take the Centaurus which as a radial is significantly wider than any of the three inlines I've mentioned (55 inches) so its fuselage would have had to be that wide at least.
The point I'm trying to make is that you're assuming that the Typhoon/Tempest fuselage was the absolute minimum width for the engine. Obviously it isn't.
Quote from: rickshaw on November 08, 2010, 01:26:25 AM
Thats interesting. According to the references I have, the Merlin and Griffin are approximately the same width. In fact the Griffin is whisker narrower with the Merlin measuring in at 30.8 inches while the Griffin is 30.3. So why would the nacelle need to be appreciably wider? Taller perhaps (Merlin is 40 inches and the Griffin 45) but not necessarily longer (Merlin is 88.7 inches versus the Griffin at 81 inches). Remarkable how Rolls Royce managed to get another 500+ HP out of an engine smaller than the Merlin. The Sabre OTOH, is the same width as the Merlin (40 inches), the same height as the Griffin (45 inches) and 1.5 inches longer (82.5)
What are you going on about a Griffon for, the aircraft in question is a SABRE powered Mosquito. The Sharp/Bowyers book says it was a proposed SCALED up Mosquito. And if you think a Sabre is the same width as a Merlin, you need to go back and check your figures. BTYI, photos of Typhoons and Tempests with their cowling panels off, show that there wasn't a square inch of space left between the engine and the cowlings.
Sabre Bore & Stroke- 5" x 6.5" Horizontally Opposed
RR Griffon Bore & Stroke - 6" x 6.6" 60 degree Vee
RR Merlin Bore & Stroke - 5.4" x 6" 60 degree Vee
Quote from: rickshaw on November 08, 2010, 01:26:25 AM
Tempest was also designed to take the Centaurus which as a radial is significantly wider than any of the three inlines I've mentioned (55 inches) so its fuselage would have had to be that wide at least
Oh! ---- riiigght ---
NOT!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluescore.net%2Fwork%2FVic_Bob_Handbags.jpg&hash=e67c6032dd78bbdc9f9d5cfbdb568ddda2785152)
you can put your handbags away Lee ---
Bob, whilst you're playing about with scaled up Mossies, take a look at the drawing of the jet version. The fuselage looks scaled up.
I'm toying with a Mosquito hotrod - take a standard bomber fuselage and add the wings and engines of the Hornet for a fast low level strike aircraft. The other idea I'm thinking of is a deepened Hornet fuselage to take a single 1000lb bomb. Alternatively, take the cannons out and have it semi recessed.
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 08, 2010, 06:52:41 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on November 08, 2010, 01:26:25 AM
Thats interesting. According to the references I have, the Merlin and Griffin are approximately the same width. In fact the Griffin is whisker narrower with the Merlin measuring in at 30.8 inches while the Griffin is 30.3. So why would the nacelle need to be appreciably wider? Taller perhaps (Merlin is 40 inches and the Griffin 45) but not necessarily longer (Merlin is 88.7 inches versus the Griffin at 81 inches). Remarkable how Rolls Royce managed to get another 500+ HP out of an engine smaller than the Merlin. The Sabre OTOH, is the same width as the Merlin (40 inches), the same height as the Griffin (45 inches) and 1.5 inches longer (82.5)
What are you going on about a Griffon for, the aircraft in question is a SABRE powered Mosquito.
A good question. I was using it to illustrate a point I was implying. British inline aeroengines all appear to have approximately the same width - perhaps intentionally - to ensure against a lack of supply during wartime.
I do have to apologise though, I suggested the width for the Sabre was the same as for the Merlin it isn't but it isn't significantly different either. ~3.5mm in 1/72. You could just widen the nacelles by about that much and no one would know any different.
Quote
The Sharp/Bowyers book says it was a proposed SCALED up Mosquito. And if you think a Sabre is the same width as a Merlin, you need to go back and check your figures. BTYI, photos of Typhoons and Tempests with their cowling panels off, show that there wasn't a square inch of space left between the engine and the cowlings.
Sabre Bore & Stroke- 5" x 6.5" Horizontally Opposed
RR Griffon Bore & Stroke - 6" x 6.6" 60 degree Vee
RR Merlin Bore & Stroke - 5.4" x 6" 60 degree Vee
Look its your WHIFF. You can do what you like with it but I'm merely pointing out that perhaps one of your dimensions is wrong and trying to save you something you seem to be worrying about, thats all.
And at that point I will leave it.
Wasn't the Griffon and Merlin the same engine block ?
Good Idea...thank to share it :thumbsup: :cheers:
Quote from: Aircav on November 09, 2010, 01:41:39 AM
Wasn't the Griffon and Merlin the same engine block ?
The blocks aren't the same. The FAA requested the Griffon as an enlarged Merlin but, instead, Rolls-Royce applied the R dimensions to a Merlin-inspired (but not Merlin-derived) block. Or as Flight (20 Sept 1945) put it: "... the knowledge gained in the Merline has resulted in the refinements which distinguish the Griffon".
The Griffon resulted from a redesign of an earlier Griffon (the R11, developed from the racing R, from the Buzzard, etc.). Bore and stroke are the same but, according to Flight, the only component held over from the R series was the crank.
For the rcord, Flight compares dimensions for the Griffon 65 and Merlin 66. These are given as OA Length 81in/78in; OA Height 45in/43.675in; OA Width 29.5in/29.825in.
Apologies for the hijack. And now back to our regularly-scheduled programming ...
Building on apo's hijack, a short side-bar here:
Griffon and Merlin do not have the same block nor is the Griffon 'smaller' than the Merlin.
It is in fact much larger at 2,240 in3(36.7 liters) vs. 1,637 in3(27 liters) for the Merlin.
Weight also increased with the Griffon being from @ 300 to 600 pounds heavier (Merlin weight varying by version).
The overall length measurement in the Merlin series varied from 69 inches for single speed engines up to the 88.7 inches
of the two-speed/two-stage engines. Griffon lengths varied from 72 - 81 inches, depending on accessories and in all versions
it is deeper than the Merlin and only narrower than the two-speed/two-stage models. Using external measures only gives a
false sense of relative size.
The Griffon's dimensions were constrained by the need to fit into existing/planned designs so R-R paid close attention to
packaging to keep overall length down, the camshaft drives and magneto were moved to the front of the engine. Originally
the first part of the supercharger drive was also front-mounted, this was later changed to a rear-mounted design due to cost.
From British Piston Aero-Engines and Their Aircraft, Alec Lumsden, Airlife 1994 (2nd impression 2003)
Back to the subject at hand.
Robert, even if as Sharp-Bowyers say the Sabre-Mossie was 'direct scale-up' of the DH 98 in general dimensions, this does not
mean that every dimension would be, or even could be, increased by exactly the same ratio. While a span of 65' is indeed 1.2 times
greater than 54', the fuselage/overall length would not necessarily be exactly 1.2 times longer as aerodynamic and weight/balances
issues would also impact the length. As to the interference problem between props and fuselage, try not scaling the fuselage in width
by the 1.2 factor, the canopy apparently stayed approximately the same size so perhaps while they 'deepened' the fuselage the
width was not increased as greatly?
Jon
Quote from: apophenia on November 09, 2010, 02:29:49 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on November 08, 2010, 06:09:03 PM... take a standard bomber fuselage and add the wings and engines of the Hornet for a fast low level strike aircraft...
Very cool idea! Something like this? Or would you keep the Mossie nacelles? Hornet tail?
Not quite sure yet, I'm just throwing an idea I had a few nights ago into the ring. That top view looks about right though.
I'd probably keep the Mosquito tailplanes but add a Hornet fin fillet. I've done it with a Mosquito NF38 that remains unfinished - the 38 had some serious stability problems so I added the fillet to sort them out and it'll get handed props too. Still undecided as to the scheme it'll end up in but Dark Sea Grey and dark green over PRU Blue is a current favourite and very attractive. It certainly looks different.
I'm liking the idea of hybrids and manufacturer kit bashes in general more and more. The RR Eagle engined Tempest with a Fury wing is one of my more attractive ideas, along with the Sea Fury torpedo fighter with a Tempest wing to allow for torpedo carriage. I'm also going to make a start on the Lancaster/Linncoln/Shackleton mash up next year.
Quote from: apophenia on November 09, 2010, 08:07:18 PM
Love the Tempest-winged Sea Fury torpedo fighter idea. Looking forward to that!
BTW: assuming that I got the scaling about right, it is impressive how much more compact they got the Hornet cowlings compared with the Mossie originals!
The engines are smaller in cross section as RR removed all the ancilliaries and put them behind the engine.
I've a two seat version of the Fury TF done but the single seater is nearing completion. Hopefully, I'll have it done by tonight.
I've had a review of all the info I have and various peoples comments, and not being as grouchy as I have been, started to look at this a bit more constructively.
I've been basing all my calculations (and arguments) on the fact that the prop was to be 15 feet in diameter which I got out of the Putman's De Havilland since -- book, and not the Sharp/Bowyer book (see top pic below). This was up until the side profile appeared, the only dimensional fact to be attributed to the Sabre Mosquito that I could find.
But now we have a wing span and length dimension to work with, which suggested that the scaled up Mossie was 1.2 times bigger and to make a 1/72 model of it I would need a 1/60th scale drawing (or model), which I now have. I found that even though some things worked in the side view, they didn't work in the top view. For instance there's no way a 15 foot diameter prop fits in the top view. I started to do a lot of measuring of the 1/60th drawing with my 1/72 scale ruler and one thing I found was that the real Mosquito prop diameter in 1/60th measured out to a tad under 14 feet diameter in 1/72 scale. I decided to overlay some of the Tempest parts I have which I was planning on using in this build, over the 1/60th drawing and found that the 1/72 Tempest prop measures out to ---- a tad under 14 scale feet. This was quite interesting because now I'm thinking that the Putman book 'might' be wrong because re-reading the text it also says that the proposed Sabre Mosquito was to carry 18,000 lb bomb load. Now I'm fairly certain the Sharp/Bowyer book says it was to carry 8,000 lbs, but I don't have my book at the moment because my bro has it (he's building the 1/24 Airfix Mossie at the moment) so I can't verify that.
The upshot is I decided to scale off the Sabre Mosquito profile using 14 feet as the prop diameter and guess what I found ----- an almost exact fit with the 1/60th drawing (second pic). The fin and rudder are the same but it looks like the tail will have to be extended a bit (3rd pic)
last pic is the difference between the 15 foot prop profile and the 14 foot prop one.
Ages ago, back in days of lore, you may recall that I mentioned that the Napier Dagger was considered as an engine.
Anyhoo, I found the reference. The Sharp/Bower book "Mosquito", pages 32 and 33. Very little, except to say that studies based around two large Daggers or one Sabre were considered.
Now, I have a mould for a Dagger so I'm thinking about converting an Airfix Mosquito back to the prototype or a alternate early mk 1 but with the Daggers rather than the Merlins. Should look really different.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on December 01, 2010, 11:38:20 AM
Now, I have a mould for a Dagger so I'm thinking about converting an Airfix Mosquito back to the prototype or a alternate early mk 1 but with the Daggers rather than the Merlins. Should look really different.
That should look excellent! :thumbsup:
Apophenia's drawing looks wholly believable, and I bet it sounded awesome. Can you build a sound unit into the model please? ;)
A quick dig through the Mosquito spares box yielded the smaller tailplanes and two Daggers. I've a spare set of bits from the Paragon Mosquito prototype set but it's the later one for the Tamiya kit so I'll have to leave the aircraft with the longer nacelles. No smaller wheels either but I've the spoked wheels anyway, so it's a kind of halfway house.
Wings and nacelles now glued together.
If you wanted to go the whole hog with th retro look you could drop the mocked up turret in there too?
No, because De Havilland simply didn't want it. They went along with putting one into a prototype to prove the point that the aircraft shouldn't have it. And they were proved right.
In addition, I really just wanted to see what a Mosquito protype would look like with Daggers. If I can't get the few bits I need, it may look more like a later B.IV series II with the longer nacelles.
I may do a turret armed version at some stage but much later. Need to finish the Mossies that are started.
I agree, the turret was the wrong path to go down. I could see a situation where DH might be strong-armed into it, but it was a good job it didn't happen.
I've got the bits to do it - I'll strip an Airfix Defiant - and I'll probably use an Airfix NF.II as the plastic's nice and thick for conversion work.
It'd be nice to do, if only for the 'complete' collection.
Progress report.
One wing has been chopped to fit the Dagger (serious filling to fit the lower nacelle as I'm using MB2 Dagger cowlings) and the radiator section's been plugged with plastic card, superglue and filler. I'll leave it a while to harden before I do any serious sanding. I've found the resin nose and wheels, plus some cockpit interior bits, the fuselage interior has been sanded away in readiness for the new resin interior, some of which I still have to cast.
Bit of progress myself, I've got a number of different drawings copied and scaled off, one at 1/60, one at 1/58 and one at 1/56. I'm going to have a thorough check with the dimensions.
I've also got a 1/72 scaled drawing just for a visual comparison, top pic is with parts of the Airfix Mosquito laid over the drawing to check how close it is, the bottom photo is with the Sabre Mosquito profile shown which is probably the one I'm going to go with. You can see here that the canopy appears to be the same size between the two profiles.
So yesterday I wrote an email to Tony Buttler, I explained what I thought about the Sabre Mosquito's true size, 49'-6" overall instead of 47'-6" as what was published in Aeromilitaria, and today I got an answer from him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Robert - and a Merry Christmas to you too.
It is quite extraordinary that you should contact me about the DH.101 because only a week ago I revised my 'Aeromilitaria' piece for 'Aviation News', although I have not yet submitted it. There are two points that will interest you.
1. First of all my drawing is a print-off from the master and the 47ft 6in dimension was written on my copy in Biro by the chap who printed it, so it is quite possible that he wrote in error a 7 rather than a 9, although of course I do not know if that really is the case.
2. The second point is that I actually have the full 3-view of the contra-prop version, not just the side view. Trouble is the drawing is very large and for 'Aeromilitaria' I just did the side to save time. I have now scanned in sections the plan and nose views for 'Aviation News' in the hope that the magazine has the computer power to blend them all together (which I do not). These sections are all very large files and I will send them to you shortly via Yousendit - they are far too big to attach to an e-mail. I hope you will find them helpful.
Do please keep me posted on the progress of your model.
Many thanks.
Very best wishes,
Tony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll keep you posted on developments as I've got to put together the various scans he sent me, which have all turned out at different scales.
What is obvious though is that there was a properly scaled drawing made of the DH.101 and not just a quick sketch as it appears like in the side profile found in the 2005 Aeromilitaria magazine.
I've had the privilege of a pre-view of the 3-View drawing of the DH.101 that had cropped up 5 years ago, but Tony Buttler has asked I do not post any views of it until after the whole drawing has been published by him. This drawing was found by Bill Taylor of de Havilland Support Ltd (a company that provides spare and new parts for the many de Havilland aircraft still flying), it was stuffed in amongst a pile of papers in a set of manuals for another aircraft, to which they have many. He found it purely by chance.
I can tell you that it does look like a Mosquito in plan view, the propellers measured out to just under 14'-0" in diameter and the length is close to 49'-6". The canopy in the front view appears to be a standard DH.98 one. That is all I can say at the moment, but I think I'll start a thread in 'Current Builds' as I intend to build a 1/72 scale model of it.
Robert, I've got a question on the DH.101, why was it bigger than a standard Mossie? If the intention was just to pop Sabres on it, wouldn't have been easier to just have a few localised increases in dimensions? Instead, they seem to have gone for an airframe that's larger in most aspects, more or less resulting in a completley new aircraft, at least as requires production jigs etc.
I'm guessing that the extra power & larger bomb bay required extra strength & structure that ended up stretching the Mossie in all dimensions?
Simon, I don't have my copy of the Sharp/Bowyers Mosquito book at hand (my bro has it) but IIRC, the idea was to have a fast un-armed bomber that could carry 8000 lbs of bombs internally, with the capability of carrying two 4000 lb cookies. The Sharp/Bowyer book has a whole chapter pertaining to the DH.101 which goes into great depth the arguments De Havilland put to the Air Ministry. It goes into the cost factor per bomber compared to the big heavy bombers that were then the fad with Bomber Command, they figured that they could build/sell two of these DH.101's to one of the heavies, it then goes into how many/cost the crew there was (3) compared to a heavy, time getting to the target and back (half of what the heavies were doing as it could fly at well over 400 mph with 8000 lb load). The only thing that the Sharp/Bowyer book doesn't have about the DH.101 was dimensions for it, just says it was a scaled up Mosquito. The drawing that was found shows that this was basically the case. The case of a fast un-armed bomber was well proved all through the war, that is up until they started encountering jets during the last few months. But that was all under control too, because De Havilland was looking at jet bombers too, so the status quo would have been restored.
I've been doing some research into the engines used too, these weren't your average garden variety Typhoon/Tempest Sabres. These were Sabres with three speed, two stage superchargers and although I haven't found anything about the Sabre Mk.20SIM on the internet (if anyone knows of a link I'd be really interested), I have found Sabres with a similar description, the Sabre Mk.VII & VII's were the same except they drive a single prop, and then there's the Sabre E.118 which did drive a contra-prop and was tested in the Folland Fo.108. I think the Sabre Mk.20 was to be the production version of this engine. Seeing as the Mk.VII and Mk.VIII were both engines of over 3000 hp, you can pretty much guess what the power was for the Mk.20 and I'm not surprised at all that De Havilland dropped the project like a hot potato after they were told to use the Griffon instead, it would have been at least 600 hp less powerful, maybe even a 1000 hp less
Have a look at using a Canberra fuselage, Bob.
It is a thought Lee, except it's round. A Mosquito fuselage is egg shaped in section. I've got these sections printed to the right scale and now I'm going to re-print them on a clear sticky back sheet, then I'll stick that onto some styrene card that I'll use. For skinning it, I've been looking at something that might work, use some thin and not very wide styrene strip and fasten it in a spiral wrap around procedure, then once that is glued and dried, repeat the procedure but going the opposite direction.
Now that you've got section bulkheads, the common way to finish it is with strips of plasticard laid lengthwise. I don't see how wrapping in a spiral is going to work.
I think Bob's trying to replicate in miniature what De Havilland did with the real Mosquito.
I see. I suspect you'll need more bulkheads then.
Yes that's right to both of you, when I got the drawing copied and downsized to the scales I wanted, I found that I could also make an electrical copy of it. Didn't cost much, C$6 was all, so I got a JPEG done of it. Then by converting it into a bmp file I'm able to insert it into the drawing program I have. From there I can scale, print, rotate, mirror but I can't copy individual parts. I have to trace it.
So once I've done that, I can create as many bulkheads as I need.
Quote from: Hobbes on December 10, 2010, 12:45:32 AM
Now that you've got section bulkheads, the common way to finish it is with strips of plasticard laid lengthwise. I don't see how wrapping in a spiral is going to work.
I've seen boat hulls done with spiraling planks but the idea is to preform the strips like this below
Robert, thanks for the explanation. It sounds very forward thinking, the vast majority of air forces have adopted just that approach with fleets of smaller strike aircraft with a secondary strategic role rather than big bombers.
Robert,
That method of two layers of diagonal planks on top of each other is a well known method of boat hull building, invented, or at least perfected, by Fairey Marine during WWII AFAIK. Model boat builders use it too, but I must admit I've never had much success with it, ending up with my fingers, arms, elbows etc. covered with a layer of glue and the planks falling off! ;D
Your styrene method, modified to go right round the fuselage, sounds a lot more possible, as the liquid glue will capilliary into the joints a lot better. I hope you'll post piccies of the build as it happens, it should be fascinating.
The Pfalz D.111 was planked in two layers of diagonally wrapped strips.
Linton Hope designed seaplane hulls of the WWI-to-1920s period built in the UK had an inner layer of
diagonal planking and an exterior layer of longitudinally layed planking.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1920/1920%20-%200572.html
Both techniques came from the boat-building world, also diagonal and double-diagonal planking predated WWII by
many decades. The earliest experiment is generally considered to be a French warship built in 1764, which had an
inner layer of diagonal planks and an outer layer of regular fore-and-aft layed carvel planking.
A double diagonal planked hull was common to the Vickers, Higgins and Elco MTB and PT boats and to the power boats that
preceded those wartime designs.
I got to thinking how I was going to do the undercarriage, so having another look at the scans Tony sent me, I see that the outline of the main wheels are drawn in on the front view but no u/c legs. But looking closer, I see that the wheel is offset to the outside of the nacelle centerline and just one vertical centerline drawn in next to it. I think it was intended to have u/c similar to the Hornet -- only bigger.
Now ! what do we use ? I'm thinking a leg from a Neptune might fit the bill (they did use Lockheed u/c on the Sea Mosquito)---- and maybe a Catalina main wheel --- any other suggestions ?
Things are getting scary now, I just happen to have a set of True Details Catalina wheels and a set of Aeroclub Neptune u/c and I did a comparison to the scaled scan I did. The main wheels are almost spot on and the nose wheel will work just right for the DH.101 tail wheel. The Neptune u/c leg will work but maybe just a modified Catalina strut would do too.
Studying the DH.101 scans further yesterday, I noticed that the nacelles in the front view look a lot like the DH.103 Hornet's. Re-reading the article in Aeromilitaria, it says that after DH were told they wouldn't be getting the Sabre 20SIM and to use the Griffon, they came back with the DH.102 design. This was a smaller version of the DH.101 and was to be powered by Merlin 61's but followed the DH.101 design and the article says that the jet Mosquito was an adaption of the DH.102. The wing span is given as 56'-6" which makes it not much bigger than a regular DH.98.
Considering that I think that the DH.101 was to get similar u/c as the DH.103, Lee's (Wooksta) idea of putting Hornet wings onto a Mosquito isn't to far fetched then. It sounds like that is what a DH.102 might have looked like.
But here's a question, out of all the 1/72 kits of the Mosquito, is there one that looks a bit big for the scale ? I've only got the Airfix, Matchbox, Revell (new) and Tamiya (new) ones to compare and they're all very close to each other.
Except that on reading the Tony Buttler book on the Hornet, I realised that you can't. They tried at least 20 different wing spar designs, mainly to get the weight down. If the Mosquito had got the Hornet engines, the undercarriage would have had to be totallyu redesigned, likely bogie type.
As for the Jet Mosquito, the drawing in the relevant BSP volume shows that it's not a Mosquito at all. The fuselage is much larger.
As for the Mosquito kit, you may be better off starting with a Matchbox one - separate nose section, thick plastic, lack of detail. The engine nacelles are oversized, maybe closer to the Sabre. The Revell B.IV is the Hasegawa kit.
I'd like a copy of that article.
Although the overall shape of the DH.101 looks like a DH.98, it was a new design. The DH.102 would have followed this design but was smaller. And the u/c would have been single legged like a Hornet because that is what the 3-View of the DH.101 is showing. Don't forget that the DH.101 was being designed at the same time as the DH.103.
Tony Buttler wrote the article in Aeromilitaria and says there is no known dimensions for the DH.102 except that reference to the Jet Mosquito. I'm itching to post these scans that Tony sent me, but when I asked for permission to do so, he said he would prefer it that I didn't until he has published the drawing himself. I've agreed to his conditions as I want to keep my contact with him as he has been very helpful with other things in the past, and I hope in the future.
Any good library should have a copy of the magazine Lee, Air-Britain's Aeromilitaria, Vol. 31, Issue 121, Spring 2005 (on pages 28 & 29)
Quote from: The Wooksta! on December 13, 2010, 07:12:00 AM
If the Mosquito had got the Hornet engines, the undercarriage would have had to be totallyu redesigned, likely bogie type.
If they stuck with the Hornet wheels yes I could see that.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on December 13, 2010, 07:12:00 AM
As for the Jet Mosquito, the drawing in the relevant BSP volume shows that it's not a Mosquito at all. The fuselage is much larger.
That's right, it's like the DH.102. Dimensions for the Jet Mosquito are 56'-6" span, 46'-6" length. Not much bigger than a DH.98 but quite a bit smaller than the DH.101
After reading of the flight trials between the Westland Welkin and the dH Mosqito and then taking a certain gentleman's statement that "Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings", I quickly developed the following High Altitude creation:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMosHA.jpg&hash=3af88785701611596eb98e08ce89071fc61139d1)
Regards,
Greg
Hehehe, oh YES Greg, that truly is the business! I love it. :wub:
Oddly enough I now have a Welkin vacform, and I expect even that wll end up with longer wings too!
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 16, 2011, 02:47:05 PM
Oddly enough I now have a Welkin vacform, and I expect even that wll end up with longer wings too!
You're possessed!!! ;D
Quote from: GTX on July 16, 2011, 02:50:59 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 16, 2011, 02:47:05 PM
Oddly enough I now have a Welkin vacform, and I expect even that wll end up with longer wings too!
You're possessed!!! ;D
It's taken you THIS long to work that out? :lol: ;D
ooH !! Greg,
I must add those long wings to my TR.33 conversion ! :thumbsup:
Won't work. The weight penalty of the wood needed to make a spar strong enough goes against it. What isn't so widely known about the Mosquito is the number lost due to structural failure of the wing.
I'm always amazed by some people's abilities to look directly through a rough profile sketch, able to accurately visualise the inner workings of said piece of hardware from an engineering point of view and then knowing why it won't work!
Mad skillz!
I have a Mossie whif (Navalized, Highball-equipped, 5-bladed props on Griffons, etc.) in the works (in my mind, + materials gathering). I am SERIOUSLY thinking of discarding the iconic windscreen and using twin bubbles for the canopy, like the American B-42/43 bomber (seen below). Why, you ask? Just because it would look VERY different!!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FDouglas_XB-42A-closeup-1.jpg&hash=cd263dfe9d93540c6aed9085e0e0f98c6a4980d8)
Wooksta---is your "Dagger" Mossie done?? Pics?
No. Got abandoned last year when I took my time out. Plus I need certain resin conversion bits (Paragon's original Mosquito prototype that fits the Airfix kit - which I DID have!) for the nacelles that are proving difficult to find.
Any possibility of using the Rapier nacelles from the Fairey Seafox (Matchbox kit?) instead?
Quote from: GTX on July 16, 2011, 02:11:25 PM
After reading of the flight trials between the Westland Welkin and the dH Mosqito and then taking a certain gentleman's statement that "Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings", I quickly developed the following High Altitude creation:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMosHA.jpg&hash=3af88785701611596eb98e08ce89071fc61139d1)
Regards,
Greg
I think if I was to do that Greg, I would run the trailing edge all the way from the fuselage point to your new wingtip position. While researching my DH.101 project, I found that the wing of the DH.98 (Mosquito), DH.101, DH.102 were built all in one piece and I don't see why this couldn't too. The DH.101 and DH.102 were designed at the same time as the DH.103 (Hornet) and that aircraft's wingspar was a wood/metal composite, so the idea could go along the same route.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 17, 2011, 09:23:14 AM
Any possibility of using the Rapier nacelles from the Fairey Seafox (Matchbox kit?) instead?
I've got the engines and a mould, it's the back end for the short early nacelles that I need. I decided on the Airfix kit as A: I've LOADS of them and B: the plastic is thick and thus able to withstand major sanding, which I'll have to do to take out the wing root radiators. The Paragon conversion that I want hasn't been available for about 11 years and the one he had out recently (before he packed in again) was intended for the Tamiya kit and thus won't fit. TBH, I think the whole thing will be a mess.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 17, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Won't work. The weight penalty of the wood needed to make a spar strong enough goes against it. What isn't so widely known about the Mosquito is the number lost due to structural failure of the wing.
Tut, tut......
This is Whiffworld, remember? ;D :lol:
They probably used the ultra-strong type of spruce that's only found in the far North of Sweden and probably lengths were flown to the UK using the BOAC Mosquitos. ;)
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 17, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
What isn't so widely known about the Mosquito is the number lost due to structural failure of the wing.
That's not so much down to the Mossie as DH as a manufacturer. IIRC there was hardly a single DH built type that didn't suffer catastrophic structural failure at some time in it's history.
AFAIK the glues were the problem with the Mossie structure. One ex-Qantas engineer told me he watched one of the last Mossies taking off in the '50s ... aircraft starts off, gains speed ... tail lifts .... one engine seperates & powers several feet ahead of the rest of the airframe ;D
Quote from: raafif on July 17, 2011, 05:39:25 PM
.......one engine seperates & powers several feet ahead of the rest of the airframe ;D
Now there's an idea for a Whiff....
A single Merlin powered Mossie, single seater perhaps, but with the engine mounted assymetrically. Tophe would LOVE it! ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 17, 2011, 11:51:02 AM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 17, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Won't work. The weight penalty of the wood needed to make a spar strong enough goes against it. What isn't so widely known about the Mosquito is the number lost due to structural failure of the wing.
Tut, tut......
This is Whiffworld, remember? ;D :lol:
They probably used the ultra-strong type of spruce that's only found in the far North of Sweden and probably lengths were flown to the UK using the BOAC Mosquitos. ;)
I now have a slightly surreal image of an Indian Air Force Mossie with a TEAK mainspar
>A single Merlin powered Mossie, single seater perhaps, but with the engine mounted assymetrically. Tophe would LOVE it!<
Yes, make a BV-141-esque "Mosquito", maybe a single, souped-up Napier Sabre engine (or Crecy?) to power it to keep the HP somewhat near the twin-Merlin. Herewith a crude example:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FLong-wingedMossie2.jpg&hash=ad77bb21d62d96878fb292bfc310b2f0df806f25)
What about one with an embedded engine arrangement:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMosee.jpg&hash=7f91a486add4cebf5b9a75abe305c3cf73cd82d0)
Regards,
Greg
Sorry, I could not help myself. :wacko:
But truly, is there ROOM in the wing for an imbedded engine??
I think that's a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge
>I think that a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge<
Ahhh, so. Now I am thinking of the required "transmission" shafts and gears grinding away like the F5U "Flying Pancake". Then, with the heavy engine(s) that far back, of course the CG would be radically skewed, too. Maybe move the engine forward to the "bomb bay" and make each nacelle a one-bomb, mini-bomb bay?? And/Or extend the forward fuselage out ten feet? Sometimes whif-land makes the mind reel. A reeling mind is a GOOD thing! :lol:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FMossieMidEngine.jpg&hash=5761a652a939d648cd3639ff0000c355a440f1c1)
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 25, 2011, 09:07:41 AM
I think that's a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge
Correct
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 25, 2011, 09:31:10 AM
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FMossieMidEngine.jpg&hash=5761a652a939d648cd3639ff0000c355a440f1c1)
:thumbsup:
kind of an Ilyushin Il-28 look without the jets!
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 25, 2011, 09:31:10 AM
>I think that a fuselage embedded engine Craig, going by those two shapes just aft of the trailing edge<
Ahhh, so. Now I am thinking of the required "transmission" shafts and gears grinding away like the F5U "Flying Pancake". Then, with the heavy engine(s) that far back, of course the CG would be radically skewed, too. Maybe move the engine forward to the "bomb bay" and make each nacelle a one-bomb, mini-bomb bay?? And/Or extend the forward fuselage out ten feet? Sometimes whif-land makes the mind reel. A reeling mind is a GOOD thing! :lol:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FMossieMidEngine.jpg&hash=5761a652a939d648cd3639ff0000c355a440f1c1)
While your idea has some merit, I think you're mistaking the location of the radiators for the location of the engine. Not sure how much room there is in the Mosquito fuselage but the engines could be above a shallower bomb bay, at the CofG, with the radiators just behind them.
Extending the forward fuselage and placing the bomb bay there would also mess with the CofG, necessitating the wings moving forward as well, with the sum result that the radiators would still end up behind the wing I think. Effectively, you'd have a Mosquito that was stretched fore and aft of the wing, rather than just forward of it.
rickshaw-->While your idea has some merit, I think you're mistaking the location of the radiators for the location of the engine. Not sure how much room there is in the Mosquito fuselage but the engines could be above a shallower bomb bay, at the CofG, with the radiators just behind them.<
If the engines were anywhere aft of their original forward-of-the-wing position, the CG would be grossly affected rearward, and would need SOMETHING forward to offset it, e.g. my extended cockpit. Perhaps the bomb-bay engine could be positioned over a bulged bomb-bay that would have about the same room for bombs as before.
BTW--remember the radiators are in the wing roots!!
So, why then the airscoops on the fuselage sides?
You're right they are in the wing leading edges - I forgot. Still, placing the engines over the bomb bay would fix CofG issues. Bulging the bomb bay could help with capacity but I don't think you'd be able to fit a 4,000 lb "cookie" in it without it looking rather "pregnant". ;D
Perhaps if we increased the fuselage depth a little, along its whole length and then bulged the doors?
Supercharger intakes? Or shrouded exhausts?
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 26, 2011, 01:56:09 AM
Or shrouded exhausts?
That's what they look like to me, it looks like Greg has moved these shapes from the original engine nacelle and placed them on the fuselage side.
>So, why then the airscoops on the fuselage sides?<
As others have said, I presumed they were not "air scoops", but shrouded exhausts. I guess only the author of the original "embedded engine" post could tell us what he meant. Still, if they are exhausts (and indicating where the engine is), it is only ONE engine? Maybe a twinned Merlin or something?? Ya'd need about 3,000hp from somewhere to equal the previous two (1500+ hp each) Merlins.
>Still, placing the engines over the bomb bay would fix CofG issues.<
I don't see how you can figure that. The bomb-bay was the CoG WHEN THE ENGINES WERE IN FRONT OF THE WING, but if all that weight of two engines (roughly 3800 lbs?) were re-situated toward the rear, then the CoG moves toward the rear!! It's always a good idea to make the bomb bay the CoG is so that whether empty or full, the CoG doesn't change. One can't use expendable weight to make CoG changes. That is why I thought of an extended nose to put the "permanent" weight of the cockpit and crew farther forward if the engines are farther back to keep the CoG about the same.
>Bulging the bomb bay could help with capacity but I don't think you'd be able to fit a 4,000 lb "cookie" in it without it looking rather "pregnant".<
Quite true. Either we would have to "whif" a more torpedo-like slender "cookie", or dispense with that particular ordnance.
>Perhaps if we increased the fuselage depth a little, along its whole length and then bulged the doors?<
Maybe. All this whif-talk makes me appreciate the elegance and appropriateness of the original design!!
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 26, 2011, 07:53:16 AM
Maybe. All this whif-talk makes me appreciate the elegance and appropriateness of the original design!!
Is that a bad thing? Design exercises like this invariably result in that conclusion I find. ;D
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 26, 2011, 07:53:16 AM
>So, why then the airscoops on the fuselage sides?<
As others have said, I presumed they were not "air scoops", but shrouded exhausts. I guess only the author of the original "embedded engine" post could tell us what he meant. Still, if they are exhausts (and indicating where the engine is), it is only ONE engine? Maybe a twinned Merlin or something?? Ya'd need about 3,000hp from somewhere to equal the previous two (1500+ hp each) Merlins.
Correct, they were meant to be the exhausts. I didn't really give it much thought but I figured the embedded engine variant would have some sort of Double Merlin (ala the DB 610).
regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on August 04, 2011, 01:58:10 PM
some sort of Double Merlin (ala the DB 610).
... or maybe a turbo-compound Eagle? ;)
Crecy? :wacko:
For better or worse (sounds like getting married), my next whif project will be a "Mosquito" license-manufactured by the American company Fairchild, for use on large American carriers as a "torpedo-bomber", using a pair of "Highball" bouncing bombs. "My" Mossie will be a little elongated (extended about a foot-and-a-half in front of, and behind, the wings) and have the "halibut" canopies reminiscent of the Douglas B-42's. Engines will most likely be Packard/Griffons driving five-bladed, handed props. Livery will be the summer-of-'43 tri-color camo with red-outline Stars-and-bars. Build thread, etc. will be done in another section. But here is the top view:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FFairchildFlounderProfile3-m.jpg&hash=4e5e5acb8d7b9ed7fa5535c3a06ce92068d79890)
As "promised", here is my Highball Sea Mossie derivative I call the "Fairchild Flounder". A long-necked, halibut-eyed, Griffon-powered, and "endowed" Mosquito with a Vee Tail:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FFlounderDone03-m.jpg&hash=33d096e2b3e440791a03cdc7f220275bdc253ed2)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FFlounderDone2topQ-m.jpg&hash=51782e85246608caaff6599da141b4a274deefdf)
Build thread at:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,33114.msg527189.html#msg527189
Carried out in the manner of all the best lectures. :thumbsup:
'Tell 'em what you're going to say, say it, and tell 'em what you just said'..... ;D
Real world question: what is a good source that covers the development of the Mosquito?
TIA,
Daryl J.
The Richard Franks SAMI Mosquito Datafile -IF you can find a copy. Full of niggly errors but a handy one stop source.
The Sharp/Bowyer book is worth every penny. Make sure you get the modern reprint as it covers the post war aircraft. Not quite the equivalent of the Morgan/Shacklady book on the Spitfire but damned close.
Finally, the two volumes of Mosquito: The Illustrated History by Stuart Howe and Ian Thirsk are MUST HAVES. All photos and many of them very valuable.
I thank you.
:thumbsup:
Daryl J.
Another very good source is the SAM Publications Aviation Guide book, Mosquito FB.VI by Dave Brown.
And the two volumes of the Squadron/Signal Mosquito in Action have lots of good reference photos, one volume is of all the Fighter variants, and the other is of all the Bomber variants
How about a Mosquito Amphibian for the Pacific War
The problem with that is you'd lose the Mossie's biggest benefit - speed. Adding floats or a hull would make it very draggy and slow. Unless you can devise a cunning system of retractable floats - perhaps similar to the Blackburn B-20 - that would keep it sleek and fast.
The effect of seawater and tropical heat on the wooden structure would also have to be considered, of course.
sequoiarangerQuoteFor better or worse (sounds like getting married), my next whif project will be a "Mosquito" license-manufactured by the American company Fairchild, for use on large American carriers as a "torpedo-bomber", using a pair of "Highball" bouncing bombs.
Why not use it for both torpedo-bombing and maritime-patrol? Could it do dive bombing?
Quote"My" Mossie will be a little elongated (extended about a foot-and-a-half in front of, and behind, the wings) and have the "halibut" canopies reminiscent of the Douglas B-42's.
Why such a canopy set-up? Why not just use the same cockpit the fighter-bomber versions of the Mossie had?
QuoteEngines will most likely be Packard/Griffons driving five-bladed, handed props.
Why not some kind of contra-rotation system with either three or four blades apiece? It would provide extra thrust per horsepower than would a single row prop as I understand it.
Also, why a V-tail?
Re: "Flounder"--
>Why not use it for both torpedo-bombing and maritime-patrol?<
No reason not to use for "patrol", but it would behoove one to add search radar, etc.--maybe a specialty land-based version. The carrier-based "Flounder" wasn't built for that. As for torpedoes, the "Highballs" are presumably more effective than torpedoes, and could be launched at a higher airspeed (WHY would you want to linger in gun range--with a mere torpedo--any longer than you had to??).
>Could it do dive bombing?<
Yes, I suppose. It had a "bellows"-type air brake in the rear fuselage. Bomb-bay not really equipped for bombs to dive with, though.
>Why such a canopy set-up? Why not just use the same cockpit the fighter-bomber versions of the Mossie had? Why not some kind of contra-rotation system with either three or four blades apiece? Also, why a V-tail?<
Simple--'Cause that's the way I wanted it!! Feel free to employ your modifications on YOUR Mossie! I'd love to see it when it's built!
Quote from: sequoiaranger on February 26, 2012, 03:08:24 PM
Simple--'Cause that's the way I wanted it!! Feel free to employ your modifications on YOUR Mossie!
NICE one! :thumbsup: :bow: :cheers: ;D :lol:
sequoiarangerQuoteNo reason not to use for "patrol"
Actually there would be. The Mosquito had a fantastic range, and you could definitely use these aircraft to waste both military and transport ships. The TBM's were used for anti-submarine patrol.
Quoteit would behoove one to add search radar, etc.--maybe a specialty land-based version.
When you talk about a search-radar, do you mean something like the H2S? If so, some DH.98's were fitted with those.
QuoteAs for torpedoes, the "Highballs" are presumably more effective than torpedoes, and could be launched at a higher airspeed (WHY would you want to linger in gun range--with a mere torpedo--any longer than you had to??).
Good point actually, plus you could also do skip-bombing or masthead bombing attacks with the Mosquito. Normally this tactic was done with light/medium bomber types like the A-20
(which despite being an attack pane was also considered a light-bomber), and the B-25. The Mosquito was considered a medium bomber by the RAF standards
(and would probably be a light bomber by the USAAF's standards)QuoteYes, I suppose. It had a "bellows"-type air brake in the rear fuselage. Bomb-bay not really equipped for bombs to dive with, though.
I thought you could dive bomb with any type of bomb? The Mosquito had the capacity for either 3,000 to 4,000 pounds of bombs
(4,000 with a cookie, and 3,000 normal).
QuoteSimple--'Cause that's the way I wanted it!! Feel free to employ your modifications on YOUR Mossie! I'd love to see it when it's built!
LOL!
Just out of curiousity, could a DH Mosquito have met the range if it was powered by a radial like an R-1830?
>I thought you could dive bomb with any type of bomb? The Mosquito had the capacity for either 3,000 to 4,000 pounds of bombs (4,000 with a cookie, and 3,000 normal).<
I can't recall any "dive bomber" doing so from a "bomb-bay" (the SB2C had a "bomb bay", but just for aerodynamics---the bomb was guided out with a bomb-crutch). Usually a dedicated "dive bomber" has a bomb mounted OUTSIDE the fuselage. When the USN used the Avenger (having a bomb-bay) as a "dive bomber" it was really a "glide bomber" at shallow angles. I think as a pilot I would be hesitant to have a slew of bombs potentially "rattling around" in my fuselage if, say, a 200mph wind was creating gusts that would wiggle a bomb around inside the bay.
That being said, my imagination "plays the movie" of a Mossie hurtling down on a Japanese aircraft carrier and releasing a....4,000lb "cookie" to explode below decks!!! :mellow:
Not sure a 4000lb cookie would be the best anti-ship weapon, to be honest - I suspect the penetrating ability was fairly low, as it was a thin-skinned high-capacity bomb. Accuracy would be pretty bad as well, due to the un-aerodynamic shape. If it hit a carrier it would devastate anything on-deck, of course, and the blast would have an impressive effect, even with a near-miss.
>Not sure a 4000lb cookie would be the best anti-ship weapon, to be honest - I suspect the penetrating ability was fairly low, as it was a thin-skinned high-capacity bomb. Accuracy would be pretty bad as well, due to the un-aerodynamic shape. If it hit a carrier it would devastate anything on-deck, of course, and the blast would have an impressive effect, even with a near-miss. <
For aircraft carriers, especially those without armored decks, penetration to the hangar deck is a GIVEN. Something that heavy would just BEGIN to explode as it crashed THROUGH the thin flight decks (mostly wooden) of WW II carriers. Yes, near-misses would cave-in the sides of the ship, methinks, BETTER than a torpedo! But...I was being facetious in thinking that a cookie-carrying Mossie COULD be a naval dive-bomber! Accuracy?? The cookie was called a "block-buster" for a reason! A carrier is about a block long...Hmm...! ;)
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 04, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
Just out of curiousity, could a DH Mosquito have met the range if it was powered by a radial like an R-1830?
Considering that the R-1830 is way underpowered for a Mosquito, but do a google on the Argentinian Calquin if you want a radial powered Mosquito
Bristol Hercules or P&W R2800 Double Wasp would give you the required power.
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 05, 2012, 10:37:17 AM
Not sure a 4000lb cookie would be the best anti-ship weapon, to be honest
A Cookie set up as an aerial depth charge might have been interesting. Casing might have been needed to be heavier to withstand hitting the water but would have given one hell of a wallop.
Put it on a parachute? Or dropped at low level it wouldn't be very fast. But then it'd take the Sunderland or whatever with it as well as the sub. I read that the minimum drop height was 5,000ft - any lower and the bomber was at risk!
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 05, 2012, 11:20:36 AMConsidering that the R-1830 is way underpowered for a Mosquito, but do a google on the Argentinian Calquin if you want a radial powered Mosquito
Why did it fly so much slower and have shorter range?
Less fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 08, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Less fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....
An interesting article appeared in one of the Air-Britain Aeromilitaria issues a couple of years ago (with photos too), it seems that during the war the Air Ministry wanted to simplify production and told De Havilland they wanted a Lancaster type 'power-egg' with the chin (or beard as they were called back then) radiators installed on the Mosquito. One Mosquito was modified with the power-egg and had the traditional radiator intakes faired over. The boffins expected that there would be quite a drop in performance but were totally surprised with the results when the modified Mossie was compared to a standard Mossie, in just about every case there wasn't any difference in performance. But De Havilland told the Air Ministry there was no way the power-egg was going on his aircraft, so it didn't ---
There's a photo of it in the Tony Buttler book on wartime projects and according to him, that Mosquito flew quite badly.
As for the Calquin, the Argies did try to get Merlins for it. The Air Ministry said no, but you can buy Mosquitos instead.
I'll have to go find the magazine, but afaik there is no mention about the aircraft handling badly, and IIRC Phil Butler wrote the article. Now part of the article concerned the Welkin which was also tested with a beard radiator (but not a Lancaster power-egg) and that did handle very badly apparently. But then it had both types of radiators working at the same time so wasn't a real apples to apples sort of test.
pyro-manicQuoteLess fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....
I didn't know it had less fuel, less power makes sense, as for more drag is that the airframe or the engine?
EverybodyWhy didn't they ever put counter-rotating props on
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 09, 2012, 08:25:46 AM
Everybody
Why didn't they ever put counter-rotating props on
On the Mossie or the Calquin?
If the Mossie, probably because there was a war on and it would have taken time and money to develop a reverse rotation gearbox, which they did later for the Hornet of course.
If the Calquin, did the Twin Wasp come in a reverse rotation version? I can't find any reference to one, but that's not to say they didn't make one.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 09, 2012, 08:25:46 AM
pyro-manic
QuoteLess fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....
I didn't know it had less fuel, less power makes sense, as for more drag is that the airframe or the engine?
As I said, it's just a guess, based on the stats on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.Ae._24_Calquin), and just looking at the thing. Radial engines have more frontal area than Merlins, so that means more drag. I'd also be willing to guess that the airframe was not as refined as that of the Mosquito, as the Argentine aircraft industry probably didn't have anything like the resources and research DH had to draw on. That's pure conjecture on my part, as I don't know. Less power - the R-1830-G on the Calquin put out 1,050hp, whereas the Merlins on the Mossie NF.30 gave 1,710hp. So that's nearly 1400hp more per plane.
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 09, 2012, 11:56:57 AMAs I said, it's just a guess, based on the stats on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.Ae._24_Calquin), and just looking at the thing. Radial engines have more frontal area than Merlins, so that means more drag.
Still, the USN managed to produce some fast-fighters that had radials such as the F4U
QuoteI'd also be willing to guess that the airframe was not as refined as that of the Mosquito
Makes sense
QuoteLess power - the R-1830-G on the Calquin put out 1,050hp, whereas the Merlins on the Mossie NF.30 gave 1,710hp. So that's nearly 1400hp more per plane.
Would 2 R-2600's cover it?
Kendra, simply throwing more powerful, even draggier (if there is such a word) radial engines at a design which already has shown that because of drag it suffers less range than the original aircraft it was copied from won't overcome the inherent problems of the design.
Then you have the added problem of even higher fuel consumption (from these more powerful engines) plus the increased weight (of the more powerful engines and the required increase in fuel load to compensate for the increased fuel consumption), plus the increased drag (from these more powerful engines). At this point, I think most others would have noticed that your on a losing wicket and rapidly sliding down that drag curve. Basically, you cannot turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, no matter how much you try. The Mosquito hit that "sweet spot" where all things were balanced out and it achieved it's superlative performance because the drag was kept low, the weight was kept low and the power was just right. Even the Mosquito encountered problems when people started fiddling around with the design, such as the efforts to install a power-operated turret. It increased drag, increased weight and decreased performance so substantially that it was abandoned as a bad idea.
Quote from: rickshaw on March 10, 2012, 09:20:12 PMKendra, simply throwing more powerful, even draggier (if there is such a word) radial engines at a design which already has shown that because of drag it suffers less range than the original aircraft it was copied from won't overcome the inherent problems of the design.
How about an airplane that has a similar function to the Mosquito but designed around radial engines? As I recall the Japanese Zero had an unusually good range despite being a radial which owed of course to a high fuel-fraction. Taking that concept a bit further, if you doubled the weight of the plane, kept the fuel fraction the same and put an extra engine in the design you'd have the same power-loading, and the same fuel-fraction
(double the fuel, double the fuel-burn, double the thrust) it all works out. You'd need to add some armor and self-sealing tanks to the plane, and stress it up to 8g's -- for such purposes you'd want the plane to be designed with that level of strength built in as history has shown that tends to work out better than adding strength to an existent design. So long as the airplane's maximum weight was kept below 27,500 you'd be able to achieve a power-loading either equal to or better than the Mosquito depending on whether you used an R-2600 or R-2800 with the appropriate supercharger/turbocharger. A fuel fraction of 33.5% or 35% would probably make up for the drag and fuel-burn provided you had a good airfoil
(maybe a laminar flow design like the P-51), the right taper-ratios
(or some ellipitical design) and aspect-ratios, and probably you wouldn't want a wing-loading below 40 or 45 when fully-loaded.
Sound good?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 09, 2012, 08:25:46 AM
pyro-manic
QuoteLess fuel, less power, more drag? Just a guess....
I didn't know it had less fuel, less power makes sense, as for more drag is that the airframe or the engine?
Everybody
Why didn't they ever put counter-rotating props on
There's less need for them in a two-engined design since the torque of the two engines cancels each other out.
It seems it wasn't needed for power transmission either: a quick search turns up only 3- and 4-bladed props.
Spitfires with 5-bladed props had a Griffon. No Griffons on the Mosquito meant no need for more prop blades.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 11, 2012, 09:22:25 AM
How about an airplane that has a similar function to the Mosquito but designed around radial engines? As I recall the Japanese Zero had an unusually good range despite being a radial which owed of course to a high fuel-fraction.
A high fuel fraction means less weapons load. Not a problem for a gunfighter like the Zero, but doesn't bode well for a bomber.
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 09, 2012, 11:56:57 AMRadial engines have more frontal area than Merlins, so that means more drag.
Of course, it isn't quite that straightforward. However sleek you get the front of the aircraft (or nacelle), using a V12, you still need cooling for the V12. To get cooling, you usually need to direct air through radiators - and that definitely causes drag. Quite a lot of drag, actually.
Quote from: perttime on March 11, 2012, 09:54:04 AM
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 09, 2012, 11:56:57 AMRadial engines have more frontal area than Merlins, so that means more drag.
Of course, it isn't quite that straightforward. However sleek you get the front of the aircraft (or nacelle), using a V12, you still need cooling for the V12. To get cooling, you usually need to direct air through radiators - and that definitely causes drag. Quite a lot of drag, actually.
But, the drag can be offset by careful design of the radiator outlet to give thrust, which the Mosquito system was (as was the Spitfire's and what was proved to be an excellent design, the Mustang's system)
Couldn't help myself....
>No Griffons on the Mosquito meant no need for more prop blades.<
Ya mean like THIS?:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FFlounderDone03-m.jpg&hash=33d096e2b3e440791a03cdc7f220275bdc253ed2)
Really! With all this coulda-woulda-shoulda about engines, designs, drag, and fuel bandied about here, remember that if it was "just that easy", it REALLY would have been done! The aircraft designers of the 1940's also had a lot of imagination, were superbly competent, and had a LOT more expertise than anyone here on this board!
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 11, 2012, 09:59:39 AM
But, the drag can be offset by careful design of the radiator outlet to give thrust, which the Mosquito system was (as was the Spitfire's and what was proved to be an excellent design, the Mustang's system)
Totally agreed, and the Corsair, Bearcat, Thunderbolt and B-17 were handicapped by their radials... ;D
A radial is lighter than a liquid cooled engine, with all its systems, of anywhere near similar power.
Just sayin'. There's a lot of variables and I don't pretend to have an equation for picking the ideal engine.
Quote from: Hobbes on March 11, 2012, 09:52:10 AM
There's less need for them in a two-engined design since the torque of the two engines cancels each other out.
Only if the props and engines are opposite handed and those on the Mossie weren't. The Hornet and Twin Mustang had handed props and engines but very few other twins of the WWII period did.
The torque from the left engine will try to push the fuselage down, while the right engine tries to push the fuselage up. As far as I can work out, the two cancel each other out.
I still think the Mosquito needs fabric wings, inline 6 cylinder Half-Merlins, and a metal fuselage. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Put a pair of Klimovs in it over in Helsinki for a Morko-Mosquito. Low altitude American variants get Allisons.
Quote from: Hobbes on March 11, 2012, 11:08:24 AM
The torque from the left engine will try to push the fuselage down, while the right engine tries to push the fuselage up. As far as I can work out, the two cancel each other out.
I'm afraid not.
On aircraft with clockwise rotating props (as most do...) the whole aircraft tries to rotate anti-clockwise to port. The engine's position relative to the fuselage has no effect on this, it happens with single, twin, three or four engined aircraft. As the pilot has to counter this with opposite aileron that tends to produce adverse yaw to port and this in turn is countered with rudder trim.
See here for a detailed explanation.
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Understanding_Propeller_Torque_and_P-Factor
I did some more digging, but the info I've come across for twin-engined aircraft all refers to the 'Critical engine' problem and is silent about torque effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine)
Trust me, unless you have counter rotating props, you have torque & it has to be corrected with rudder. Ask a multi-engined rated pilot rather than modelers. Without reading the article, critical engine has to do with prop rotation direction & which side of the a/c it's on. An a/c with counter rotating engines has no critical engine, but that's different from having torque.
Quote from: Hobbes on March 12, 2012, 05:40:04 AM
I did some more digging, but the info I've come across for twin-engined aircraft all refers to the 'Critical engine' problem and is silent about torque effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine)
Not always true. Some have both engines as critical!
Aerodynamically or otherwise?
Quote from: Caveman on March 12, 2012, 09:41:52 AM
Not always true. Some have both engines as critical!
Quote from: famvburg on March 12, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
Trust me, unless you have counter rotating props, you have torque & it has to be corrected with rudder. Ask a multi-engined rated pilot rather than modelers. Without reading the article, critical engine has to do with prop rotation direction & which side of the a/c it's on. An a/c with counter rotating engines has no critical engine, but that's different from having torque.
I think I already said that........
How long could a Mosquito handle Hanoi before rotting?
Look at the Mosquitos in the far east post war. Not long!
I guess you did, kind of.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 12, 2012, 10:18:13 AM
Quote from: famvburg on March 12, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
Trust me, unless you have counter rotating props, you have torque & it has to be corrected with rudder. Ask a multi-engined rated pilot rather than modelers. Without reading the article, critical engine has to do with prop rotation direction & which side of the a/c it's on. An a/c with counter rotating engines has no critical engine, but that's different from having torque.
I think I already said that........
Quote from: famvburg on March 12, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
Trust me,
I'll take you at your word, but I'm still looking for an explanation of how this works, since it goes against all of my physics knowledge. I'm probably overlooking something, but what?
maybe this will help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-factor
Quote from: Hobbes on March 12, 2012, 01:41:21 PM
Quote from: famvburg on March 12, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
Trust me,
I'll take you at your word, but I'm still looking for an explanation of how this works, since it goes against all of my physics knowledge. I'm probably overlooking something, but what?
Hobbes, check your PMs
Quote from: Hobbes on March 12, 2012, 01:41:21 PM
I'm probably overlooking something, but what?
You're thinking of each engine as a separate structure and not connected to the fuselage or its opposite number. The torque effect of each engine acts on the WHOLE structure and not just itself and the fuselage.
HobbesQuoteA high fuel fraction means less weapons load. Not a problem for a gunfighter like the Zero, but doesn't bode well for a bomber.
What are you talking about? Most of the bombers had higher fuel fractions than the fighters did including the Mosquito.
perttimeQuoteTotally agreed, and the Corsair, Bearcat, Thunderbolt and B-17 were handicapped by their radials... ;D
Well, the B-17 and B-24 had less range than the Avro Lancaster did technically
PR19_KitQuoteThe Hornet and Twin Mustang had handed props and engines but very few other twins of the WWII period did.
The P-38 did...
CavemanQuoteNot always true. Some have both engines as critical!
The P-38..
Daryl J.QuoteHow long could a Mosquito handle Hanoi before rotting?Quote
Dunno, but I don't know if it really matters as I was thinking of a fictitious design with a radial engine and metal-construction. I don't know if there'd innately be any weight problems if it was designed right.
QuoteLook at the Mosquitos in the far east post war. Not long!
Got it. Thanks again. :thumbsup:
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 12, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
PR19_Kit
QuoteThe Hornet and Twin Mustang had handed props and engines but very few other twins of the WWII period did.
The P-38 did...
The operative words in my posting were
'VERY FEW'..........
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on March 12, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
Hobbes
QuoteA high fuel fraction means less weapons load. Not a problem for a gunfighter like the Zero, but doesn't bode well for a bomber.
What are you talking about? Most of the bombers had higher fuel fractions than the fighters did including the Mosquito
You were talking about taking a Mosquito and increasing its fuel fraction. If you do that inside the existing airframe, a decreased weapons load is inevitable.
Quote from: famvburg on March 12, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
maybe this will help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-factor
P-factor is a separate phenomenon (asymmetric forces acting on the control surfaces) that will cause a similar effect (roll depending on the power setting).
HobbesQuoteYou were talking about taking a Mosquito and increasing its fuel fraction. If you do that inside the existing airframe, a decreased weapons load is inevitable.
This design isn't necessarily going to be an exact copy of a Mosquito with a radial and a higher fuel fraction. I'm talking about a different design that is designed around the same concept fictitiously in the same era.
BTW: When were the first laminar flow foils like those used on the P-51 first researched?
I think that Prandtl was the first to look into laminar boundary layers but im not sure if he actually designed a wing with one. I guess you require a wing with an adequately fine surface finish to it so its realistically going to have to be a polished metal surface rather then fabric. That probably limits the earliest that people could be reasonably experimenting...
edit:
the following links to a paper on boundary layers section 4.1 is of interest
QuoteThese findings led to development of to laminar flow airfoils by Jacob (1939) and others at NACA laboratories.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vl_oZNZo9f8J:www.ias.ac.in/sadhana/Pdf2005Aug/PE1287.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESipD4LsMzgc8HCpJpQp9uGbHxpA22u-vbPMaBj___lG3eSEcsd-yEQumKqx-XMYwJfVZSNiItlZd0ARhXqCyCsaHXe2du3JetY-qhfvCkmRTQbpiNRtzE2HuQLSEn64yVFUe8F4&sig=AHIEtbTuPhg-JO94xS3kYnKZ8JXsineYKA (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vl_oZNZo9f8J:www.ias.ac.in/sadhana/Pdf2005Aug/PE1287.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESipD4LsMzgc8HCpJpQp9uGbHxpA22u-vbPMaBj___lG3eSEcsd-yEQumKqx-XMYwJfVZSNiItlZd0ARhXqCyCsaHXe2du3JetY-qhfvCkmRTQbpiNRtzE2HuQLSEn64yVFUe8F4&sig=AHIEtbTuPhg-JO94xS3kYnKZ8JXsineYKA)
A Morko-Mosquito would definitely need a ski option.
Morko? ???
Quote from: pyro-manic on March 14, 2012, 08:48:42 AM
Morko? ???
That's from the Finnish nickname for a Morane Saulnier 406 (or thereabouts) fitted with captured Klimov M-105P engines during WW2:
Mörkö-Morane, or Ogre Morane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morane-Saulnier_M.S.406#M.C3.B6rk.C3.B6-Morane
http://www.aviastar.org/air/finland/morane_morko.php
Aha, thanks. So what's a Morko-Mossie then? Because Klimovs would be a big step back....
Some of the later Klimovs look pretty OK, compared with a Merlin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-107
If you put DB 605s on it, I don't think you could call it a Mörkö...
Yep...a retrograde refit indeedy. As would be Half-Merlins and two bladed props. Or fabric wings, etc. But a Finn Mosquito with a Klimov pair might startle a few over on the other sites, especially with proper presentation. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Heyford-style, with a pair of Kestrels and a lower wing with bomb cells and spatted fixed gear? Oh, and an open cockpit with a Lewis gun at the back.
Something was ringing bells...
A Finnish Mosquite copy with DB 605 engines is actually a "real" could-have-been: VL Vihuri. The name "Vihuri" was later given to a trainer that was actually built.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.postimage.org%2F6gpch62yp%2F78_1.jpg&hash=0ebd2e7ce1e744ad9bb807eb1d25457d624b3a0d)
An explanation, copied straight from a Russian site:
Vihuri was intend to be new high-speed bomber to FAF. It actual was an copy of de Havilland Mosquito. Planning begun in 1942, and main idea was to produce a bomber fast with wooden construction. VL asked to hand over an captured Mosquito from Germans, but it is not in known, does germans reply in any how.
Vihuri was aerodynamic identical whit Mosquito, but structure was finish design. Two DB 605 AM engines ( same as ME-109G ) and also other systems might be taken from "stock", for example Blenheim and captured soviet bombers. Vihuri was newer build because Germany sold Ju-88A-4s to FAF and bomb fleet was standardized to Ju-88. Later in the 1950s name Vihuri was given to advanced trainer.
Note: VL= Valtion Lentokonetehdas;
State Aircraft Factory. Specification ( estimated )
Type: Two seat bomber
Powerplant: two 1475 hp Daimler Benz DB 605 AM
Maximum speed: 600 km/h at 4000 m
Service ceiling: 11000 m
Range: 2500 km
Empty weight: 6900 kg
Max. Take-off weight: 11500 kg
Span: 16.51 mLength: 12.47 m
Armament: 1000 kg bomb-load
http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_7137.html
After I win the Lottery I may have to splurge for a pair of sacrificial 1/48 LaGG-3's for the engines and props, toss on some resin exhausts and actually make the Morko-Mosquito from Tamiya's offering. (Now how in the world does one add umlauts to the 'o' letters???)
Cheers,
Daryl J.
Quote from: Daryl J. on March 14, 2012, 07:57:34 PM(Now how in the world does one add umlauts to the 'o' letters???)
My keyboard has "Ö right next to "L". I bet your's doesn't ;) My top row of letters ends I O P Å ¨ ...
In MS Word you can find special characters in the Insert menu. Windows has a Character map under Programs > Accessories.
(Now how in the world does one add umlauts to the 'o' letters???)
Press the Alt key, then numbers 0214 from the number pad, not the top row of the keyboard, release the Alt key. That should do it.
That's all OK, but I have a Mac... :blink:
alt+u will give you some umlauts on screen and then press any letter you like and it will umlaut that letter
öïÿëäü
Mörko.
That did it. Many thanks.
And now back to the Mossies:
I think one outfitted to bring some Johnnie Walker Black Label to the troops and given suitable paint, say just the vertical tail, would be flat out classy.
While looking for some Mossie photo's I found this one on the net, a Yugoslav AF Mossie with a Torpedo.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi137.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq201%2Faircav14%2Fmosquito13.jpg&hash=e41c9b54d4c892512aebd43061b5859ea763fed7)
Nice find.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on September 12, 2012, 03:48:15 AM
Nice find.
Certainly is. Don't recall ever seeing a Mossie with a torpedo.
Sea Mosquito TR33? Plenty of photos of the early ones.
Coastal Command wanted torpedo armed FB.VIs in the timescale before Brigand, although the latter had more range. I've one to finish - plus a Brigand TF1 come to think of it - and it wouldn't take too much work.
Seem's they were Yugoslav built Letor-2 torpedoes.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on September 12, 2012, 07:02:51 AM
Sea Mosquito TR33? Plenty of photos of the early ones.
Yes, you're right. :thumbsup:
You know, I forgot about the Sea Mossies. :banghead: Obvious really.
They were only really under the prototypes, although all the TR.33s could carry them, as they went into second lines duties very quickly. The TF.37s were intended for some early guided missile, hence the odd nose, which never arrived and it never carried a torpedo either.
USN grey/white, US East Coast.
WWII "Atlantic" scheme, or 50s/60s?
I've been toying with a British "Atantic" scheme for a while for the NF13, but anything later than WWII is really a non starter - the RAF got out of maritime strike as soon as it could post war, hence the Brigand TF1s completed being refitted as bombers.
Brigand had more range, better crew layout, better radar in a nose designed to take it with ease and was designed from the start as a torpedo bomber. Coastal Brigands surviving into the 50s (until they started falling out of the sky) is believable.
USN? No, for similar reasons but more because the US had better aircraft designed from the ground up as carrier based strike aircraft. Plus they wouldn't rely on the UK for aircraft.
The Sea Mosquito really was a lash up and would have been a real handful on landing and take off for the average pilot.
Atlantic, WW-II. For whatever reason, oh for instance successful sabotage for argument's sake, P-38 production is reduced and the Americans have dHC build up some additional Mosquitos for land based use off the US East Coast. Now, we'll all agree that the chances of getting a USAAC/RCAF/RAF aircraft into the USN might be lower than highly improbable, but I just like the idea of Mossies nailing a Ü-boot or twö off New England's coast.
Lockheed Hudson doesn't happen (or they start their shady dealings a few decades early and get in a spot of trouble) and a short-term need is fulfilled by a batch bought north of the border. But plausibility be damned - it'd look great, go for it! ;D
Quote from: Daryl J. on July 07, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
USN grey/white, US East Coast.
One of my favourite schemes, but strangely I've only done the Airabonita in it :blink: Need to do more...real & wif.
Have we done leading edge slats.
Prototype with them pumped all the way to the stops.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi179.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw313%2Fu62_album%2FMossieMus300_leadingedgeslatszps241ec83e.jpg&hash=0694f4c66660051904984f612f6039a4d2f61ade) (http://s179.photobucket.com/user/u62_album/media/MossieMus300_leadingedgeslatszps241ec83e.jpg.html)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi179.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw313%2Fu62_album%2FMossieMus292_leadingedgeslatszps20861cb5.jpg&hash=46a05b2a8059c46b4611de85a45da4443ca4def0) (http://s179.photobucket.com/user/u62_album/media/MossieMus292_leadingedgeslatszps20861cb5.jpg.html)
Found during restoration.
Sweet.
Quote from: Runway ? ... on January 30, 2014, 02:58:39 PM
Have we done leading edge slats.
Prototype with them pumped all the way to the stops.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi179.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw313%2Fu62_album%2FMossieMus300_leadingedgeslatszps241ec83e.jpg&hash=0694f4c66660051904984f612f6039a4d2f61ade) (http://s179.photobucket.com/user/u62_album/media/MossieMus300_leadingedgeslatszps241ec83e.jpg.html)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi179.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw313%2Fu62_album%2FMossieMus292_leadingedgeslatszps20861cb5.jpg&hash=46a05b2a8059c46b4611de85a45da4443ca4def0) (http://s179.photobucket.com/user/u62_album/media/MossieMus292_leadingedgeslatszps20861cb5.jpg.html)
Found during restoration.
Sweet.
Interesting. Had you not heard about them before? They are mentioned in some of the books I have.
"Note the Handley Page leading edge slot, locked in position with metal bands. W4050 was the only Mosquito fitted with Handley Page slots, but the aircraft's stall behaviour deemed them unecessary - look at W4050 today and you can still see them (complete with original locking bands) beneath the leading edge fabric."
Ian Thirsk,
de Havilland Mosquito, An Illustrated History, Volume 2, P.33.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1064%2F5153850998_b6fa5efb7f_z.jpg&hash=1cf7d1d364dbbcd0d98ef1fb3dd19b70915fe266)
This is a picture I took in 2007 of the prototype. You can just make out one of the locking bands on the leading edge - it is about halfway along the section of outer wing shown.
W4050 looked better then than it does now! It's still in bits at the moment as they are doing a total restore on the airframe as its innards were getting decidedly tatty.
That's neat! Thanks for posting.
I got a couple of questions and ideas
1. How well would the Mosquito have done over Japan compared to the B-29?
2. How much effort would it have taken to modify the Mosquito B.IV and so on with counter-rotating props provided you didn't change anything else?
If you don't change the engines (to more powerful ones), going to counterrotating props isn't going to bring much of an advantage. I suspect that the extra weight and drag will give you a slightly slower aircraft instead.
The original requirement for the DH Hornet was for it to have contra-props as an option, not to much of a stretch for the Mosquito to have the same engines as the Hornet and so have contra-props.
Your first question Robyn/Kendra, is a bit pointless, the two aircraft are in totally different catagories and do totallly different things.
They were both bombers no ? I'm sure the Mossie would have acquitted herself rather well....you'd just need more of them ! And had Tiger Force gone in and dragged on, I'm sure you would have seen them down there.
See ? It's all about Tiger Force right now. Tiger Tiger Tiger !
The LE slats are pretty cool too. I had no idea ! And I can't see the bands in that pic, looks like it's cut off before that ?
:cheers:
Yes they were both bombers, the Mosquito was a 'light bomber', very light --- the B-29 was at the time classed a 'Very Heavy Bomber'. Like I said, two diffent ends of the spectrum if you want to compare them --
Couldn't hang Fat Man off a Mossie.
Hobbes
Counter-rotating props mean that each blade spins in the opposite direction: Left blade say spins clockwise; the right spins counter-clockwise or vice-versa (i.e like the P-38 and DH Hornet)
Contra-rotation means you have two rows of blades attatched to each engine-shaft which spin in opposite directions (like the XF8B-1)
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on February 21, 2014, 09:07:32 AM
1. How well would the Mosquito have done over Japan compared to the B-29?
It would need significantly closer airfields. The range is much, much, less.
Of course they could be adapted to fly off RN carriers, so flying off the larger US carriers ought not be a problem. Though, it has to be said, the Sea Mossies were converted FB.VIs with limited bomb loads (max 4 x 500lb - 2 in the rear bomb bay, thr forward bomb bay being taken up by the cannon, and 2 under the wings, only if drop tanks aren't carried).
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on February 21, 2014, 09:07:32 AM
2. How much effort would it have taken to modify the Mosquito B.IV and so on with counter-rotating props provided you didn't change anything else?
It would require a Merlin with a nose case with the opposite hand drive and an opposite hand prop.
But what do you gain?
Some early Whirlwind prototypes ran with counter-rotating props, and were compared to other prototypes with props roating in the same direction and it was found that the pilots could detect no difference in handling between the two.
The big advantage, theoretically, is with an engine out scenario. Depending on which engine went out, the handling could become very difficult.
Early P-38s had their props turning opposite to what later production models did. It was discovered that in an engine out situation the handling was diabolical. No matter which engine had been lost. Reversing the rotation (by swapping engines from left to right) cured that issue.
The Mosquito, in contrast, did not have the same engine out issues. From the earliest testing the pilots were able to perform aerobatics with a dead engine and feathered prop.
Introducing counter-rotating props for Mosquitoes was solving a problem that didn't really exist and gained no performance advantage.
Quote from: pyro-manic on February 21, 2014, 04:17:59 PM
Couldn't hang Fat Man off a Mossie.
True.
Little Boy could be made to fit, but I doubt the Mossie could lift it.
What the Mosquito could do as well as the B-29 is the low level fire bombing raids. They could carry 4 RAF type 500lb incendiary bombs (much the same size as 500lb MC bomb), or they could carry the 4000lb MC or HC bombs. If they could get there - and back.
If you operate Mossies from carriers, engine-out situations become very important.
The B-29s carry the Mossies to Japan. Simple, really.
;D
Even better would be the other way round. Ultimate Mistel! ;D
Quote from: rickshaw on February 21, 2014, 09:06:12 PM
If you operate Mossies from carriers, engine-out situations become very important.
Yes, but having counter-rotating props won't help that.
You need to read The Hornet File wuzak, you'll find that one engine out was deadly for all Hornets, it was the cause of most of the crew fatalities when trying to land. The Navy had instructed the pilots who had an engine out to NOT attempt a carrier landing and to head for land if they had enough fuel, and if they didn't, to bail out near the carrier. Even if they did get to airfield on land their troubles weren't over.
Also reading the book Mosquito by Sharp/Bowyer, the Mosquito was quite a pig to land on one engine (it wasn't that nice on two either going by the stories in the book) so I don't expect it to be any different than the Hornet if it had counter rotating props, or contra-props
wuzakQuoteIt would need significantly closer airfields. The range is much, much, less.
I thought they could do 3,000 miles with 2,000 pounds of bombs?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on February 22, 2014, 12:41:08 PM
I thought they could do 3,000 miles with 2,000 pounds of bombs?
Get the Sharp/Bowyer book (supposed to be the Mosquito bible), it tells you everything. But you're way off with your information. The chapter on Operational Performance and Loads says all the bombers had about 1000 -1200 mile range, add an extra 100 mile range when 100 Gal tanks were fitted. Still air range with 2000 lb load was 1430 miles
Quote from: kitnut617 on February 22, 2014, 07:20:07 AM
You need to read The Hornet File wuzak, you'll find that one engine out was deadly for all Hornets, it was the cause of most of the crew fatalities when trying to land. The Navy had instructed the pilots who had an engine out to NOT attempt a carrier landing and to head for land if they had enough fuel, and if they didn't, to bail out near the carrier. Even if they did get to airfield on land their troubles weren't over.
Also reading the book Mosquito by Sharp/Bowyer, the Mosquito was quite a pig to land on one engine (it wasn't that nice on two either going by the stories in the book) so I don't expect it to be any different than the Hornet if it had counter rotating props, or contra-props
Like I said, changing to counter-rotating props won't help that.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on February 22, 2014, 12:41:08 PM
wuzak
QuoteIt would need significantly closer airfields. The range is much, much, less.
I thought they could do 3,000 miles with 2,000 pounds of bombs?
3000 miles for PR versions with a (bulged) belly full of fuel. Think PR.34.
Have you thought of a float plane version or forward swept wings?
I'm sure you could add a turbojet in the rear.
de Havilland did propose a jet Mosquito.
It was to be power by 2 Halford H.1 (de Havilland Goblin) turbojets. Bomb load would have been 2000lb and maximum speed 445mph @ 40,000ft.
It got named the ""Jet Mosquito"" but it wasn't a Mosquito. It was a modification of the DH.102 design ---
Then there is the open cockpit variant with short engine pods, two bladed props, Kestrel engines, and fabric wings. One rarely sees it at modeling shows...... :lol:
I have got some documents for the Mosquito from the National Archives of the UK.
One of them was regarding "special carriers". I hoped I would find information on the Avro 6 bomb carrier, which is sometimes described in references of the Mosquito. Alas, I did not find such a thing.
Instead, I found the modified 4000lb bomb carriers which were used to carry either one or two 1000lb bombs, target indicators or mines. The one used to carry two 1000lb bombs was described as being fitted with two standard Avro 250/1000lb bomb carriers.
The twin carrier could only be fitted on bulged bomb bay Mossies, and required a different door hinge. The single carrier could be carried in a standard bomb bay, but required modifications to the stiffeners on the edge of teh door to allow for clearance.
I also found correspondence regarding increasing the number of 250lb TIs (there wasn't a 500lb TI) in bulged bomb bay Mosquitos. The solution turned out to be a modified Vickers Wellington bomb beam, which carried bombs in a similar system to American types like the B-17. One of these was successfully fitted and used to show carriage of 8 x 250lb TIs. It would also enable the Mosquito to carry 8 x 500lb bombs internally, though de Havilland suggested that this would cause problems with all-up weight and CoG. An alternative suggested was 4 x 250lb + 4 x 500lb, but whether this was approved isn't shown in the file. It may also only relate to Mk IVs, XXs and 25s modified with the bulged bomb bay, the Mk XVI having a higher AUW and with the longer 2 stage Merlins CoG would be less of a problem, I imagine.
That's interesting. Thanks :thumbsup:
Twin 1000lb Adapter for the Mosquito
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5555/14819176479_a216e32605_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ozw9SK)
Single 1000lb Adapter for Mosquito
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5562/14982903916_8e3819bea1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oPZikA)
Whats that pipe on the right hand side of the second picture? A heater outlet to keep the bomb bay warm in flight (and prevent internal icing)?
I'm not sure what it is, but it was on W4050.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5585/14983926716_405a6117f5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oQ5xo5)
I suspect that it may be a breather to allow fumes from the fuel tanks to escape.
Fixed ''gear'' and spatted, but instead of wheels/tyres, use skiis.
Finnish of course.
I was thinking of compiling a specifications table for all the variants of the DH.98: I did look at a site called mossie.org (http://www.mossie.org) and while I find some of the data extremely useful. There was also a vector-site which showed stuff of interesting value
(though he seemed to mix up the wing area of the Hornet and Mosquito which was 361 vs 454).
The idea would revolve around some of the baseline differences
- Wing-Differences: Much like how the Spitfire had several different basic wing-designs, so too did the Mosquito; the prototype had a different wing (shorter in span, uncertain of area); there was an earlier wing-design and a standardized "universal wing" which had the provision for the drop-tanks or extra 500-lb bombs; there was at least one night-fighter with a longer-wing
- Nacelle Length: The prototype had a short nacelle which played a role in producing buffeting; later on a wedge-shaped fillet was added and the nacelles were lengthened to at least some degree (I'm not sure if they were lengthened more than once). Some of the earliest PR-variants had a relatively short nacelle, with the rest equipped with the longer nacelles
- Fuel Capacity: The earliest photo-reconnaissance (possibly bomber) variants had an internal capacity of 540 imperial gallons, later variants had around 646-700, though some had bulged bomb-bay doors to stuff more fuel inside them.
- Wing-area of prototypes: I know what the wing-span was, but not the area
- Length of the prototype, and production models: I got discrepancies in lengths depending on source. For example, on Wikipedia, for the bomber variants: I got 44'6", for the AirVectors site I got around 40'10"
.
As well as some other ideas
Don't use wiki, get a copy of the Sharp/Bowyer book "Mosquito". Everything you want to know about Mosquitos is in there.
kitnut617
1. That would require me to dip into my budget reserve: I don't like touching that if I don't have to.
2. You know if I know something, I don't make people buy a book -- I just tell them: Nothing can ever be easy here.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 17, 2016, 03:44:48 PM
kitnut617
1. That would require me to dip into my budget reserve: I don't like touching that if I don't have to.
2. You know if I know something, I don't make people buy a book -- I just tell them: Nothing can ever be easy here.
Take a visit to the Museum at London Colney -they have everything you could possibly need to know about the Mossie
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 17, 2016, 03:44:48 PM
kitnut617
1. That would require me to dip into my budget reserve: I don't like touching that if I don't have to.
Aaaah, you poor lamb! Then either lose out or use the greatest database known to humanity at your fingertips. If you haven't got the wit or intelligence to do that, then don't ponce the knowledge off people who have shelled out the wadge to get said book. I have done so twice - once for the first edition, albeit battered, and secondly for the later edition with more stuff in it. Not to mention as many other books I could lay my hands on with regards to Mosquitoes. Will I share said knowledge with you? Will I fairycakes!
You add little or nowt to the discussion here or in other threads but ask inane and frankly utterly unrelated questions for a site dedicated to modelling. You seem unwilling or unable to use your own intelligence to do the research yourself. Others here may tolerate it but many are increasingly tired of your sheer tediousness. Please, just GO!
Leading ObserverI live in the United States...
The Wooksta!You make it seem as if I've done no research at all
Here's what I've gotten so far
QuoteDe Havilland Mosquito Specifications & Variants
I. Prototype
A. E0234/W4050
i. Early
→ Primary Prototype
→ Shorter Wing
- Span: 52'2"
- Area: Unknown
- Aspect Ratio: Unknown
- Wing was fitted with slats and single-pieced flaps initially
→ Shorter Tail: (19'5.5")
→ Powerplant
- 2 x Rolls Royce Merlin 21
- Supercharger Type: Single-Staged, Twin-Speed
- Exhaust System: Integrated Exhaust Manifold
→ Propeller
- 3-bladed
- Constant-speed, controllable-pitch
- Diameter unknown
→ First Flight: November 25, 1940
→ Notes
- Slats were deemed unnecessary
- Bungee-cord operated undercarriage doors did not close properly (at least above 220 mph), requiring redesign
- The wing had a tendency to drag slightly to port requiring a reconfiguration of the left-wing's incidence
- Tail buffeting occurred around 240-255 mph as a result of airflow separation over trailing-edge of the engine pylon; attempts were made to fix the problem (fixed-slots on inboard engine pylon and tailplane), and were ultimately resolved with a triangular fairing to the wing's trailing-edge and lengthened nacelle (I'm not sure if the nacelle was lengthened at two stages or were lengthened only once).
- Redesign of the nacelle resulted in the flaps being divided into two pieces.
.
ii. Developing
→ Slats were removed from the tail-plane and inboard engine nacelles
→ Triangular fairing and (somewhat) lengthened nacelle to correct tail-plane buffeting (possibly additional lengthening later), with the flaps, now divvied into an inner and outer section
→ Possibly larger tail employed
→ Performance
- Top Speed: 388-392 mph @ 22,000 feet
- Rate of Climb: 2,880 fpm @ 11,400 feet
- Service Ceiling: 33,900 feet
.
iii. Later
→ Fitted with Merlin 61's: June 20, 1942
- Maximum Recorded Speed: 437 mph @ 29,200 feet without snow-guards (428 mph @ 28,500 feet with)
→ Fitted with Merlin 77's: December, 1943
- Maximum speed recorded: 439 mph
.
B. W4051
→ Photo-Reconnaissance Prototype
→ Shorter Tail: 19'5.5"
→ Production Wing
- Span: 54'2"
- Wing Area: 454
- Aspect Ratio: ~6.4626
→ Entered service operationally as the PR.1
C. W4052
i. Early
→ Day/Night-Fighter Prototype
→ First prototype to have (fully?) extended engine-nacelles
→ Redesigned cockpit with (among other things)
- A flat, bulletproof windscreen
- A control-stick instead of a yoke
- Unsure if the day-fighter concept was to have one or two crew
- Night-Fighter retained a crew of two
Armament consisted of the following
- 4 x 0.303 Brownings in a solid-nose; 4 x 20mm under the cockpit floor with breeches extending into the bomb-bay
- Automatic bomb-bay doors reconfigured to manual-operation, and cartridge-ejector chutes incorporated into the bomb-bay
- Fitted with the Mk.IV radar with arrowhead transmission aerial mounted between the 4 x 0.303's, and receiving aerials placed on the wing-tips.
.
ii. Later
→ Was used to test bomb-racks and drop-tanks
→ Was evaluated with barrage-balloon cable-cutters on the wing leading-edge
→ Was fitted with different propellers, including specialized braking-propellers (possibly to facilitate steep-dives/dive-bombing)
→ Was tested with drooping ailerons for steep-approaches (landing/dive-bombing?)
→ Was used to evaluate the drag produced by a turret (powered, 4 x 0.303) mounted behind the cockpit: The turret was abandoned in July, 1941
→ Was fitted with a circular-dive brake, so as to avoid overshoots: This was abandoned in favor of simply dropping the landing gear (same results, but less buffetting).
II. Photo-Reconnaissance
A. PR.I
→ Early Production Wing
- Span: 54'2"
- Wing Area: 454 square feet area
- Aspect Ratio: 6.4626
- Unsure if flaps were split/twin-piece
- Unsure if inboard nacelles retained the fixed-slots
→ Short/Shorter Nacelle
→ Shorter Tailplane: 19'5.5"; Unsure if tailplane retained slots
→ Powerplant & Exhaust System
- Two Merlin-21
- Supercharger System: 1-stage, 2-speed
- Exhaust Configuration: Integrated Manifold
→ Propeller
- 3-bladed
- Constant-speed, controllable pitch
- Diameter unknown
→ Fuel Capacity: 538 (some sources say 540) imperial gallons in the following configuration
- Center-Tanks: 2 x 68 (136) Imp. Gal
- Inner Wing-Tanks: 2 x 143 (286) Imp. Gal
- Outer Wing-Tanks: 2 x 58 (116) Imp. Gal
with a provisional overload tank with the capacity for 151 to 160 imperial gallons, producing an overload from 689-700 imperial gallons
→ Oil-Capacity: 2 x 17.5 imperial gallon tanks with 15 gallons for fuel, 2.5 for air.
→ Nose configuration: Bombardier-nose
→ Bomb-bay size: Unknown, possibly smaller than the Mk.IV series 2...
→ Performance
- Top-Speed: 382 mph
- Cruise-Speed: 255 or 295 mph
- Service Ceiling: 35,000 feet
- Rate of Climb: 2,850 feet per minute
→ First Flight: June 10, 1941
→ First Sortie: September 7, 1941
→ Notes
- First operational Mosquito variant
- Featured the integrated exhaust manifolds as on the prototypes, which tended to suffer burns and blistering to the aircraft's skin
- Carried cameras in bomb-bay, featured ports for the cameras, mounts were originally steel, later switched to wood as it absorbed vibration better
- 10 PR.I's were converted to B.IV Series 1's
- 4 PR.1's featured the overload-tanks
.
III. Bombers
A. B.IV
→ First production bomber-variant
→ First flight: September 8, 1941
→ Entered service: May, 1942
→ Total Built: 265-273
i. Series 1
→ Early Production Wing
→ Short/Shorter Nacelle
→ Short tailplane
→ Powerplant: 2 x Merlin 21 (1-stage, 2-speed)
→ Propeller: 3-blade, constant-speed, controllable-pitch
→ Exhaust manifold: Integrated-Type
→ Fuel Capacity: 538 (some sources say 540) imperial gallons, with an overload capacity of 151-160 gallons (689 - 700 imperial)
→ Oil Capacity: 2 x 17.5 gallons, 15-gallons usable
→ Nose Configuration: Bombardier nose
→ Payload: 1000 lbs (4 x 250)
→ Performance
- Top Speed: 380 mph
- Cruising Speed: 265 mph
- Ceiling: 34,000 feet
- Range: 2040 nm (at some weight)
- Rate of Climb: 2,500 fpm
→ Notes
- Was configured from the PR.1
.
ii. Series 2
→ Early production wing with twin-piece flaps
→ Larger tailplane fitted
→ (Fully?) Lengthened nacelles
→ Powerplant: 2 x Merlin 21 (1-stage, 2-speed)
→ Propeller: 3-blade, constant-speed, controllable-pitch
→ Revised exhaust manifolds with integrated flame dampeners
→ Fuel Capacity: 538-540 imperial gallons normal with 689 to 700 with overload capacity
→ Oil Capacity: Presumably 2 x 17.5 imperial gallon tanks of which 2.5 imperial gallons for air
→ Nose Configuration: Bombardier-nose
→ Payload: 2000 lbs (4 x 500)
→ Notes
- Possibly larger bomb-bay
- New 500 pound bombs were configured with shorter-tails to allow them to fit within the confines of the bomb-bay: The ballistics were unaffected
- Was used initially in bombing attacks, then pathfinder missions and nuisance-raids
- Often were fitted with the latest navigation aids such as Oboe and H2S
.
B. B.V
→ Before I get started only one was built as a prototype supposedly built for high altitude operation, I know the wings were strengthened and it had provision for 2 x 500 pounders on the wing. I do not know if this became the basis for the universal wing or not.
→ The engines seemed be Merlin 23's though I'm not sure if that was because the Merlin 61's were not available.
I know, I have this reputation for just asking questions but I actually have been doing some research, and this was all compiled in a day.
As for buying the book, I'm not averse to buying the book ever: While we are on the subject of the book. What edition do you recommend the most (it sounds silly, you'd think the newest is always better but there have been cases where the reverse is the case).
Second edition, at least the 1995 edition by Crecy books. Mine cost me £3.50 on ebay - I'd have happily paid ten times that...
Okay, I'll look for it.
You know, back to the 4-engined Mosquito idea that somebody discussed earlier? I was thinking about this and I was also thinking about the Victory Bomber which was built around hauling a 22,000 pound earthquake bomb to high altitude: Imagine if those two ideas were combined together?
I'm not sure if such a design would have been conceivable in the time-frame (though there were proposal for a pressurized reconnaissance aircraft, which actually lead to the Victory bomber design), but a scaled-up Mosquito-like design with six-engines and a 22,000 pound bomb capacity would be something impressive indeed. Possibly better than the Victory and Windsor designs due to the absence of geodetic construction.
While Geodetic construction is fascinating in its strength, it often used skin made of fabric which wasn't good for pressurization: They worked around it by creating a specialized pressure-hull with a more conventional fuselage wrapped around it. A more conventional design would be easier to work with.
I ordered the book, it shipped today
Quote from: The Wooksta! on June 18, 2016, 04:18:26 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 17, 2016, 03:44:48 PM
kitnut617
1. That would require me to dip into my budget reserve: I don't like touching that if I don't have to.
Aaaah, you poor lamb! Then either lose out or use the greatest database known to humanity at your fingertips. If you haven't got the wit or intelligence to do that, then don't ponce the knowledge off people who have shelled out the wadge to get said book. I have done so twice - once for the first edition, albeit battered, and secondly for the later edition with more stuff in it. Not to mention as many other books I could lay my hands on with regards to Mosquitoes. Will I share said knowledge with you? Will I fairycakes!
You add little or nowt to the discussion here or in other threads but ask inane and frankly utterly unrelated questions for a site dedicated to modelling. You seem unwilling or unable to use your own intelligence to do the research yourself. Others here may tolerate it but many are increasingly tired of your sheer tediousness. Please, just GO!
What he said!
Chris
^^ Thirded!
Not an idea but a hope: T.III TV959 (late of the IWM and TFC) is nearing completion in NZ, about 5hr drive from me. The hope is she'll fly next month! I have leave during the second week of August and I'm hoping I can make it there for the maiden.
I'm reading through the book and I've found something interesting: The nacelles were lengthened at least twice (page 44)
Just to be clear: Tare is the same as Operational Empty Weight right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tare_weight
EverybodyI was curious if anybody would have an interest either here, on secret projects, or other for me to post a set of specs of all the Mosquito variants. Since I'm reading through the book, I was thinking of compiling a fairly comprehensive list of all the variants and sub-variants where available.
Data I'd like to include would be the following
- Tare/OEW, Fuel & Oil Weight, Payload & Armament Weights; Loaded & Maximum Takeoff Weights
- Baseline Dimensions: Length, Span, Height
- Aerodynamic Data: Wing-Area, T/C Ratio, Aspect-Ratio, Wing-Loadings, Tail Area & Span if available
- Nacelle Type: The short nacelle seemed to come in two variants: The prototype used a short-nacelle, then a slightly longer one; then the long-nacelled variants which characterized the production variants (except PR1) which had the divided flap
- Propulsion System: Engine variant, supercharger-type, propeller type, and exhaust system details (there were many different exhaust arrangements over the course of the aircraft's development)
- Notes: Specific details that were unusual to a variant
ZenratWould this then be an accurate description: "Total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and a full tank of fuel, while not loaded with either passengers or cargo."
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 31, 2016, 06:18:24 PM
Everybody
I was curious if anybody would have an interest either here, on secret projects, or other for me to post a set of specs of all the Mosquito variants. Since I'm reading through the book, I was thinking of compiling a fairly comprehensive list of all the variants and sub-variants where available.
Data I'd like to include would be the following
- Tare/OEW, Fuel & Oil Weight, Payload & Armament Weights; Loaded & Maximum Takeoff Weights
- Baseline Dimensions: Length, Span, Height
- Aerodynamic Data: Wing-Area, T/C Ratio, Aspect-Ratio, Wing-Loadings, Tail Area & Span if available
- Nacelle Type: The short nacelle seemed to come in two variants: The prototype used a short-nacelle, then a slightly longer one; then the long-nacelled variants which characterized the production variants (except PR1) which had the divided flap
- Propulsion System: Engine variant, supercharger-type, propeller type, and exhaust system details (there were many different exhaust arrangements over the course of the aircraft's development)
- Notes: Specific details that were unusual to a variant
Zenrat
Would this then be an accurate description: "Total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and a full tank of fuel, while not loaded with either passengers or cargo."
Why?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 31, 2016, 06:18:24 PMNacelle Type: The short nacelle seemed to come in two variants: The prototype used a short-nacelle, then a slightly longer one; then the long-nacelled variants which characterized the production variants (except PR1) which had the divided flap
Only W4050 had anything other than the long nacelle, used on all but the first few production examples, or the original short nacelle.
W4050 was being used to investigate stability issues caused by turbulence from the nacelle interfering with the tail plane and elevator. Some of the experiments used spoilers/flow conditioners on the sides of the nacelles and/or underneath the wings.
Quote from: wuzak on August 01, 2016, 04:57:05 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 31, 2016, 06:18:24 PMNacelle Type: The short nacelle seemed to come in two variants: The prototype used a short-nacelle, then a slightly longer one; then the long-nacelled variants which characterized the production variants (except PR1) which had the divided flap
Only W4050 had anything other than the long nacelle, used on all but the first few production examples, or the original short nacelle.
W4050 was being used to investigate stability issues caused by turbulence from the nacelle interfering with the tail plane and elevator. Some of the experiments used spoilers/flow conditioners on the sides of the nacelles and/or underneath the wings.
The prototype still exists at the Mosquito Museum. In it's present guise, it's nothing like what it was when it first flew. It was used to test just about every modification all the production versions got. As Wuzak says, it was the only one to have the original short nacelles,
it doesn't have them today -----.
Quote from: kitnut617 on August 01, 2016, 05:12:07 PM
Quote from: wuzak on August 01, 2016, 04:57:05 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 31, 2016, 06:18:24 PMNacelle Type: The short nacelle seemed to come in two variants: The prototype used a short-nacelle, then a slightly longer one; then the long-nacelled variants which characterized the production variants (except PR1) which had the divided flap
Only W4050 had anything other than the long nacelle, used on all but the first few production examples, or the original short nacelle.
W4050 was being used to investigate stability issues caused by turbulence from the nacelle interfering with the tail plane and elevator. Some of the experiments used spoilers/flow conditioners on the sides of the nacelles and/or underneath the wings.
The prototype still exists at the Mosquito Museum. In it's present guise, it's nothing like what it was when it first flew. It was used to test just about every modification all the production versions got. As Wuzak says, it was the only one to have the original short nacelles, it doesn't have them today -----.
No, the PR.I and B.IV series i all had the original short nacelle. Not that there were many of them.
Only W4050 had the configurations trialled before settling on the long nacelle that featured on almost all production Mosquitoes.
I believe that W4050 is currently undergoing a restoration to one of its many configurations. Maybe with Merlin 61s?
W4050 was also the only Mosquito to have leading edge slats. Early on it was decided they were not needed and they were wired shut. W4050 still has them today.
Quote from: dogsbody on August 01, 2016, 10:43:03 AMWhy?
To which one? I figure it could be a useful and informative thing.
Quote from: wuzak on August 01, 2016, 05:48:20 PM
I believe that W4050 is currently undergoing a restoration to one of its many configurations. Maybe with Merlin 61s?
They've done that already. There were pics of the finished article in the UK aviation press late last year. The two stage Merlin engine nacelles are painted
RED with yellow undersides and dark earth/dark green upper camo.
See here for pics and more details :- https://warbirdtails.net/2015/11/28/mosquito-prototype-w4050-roll-out-28th-november-2015/ (https://warbirdtails.net/2015/11/28/mosquito-prototype-w4050-roll-out-28th-november-2015/)
Thanks Kit.
Of note in those photos is that the leading edge slats are extended! Apart from the first flight, my information is that they were wired shut.
As W4050 was the only Mosquito to have the slats, it proves that the wings, at least, are original!
In that configuration W4050 managed an all-out level speed of ~440mph.
Not really Whif material, but the newest airworthy Mosquito restoration (http://nzcivair.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/dh-98-mosquito-t-iii-zk-fhc-today-19-8.html) is nearing flight. Engine runs have been happening over the last week. And, as it's all happening 5hr drive from me, I'll be up there once she flies so I can catch some of the testing! This is a T.III.
Quote from: KiwiZac on August 21, 2016, 02:35:56 PM
Not really Whif material, but the newest airworthy Mosquito restoration (http://nzcivair.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/dh-98-mosquito-t-iii-zk-fhc-today-19-8.html) is nearing flight. Engine runs have been happening over the last week. And, as it's all happening 5hr drive from me, I'll be up there once she flies so I can catch some of the testing! This is a T.III.
Shame she'll be emigrating.
Quote from: zenrat on August 22, 2016, 03:25:11 AM
Quote from: KiwiZac on August 21, 2016, 02:35:56 PM
Not really Whif material, but the newest airworthy Mosquito restoration (http://nzcivair.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/dh-98-mosquito-t-iii-zk-fhc-today-19-8.html) is nearing flight. Engine runs have been happening over the last week. And, as it's all happening 5hr drive from me, I'll be up there once she flies so I can catch some of the testing! This is a T.III.
Shame she'll be emigrating.
That depends on where you are, seeing as her new home is about ten miles from my house
I won't be complaining. ;D
Also as aircraft in the pattern for Paine Field regularly fly over my house I may even see her in flight
over head. ;D
I live in hope that one day a NZ-based flying Mosquito will exist. Until then, I count myself very lucky to be able to roadtrip and see each one get restored and test flown (thank goodness for weekends and disposable income!). This one won't hang around long but the plan for the next project - an ex-RNZAF example, no less - is to have it ready in time to attend one of the big local airshows. Fingers crossed!
Jon - I really do need to come visit you one day!
Sure, you'd be more than welcome.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 23, 2016, 07:07:38 PM
Quote from: zenrat on August 22, 2016, 03:25:11 AM
Quote from: KiwiZac on August 21, 2016, 02:35:56 PM
Not really Whif material, but the newest airworthy Mosquito restoration (http://nzcivair.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/dh-98-mosquito-t-iii-zk-fhc-today-19-8.html) is nearing flight. Engine runs have been happening over the last week. And, as it's all happening 5hr drive from me, I'll be up there once she flies so I can catch some of the testing! This is a T.III.
Shame she'll be emigrating.
That depends on where you are, seeing as her new home is about ten miles from my house
I won't be complaining. ;D
Also as aircraft in the pattern for Paine Field regularly fly over my house I may even see her in flight
over head. ;D
I'm just jealous. If she stayed in NZ there was a slim chance i'd get to see her fly. If she's in the US slim goes to pretty much zero.
Fred, if you get here in the next fortnight you've got a great chance! :thumbsup: An Auckland-based mate is planning on a bit of spotting at Ardmore this weekend to try and catch the first flight. Weather across NZ has been terrible this week but should be fine....rumour has it the only obstacle is test pilot availability. From memory we have two Mossie guys. Check out another mate's photos from a couple of days ago here (http://rnzaf.proboards.com/post/242396/thread). And it's been very strongly hinted at that should it have flown in time TV959 will take part in the Battle of Britain flypast over Auckland on the 18th of this month. If she's flown by then, I plan on a daytrip to catch her. Expect photos and video! And before anyone asks: the aircraft isn't going to be painted before going to Everett. That's where Jon has an advantage over me ;)
Back to whiffery. There have been a couple of Mossie racers IRL but they were entered in distance events. As we get closer to the races at Reno I've been turning my mind to a Mossie pylon racer in the vein of Strega, Rare Bear, Critical Mass etc. I'm not looking for aerodynamic data (I have some refs downloaded) but would there be much point/advantage to clipping the wings? The "Go Fast" is underway, the "Fly Low" isn't an issue, I just want to refine the "Turn Left" part.
Also, would a four-blade prop give any speed benefit? Or is it more for coping with torque?
EDIT: turns out the prototype, E0234/W4050, has clipped wings...I may be onto something.
Thanks for the links Zac.
I'd love to pop over to see her but I don't have that sort of money.
The more blade surface, the more power you can transfer and convert engine power into propulsion. However, there might be limitations or optimal designs concerning the air density where the aircraft is to operate, so there might come a point where the prop itself causes more drag than the propulision benefit (esp. at low altitude with dense air), or you have to have a certain area at high altitudes because the air is so thin that the propeller becomes less and less effective. You also have a rotating mass with the propeller itself, with torque issues and probably vibrations, depending on speed, blade length and air density. Not an easy topic.
Besides, I recently read an article about different blade shapes (ranging from classic straight designs over curved sickle-blades up to short, almost round paddles), and what amzed me most was the fact that the straight design with clipped tips was (overall) the most effcient one. Others have probably more specific operational windows, though.
Thanks Diz. I've gone with standard, cuffed P-51D blades as most Mustang racers seem to get away with that. Expect a post in the proper Modelling forum soon.
Robert Taylor has released a nice new Mossie print...not up to his higher standards, more of an oil sketch, but still catching that LOOK!
http://www.brooksart.com/Devastatingstrike.html
Quote from: KiwiZac on September 11, 2016, 01:15:08 PM
Thanks Diz. I've gone with standard, cuffed P-51D blades as most Mustang racers seem to get away with that. Expect a post in the proper Modelling forum soon.
That should look cool. The Swedish Air Force outfitted their J30 night fighters with four blade props, too, and it certainly adds puposefulness to the aircraft.
could the mosquito have been used as a torpedo bomber?
Who was the user in Canada that clipped their wings for photo mapping work ? I'm sure I have photos of them somewhere. In an old book probably.
(https://airscapemag.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/dh98-proto-3.jpg?w=662&h=506)
Quote from: DarrenP2 on September 12, 2016, 04:19:22 AM
could the mosquito have been used as a torpedo bomber?
The Sea Mosquito could.
(https://airscapemag.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/dh98-proto-1.jpg)
https://airscapemag.com/2015/07/26/secrets-of-the-sea-mosquito/
It could even start and land on a carrier!
Quote from: Captain Canada on September 12, 2016, 04:25:09 AM
Who was the user in Canada that clipped their wings for photo mapping work ? I'm sure I have photos of them somewhere. In an old book probably.
My guess is Spartan Air Services. They few about half-a-dozen during the 1950s and 60s, including the example now airworthy in Vancouver. Very fetching aircraft: all-over silver with red bands on the fuse.
The wings are clipped, the nacelles and props modded, wings on again...expect to see something in the WIP area in a wee while ;)
In real-world news: I'm waiting for word that TV959/ZK-FHC has flown. Today's the first day a test pilot has been available but unfortunately it's been raining on-and-off up there. There's a
chance it might happen later this afternoon...
I want to build a 1/72 glass nose Mosquito. What's the best current injection kit please.
Others may differ, but I'd say Tamiya. Better price (at least in the UK) than Hasegawa as well :thumbsup:
I'm going mainly on "buildability" as I think both are reasonably accurate ?
Tamiya. Unless you want a two stage, in which case it's Tamiya with Attack Squadron two stage Merlins.
Avoid all the others. Poor fit, age, inaccuracy.
Thanks guys. I knew you could give me a definitive answer.
I'll look out for one at Expo at the weekend.
:thumbsup:
Mrs Penguin found this today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-40873628
WW2 Mosquito aircraft blueprints found at Airbus factory is the headline, according to the report, you could use them to build any model, including some that didn't fly :thumbsup:
That's amazing! 148 lbs worth of microfilm cards is a VAST amount of drawings. :o
I'd be suitably astonished if this did result in a new build Mossie though, the CAA would probably find some objection to the scheme. Maybe because the birch ply they use wasn't matured enough...........
There's an article about that in the magazine Military History September 2017 issue 84 page 9.
If you want a condensed version with a line drawing of the unbuilt photo-reconnaissance variant of the Mk V Mosquito.
UAV, all composite.
No winglets to maintain unbroken elegant shape of the overall machine.
What would you do with a Mosquito if you could still build them? Lets say after the war somebody bought the tooling, or maybe DH Canada just didn't stop making them... Dakota's are still flying but that's because they are rugged cargo haulers, what use does anyone have for a Mossie? Fast passenger plane? Mail? Aerial survey? COIN?
http://www.falcomposite.com/kit.php
Beautiful planes like the Falco have been "converted" over to carbon fiber, so if anyone wanted to evolve the design that's on the table. And the venerable PT6 gives you the same power band as the original Merlin's with much much much less wight.
So what would a composite PT6 powered Mosquito be good for?
Could be used for survey and mapping work.
Pretty much what this gets used for IMHO, someone's toy ;)
This is a composite 3/4 scale kit which their website says, actually out-performs the originals. (Note: NOT my photo)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2F8bed7ee9-2116-47c1-9bf1-f2217768ba58.jpg&hash=a510c19752bbbfb93f0836f2ee561cba4d69b496)
Quote from: kitnut617 on June 30, 2018, 06:32:42 AM
Pretty much what this gets used for IMHO, someone's toy ;)
This is a composite 3/4 scale kit which their website says, actually out-performs the originals. (Note: NOT my photo)
...
I'm sure the Thunder Mustang is about as good as it gets for a merely well funded guy who wants a WW2 fighter lookalike. Pilot reports:
http://www.ksql.com/myriad/thunder.htm
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/the-sound-of-thunder/#.Wzh-0iCYPIU
I found a video on the Mosquito, about 30-45 seconds in there's a period composite image that shows an impression on how much structure is taken away if the turrets are removed. Might make a nice project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkQURW-E3yI
The inner (radiator) sections of a Mosquito wing match up with F7F wings quite nicely if you wanted a bigger chord, beefier Mossie.
This video tells the story of a Mosquito that's been restored to flying condition. This is in Canada, it's one of the aircraft that was used postwar by Spartan to map the entirety of Canada (interesting story in itself).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rauNQgkOJhU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rauNQgkOJhU)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52979017007_1de79bd7dd_o.jpg)
A Merlin powered B.20. :thumbsup:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 19, 2023, 03:43:52 PMA Merlin powered B.20. :thumbsup:
Yes and it may be sacrilege to the Mosquito aficionados but it works for me.
Quote from: Zero-Sen on June 19, 2023, 03:12:03 PM(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52979017007_1de79bd7dd_o.jpg)
Twin-Boom variant of the MoSeaTo ...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53005234551_ea4b29fe4e_o.jpg)
Beaufighter + Mosquito
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/mosquito-beaufighter.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/mosquito-beaufighter.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds"")