De Havilland Mosquito

[kitnut617]

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."

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' --------

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.

[kitnut617]

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.

[jcf]

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.


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).

[Daryl J.]

I think everyone here knew about the other Mosquito variant that had cloth wings, twin blade props, and shorter tail right?       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 !   ,

Daryl J.

[kitnut617]

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.

[TsrJoe]

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

[sequoiaranger]

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!!

[kitnut617]

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.

[Daryl J.]

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.   

Daryl J., looking at his Tamiya PR Mosquito chuckling. 

[rickshaw]

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.

[kitnut617]

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.

[kitnut617]

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 ---

[rickshaw]

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.

[kitnut617]

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

[kitnut617]

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!