De Havilland Mosquito

[kitnut617]

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.

[kitnut617]

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

[Mossie]

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.

[PR19_Kit]

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! 

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.

[jcf]

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.

[kitnut617]

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 ?

[kitnut617]

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.

[kitnut617]

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.

[The Wooksta!]

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.

[kitnut617]

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)

[kitnut617]

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.

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

[GTX]

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:



Regards,

Greg

[PR19_Kit]

Hehehe, oh YES Greg, that truly is the business! I love it. 

Oddly enough I now have a Welkin vacform, and I expect even that wll end up with longer wings too!

[GTX]

Oddly enough I now have a Welkin vacform, and I expect even that wll end up with longer wings too!

You're possessed!!!

[PR19_Kit]

Oddly enough I now have a Welkin vacform, and I expect even that wll end up with longer wings too!

You're possessed!!!

It's taken you THIS long to work that out?