De Havilland Mosquito

[Daryl J.]

Fixed ''gear'' and spatted, but instead of wheels/tyres, use skiis.

Finnish of course.

[KJ_Lesnick]

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 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

[kitnut617]

Don't use wiki, get a copy of the Sharp/Bowyer book "Mosquito". Everything you want to know about Mosquitos is in there.

[KJ_Lesnick]

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.

[Leading Observer]

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

[The Wooksta!]

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!

[KJ_Lesnick]

Leading Observer

I 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

De 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).

[The Wooksta!]

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...

[KJ_Lesnick]

Okay, I'll look for it.

[KJ_Lesnick]

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.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I ordered the book, it shipped today

[dogsbody]

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

[KiwiZac]

^^ 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.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm reading through the book and I've found something interesting: The nacelles were lengthened at least twice (page 44)

[KJ_Lesnick]

Just to be clear: Tare is the same as Operational Empty Weight right?