http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...Lancaster.html
I've got a load of books on WWII aircraft as well. Top speed varies on load, head wind, distance needed to carry and drop that load.
Of course that varies with every aircraft type.
Mossies were faster and flaw lower(especailly on there return home) than the larger bombers which flew higher and slower and were more susceptible to fight fighters, radar and ack ack batteries. Mossies were, being constructed of a lot of wood, the stealth aircraft of the time. Oh and some aircraft just performed better than others despite being the same make/model build in the same production run on the same day.
As Husaburk hasn't cited were he got his info from I'd take it with a grain of salt and spit it out.
i got it from here
interstingly wiki gives the same speed.
http://ww2podcast.com/news/the-de-ha...ore%20flexible.
maybe 200 was its best for fuel efficency.
I never even looked at the Lancasters speed. my intention was to point out the payload differences vs the Lanc vs B17 and Mozzy vs B17
The Mozzys performance changed markedly as the Merlin gained the 2 stage supercharger and higher octane fuel it went from one that had to run away on speed something few could match to one that could also out height the fighters.
The Lancaster were likely the same, as the engines and fuels got better so would its performance.
At the time wood was well known at the zenith of its performance while they were still getting aluminium designs and production right.
I liken it to the Lawson 2v Kawasaki vs the 4v higher tech hondas.
On paper they were obsolete and old tech but they were highly developed.
Same with the RC17 vs the VF750 in the Japanese championship.
The wood was not without its problems as wood doesn't stand up to gunfire as well as metals. But as few could find it or catch it is was effectively ameliorated.
One very interesting thing about the mozzys was the glue.
Plenty of planes were wood but the mozzy was plywood and basically composite with its skin over a balsa core.Resorcinol glue also known as resorcinol-formaldehyde, is an adhesive combination of resin and hardener that withstands long-term water immersion and has high resistance to ultraviolet light. The adhesive, introduced in 1943, has been popular in aircraft and boat construction
Although the greater ease of use and versatility of epoxy makes it much more popular, epoxy has poor UV resistance and in most structural applications has only modest heat resistance, making it less than ideal for many outdoor uses. Resorcinol remains a suitable adhesive for exterior and marine use. Unlike epoxy, it is not gap-filling, so requires a higher standard of workmanship and joint fitting.
prior You couldn't successfully do the plywood on scale as the glues prior were not good enough.
They went to wood because De Havilland wanted a contract, and there was no way they would get one in aluminium as the material was strategically controlled and was all allocated to existing designs.
Timber was readily available as were skilled workers, so timber it was.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
From what I understand De havlliland paid for all the development costs out of their own pockets.
They used a plane that had already designed from what they learned with the DH88 Comet(not that one) as a basis and of course, had very little experience as at making aluminium planes anyway. (the later designs including the other comet showed that.)
Using the many skilled furniture makers was of course quite helpful (massive understatement). But the wood as far as I know had to be brought in from overseas anyway.
So while it saved Aluminum. it was kind of mute. other than bureaucratically
The other advantage of the glued wood was it was slick in that it had no rivets. Wood could also be fashioned into curves easier for some shapes rather then aluminium.
There is sone nice detail here
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...ynamics.50943/
Footnote the germans tried to do a plywood twin engine Mozzy but allegedly didn't have the glue tech to make it work.
Last edited by husaberg; 18th September 2020 at 13:08. Reason: added some stuff
That is how I remember it to and have seen pics and video of the original aircraft it was based on. Part of the MoD testing program. They had all sort of weird and wonderful military a/c testing specifications on the books. Making use of all those cabinet maker and related trades was a no brainer.
There was small article about it on Sky History channel yesterday in there WWII series.
The Mustang is now located at Ohakea and being stripped down. The condition is quite remarkable indeed, and she will take to the skies again, in the future.
The Mossie... another time-capsule artefact that will probably reside at Omaka.
Mr Smith was ahead of his time by preserving these machines and parts!
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
Yes the wood was mainly the pacific north west but the inner was Balsa from south America or Maybe Asia
not sure when they started cultivating it in Asia by then
The timber used was spruce, birch, balsa, and plywood.
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/th...er-of-the-raf/The wood consisted of three layers consisting of Ecuadorian balsa wood and two layers of three-ply birch wood, harvested in the UK, US and Canada.
https://www.thoughtco.com/havilland-...rcraft-2361527To construct the fuselage, 3/8" sheets of Ecuadorean balsawood sandwiched between sheets of Canadian birch was formed inside large concrete molds.
https://www.damninteresting.com/the-timber-terror/After some setbacks due to equipment shortages and German bombings of the De Havilland buildings, the Mosquito prototype was transported to the town of Hatfield for a test flight on 25 November 1940. Its final construction was heat-formed plywood over a wooden frame, with sections glued and screwed for extra strength. It employed Ecuadorean balsawood sandwiched with Canadian birch, a particularly strong and lightweight grade of plywood. Metal was used in only a few parts, including the engine housings and some control surfaces. The wooden sections were covered in fabric and the prototype was painted bright yellow to discourage British anti-aircraft crews from firing upon the top-secret airplane.
I read elsewhere There was trouble with some of the aussie made ones from delaminating or something that they put down to either bad glue or moisture swelling the balsa.
Another good read.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/20...ssance%20plane.
A total of 7,781 Mosquitos were built—6,535 of them in Britain, 1,034 in Canada, and 212 in Australia.The de Havilland Aircraft Company was noted for it's light aircraft, such as the famous DH82 Tiger Moth, and some mixed construction transport planes. In 1936 they had built the DH91 Albatross airliner and mailplane entirely in wood. In 1938 de Havilland proposed to the Air Ministry that they should build a bomber or reconnaissance aircraft that would be so fast it could be unarmed. The Air Ministry was generally hostile to the plan and turned them down. In October 1938 they told de Havilland that their contribution was best served by building wings for one of the existing bomber programmes.
De Havilland was not put off and continued with their project as a private venture. The proposal was based on reducing weight by removing the gun turrets and and having a crew of two instead of six. The aircraft would be smaller and burn less fuel. With twin Merlins an unarmed bomber could carry 1,000lb (454kg) of bombs for 1,500 miles (2400km) at a speed of almost 400mph (644km/h) which was almost twice that of current British bombers.The de Havilland design and production staff made many contributions that were, apparently, outside their field of expertise. In October 1941, C.T. Wilkins, suggested that if the normal 500lb (227kg) British bombs were fitted with shorter or retractable fins then the Mosquito could carry four of them in the bomb bay. This was rejected with the claim that the bombs would then be unstable. Experiments soon showed that this was wrong and it was not long before all bombs were manufactured with shorter fins.http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...d/mosquito.htmShortly after he was politically and personally humiliated by the Mosquito bombing raid on Berlin in January 1943 Reichmarschall Herman Goering had this to say about the aircraft...
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.
The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?
There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war's over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."
The heavy-fighter version proved to be fast and deadly, flying bomber escorts and shooting down almost 500 of Germany’s V-1 rockets.https://www.damninteresting.com/the-timber-terror/By the time the war was over, not only had the Mosquito proven itself to be capable, but in many ways extraordinary. These aircraft— primarily built by carpenters using commonplace materials— flew over 28,000 missions for Bomber Command, and only 193 of them were lost in the duration of the war.
Last edited by husaberg; 18th September 2020 at 18:47. Reason: found some clarification
Noise, lovely noise.
Manopausal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks