Yes, that makes more sense. However the two factors are wooden aircraft don't survive well from even short periods of poor care and outside; and US equivalents - the B-25 became a self-perpetuating monopoly, rather than alternatives being flawed (the scarcity of other US twins - B-26 Marauder and A-20 Boston supports that, to a degree. Of course survival factoirs are a complex equation.). Not having the lower care requirement US radial engine counted against them too.
bdk wrote:
JDK, how long was the Hornet in service and why were they retired?
Wiki says 1946 - 56; and I'm guessing they were basically obsolete in the developing jet age - that's a guess. The structure was AFAIK, not an issue, even in Malaya, where they achieved good serviceability.
Quote:
The point I'm trying to make poorly is that there weren't many Mosquito gate guards that survived, unlike the Spitfire fleet, and their postwar career wasn't anything like the B-25 or Tigercat. Certainly there was an exception or two, but nonetheless, none are flying or flyable now that I am aware of.
Ah, so it's really a question of secondary career and not 'service career'. Generally I agree - but their first military and second military roles were equivalent in length and success to any peer.
Indeed there's none flying; and three serious restorations to airworthy currently, including the one for this thread.
Yes,
wooden gate guards are not for a long life certainly.
Mosquitoes did have a reasonable secondary service life, but US designs were better at (as TriangleP's said) hauling cantaloupes. Probably the major secondary role for Mozzies was mapping in the Americas, by Canadian company Spartan, and likewise mapping much of remote Australia by RAAF Mosquitoes. A couple went air racing, but the options ran out quickly.
The long career of RR299 in the UK essentially closed that market for a second example (What's now Kermit's and the 'PR.XVI' actually a B.35 in the NMUSAF were the only contenders).
Two of the three; and probably any other future restorations to fly, excluding the BC Canada example, are relying on a remarkable an unique project by New Zealander Glyn Powell in setting up infrastructure to build all the wood - and it has taken decades and has now produced one fuselage and two sets of wing and fuselage 'kits'. More can be done, but going another route would be a huge ask, having seen Glyn's efforts.
Quote:
I think with modern glues and the storage methods now employed with these aircraft, the service life of the wood will be indefinite.
Agreed. Certification of new glues for UK operation under CAA regs could be interesting.
Quote:
There is a Mosquito at Chino which would easily fit into a container once all the rotten wood was disposed of. Very easy to store until restoration time! There are probably more restorable Mosquitoes about than restorable P-38s. I find that both surprising and impressive.
I've seen the Chino 'project', thanks to TriangleP. Tellingly it's seems to be not attractive as a project, for various reasons, from enquiries I've made.
Of course what we are talking about as a Mosquito project in any of these cases is really the extensive metal fittings and require an all-new fuselage, wing and empennage structure; for that, just call Glyn Powell! However the will and finance and fame means we will continue to see more metal American restorations than any great increase in Mosquito flying numbers beyond the currently well-advanced projects.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
