Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:31 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mosquito Mold Question
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:41 pm
Posts: 692
Location: Palm Coast, Florida
Since I've started A&P school, I've been wanting to know. What is the difference in molds used to produce static vs flying Mosquitos? To me a mold is a mold, but is there something that is different for the fuselage molds for an airworthy mosquito? Just curious. My dad and I always discussed building a replica mossie if we won the lottery and could afford such a project.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:38 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
I'm not sure I understand the question - AFAIK, no-one has ever made a mould to just build static Mosquitoes. The first fuselage off the Glyn Powell mould in NZ was sold to Canada for a static rebuild, but the second aircraft off the mould is an airworthy rebuild.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:04 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:52 am
Posts: 1949
Location: Virginia, USA
JDK's right... the first shell off was just to prove that the mold dimensions were accurate. They used non-airworthy grade material, which is why the parts were sent for use in a static, as opposed to an airworthy, project.

Cheers,
Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:23 am
Posts: 67
Glynns moulds, as the original prototypes were, are made of wood.

The production moulds were made of concrete.

Remember, there is an awful lot of metal in the Mossie; a lot more than people realise!


Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:45 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
The durability of a wooden mould would be enough for the few Glynn's planning, I'd assume?
Bruce wrote:
Remember, there is an awful lot of metal in the Mossie; a lot more than people realise!

And the wing wasn't moulded, 'only' the fuselage.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 683
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
TriangleP wrote:


Thanks for posting these. Made for some very interesting reading. And the Gallery...Glynn's craftsmanship is to die for! The wood is so beautiful, it seems a shame to cover it with fabric and paint it.

The shots which showed the interior of the cockpit section painted with a green zinc chromate struck me as ironic. On the original aircraft, with no aluminum to corrode, they must have just been trying to make the military crews feel at home.

The photos of the various parts, bulkheads, ribs, etc. being assembled should themselves be hanging in an art gallery.

Anyone have an idea of what Gerry Yagen is paying for a brand new Mosquito? I have a feeling that even if Glynn is eventually able to build a 100 of them, they will ALL still be priceless!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:56 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3293
Location: Phoenix, Az
Bruce wrote:
Glynns moulds, as the original prototypes were, are made of wood.

The production moulds were made of concrete.

Remember, there is an awful lot of metal in the Mossie; a lot more than people realise!


Bruce


Only the Canadians used concrete molds, they tried the wood ones like the brits, but decieded that concrete was better.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:21 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:52 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Hudson, MA
I assume that the Mosquito fuselage plywood was produced in sections and joined in the mold. were the joints of the fuselage shells designed to match up with internal stucture, i.e. bulkheads and formers? I remember reading that when the NASM was restoring its Albatross D.Va they were surprised to find the joints in the fuselage shells did not always line up with internal structure! NASM was replacing the shell piece by piece and had to make temporary formers in order to provide backing for the various glue joints.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 800
Location: Vancouver BC
John Dupre wrote:
I assume that the Mosquito fuselage plywood was produced in sections and joined in the mold. were the joints of the fuselage shells designed to match up with internal stucture, i.e. bulkheads and formers?


As far as I know, the fuselage is made in two halves just like a model kit, then glued & screwed together once most of the equipment has been installed. Or at least that's how I thought they were made during the war.

greg v.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:40 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Matt Gunsch wrote:
Only the Canadians used concrete molds, they tried the wood ones like the brits, but decieded that concrete was better.

I'd like Bruce's input on this. Certainly the de Havilland Heritage Centre in the UK has a set of concrete moulds on show outside, which, IIRC were for the fuselage of a DH Hornet.

As to the other questions, this film shows many of the details:

Australian Mosquito production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3mGOLmWWbg

What the propaganda newsreel fails to show was the defective workmanship and resulting delays and accidents that ensured most Australian Mosquitoes didn't get to combat in the war, unlike the British and Canadian production. One of the less glorious aspects of the story, sadly.

An American film of Canadian production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7pNBSRk ... re=related

Shows a bomber version (Canadian prototype?) but the voice over also discusses the fighter version with cannon and machine guns.

HTH.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:41 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:41 pm
Posts: 1469
Location: North Texas
The Fairchild skins were done in pretty much the same manner. Each section was formed and cured. When it was time to assemble, the forward skins were bonded to built up frames installed on the tubing work and then butt seamed with a doubler applied to the seams internal to the fuselage. The aft skins were bonded the same way, but the frames were located in assembly tools. The bonded aft section was then removed from the tools and bolted to the end of the forward section.

Wing skins were molded and then prefit to the wing section prior to bonding. Once the center spars were installed in the forward section of the fuselage, the center section was built up with the exception of the nacelles and the skins installed. Once that was completed, the nacelles were done and so on.

Within the fuselage, the skins were painted after bonding was complete. The color was a mixture containing a forest green, a bronze and instrument black, giving it a weird color. I've got the mix spec in one of the books with my files.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:55 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Bridgetown WA
The Canadians were not the only factory to use concrete moulds, HDH Australia went down the same track.

The disadvanatge of the wooden mould, as the NZ guys found out was that you have to store and keep them in a stable area or the humidity affects the accuracy.

Regards

Col

_________________
Vietnam Vet and proud of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:23 am
Posts: 67
Couple of points.

As I said, the early moulds were wood; de Havilland switched to Concrete later in the run as it was more stable. UK as well as Canada and Australia.

The DH Museum does indeed have some Hornet moulds on display.

The Green colour, on British Aircraft isnt a primer; it was just a standard colour for cockpits - and quite different to the American one.

As James rightly points out, the wing is pretty conventional; not much moulded plywood there!


Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:08 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Just found another good set of films on the Mosquito incluing UK and Canadaian production. Good detail of the build at the start and 2:30 point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cb6SmK_c2g

I love the guys hand-sawing out the bomb bay walls. :shock:

Cvairwerks wrote:
The Fairchild skins were done in pretty much the same manner. Each section was formed and cured. When it was time to assemble, the forward skins were bonded to built up frames installed on the tubing work and then butt seamed with a doubler applied to the seams internal to the fuselage. The aft skins were bonded the same way, but the frames were located in assembly tools. The bonded aft section was then removed from the tools and bolted to the end of the forward section.

Sounds interesting. Which Fairchild are you referring to? It sounds like a mixed construction or semi-monocoque, whereas the Mosquito fuselage was a complete monocoque.

More details? Pics? 8)

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:29 pm
Posts: 351
Location: Windsor, ON
There's a video on our website about the manufacture of Mosquitos during the war. There is also a nice article about the first mould that was made by Powell for the Mossie Group here in Windsor. (And yes the first fueslage was made from non-airworthy grade material, that is why this one won't be flying.)

http://www.ch2a.ca/MainWelcome.html
(you have to scroll down the side menu to the Mosquito part)

_________________
Ryan Orshinsky
Windsor, ON
CH2A - Engineering
rorshinsky@ch2a.ca
http://www.ch2a.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 288 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group