Mosquito gets finishing touches

[Chappie]

Great photos again Mark. It's interesting that we never see many photos of British production lines. There are so many photos showing lines of B-17s, B-24s, P-38, etc rolling through US war plants, but never many showing Lancs or Spits, or Mosquitos.


Chappie

[Mark Allen M]

.

Last edited by Mark Allen M on Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Firebird]

Photo captions read A V Roe & Co Ltd factory at Woodford in Cheshire, 1943

Up until March 2011, apart from the aircraft being different, the Woodford production shed didn't look too much different to when that photo was taken.

Sadly, with the cancellation of the Nimrod last year, BAe closed the Woodford factory, and it won't be long before the famous old A.V. Roe factory will be demolished and the airfield will become a housing estate, joining the list of other famous old British aircraft factories being turned into housing estates, such as the DH one at Hatfield as seen above, as well as the old Hawker factories at Kingston and Langley.

[Dave Homewood]

.

I hope you gained permission before posting that photo taken inside Avspecs' other hangar, Area 59

[Mark Allen M]

.

Last edited by Mark Allen M on Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Mossie]

Fantastic ! Don't you just love the Mossie. Here's a newsreel of it doing what it did best.


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

[Iclo]

Fantastic ! Don't you just love the Mossie. Here's a newsreel of it doing what it did best.


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

I'm happy that the German troops who requisitioned our family's domain in Normandy didn't stay enough time to receive a visit of Mosquito like this one.
It's one among others negative thing but lots of chateau and historic properties were destroyed or heavily damaged during the war.

[Dave Homewood]

Maybe so, and I do not disagree, but it can also be added that the Mosquito contributed more to the ending of the war and the freedom of the occupied nations a great deal more than most other aircraft types in the war. It could fly all the way to Berlin and drop a huge bomb load precisely on a target. It marked targets to provide precision bombing thus preventing civilian casualties and collateral damage. It was a very effective day and night fighter. It was a hugely effective photo reconnaissance platform. It was adaptable to special ops and was able to be flown very effectively at both very low and very high level as well as medium altitudes. It was a powerful anti-shipping weapon too. And it had the speed and manouevrability to outrun fighter opposition - how many bombers back then could say that. Furthermore it seems to have had total confidence of its crews who absolutely loved them.

There are not many WWII aircraft that could equal its wide ranging contribution to the war, and to our freedom from Nazi oppression. It should be seen as a symbol of victory and freedom in my opinion.

[C VEICH]

I'm going to give Iclo the benefit of the doubt and say he probably just meant that the destruction of those historic properties was a sad reality of war and is not holding the Mossie nor its crews accountable for the loss. His tag line would indicate that English is not his first language after all.

[Dave Homewood]

OK then, these were taken on Friday when I made a quick visit to Avspecs. Sorry the photos are not very good.

[bdk]

Ironic that the thing that made the Mosquito's service life so short, the wooden construction, should lead itself to a resurrection in relatively large numbers (I.e. a few potential flyers from none). If only the P-61 was more promising! Barring another discovery, the Beijing example would be the only other possibility, although unlikely, although Setter said he saw a couple on the back of a truck, so who knows!?

[JDK]

Interesting thought, bdk, but...

Ironic that the thing that made the Mosquito's service life so short,...

I'm not sure what measure you'd count the Mosquito's service life as 'short'. It was no shorter than the majority of W.W.II types.

Also the BAe Mosquito RR299 G-ASKH was airworthy until its sad demise in 1996. It had been refabriced a couple of years earlier, but there were no structural issues for an airframe that had been active from the 1960s, and I believe had been flying (with short breaks) from construction in 1945. AFAIK, it had never been rebuilt, and the survey during the refabric (which is a protective, not structural layer) indicated the aircraft could safely continue flying. That's a minimum 36 years active, manoeuvring and display flying!

Wooden structures need different management, to others, and wood glues of the W.W.II era have different life expectations, and require appropriate management, but their life isn't notably shorter, unless neglected.

Regards,

[bdk]

JDK, how long was the Hornet in service and why were they retired?

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.

I think with modern glues and the storage methods now employed with these aircraft, the service life of the wood will be indefinite. 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.

[JDK]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

[bdk]

Thanks James.

I remember reading that either the Hornets or Sea Hornets were retired primarily due to delaminating wood. Perhaps in Wings or Airpower magazine 30-35 years ago?

Here is an interesting quote from the Mosquito Wiki,

"In addition there are unconfirmed reports beginning to circulate that one or more crated, unassembled, zero hour aircraft have been recovered from the excavations in Myanmar (Burma) initially launched to recover Supermarine Spitfires believed buried. The rumours include DH Mosquito, Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfires in transit to the UK in August 2012.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}"