Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
ericthered1975

Mosquito and Cookies: A good combination?

Recommended Posts

One of the most versatile aircraft of the RAF during WW2, the D.H.98 Mosquito was used to launch the big bombs of 4,000 lb, also called cookies. I share with you, the article below that shows some pictures of this unusual combination. According to the title, what is your opinion on using these bombs by Mosquito? Visit the link below, see the photo collection and at the end, give your contribution by answering the poll or a comment about it.

 

Aviação em Floripa: Mosquitos e as bombas de 4.000 libras

 

Best Regards!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was common knowledge of their ability to lift a good load for their weight. Only one version was metal, the others plywood. Notice drop tanks fitted. High altitude Photo recon often done. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see that the construction of the 4000lb bomb appears to be a pure "blast" type - nearly all explosive, with apparently little by way of casing.

 

A fragmentation bomb on the other hand, has a thick casing of metal, designed to produce a lot of shrapnel and cause many shrapnel injuries to human bodies, sometimes more than 200M from the actual blast point.

 

A blast bomb relies on the shock wave created by the explosion, creating a lot of damage to structures - but having a lesser effect on personnel than a fragmentation bomb - because, even if people are caught in the shock wave, they nearly always survive, even though it may knock them over, or even hurl them some distance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Only one version was metal, the others plywood. ...Nev

Are you sure about that Nev? I've always had a lot of interest in the Mozzie due to my grandfather's involvement with building them at DH, and I'd never heard of a metal version. Certainly they all had small amounts of metal in them - gear doors, engine cowlings and control surface framing - but I'd not come across anything other than the balsa/birchwood (balsa/coachwood in Australian versions) structures.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flew off Carriers. When I posted I was going to write the name. Now it's late and I can't recall it. It's no secret but a lot don't know of it. It will be somewhere on the net.

 

Addendum Refer my later post # 7. Nev

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flew off Carriers. When I posted I was going to write the name. Now it's late and I can't recall it. It's no secret but a lot don't know of it. It will be somewhere on the net. Nev

I think I'll have to take your word for it because I can't find any mention of it.

 

Here is a listing of all the Mozzie variants. The Fleet Air Arm carrier variant was the Sea Mosquito TF/TR33 which had the same wooden airframe as all the others but with a few minor modifications for carrier operations. It had a strengthened fuselage, manually folding outer wing panels, Lockheed oleo landing gear to help absorb some of the landing shock and smaller wheels. Also large four paddle-bladed airscrews to help 'drag it in' for the lower-than-normal-speed landings.

 

The next DH carrier-based aircraft was the Sea Hornet which also exploited the wooden construction techniques developed for the DH88 Comet Racer and the DH91 Albatross transport and later employed for the Mozzie. There is some great information on the Airvectors site about the various deployments of the Mozzie and Hornet and I can't find any mention of a metal version there either.

 

It would have been an enormous task to completely re-engineer and re-tool the Mozzie for metal construction, and seemingly pointless at a time when its wooden structure was one of its greatest assets due to there being plentiful timber supplies and skilled timber workers available then, but aluminium and metalworkers were at a premium due to the war.

 

It appears Geoffrey De Havilland probably worked quite closely with Lockheed, and that is evidenced by the fairly regular testing and/or incorporation of Lockheed components in DH aircraft of the period. Not so often mentioned is the quite remarkable similarity of Lockheed (and Beech) airframes' form (though not construction method) in the same period. Loosely compare, for example, the Lockheed Model 10 Electra and the Beech 18 with the DH98 Mosquito - and similarly the Lockheed C-69 Constellation with the DH91 Albatross

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My info was from a service pilot's recollections. It's likely they referred to the Sea Hornet which has skinning over the conventional wing surface and they have assumed it has the appearance of all metal construction. The only (first)all metal De Havilland aircraft around was the Flamingo, which W Churchill used at times. It's High wing with 2 Radial engines. Not likely to be confused with the Mosquito shape.

 

The Hornets were produced too late for the Europe war but served in Malaysia 1948-( ) All were retired by 1956. Service ceiling 41,000 ft..Merlin Contra props of just over 2,000 HP each. Redesigning a plane from wood to metal would have been a monster task as you say. Not likely to happen. Well that finishes that story. The fellow who told me died about 13 years ago.. Nev

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nev,

 

possibly there is a confusion between the DH98 mossie and the HD103 sea hornet - that one had metal lower wing skins bonded to the wood wing structure - all mossies were wood I'm afraid

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Even the sea Hornet. I can see why my informant got the other impression. My first 2 lines above. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...