W.W. 11 Mosquito.

[Pickles2]

Not many of these left flying according to this.
This Mosquito, judging by the quality of the cockpit, looks like a beautifully restored example, so if you're interested in Warbirds, I hope you enjoy "the flight"!
Scroll down for the video!

Inside The Cockpit Of One of Only Few Airworthy WW2 Mosquitos Left In The World (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/amazing-modern-cockpit-footage-mosquitos-x.html)

Pickles.

[p38arover]

A beautiful aircraft.

Here's a pic I took in the Sixties at Archerfield. A few weeks later it was used for fire-fighting practice.

127415

[101RRS]

That article says there only a few left flying - one in Canada and the US but I thought there was one in NZ and some in the UK

Here is the NZ one last year.

DH Mosquito Takes to The Sky! New Zealand 2016 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXiOqrXMmI)

[Tins]

Probably the best aircraft developed at the time. It could do nearly anything, faster than anything else. There wasn't a fighter that could catch it, save maybe the MK VII Spitfire, and the much vaunted but rare Me 262, which would probably run out of fuel trying. Geoffrey DeHavilland was a genius, and nothing showed off his prowess more than the Mossie.

[87County]

thanks for posting Pickles 2 - great video !

nice formating particularly with the Vampire - DH liked cosy cockpits apparently, one of the tightest I've been in is the Sea Venom - no room to do anything

[JDNSW]

The Mosquito can really be considered a militarisation of the Albatross airliner, at least in the terms of design philosophy, and probably also in a lot of the manufacturing details and methods.

The Albatross is interesting to compare with the DC3, which flew a year earlier. It has very similar empty and maximum weights as the DC3, and carries about the same number of passengers (22, but depends on configuration). Power is about the same, but the Albatross has it spread over four engines instead of two. Yet the maximum speed, cruising speed, and range are all around 50% above those of the DC3. The reason? Aerodynamics, with significant factors being lack of rivet heads and an engine installation design that resulted in positive thrust rather than drag from the engine cooling.

Structurally, both the Albatross and Mosquito were all wood monocoque structures, with the fuselage being constructed of a balsa cored sandwich only a bit over a centimetre thick.

Production of the Albatross started in 1938, but only seven had been built when the start of the war caused production to end. All were used by the RAF, but by 1943 only two were left, the others being destroyed in crashes or by enemy action. The last accident in 1943 was found to have resulted from failure of the glue used and as a result, the two remaining ones were scrapped in September 1943. Spare parts were also getting to be an issue.

This glue failure is a good part of the reason why there are so few Mosquitoes left flying despite the numbers built (nearly 8,000 including over 200 in Australia). The glue used in most production was casein glue - which is not completely weatherproof and is biodegradable, relying on the aircraft being kept properly painted, regularly inspected, and preferably hangared.

It is interesting to speculate what would have been the future of British airliners with developments of the Albatross if WW2 had not interrupted its development.

Most people have seen a picture of part of an Albatross - when Chamberlain returned from the Munich conference he was pictured on his arrival in London in the doorway of an Albatross holding up his briefcase with "Peace in our time",

[Tins]

The Mosquito can really be considered a militarisation of the Albatross airliner, at least in the terms of design philosophy, and probably also in a lot of the manufacturing details and methods.

The Albatross is interesting to compare with the DC3, which flew a year earlier. It has very similar empty and maximum weights as the DC3, and carries about the same number of passengers (22, but depends on configuration). Power is about the same, but the Albatross has it spread over four engines instead of two. Yet the maximum speed, cruising speed, and range are all around 50% above those of the DC3. The reason? Aerodynamics, with significant factors being lack of rivet heads and an engine installation design that resulted in positive thrust rather than drag from the engine cooling.

Structurally, both the Albatross and Mosquito were all wood monocoque structures, with the fuselage being constructed of a balsa cored sandwich only a bit over a centimetre thick.

Production of the Albatross started in 1938, but only seven had been built when the start of the war caused production to end. All were used by the RAF, but by 1943 only two were left, the others being destroyed in crashes or by enemy action. The last accident in 1943 was found to have resulted from failure of the glue used and as a result, the two remaining ones were scrapped in September 1943. Spare parts were also getting to be an issue.

This glue failure is a good part of the reason why there are so few Mosquitoes left flying despite the numbers built (nearly 8,000 including over 200 in Australia). The glue used in most production was casein glue - which is not completely weatherproof and is biodegradable, relying on the aircraft being kept properly painted, regularly inspected, and preferably hangared.

It is interesting to speculate what would have been the future of British airliners with developments of the Albatross if WW2 had not interrupted its development.

Most people have seen a picture of part of an Albatross - when Chamberlain returned from the Munich conference he was pictured on his arrival in London in the doorway of an Albatross holding up his briefcase with "Peace in our time",

I imagine you will have read this, but if not, I recommend the autobiography of N.S. Norway, otherwise known as Nevil Shute. "Slide Rule" talks a fair bit about this stuff.

The story of the R100 and the R101 gives a fair insight into how aircraft were chosen for Ministry approval in those days. It is not a glowing endorsement.

It is really not surprising that things like the C47/Dakota took over.

Shute's company, Airspeed ( no slouch ), wound up being owned by DeHavilland.

As for the Albatross, it was no match for the Mossie as a Military aircraft. Very few things were. Well, if the pilots were to be believed.

[p38arover]

I have read Shute's book (and all of his novels).

[Tins]

I have read Shute's book (and all of his novels).

You could do a hell of a lot worse. I love his writing, and I love his knowledge. It's a real pity he died as young as he did.

[Pickles2]

I really appreciate the input to this thread, from some guys who really have a long standing interest/passion in this stuff ,...AND KNOWLEDGE, so that such input can make an invaluable contribution to the subject, so that the FACTS, will not be lost to mere mortals, like me.
Thank You, Pickles.

[JDNSW]

I imagine you will have read this, but if not, I recommend the autobiography of N.S. Norway, otherwise known as Nevil Shute. "Slide Rule" talks a fair bit about this stuff.

Of course I have read it, together with almost all his other books!

The story of the R100 and the R101 gives a fair insight into how aircraft were chosen for Ministry approval in those days. It is not a glowing endorsement.

They were nearly a decade earlier, but definitely point taken.

It is really not surprising that things like the C47/Dakota took over.

The US industry took over simply because of an agreement between the US and the UK in 1941 that the UK would not do any development work on transport aircraft during the war but would buy from the US at a subsidised price instead. The DC3 was a special case though - used as a military transport by all combatants in the war, at least in small numbers, some built under licence, some built without the benefit of a licence, in 1945 there were so many available on the disposals market that it was virtually impossible to sell short range airliners in the 20-30 seat size for the next three decades.

In 1945 Britain had no new airliner designs ready to go, although a few of the military conversions such as the Sandringham were not total dogs. But as a country, Britain pushed flying boats for long distance, having failed to realise that they were no longer needed since the world was now littered with long runways built for heavy bombers. They looked like gaining a lead again with the Comet (also DeHavilland), but it ran into issues that allowed Boeing to take the market with the 707 (development largely paid for by the military KC135). The Viscount was the first turboprop airliner and was very successful, with its Dart engines one of the most successful aero engines ever.

Shute's company, Airspeed ( no slouch ), wound up being owned by DeHavilland.

Airspeed produced very innovative designs, that through most of the thirties were the fastest aircraft built in the UK. Already part owned by DeHavilland it made the mistake of sticking with piston engines with the Ambassador, and as a result ended up being taken over.

As for the Albatross, it was no match for the Mossie as a Military aircraft. Very few things were. Well, if the pilots were to be believed.

I did not suggest that the Albatross was any sort of military aircraft - it was an airliner. But it certainly helped enable the Mosquito to be designed, and the design put forward to the Air Ministry in November 1939 was explicitly based on the Albatross.

The Albatross in military service was used as a courier aircraft, mainly to Lisbon, Shannon and Reykjavik, with its speed making it fairly safe from enemy interception.

[Tins]

I did not suggest that the Albatross was any sort of military aircraft - it was an airliner. But it certainly helped enable the Mosquito to be designed, and the design put forward to the Air Ministry in November 1939 was explicitly based on the Albatross.

The Albatross in military service was used as a courier aircraft, mainly to Lisbon, Shannon and Reykjavik, with its speed making it fairly safe from enemy interception.

Never said you did, John.

[RANDLOVER]

Probably the best aircraft developed at the time. It could do nearly anything, faster than anything else. There wasn't a fighter that could catch it, save maybe the MK VII Spitfire, and the much vaunted but rare Me 262, which would probably run out of fuel trying. Geoffrey DeHavilland was a genius, and nothing showed off his prowess more than the Mossie.

That's because it had two Spitfire engines i.e twin RR Merlins. I believe they were the first aircraft to be fitted with Oboe receivers (a forerunner of RADAR) , where two intersecting radio waves were beamed over a bombing target, so the Mossies of Pathfinder squadron lead the bombers to their targets.