Jump to content

Talk:De Havilland Mosquito

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 121.216.214.67 (talk) at 11:26, 2 September 2009 (→Number built). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Various points

1. The 4,000 lb 'block-buster' required a slightly modified bomb-bay.

2. The 'explosion' that caused problems on the transatlantic ferry is believed to be ice forming on the pressure relief valve of the pneumatic storage tank, although there are suspicions of other causes.

3. There is also the special version intended to drop the 'Highball' anti-shipping version of the bouncing bomb used by 617 squadron against the Ruhr dams. One one squadron were equipped and they never managed to see action, partly through development delays and partly (it is suspected) politics.

4. The method of hardening the glue was the first use of a magnetron for this purpose, the forerunner of the microwave oven.

Anyone can edit the article - don't bother posting here! Dan100 ([[User talk:Dan100|Talk)]] 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your right anyone could edit... but I have questions. Does anyone know where I can find more info on the construction specs? I would be willing to add any results to the artical. ZenBearClaw

Phil Birtles' book should be a good starting point, if it's still available. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The de Havilland Heritage Museum sells a reproduction of a contemporary pamphlet on the construction methods used for the Mosquito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.4.94 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. I just want to log this detail, but I'm not sure where it would fit correctly. My late father was an RAF radio operator stationed with Mosquito squadrons in the jungles of Burma. He always used to tell me that the biggest reliability problem was that the white ants would infest the wooden structures and eat them away. AndyHolyer 11:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. The Germans found the Mosquitos so annoying that they referred to bomb damage by the planes as "Moskitobissen" (mosquito bites)

This article is a word-for-word copy of a brochure published by the Pathfinder museum (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbramptonwytonhenlow/rafcms/mediafiles/9818FCBF_1143_EC82_2ED93F5D8312A0C6.pdf) without acknowledging it. Peter Kahrel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.253.228 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked the Pathfinder Museum article and it appears that the part on construction is the same. But the rest is different. The Pathfinder article has no copyright or other acknlowedgements to its source, they may have come from one of the sources detailed at the bottom of this article. So it is not a word-for-word copy except for the Construction section which should be looked at in case of copyvio. MilborneOne 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Sorry, but Hastings is plumb wrong about the Mosquito being worth two victories. A victory was a victory was a victory, but various types of aircraft were worth varying amounts of "points" in consideration for medals. I think he's simply repeating yet another "urban myth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.214.67 (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glue - any comments on this assertion

The article currently states: "The specialized wood veneer used in the construction of the Mosquito was made by Roddis Manufacturing in Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA. Hamilton Roddis had teams of dexterous young women ironing the (unusually thin) strong wood veneer product before shipping to the UK." Can anyone subtatiate this. To my knowledge, the plywood sheets made in steam presses, and formed in concrete forms - not "ironed".

The following text pinched from Marshfield Manufacturing website - 'During World War II the Marshfield plant ... made aircraft plywood and cut and shipped special birch veneer to Britain for use in construction of the famed De Havilland Mosquito Bomber. The veneer for the bomber was so thin that it could not be dried by mechanical means, but rather had to be hung by wires to air dry. At least 90% of the production of the Marshfield plant during WWII was devoted to the war effort. Among later contracts awarded to the Marshfield plant was the manufacture of the aircraft plywood used to construct Howard Hughes’ HK-1 Flying Boat also known as the Spruce Goose.' [1] - so, no mention of ironing!
Philip Birtles' 1998 book which seems to be regarded as authoritative and pretty comprehensive, and details the process of manufacturing, doesn't mention any of this. In any case though, the aircraft were indeed built in wood and (later) concrete moulds, but this doesn't really bear on the production method of the original veneers that went into the ply. --Ndaisley 08:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have been to Marshfield, Wisconsin. The former horse-barn that was converted to hand-ironing is still there. Walk into the Roddis plant, they are happy to talk about their roll in the Mosquito. The women who did the ironing still live in Marshfield. Of course, personal knowledge is hard to reference for the web so I will attempt to find a newspaper account suitable for linking. Suffice it to say it is so. 69.218.136.151 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast. Here is a quote from the University of Wisconsin-Marshfiled website;
Marion Fredrick, Marshfield, recalled her days working at Roddis Plywood during the war. Women across the nation contributed to the war effort by working in factories – women in central Wisconsin were no exception.
“I ironed the thin sheets of veneer for the airplane wings,” Frederick recalled. “I enjoyed the work. I worked a split shift. We’d start at 6 in the morning and work until 10. Then we’d come back at noon and work until 4. I wouldn’t want to do it now, but I enjoyed it then.”
Dr. Andrew Keogh, dean of UW-M/WC, said the campus was honored to be the inaugural host to the Flying Trees exhibit, which will be on display in the library through January.
The site can be found by 'googling' 'roddis veneer mosquito' 69.218.136.151 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The quote of Göring

There should be a indication of the source of this quote by Göring. Anybody know how it was passed down? I doubt it was on the 3rd reich's news...


The nazis weren't 'voted into power' either. Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manoeuvrability

I've added a "citation needed" tag to the line suggesting that the Mozzie could out turn a Spitfire. 203.129.39.223 09:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Mosquito could be more agile in certain flight modes. Multiengine aircraft as a whole tended to do better in tight low-speed turns due to good excess power. RAF bombers routinely relied on this during the evasive corkscrew. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Mosquito (any Mark) on one engine could perform the normal aerobatics, and could generally outfly most other twins, most of which certainly couldn't perform upward rolls, even on both engines, which Geoffrey de Havilland, Jr. routinely did on one engine in the Mosquito, and which is seen in a de Havilland publicity film from the time. On both engines it was in a league of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.29 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

During much of the war, the Mosquito was one of the fastest aircraft in the sky on either side (the prototype was the fastest of the series at 437 mph), and one of the most manoeuvrable - in mock combats, it could climb faster (Mosquito FB VI's rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min/14.5 m/s compared to the Spitfire Mk V's rate of climb: 2665 ft/min/13.5 m/s) and turn nearly as quickly as a Spitfire. Measuring manoeuvrability in turns of wing loading gave the Spitfire MK V's wing loading: 28 lb/ft² (137 kg/m²) an advantage compared to the Mosquito FB MK VI's wing loading: 41.2 lb/ft² (18.68 kg/m²).

Unless the author can provide a reference, the above is original research (specifically, It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;). The reference has to be for the entire assertion, not for the individual numbers. This is also the type of argument that is ubiquitous on flight sim message boards (my wing loading can beat up your dad's wing loading). Wing loading is one out of a great number of factors that influence turning ability, and does not tell the whole story. No armchair piloting here please, stick to the facts. - Emt147 Burninate! 08:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emt147, loosen up. I know that the quote that another editor wanted cited is somewhere in some book that I have but I had given up finding an exact reference and had resorted to the Wikipedia's own articles on both aircraft so I would hardly call this original research. Until I find the quote that I need to cite, give the note a break and leave it in place. If you insist on taking it our than I can quote that the information was derived from Sweetman, Bill. Mosquito. "the Great Book of World War II Airplanes." New York: Wing & Anchor Press, 1984. ISBN 0-517-459930. p. 323. The author there states that the Mosquito, lightly loaded could outrun the Spitfire (in trials). Be charitable- it's Xmas. LOL Bzuk Monday, 25 December 2006 12:54 (UTC)
So Christmas is a magical time when we can disregard official Wikipedia guidelines? Pulling performance numbers from two different articles and then drawing conclusions not directly supported by a reliable source is original research (see the direct quote from WP:NOR above for what you are doing). Please edit the above text down to exactly the claim made by your reference and cite it. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard any tongue in cheek comments from this point on, You obviously did not get it. I did not make the original claim for a citation and merely wanted to help out the article and as I had said, this note was merely an early effort to answer the first poster's question of whether the Mosquito had the manoeuverability that was claimed by many sources. Bzuk 19:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above quote from WP:NOR again (speaking of not getting it). It specifically says not to do what you did (synthesis of data to support conclusions). My contention is very specifically with the climb rate and wing loading figures you drew from other articles to support the statement (not to mention the fact that comparison of these figures is meaningless out of context, e.g. altitude, weight, etc.). In the context of aircraft articles, NOR works very well to avoid fanboyism and flight sim message board boasting. Please keep it this way. I have never pulled text that was supported by a credible reference. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfighting/nightfighting

I read in _Mosquito_ by Martin Bowman that the Mosquito could not in fact dogfight with single engine fighters. Unless someone can provide a reference otherwise I'll remove that statement.

There seems to be little mention of the night fighting done by Mosquitos.


Kitplane01 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The quote of Göring

"There should be a indication of the source of this quote by Göring."

Not the exact quote, but a similar one: Göring speaking to Generalfeldmarschall Milch, March 1943:

"Hermann Göring im Gespräch mit Generalfeldmarschall Milch im März 1943 zur Mosquito

... Dann fehlt weiter das Holzflugzeug, und das bringt mich nun wirklich auf den Baum, muß ich sagen. Ich kann wahnsinnig werden, wenn ich die Mosquito sehe. Ich werde grün und gelb vor Neid. Der Engländer, der sich noch mehr Aluminium leisten kann als wir, baut sich ganz schön eine Holzmaschine und zwar mit einer Geschwindigkeit, die er jetzt schon wieder gesteigert hat. Die Mosquito, die Linz photographiert hat, hat nach unserer genauen Rechnung, nicht nach der englischen, eine Reisegeschwindigkeit von sage und schreibe 530 km/h als Bomber. Da schneiden Sie sich einmal ein Stück ab! Das ist eine Maschine, die jede Klavierfabrik drüben macht.

Leider, leider - ich könnte mich umbringen - habe ich mich damals gegenüber dem Generaloberst insofern nicht durchgesetzt, als ich seine größere Urteilsfähigkeit damals habe gelten lassen. Ich habe dieses Holzflugzeug, als der Krieg ausbrach, noch und noch gefordert, weil es nichts schadet, zusätzlich Holzjäger und Bomber zu bauen. Aber da hieß es: "Das ist unmöglich, das kann man keinem Piloten zumuten, da lacht uns die ganze Welt aus!"

- Jetzt kann man uns auslachen, weil wir es nicht haben. Vorgestern haben die Mosquitos wieder einen Tiefangriff auf Paderborn gemacht. Sie haben keine Maschine verloren, oder nur eine ist verlorengegangen. Die Jäger haben sie nicht gesehen. Die Mosquitos sind da wie die Blöden da herumgeflogen, bei hellichtem Tage, haben nur auf ihre Geschwindigkeit vertraut, und sie waren rasend schnell. Obwohl sie nur 50 m Höhe flogen, haben sie alle Waffen zuhause gelassen, allein auf ihre Geschwindigkeit bauend, und haben das geschafft. Diese Flugzeuge müssen sich die Herren mal ansehen, damit sie wieder etwas lernen; die Primitivität dieses Flugzeuges ist erstaunlich. Auch hier sage ich: Warum lange suchen? Bauen wir die Mosquito nach! Das ist das einfachste, was wir machen können."


http://www.luftkrieg-ederbergland.de/goering.htm


Felix c 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Joseph Goebbels mentions the Mosquito in The Goebbels Diaries (edited by Hugh Trevor-Roper) with some regularity. Usually as his last entry for the day. Ian Dunster (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number built

Does that "7,781" in the inbox include the Canadian and Australian production runs? Grant | Talk 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Rubber Fuel Tank

I'm not 100% certain but I'm sure that the Mosquito was fitted with a fuel tank made of rubber, rather than the traditional steel or aluminium. The advantage was that any bullet holes would shrink in size naturally as the rubber contracted back into shape, thus stemming the loss of fuel. A metal tank when holed would stay holed at the same size.

That's just a normal self-sealing fuel tank. Most military aircraft had them by then. The metal tank has an uncured rubber coating that, when a bullet pierces the metal and leaks fuel, then causes the rubber to expand and seal the hole. The type of tank you are thinking of is a flexible rubber bladder/bag tank, which came into use post war. [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.22 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operations Jericho, Carthage and Notable Pilot list

Jericho: No mention of units, nor Percy Pickard. Carthage: This needed a deal of clarification; original paragraph doesn't explain how the school was accidentally destroyed, nor does it explain the Squadrons involved, although 613 Squadron is mentioned in the previous paragraph. Notable Pilots: The problem I have with this is that there are many, many notable Mosquito pilots who deserve at least an honourable mention. And what about the Navigators/Radio/AI operators, who surely deserve some recognition for their efforts? ("Jimmy" Rawnsley, Cunningham's 'sidekick'; "Syd" Clayton and his navigator Hugh Morrison, who took part in several notable Mosquito operations...the list is long.) Although the stories are interesting, and it's interesting to see some famous cricketing personalities, this part doesn't really seem to belong. Another page on "Mosquito Personalities" perhaps?Minorhistorian (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DE HAVILLAND 1943 Advertisement s.jpg

Image:DE HAVILLAND 1943 Advertisement s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comparable aircraft

The guidelines on the see also suggest have for similar aircraft "similar role, era, and capability this design" (sic). The Westland Whirlwind was a single seater fighter of half the size, range and load. It was used as a tactical bomber only and not as a nightfighter and so doesn't fit (to my mind). Any thoughts?GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some design elements of the Whirlwind were used in the Mosquito ie; the inner wing radiators, but apart from being twin engined and having a similar layout the two were in no way comparable in purpose or in role.Minorhistorian (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23/24 February 1944

"17 Mosquitos to Düsseldorf, 2 Serrate patrols, 3 OTU sorties. No aircraft lost. A Mosquito of 692 Squadron on the Düsseldorf raid was the first Mosquito to drop a 4,000lb bomb. The Mosquitos of the Light Night Striking Force regularly carried such heavy bombs during the remaining months of the war to targets as far distant as Berlin." [3]

Perhaps the first operational use of 4,000 bomb by a mosquito should be mentioned in the article somewhere. I'll leave it to someone else to work out where and add it it they too think it should be in the article.

I also think it should be emphasised just how often mosquitos flew operations to cities all over Germany night after night on diversionary or nuisance raids, which force the populations of whole cities to spend nights in air-raid shelters. (see for example the Bombing of Cologne#Timeline). Particularly notable in this respect was the 36 nights in succession scores of RAF mosquitos bombed Berlin, from 15/16 March 1945 ending on the night of 20/21 April 1945 just before the Soviets entered the city.[4] [5] [6] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first Mosquito crew to drop the 4,000 pdr was Sqn Ldr Watts (New Zealand) and his crewman Flg Off Hassell "DZ647 P3-B".Minorhistorian (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some LNSF Mosquitoes would make two - on long winter nights, three - sorties to Berlin with different crews in a night. Flying direct, as there was no need for evasive routing, a Mosquito could make the round trip to Berlin and back in around four hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.29 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo-reconnaissance Mk XVI

The PR Mk XVI is mentioned in the text several times but not listed in the "Photo-reconnaissance aircraft" section. Can somebody fill in the blanks here? I don't have the expertise. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

7. In the Specification section - Performance - Maximum speed - - The Mosquito F Mk II is rated at 21,400 ft and the Mosquito B Mk XVI is rated at 28,000 feet; yet both figures are converted to 8,500 meters. 8500 meters is 27,887 feet, ...21,400 feet is 6,523 meters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie.303 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is due to the 'rounding' convention stated at Wikipedia dates and numbers and is presumably built in to the conversion template, hope that helps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the conversion template is not used there and that you pointed out a large conversion error, suggest a run through the specifications to check the conversions, rounding them where required. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. In the Specification section (10), under Performance and Maximum speed, the Mosquito F Mk II is rated at 318 knots at 21,400 feet. This altitude converts to about 6500 meters of altitude. (21,400 / 3.28084 = 6522.7) Specs for the Mosquito B Mk XVI, it's rated at 361 knots at 28,000 feet, aprox. 8500 meters. - - 28000 / 3.28084 = 8534.4 ..... The conversion factor 3.28084 comes from a Mercedes Benz Technical Data book in the Umrechnungstabellen section (conversion tables) Ozzie.303 (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural

Is the correct spelling Mosquitos or Mosquitoes? Both are in simultaneous use in the article.Drutt (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct UK plural spelling is Mosquitoes - same as potatoes - I seem to remember a certain US politician had similar trouble remembering which a few years back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.88 (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the use of a proper name is involved, then "Mosquitos" is correct for the de Havilland version while "mosquitoes" is proper for the bug variety. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Bzuk is right. This is common practice for aircraft named from natural history --- so likewise Sikorsky Dragonflys, Grumman Gooses, Panavia Tornados etc. However, re the Mosquito specifically, my imperfect memory seems to recall there was actually an Air Ministry Order issued on this very subject. Can anyone confirm that ? ~~seafordian~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.86.100 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill might be right for spelling in Canada but the Mosquitos spelling looks very odd to my UK eyes. Likewise Tornados - I've spent a large amount of my life reading about RAF aircraft and the 'os' plural spelling looks strange. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it written that way in connection with the named aircraft. Spelt that way it looks like it ought to be pronounced ' ..toss'. I stand by my earlier statement, but I'm not that bothered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.29 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KA114

"Another in New Zealand, KA114, has been restored for American collector Jerry Yagen by Avspecs, and it has become the first airworthy Mosquito since 1996 and will be flying at the 2009 Classic Fighters airshow in New Zealand."

KA114 is currently in the process of being restored, and has not as yet flown as implied by this statement. Also I could not find any reference to this aircraft making an appearance, let alone flying at Classic Fighters 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.149.81 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goebbels or Göring

I just saw television documentary about the Mosquito (focused on Amiens) and there they claimed it was Goebbels that was about to hold a radio speech, not Göring. Goebbels seems much more likely as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.205.102 (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may well have carried out raids on both speaker's speeches. The point was that the intended broadcast of the speeches was announced beforehand and then broadcast live all over the Greater German Reich, and the Germans then had the choice of either turning off the transmitters and cancelling the broadcast, or letting it go ahead and having the listeners in the occupied countries hearing the air raid sirens go off live on-air, and the resultant humiliation of the German air defences.
IIRC, this was done on several occasions, Göring's speech being the most noteworthy, as he was head of the Luftwaffe and the Reich's air defences.
I think nowadays it would come under the heading of Psychological Warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.29 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were indeed two separate raids - one for Goebbels, the other for Goering. Three aircraft apiece, I believe. Bad day for Goering - his task that day was to deliver the funeral oration for 6th Army, which at that point was starving and freezing to death in Stalingrad, despite Goering's dramatic pledge to supply it from the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.100.120 (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think the attacks also appealed greatly to the RAF's sense of humour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.22 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

little on pathfinder even after latest addition

For example, no mention of Oboe use for target marking for main force bombers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top speed

A recent addition by IP editor brings the top speed of two Mozzy variants up to 430 mph (690 km/h). A photo version and a high-altitude night fighter have been so fingered. Is there a definitive source for this claim? I have found these sources which don't agree:

Too many conflicts. Binksternet (talk)

From Mosquito by Sharp and Bowyer - gives NF.30 max speed in FS gear 424 mph at 26,500 ft )p.434.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I put Sharp and Bowyer's 424 mph in for NF.30, and I used 425 mph, the median speed listed in the above examples, for PR.34. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice in the specs section that the speeds are given in knots first with alternates after though in at least one case the source gives mph and for British aircraft knots did not come into use until after the war. Isn't there a policy to give the original value and then conversions after?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Op history

Does anyone mind if this is put in an article of its own to allow expansion of the article in other areas. At the moment its a pain? Dapi89 (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dont mind, good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I can't change the title on the Op history article to "de" rather than "De". Dapi89 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Usually I like to add a basic design section so people understand what goes where when it gets to the more complex variant section (after all thats what the articles about). This time I thought of combining a "flying the Mosquito" section with "basic design of x variant". To give an idea of the designs effect on flying performance. The variant I was going to include was the NF 38 - because I happen to have the pilots notes which are published in their original hanbook form with ISBN so it can be cited. Any objections? Dapi89 (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NF is a post-war buld in low numbers and not used for combat as far as I am aware so has little bearing on what the majority of Mosquitos were about. What about a section on the basic Mosquito layout that describes the airframe in the usual terms "mid-wing", leading edge radiators, the cockpit setup, undercarriage, types of flaps etc? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Dapi89 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:De_Havilland_Mosquito&oldid=311452251"