Talk:De Havilland Mosquito

Various points

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

The 4,000lb HC Cookie's girth was slightly larger than the Mosquito's normal bomb bay could accommodate, so the bomb bay doors were bulged slightly. With the single-stage Merlins on a Mosquito B.Mk IV the increased weight of a Cookie was noticeable but the aircraft still flew and handled well. On a later Mosquito with the two-stage Merlins such as the B.MK IX and the B.Mk XVI, with a Cookie the aircraft 'climbed like homesick angels'.

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.

These were allocated to No. 618 Squadron RAF who trained at dropping them. They (Highball) had the advantage of having a considerably heavier explosive charge than a torpedo. They were training for the Pacific Theatre but politics intervened, The US Admiral King objected to the UK deploying them. He was a noted Anglophobe, and it's suggested that he didn't want the UK to have any presence in the Pacific. He was overruled on this by Roosevelt, but for some reason Highball was never deployed, and it may be that Truman was US President by the time they were ready to deploy. Truman was ill-served by some of his advisers, many who kept things from him for their own, or party-political, gain.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Only on the early aircraft. The same applied to the glues used. Later aircraft used Aerolite 306 which was different from the earlier adhesive and solved all the problems initially encountered in the tropics.

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

True. For an idea of how troublesome the Germans found the Mosquito try the book edited by Hugh Trevor-Roper mentioned elsewhere on this page. Goebbels mentions them as his last diary entry for the day almost every day from around early 1944. At this time Light Night Striking Force Mosquitoes bombed Berlin every night for a period of around 8 months.

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)

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)

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)

8. Question: did construction from wood make it less visible to enemy radar?

Yes, but only slightly - the only major parts of the aircraft that reflected radio waves were the engines and fuel tanks, the smaller metal parts consisting of the undercarriage and the metal-covered elevators. Overall this would not have made the Mosquito much less visible on German radar than any other aircraft, the Germans being able to recognise Mosquitoes mostly through their higher speed compared to the radar returns from other aircraft.

... wrong about the Mosquito being worth two victories. - erm no, they DID count as two - various Luftwaffe night fighter crews have mentioned that fact and I'm surprised that you weren't aware of it. The Mosquito was so difficult to catch that it was thought that making them more valuable would 'encourage' night fighter pilots to try harder. Shooting down a Mosquito was regarded as so difficult that to get one was regarded as source of pride, and an indication that one was well on the way to receiving a Knight's Cross.

Seen plenty of English-language sources say this, never seen a German pilot claim to have been given two kills for bringing a Mossie down. Much the same as the old chestnut about the "fok-tailed devil"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.118.18 (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's as well to point out that all bomber version performance figures are for an aircraft with a representative bomb load (2,000lb) and full fuel and oil tanks, so once the Mosquito had dropped its load it was considerably faster than the figures imply. If the aircraft was at a considerable height (which most night sorties were, over 30,000ft often) then all the pilot had to do on sighting a defending night fighter was drop the nose slightly and it was just about uncatchable. That was why the Germans spent so much effort on trying to get the night fighter version of the Me 262 into service - it was the only thing they could rely-on to catch Mosquitoes.

I wouldn't place too much store by what Max Hastings has to say. He's not a noted historian on either the Mosquito or other Bomber Command aircraft. For those I would try someone like Chaz Bowyer for the Mosquito, and for other aircraft anything in the Ian Allen ... At War series (e.g., Mosquito at War, which is also one of Bowyer's) which are excellent. If you want to get an idea of what flying an aircraft during war was like then any number of personal memoirs will probably stand you in good stead, if an aircraft is that bad they will usually make their dislike of it very clear, and the reverse is also true, especially if they are risking their life in it. I would also try and read any memoirs of former Luftwaffe night fighter pilots as well, they will also give you some idea which enemy aircraft they rated highly, and which ones they did not.

9. Further to the "myth" of the Mosquito being worth 2 victories. The Aeronautica Regala Romana (Royal Romanian Airforce) did in fact have such a system. A victory over a single engined aircraft was worth and counted as one victory. If the victory was over an aircraft with 2 or 3 engines then 2 victories were credited . An aircraft with 4 or more engines was counted as 3 victories. I am unaware if the Mosquito was encountered by Romanian pilots during or after operation Tidal Wave. A more detailed explanation of this rather unusual scoring system can be found in the Osprey Aircraft of the Aces No. 54 - Rumanian Aces of World War 2 by Denes Bernard --- wombat40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombat40 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

10. As I understand it the early versions of the Mosquito had engines which rotated in the same direction, as a result of a great unwillingness to cause any production delays in the manufacture of the much needed Merlin engine. Previous aicraft with such configurations had caused much dismay amongst pilots because an engine failure on take off of the "right" engine would cause the "wrong" engine to take the aircraft straight in. (See Wikipedia article on the P38 Lightning) This dictated much of the layout and positioning of the engines within the aircraft. Not until the Hornet were counter rotating engines available Drg40 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

re 10. Is the position of engines so dictated by the unavailability of handed engines? There were several British twins (both inline and radial) in service and prototypes and the engines all seem to be in roughly the same position. Is position as much dictated by the strength needed in the wing and u/c position. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that when you got to consider an engine that large with an equally large propellor the issues regarding engine failure after take-off became of some importance. The question is not whether the aircraft is stable at altitude on one engine, but whether there was time to establish straight and level with the engines on a take off setting and close to the ground. Again, as I understand it, with the engines that near to the centre line of the aircraft and so far forward (the standing joke was that you never stuck your hand out of the cockpit window of a Mosquito to wave the chocks away - at least, not twice) the re-arrangement of the forces after engine failure gave you a decent chance.Drg40 (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is no mention of the pioneering use of the Mosquito as ground support by squadrons such as 604, for which a number of ground troops were suitably grateful. Seeing an aircaft that manoeverable, that fast and packing that much punch on your side was something of a morale booster. Also AIUI the development work on the Barnes Wallace bouncing weapon done by the Mosquito was with a spherical weapon while the actual devices used by 617 were cyclindrical. (It was rumoured that Churchill himself forbade the manufacture of the spherical casings because the weapon was almost irresistable against his beloved capital ships. Indeed there was a film (which I have seen) showing the spherical weapon both going straight through a lightly armoured warship and also running down the side and under a more heavily armoured one before detonating.) Drg40 (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

11. I find no mention of the furniture factories (notably G-Plan, but amongst others) who built so many Mosquitos. They were issued with concrete formers in which they built half the aircraft, and at least one of these formers was outside the museum in Hatfield when last I was there. G-Plan staff ended the war with the most amazing collections of specialist nuts and bolts you ever did see and some of G-Plans post war success had it's roots in the technology they gained access to during the war. If the aircraft was to carry any large devices these had to be inserted beteween the halves before they were stuck together and this made for difficulties (AIUI) regarding the restrictions on carrying klystrons/magnetrons in radar equipment over enemy occupied territory. Drg40 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you bear in mind, when you make criticisms, that this article is not complete. It was only recently expanded. There is much still to do. Perhaps you should wait until it’s actually finished? Naturally, if there is anything in recent additions that has been missed; by all means point them out. Dapi89 (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If my comments arrived at you as criticisms that's certainly not how they left me Drg40 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well they are criticisms but I'm not offended! There is substance to these observations. I'm just noting this article is by no means a completed product. Dapi89 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it the early versions of the Mosquito had engines which rotated in the same direction - actually ALL Mosquitoes used engines with the same rotation, the different engine Mark No.s for the later versions denoted the inclusion of a Marshall's blower for cabin pressurisation on one engine. The Merlins used on the Hornet however, were handed, the differing Mark No.s (e.g., Mark 130/131) denoting the direction of rotation.

'Unhanded' engines are not that much of a problem providing the pilot is used to handling them, allowing for things such as the change of trim with differing throttle settings, and the differing torque response (the dropping of a wing) when an engine is out on one side. In the Hornet's case it was originally envisaged as being also introduced in a carrier version for use in the Far East (Pacific) and so the use of handed engines had the advantage when landing on a carrier of not producing a swing to the right if the throttles were opened suddenly, where the carrier's island superstructure is situated. In the Mosquito's case, the only time when the unhanded engines could be a problem was when going around after an engine failure on the approach, especially at night, when the actual response of the aircraft upon applying power on the 'good' engine varied depending on which side the 'good' engine was.

Generally the only time the problem makes itself felt is on suddenly opening the throttle of the 'good' engine on go-around or similar when the airspeed is dangerously low. 'Handed' engines are nice to have, for they simplify trimming, there being no change in directional (i.e., rudder) trim with changing power settings, so on suddenly opening the throttles the aeroplane goes straight ahead instead of veering-off to one side. Providing the 'driver' is aware of it and gives it a bit of opposite rudder, then it's a non-issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.48.189 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

i really doubt this was ever said by Göring, probably just an example of war-time British propaganda to boost morale and feeling of national pride Jarovid (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There you go then:

"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

... so it looks like you are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The quote comes from Göring when he was addressing a conference of German aircraft manufacturers in March 1943, and his audience included Prof. Willy Messerschmitt and Dr Ernst Heinkel. Göring had just been summoned back by Hitler from a jaunt in Rome, and was not pleased with the industrialists, as on his return Hitler had chewed his ear off over the recent RAF attacks on Nuremberg (8th March), Munich (9th March), and Stuttgart (11th March). Göring's tirade against the aircraft manufacturers lasted five hours, during which he scolded them for their not providing him with suitable up-to-date aircraft. The Mosquito was a particular bugbear of his.

He also slammed his audience for the British lead in radar, saying ‘that there is nothing the British do not have. Whatever the equipment we have, the enemy can jam it without so much as a by-your-leave. We accept all this as though it were God’s will, and when I get worked up about it, the story is, “We haven’t got enough workers.” . . . Gentlemen, it’s not manpower you’ve got too little of, it’s brainpower in your brain-boxes, to make the inventions we need!’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Number built

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

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.214.67 (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Whirlwind was also of composite constuction. This was in no way as rare as one may believe. The fuselage pod on the De Havilland twin boom Sea Venom was a spruce/balsa sandwich. The Whirlwind was largely let down by its engines (Rolls Royce Peregrine) which proved unreliable and there was never an attempt to fit Merlins, it was decided to halt production after only equipping 2 squadrons. The Whirlwind was ultimately replaced in service by the Hawker Typhoon (which had its own various problems). My knowledge of the Sea Venom omes from aquaintance with the type, I do have the sources for my text on the Whirlwind, just have to find it and add later --- wombat40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombat40 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Whirlwind was largely let down by its engines (Rolls Royce Peregrine) which proved unreliable and there was never an attempt to fit Merlins, it was decided to halt production after only equipping 2 squadrons. - re-engining the Whirlwind to accept Merlins was a far more complicated job than would at first appear, as the Peregrine installation was closely tailored to the Whirlwind airframe and much re-design would have been needed to install the larger engine. Quite apart from being heavier, which would have changed the CofG position requiring a corresponding alteration of the weight distribution, the larger engines would have needed greater cooling capacity, so larger radiators would have been required, and they were in the wing leading edges, which would have meant re-designing the wing, which would probably have changed the handling characteristics, which would have then meant extensive test flying of what by then would have become a substantially different aeroplane. I suspect it simply wasn't thought to be worth the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Plural

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

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• 415 mph (668 km/h) with 1690 hp Merlins at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3365
• 425 mph (684 km/h), the PR.34, at http://www.dhmosquito.com/
• 425 mph (684 km/h), for later photo version, at http://www.warbirdalley.com/mossie.htm
• "...added an extra 30 mph (48 km/h) to the top speed." Talking about PR 32 at http://books.google.com/books?id=Gx85T-eYPdQC&pg=PA24
• 436 mph (702 km/h) regarding the PR.Mk VIII at http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/dehamosqrt.html
• 425 mph (684 km/h), the PR 34, at http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/aircraft/reconnaissance/de-havilland-pr-mosquito.asp

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)

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)

The speeds listed for the NF.38 aren't performance figures. They are the revised (post-war) restrictions for maximum permissable speed for Mosquito aircraft set down by the Air Ministry.

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac192/limits46/Limits1.jpg

Sharp and Bowyer give a maximum speed for the NF.38 of 404 mph at 30,000 feet. This corresponds closely to the top speed of the NF.36.

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)

Knots didn't come into widespread aviation use until after WW II (around 1946 IIRC), the only aircraft prior to that time that used knots on the ASI was the FAA's - every one else's (outside the metric countries) used mph.

I wouldn't be too fussy about performance figure for particular variants, as manufacturing variations and conditions of individual aircraft could have considerable effect on things such as maximum speed, etc., you might be lucky enough to be allocated an aircraft that is better than spec., or you may be given one that's 'tired' and below spec., generally I would regard ALL performance figures for ALL aircraft as a guide only.

In comparing aircraft performance it's also as well to bear in mind that some countries were less than honest in their aircraft's supposed performance figures and that many figures were supplied by manufacturers eager to obtain a production order from their particular government and may well not be representative of an aircraft in full combat trim. I am thinking in particular, of places where the performance figures often quoted are for stripped aircraft with guns, armour, and wireless (i.e., radio - heavy valves at the time) removed and the aircraft highly polished to reduce skin friction. This was normal practice in order to obtain a production contract in some countries. For anyone interested in this I refer them to a well-known book written by Robert Stanford Tuck. This may explain some of the inexplicable 'crap' bought by the British at the start of the war, and which now has nothing but glowing claims about it's excellence on Wikipedia. Anyway, it's 'horses for courses' and what may suit one country may not suit another.

Generally, British performance figures are for aircraft 'ready to go' and do NOT specify performance with an engine run at the equivalent of 'Combat five minutes limit' which some countries aircraft manufacturers do (or at least, did). The British view was that it wasn't much use having an aircraft of a particular performance if the engine(s) then had to be rebuilt after every operation or sortie in which combat took place.

On the whole, it is better to judge aircraft performance by what the opponents say than rely on possibly biased statements by third parties. The Germans had a LOT of respect for the Mosquito, and Göring's quote says it all. And they should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.252.180 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That’s funny considering there is no evidence they ever flew captured Mosquitoes. And the German material is notorious for inflating/misleading performance evaluations. Dapi89 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read some of the wartime memoirs of any German night fighter pilot and see how frustrating encountering a Mosquito could be. That's if the German pilot wasn't shot down by one, which was more often the case. de Havilland's only built ten Mosquito PR I's and despite being used extensively all over Germany and Occupied Europe, they all survived the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.48.189 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

No dont mind, good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Okay. Dapi89 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Main image

Give the rather awkward angle of the current main image, can I ask if there's a reason this lovely image was ever removed from the infobox? It seems far better at illustrating the aircraft to me. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and been bold! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

F-Freddie

A Mosquito B.IX holds the record for the most combat missions flown by an Allied bomber in the Second World War. LR503, known as "F for Freddie" because of its squadron code letters, GB*F, first served with 109 and subsequently 105 Squadron of the RAF. It flew 213 sorties during the war, only to crash at Calgary airport during the 8th Victory Loan Bond Drive on 10 May 1945, two days after Victory in Europe Day, killing both the pilot, Flt. Lt. Maurice Briggs, DSO, DFC, DFM and navigator Fl. Off. John Baker, DFC and Bar. - IIRC, the aircraft had been involved in an attack by a nighfighter whilst on operations and the pilot had performed some pretty extreme manoeuvres evading the attacker, and it was later thought that during this the pilot had inadvertently over-stressed the main spar in the pull-out from a high-speed dive. This was not noticed at the time, and the aircraft continued to fly with a fatally-weakened wing structure which finally failed when aerobatted at the post-war airshow. I won't add anything to the article as it may be that I'm confusing it with another Mosquito, but someone might find it interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.109 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the aircraft was reported to have hit a flagpole during a low pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.176.26 (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. I must have been thinking of another A/C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.71.28 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Format error

Anybody else seeing red text as follows: 'Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "&"|'? What's the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.176.26 (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes somebody has used an automatic tool (AWB) to add loads of conversion templates to the article which has screwed it up, cant be reverted so it needs to be undo by hand. The AWB user probably doesnt check the result probably just fires and moves on! MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Should have fixed it, although as with anything automatic some of the conversions look stupid for example when we have 10,000 to 15,000 ft it only converts the last bit! and ignores the 10,000! MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying and fix these. The issue has been corrected now. I found and fixed some more. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.112.34 (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing word

The next to the last sentence in the Earlier Designs section has a very obviously missing word (or phrase), right at the end of the sentence before a citation:

The firm had little experience of working with the Air Ministry, and their all-wood construction was considered to be out of keeping with official policy, which was then concentrating on .^[12]

My guess would be aluminium (as the Brits would say it), but I can't check the citation and don't really know. Hopefully someone else reads this heads-up and can fill in the missing word-phrase with more certainty. Macraig (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - it should have read all-metal construction. Minorhistorian (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Timber Terror?

I can find no references to the nickname "Timber Terror" in any of my secondary published sources and I cannot recall hearing or seeing this nickname being used. As it is there are too many websites being used to source information which can be found in published, secondary sources, so, unless there are strong, valid, objections, the published sources should take priority. Also: The claim that the Mosquito was the fastest operational aircraft in the world in the third paragraph of the intro is nonsense - for one the Fw 190, which had also started production in 1941, was faster - this has been changed to the fastest operational bomber. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not correct Minor. The Fw 190 was not faster. Actually, it was nowhere near being as fast. German sources indicate a max. AS of 410mph (German sources) for the A series up to the A-8. In June 1941, the Mossie, fitted with Merlin 61s, could reach 433 mph (697kph) at 28,500ft (8,690m). Multiple ejector exhausts were said to have been a contributory factor. The A-8 would not have caught it. The D-9 line, well that's different. The source says that the Mossie was to hold the FAITW title for 2.5 years. I'm unsure about that as an all round claim, but at altitude, it most certainly was the fastest. German fighters struggled to get near it. I was reading the German official history, in which they say less than 50 were lost to German night fighters, and a kill against the Mossie would haave been more by chance than anything else - owing to its speed. Dapi89 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had to revert again over the speed issue:

a) it is in the source

b) the source gives more than adequate proof this was the case

c) It seems to have escaped peoples notice that In June 1941, the Fw 190 had not entered service.

d) German sources acknowledge their single-engine fighters could not catch it (see the operational history)

e) The 'special' LW units built to deal with them failed and were disbanded.

It wasn't the faster bomber, it was the fastest aircraft. Dapi89 (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The question, IMHO, is less about speed and more about the definition of "aircraft". For "bomber" it's quite clear that the Mosquito was the fastest within that scope, under the terms of any comparison that could reasonably be made. If you broaden this to "aircraft" though, many more competitors appear, and the bar is higher - so it starts to become more narrow as to just which variant and engine we're talking about, let alone precise dates. By October '41 the Me163 had completed a powered flight which completely shifted the goalposts. Yet was this one-off prototype an "aircraft", under the same comparison as a Mosquito already serving with line squadrons? Although the Mosquito may well have been the fastest aircraft, we have to be terribly careful now. As "fastest aircraft" is the greater claim than "fastest bomber", it's incumbent on the editor claiming it to provide the references. Just which versions are we comparing? When was the introduction of the Merlin 61, and were the ejector exhausts (which were indeed a significant source of thrust and extra speed) fitted from the outset? Why, when the question arose of what aircraft to use for PR work, the Spitfire still in the running as it not only used half the engine numbers, but was also claimed to be faster? Was that ever true, or did the Mosquito's actual performance merely outstrip its predictions? Quite importantly, how fast was a Mosquito with a fuel load on board? In terms of interception by Fw190s (As or Ds), the short-ranged interceptor has the advantage of not needing to carry the fuel for a long flight - was the Mosquito still faster in these practical circumstances, when laden?

I'm happy to see the change made from bomber to aircraft, but only if it's made more precisely detailed as well. The Mosquito was not the fastest aircraft of the war, so when was it the fastest, what supplanted it, and if it held the "FAITW title for 2.5 years", what else has been excluded from that comparison and why? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, the Me 163 was not operational service until 1944 so it is irrelevant in this case. I am not claiming anything Andy, I have provided the source, which states the facts in black and white. I have met my obligations to this article.

Regarding the technical detail; de Havilland were always one step ahead, and Merlin 61s were being used in Mossie variants (PR VIII) as early as the autumn 1941, along with ejector exhausts – which were even in use in Prototypes, let alone frontline machines. So they were in use very early on in the Mosquito’s ‘life’. As for the Spitfire, the numbers dramatically reduced in the PR role after the Mosquito’s introduction. One of those reasons was obvious – the massive advantage in range the M had over the Spit. It was also faster – PR Spit. IX; 417 mph A.U.W, PR. Mosquito, VIII; 439 mph with an A.U.W of 21,395, (in other words fully loaded) – that’s phenomenal and it beats the Spitfire until July 1943.

It also beats ALL of the Fw 190A variants; the A-9 was around 415-20 A.U.W. The D series is not applicable as it came into service in September 1944 only, which falls outside the scope of this discussion. When you ask ‘’ was the Mosquito still faster in these practical circumstances, when laden?’’ Answer: Yes.

The speed advantage was held from June 1941 to the second half of 1943, when the faster Spitfire variants overtook it permanently, particularly the PR XIX. As far as I am aware, nothing has been excluded at all. Of all the Axis and Allied operational types that appeared from June 1941 to the introduction of the XIX could, and did not, reach the speed performance of the PR VIII.

The citation is valid. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The citation is one of many possible. We have sources which are in conflict with each other, in which case we do not state any of them as fact. Instead, we clearly attribute facts to sources, and we present all significant views in proportion to their representation in the literature. WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are two good guidelines that cover this situation. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment. But until another citation appears to refute it, it is valid. Contrary to what you say Binksternet, the is no conflict in the sources. No other aircraft reached a maximum level speed of 439 mph in the time given; not the Spitfire IX, not the Bf 109G-6, not the Fw 190A series from 1 to 9. If anything, the sources agree. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hang on here Dapi, the paragraph's intro is written "When the Mosquito entered production in 1941, it was the fastest operational aircraft in the world"

ie: the claim relates to operational aircraft in 1941 and has nothing to do with the PR VIII which first flew in October 1942 NOT autumn 1941. Where is your source for Autumn 1941? W4050 was not fitted with Merlin 61s until in late October 1941 and did not fly with these until June 1942, again way outside the time frame given:

Therefore the only operational Mosquitoes in 1941 were the P.R Is - which first flew in June 1941: the first one reached RAF Benson in July - the first operation was flown on 17 September 1941 - and the nine P.R Is converted to B. Mk IV series i which first flew in September 1941: the first operation with this variant was flown on 30 May 1942!

The first Fw 190 A-1s emerged in June 1941 becoming operational by September - so it is neck and neck between the Mosquito and the Fw 190 for operational aircraft of 1941.

The maximum speed of the Mosquito P.R I was 384 mph at 22,000 ft (Sharp and Bowyer 1971 quoting figures from 8 October 1941.) According to Dapi the Fw 190 could reach 410 mph for every version from the A-1 to A-8...The Bf 109F-4 could reach 388 mph at 21,325 ft (or 410 mph according to a private website used by KF) so, which was the fastest operational aircraft in 1941? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, unless the sentence is rewritten - which might mean that it is not as it is written by Bowman 2005 - it can only mean either that the Mosquito was one of the fastest operational aircraft in 1941 or that it was the fastest P.R aircraft in 1941 - because the bomber Mosquitoes did not become operational until 1942. So, the Mossie wasn't even the fastest operational bomber in the world in 1941...Minorhistorian (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether the Me163 was in service or not doesn't change that it was an aircraft. That's the problem here - claiming that the Mosquito was the fastest aircraft in-service might be easily supportable (it requires clarification for Spitfire variants and Fw190-D dates) but claiming "aircraft" alone is so broad that we have to check for every prototype and experimental. Is this one ref really adequate to demonstrate that? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor, the W4050 was ready in early 18/19 July 1941. It was fitted with Merlin 61s and ejector exhausts reaching 433mph (Bowman 2005). No doubt. So you're absolutely incorrect there.

In October the machine was tested with two-stage superchargers (Merlin 77s), achieving 439 mph! In the time frame. Far faster than the Fw 190.

If, for simplicities sake, we are dealing with only 1941: The Mossie is clearly the contender. I can’t find a figure at the moment for the A-1, but the A-3 could reach only 418 mph.

Changes the game doesn’t it? So, in answer to your question, it was the Mosquito. Dapi89 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear, dear, dear. W4051, 54 and 55 were handed over on 12, 22 July and 8 August 1941. First engagement with JG 26 Bf 109Fs the Mossies "easily outpaced them".

W4064 and 4068 were handed over in November 1941. On 17 November 1941, the "first Mosquito bomber" entered service. (p. 33). Dapi89 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dapi, first please don't interleave your comments with mine, in the past you have castigated others for this:

Secondly, where on earth did Bowman get his information from? Two other sources completely refute this: On 24-25 July 1941 W4050, still with single-stage Merlins and short nacalles, was being tested with a mock-up turret, then it was fitted with ejector exhausts.(Thirsk 2006, p. 32: Sharp and Bowyer 1971 p. 46) In October 1941 W4050 went back to the factory to start conversion to Merlin 61s, the first of which was delivered in February '42 (Sharp and Bowyer pp 46-47) - W4050 first flew with Merlin 61s on 20 June 1942. (Thirsk p. 34) In addition there are photos of W4050 flying with the Merlin 23s and short nacelles in June-July '41 and developing wing racks for F-B Mosquitoes (Thirsk p. 33) - Geoffrey de Havilland flew W4050 fitted with these racks in October 1941 (Thirsk p. 33).

"If, for simplicities sake, we are dealing with only 1941.." Of course we are dealing only with 1941 because, I repeat, the sentence is worded "When the Mosquito entered production in 1941, it was the fastest operational aircraft in the world" You are insisting on overlooking this.

"Dear, dear, dear. W4051, 54 and 55 were handed over on 12, 22 July and 8 August 1941... Read what I said properly quote: "the only operational Mosquitoes in 1941 were the P.R Is - which first flew in June 1941: the first one reached RAF Benson in July - the first operation was flown on 17 September 1941 - and the nine P.R Is converted to B. Mk IV series i which first flew in September 1941: the first operation with this variant was flown on 30 May 1942!" ie the PR Is became operational in Spetember 1941, bombers became operational in 1942.

"but the A-3 could reach only 418 mph." Only? Operational Mosquitoes through until 1943 were all using single stage Merlins - the fastest of the series was the PR I at 384 mph. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you're on about. You left off and signed off on two separate posts. I answered them in kind, one after the other. Further, there is no need to bold the dates, I'm not blind...yet. Not so Minor, according to Bowman. I repeat; on 18 July 1941, speed trials, W4050 fitted with 61s and reached 433 mph at 28,500 ft. On 20 October 1941 it achieved 437 mph in level flight (with 61s) after having Merlin 77s fitted for speed testing it reached 439 mph( p. 22). It was these that were the first flights with these pp. The Mosquito was an operational aircraft at this time for Christs sake!

I felt the need to get us back to 1941, as it was the source of the complaint. No I'm not. The Mosquito, as per the source, was the fasts aircraft in the World, On 21 June 1941, the Air Ministry finally decided on the composition of the Mosquitoes they had de Havillands to build.....in the same month the Mosquito became the world's fastest operational aircraft, a distinction it enjoyed for two and a half years. The next information is the data I have given above.

Minor, I did read it properly, hence why I pointed to the first bomber entering service on 17 November 1941! I was not disputing anything other than your assertion the bomber variants had not entered until 1942! Geoffrey de. Hav' Jr. flew W4066 over to AOC 2 Group personally on 17 November where is was put 'on the books'. At least four were in action by the end of that month (W4064, '68 and '71).

Yes only. Bowman has already pointed the test of the 20 October 1941 - 437 mph. 418 mph is rather short of that eh? If it makes Andy any happier, its okay by me to change it piston-engined aircraft, just to be clear. One might just keep to the facts; 437mph Minor, I don't accept your complaint. Your sources are old, this one is not. And Bowman's study is pretty intense. Your sources are mistaken. Dapi89 (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to accept my "complaint" but you're going to have to ask some questions of the information in Bowman's book - Can you explain a photo of W4050 flying with the original engines and short nacelles and dated June-July 1941, when it was supposedly already fitted with two stage Merlins? Please explain how it is possible for W4050 to be trialling a mock-up turret on 24-25 July 1941 just six days after, supposedly, it was undergoing speed trials with Merlin 61s? Seven flights were made (tests 162- 168) with the de Havilland Flight test records stating "The aircraft is in an extremely bad external condition..." with no mention of the two-stage Merlins. Why is it that the first Spitfire fitted with a two-stage Merlin (Spitfire III N3297) only flew in September 1941 - how did de Havilland manage to find two Merlin 61s and how was W4050 able to take priority over the Spitfire? Finally, the Mosquito with two-stage Merlins did not enter operational service until 1943 - why the long delay if the Mosquito was the first two-stage Merlin aircraft to fly in mid-1941? "Bowman's study is pretty intense." But so are Sharp and Bowyer's book and so is Ian Thirsk's which, BTW is 2006, so it is not as old as you like to think. If there is evidence of the Mosquito being tested in 1941 with Merlin 61 series engines it will likely be found in the National Archives Kew under AVIA 15/2301 Flight and Ground Trials Minorhistorian (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor, that picture proves nothing in that case as it pre-dates the events in Bowman's book - at the very least it is at the same time. Why is it impossible for 61s to have been installed? There is no reason a PP change could not have taken place. I can answer the question about the turret: it was made of balsa. That sort of mock up takes hours to install and remove. From my pictures it looks as if it’s just been glued on. I'm also sceptical about the airframe being in a bad external condition. What does it mean by that? A few scratches? Not enough to prevent it being airworthy obviously. I suspect it was nothing serious. Anything to do with removing the mock up turret I wonder. It is doubtful that the use of just two Merlin 61s was going to break the bank. Aero engines are shuffled all over the place and fitted to all appropriate aircraft in order to get a feel for its impact. It is good practice. I can't answer why the Mosquito flights took place before the Spitfire's. I'm guessing there was no real need until September 1941 and the appearance of the Fw 190. Get the feeling there's a dead horse being flogged? I said to Binksternet, I have no issue with a rival source being added to refute anything I put in. However, given the rather precise nature of the problem - a short and sweet line - I think that it should be remoulded with a note to read the fastest multi-engine piston engine aircraft...". Dapi89 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Until Dapi can provide good arguments as to why two independant sources are somehow less convincing than his one, this matter is not resolved properly: using two or more sources to provide cross referencing is, I would have thought, a basic facet of historical research, especially when facts are in dispute. "I have no issue with a rival source being added to refute anything I put in." Perhaps examining primary records, provided above, at the National Archives in Kew will help. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it minor, only one of your sources makes the grade. I thought I was clear on that point. And points of contention are not resolved because of numerical advantage. It is quite possible for the majority to be wrong. Perhaps it would be. Though Kew is not perfect. I was thinking of the de Havilland museum. Dapi89 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there is a cut off date before which a source is mandated to be inaccurate, or fails to make an arbitrary grade on Wikipedia because it is "old" (I presume you consider Sharp and Bowyers to be invalid as a source because it dates to 1971). I would assume in your mind that Lovesey's lecture on the evolution of the Merlin is invalid because it dates back to 1946 and, therefore, should be omitted from the Rolls-Royce Merlin article! This is lazy thinking on your part, and I am surprised that someone who is doing a major in history at university should have such a mindset. If a source doesn't meet your approval because of its age then that rules out all primary source documents and any book written before (say) 2005. In spite of its age "Mosquito" by Sharp and Bowyer is still considered to be one of the definitive works on the subject, whether you like it or not. Minorhistorian (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, what year should be set as an acceptable age for sources, before which they should not be used in Wikipedia articles? 1995? 1 April 1990? Your birthday? Please, set some guidelines for the rest of us. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be surprising at all. History is constantly superseded as more sources become available. That is how it works. Among the first, and basic analysis, is to be aware of where and when the source was formed. A later author has the advantage of many more sources, and its likely to be better able to cover the ground.

With that answered, I don't feel the need to get dragged into answering that second silly question. Dapi89 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Conversely the later author may have access to fewer resources as the documents have been misplaced, junked during departmental moves, contaminated with asbestos, or just forgotten about. Equally an historian of any period can be splapdash, mistaken, or just plain wrong. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that couldn't happen, just that the trend tends to be the opposite. I have yet to see a modern thesis debunked by an older one. Dapi89 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked a silly question in response to a silly attitude on Dapi's part that a source can and should be dismissed simply because it is older than his - again, I wasn't aware that there is some mysterious cut off date beyond which a source should be automatically excluded. If there is one, I haven't noticed it in the Wiki guidelines.

• "Your sources are old, this one is not" "Your sources are mistaken." This is lazy and self-centred thinking, reminiscent of an ex-editor whose attitude got up the nose of most every editor who was unfortunate enough to be entangled with him. I am surprised and disappointed to see Dapi exhibiting a similar "I'm right, you're wrong, boo sucks to your sources." attitude.

• " Among the first, and basic analysis, is to be aware of where and when the source was formed." Who taught you that when a source was formed is so all-fired important? There is no such "rule" in good historical research! Much more important is knowing the quality of research an author has undertaken. Is Dapi aware that Sharp and Bowyer's "Mosquito" used as its sources Geoffrey de Havilland snr and jnr, chief engineer C C Walker, R M Clarkson, D R Newman (aerodynamics), R E Bishop (Chief Designer), C T Wilkins and W A Tamblin (design) and numerous other people who worked at first hand on designing, building and flying the Mosquito? How many of these people were available for Bowman 2005? How many of those still alive would have clear memories in 2005? Such sources are first rate primary source material, yet, because the book dates to 1971 Dapi dismisses it as a source. What nonsense. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Minor. I'm simply asking for consensus. I'm not nearly as passionate about this point as you seem to be. More to the point, I'm becoming less and less interested in the debate after every one of your replies.

Minorhistorian, are you seriously telling me that (in general history terms) when is not important? Was that a wind up? Poor judgement.

It isn’t nonsense Minorhistorian. I'm asking for clarity on this single issue that so far you have catastrophically failed to deliver. Is there a direct citation after these bits of information refuting Bowman? If not, how in the hell can you attribute that to any of these historical actors? Dapi89 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Minorhistorian, are you seriously telling me that (in general history terms) when is not important? Was that a wind up? Poor judgement." Taking, for example Griffon Spitfire Aces Andrew Thomas 2008 which you have used as a source in Spitfire articles. Thomas uses old sources such as Micheal Bowyer's Fighting Colours from 1969 and 1975, John Herrington Australian[s] in the War 1939-1945 from 1962 and Harlyford's Spitfire from 1960. By your standards Thomas is either winding his readers up or showing poor judgement for using such old sources. Same with Brendan Deere for Spitfire Return to Flight from 2010 - he uses source material from 1942, 1945 and (shudder) 1941. By this specious reasoning that when a source is written reflects on the quality of it as a source, these authors should not be using such ancient material because they will lessen the quality of their research. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes he does. But have you ever heard me claim, or defend him, over those issues? I'm quite happy for them to be brushed aside in favour of more recent work, or 'God forbid', even something written in December 2007.

Further, I note you're taking this massively out of context. As you know, that comment referred to general history study for which the timing of a source is very important (within the context of the debate).

You continue to miss the valid point Minor. It stands to reason later authors have more sources (and synthesis) available to them so they are in a better position to make accurate claims. I did not making the sweeping generalisation that you are suggesting. I don't believe all of them are useless. You're putting words into my mouth. Dapi89 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Bob Gladsby, Military Aircraft Collection, de Havilland Aircraft Heritage Center:

Sorry for the delay in response - we are all part -time volunteers and have to try and fit things in.

Regarding your question, The Prototype was returned to Hatfield in October 1941 (I think it was the 26th) It was then re-fitted and first flew with Merlin 61s in June 1942.

I know that I am a personal friend of Ian Thirsk, and therefore a little biased, but I did help in the research for his book and know that he was meticulous in confirming that his facts were right.

I have personally seen the movement record for 4050 and can confirm the above.

Regards

Bob Glasby

"Your sources are old, this one is not. And Bowman's study is pretty intense. Your sources are mistaken." Bowman is mistaken: getting the dates so thoroughly wrong, then compounding this by stating that the Mosquito was the fastest operational aircraft for two and a half years, casts doubt on the quality of his research. Chalk one up to the old source, Sharp and Bowyer, and the slightly younger source, Thirsk. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources yet Minorhistorian. What does a movement record have to do with engine testing?

Case not yet proven beyong doubt. Dapi89 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If anything has to be proven here, it's the claim that the "full spec" Mosquito was available at the earlier date. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As you should well know movement records (A.M. Form 78) [and accident records (A.M. Form 1108)] show when and where an airframe was located and for what purpose; they followed an airframe for all of its life, including listing engine changes, and were one the most important aircraft documents used by the Air Ministry for keeping track of its aircraft. Morgan & Shacklady used them as the basis of all serial listings for Spitfires in their book, showing for example, Spitfire VC conversions to Mk IXs at Rolls-Royce Hucknall. The movement records for W4050 show that the prototype was not returned to the factory to be fitted with Merlin 61s until October 1941, and did not fly with them until June '42. If you have doubts contact the museum yourself and view the records for yourself or just admit that Bowman is not the unimpeachable source you claim. Andy: Mosquitos fitted with Merlin 60 series engines did not become operational until mid-1943, so even the claim that it was fastest aircraft for two and a half years is wrong, as is the claim that it was the fastest operational aircraft in June 1941 - the Bf 109F-4, for one, was just as fast at 388 mph and the Fw 190 (410 mph) became operational in September. Dapi has completely failed to prove that the Mosquito flew with Merlin 61s in June 1941, simply continuing to support one source which says this, as opposed to three sources, including direct contact with people who have worked on W4050 and have seen primary historical documents pertaining directly to the airframe's movements. Still he ain't satisfied in spite of my bothering to contact Bob Gladsby at the de H Heritage Museum. I've done more than enough research and spent more than enough time on this already - if Dapi wants to persist in his beliefs, good on 'im: there is too much doubt over Bowman's assertions to continue to include them in the article. Minorhistorian (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A side note: What do you mean by 'airframe'? All of it? What about replacement parts? Does it include the information that W4050's fuselage was replaced with a production unit owing to the damage sustained in a tail wheel collapse? Perhaps this is the damage you referred to earlier? Only it was back in action by 18 and 19 July.

I find it hard to believe that with the damage to the 50 overcome by switching the fuselage with another, and Merlin 61s fitted in October 1941 - Minor seems to agree this was correct - they would wait nine months to test it. It’s just too far-fetched. Minorhistorian has not explained why this was the case. Bowman gives a specific date: 20 October 1941 as the date of flight. Minorhistorian's source, Mr Glasby, "thinks" it only returned on 26 October, but doesn't sound too sure. Which sounds the more reliable? Dapi89 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you are simply being obtuse - W4050 continued to be identified as such right through its life: the A.M Form 78 continued to stay W4050's - the damage would have meant that Form 1108 would be added to the list of documents. BTW the fuselage was not replaced with a production unit, it was replaced with that of the prototype PR aircraft W4051. I did not once state the new engines were fitted in October 1941! W4050 was dismantled and returned to the factory in late October 1941 in preparation for the conversion, the first of the Merlin 61s did not arrive at the factory until February 1942, the wing was refitted to the fuselage on 25 March although new radiators had not arrived: the first engine tests were on 17 June, with the first flight on 20 June 1942. Bowman's date of 20 October 1941 for the first flight with Merlin 61s is pure fantasy and an example of how poor his research is - has he given a specific source for this? Of course not. Bob Gladsby's not being sure about a specific date simply means that he did not have the record in front of him while answering my inquiry, hardly on the scale of Bowman's totally erroneous load of nonsense being written in a book. Contact the museum/Bob Gladsby yourself and view the records for yourself, something your source spectacularly failed to do. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I know joining this fun exchange at such a late date, may only muddy things up but aviation historian, Norm Malayney has examined Bowman's track record in regards to the DH Mosquito and identified over 66 errors in dates alone. What was also evident was that the same errors were constantly repeated ad nauseam in all of his subsequent works. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Obtuse? No: W4050 was not fitted with Merlin 61s until in late October 1941 -in your reply 22:58, 4 December 2010. You did say it (twice as it happens). So I think I'm on the money. If you want me to formulate appropriate responses, keep what you write consistent Minorhistorian.

Perhaps Bzuk could provide some refs, p;lease. Dapi89 (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Norm is completing a book on the Mosquito in US service for Schiffer Publishing Ltd and had all of the Bowman books laid out as a reference check. He showed me an annotated list on just one book that was so rife with errors in dating that he completely shelved all of the Bowman works, considering them inaccurate. What he did show me was that the earliest errors were propagated throughout the range of later Bowman works. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

W4050 was not fitted with Merlin 61s until in late October 1941 -in your reply 22:58, 4 December. Well golly gee, I did write that, I made a mistake, and I don't mind admitting it... "If you want me to formulate appropriate responses, keep what you write consistent Minorhistorian" This sounds eerily like the late unlamented (shudder) Kurfurst...

Found some of Norman Malayney's (a Canadian aviation historian?) critiques of Bowman's books on the Mosquito on MOSSIE.ORG Forums here, here and here - all I have seen confirms that Bowman's research is shoddy and unreferenced in all too many instances. Minorhistorian (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to K...? Or should I not even mention the name, for risk that I summon him? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

He who shall not be named (`a la Harry Potter...). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Yet again I find myself questioning what the exact proof is. I appreciate that Norman Malayney doesn’t like Bowman, but reading through some of these forums, it seems as if Mr Malayney's 'criticisms' are an attempt to discredit Bowman without just cause. For example, one of the very first:

Claim 1 “The Americans were greatly impressed by the Mosquitoes performance and had long been interested in....”

Clarification. General Arnold brought back from the visit documents and papers on various technologies currently under development in the UK, including the Whittle jet engine and Mosquito. The US was not yet in WWII.

Question: So how could they (USA) “had long been interested in setting up production in Canada and Australia” back in April 1941, before the US entered WWII?

Does Bowman actually say this? If so why has this not been included in the quote for the 'claim' as he puts it? Where does April 1941 come from? Did Bowman write this down in black and white? I can't see in Mr Malayney's quote of Bowman's work, that he (Bowman) actually mentions anything about production in Canada or Australia. And Minorhistorian criticises Bowman for not footnoting his work! There are more but I can't be bothered to write them all down. So I'm not inclined to take these criticisms at face value as Minorhistorian seems to.

And I would appreciate Minorhistorian not referring to me as well-known (and fortunately former) agenda driven trouble maker. I am not one. It was a reasonable request which contained merit, didn't it? Dapi89 (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ho hum, back to the original claims made about the Mosquito that "When the Mosquito entered production in 1941, it was the fastest operational aircraft in the world."

• entering production and becoming operational are two different things - was it the fastest production aircraft or the fastest operational aircraft?
• The Bf 109F-4 (388 mph), which entered service in late 1941, was just as fast, and the Fw 190 (410 mph) entered service in September 1941.
• If the claim is made on the erroneous basis that the Mosquito flew with Merlin 61s in 1941 it was still the sole prototype, and hardly "operational" [to claim that the top speed of W4050 with Merlin 61s was miraculously transferred to all operational single-stage Merlin powered Mosquitos is dubious at best] - Mosquitos with Merlin 61s (PR Mk VIIIs) did not become operational until early 1943.
• As to further claims made later "The Mosquito would enjoy its fastest aircraft status for another two and a half years. On 18 and 19 July 1941, M4050 (sic W4050) was fitted with Merlin 61s".
• The dating is erroneous - Bowman has given no source for this and I would challenge Dapi to find what Bowman uses as his source. It is not good enough to claim that Sharp and Bowyer are wrong because their book "is old" nor is it good enough to claim that Bob Gladsby of the de H Aircraft Heritage Centre is suspect as a source because he hadn't pinned down an exact date for when W4050 was returned to the works in October 1941. He has seen the records and confirms Ian Thirsk 2006 - W4050 did not fly with Merlin 61s until 20 June 1942.
• W4050 fitted with Merlin 61s equipped with ejector exhausts, reached 437 mph at 22,900 ft and, fitted with Merlin 70 series, 439 mph at 28,400 ft (between January and July 1943). In September 1943 an operational P-51B reached 441 mph at 30,000 ft. So the Mosquito did not enjoy a Fastest Aircraft status for anything like two and a half years - more like a few months, at best. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The bomber variants reached 389mph in 1941. So that solves the technicality with the 109. The Fw 190's speed becomes moot if the information given by Bowman is correct. A 29 mph lead will, assuming a.u.w has been taken into account, be reduced. Not enough to shave 30 mph off. Again this depends on its intended use. PR VIIIs were actually in operation in 1942. I believe only as converted B.IVs. I thought Bowman's two and a half year claim was going too far hence why I did not add it. So that doesn't figure into this. My contention that the source was suspect was based on the unlikely event that de Hav. waited nine months to test the 61s from October '41 to June '42. Initially you agreed (twice), only then to say that it was not the case. Now that there is clarity in what you are arguing, then it would seem the circumstances alter somewhat. Given that I can’t reach the Museum at the moment, I am considering a trip across to Kew as suggested earlier. I have no doubt that if any information relating to this issue is there, then it will be equally reliable as this information from the H centre. If I find hard evidence that October 1941 was the date of the test, at least as recorded at Kew, will Minorhistorian concede that there is a case for Bowman? Or will he continue to argue against this chronology? I’d like to know so I don’t end up wasting my time. Dapi89 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to finding hard evidence to clarify things - Somewhere I have already posted a reference to the National Archives - AVIA 15/2301 Mosquito Bomber Flight and Ground Trials 1940-1942 which should help. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The bomber variants reached 389mph in 1941 - all A&AEE bomber variant maximum speed figures are for an aircraft carrying a representative bombload, i.e., 2,000lb for a Mosquito - half the maximum of 4,000lb in this case. The aeroplane would be faster once the load had been dropped and it was on its way home.

IIRC, the corresponding A&AEE speed figure for a Lancaster I/III (287mph) was given for an aircraft carrying 7,000lb.

In both cases the maximum speed figures would be higher once their load had gone and they were lighter, as the Induced drag would be reduced due to having to lift less weight. That's why speed record aircraft and air racers try to reduce weight as much as possible - less weight = less drag. Different air forces and air ministries measure performance differently - different all-up weights, carrying a light/medium/heaviest load, petrol for a certain short/medium/long range, etc., so it can be a case of comparing apples and oranges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When the Mosquito B IV bomber entered service in May 1942, with its 380mph maximum at 22,000ft (Sharp & Bowyer, p188), it was clearly the world's fastest bomber - the Douglas Boston III, for instance, stuck at 323mph at 10,500ft (Bowyer, 2 Group RAF, Faber 1974, Crecy 1992, p443) and the Junkers 88 A4 ran out of steam at 295mph at 14,000ft (Sharp & Bowyer 454) - but by then the 400mph Lockheed P-38F Lightning was in service with the USAAC in the Pacific (Michael O'Leary, 'Database: Lockheed Lightning', Aeroplane Monthly, October 2004, pp72, 74), and this would seem to have been the fastest operational aircraft in the world by then.

    In October 1942, the prototype Mosquito W4050 with two-stage Merlin 77s set a mark of 437mph, which led to the de Havilland company's 'fastest operational aircraft in the world' boast. But W4050 was never an operational aircraft, though a B IX with Merlin 72s did later make 424mph at 26,200ft (S&B 48-9). However, a bomber's speed performance is really defined by the cruise, not the dash speed, and this is where the Mosquito was truly remarkable. The B IV with single-stage Merlins could cruise fully loaded at 329mph true (225 indicated - this difference between true and indicated airspeed causes great confusion to the uninitiated) at 25,000ft (S&B 437). At that height the intercepting Focke-Wulf 190 A3 had a maximum of 355mph, giving little more than 25mph of overtake speed: as the Focke-Wulf could only hold this maximum for three minutes, it could never make a stern-conversion intercept if it started from even as little as 1.5 miles behind; and if the Mosquito crew saw it coming, they could accelerate to 378mph and leave it for dead (S&B 443). After target, the B IV would make a similar cruise speed, but would rise to 30,000ft, where the Focke-Wulf was limited to 330mph and could only intercept from head-on, with no chance of a second firing pass (S&B 437, 443).
    The B IX of late 1943, and more particularly the pressurised B XVI of early 1944, with two-stage Merlins, had an economical cruise of 335mph (not '250mph' as mistakenly given in the article - someone is thinking of indicated airspeed), similar to the B IV's fast-cruise - but they did this at 31,000ft out and 36,000ft home. The Focke-Wulf could only make 325mph at 31,000, and it couldn't reach 36,000 at all (S&B 438, 443). This was the gold standard: a bomber faster at cruise power than an interceptor at full boost. No other bomber in history has achieved it - only the Lockheed SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft.
    In late 1944, the appearance of the Fw 190 D9, with a supposed 435mph at 37,000ft (S&B 454), complicated the picture; but to counter it the B XVI could fast-cruise at 378mph (S&B 438 - bit different from '250mph'), so the 'Dora', at its maximum three-minute rating, could only make a stern-conversion intercept if it was no more than 2.5 miles behind when it reached the bomber's height; and if the bomber crew spotted the vapour trail, they would open up to about 420mph (S&B 48) and the German would blow his engine before he caught them. If the Mosquito bomber's cruise performance had been as weak as the article claims (and frankly you could cruise a Lancaster at 250 if you didn't mind about the petrol), then its loss figures would not have been so near-magically low.
    It is also incorrect that John Cunningham ever flew a Mosquito fighter called 'Cat's Eyes'. He did not name his aircraft. 'Cat's Eyes' was a name the British press gave to Cunningham himself, who did not much care for it. The only way he customised his aircraft was to fit a bomber-style 'spectacles' control column (S&B 160), which he felt gave him finer adjustment in night intercepts, so it is not quite true that all fighter Mosquitos had the stick control.

Construction

The first two paragraphs of this section seem to cover some of the the same ground, but with detail differences. For example, the moulds used to form the fuselage are said to have been either mahogany or concrete. My guess is that both were used, for differnet locations and/or models, but can anybody with access to more accurate data clear this up? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, according to Thirsk mahogany moulds were used first but were later replaced by easier to manufacture concrete moulds - which also freed up precious mahogany. The concrete moulds were also used in Canada and Australia. I've amalgamated the two sections where needed and will be adding more references. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Prototypes and Test flights

Towards the end of this section the text says—Hamilton airscrews and braking propellers,—and I'm wondering what sort of intention the writer had in using this expression. An airscrew is old British nomenclature for a propeller. The word Hamilton would appear, in this context to mean the Hamilton Standard propeller corporation. We end up with five contorted words that mean that the aircraft was fitted with a Hamilton Standard reversing propeller. I will substitute those words at the end of May if no one disagrees. Lin (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Didnt the Mosquito use de havilland propellers ? (or de havilland three-bladed constant speed full feathering airscrews) MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On further digging it may have been some of the Australian Mossies that used Hamilton-Standard props. MilborneOne (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, de Havilland took out a licence to manufacture Hamilton Standard 'Hydromatic' propellers in the immediate pre-war.

BTW, the RAF stopped using the term 'airscrew' and replaced it with 'propeller' during the early/mid part of WW II in order to remove any chance of it being confused with 'aircrew'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuel, landing gear, electrical power and armament systems

In the first paragraph of this section the last sentence has—The tailplane wheel was retractable—and I have to say that this is likely to be just a silly mistake. I will change it to read—The tailwheel was retractable. End of May 2011 Lin (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it, as you say tailwheel is the more usual description. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)