Talk:de Havilland Mosquito/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GA status?

Any thoughts on what needs to be done to get this article to Wikipedia:Good article criteria? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 08:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot think of much work that needs to be done. I would try to displace some details from Development into Design, as I feel some information could stand to be moved. However, the article is has sufficient detail, adequite citation; truely all it needs to be taken through a GAN is an editor willing to both nominate the article, and see that any comments and criticisms reflected by other editors are carried forward into improvements and alterations of the article. To me, the GA Review system is not just a badge at the end of the process, but an opportunity to validate the article and drive genuine improvement across that article, and related articles. It's the policy in which I have been exercising as an editor in for years. Kyteto (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusion in the ranks

Having read through the likes of Buttler, and Thirsk in particular it has become apparent that incremental changes to the Mosquito design and development section have meant that the written material has become so scrambled and confused that it no longer accords with the sources being used. Hopefully the current version is the most accurate. Nother question - is this section overloaded with statistics? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea

• prehaps in the info box the max speed (fastest speed achieved my any mark) and other similar data could be added such as bomber and fighter mosquito loadouts (standard bomb load ect.)
• at the moment this information is difficult to find

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

infobox picture

i suggest using instead of the , but as my according edit was eventually made back, i ask is there any good reason to keep the old one up there? (i plan to revert on this). i know my one is also useful at the FB molins section but still its so beautiful it'd be the best up there i think. the other is also very nice because of the clouds but the aircraft itself on it is less so --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The original photo is a much better photo - the Molins armed aircraft is is very rare and the other photo is much more representative of the Mosquito - this is an encyclopedia, and we don't have photos just because the look "beautiful".Nigel Ish (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As the main image in the infobox is representing the aircraft in all its forms it helps if it's of a common example rather than a rare one. There is a section on images in the aircraft article page content guideline but its not helpful on this particular point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, this goes back to a point I explained at length to Aaa3: photos are not used simply to be beautiful - the intro box photo of a Mk XIV better represents the look of the Mosquito than an underside plan view of a rare version of a Mosquito banking away - take a look at the photos used in other aircraft article info boxes before changing things around. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 02:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To look at two images I removed, this is useless because, as a thumbnail the Mosquito itself is so small it just about fades into the background of an otherwise flat expanse of non-descript scenery, and the caption is uninformative, and it is hardly likely to be a thumbnail readers will bother to click on to get the full sized image

ditto this

On another topic, for this image the "banking away from the camera" is redundant - the aircraft is so obviously banking away from (or towards) a camera that the point doesn't have to be made; similarly the caption "Mosquito B Mark IV Series 2, DK338, in flight after completion, c. 1942." Surely it's so obvious the completed aircraft is in flight! Captions are supposed to inform, not point out the obvious. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ok for infobox, but i thought as all look the same for that reason it wouldn't matter which one we put there, common or rare equally representative. in a number of uses we use (and such usage should't be a problem) a picture for the aircraft type in general, and on those pics imo variants are just a minor additional info we state on the caption for those who want to dwelve into the topic. for me, infobox pic was one of these. but lets say that regardless of this i'm convinced. as for the removals i never contested them its ok for me. (i inserted the takeoff because there werent any images there, on enlargement paintscheme looks nice on that, and in that section lots of talk were of uncovered airfields breeaking rear wheels and rfuselages.) now there is a takeoff pic (ugly but hist important) from actual prototype, and as his nonclicking toosmall arguments are also valid, and there are now enough images in t article, its natural that we remove my takeoff image. As for banking, i know! that its obvious/superfluous etc, but it looks damn good in saying it in the caption, and it really doesnt take much space!! only a few more words... not a big sacrifice on policy and greatly embeautifies the article.--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 14:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

forgot argument, if no1 of u more serious editors like having them for beauty, then what about keeping "in flight" and "banking" for reading software and other text-only users?--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 14:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that the original photograph is a much better representation of the aircraft and should remain as the infobox image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

Again, it should be noted that this is an encyclopedia entry about a weapon of war, and not a poetry compitition. Beauty of text is not relevant and should not detract from brevity or clarity of the information that is being put forwards (and a caption is in addition to the photo not instead of a photo) Perhaps some of the information describing the photo should be in alt text rather than the caption.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ok fine, i'll put 'em in alt. thanks for the suggestion. as for brevity vs poetry (:D), a little leeway maybe can be allowed? but whatever i guess seems now we have solved everything by now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa3-other (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a definite shortage of colour (particularly contemporary colour) on the page - Any support for a colour shot? I found this one but there must be others in the public domain... NiD.29 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm dubiuos wheter this photo actually is public domain - I don't think all photos on ww2 in couloir are pd.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently described as taken by British Gov employee, and prob was but could have been de Havilland or a civilian under contract which would make it trickier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The colour picture is the same one, or a very similar one from the same roll, as the black-and-white one already used, which is a black-and-white repro of the colour original, so the copyright is the same. It was taken by Charles E. Brown, who did freelance work for both de Havilland and the Air Ministry; his collection is now held by the RAF Museum. It shows ML963 of 571 Sqn LNSF on a de Havilland test flight after battle-damage repairs in September 1944. -Hugo Barnacle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.153.88 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Its definately a different photo, although of the same aircraft and possibly taken at the same time. As such it might not be a repro of a colour shot - Brown may well have used two cameras, one loaded with Kodachrome and one loaded with Black and White film.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's from the same session, at any rate. Brown may have been on a de Havilland commission (since ML963 had just come out of their repair works) or an Air Ministry commission. But his whole archive now belongs to the RAF Museum and it's unlikely that BAe (de Havilland's legal corporate inheritor) would argue with the government over ownership. If I were techie, and I were an experienced WP hack, I would just install that beautiful colour shot. - Hugo Barnacle 37.152.216.220 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

His archive belongs to the RAF Museum (a Quango)- NOT the UK government - when it was sold it did not become Crown Copyright - he died in 1982, so most will probably be in copyright till 1982+70 = 2052 (and that's ignoring URAA).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Production - Details

"In Canada, fuselages were built in the Oshawa, Ontario plant of General Motors of Canada Limited. These were shipped to De Havilland Canada in Toronto for mating to fuselages and completion." I think one of those "fuselages" should be a "wings"? If so, which? Userboy87 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Design/build at Salsbury Hall

I hear alot about the famouse players, but see no list if the men(and woman) who brought this craft into exsistance. Leslie George Hall(Hatfeild poly-tech) worked on the original lay-out, and construction of the first plane @ Salsbury Hall during the war. Fondly he told of; bicycling to and from work, eating in the kitchen (with the fuselage hanging above them) and having a German drop in to visit. He later worked on the Vampire, Vixen, Comet for De Havilands @ Hatfeild, Then immigrated to the U.S.A.(Seattle). At Central Engineering (Boeing Aircraft Corp), he worked on the original engine/strut/nacelle lay-outs for the 737-777. He also worked on NASA's Saturn + Space shuttle projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.100.92 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people worked for de Havillands at the time, do you have any references that indicate if Hall was notable in the project or just one of the team. Although they all did good work being one of the team doesnt make them elegible for a mention unless they were of note in some way. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is on the aircraft itself, not about all those who contributed to its design and construction; those who played the greatest part in developing the concept, namely Geoffrey de Havilland and the chief engineer, Charles Walker are able to be mentioned in this context. As far as I know no Wikipedia aircraft article includes lists for all who helped in the design and construction of the aircraft because such lists would end up being prohibitively long, and would always be subjected to amendments and alterations. Hall may be mentioned in Ian Thirsk's book, but I don't have immediate access to it. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 02:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So-called "stealth" characteristics need better sources than a single sentence on a website.

This is the first time I have read claims of "stealth" characteristics supposedly bestowed by the Mosquito's wooden construction. Is there any more data to back this claim which was made on a website? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 03:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm... no. It gave a weak radar return because of its construction, but (like the F-22 of recent note) it still gave a return, and the enemy always knew what it was because of its speed. German public radio would report, for instance, 'Fast-bomber formation approaching Lower Saxony.' - Hugo Barnacle 37.152.216.220 (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of references to the Mosquito's stealth characteristics if you read up on the development of radar. I'm in the middle of a move right now, and my books are packed. Check the notes written by Watson-Watt and the other British scientists involved in radar work. FYI, the F117, F22, F35, and B2 all give a radar return as well. Stealth does not mean that there isn't a radar return, it is just far less. UrbanTerrorist (talk)

Did I ever imply there wasn't a radar return? Simply put, there needs to be more substantial evidence provided for an encylopaedic article than just a brief mention in a website. If you have the material to show that the wooden construction allowed for a smaller than usual Radar cross-section then by all means include it; however it is also possible that the Mosquito's relatively small size and clean lines helped reduce the RCS as well. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's information on Wikipedia about the history of radar development, which mentions that wood gives a far lower return than metal does. And of course there's all of the information that the British Government has released which is no longer top secret. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The radar return of the engine, the wheels and undercarriage, the guns, the cockpit's metal bits, the pilot's seat, and the large radio set would have been quite sufficient to pick the Mosquito out of the noise. I will only support the mention of stealth (!!) or low radar return if there is very, very good sourcing for it. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds very much like another urban myth to me , similar to myth about Glock pistols being able to go through airport metal detectors because of their synthetic construction - as Binksternet has pointed out, there was more than enough metal in the construction of the Mosquito, including the engine cowlings and radiator shrouds, to make a reasonable RCS; more than likely the Mosquito's smooth surfaces, small physical size and lack of protrusions such as gun turrets etc helped reduce any radar returns as much as the wooden construction. If there is properly documented evidence confirming this, no problem - again, a brief mention on a website is not good enough. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NF Mk 38 speeds seem to be wrong

Please, check the speeds of NF Mk 38 that should increase with the altitudes and not decrease.--24.186.223.176 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was pointed out ages ago that those numbers are incorrect, as they are not performance figures but post-war speed limitations imposed by the Air Ministry, as detailed here:

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

[IMG]http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac192/limits46/Limits2.jpg[/IMG]

The NF.38's performance curve should be simiilar to that of the NF.36, here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%200399.html

Sharp & Bowyer also give the 38's top speed as 404 mph at 30,000 ft. 58.168.96.219 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a treat for you Mosquito fans here on YouTube in HD: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The template for the max speed is difficult to change.78.105.235.103 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Special plywood

The article mentions that "The specialized wood veneer used in the construction of the Mosquito was made by Roddis Manufacturing in Marshfield, Wisconsin, United States." But some was undoubtedly made from scratch i.e. veneers peeled and laid up to exact required sizes, by Walter Baker in High Wycombe. Mr. Baker the founder had an adopted son Andrew Oliver who became an expert on veneering and special plywoods. He had visited Germany before the war to study adhesives. If there is no objection I would like to add this to the article.

Dendrotek 14:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

"... some was undoubtedly made from scratch ..." With all due respect, what is the source of this information? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

Dendrotek 20:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC) One of our sources is: - Scott, D. & Simmons, I., High Wycombe's contribution to aviation, Wycombe District Council, 2008, ISBN 978-0-9558241-1-1. MOSQUITO MATERIALS SUPPLIERS - NOTES

Venesta of Vintry House, Queen Street Place, London, EC4. Telephone: Central 6580. Telegraphic Address: "Venestra, Cannon, London"

The lathes and other plywood/moulded veneer machinery that had been used by Venesta Plywood Company in 1933 to manufacture the stylish modernist Isokon furniture in the UK since the early 1930's was moved out of the east of London to suburbs including High Wycombe, to be saved from bombing. Like all others of the thousands of components used to make Mosquitos, there was a variety of suppliers. It would have been madness to rely on just one, especially one located on the wrong side of the U Boat infested Atlantic.

Manufacturers and suppliers in Great Britain. 1898 The company was registered on 15 January, to acquire the business of the Venesta Syndicate, manufacturers of all kinds of boxes, packing cases etc. [1] 1937 Plywood manufacturers. "Plymax" Metal Faced Plywood. "Venesta" Plywood. [2] 1937 Listed Exhibitor - British Industries Fair. Makers of "Plymax", the metal-faced plywood and metal foil. Used in industry for partitions, lavatories, doors, bench tops, storage bins. Faced with galvanized steel, stainless steel, aluminium, copper, bronze, zinc. (Stand No. B.811 and B.722) [3] 1939 See Aircraft Industry Suppliers Note: (08/08) Now as Armitage Venesta, a washroom system provider, the company is still in existence. It operates from two sites: Gravesend, Kent and Trentham, Staffordshire, and has its own website: [1]

Sources of Information ↑ The Stock Exchange Year Book 1908 ↑ 1937 The Aeroplane Directory of the Aviation and Allied Industries ↑ 1937 British Industries Fair p429 http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Venesta

1937 The Aeroplane Directory of the Aviation and Allied Industries http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/1937_The_Aeroplane_Directory_of_the_Aviation_and_Allied_Industrieshttp://www.gracesguide.co.uk/1937_The_Aeroplane_Directory_of_the_Aviation_and_Allied_Industries

Flexo Plywood Industries

Aug 1935. Great Western RailwayGWR Centenary. of Flexo Works, South Chingford, London, E4 1937 Aeronautical plywood manufacturers. "Flexoply" Plywood. 1939 See Aircraft Industry Suppliers WWII Manufactured parts for the De Havilland Mosquito. Sources of Information Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J. F. Bowyer. Published by Crecy Books in 1995. ISBN 0-947554-41-6 1937 The Aeroplane Directory of the Aviation and Allied Industries

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Flexo_Plywood_Industries

De Havilland Aircraft: DH 98 Mosquito: Suppliers Note: This is a sub-section of De Havilland: DH 98 Mosquito A list of the suppliers of parts for the DH 98 Mosquito

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/De_Havilland_Aircraft:_DH_98_Mosquito:_Suppliers

Walter Baker WWII Manufactured parts for the De Havilland Mosquito [1]

See Also De Havilland Aircraft: DH 98 Mosquito: Suppliers Sources of Information ↑ Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J. F. Bowyer. Published by Crecy Books in 1995. ISBN 0-947554-41-6

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Walter_Baker

Beautility WWII Manufactured parts for the De Havilland Mosquito [1]

See Also De Havilland Aircraft: DH 98 Mosquito: Suppliers William Goodacre and Sons Sources of Information ↑ Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J. F. Bowyer. Published by Crecy Books in 1995. ISBN 0-947554-41-6

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Beautility

A stool/table by an unknown designer and made by the Venesta Plywood Company in 1933 for Isokon, UK. The stools were made for the 'Isobar' (designed by Marcel Breuer) within the modernist Lawn Road Flats designed by Wells Coates and commissioned by Jack and Molly Pritchard, Isokon.

Includes the original tray top so can be used as stool or side table. In very good condition. Some light wear to the finish and a small piece of the base is missing. Has the Venesta label to the underside of the stool and a Venesta stamp on the tray. This webpage also illustrates the Venesta stamp and logo: -

http://modernroom.co.uk/seating/isokon-stool.html

Castle Brothers Furniture makers of High Wycombe 1908 Established by Henry and William Castle 1934 Limited company. 1937 Established Factory in Cressex. WWII Manufactured parts for the De Havilland Mosquito [1] 1958 Acquired by E. Gomme See Also De Havilland Aircraft: DH 98 Mosquito: Suppliers E. Gomme Sources of Information ↑ Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J. F. Bowyer. Published by Crecy Books in 1995. ISBN 0-947554-41-6 Furniture Makers of High Wycombe [1] http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Castle_Brothers

The Co-operative Society factory in Enfield was a wing manufacturer: -

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Co-operative_Wholesale_Society_(CWS)

Contemporary Woodwork WWII Manufactured parts for the De Havilland Mosquito [1]

See Also De Havilland Aircraft: DH 98 Mosquito: Suppliers Sources of Information ↑ Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J. F. Bowyer. Published by Crecy Books in 1995. ISBN 0-947554-41-6 Park Royal, London.

http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/De_Havilland_Aircraft:_DH_98_Mosquito:_Suppliers

Dancer and Hearne Dancer and Hearne Brothers, furniture makers, of High Wycombe 1860s William Hearne, a labourer, and his wife Eliza, a lacemaker, established the Hit and Miss pub, amalgamating a series of cottages. Legend has it that there was a one-man workshop shed behind the pub where chairs or parts of chairs were made. By 1881 William had died and Eliza had married Samuel Dancer, a labourer from Beaconsfield. Samuel took over the Hit and Miss pub. He was recorded as "publican and chair factor". Also living at the Hit and Miss were William Hearne’s son Alfred, age 20, a chairmaker. So it appears that Alfred was making chairs while Samuel sold them. 1895 The firm is first recorded in the 1895 trade directory. A photograph of that date shows 31 employees. The listing gives the firm’s location as ‘Penn Street and Holmer Green’. The Holmer Green factory, supposedly based in Factory Street (now Orchard Way), was used by the company until some time after 1939 but nothing more is known about it. Dancer & Hearne grew steadily to become one of the biggest furniture factories area 1934 A series of famous photographs shows the Big Chair, a 6½-foot high Windsor wheelback chair made for the British Industries Fair. 1935 the firm took over a factory on Lindsay Avenue, High Wycombe, which it maintained until 1967. There were also premises at Fairmeadow Works, West Wycombe Road, High Wycombe, which were taken over by Chippy Heath in 1968. By 1938 it had around 500 employees and was producing 450,000 chairs a year. Late 1930s: orders were slow, Cecil Hearne played upon a connection with Geoffrey de Havilland the aircraft manufacturer (who had been born in Terriers on the north side of High Wycombe) and began making Tiger Moth aeroplane parts for the de Havilland firm. WWII the Penn Street factory was given over completely to making parts for the De Havilland Mosquito [1] The Lindsay Avenue site also made plane parts. 1949 Established the Ammanford factory in South Wales. 1952 Aircraft parts were made again when orders for chairs declined 1957 Ammanford factory closed See Also De Havilland: DH 98 Mosquito De Havilland Aircraft: DH 98 Mosquito: Suppliers G. C. Hugo Parker-Knoll Sources of Information ↑ Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp and Michael J. F. Bowyer. Published by Crecy Books in 1995. ISBN 0-947554-41-6 Furniture Makers of High Wycombe [1] Categories: Town - High Wycombe | Furniture | Aircraft Components http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Dancer_and_Hearne

Some time, I'll get round to summarising all this and post it into the article. Respects to you, sir. Please note my pseudonym and its meaning! Dendrotek 20:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

How many types and marks?

The fundamental question "how many Types/Marks were there?" is something I would expect to find answered in the Introduction to this Article!

It is extremely hard to count and add up from the lower sections of this text, but this Article suggests "more than fifty." Can anyone supply and insert a more precise figure, to go into this Article, near the start please!

According to Bishop ISBN 1 84037 212 5 - 2000, Appendix 3, there were 43 Types/Marks actually built, excluding Marks reserved but not used. I have not found any figure published elsewhere e.g. Mosquito Museum don't say. Any of you aircraft enthusiasts out there?!

Dendrotek 16:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Dendrotek 22:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo-reconnaissance should be included as a Category

Photo-reconnaissance should be included as a Category too. I was going to do it, but it doesn't seen straightforward. Perhaps it is not yet an established aircraft category? Anyone know how to sort this out, please?Dendrotek 11:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Not sure we need a category for every use of the aircraft, it is normal just to categorise the aircraft by original role, in the case oif the Mosquito it had dozens of different roles and we just would not add a category for each. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It was as a Photo-reconnaissance aircraft that it first entered service though, so it would seem to be an important role, and by only allowing a limited selection of roles is the categories here breaks the whole category: page exercise since those pages can therefore never be complete. There were specific marks of Mosquito that were designated as bombers, night fighters, fighter-bombers, photo reconnaissance, torpedo bombers, target tugs, etc, etc and any instance where there was a specific mark built in significant numbers, it should have a category listed for that. Also - the Mosquito's wings are mounted mid-way up the fuselage - not near the bottom, which means it is NOT a low wing aircraft. NiD.29 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree about category for every role, in some aircraft it could mean creating dozens of such categories, any expansion of the category tree should really be discussed at the aircraft project as it could get stupid very quickly. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support photo-recon as a cat, creating it if needed (unless we already have 'recon' as a cat, which is only slightly broader).

"Original" purpose isn't the critical factor, because that would limit every aircraft to a single role. However the Mosquito did have an important PR role, as one of the two most important British PR aircraft of WWII. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as Andy Dingley says, PR was a very important role. It was a PR Mosquito, DZ473, that on 22 April 1943 spotted Peenemünde: P-7. The photos were analysed at RAF Medmenham and this led to successful Allied attacks on the V2 launch sites. There is still a painting of the aircraft in Medmenham, now a luxury hotel called Danescourt. See Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_and_V-2_Intelligence Dendrotek 19:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Documentary on Channel 4 UK TV

Mosquito enthusiasts may wish to know of:-

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-plane-that-saved-britain/4od

First broadcast Sunday 21 July 2013. Somewhat "breathless wonder" presentation, but contains interesting archive footage and interviews.Dendrotek 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Goering quote

In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked.

— Hermann Göring, 1943.

The two references supporting this quote are not working. The quote appears on a number of web pages, but usually unsourced, or else sourced back to Wikipedia. The earliest I can find is Flying Magazine. Part of it appears in RV Jones' Most Secret War, bur referring to British HF radar rather than the Mosquito. Is the quote a conflation of different things said by Goering? Has anyone found a reliable original source? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Good points - I cannot find any reputable published source for this statement, so it has been blanked until something more definite can be found. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Flying magazine link you provided is from March 1978, which settles the matter for me. The quote does not originate from Wikipedia as you imply. James Gilbert was the author of the Flying article, titled "Mosquito: the RAF's Remarkable Homebuilt". Gilbert was a colorful character, a magazine editor and publisher who was a child during WWII, but learned to fly in 1952 in the RAF. In his career he wrote many aviation articles; he was not known to fabricate quotes. Binksternet (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What is a reliable source for something that Goering is supposed to have said in 1943? I would expect it to be in some post-war memoir by a high level official. There is a hint that David Irving may have been the source, although I can find nothing in the on-line version of The rise and fall of the Luftwaffe Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was looking in the wrong place. There are various "quotes" from Goering in Irving's Rise and fall of the Luftwaffe pp 232-233 & p275 although they don't quite make the one used in the article. Is Irving regarded as reliable? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ther second page reference should be 277. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The original quotation appears to have been a mish mash taken from various different parts of Irving's book. Some parts were not about the Mosquito. I have revised the quote to include only the part related to the Mosquito and sourced it to Irving. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Are we really citing David Irving? Really?

From my results page in a Google search I am led to believe that the Goering quote appears in the 1971 book titled Mosquito, written by Cecil Martin Sharp and Michael J. F. Bowyer, published by Faber, ISBN 9780571047505. Does anyone have a copy of this book? Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also a 1967 edition, so if the quote is there, it is a prior source. It would be good if they say where they got it from. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have become intrigued by this subject and so am doing research on it. I inclining very much towards agreeing with Rjm at sleepers. I suggest anyone who wishes to join this discussion has a good read of the Wiki Article on David Irving. Look particularly at the text containing citation (102). It appears that Irving may have manipulated/falsified Goebbels' diaries. The relevance of this relates to use of the phrase containing 'nincompoop' (translated and attributed to Goering), which is in turn to do with the question of whether radar or Mosquitoes or both were spoken of by Goering. More on all this from me later, but am thinking we need to be very circumspect about the 'piano factory' 'quote,' repeated on hundreds of blog sites but never cited back to any primary source.Dendrotek 11:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Citation 92 of this Mosquito Article is also tainted, because who wrote the biography of Milch? Why, Irving, of course!Dendrotek 13:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Re citation 91, luftkrieg-ederbergland.de is a now-defunct German aircraft enthusiasts' blog web. The fact that it is in the German language (of course!) does not make it any more authentic. This seems to be merely a secondary/tertiary source therefore. If we are going to do something about this section of the article (which I strongly believe we should)then the sub-title will have to change to something like "Berlin psychological warfare raids" - we cannot use the title "Goering's alleged comments"! That will need to go in a Referenced Note.

The raids themselves are extremely well authenticated. I have accessed additional contemporary citations from e.g. The Times of London, plus commendations by Arthur Harris.Dendrotek 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why I blanked this section until RELIABLE secondary or published sources for the quote could be found - so far there hasn't been much evidence that such a source can be found. Until then is it really worth keeping this so-called quote? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the Goering sentiment ought to be conveyed to the reader, with the help of a partial quote. Various authors have been fascinated by the quote, so we should mention it. It's part of the literature on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Mosquito by Sharp and Bowyer does not quote Goering, nor do several other books I have or have read, including Thirsk et al - if Goering made these comments surely someone who has done in depth research on the Mosquito would have found this apparently hidden gem? It doesn't make sense to include a possibly mythical quote simply because the likes of David Irving think that Goering might have said something similar. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The first Edition of “Edward Bishop – The Wooden Wonder” was published as long ago as 1959. It had rather a good graphic design on its dust jacket, by the way. As a second-hand book in good condition, it is now quite expensive. I believe that Edward Bishop actually worked on Mosquito design, and later wrote aviators’ obituaries for the Daily Telegraph. So we can assume he is/was very knowledgeable. If he included the “piano factories … nincompoops … “ story before David Irving had messed things up, this would be more convincing. I will continue with my research and prepare an alternative section in my sandbox. Meanwhile, sorry to say to Binksternet, but you are outnumbered by three to one in favour of a change. If you have not already done so, please read my suggestion above about looking up David Irving on Wikipedia. Respecting your idea about preserving the “folklore,” this can be done by putting the “piano factories … nincompoops … “ story in a footnote.

To Minor Historian, I would now go so far as to say that NO reliable secondary source or leads to a primary source is accessible on the internet, and to find something not potentially contaminated by Irving would be the job of a fully professional specialist historian, fluent in German and with access to contemporary 1939 - 46 German sources. Best Regards,Dendrotek 09:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

The most likely time for Goering to get cranky about the Mosquito would have been on 30 January 1943 when his 10th anniversary Berlin speech was rudely interrupted by Mosquitos doing a daylight raid on the Berlin radio station. I've even looked at books on the Ta 154 and Kurt Tank in the hope that this quote might turn up - no joy. This myth is looking more busted - at best it deserves to be a footnote stating that Goering might have said this, but there is no reliable evidence to confirm that he did so. It certainly doesn't deserve a whole section in the main text. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The source of the quote is stated in an earlier talk page post that is now archived:

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."

The above 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!’

The quotes are from Irving's biography of Milch; The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe [2]. Milch was present at the 1943 conference at-which Göring gave his tirade. The quote in the book is a paraphrase presumably taken from the stenographer's official record - referenced in p447 - 6 above - of the March 1943 Karinhall conference from which I assume the German text above is a fuller excerpt. Others present included Wolfgang Martini, Claudius Dornier, Dietrich Peltz, Johannes Plendl, Josef Kammhuber and Fritz Nallinger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The above settles nothing really; for a start using Irving as a source is dodgy. Secondly Göring's opinions were often overblown, over wrought and technically ignorant, thus including an occasional quote for historical interest is probably worthwhile, but including it in a section all of its own is giving it an importance it doesn't deserve. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 20:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether you like or dislike Irving's views he is a published author. And he has referenced the sources he used, at page 447 item 6. What people think of Göring is irrelevant, the quote is what Göring is recorded as having said at the time, and he was head of the Luftwaffe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 81 of The Luftwaffe Over Germany: Defense of the Reich By Donald L. Caldwell, Richard Muller refers to G summoning the manufacturers to his residence at Karin Hall on the date, where he harangued them. The authors do give a citation but I am looking at free Google extracts of the book and cannot see what "Reference 47" actually is. Needless to say, there is nothing init about piano factories and nincompoops!92.6.14.244 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Whether you like or dislike Irving's views he is a published author". A discredited author who is known to have fabricated and twisted information. (Hohum ^@) 06:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ditto Hohum. In addition there are several aviation historians who have researched and written about the Mosquito who have not mentioned Göring's rant (one of many on various topics) for the very good reason that it is not really worth mentioning, nor is it essential or central to the history of the Mosquito. Göring's position as "head of the Luftwaffe" was, in the hierarchy of the Nazis, a purely political position that did not make him any sort of authority on aviation matters. His rant over the Mosquito doesn't deserve to be mentioned except as a footnote, with a great deal of caution as to the source. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Göring's opinion of the Mosquito is irrelevant"

What sort of crap is this? He might have been an overweight morphine-addicted monorchid, but he was the head of the Luftwaffe.{{cn}} His opinion matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For those critics why not try reading the Milch biography rather than making assumptions. It's actually rather good and well researched. Although Irving has an obvious admiration for Milch it is also no hagiography.

... and it does seem that some people appear to be making rather a lot out of a quote that they appear to dislike for some reason. It does of course rain praise on the Mosquito from the leader of it's main opponent, i.e., the Luftwaffe, but then again, they went on to build the Focke-Wulf Ta 154 and also called that Moskito so presumably they were impressed by the de Havilland machine.

I should also point out that most of the 'aviation historians' were not in a position to interview ex-Luftwaffe and German RLM personnel in their own language, i.e., German, in-which Mr Irving is fluent, moreover Irving - for all that has been said about him - was at least interested enough to try and get the German side of the arguments as they saw them at the time, fairly represented, which meant in turn, that the Germans concerned were willing to talk to him.

I'm no fan of Irving's but I can also make up my own mind without being told what to think by other people, so I have actually read the biography of Milch. It's online here: [3]

BTW, the quote at the top of this post is a mish-mash of what was said at that particular March 1943 Karinhall conference, the source being my much earlier post back in 2011 here: [4] - someone appears to have merged them at some time. The Mosquito quote appears at page 232 (242 for the pdf version) of the Milch biography:

"Then there was the British Mosquito high-speed bomber. ‘It makes me furious, when I see the Mosquito,’ he admitted. ‘I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock to-gether a beautiful wooden aircraft and give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that! That is an aircraft that every piano factory over there is building.’ He recalled with bitterness his experts’ advice years before that such a wooden aircraft was impossible. Udet had warned him the whole world would laugh them to scorn. Who, asked Göring, was laughing now? Why did not the air industry simply copy the captured Stirling bomber, Göring asked. ‘Then at least I would have an aircraft with which I could do something.’ And why not copy the Mosquito?

Professor Messerschmitt was stung into retorting that it was much simpler to convert an existing aircraft to wooden construction than to design a completely new aircraft.* Göring interrupted him: ‘I am just telling you, you

should take the Mosquito!’ The professor had not meant that, and obstinately continued, ‘but it could be any other aircraft.’ Again Göring roared at him: ‘Why not take the best one!’ Messerschmitt wearily explained, ‘I think it is more complicated than that. Wooden construction is by no means simpler.’ ‘It could hardly be more complicated than your crates!’ retorted Göring."

The radar quote is taken from the same conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The "green and yellow with envy" quote appears in "Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII: The Strategic Air War" By Horst Boog, Gerhard Krebs, Detlef Vogel, which shows up in Google Books here:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rVVeO4B985wC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=Reich+air+defences,+tactics+go+for+the+bombers+1944&source=bl&ots=wkqtiXVVCv&sig=fLZ9j1dXMWAs8jTCqF9FYhAJKwU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v8IBUoagMpHbkgXr0oDQAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgU#v=snippet&q=Mosquito&f=false

The quote itself is on page 407, and the reference given for the quote is "Reich marshal conference, 18 Mar. 1943, BA-MA RL 3/60, 5461-506, here esp. 5476-7."101.161.128.9 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So, any objections if I add the "go berserk" and "green and yellow with envy" bit after the note on the daylight Berlin raid, referencing the non-Irving source?101.161.128.9 (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If the 'green and yellow with envy' quote appears in Germany And The Second World War, which is the German official history, authorised by the German government's military history unit, then it pretty much stands. Wikipedia really is useless, isn't it? Scroll up and there's a well-known 'editor' asking if anyone happens to have a copy of Bowyer and Sharp's 'Mosquito' -- the standard work on the subject of this article. It just doesn't get much lamer than that. Well, it does: the article still gives a cruise speed for the Mosquito BIX and BXVI bombers which is some 100mph below actual -- because someone doesn't understand the difference between IAS and TAS, or the difference between minimum economic fuel-saving ferry-flight cruise and combat cruise. The 250mph cruise attributed here to the BIX and BXVI would have rendered them tactically redundant. --Hugo Barnacle 87.115.68.226 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see bzuk's already changed the reference (Cheers mate). Any objections if I pull the footnote about Irving and restore the text re: Goering's view of the Mossie after the reference to the daylight raid on Berlin during Goering's speech?101.161.128.9 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Performance figures for Mosquitoes VIII, B.IX, B.XVI in 'Table 1' here: [5] - 'Economical Cruising' figures are 295mph TAS at 20,000ft, 320mph TAS at 25,000ft, and 350mph TAS at 30,000ft and above.

Figures for 'Maximum Continuous Cruising' are 285mph TAS at sea level, 316mph TAS at 10,000ft, 349mph TAS at 20,000ft, and 378mph TAS at 30,000ft, and are in 'Table 3'.

Fuel consumption varies with height and weight, from just over 2 Air Miles Per Gallon (AMPG) dropping to 3.4 AMPG at low weights.

All the above figures are with external fuel tanks fitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

References

less radar signature / profile due to the wood construction ?

radar signature [6]

radar profile [7]

There is much speculation about that in the web. Has anoyone profoiund knowledge about that ? If yes, I would be glad about a notice at my discussion page Thanks --Neun-x (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This aspect of the Mosquitoe`s success requires expanding. I added this quote from Adolf Galland on the subject :
"In his book "First and Last" (page 153) Adolf Galland was very impressed by the Mosquito, amongst other things, he commented on the very faint signal the wooden plane gave on the German radar in use at the time."
Unfortunaely it`s been made into a footnote by someone, which I don`t agree with by the way as this is far too important for that. As a general rule I don`t agree with the use of footnotes because relatively few people read ever read them but I can`t be bothered to change it back again.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been made into a footnote because it is hearsay, without confirmation from other sources; just because Galland said it does not make it enough of a fact, or important enough, to add to an already overcrowded introduction - if there was any truth to the claim that wooden construction made for a faint radar signature there would be more evidence available, particularly from people who have studied the Mosquito in detail, such as Ian Thirsk.

Look at all the books written on the Mosquito listed in the bibliography. Does a single one state unequivocally that the Mosquito's construction made it less conspicuous to radar? No? Then why use hearsay as if it is definitive?

This sounds very much like the hackneyed nonsense about the Glock pistol being able to sneak past airport xrays because of its composite construction http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/why-the-glock-became-americas-handgun. There is not enough evidence to show that the Mosquito was some kind of stealth aircraft - period. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I must say I have a bit of a problem accepting that what Adolf Galland (Commander of the Luftwaffe Fighters) says in his Autobiography is "just hearsay" !--JustinSmith (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

While not wishing to belittle Galland's opinions, such a statement made without supporting evidence is hearsay http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay. Is there any other substantive evidence that shows that the Mosquito had a faint radar signature because it was made of wood? If the purported faint radar signature did in fact contribute to the Mosquito's outstanding success there would be reliable evidence supporting this claim, and it would be worth mentioning. As it is, so far this "fact" is rumour and speculation that does not properly belong in the article. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 02:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

" ... was the daylight incursions by the RAF's Mosquitoes: flying high and fast, they were at first beyond the reach of German fighters, and being made of wood, gave only a weak radar echo." from Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII page 166; [8]

Since Germany and the Second World War is apparently accepted by several Editors interested in the DH Mosquito topic as a reliable source, why not amend the Article rather than just continuing a debate here in Talk? Talk pages are not meant to be a forum, but a means of attaining assent to improve Articles, so please remember the ground rules - assume others act in good faith and be polite. Intuitively, it makes sense that a wood airframe would have a lower radar footprint than a metal one. But perhaps the German operators thought that two RR Merlins were coming at them, without any airframe at all (joke!) But seriously, now you can support the assertion with a decent citation. Dendrotek 14:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Accidents due to loss of control - asymmetrical handling

At the end of the section on Construction this article includes a short phrase that: "... Records at the time showed that accidents caused by "loss of control" were three times more frequent on Mosquitoes that on any other type of aircraft. ... " Surely these accidents had little if anything to do with wing surfaces coming "unglued" but more to do with the vicious asymmetric handling characteristics, especially on take-off. I have this on good authority, although not one I can cite, because I used to know one of the BOAC Mosquito pilots, sadly now passed away. I believe the Mossie had both engines rotating in the same direction whereas the Hornet's pair rotated opposite one another. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that accident rates among trainees were so bad at one stage that simulated one-engine take-off failures were "deleted from the syllabus." The whole article is full of adulation for the Mossie, rightly so, but it wouldn't hurt pointing out a serious drawback like this. This would require another short section. Pilots were generally drawn from those already experienced on other types, otherwise loss rates might have been even worse.Dendrotek 09:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't say the Mosquito possessed 'vicious asymmetric handling qualities'; it was flown in upward rolls and loops on one engine by Geoffrey de Havilland. But it was important to deal with engine failure on take-off or on the approach in the right manner. Due to it's low drag design with wheels and flaps up, it was necessary to provide plenty of additional drag to bring the speed down for landing and so undercarriage and flaps were designed to do this, and approaches needed to made with a reasonable amount of power - i.e., most were 'power on' approaches.

The Mosquito had in addition to larger than normal wheels - complete with draggy mudguards - for an aeroplane of that size, it also had propellers that appeared too big for it compared to other aeroplanes of comparable dimensions - if you look at a Mosquito, especially one with the later Hamilton Standard 'paddle-blade' propellers, parked alongside a comparably twin of the time, the Mosquito looks like it's "all engines, propellers, and wheels". So on engine failure on take-off or the approach the Mosquito needed several things doing pretty promptly, namely applying opposite rudder to trim out the yaw, feathering the failed engine, selecting the undercarriage up, closing the dead engine's radiator shutter if on 'Manual', and increasing the remaining engine to anything up to climb power - on climb power a Mosquito could climb very well on one engine and maintain height up to 13,000ft.

Failure to do all this fairly quickly left the unfeathered propeller causing increased drag on one side, which then increased the sink rate even more due to the already down draggy wheels and flaps. This occurring low down could be dangerous simply because an inexperience pilot wouldn't be able to do all this quickly enough due to having to think his way through the sequence.

So the Mosquito wasn't vicious, but you did need to do exactly what the Pilot's Notes told you to do in certain emergencies. One of those was engine failure with wheels and flaps down, due to the high drag and hence sink rate, and large yawing moment and additional drag on one side that further increased the sink rate if the failed engine's propeller wasn't feathered quickly enough. In fact as a guess, I wouldn't mind betting that in many of the accidents the failed engine's propeller wasn't feathered almost immediately - ideally the above operations needed to be performed in rapid succession, which may have been a bit too much for some inexperienced new pilots, and they let the aircraft get away from them. This is quite understandable if the accidents occurred mostly at night.

In P/O Prune's day he would have called it, perhaps unkindly, 'finger trouble'.

I would also hazard a guess that the accidents ceased or were greatly reduced in number once the Mosquito T.III was introduced. It was perhaps expecting a bit much for the average trainee pilot to go from a slow Avro Anson or Airspeed Oxford straight on to what was for the time a very high performance aeroplane. Hence the dual-control T.III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My comments have obviously sparked some interest and I would suggest that the above, by the anon contributor on 4 October, proves my point. I too have a copy of the bomber Mossie pilots notes, and they are pretty sparse on advice in various dangerous situations. There is the issue of the wide airspeed "death zone", when one engine goes and power is lost just after take off. I am sure that one retired RAF pilot has posted on the net somewhere that the Mosquito is so dangerous to modern pilots unused to handling military twin-engine types when things go wrong, that flying replicas should no longer be built or offered for flying. Let's hope he is proven wrong. Also as I noted when I introduced this subject, my old friend who used to fly BOAC Mosquitos to Sweden told me all about this, and I sure as hell believe what he said. I don't want to put my hand up to write a section at present since I am doing other Wiki stuff, but I think someone else could. I'm not saying the Mosquito was the only one best with these risks, I have read that Canberras for example were, too.Dendrotek 18:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

A 1969 Flight article on flying the Mosquito by Air Commodore Allen Wheeler here: [9]

.. and a 1947 similar article here; [10]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

" ... Unless the speed was allowed to drop too much, the Mosquito's single-engined characteristics were just about as perfect as possible." - quote from the above linked 1947 Flight article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A 1968 Flight article on aircraft discovered in the IJsselmeer, including a Luftwaffe Kampfgeschwader 200 Mosquito here; [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

An interesting information film made by de Havilland about the Mosquito on YouTube here: part 1 [12], part 2:[13] and part 3:[14] - BTW, in part 2 at 10:39 the RAF officer with the handlebar moustache giving the briefing is John Wooldridge.

Wet wood swells, it doesn't shrink

Either Wiki or "the investigating team led by Major Hereward de Havilland" got it exactly backward when [you or they] concluded that the November 1944 Far East accidents were caused by "shrinkage of the airframe during the wet monsoon season." Wet wood swells and expands, it doesn't shrink. Having built and flown a relatively complex wooden aircraft--a Sequoia Falco F8L--I'm quite familiar with the phenomenon.173.62.12.218 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The wood swells first then when it dries it shrinks, pulling the wood apart from the glue line. The tropical conditions relevant were for places such as India and Burma, where the Monsoon conditions consisted of alternating oven heat and continuous rain for days on end. Once it stops raining the intense tropical heat dries the soaked structure out faster than the wood can 'breathe', so the joints break. Differential expansion.

On many Burmese and Indian temporary airfields there was no hangarage, just leaky tents, so aircraft parked out in the open got extremely wet for days at a time. Then when the rain stopped they were subjected to intense heat, such as is more commonly associated with desert areas of the world. This cycle might be repeated many times before the structure started to show visible signs of damage. So the problem was insidious. One might think that the problem had been solved in boat building, but wooden boats aren't usually allowed to dry out so quickly in such high temperatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.143 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the paras just above re swelling-shrinkage cycles. These effects are replicated in some of the now-standard test procedures for timber adhesives. A further aspect is that I believe the DH Co. knew - from records of course - which of the batches of aircraft had more casein adhesive in their construction, and which, generally later runs, had more Urea Formaldehyde adhesive. They tried to advise on which types/marques would be more suitable to send to India & Burma, but usual war-time cocks ups applied. I'm afraid I cannot cite this, so it is only suitable for "Talk," but I assure people I have read it, not just made it up! At some stage, somebody may be able to find the evidence again.Okan 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Details

"In Canada, fuselages were built in the Oshawa, Ontario plant of General Motors of Canada Limited. These were shipped to De Havilland Canada in Toronto for mating to fuselages and completion."

Something wrong here, I think: we have fuselages mating to fuselages! Dawright12 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but fuselages were also made in two halves, then joined like a big model kit. This shipping might have involved half fuselages. 82.132.234.87 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Fighter variants

It's hard to find a breakdown of Mosquito production by the various marks but this site looks helpful: http://www.ww2warbirds.net/ww2htmls/dehamosqbfn.html Lumping together day fighter, night fighter, and fighter-bomber versions, it appears that wartime production ran 5,305 plus 101 Mk 38s postwar.

Btillman (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)B TillmanBtillman (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 21 July 2014

A few other books (like Jacksons De Havilland aircraft)list Mosquito production, were looking for something in particular or suggesting we have a breakdown in the article ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's very complete production information in Sharp & Bowyer's "Mosquito" - sections dealing with production in the U.K., Canada and Australia, as well as in the appendices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.116.177 (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The 1942 Flight article that almost 'let the cat out of the bag' here: [15] The article about the Gipsy Queen-engined Oxford in a photograph of the Oxford inadvertently shows the tail, (at left) missed by the censors, of the black-painted night fighter Mosquito prototype at a time when the latter was still highly secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.121 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Rigging adjustment" ??

"...The left wing of E0234 also had a tendency to drag to port slightly, so a rigging adjustment was carried out before further flights". Huh ? Can somebody translate this to something meaningful to the layman reader ? Rcbutcher (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added a bit to the relevant line. "Rigging" in this context refers to adjustment of the angles of the various main (wing) and tail planes and fin and rudder to trim the aircraft so that both wings are level in flight. Originally in early aircraft it was done by adjusting the tension of the flying wires, etc., to slightly warp the structure. By the time of the Mosquito the usual practice was to replace an aileron or elevator as minor manufacturing differences could cause a new aircraft to be 'out of trim' on its first flight.

A number of aeronautical terms such as "rigging" and "trim" are borrowed from the nautical field.

Canadian fuselage manufacture confusion ?

"In Canada, fuselages were built in the Oshawa, Ontario plant of General Motors of Canada Limited. These were shipped to De Havilland Canada in Toronto for mating to fuselages and completion.". Huh ? Fuselages mated to fuselages ? Can somebody sort this out ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

... mated to wings?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Production sites

Can someone check Bowman 2005, the source given for this info, since I believe production in Coventry took place at Standard's Canley plant rather than Banner Lane where the Bristol Hercules aero engine was produced. Cheers Red Sunset 09:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This reference supports Canley - see second and third photos and newspaper caption: http://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/photo-mysteries/wartime-photos.php Okan 14:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, as that certainly confirms what I've been told or read elsewhere on the wiki. I don't see any reason to doubt this so I'll amend the table accordingly citing the Historic Coventry site, and maybe in due course someone will be able to substitute it with a more commonly accepted source. Red Sunset 16:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just checked the article's edit history - Banner Lane was a recent incorrect substitution - now fixed without the need for an additional cite. Red Sunset 16:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Production details - by no means comprehensive - Stimulated by the above post, I looked at this Section of the Article and realised that it is by no means comprehensive. There is a case for a complete separate Article on Mosquito Production, linked to this one, of course. If someone is willing to do this, I could contribute, but I certainly cannot initiate such a big task. Okan 14:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Have a stab at working on a separate article in a sandbox if you have some good references - I'd look in and help in any way I can, and I'm sure others would too if asked. Red Sunset 16:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So, how many Mosquito Types/Marks in total, then?!

Dendrotek 22:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Highest mark number was T. Mark 43. (Same thing as the dual-control T. Mark III trainer, but with Packard engines.) Bowyer & Sharp 1967 / 1995, p.436. -Hugo Barnacle 87.115.68.226 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft had different Mark No.'s when fitted with Packard-built engines as these engines had different carburettors - Bendix/Stromberg ones - than UK built engines, which had SU carburettors, and so engine fitters would have needed to know which type of carburettor was fitted before working on an aircraft's engine(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

When Rolls-Royce contracted Packard to build Merlins they specified a Bendix-made carburettor because the carburettor is built-in to the induction system, and to have ordered engines without carburettors would have delayed their use on arrival in the UK until the relevant parts could be fitted and adjusted during test runs. By ordering the engine with a US-made carburettor the engine was complete within its crate, and could be fitted to an aircraft immediately it arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Merlins used in the Mosquito had different Mark No's from other Merlins as in the Mosquito the normal direction of coolant flow was reversed due to the positioning of the wing-mounted radiators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

@MilborneOne: Please read the policy. There is no need to take this to here but I am doing so to avoid edit wars. J947 09:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you are removing just New Zealand and not other countries from articles when there is clearly not a case of overlinking, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There are two links to New Zealand in the article, and the first instance was removed. That's not per the Manual of Style ("Oberlin" is part of guideline not policy) anyway. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What the user means is overlinking of common terms across Wikipedia tself, not this article only. It's a poorly named guideline, as is common with the MOS warriors. This one is also quite arbitrary, as there appears to be no master list of exactly what these common terms are. - BilCat (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Havilland Mosquito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019161418/http://uksaa-www.me.ic.ac.uk/awards.html to http://uksaa-www.me.ic.ac.uk/awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusion regarding ultra-high altitude mods to fighter MKXV (not initially a night fighter) using DH Prototype MP469

Has this been noticed before? Anyone else aware? There may be an error in Bowman. I have found online a PDF of an original A&AE Test Report that suggests the versions of this story are correct involving a Merlin 61 powered aircraft based on the DH MP469 prototype and tested at RAF Northolt, as well as at Boscombe Down. The latter does designate the tested aircraft as NF MK XV. Maybe the few (4 or 5?) further modified night fighters that went to RAF Hunsdon, happened a bit later after the Luftwaffe high altitude intrusions panic died down? At this stage, I don't know quite what to do about modifying this Wiki Article! At the very least, things need moving around a bit, at present it is very confusing on this subject. Okan 14:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Having purchased a copy of a more recent book by Phillip Birtles, who worked at DH and for W/C Cunningham, I have ascertained that my above conjecture is more or less correct. So I shall modify the relevant Section accordingly, inserting a Birtles citation. Okan 17:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

See here: [16] and here: [17]

Plural of Mosquito - Mosquitos or Mosquitoes

The Article contains both. We could bring inconsistency to an end - it is not an English English vs N.A. English thing - I have examples of both spellings even in WW2 British papers and journals. However imho "Mosquitos" is more elegant and perfectly acceptable. If folks agree I will copy edit throughout? Okan 21:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuselage design and construction

I've improved first para., adding a contemporary technical journal article for reference. Second para needs some work next - drying and curing structural wood glues is a big and highly critical subject , best in this context just to cut some of the words out, I think. Okan 11:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Havilland Mosquito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm.php?id=story_line&fl=0&lg=English&ex=00000192&sl=3202&pos=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110002520/http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com/article/20131023/MNH01/310230453/Marshfield-women-recall-building-engineering-marvels-skies to http://www.marshfieldnewsherald.com/article/20131023/MNH01/310230453/Marshfield-women-recall-building-engineering-marvels-skies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment on content of Design - Overview

In the section ==Design==

Overview

The second part of the first para and all of the last para seem to be about performance - not about design per se. In this general introduction to "Design" I would expect to see briefly stated how the first prototype and thereon fulfilled Geoffrey deHavilland's concepts and predictions (speed, no turrets causing drag etc.), not about armaments and little about handling characteristics. This could be rectified by checking whether what's said at present repeats info in other sections and then either pruning it a bit or moving some of it elsewhere. Could even be a new section on "Performance" but that would probably be unwelcome as lengthening the whole Article too much. Okan 11:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Bomber - low radar signal of Mossie

Ref. 90 is about the "Blackbird" or a similar modern, proper stealth bomber. I propose deleting this ref. Subject has been dealt with in a note right at the start of this Article. Okan 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You haven't read the cited book, have you? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, just looked at the cover page - do you have a copy? But it is clearly not prinicipally about the Mosquito. Frankly, I don't attach a lot of significance to this idea, for several reasons. (looking over what I've written, there have become six reasons!):

1. If it did have a low radar signal it was fortuitous, not planned - not included in G. deH.'s reasons for preferring timber. (Might as well say his 1916 DH4 fast bomber had a low radio detection shadow too!) 2. Our aircrews were pretty unaware of what the Germans were doing in the field of radar detection until well into the war - read A.V. Jones about this, and even "Bomber" Harris' Despatch - more often we were giving ourselves away inadvertently e.g. by leaving IFF switched on, and in other similar ways. 3. The mossie was so fast - Berlin and back twice in a day, so enemy was more often than not alerted by other means e.g. gunners and observers near the coasts of Europe - certainly the case in the first year of daylight low level ops. 4. It would have a radar shadow anyway, from the engines for example. 5. In a big raid, during the time of the pathfinder and protection ops., the relatively small numbers of Mossies would not be distinct in the general fuzz and flutter of radio patterns. 6. No author whom I regard as authoritative makes much or anything at all about it - except perhaps Galland, whom we credit with bringing it up by means of referring to him in the existing note right near the start of the Article.

In addition to all of the above, it is in an inappropriate place at present, just at the end of a section discussing wing design and construction.

I hope you didn't write it and that I am not offending you? I wouldn't mind moving it or merging it with the Galland note if you prefer?

Regards. Okan 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The book is by Bill Sweetman. Who knows just a thing or two about aircraft, and particularly stealth and other "black" aspects. This book isn't about Mosquitoes, it's about stealth, and it's only a passing mention. But also, in this article, it's only a passing mention too. It's an entirely adequate reference to support the vague hand-wave that's here. If anything, this needs to be expanded and covered in reasonable detail.

1. Yes it was fortuitous, not planned. If it had been deliberate, the design might have been different. After all, plenty of the Mosquito is still metal, the control surfaces, the fuel tanks, most of the engine mounts, a lot of the tail, and most of all, the propeller blades. Mind, WWI aircraft aren't invisible - those flying wires make very effective reflectors.

2. R V Jones is not a reliable source on almost anything. He is fairly good on the things he had first-hand knowledge of, less so on the others. He's not good (at least very partial) on some aspects, such as much radar, particularly British and Japanese (just compare to Louis Brown's Radar History of WWII). Even in the early '80s, Jones' history of Colossus and Ultra was showing the cracks (as a young sprog electronic engineer I worked at Horwood and Bletchley).

4. The radar cross section of the engines is quite small, as they're small, inside the nacelles and overshadowed (by far) by the propellers. The propellers also have their rotating signature as a dead giveaway - something that the Germans exploited far more than others. Although not relevant in hindsight, this propeller signature and its ease of demodulation (as an older electronics engineer I was at the Philips site in Nuremburg) was a key part of German anti-aircraft missile control and particularly their fuzing.

5. The first Pathfinders were ahead of the swarm and were tracked as such. Once they realised their importance, they were intercepted specifically, even at the cost of missing the main stream. After this, they stopped leaving with the main force and were delayed, so that they'd cross the coast simultaneously and use their greater speed to pass through.

6. Every writer and their dog claims that the Mosquito and the Vulcan were "stealthy" before this was recognised. Neither are true (the Vulcan has both an enormous vertical tail, and a brick wall of a vertical reflector at the rear of the radome and the pressure hull - I have an inverted Vulcan schnozz as a summerhouse). Yet this story won't die, and ought to be discussed. Sweetman's coverage is about right.

I'm fine with reworking and clarifying this, but we ought to go forwards, not throw it away. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy, Thanks for your quick and courteous reply. I'm glad you are happy with re-working and perhaps moving this topic. We are going to friends Golden Wedding lunch soon. Will get back to you with constructive suggestions later. Regards. Okan 10:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andy - despite my previous Talk item about Design - Overview, to which nobody has responded, at present, Design - Overview seems the best place to move the sentence on low radar response and its ref currently in Wing (design) and also to move the nb1 at present second sentence of entire Article (completely inappropriate there, especially in view of low significance of the whole "stealth" thing - about which you and I seem to agree). I would place this change/addition right at the end of the section. What do you think about this rearrangement suggestion? Thanks for your last reply, it helps to know about your radar and electronics expertise. Mine is in structural timber, funnily enogh! B.W. Okan 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The Mosquito's low radar reflectivity is mentioned in the Luftwaffe's Official History, i.e., the one commissioned by the then-West German Government, there was a link to it on one of the talk pages somewhere, perhaps now archived.

At the time the Mosquito was being designed it is almost certain that very few at de Havillands had any idea of the existence of what later became known as 'radar. So any such low reflectivity of the Mosquito was simply fortuitous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, we need to move forward, as you said. - It might fit reasonably sensibly under "Prototypes and Test Flights", after the last present para that starts: "During flight testing, the Mosquito prototypes were modified to test a number of experimental configurations." I shall use the phrase "presented a low radar profile" and definitely avoid the word "stealth"! I will move the sentence presently at the end of the Design - Wing Section (goodness knows how it got there?). I shall retain but move the Galland note but possibly modify it slightly. I will add another sentence containing the word "fortuitous." I don't want to amend anything, anywhere in the entire Article, that cannot be substantiated with a Reference (what our US friends cal a Citation). Okan 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. The German official history I mentioned above is here: [18] The Mosquito's 'weak radar echo' is mentioned on Page 166 (see below).

"A special concern for Goring, one that, with an eye to the impression created on the public, was also a domestic policy issue, was the daylight incursions by the RAF's Mosquitoes: flying high and fast, they were at first beyond the reach of German fighters, and being made of wood gave only a weak radar echo."

Just read this in Wikipedia Article "H2S (radar)" - justifies a little further my earlier skepticism (shared by Andy). Anyway, the whole issue is done now. Just thought you might like to know! : - Quote : - The first experimental system flew on 27 May with a Mosquito providing a target. The Mosquito clearly appeared on the display, and photographs of the display caused much excitement.[32] 32 = Lovell 1991 p. 208

H2S was a centimetric radar. The Germans had no such equipment until the Berlin Gerat of late 1944.

The German radar most relevant would have been the metric-wavelength Wurzburg and Freya early warning radars, and it is likely these the quote above is referring to.