It was a metal aircraft designed to fill the same space as the Mosquito. It’s a shame UK didn’t built two of either type for every heavy they actually built. These would have delivered similar bomb loads with the same number of engines and far fewer crew put at risk.
I’m confused Geoffrey De Havilland. built the mosquito, the Vickers companies version was called the twin spitfire because as you see in your photos it took Mitchell’s elipticle wing put a pair of Merlin’s in it in its original spec and griffons in a later spec I think both companies worked on a version of the hornet but it was scrapped as jets had come on line by then, so why do you call it a Mossie while other videos I’ve watched including a programme on the spitfire and its various marks showed a prototype twin spit in photos. It was the early 80s and all my mind was filled with aeroplanes of the RAF in WW2 and Lorrie’s, cars, tanks,motorbikes and the SR4 hovercraft we went to France on, but the twin spit story stuck and I got books in later years mostly spitfire books but all referred to the twin spit never the twin Mossie or metal mosquito some (I believe call it the hornet mistakenly) so I hope you can see why I’m confused , you call it a tin Mosquito and me a mossaholic have never heard of a mosquito design by Vickers only by De Havilland, while I believe thousands were made I don’t believe any were built by Vickers, I will admit a quick search didn’t turn up much only most of the pictures used by yourself when put in twin spit or mosquito but none suggested it was made by Vickers as all there factories were take up building spitfires, seafires, and 1 or 2 others like a jet I can’t quite remember as it was soon dropped in favour of the meteor and vampire fighters, Are you and possibly others attempting to give a aeroplane that is a spot on butt of history a legends name which let’s face it the wooden wonder was, while the twin spit didn’t get any where beyond prototyping old doesn’t A. Deserve to loose its own name and B.really does not deserve the name given to the Mosquito (also called wooden Wonder), if you know your mosquito history De Havillands built the Mossie from plywood for 2 reasons for 2 reasons it could be made in Canada and the US and Australia very easily, it wouldn’t tax the metal industry at the time pumping thousands of tons a of metal components into Britains great industrial complex. De Havilland developed it out wood then after it flew the initial scepticism of the air ministry caused them to send a requirement for an aircraft that was like the mosquito, once they really knew how special she was they tried mounting alsorts, but one of the best in my opinion was the long range naval version that was equipped with extra life rafts as well as a torpedo and depth charges, there used to be a small display of items and photos at Yeovilton air station. It was my favourite as my Uncle flew different aeroplanes for coastal during the war as well as blenheims for bomber command and wellingtons, (which is what got him transferred to coastal, they needed experienced crews he’d been in pre war and as a flight engineer/second pilot he qualified to be upgraded to pilot.. I hope you can see why I’m struggling here as for 40 odd years of reading books and listening to wireless programs and tv programs, as well as now YT content and especially with YT there is some in my opinion some very badly researched vids that seem to confuse some types of aeroplanes with others, there’s also some ripping great stuff I site Andrew Morton, his aviation stuff is good and Rex’s hangar is good, the best is the imperial war museum, there are others but there names escape me if I find them I will add them later.
Any Mosquito fans who haven't seen the 1964 movie '633 Squadron' owe it to themselves to seek it out. Pre-CGI and using no scale models, eight (- yes, EIGHT) original airworthy Mosquitos were used for filming. Easily as good a period war movie as 'The Battle of Britain' or 'The Dambusters'.
When he said it was tested on a Wimpy I half expected to hear that, at the very least. it came back banana shaped. I worked at RAF Cosford for a time, they have a Mosquito painted to look like Gibsons, and in a display beside it was a Molins 57mm gun used in a handful of Tsetse versions. If you look at it you cant help but wonder about the wisdom of strapping it to an aircraft made basically from a few planks of plywood,
😂 Well they were meant for ground strike, so hitting within a four foot radius on a ship, train, tank, or fortification would have been pretty good and would have had a bowel loosening effect on any enemy troops in the area of impact!
Very informative indeed thanks. One of the other nails in the coffin of the Vickers design was how versatile the De Havilland Mosquito airframe turned out to be. As the air ministry wanted new options, De Havilland was able to adapt the Mosquito to fit the job. Including a version fitted with a 6 pounder cannon for anti ship, and ground attack, produced near the end of the war. As for high altitude heavy fighter option which the Mosquito could already do. I think the P-38 from Lockheed being available, didn't help Vickers chances of getting a build order as well. Far as I have ever heard, the only real issue with the Mosquito from De Havilland, was they could not produce them fast enough to meet the demand.
They struck some issues in the South Pacific with catastrophic failures caused by delamination which resulted from the climate weakening the adhesives.
The Vickers Type 432 was not cancelled due to the British hating metal which is a rather absurd observation even if meant tongue in cheek. This is an interesting analysis but it misses out on the context of the time and the Elephant in the room which I will get to. Firstly as already noted the British already had the Mosquito capable of performing many of the roles the 432 was designed for adequately, wasting resources and pushing another similar type into service was not a good idea. If it had been developed quicker, they may have attempted to rectify issues and push into service but by then, it would have given them an aircraft soon to be rendered obsolete, leading me to the Elephant in the room. The fact is by December 1942 when the 432 first flew the first jet flight had happened a year earlier and the Gloster Meteor was deep into development and only a few months from its first flight. It is hardly surprising that the ministry lost interest in the 432 so quickly, unless it worked perfectly from the first flight there was absolutely no need to spend any more resources on it! The Type 432 was a residual 1939 specification in development that was soon to be rendered obsolete, they already had adequate twin-engine types for the moment in the form of the Mosquito and the Bristol Beaufighter. The Meteor outclasses the Type 432 in nearly every metric except probably range, the Ministry pulled the plug quickly as there was no further need to develop the Type 432 as by the time production facilities had been established and tooling prepared for its production it would have been obsolete as a design taking valuable aircraft grade aluminum away from the production of the first jet fighters.
Just to add to your analysis, Vickers had their foot in several war projects. I believe the War Ministry would want Vickers to concentrate their resources, including R&D and manufacturing, to projects with a higher priority. That would include ground (Army) equipment. Britain had the Beaufighter already, the Mosquito was showing a lot of promise, plus they had access to multiple American aircraft (P-39, B-25, and A-20) that were becoming available. So this may have been more a case of wasting resources on duplication than just a problematic design.
He was....joking. Just a modern media style, i find it quite engaging. It's obvious that he's aware of most if not all of the dynamics you mention. A similar death knell was dealt to the Westland Whirlwind which was deemed rather good by test pilots, but various circs saw it being retired in short order.
Seen it said elsewhere that it took 6 hours and a crane to change a wheel on a whirlwind compared to 20 minutes and a jack for a mosquito@alanmcentee9457
Thanks! Never heard of this dude, and I've been around a while now. Wow, what a laugh that projected top speed of 435mph was! I thought- On two 1,500 horse Merlins, in an AC that was a ton heavier (less armament) than the DH-98, I'll bet top speed will be somewhere around 360-380. As you later revealed, I made an accurate guess! Thanks again, great watch!
Very interesting! I would point out that early in the war there was a policy decision to concentrate on a limited number of designs, since the country was fighting for its life. I would also comment that the powers that be were not enamoured of wooden construction, and the DH Mosquito succeeded despite the scepticism. The video, however, informed me of a type I'd never heard of, so thank you.
Just an aside: Tin was known and traded as far south as the Mediterranean from before the Roman invasion. It was known as "The British Metal" and was a valuable trade item. Thanks for the low-down on a model of the Mossie I'd never heard of. Cheers from Ontario, CDA
Mosquito was made from tel layers of thin birch plywood (1/16 inch I believe) separated by a balsa wood core. It was extremely strong but degraded quite quickly with weathering. Tropical conditions were especially destructive to the airframes. This is why there are almost no surviving originals.
UK surplus originals (whether airworthy or not) were quick and simple to decommission and were burnt on Burnaston airfield, Derby (Now the Toyota factory).
Love you vids mate. Can I just quickly stamp on this idea that nothing happened once war was declared in sept ‘39 until spring 1940. For example, If you spoke to the colliers on the East Coast convoys you”d hear that the war started even before the declaration as they were ordered to travel in convoys when the emergency started. This led to an increased risk of collision. These ships sailed up and down the east coast of Britain bringing coal from the North East and Scotland to the South East / London. This coal was essential for industry and the sheer amount (70,000 tonnes a week) meant that it was ships that carried it as the rail net work couldn’t hope to carry it all. The Germans attacked these convoys from day one and the escorts available to protect them was paltry and aircover non existent almost. As a result they suffered terrible loss to mines, S Boats and air attacks. Elsewhere the RN (the senior service, just sayin’:) were fighting u boats and commerce raiders (Graff Spee for eg) and it was all far from a “Phoney War” for these guys. My mates grandfather was on the North Sea East coast convoys first as an engineer on a collier and then as a RNPS gunner. I remember he told us that they were given one Savage Gun welded on to the bridge to fight off the Luftwaffe with. He said they had this 17 year old boy as a mate on board who turned out to be an unbelievable shot with this thing. He would start to shot at the planes when they were way off but he’d aim hi and get a parabolic trajectory this the attacking planes would be struck as the rounds descended. My mates grandfather reckons it made them think a fighter was attacking them as the fire was coming from above them. He said that they’d often pull sharply away.
That moveable 40mm cannon would have been a bit unnerving to fire fully raised! Imagine the pitch issues and just how would you aim it stuck out in front of the nose, the test you mention says it all!
The Westland Whirlwind was a private venture begun in the 1930s by Westland. Like the Vickers project, it was hampered by its engines, in it's case, the Rolls Royce Pegerine, which left the aircraft under powered. The Welkin, which is considered by many as being essentially an enlarged high attitude version of the Whirlwind was not a success because by the the time it materialized,, it was no longer needed for the role it had originally been conceived for.
@@EVISEH I heard that the Peregrine was'n''t the biggest problem of the WW but the ineficient radiators that overheat the engines and the propellers was indequate. They've used the Hamilton wich worked fine on the first prototype and then swapped to De Havilland wich gived far less good performances (I hope my english is not to bad english).
Being the only aircraft that used the Peregrine the engine was always going to be sucking hind teat in terms of development. The later Welkin proved to be not needed. This Vickers design to me seems aimed at much the same role.
@@dimitrihayez6502 The Peregrine was a development of the RR KESTRAL and essentially was a supercharched version of that engine. Supercharging the engine did not yield the higher horsepower RR had hoped for , resulting in RR stopping development and production of the engine The Whirlwind was specifically designed around using the Perigrine, unfortantly the engine was unable to realise its potential , leaving the Whirlwind seriously under powered.
If I should ever be lucky enough to win the Euromillions Jackpot, I would learn to fly and have a late War spec Mosquito built as my personal plane, would also use some of that money to buy a lot of spare engines from Rolls Royce for all the planes in the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight and any to cover personal future needs.
@@stevena9305 they make them as a special order for the BBMF, win the Euromillions and Rolls Royce would fall over themselves to oblige such a significant order.
Rolls-Royce stopped making the Peregrine and the Whirlwind wasn't strong enough to use Merlins without major redesign. Westland did get a contract to build the Welkin, a high altitude fighter fitted with cannon and 2 stage Merlins, like the Type 432.
@markturner5979 That is a very sentimental thought. However, I believe that what @waynec3563 said has some truth to it. Nobody won in the end but, The Whirlwind was 'potential looking' attractive!
@@waynec3563 also, they managed to get Spitfires and Mosquitos up to Ju-86 altitudes at which point the threat vanished. With the Spitfire VI and VII it would be possible to deal with future threats. They did build a few Welkins just in case
Not surprising it was cancelled. By 1943 the Welkin and Meteor were flying and developing well, and by 1944 the Hornet. Meanwhile the Mosquito had proved itself as a heavy gun platform and the defensive heavy fighter requirement diminished considerably. By mid 1944 it was obvious that the Meteor would render all prop fighters obsolete.
To me it seems most likely that the Type 432 was abandoned not because of what it could or couldn't do, but because the Mosquito was already doing those things. Unless the Type 432 could offer some radical improvements over the established Mosquito design that was already in mass production, there would be little point to proceeding with this aircraft because it would lead to a duplication of effort and a diversion of resources for no apparent or immediate gain. Put simply, it was unnecessary for the war effort, so it was cancelled.
@@barrybend7189 It is never that simple. Changing the engines usually requires a redesign of the wings and wing location as the center of gravity is upset. Plus, the Wasps were in demand in America for all the planes using it there. The Bristol Hercules would have been more readily available and within the War Department's control.
"Unfairly abandoned"... hardly. The Mosquito was in full production (also in Canada and eventually Australia as well), available, and proved that it could do everything that the Vickers aircraft could (even eventually carrying a larger caliber weapon) without cutting into the supply of metals and alloys required for other aircraft manufacture. It was doing this with the same Merlins that were not quite up to snuff in propelling the heavier Vickers aircraft. One must take into account the fact that the various British aircraft industries had more than enough on their plates simply working with and improving existing types and building other companies' types under license. The "Tin Mosquito" simply wasn't a priority and would have been a waste of resources had it continued into production. Now had it been seriously and massively redesigned (early on) as a high level interceptor or a two seater night fighter/intruder it might have found a suitable role.
Yup. Why would you produce a plane that's just a clone (more or less) of an existing wooden aircraft, except it uses material that is actually war-critical and could be used for Spitfires and Lancasters? The best thing about the Mossie was its design and logistics - and that fantastic performance and versatility was the brilliant icing on the cake.
@@tedarcher9120 not really, because they were designed for different roles. One a fighter, one a heavy bomber. The mosquito spanned between these extremes because it was an exceptional aircraft and also originally a bomber
@@hoilst265 Why build a competing design? There were a few British designs that they kept going even though it was obvious they were inferior to other craft. The Halifax bomber is just one.
Well, the Mosquito Tsetse got a fixed 50mm cannon and did well against small ships. But the Mosquito was designed as a fighter-bomber and the Vickers as as a fighter, so not a good comparison.
Having worked on around the AC-130 Gunships. firing the 105 mm so called 'recoilless' is still a treat for off axis recoil effects with its near perpendicular firing arc. the lesser known sister armament is a 40 mm cannon, which is usually fired more often, depending on the mission altitude and target mix. The point is, the relative mass of the C-130A/H platforms is significantly more than this aircraft and the installation of a recoiling cannon in the nose with an extreme 'arm of moment' around the off bore firing angle of 30 or so degrees in relation to that plane's CG would've been "fun" to watch. From a chase plane, of course.
@@onenote6619 I think you meant 57 mm. The 6 pounder. Though not used in service they also tested a 75 mm version but by that time the war in Europe was coming to an end.
Any story involving the WW2 British Air Ministry is instructive for one reason. Bureaucrats are compelled to make improbable requests in order to retain the balance of power in their favour. As a gigantic contrast is the example of Beaverbrook who took (from the records) exactly no prisoners. Anybody's continued involvement depended solely on demonstrable performance. Not a recipe for making friends but he had an over-abundance of real enemies. From another perspective, being selected to join a Ministry is rarely based on a proven record in real world applications. Could he have done both (design, modifications and production)? We'll never know, Winnie the Pooh never tried too hard to surround himself with competency, unless forced.
Interesting wing form on the first iteration, banana shaped and forward swept.later iterations still had odd wingforms. Maybe that is why they were unstable? Interesting also that the griffon eas available so early on. Nice video , never heard of this before
The outboard leading edge of the wing is forward of the root st the fuselage attachment point and is bound to create instability, the tail surfaces appear far too small as well.
The 40mm cannon on the Wellington was testing possible new defensive turret armament for bombers. There was a similar arrangemnet proposed with 4 x 20mm cannon, and another with a turret above and below the fuselage with 4 x 20mm each.
Wood construction is not necessarily lighter than metal construction. At any rate, I don't see that this plane has any special capabilities that couldn't be met by the Beaufighter or Mosquito. I'm immediately struck by a very small tail feathers. My guess is that this plane would be 'dodgey' if flown on one engine or asked to recover from a spin. Add to all of this, an Air Ministry that changes it's mind as often as most people change socks. Very interesting article, though.
And carbon fiber composite is not necessarily lighter than aluminum/aluminium. The BD-5J that Anheuser Busch had built back in the 80s was built locally. For some reason they wanted it built out of carbon fiber or at least parts of it. The builder did as they asked plus built aluminum/aluminium parts as well. The metal parts were lighter. Now this may have been due in part to the builder not being familiar with carbon fiber. But he did have extensive experience in composite construction with fiberglass.
This video is a bit harsh on the initial mosquitoes. It did have a few minor issues with buffeting, but it wasn't unstable. It flew well right off the bat. The fact this aircraft didn't fly well straight away and cooks the merlin 61 when other designs didn't suggest the vickers was a bit of a pig 😅
I believe there were problems initially with the type of wood glue used in the construction of the Mosquito, and failures occurred in the wing tips which would come off in flight. Sadly I think this resuted in some fatalities, perhaps during prototype testing, not sure.
Interesting to know manufacturing projects were on similar lines. I suppose if Vickers had used wood, ply, etc, their plane might have been a cert. You have to admit the DeHavilland Mosquito was a tremendous aircraft. 😢
Not wanting to point out US preoccupation with its own airplane history (well, actually I do) but here in Europe the Mosquito is considered to be one of the true WW2 classics. The 432 is however indeed an unknown identity. Which is a shame because it looks like a Mosquito with extra muscles. I love it. 😁
The initial versions of the Griffon were not reliable with oiling/cooling problems initially. By the time the Vickers had been production slowed down, Spitfire were gobbling the vast majority of Griffon production.
It looks far more like an attempt at a twin-engined Spitfire, probably designed by a committee, and with all the problems and eventual outcome that entails.
Typoon, Tempest, and Whirlwind were all designed in metal. Mosquito was just unusually useful in its wooden form. British put out plenty of metal frames.
0:15 "easy to produce" -- I don't think so. It had two Merlins, which I think took twice the man-hours of the Alison that was nearly identical save for an extra supercharger stage.
It looks like a mash-up of a Spitfire (wing shape) and a Mosquito (vertical and horizontal stabilizers). Something that they discovered with the Typhoon/Tempest fighters is that a longer fuselage does lend itself to longitudinal stability. The issues with the Typhoon's tail catastrophic failures in flight disappeared with the Tempest and its longer fuselage. From the shape of the fuselage of the Vickers 438, it looks "too tubby" compared to the Mosquito's fuselage. Reminds me of the old adage, "If it looks right..." The 438 did not "look right" IMHO.
Although it would have been interesting to see these types developed, suspect the Air Ministry made the right decision. Would these aircraft have offered any significant benefit over exiting types? Even if resources had been spent on development, would production cost have been higher than exsisting types? Also, as WW2 progressed there was perhaps a move away from large cannons for ground/surface attack towards rockets which were often more effective for short attack windows?
On paper the rockets sounded good, but in practice they were very inaccurate. They packed the punch of a 5" artillery shell but were difficult to aim unless at a short range.
The original Mosquito was light but strong with two powerful engines designed either to carry bombs, 20mm canons or cameras. Making it heavier with aluminum, even with more powerful engines, would have introduced balance issues and increases in wing loading. It just goes to show that the original concept was the right design!
What about a carbon fibre Mosquito? Weather proofing being the most obvious advantage. Same two halves construction of the Fuselage. Perhaps some reworking on the landing gear and other places.
Doable, but SCARY EXPENSIVE. Aerospace grade CF isn't cheap, and neither are the Autoclaves needed to cure it properly. Other'n that, if you can find an engineer who is experienced at designing CF structures & layups, then it's very doable. Might be tricky extracting the engineer from their current job - most of them seem to be working in top level motorsports (F1, etc) or for Aerospace manufacturers, so are pretty well paid...
Not mentioned but of relevance, I think. The elliptical wings: what was their purpose? Was it a fashion statement in copying the plan view of the Spitfire wings that made it special? The execution of the Spitfire’s elliptical wings were very subtle in its design, with a very fine thickness to chord ratio. The Schneider Trophy racing in the 1930s had demonstrated to Mitchell at Supermarine the importance of thin wings in achieving high speed. The disadvantage of the elliptical wing is the very high labour content in production. The Vickers aircraft had very thick wings which would have contributed some to its poor speed performance. Looking at the photo of the inside of the wing structure, the large expanse of room for fuel would be offset by the inefficient structure adding unnecessary weight. Almost every other wing design ever has one or two large beans which extent vertically from the bottom surface of the wing to the top surface, usually the wing main spar is located at the thickest portion of the wing. This is the most efficient structure weight wise. Was the Vickers wing twisting in flight making the aircraft seem unstable? The plan view of the aircraft looks, to my eye, to be small wing area contributing to a high wing loading. I am not accusing the Air Ministry of unethical behaviour but some poor decision making was made on the Ministry’s part. Vickers was, or still is, one of the largest Defence Contractors in Britain at the time and would have been well positioned to promote their offering by wining and dining the Air Ministry.
The wing structure is not as inefficient as one might think, in fact it’s clever. But your point about elliptical platform is on point. However both the structure and the platform were too much trouble for marginal improvement particularly in wartime. Cheers
The Mossies wood structure advantage was its trueness and smoothness. These advantages are seen in today’s composite light aircraft. It’s just difficult to precisely fabricate riveted metal wings and if you did, they distort under load anyway. The DH Hornet in the works helped kill the Vickers. Cheers
Sydney Camm famously said of the Tempest that he designed it with elliptical wings so the government would buy it. The fact is that the Tempest had elliptical wings for the same reason the Spitfire did - to fit the armament.
I don't understand why they wouldn't counter rotate one of the engines . Would have helped a little at least . In the wooden model and the metal one . If I'm wrong , let me know .
Dehavilland had the edge on many manufacturers when it came to aerodynamics.The ultimate expression of this advantage was the incredible Hornet, which sported twin Griffin's (now a viable engine compared to its state of development in 1939)putting out 2300 HP each and which was even lighter than the mosquito.
Many many years later I was posted to another Vickers Type. Suffice to say they built better ships than aeroplanes. Indeed the punka louvre on the flight deck proudly bore the name of its manufacturer.,Vickers Marine Co. Ltd. 'nuf said?
I’m confused why this was of interest to Air Ministry given the Mosquito already existed and was proven as highly configurable to multiple roles. A benefit of the original de Haviland design was that as the Mossie fuselage was made of wood it could be constructed by carpenters and other wood workers, then in plentiful supply, as was wool in Canada, and even in the UK so didn’t need to use imported war materials. And could thus keep aeroplane assembly lines free for other plane types. And what’s the benefit of it being metal as in tin? Would it be more robust than the wooden Mosquito? Whereas the Mossie was faster than German fighters it was less likely to be hit but was also resilient. The Vickers plane was heavier & slower, presumably less nimble, and generally less capable than the Mossie except for range which some Mossie drop tanks could solve if necessary. Was Vickers just trying to copy a clear competitor to divert govt spending to itself? Why was it wasting time and resources in wartime working on this? What was the expected benefit if it had worked as designed?
It seems as though it took a lot of design work to produce a an effective double engine aircraft for this role, (reminds me of the differences between the Me210 vs 410), that coupled with the already successful aircraft like the Mossie and Beaufighter, meant that not every design could or should have gone into production.
There was a twin engined heavy fighter with 4×20 mm cannons in the nose, although only a single seater. The Westland Whirlwind. Had Rolls Royce put more effort into developing the peregrine engines the Whirlwind could have been a game changer. As it was with the failure of the peregrine the Whirlwind was relegated to low level sweeps across France. Had the Whirlwind been fitted with drop tanks it could have escorted bombers all the way to Berlin and back.
10:27 A very telling image. The degree of rudder deflection to counter adverse TO power effects is alarming. I bet the fin was just basically inadequate, and the sharply pointed wing tips would have made for scary power on stall characteristics. It would also have suffered lateral instability issues with a shorter fuselage than the Mosquito compounded by the inadequate empennage. The elliptical wing is beautifull, but best left for a racing aircraft. To have solved all its problems it would had to have grown into an unwieldly thing like the Westland Welkin.
Even if the 'Metal Mosquito' had performed as expected it was redundant by mid 1943. The Luftwaffe high altitude threat proved not as great as expected. And what threat there could be countered by the Spitfire VII and, if necessary, by increased production of Westland Welkin November 1944 the high altitude Mosquitoe NF.30 was in service and the Hornet twin engined, single seat fighter well along in development.
Anything that flies to Berlin drops bombs on adolph and flies back at 500 miles an hour is F ing awesome! Putting the 4 hispano in the bombay to keep it stable and endure the weight of the cannons and ammunition was genius. It was tested against the spitfire, and it out performed it too. It wasn't a piece of junk even if it was made of balsa and plywood. It had all those roles during the war. It was adapted and versatile.
Or the Mossie just did the job. Plus - MUCH better looking. Bite the back of your hand beautiful. Whereas the Armstrong effort.. well. It’s a bit meh .. Interesting vid though mate. Another interesting kite I’d never heard of. Good show old boy!
Not hating metal, but wood was easier to obtain and wasn’t a strategically limited resource. There were different glues used depending on morning, afternoon or night shifts plus for SEAC ( south east Asia command) different resins were developed due to heat and humidity. The mosquito was so good that USArmy Air Corps flew it in photo recon variant but wouldn’t allow it to fly I. Harms way as unarmed recon so provided a pair of p51’s as escorts. That slowed the mosquito down. In 2003 I spent an interesting hour debating mosquito vs p38 & b17 with a docent at the smithsonian in Washington DC and in the end he admitted that on a raid to Berlin the US would have been better with mosquitoes as fewer crew, faster and similar bomb load on a trip to Berlin,
All that divisory work, so many competing ideas pursued in parallel. Could all that effort possibly have been better spent just honing down the Whirlwind tom perfection instead? Re-engining existing designs was a process that went on all through the war. I am still a bit left in wonder that Whirlwind was just dumped, rather than worked on till its engine issues were over.
It's a pity the Westland Whirlwind wasn't designed for Merlin engines. It would have been a great short-range interceptor in the early years of the war. The other missed opportunity was the De Havilland Hornet. Had it been optimised as a long-range heavy fighter/multi-role aircraft from the start (again using Merlin engines) it could have been introduced by late 1943 or early 1944. If the naval variant was capable of carrying a torpedo in lieu of rockets or bombs, the RAN might also have had the best torpedo bomber of the war on it's hands.
The Whirlwind is often derided as a bad aircraft, but its problem was that it was designed around the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and when development of the Peregrine was halted in order to concentrate on the Merlin, the Whirlwind was done for because changing the powerplant over would have necessitated a comprehensive redesign in order to incorporate them and it wasn't worth the effort.
That tail looks criminally tiny on that big fat round fuselage. Would like to see a video on the Bristol Buckingham. Sas intended to be the Blenheim successor but the Mossie got there first.
Ref 3:17, WWII started on 3 Aug 1939, so the contract signed on 30 Aug 39 was four days before, not two days as you say. Small detail, but how can I then trust other details you mention?
Those two gigantic engine nacelles might hVe been the cause of the Tin Mosquito's instability in flight.😮 They are definitely much bigger than the ones on the D.H. Mosquito
Oh well! There probably wouldn't gave been much need for a heavy fighter by mid - war. The ground - attack variant might have been more useful, if they had gotten it to work.
There already were several ground attack aircraft available to the British. Besides the Beaufighter, there was the Hurricane, Mosquito, and the American P-39 and A-20.
One indeed shouldn’t underestimate its development potential. As I understand it the main motivation for its cancellation was that the high attitude bomber threat it was conceived for never materialised. Furthermore: At the time of the decision Germany's luck had already turned and the chance of such a threat still materialising was very low. So in spite of it’s beauty the project died for all the right reasons.
G'day, Welcome to the Design History of EVERYTHING ever made of Metal. Someone decided to copy something which was already being built from Wood..., but using Metal. Spear and Arrow Points used to be fire-hardened sharpened Wood, till Bone, Ivory, flaked Stone and eventually Copper, Bronze, Iron & Steel were substituted. Car-Bodies used to be built of Wood and Canvas, until Pressed Metal Panels were tried. Bridges used to all be built of Wood, then Stone, and eventually Iron and then Steel & finally Steel-reinforced Concrete. Welcome to Iterative Design. Such is life, Live a good one.... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
Its a shame that they never fixed the engine problems for the Westland Whirlwind which if it had more reliable engines like Merlins could have been a great twin engined fighter.
Designed as a high-altitude fighter, not a fighter-bomber as the Mosquito was. Not a copycat. Not even a comparable design. Just because they were both twin-engine, mid-wing designs does not make them equivalent. On that basis, you could compare it with a Bristol Blenheim.
@@wbertie2604 The original specification was for a bomber, but it also met a later specification for a fighter-bomber and night-fighter. The first order was for 20 bomber variants and 30 fighter variants. So, both.
@@onenote6619 The Mosquito was originally pitched to the Air Ministry as an unarmed bomber. That is what was accepted as by the Air Ministry, therefore it was originally designed to be a bomber, not a fighter bomber.
@@onenote6619 It was designed as a bomber. The later use as a fighter bomber was simply a happy accident - it could be used effectively as a heavy fighter. But it was absolutely not part of the original design intention. That the RAF asked for a fighter version does not mean it was designed as such, because it most definitely wasn't. The specification that led to the F. II was for a long--range fighter, not fighter-bomber.
The first image of the 432, it's kind of the opposite to the Mosquito, in terms of "if it looks good, it probably flies well"... This thing looks all out of proportion... Have to come back to this after I do the Sunday pancakes 🥞
It always amazes me that even in the early war days when the British had their backs against the wall there was so much wasted effort and plenty of jobs for the boys with ministry of defence specifications issued and money found for stupid projects and often multiple people working on the same things!
It looks (to an untrained eye) that such a small tailfin and rudder would have insufficient authority against two of the more powerful Merlins and 4-blade props as installed on the prototype. Vickers owned Supermarine, so the elliptical wing makes sense. It's more like a twin-engined Spit than a Mozzie, which begs the question... Instead of reinventing the wheel, could they have just used the Spitfire fuselage with that layout, and put the guns in the nose where the engine would have been? It sounds dodgy yes, but how many other successful types came about from adapting or modifying an existing design? Lancaster? Beaufighter? Mosquito night fighter?
The Mosquito was an 'unarmed bomber' later developed to create armed versions, not really fighters since they could never outmatch single engine fighters in that role!
Vickers was the UK "golden boy" of the aircraft industry , they got war Dep //defence Dep money thrown after them and could do no wrong in the 30s,40,50s...
DeHavilland also brought out the original 'Hornet' not the one that only went cos it was on fire. Think vickers just tried to jump on Dehavillad's coat tails. They did ok but. BTW, did enjoy the vid, don't stop now m8. Guessing a few more than this one got dropped as 'not needed' Eh!
First time i heard of an all metal Mosquito!
Cheers! 👍😄
It's not. Just twin-engined British, too.
It was a metal aircraft designed to fill the same space as the Mosquito.
It’s a shame UK didn’t built two of either type for every heavy they actually built. These would have delivered similar bomb loads with the same number of engines and far fewer crew put at risk.
@@Dave5843-d9m - but the wooden Mosquitoes had a much smaller radar profile than metal planes - they were stealth in a sense.
I’m confused Geoffrey De Havilland. built the mosquito, the Vickers companies version was called the twin spitfire because as you see in your photos it took Mitchell’s elipticle wing put a pair of Merlin’s in it in its original spec and griffons in a later spec I think both companies worked on a version of the hornet but it was scrapped as jets had come on line by then, so why do you call it a Mossie while other videos I’ve watched including a programme on the spitfire and its various marks showed a prototype twin spit in photos. It was the early 80s and all my mind was filled with aeroplanes of the RAF in WW2 and Lorrie’s, cars, tanks,motorbikes and the SR4 hovercraft we went to France on, but the twin spit story stuck and I got books in later years mostly spitfire books but all referred to the twin spit never the twin Mossie or metal mosquito some (I believe call it the hornet mistakenly) so I hope you can see why I’m confused , you call it a tin Mosquito and me a mossaholic have never heard of a mosquito design by Vickers only by De Havilland, while I believe thousands were made I don’t believe any were built by Vickers, I will admit a quick search didn’t turn up much only most of the pictures used by yourself when put in twin spit or mosquito but none suggested it was made by Vickers as all there factories were take up building spitfires, seafires, and 1 or 2 others like a jet I can’t quite remember as it was soon dropped in favour of the meteor and vampire fighters,
Are you and possibly others attempting to give a aeroplane that is a spot on butt of history a legends name which let’s face it the wooden wonder was, while the twin spit didn’t get any where beyond prototyping old doesn’t A. Deserve to loose its own name and B.really does not deserve the name given to the Mosquito (also called wooden Wonder), if you know your mosquito history De Havillands built the Mossie from plywood for 2 reasons for 2 reasons it could be made in Canada and the US and Australia very easily, it wouldn’t tax the metal industry at the time pumping thousands of tons a of metal components into Britains great industrial complex.
De Havilland developed it out wood then after it flew the initial scepticism of the air ministry caused them to send a requirement for an aircraft that was like the mosquito, once they really knew how special she was they tried mounting alsorts, but one of the best in my opinion was the long range naval version that was equipped with extra life rafts as well as a torpedo and depth charges, there used to be a small display of items and photos at Yeovilton air station. It was my favourite as my Uncle flew different aeroplanes for coastal during the war as well as blenheims for bomber command and wellingtons, (which is what got him transferred to coastal, they needed experienced crews he’d been in pre war and as a flight engineer/second pilot he qualified to be upgraded to pilot.. I hope you can see why I’m struggling here as for 40 odd years of reading books and listening to wireless programs and tv programs, as well as now YT content and especially with YT there is some in my opinion some very badly researched vids that seem to confuse some types of aeroplanes with others, there’s also some ripping great stuff I site Andrew Morton, his aviation stuff is good and Rex’s hangar is good, the best is the imperial war museum, there are others but there names escape me if I find them I will add them later.
Me too, news to me
Any Mosquito fans who haven't seen the 1964 movie '633 Squadron' owe it to themselves to seek it out. Pre-CGI and using no scale models, eight (- yes, EIGHT) original airworthy Mosquitos were used for filming. Easily as good a period war movie as 'The Battle of Britain' or 'The Dambusters'.
Great movies from another era. Timeless and a joy to see the real planes
ooooooh yeeeeeeeah !
Da, da, da, da, da, da, der…
👍👍
The musical score for 633 Squadron was written by Ron Goodwin. It has the best and most memorable theme music, of any war movie...
Type 420? The very high altitude version? Very, very high?
LMFAO thanks for beating me literally to the punchline on that
Americans...
@@sugarnads hey are sense of humor is the least dangerous thing about us
@jehb8945 that the rest of the world has little idea wtf youre talking about.
Or the earlier 404 which wasn’t found on the server
"A 40mm cannon. Is it accurate?"
"Not really, we're relying on enemy pilots sh**ting themselves and losing control".
When he said it was tested on a Wimpy I half expected to hear that, at the very least. it came back banana shaped. I worked at RAF Cosford for a time, they have a Mosquito painted to look like Gibsons, and in a display beside it was a Molins 57mm gun used in a handful of Tsetse versions. If you look at it you cant help but wonder about the wisdom of strapping it to an aircraft made basically from a few planks of plywood,
@@johnwh1039 other sources say it was 56mm or was it a size in between?
Far more likely they were filling the air with so much Lead there was no room for the enemy?
😂 Well they were meant for ground strike, so hitting within a four foot radius on a ship, train, tank, or fortification would have been pretty good and would have had a bowel loosening effect on any enemy troops in the area of impact!
@@doberski6855 Of course you are correct, but the joke didn't work that way.
Very informative indeed thanks. One of the other nails in the coffin of the Vickers design was how versatile the De Havilland Mosquito airframe turned out to be. As the air ministry wanted new options, De Havilland was able to adapt the Mosquito to fit the job. Including a version fitted with a 6 pounder cannon for anti ship, and ground attack, produced near the end of the war. As for high altitude heavy fighter option which the Mosquito could already do. I think the P-38 from Lockheed being available, didn't help Vickers chances of getting a build order as well. Far as I have ever heard, the only real issue with the Mosquito from De Havilland, was they could not produce them fast enough to meet the demand.
They struck some issues in the South Pacific with catastrophic failures caused by delamination which resulted from the climate weakening the adhesives.
The Vickers Type 432 was not cancelled due to the British hating metal which is a rather absurd observation even if meant tongue in cheek. This is an interesting analysis but it misses out on the context of the time and the Elephant in the room which I will get to. Firstly as already noted the British already had the Mosquito capable of performing many of the roles the 432 was designed for adequately, wasting resources and pushing another similar type into service was not a good idea. If it had been developed quicker, they may have attempted to rectify issues and push into service but by then, it would have given them an aircraft soon to be rendered obsolete, leading me to the Elephant in the room. The fact is by December 1942 when the 432 first flew the first jet flight had happened a year earlier and the Gloster Meteor was deep into development and only a few months from its first flight. It is hardly surprising that the ministry lost interest in the 432 so quickly, unless it worked perfectly from the first flight there was absolutely no need to spend any more resources on it! The Type 432 was a residual 1939 specification in development that was soon to be rendered obsolete, they already had adequate twin-engine types for the moment in the form of the Mosquito and the Bristol Beaufighter. The Meteor outclasses the Type 432 in nearly every metric except probably range, the Ministry pulled the plug quickly as there was no further need to develop the Type 432 as by the time production facilities had been established and tooling prepared for its production it would have been obsolete as a design taking valuable aircraft grade aluminum away from the production of the first jet fighters.
Just to add to your analysis, Vickers had their foot in several war projects. I believe the War Ministry would want Vickers to concentrate their resources, including R&D and manufacturing, to projects with a higher priority. That would include ground (Army) equipment.
Britain had the Beaufighter already, the Mosquito was showing a lot of promise, plus they had access to multiple American aircraft (P-39, B-25, and A-20) that were becoming available. So this may have been more a case of wasting resources on duplication than just a problematic design.
He was....joking. Just a modern media style, i find it quite engaging. It's obvious that he's aware of most if not all of the dynamics you mention. A similar death knell was dealt to the Westland Whirlwind which was deemed rather good by test pilots, but various circs saw it being retired in short order.
@@thephilpott2194
Not trying to argue, however off the top of my head/memory the Whirlwind was very costly and complicated to build.
And of course the German high altitude bomber threat never really materialised
Seen it said elsewhere that it took 6 hours and a crane to change a wheel on a whirlwind compared to 20 minutes and a jack for a mosquito@alanmcentee9457
Thanks! Never heard of this dude, and I've been around a while now. Wow, what a laugh that projected top speed of 435mph was! I thought- On two 1,500 horse Merlins, in an AC that was a ton heavier (less armament) than the DH-98, I'll bet top speed will be somewhere around 360-380. As you later revealed, I made an accurate guess! Thanks again, great watch!
Wow! This photo of a flying example at 1:17 looks super-fast! Thanks! for this video.
I enjoyed this video, and learned something, and I appreciate your time/research on this unique plane!
I always look forward to “Hey, everyone, how’s it going?”. Mahalo for your work, and Aloha!
According to Tony Buttler's book, the Type 432 had a number of problems that were difficult to resolve.
That last joke got a like from me ! Great video, very interesting.
Very interesting! I would point out that early in the war there was a policy decision to concentrate on a limited number of designs, since the country was fighting for its life. I would also comment that the powers that be were not enamoured of wooden construction, and the DH Mosquito succeeded despite the scepticism. The video, however, informed me of a type I'd never heard of, so thank you.
Just an aside: Tin was known and traded as far south as the Mediterranean from before the Roman invasion. It was known as "The British Metal" and was a valuable trade item.
Thanks for the low-down on a model of the Mossie I'd never heard of.
Cheers from Ontario, CDA
Mosquito was made from tel layers of thin birch plywood (1/16 inch I believe) separated by a balsa wood core. It was extremely strong but degraded quite quickly with weathering. Tropical conditions were especially destructive to the airframes. This is why there are almost no surviving originals.
UK surplus originals (whether airworthy or not) were quick and simple to decommission and were burnt on Burnaston airfield, Derby (Now the Toyota factory).
Hardly surprising considering the Competition! Vickers already had a valuable project in constructing the proven Wellington.
@@moosifer3321 it tried a couple of times, to slightly different specifications, to improve on it, but never quite got it right
Never heard of this aircraft. Thank you.
Love you vids mate.
Can I just quickly stamp on this idea that nothing happened once war was declared in sept ‘39 until spring 1940. For example, If you spoke to the colliers on the East Coast convoys you”d hear that the war started even before the declaration as they were ordered to travel in convoys when the emergency started. This led to an increased risk of collision. These ships sailed up and down the east coast of Britain bringing coal from the North East and Scotland to the South East / London. This coal was essential for industry and the sheer amount (70,000 tonnes a week) meant that it was ships that carried it as the rail net work couldn’t hope to carry it all. The Germans attacked these convoys from day one and the escorts available to protect them was paltry and aircover non existent almost. As a result they suffered terrible loss to mines, S Boats and air attacks. Elsewhere the RN (the senior service, just sayin’:) were fighting u boats and commerce raiders (Graff Spee for eg) and it was all far from a “Phoney War” for these guys.
My mates grandfather was on the North Sea East coast convoys first as an engineer on a collier and then as a RNPS gunner. I remember he told us that they were given one Savage Gun welded on to the bridge to fight off the Luftwaffe with. He said they had this 17 year old boy as a mate on board who turned out to be an unbelievable shot with this thing. He would start to shot at the planes when they were way off but he’d aim hi and get a parabolic trajectory this the attacking planes would be struck as the rounds descended. My mates grandfather reckons it made them think a fighter was attacking them as the fire was coming from above them. He said that they’d often pull sharply away.
It just doesn't look right. The tail looks too small, wings too far forward nacelles too bulky, and fuselage too fat
Presumably they did wind tunnel testing??
Tails always seem to be the first thing enlarged--after slick radiators shed wishful thinking.
If it looks right it is right .
@@johnreed8336
Two rights still don't equal a simple left.
@@davidjernigan8161 looks better than the Windsor!
Crushing it with the Dad jokes. 🙏🏼
That moveable 40mm cannon would have been a bit unnerving to fire fully raised! Imagine the pitch issues and just how would you aim it stuck out in front of the nose, the test you mention says it all!
Well, we also have the interesting, and often forgotten, de Havilland Hornet.
Specification F.6/39 make me think about the Whirlwind except it was a single seater. (lets mention his high altitude brother, the Welkin)
The Westland Whirlwind was a private venture begun in the 1930s by Westland. Like the Vickers project, it was hampered by its engines, in it's case, the Rolls Royce Pegerine, which left the aircraft under powered. The Welkin, which is considered by many as being essentially an enlarged high attitude version of the Whirlwind was not a success because by the the time it materialized,, it was no longer needed for the role it had originally been conceived for.
@@EVISEH I heard that the Peregrine was'n''t the biggest problem of the WW but the ineficient radiators that overheat the engines and the propellers was indequate. They've used the Hamilton wich worked fine on the first prototype and then swapped to De Havilland wich gived far less good performances
(I hope my english is not to bad english).
Being the only aircraft that used the Peregrine the engine was always going to be sucking hind teat in terms of development. The later Welkin proved to be not needed. This Vickers design to me seems aimed at much the same role.
@@EVISEH I thought it was to F.37/35. I've never heard of it being a private venture. The Mosquito was, if only for about a month.
@@dimitrihayez6502 The Peregrine was a development of the RR KESTRAL and essentially was a supercharched version of that engine. Supercharging the engine did not yield the higher horsepower RR had hoped for , resulting in RR stopping development and production of the engine The Whirlwind was specifically designed around using the Perigrine, unfortantly the engine was unable to realise its potential , leaving the Whirlwind seriously under powered.
If I should ever be lucky enough to win the Euromillions Jackpot, I would learn to fly and have a late War spec Mosquito built as my personal plane, would also use some of that money to buy a lot of spare engines from Rolls Royce for all the planes in the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight and any to cover personal future needs.
Good luck . I hope you do win and then able to carry out your dream wishes .
RR don’t sell that kind of engine any more lol!
@@bremnersghost948 my old friend at the BBMF would probably like this very much. I'd probably go with a Dragon Rapide, though, and a Sunderland.
@@wbertie2604 a Sunderland would be good, Mrs could use it for shopping ;-)
@@stevena9305 they make them as a special order for the BBMF, win the Euromillions and Rolls Royce would fall over themselves to oblige such a significant order.
Why oh why didn't they just persist with the Whirlwind?
Rolls-Royce stopped making the Peregrine and the Whirlwind wasn't strong enough to use Merlins without major redesign.
Westland did get a contract to build the Welkin, a high altitude fighter fitted with cannon and 2 stage Merlins, like the Type 432.
@markturner5979 That is a very sentimental thought. However, I believe that what @waynec3563 said has some truth to it. Nobody won in the end but, The Whirlwind was 'potential looking' attractive!
@@waynec3563 also, they managed to get Spitfires and Mosquitos up to Ju-86 altitudes at which point the threat vanished. With the Spitfire VI and VII it would be possible to deal with future threats. They did build a few Welkins just in case
The cockpit, nose fuselage and tail,, of the 432, bear a very close resemblance to the legendary Canberra jet.
Not surprising it was cancelled. By 1943 the Welkin and Meteor were flying and developing well, and by 1944 the Hornet. Meanwhile the Mosquito had proved itself as a heavy gun platform and the defensive heavy fighter requirement diminished considerably. By mid 1944 it was obvious that the Meteor would render all prop fighters obsolete.
The Mosquito and the Hornet, were two of the most beautiful of aircraft of WWII. Both by De-Havilland Aircraft.
To me it seems most likely that the Type 432 was abandoned not because of what it could or couldn't do, but because the Mosquito was already doing those things. Unless the Type 432 could offer some radical improvements over the established Mosquito design that was already in mass production, there would be little point to proceeding with this aircraft because it would lead to a duplication of effort and a diversion of resources for no apparent or immediate gain. Put simply, it was unnecessary for the war effort, so it was cancelled.
Put two Turbocharged twin wasp radials and see if it's improved.
@@barrybend7189
It is never that simple. Changing the engines usually requires a redesign of the wings and wing location as the center of gravity is upset. Plus, the Wasps were in demand in America for all the planes using it there. The Bristol Hercules would have been more readily available and within the War Department's control.
The irony being that a varient of the Mosquito had a 6lb gun for tankbusting and anti-submarine use
"Unfairly abandoned"... hardly. The Mosquito was in full production (also in Canada and eventually Australia as well), available, and proved that it could do everything that the Vickers aircraft could (even eventually carrying a larger caliber weapon) without cutting into the supply of metals and alloys required for other aircraft manufacture. It was doing this with the same Merlins that were not quite up to snuff in propelling the heavier Vickers aircraft. One must take into account the fact that the various British aircraft industries had more than enough on their plates simply working with and improving existing types and building other companies' types under license. The "Tin Mosquito" simply wasn't a priority and would have been a waste of resources had it continued into production. Now had it been seriously and massively redesigned (early on) as a high level interceptor or a two seater night fighter/intruder it might have found a suitable role.
Yup. Why would you produce a plane that's just a clone (more or less) of an existing wooden aircraft, except it uses material that is actually war-critical and could be used for Spitfires and Lancasters?
The best thing about the Mossie was its design and logistics - and that fantastic performance and versatility was the brilliant icing on the cake.
Would have been a much better idea to produce it instead of Lancasters
@@tedarcher9120 not really, because they were designed for different roles. One a fighter, one a heavy bomber. The mosquito spanned between these extremes because it was an exceptional aircraft and also originally a bomber
@DanRyan-v5y as a night bomber Mosquito was much better
@@hoilst265
Why build a competing design? There were a few British designs that they kept going even though it was obvious they were inferior to other craft. The Halifax bomber is just one.
The moveable 40mm seems like a heavy and cumbersome armament.
Well, the Mosquito Tsetse got a fixed 50mm cannon and did well against small ships. But the Mosquito was designed as a fighter-bomber and the Vickers as as a fighter, so not a good comparison.
Having worked on around the AC-130 Gunships. firing the 105 mm so called 'recoilless' is still a treat for off axis recoil effects with its near perpendicular firing arc. the lesser known sister armament is a 40 mm cannon, which is usually fired more often, depending on the mission altitude and target mix. The point is, the relative mass of the C-130A/H platforms is significantly more than this aircraft and the installation of a recoiling cannon in the nose with an extreme 'arm of moment' around the off bore firing angle of 30 or so degrees in relation to that plane's CG would've been "fun" to watch. From a chase plane, of course.
@@onenote6619 I think you meant 57 mm. The 6 pounder. Though not used in service they also tested a 75 mm version but by that time the war in Europe was coming to an end.
@@onenote6619 the Mosquito was designed to be a pure bomber
I wonder how much recoil the recoil mechanism would absorb.
Any story involving the WW2 British Air Ministry is instructive for one reason. Bureaucrats are compelled to make improbable requests in order to retain the balance of power in their favour. As a gigantic contrast is the example of Beaverbrook who took (from the records) exactly no prisoners. Anybody's continued involvement depended solely on demonstrable performance. Not a recipe for making friends but he had an over-abundance of real enemies. From another perspective, being selected to join a Ministry is rarely based on a proven record in real world applications. Could he have done both (design, modifications and production)? We'll never know, Winnie the Pooh never tried too hard to surround himself with competency, unless forced.
Interesting wing form on the first iteration, banana shaped and forward swept.later iterations still had odd wingforms. Maybe that is why they were unstable?
Interesting also that the griffon eas available so early on.
Nice video , never heard of this before
Design work on the Griffon started in 1938 with early production beginning in 1940
Thank you for pointing out my distinct lack of knowledge in British WW2 fighter aircraft and to rub salt in the wound it took a Yank to do it.
The outboard leading edge of the wing is forward of the root st the fuselage attachment point and is bound to create instability, the tail surfaces appear far too small as well.
The 40mm cannon on the Wellington was testing possible new defensive turret armament for bombers.
There was a similar arrangemnet proposed with 4 x 20mm cannon, and another with a turret above and below the fuselage with 4 x 20mm each.
The Wellington was an amazingly versatile platform.
Wood construction is not necessarily lighter than metal construction. At any rate, I don't see that this plane has any special capabilities that couldn't be met by the Beaufighter or Mosquito. I'm immediately struck by a very small tail feathers. My guess is that this plane would be 'dodgey' if flown on one engine or asked to recover from a spin. Add to all of this, an Air Ministry that changes it's mind as often as most people change socks. Very interesting article, though.
And carbon fiber composite is not necessarily lighter than aluminum/aluminium. The BD-5J that Anheuser Busch had built back in the 80s was built locally. For some reason they wanted it built out of carbon fiber or at least parts of it. The builder did as they asked plus built aluminum/aluminium parts as well. The metal parts were lighter. Now this may have been due in part to the builder not being familiar with carbon fiber. But he did have extensive experience in composite construction with fiberglass.
This video is a bit harsh on the initial mosquitoes. It did have a few minor issues with buffeting, but it wasn't unstable. It flew well right off the bat. The fact this aircraft didn't fly well straight away and cooks the merlin 61 when other designs didn't suggest the vickers was a bit of a pig 😅
I believe there were problems initially with the type of wood glue used in the construction of the Mosquito, and failures occurred in the wing tips which would come off in flight. Sadly I think this resuted in some fatalities, perhaps during prototype testing, not sure.
Somewhere on the Internet is a drawing of a "Spitfire Zwilling". I wonder how one would have performed. This plane reminds me of that.
@@iskandartaib there was the Supermarine 313 - not a Zwilling, but pretty close to a twin-engined Spitfire.
Interesting to know manufacturing projects were on similar lines. I suppose if Vickers had used wood, ply, etc, their plane might have been a cert. You have to admit the DeHavilland Mosquito was a tremendous aircraft. 😢
I agree the Whirlwind with Merlin's would have been exciting but by then the Mosquito was not far away.
Not wanting to point out US preoccupation with its own airplane history (well, actually I do) but here in Europe the Mosquito is considered to be one of the true WW2 classics. The 432 is however indeed an unknown identity. Which is a shame because it looks like a Mosquito with extra muscles. I love it. 😁
The initial versions of the Griffon were not reliable with oiling/cooling problems initially. By the time the Vickers had been production slowed down, Spitfire were gobbling the vast majority of Griffon production.
have your done a deep dive on the Westland Welkin? another disaster along similar lines...
Great looking plane
It looks far more like an attempt at a twin-engined Spitfire, probably designed by a committee, and with all the problems and eventual outcome that entails.
There was a Supermarine design that was in essence a twin engined Spitfire. The Vickers is huge in comparison
What is a camel?
@@BearfootBob Camel toe?
@@JohnSmith-ei2pz A camel is a horse designed by committee
I wonder how it would look with a little area ruling.
Interesting, I didn't know this "version" of this plane.
Not a version. Entirely different.
@@onenote6619 This is why " " ;)
Typoon, Tempest, and Whirlwind were all designed in metal. Mosquito was just unusually useful in its wooden form. British put out plenty of metal frames.
The whirlwind was a potential fighter just needed better engines. With Merlin’s it would have been a devastating piece of kit.
@neilmchardy9061 Out of date before its test flight, unfortunately. They knew jets were coming.
@@neilmchardy9061 Outdated technology!
0:15 "easy to produce" -- I don't think so. It had two Merlins, which I think took twice the man-hours of the Alison that was nearly identical save for an extra supercharger stage.
It looks like a mash-up of a Spitfire (wing shape) and a Mosquito (vertical and horizontal stabilizers). Something that they discovered with the Typhoon/Tempest fighters is that a longer fuselage does lend itself to longitudinal stability. The issues with the Typhoon's tail catastrophic failures in flight disappeared with the Tempest and its longer fuselage. From the shape of the fuselage of the Vickers 438, it looks "too tubby" compared to the Mosquito's fuselage. Reminds me of the old adage, "If it looks right..." The 438 did not "look right" IMHO.
The wings look like the Spotfire's because Vickers owned Supermarine.
Is there a rock version of it?
Wow. Your description of the flight characteristics sounds similar to the Me 210.
Although it would have been interesting to see these types developed, suspect the Air Ministry made the right decision. Would these aircraft have offered any significant benefit over exiting types? Even if resources had been spent on development, would production cost have been higher than exsisting types? Also, as WW2 progressed there was perhaps a move away from large cannons for ground/surface attack towards rockets which were often more effective for short attack windows?
On paper the rockets sounded good, but in practice they were very inaccurate. They packed the punch of a 5" artillery shell but were difficult to aim unless at a short range.
The original Mosquito was light but strong with two powerful engines designed either to carry bombs, 20mm canons or cameras. Making it heavier with aluminum, even with more powerful engines, would have introduced balance issues and increases in wing loading. It just goes to show that the original concept was the right design!
Hey IHYLS could you please make a video about the polish light bomber the pzl.p23 karaś?
PS it was the first plane to bomb Germany in WW2.
or the PZL.37 Los
@HammerheadClassCruiser tak
The Merlin 61 was a high altitude engine, any issues would be the installation, not the engine. FS max at 26,000 feet.
What about a carbon fibre Mosquito? Weather proofing being the most obvious advantage. Same two halves construction of the Fuselage. Perhaps some reworking on the landing gear and other places.
Doable, but SCARY EXPENSIVE. Aerospace grade CF isn't cheap, and neither are the Autoclaves needed to cure it properly. Other'n that, if you can find an engineer who is experienced at designing CF structures & layups, then it's very doable. Might be tricky extracting the engineer from their current job - most of them seem to be working in top level motorsports (F1, etc) or for Aerospace manufacturers, so are pretty well paid...
With that cockpit position sandwiched between two fairly high mounted engines the pilot's visibility must have been awful.
As awful as it was in the Focke-Wulf Ta 154.
Not mentioned but of relevance, I think. The elliptical wings: what was their purpose? Was it a fashion statement in copying the plan view of the Spitfire wings that made it special? The execution of the Spitfire’s elliptical wings were very subtle in its design, with a very fine thickness to chord ratio. The Schneider Trophy racing in the 1930s had demonstrated to Mitchell at Supermarine the importance of thin wings in achieving high speed. The disadvantage of the elliptical wing is the very high labour content in production. The Vickers aircraft had very thick wings which would have contributed some to its poor speed performance. Looking at the photo of the inside of the wing structure, the large expanse of room for fuel would be offset by the inefficient structure adding unnecessary weight. Almost every other wing design ever has one or two large beans which extent vertically from the bottom surface of the wing to the top surface, usually the wing main spar is located at the thickest portion of the wing. This is the most efficient structure weight wise. Was the Vickers wing twisting in flight making the aircraft seem unstable? The plan view of the aircraft looks, to my eye, to be small wing area contributing to a high wing loading. I am not accusing the Air Ministry of unethical behaviour but some poor decision making was made on the Ministry’s part. Vickers was, or still is, one of the largest Defence Contractors in Britain at the time and would have been well positioned to promote their offering by wining and dining the Air Ministry.
The wing was designed by Barnes-Wallis.
The wing structure is not as inefficient as one might think, in fact it’s clever. But your point about elliptical platform is on point. However both the structure and the platform were too much trouble for marginal improvement particularly in wartime. Cheers
The Mossies wood structure advantage was its trueness and smoothness. These advantages are seen in today’s composite light aircraft. It’s just difficult to precisely fabricate riveted metal wings and if you did, they distort under load anyway.
The DH Hornet in the works helped kill the Vickers. Cheers
Sydney Camm famously said of the Tempest that he designed it with elliptical wings so the government would buy it.
The fact is that the Tempest had elliptical wings for the same reason the Spitfire did - to fit the armament.
I don't understand why they wouldn't counter rotate one of the engines . Would have helped a little at least . In the wooden model and the metal one . If I'm wrong , let me know .
RAF vet saying: "Thank you I did enjoy the video".
Dehavilland had the edge on many manufacturers when it came to aerodynamics.The ultimate expression of this advantage was the incredible Hornet, which sported twin Griffin's (now a viable engine compared to its state of development in 1939)putting out 2300 HP each and which was even lighter than the mosquito.
The hornet had Merlin 130s
@smithy2389 My mistake,there were a couple of DH 102s which were fitted with Griffin's,but that engine fitment wasn't proceded with.
@@darkknight1340 no dh 102s were ever built.
Many many years later I was posted to another Vickers Type. Suffice to say they built better ships than aeroplanes. Indeed the punka louvre on the flight deck proudly bore the name of its manufacturer.,Vickers Marine Co. Ltd. 'nuf said?
I’m confused why this was of interest to Air Ministry given the Mosquito already existed and was proven as highly configurable to multiple roles. A benefit of the original de Haviland design was that as the Mossie fuselage was made of wood it could be constructed by carpenters and other wood workers, then in plentiful supply, as was wool in Canada, and even in the UK so didn’t need to use imported war materials. And could thus keep aeroplane assembly lines free for other plane types. And what’s the benefit of it being metal as in tin? Would it be more robust than the wooden Mosquito? Whereas the Mossie was faster than German fighters it was less likely to be hit but was also resilient. The Vickers plane was heavier & slower, presumably less nimble, and generally less capable than the Mossie except for range which some Mossie drop tanks could solve if necessary. Was Vickers just trying to copy a clear competitor to divert govt spending to itself? Why was it wasting time and resources in wartime working on this? What was the expected benefit if it had worked as designed?
they should not be too disappointed. The Germans had several attempts to match the Mossie and did not succeed eitther.
It seems as though it took a lot of design work to produce a an effective double engine aircraft for this role, (reminds me of the differences between the Me210 vs 410), that coupled with the already successful aircraft like the Mossie and Beaufighter, meant that not every design could or should have gone into production.
There was a twin engined heavy fighter with 4×20 mm cannons in the nose, although only a single seater.
The Westland Whirlwind.
Had Rolls Royce put more effort into developing the peregrine engines the Whirlwind could have been a game changer.
As it was with the failure of the peregrine the Whirlwind was relegated to low level sweeps across France.
Had the Whirlwind been fitted with drop tanks it could have escorted bombers all the way to Berlin and back.
The Westland Whirlwind was closer to the mark than the Vickers manifestation.
_and it was dead._
**upside down picture**
Me too!😆😂🤣💀
10:27 A very telling image. The degree of rudder deflection to counter adverse TO power effects is alarming. I bet the fin was just basically inadequate, and the sharply pointed wing tips would have made for scary power on stall characteristics. It would also have suffered lateral instability issues with a shorter fuselage than the Mosquito compounded by the inadequate empennage. The elliptical wing is beautifull, but best left for a racing aircraft. To have solved all its problems it would had to have grown into an unwieldly thing like the Westland Welkin.
Even if the 'Metal Mosquito' had performed as expected it was redundant by mid 1943.
The Luftwaffe high altitude threat proved not as great as expected. And what threat there could be countered by the Spitfire VII and, if necessary, by increased production of Westland Welkin
November 1944 the high altitude Mosquitoe NF.30 was in service and the Hornet twin engined, single seat fighter well along in development.
Anything that flies to Berlin drops bombs on adolph and flies back at 500 miles an hour is F ing awesome! Putting the 4 hispano in the bombay to keep it stable and endure the weight of the cannons and ammunition was genius. It was tested against the spitfire, and it out performed it too. It wasn't a piece of junk even if it was made of balsa and plywood. It had all those roles during the war. It was adapted and versatile.
The design influenced early jet design.
Progress was slow on the type 420? I’m not surprised.
I guess you forgot about the Westland Whirlwind being in service at the time?
Or the Mossie just did the job.
Plus - MUCH better looking.
Bite the back of your hand beautiful.
Whereas the Armstrong effort.. well. It’s a bit meh ..
Interesting vid though mate. Another interesting kite I’d never heard of.
Good show old boy!
Not hating metal, but wood was easier to obtain and wasn’t a strategically limited resource.
There were different glues used depending on morning, afternoon or night shifts plus for SEAC ( south east Asia command) different resins were developed due to heat and humidity. The mosquito was so good that USArmy Air Corps flew it in photo recon variant but wouldn’t allow it to fly I. Harms way as unarmed recon so provided a pair of p51’s as escorts. That slowed the mosquito down. In 2003 I spent an interesting hour debating mosquito vs p38 & b17 with a docent at the smithsonian in Washington DC and in the end he admitted that on a raid to Berlin the US would have been better with mosquitoes as fewer crew, faster and similar bomb load on a trip to Berlin,
All that divisory work, so many competing ideas pursued in parallel. Could all that effort possibly have been better spent just honing down the Whirlwind tom perfection instead? Re-engining existing designs was a process that went on all through the war. I am still a bit left in wonder that Whirlwind was just dumped, rather than worked on till its engine issues were over.
If the Westland Whirlwind had been allowed to have RR Merlin engines it would have run rings round the 420
It's a pity the Westland Whirlwind wasn't designed for Merlin engines. It would have been a great short-range interceptor in the early years of the war. The other missed opportunity was the De Havilland Hornet. Had it been optimised as a long-range heavy fighter/multi-role aircraft from the start (again using Merlin engines) it could have been introduced by late 1943 or early 1944. If the naval variant was capable of carrying a torpedo in lieu of rockets or bombs, the RAN might also have had the best torpedo bomber of the war on it's hands.
The Whirlwind is often derided as a bad aircraft, but its problem was that it was designed around the Rolls Royce Peregrine engine and when development of the Peregrine was halted in order to concentrate on the Merlin, the Whirlwind was done for because changing the powerplant over would have necessitated a comprehensive redesign in order to incorporate them and it wasn't worth the effort.
That tail looks criminally tiny on that big fat round fuselage.
Would like to see a video on the Bristol Buckingham. Sas intended to be the Blenheim successor but the Mossie got there first.
Ref 3:17, WWII started on 3 Aug 1939, so the contract signed on 30 Aug 39 was four days before, not two days as you say. Small detail, but how can I then trust other details you mention?
No comment 😂😂😂
Those two gigantic engine nacelles might hVe been the cause of the Tin Mosquito's instability in flight.😮
They are definitely much bigger than the ones on the D.H. Mosquito
Oh well!
There probably wouldn't gave been much need for a heavy fighter by mid - war.
The ground - attack variant might have been more useful, if they had gotten it to work.
There already were several ground attack aircraft available to the British. Besides the Beaufighter, there was the Hurricane, Mosquito, and the American P-39 and A-20.
@alanmcentee9457
True. True.
There was no urgent need for it.
@@alanpennie8013
And to add to that idea, I don't think the War Ministry was looking to invest in just using the same technology.
is it me or dose that look like and idea sound like a CAMBRA ie pop in a couple of jet engines ?
I may have seen one in the Edmonton Aviation Museum.
A test pilot was nearly killed when the plane wouldn't come out of a spin: the design was faulty
I heard the mosquito could not take battle damage a disadvantage it had
One indeed shouldn’t underestimate its development potential. As I understand it the main motivation for its cancellation was that the high attitude bomber threat it was conceived for never materialised. Furthermore: At the time of the decision Germany's luck had already turned and the chance of such a threat still materialising was very low. So in spite of it’s beauty the project died for all the right reasons.
Somebody needs to build a replica, but with a larger tail plane and Griffon engines, just to see what it could really do.
Ah, so a metal, wooden plane.
Brilliant. 😁
G'day,
Welcome to the Design History of
EVERYTHING ever made of Metal.
Someone decided to copy something which was already being built from Wood..., but using Metal.
Spear and Arrow Points used to be fire-hardened sharpened Wood, till Bone, Ivory, flaked Stone and eventually Copper, Bronze, Iron & Steel were substituted.
Car-Bodies used to be built of Wood and Canvas, until Pressed Metal Panels were tried.
Bridges used to all be built of Wood, then Stone, and eventually Iron and then Steel & finally Steel-reinforced Concrete.
Welcome to Iterative Design.
Such is life,
Live a good one....
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Its a shame that they never fixed the engine problems for the Westland Whirlwind which if it had more reliable engines like Merlins could have been a great twin engined fighter.
Designed as a high-altitude fighter, not a fighter-bomber as the Mosquito was. Not a copycat. Not even a comparable design. Just because they were both twin-engine, mid-wing designs does not make them equivalent. On that basis, you could compare it with a Bristol Blenheim.
The Mosquito was designed as a bomber, not a fighter bomber
@@wbertie2604 The original specification was for a bomber, but it also met a later specification for a fighter-bomber and night-fighter. The first order was for 20 bomber variants and 30 fighter variants. So, both.
@@onenote6619 The Mosquito was originally pitched to the Air Ministry as an unarmed bomber. That is what was accepted as by the Air Ministry, therefore it was originally designed to be a bomber, not a fighter bomber.
@@onenote6619 It was designed as a bomber. The later use as a fighter bomber was simply a happy accident - it could be used effectively as a heavy fighter. But it was absolutely not part of the original design intention. That the RAF asked for a fighter version does not mean it was designed as such, because it most definitely wasn't. The specification that led to the F. II was for a long--range fighter, not fighter-bomber.
The first image of the 432, it's kind of the opposite to the Mosquito, in terms of "if it looks good, it probably flies well"... This thing looks all out of proportion... Have to come back to this after I do the Sunday pancakes 🥞
It always amazes me that even in the early war days when the British had their backs against the wall there was so much wasted effort and plenty of jobs for the boys with ministry of defence specifications issued and money found for stupid projects and often multiple people working on the same things!
It looks (to an untrained eye) that such a small tailfin and rudder would have insufficient authority against two of the more powerful Merlins and 4-blade props as installed on the prototype.
Vickers owned Supermarine, so the elliptical wing makes sense. It's more like a twin-engined Spit than a Mozzie, which begs the question... Instead of reinventing the wheel, could they have just used the Spitfire fuselage with that layout, and put the guns in the nose where the engine would have been?
It sounds dodgy yes, but how many other successful types came about from adapting or modifying an existing design? Lancaster? Beaufighter? Mosquito night fighter?
The Mosquito was an 'unarmed bomber' later developed to create armed versions, not really fighters since they could never outmatch single engine fighters in that role!
Vickers was the UK "golden boy" of the aircraft industry , they got war Dep //defence Dep money thrown after them and could do no wrong in the 30s,40,50s...
DeHavilland also brought out the original 'Hornet' not the one that only went cos it was on fire. Think vickers just tried to jump on Dehavillad's coat tails. They did ok but. BTW, did enjoy the vid, don't stop now m8. Guessing a few more than this one got dropped as 'not needed' Eh!