Mosquito KA114 Roll Out today

[Mark Allen M]

Oustanding work!!! but I noticed no cannon, yet!!!





Maybe your shooting for more shooting with more guns.



Good folks from LIFE and Google have a few images of your bird.





Jolly good show mates!!!

[JDK]

The big gun is a 57mm Molins Cannon in the Testse Mosquito (yes, a 57 mm cannon in a wooden aircraft...) based on the 6 pdr army anti-tank gun, and fitted with an auto-feed made by a cigarette machine manufacturer, capable of 55 rounds per min.

Note the relation to the US equivalents.

The Molins Gun in the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII was tested in the USA in 1945, in comparison with the nearest US equivalent, the manually loaded 75mm AN-Mk 5 in the PBJ-1H. This comparison was more valid than the difference in calibre might suggest, for the 75x350R ammunition used in the American gun (the same as was used by the M4 tank gun in the Sherman) was about the same overall size as the 57x441R, and the 6pdr and 75mm tank guns were effectively interchangeable in the later British tanks. The Molins Gun impressed the Americans with its performance and reliability and was considered superior to the 75mm as it could achieve a much higher rate of fire. It was noted that fairly violent evasive action and 2.5 positive Gs did not cause stoppages - which could not be said for manual loading! The Americans recommended that the Molins autoloader could be considered as suitable not just for conventional guns but also for recoilless weapons and spin-stabilised rockets.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Molins.htm

Our book on the Tetse Mosquito. http://www.mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=44

The 'small' gun pics you've got feature four .303 Colt Browning machine guns, plus four 20mm Hispano cannon below them, the cannon breeches being in the front of the bomb bay; so the FB.VI (such as the example under restoration, FB standing for 'Fighter Bomber') had the aft bomb bay and sometimes wing racks for bombs. The bomb loading shot shows the cannon cartridge ejection ports in the front bomb bay doors. A bit more than 'just guns'.

The D Day striped example is unarmed - it's a PR (Photo Reconnaissance) example, I think a PR Mk.XVI. Note the camera ports on the underside. The USAAF didn't have the strategic PR role covered well initially, so PR types were one of the main elements of reverse lend-lease, with the USAAF using PR Spitfires and Mosquitoes. That's why the NMUSAF has a PR Spit on show in US markings and a Mosquito B.35 mocked up back to a PR.XVI version in US markings. I'm picky about it being a mock-up version, as the last real PR.XVI, which also is rare in having a W.W.II combat history, is being restored at the RAAF Museum where I volunteer.

Interestingly the PR.XVI and B.35 were both pressurised versions, with a double-glazed canopy, including doubling of the rear-view blisters (themselves a patent item by inventor, spy and secret agent Sidney Cotton). So a pressurised wooden aircraft as well...

It's interesting that the censor's chosen to strike out the extreme nose of the PR example and the retracted tailwheel leg, both seem a bit off, as I can't think of anything particularly 'secret' in those positions.

Regards,

[Mark Allen M]

Great bit of info Mr. James DK

[marine air]

My bad on calling it a "Hudson". Growing up, there were two very nice Howard 250's in Nashville and everyone called them "Hudsons", never C-57 or C-60's. My dad's mechanic served at the allied base in Karachi, India working on everything the allies had in WWII. He called them Hudsons. The type rating in the U.S. is "Lockheed L-18."
Anyway, they tend to pivot on a main wheel and are a real handfull in crosswinds, I'm told. The market never really took off here as warbirds, like the C-47 and B-25. The last three I've seen for sale were in the $60- $125k range. Parts are available.
Civilian or Howard conversions would be a lot lighter than when in military and would give better performance.
They could practice V1 cuts, short field takeoffs and no flap landings, and IFR ,no flap, circle to land single engine IFR landings. Plus run through lots of other emergency scenarios. The L-18 has lots of room so multiple potential Mosquito pilots could go along and wear headsets and learn from being with the instructor and student and seeing everything repeated.

[51fixer]

Get Taigh, the PV-2 is a bit closer in horse power to the Merlins than those little 1820s.

[JDK]

Great bit of info Mr. James DK

Happy to help...

The discussion on what US type might be used is irrelevant, even if interesting. I'm not privy to the actual discussions, but the first test flights will be in New Zealand and the pilots chosen will have excess experience beyond the need of other relatively different twin rides. I would expect them to convert the US pilots onto it, unless the Mozzie gets filed under the same 'too hard' label as the Russian types in Virginia, which would be a pity. However by the time the Mosquito is in the US, or the US pilots fly it, the designated pilots won't need to mess about on other types.

No problem marine air, lots of things get rolled into other sets, but a Hudson is, and was always, a military Model 14, and not a later Lockheed, however convenient the term may be. All the other Lockheeds had different names and designations of their own.

The type rating in the U.S. is "Lockheed L-18."

I would presume that's because they were rolled into the L-18 group, being a) rare in the US and b) often uprated to L-18 or later equivalent performance in postwar civil use in the US. I don't believe the equivalent applies in Australia when the Hudson had a major post-war career, while Canada, may have been different again, where there were lots of Hudsons with people like Kentings etc, but also a lot of later Lockheeds too, unlike Aus.

A couple of further points on the Hudson front -

The guys at the National Air Force Museum of Canada at Trenton have just spliced a Lodestar centre section into the Hudson fuselage they are restoring. That's a Hudson VI from the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum on long term loan. A good illustration of similarity.

Regarding Hudson ground handling, I should have said (check refs before posting) that Hudsons were equipped with leading edge fixed slots after some early accidents, while they were also unusual in being advised to be landed with wheeler. rather than three-point landings.

In these and the other 'dangerous' and 'tricky' accounts, much of the problem was simply that they did not fit the pilot culture and general training of the time in the Commonwealth, which was to land as slow as possible, directly into wind, and three-point every time, most airfields being grass and economy of landing run being useful. (Few W.W.II types 'like' out of wind landings, these being a bad compromise forced on aviation by the development of runways rather than all-over grass fields.)

Take off, most earlier types the green Hudson pilot had encountered simply weren't powerful enough to need the care the 'hotter' Hudson required on the take off run when adding power.

Like many other aircraft, the new Hudson pilots were wary of a type that was advanced and sophisticated, and boosted the type's reputation as being scary to those that followed them. All bull. What was unusual was you had to do what the manual (manuals for individual types being new then too) told you - not near enough, not 'what you were used to' or felt right, and rather than having a recoverable situation when you did what you'd usually done, the aircraft would depart, game over.

The proof of the type's actual capability, was that as well as many other roles, Hudsons were the preferred type for 161 and 138 Squadrons when they had to take in or lift out more than four agents from Occupied Europe. In those cases they flew into unprepared (but carefully selected) fields, at night, usually around full moon, guided by three torches (flashlights) and nothing else.

On a couple of occasions Hudsons became bogged, but on at least one occasion one was unbogged using the engines at high throttle and two bullocks to pull it out!

The 161 and 138 (Special Duties) Sqn highly experienced pilots knew what could be done with the type in challenging ground conditions. Other 'easier' and 'safer' types were available (Avro Ansons were use in some early flights) but Hudsons were the preferred choice.

Regards,

[Dave Homewood]

The guys at the National Air Force Museum of Canada at Trenton have just spliced a Lodestar centre section into the Hudson fuselage they are restoring.

The MOTAT Hudson here in New Zealand also drew upon a Lodestar centre-section and wings to complete its restoration. Or more accurately it was an ex-topdressing Loadstar (they altered the name to reflect the huge load of superphospate these beasts carried, apparently).

[ErrolC]

There is a background article on Glyn Powell in the insert magazine of The NZ Herald newspaper, including several photos of the workshop etc.

http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/gly ... o/1449905/

Glyn Powell's head pops out from beneath a plane carcase draped in sheets and various ragged shapes of cloth. The plane sits on a perch of wooden trestles in a hangar-shaped shed in Drury, built especially to house its transformation.

Glyn fits easily under a big wooden wing, and shuffles towards us across a concrete floor that's a little sawdusty in parts.

A firm handshake, a sheepish grin. He gestures at his baby - aMosquito T43 he's rebuilding completely. He bought it around 25 years ago, thinking he could restore it in five years, then fly it. But he soon realised the glue that held together the all-wood airframe would never pass the flying test.

...

Also see sidebar link to January story on Avspecs and KA114.

Thanks to flyernzl on Wings Over NZ for pointing this out, I don't normally look at the 'local' mag.

[ErrolC]

Short TV story on the occasion of moving her to the paint shop (same people who did Rod Lewis's P-40C)

http://www.3news.co.nz/Mosquito-gets-fi ... fault.aspx

See also http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7440401 ... den-flight
and further photos in the WONZ thread linked to above.