Besides innovation of the Mosquito's Wing tanks being made of plywood or paper mache and being made of lighter materials they could squeeze in a extra 10 to 20 gallons extra of fuel compared to same volume Aluminum drop tanks ( the USAF Europe copied the paper mache wing drop tanks for their P51 Mustangs, P47 Thunderbolts, which many where actually manufactured in the UK for USAF) . The Mossie's drop tanks were the 1st generation low drag conformal wing tanks which are all the rage these days on F16 and F15 and other modern fighter jets. The lower drag of the Mossie's conformal drop tanks gave their crews more extended range than the high drag tanks and attachment systems used on the P51, P47, P38, or even SpitFire, Typhoo, Tempest, etc... .
Lovely video and thanks for the gallons. Many brilliant video's these days have the edge taken by metric units. I dunno if producers think it's cool or what but it really gets my goat when a British aircraft that was not built flown or operated in metric is described in metric.. Anyway, keep the videos coming; you can do it in cubits, I'll still watch them.
Thanks! My father was a friend of John "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham for many decades. They met at de Havilland Aeronautical Technical School just before the war. Just a while ago, going through my fathers notes I found an entry on John Cunningham. It was a technical thing my father needed help with and then he ran into John Cunningham at Farnborough (the air show) who was exactly the right person to discuss the matter with. Both me and my father are Swedish. My father passed many years ago.
Wing Commander Guy Gibson of dambusters fame was kill flying a mosquito in 1944. One of the theories for the crash was that he was unfamiliar with the complex system of switching between the many fuel tanks, the switches/taps which were distributed in various places around the cockpit, including under the seat. The quote below is from Wiki. "Lack of fuel is the explanation most favoured by members of No. 627 Squadron at the time. In December 1985 the site was excavated and wreckage from the plane recovered. No enemy damage was noticeable. It has therefore been suggested that Gibson and Warwick had failed to switch fuel tanks at the correct time. It has also been suggested there was a fault with the fuel tank selector. Further, it is possible that a lack of familiarity with the Mosquito resulted in neither Gibson nor Warwick being able to find the switches to swap the fuel supply. This would also be a reason to explain why the cockpit was illuminated: they were attempting to locate the switches. In either case, the result would be that the aircraft simply ran out of fuel."
Nicely narrated , at a vocal speed most people , even " foreigners " could understand , but it would have been nice to include a metric equivalent when talking about fuel capacities and operational ranges
@@deHavMuseum Good point! Imp gallon = 4.54 litre (please note my British spelling) US gallon = 3.79 liter (US spelling 🙂) So an American hearing X gallons also has his own interpretation.
Besides innovation of the Mosquito's Wing tanks being made of plywood or paper mache and being made of lighter materials they could squeeze in a extra 10 to 20 gallons extra of fuel compared to same volume Aluminum drop tanks ( the USAF Europe copied the paper mache wing drop tanks for their P51 Mustangs, P47 Thunderbolts, which many where actually manufactured in the UK for USAF) . The Mossie's drop tanks were the 1st generation low drag conformal wing tanks which are all the rage these days on F16 and F15 and other modern fighter jets. The lower drag of the Mossie's conformal drop tanks gave their crews more extended range than the high drag tanks and attachment systems used on the P51, P47, P38, or even SpitFire, Typhoo, Tempest, etc... .
Spitfires had 'conformal' external fuel tanks.
Lovely video and thanks for the gallons. Many brilliant video's these days have the edge taken by metric units. I dunno if producers think it's cool or what but it really gets my goat when a British aircraft that was not built flown or operated in metric is described in metric.. Anyway, keep the videos coming; you can do it in cubits, I'll still watch them.
Amazing and beautiful design. Thanks for the presentation.
Thanks!
My father was a friend of John "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham for many decades. They met at de Havilland Aeronautical Technical School just before the war. Just a while ago, going through my fathers notes I found an entry on John Cunningham. It was a technical thing my father needed help with and then he ran into John Cunningham at Farnborough (the air show) who was exactly the right person to discuss the matter with.
Both me and my father are Swedish. My father passed many years ago.
Wing Commander Guy Gibson of dambusters fame was kill flying a mosquito in 1944. One of the theories for the crash was that he was unfamiliar with the complex system of switching between the many fuel tanks, the switches/taps which were distributed in various places around the cockpit, including under the seat. The quote below is from Wiki.
"Lack of fuel is the explanation most favoured by members of No. 627 Squadron at the time. In December 1985 the site was excavated and wreckage from the plane recovered. No enemy damage was noticeable. It has therefore been suggested that Gibson and Warwick had failed to switch fuel tanks at the correct time. It has also been suggested there was a fault with the fuel tank selector. Further, it is possible that a lack of familiarity with the Mosquito resulted in neither Gibson nor Warwick being able to find the switches to swap the fuel supply. This would also be a reason to explain why the cockpit was illuminated: they were attempting to locate the switches. In either case, the result would be that the aircraft simply ran out of fuel."
Thanks for such a straight forward easy to follow answer. Appreciate
02:00 Nice to see a memento of RR299...
Thanks.
And what sort of Callons we are hearing here.
Real 4.55 litre gallons. If he meant U.S. 3.8 litre gallons he would have specified that.
Nicely narrated , at a vocal speed most people , even " foreigners " could understand , but it would have been nice to include a metric equivalent when talking about fuel capacities and operational ranges
That is a very valid point about metric equivalents. We need to do that in future videos. Thanks for your feedback.
@@deHavMuseum Good point!
Imp gallon = 4.54 litre (please note my British spelling)
US gallon = 3.79 liter (US spelling 🙂)
So an American hearing X gallons also has his own interpretation.
@@rudolfabelin383 👍👍
Imp gallons to litres divide by 0.22 ...Exercise your brain. 🙂
@@Slaktrax Indeed. However I'm better at memorising (UK spelling 🙂) the original values.
Best regards from Sweden.
Rudolf Abelin
MS ME
More !
The use of pronouns on titles is to be avoided. “Where was fuel stored in a Mosquito?” Thanks for the report.