Dh Mosquito Construction Techniques

jcf

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
26 June 2017
Messages
123
Reaction score
252
Hi T. A.,

One thing that always comes up in my mind about this plane is why the Tego glue process couldn't be replicated elsewhere in Germany once the one factory using it was bombed to destruction. Anybody know why that was?

It's mentioned in the abovementioned book, too. The replacement glue was systematically tested and found to give good quality connections, but destroy the wood adjacent to the connection (upon closer inspection). The solution was not actually difficult to find and consisted of using a higher water-to-glue ratio. I'm not sure it had much on an impact on the overall programme, but it seems Göring personally had Tank report on it, confronting him with accusations of sabotage raised by the head of production of the factory making the wings.

(Of course, the way Conradis wrote the book, Tank is always right in everything.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
There is a world of difference between the Tego process (called Duramold or Aeromold in the US at the time), and using phenol based adhesives applied by brush or roller. The Tego et. al., process is streets ahead of the phenol glues both in strength and consistency.

Here's a Fairchild video on the Duramold process they were using. It's essentially the same thing as the German Tego process:

Tego film is a phenolic adhesive and requires heat and pressure to activate and bond properly, which is great for flat
sheets of plywood because you can use existing presses, but more involved when doing large compound curved
structures like an aircraft fuselage, which the AT-21 video demonstrates. Which means that the manufacture of a
Moskito was more complex than building a Mosquito. The techniques used to build the Mosquito are similar to
methods that had been used in small wooden boat and canoe construction for many decades prior to the Mosquito
existing meaning that setting up new production lines was very straightforward, relatively cheap and could be done
quickly. The only specialized equipment was the moulds, but even those were very straightforward to construct.
 

Attachments

  • F5985ABC-D9AF-4DCE-B268-0ADEBDD8AA26.jpeg
    F5985ABC-D9AF-4DCE-B268-0ADEBDD8AA26.jpeg
    143.7 KB · Views: 114
Last edited:
Hi T. A.,

One thing that always comes up in my mind about this plane is why the Tego glue process couldn't be replicated elsewhere in Germany once the one factory using it was bombed to destruction. Anybody know why that was?

It's mentioned in the abovementioned book, too. The replacement glue was systematically tested and found to give good quality connections, but destroy the wood adjacent to the connection (upon closer inspection). The solution was not actually difficult to find and consisted of using a higher water-to-glue ratio. I'm not sure it had much on an impact on the overall programme, but it seems Göring personally had Tank report on it, confronting him with accusations of sabotage raised by the head of production of the factory making the wings.

(Of course, the way Conradis wrote the book, Tank is always right in everything.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
There is a world of difference between the Tego process (called Duramold or Aeromold in the US at the time), and using phenol based adhesives applied by brush or roller. The Tego et. al., process is streets ahead of the phenol glues both in strength and consistency.

Here's a Fairchild video on the Duramold process they were using. It's essentially the same thing as the German Tego process:

Tego film is a phenolic adhesive and requires heat and pressure to activate and bond properly, which is great for flat
sheets of plywood because you can use existing presses, but more involved when doing large compound curved
structures like an aircraft fuselage, which the AT-21 video demonstrates. Which means that the manufacture of a
Moskito was more complex than building a Mosquito. The techniques used to build the Mosquito are similar to
methods that had been used in small wooden boat and canoe construction for many decades prior to the Mosquito
existing meaning that setting up new production lines was very straightforward, relatively cheap and could be done
quickly. The only specialized equipment was the moulds, but even those were very straightforward to construct.
Speaking of Mosquito molds ... British Mosquitos were built on wooden molds, but those molds expanded and contracted with changes in humidity. OTOH deHavilland of Canada used concrete molds that were more stable.
 
Speaking of Mosquito molds ... British Mosquitos were built on wooden molds, but those molds expanded and contracted with changes in humidity. OTOH deHavilland of Canada used concrete molds that were more stable.
Interesting. I suspect that concrete molds would present problems of their own, mainly with getting accurately sized and shaped output. Concrete shrinks as it cures. In the US, concrete was used to speed the building of machine tools in both world wars, and just this issue had to be overcome.
 
The moulds in the Mossie (Pardon me, De Havilland) museum are concrete and were apparently used in Hatfield from start.
 
Last edited:
If these were poured onto the form such that the surface to be used in manufacturing was on the bottom / down, they'd hold their shape pretty well. Shrinkage on concrete generally is only on the top / open face of it. The weight of the concrete above that against the form would keep that side from shrinking away from the form.
 
If these were poured onto the form such that the surface to be used in manufacturing was on the bottom / down, they'd hold their shape pretty well. Shrinkage on concrete generally is only on the top / open face of it. The weight of the concrete above that against the form would keep that side from shrinking away from the form.
I am by no means a concrete expert. But I worked around it a lot in my younger days as a laborer and later foreman.

Concrete shrinks in all directions, including longitudinally and transversely. It will pull aways from the sides of forms sometimes.The shrinkage isn't always uniform either, and can cause distortion. It doesn't matter much in typical construction (if I remember correctly, we were allowed to be out plus-or-minus 3/100 foot on commercial foundations, or about 3/8 in, which is quite a lot). But I suspect that complex curves and precision location relative to other parts would take some care, thought, and experimentation. If anything, I'd think gravity would add to the problems rather cure them.

I'm not saying concrete would not be usable or even the best material--it obviously was used. I'm just saying that using it for precision projects isn't the trivial problem one might imagine.
 
If these were poured onto the form such that the surface to be used in manufacturing was on the bottom / down, they'd hold their shape pretty well. Shrinkage on concrete generally is only on the top / open face of it. The weight of the concrete above that against the form would keep that side from shrinking away from the form.
I am by no means a concrete expert. But I worked around it a lot in my younger days as a laborer and later foreman.

Concrete shrinks in all directions, including longitudinally and transversely. It will pull aways from the sides of forms sometimes.The shrinkage isn't always uniform either, and can cause distortion. It doesn't matter much in typical construction (if I remember correctly, we were allowed to be out plus-or-minus 3/100 foot on commercial foundations, or about 3/8 in, which is quite a lot). But I suspect that complex curves and precision location relative to other parts would take some care, thought, and experimentation. If anything, I'd think gravity would add to the problems rather cure them.

I'm not saying concrete would not be usable or even the best material--it obviously was used. I'm just saying that using it for precision projects isn't the trivial problem one might imagine.
Sides some, top definitely. But the bottom stays put due to the weight of material pushing down on it. You'd need some trick of anti-gravity to have it do otherwise...
 
If these were poured onto the form such that the surface to be used in manufacturing was on the bottom / down, they'd hold their shape pretty well. Shrinkage on concrete generally is only on the top / open face of it. The weight of the concrete above that against the form would keep that side from shrinking away from the form.
I am by no means a concrete expert. But I worked around it a lot in my younger days as a laborer and later foreman.

Concrete shrinks in all directions, including longitudinally and transversely. It will pull aways from the sides of forms sometimes.The shrinkage isn't always uniform either, and can cause distortion. It doesn't matter much in typical construction (if I remember correctly, we were allowed to be out plus-or-minus 3/100 foot on commercial foundations, or about 3/8 in, which is quite a lot). But I suspect that complex curves and precision location relative to other parts would take some care, thought, and experimentation. If anything, I'd think gravity would add to the problems rather cure them.

I'm not saying concrete would not be usable or even the best material--it obviously was used. I'm just saying that using it for precision projects isn't the trivial problem one might imagine.
Sides some, top definitely. But the bottom stays put due to the weight of material pushing down on it. You'd need some trick of anti-gravity to have it do otherwise...
And when the "bottom" is a compound curve? We aren't talking flatwork here.
 
What if you start with a male plug?
Set it on the shop floor, then pour the female mold overtop. That will put the more stable "bottom" on the bottom of the female mold. Once "set," invert the female mold and start laying strips of wood inside to form the outer skin of the airframe.
 
What if you start with a male plug?
Set it on the shop floor, then pour the female mold overtop. That will put the more stable "bottom" on the bottom of the female mold. Once "set," invert the female mold and start laying strips of wood inside to form the outer skin of the airframe.
As I said, I am sure there are ways to do it. Only that it took some work and some good engineering..
 
If these were poured onto the form such that the surface to be used in manufacturing was on the bottom / down, they'd hold their shape pretty well. Shrinkage on concrete generally is only on the top / open face of it. The weight of the concrete above that against the form would keep that side from shrinking away from the form.
I am by no means a concrete expert. But I worked around it a lot in my younger days as a laborer and later foreman.

Concrete shrinks in all directions, including longitudinally and transversely. It will pull aways from the sides of forms sometimes.The shrinkage isn't always uniform either, and can cause distortion. It doesn't matter much in typical construction (if I remember correctly, we were allowed to be out plus-or-minus 3/100 foot on commercial foundations, or about 3/8 in, which is quite a lot). But I suspect that complex curves and precision location relative to other parts would take some care, thought, and experimentation. If anything, I'd think gravity would add to the problems rather cure them.

I'm not saying concrete would not be usable or even the best material--it obviously was used. I'm just saying that using it for precision projects isn't the trivial problem one might imagine.
Sides some, top definitely. But the bottom stays put due to the weight of material pushing down on it. You'd need some trick of anti-gravity to have it do otherwise...
And when the "bottom" is a compound curve? We aren't talking flatwork here.
I've seen concrete sinks and other compound curve shapes poured that way for high-end residential use and those follow the form so long as they're poured face down.
 
The moulds in the Mossie (Pardon me, De Havilland) museum are concrete and were apparently used in Hatfield from start.

A minor point: the 'male' concrete moulds on display at the Mosquito Museum were for the DH.103 Hornet.
Thanks for that, the moulds I saw were outside the building in about 1987/88 and I was told they were for the Mosquito. Not all that well sorted then as it was a lot of years ago so perhaps there have been a lot of changes, not having been back since I would have zero clues tbh.
 
I would add, that today stuff like melamine (a white laminate on plywood or mdf) is used, or sometimes fiberglass not straight wood for such molds to get a smooth surface.
 
As an aside, another deHavilland of Canada product - the Twin Otter - is also build on a variety of concrete molds. If you taxi past the Viking hangar at Victoria International Airport, you will see a wide variety of concrete molds sitting on shelves. Those concrete molds are used to make the dozens of small aluminum fairings, etc. on Twin Otters. Though I suspect that many of the non-structural fairings on Viking-built Twin Otters are now made of fiberglass. Remember that Viking production of new Twin Otters grew out of an extensive network of overhauls and PMA (Parts Manufacturing Authority) until the weight of new components eventually out-weighed the original components in major overhauls and major repairs.
IOW Viking did not need to learn how to build many new parts by the time they started building all-new Twin Otters.
 
As an aside, another deHavilland of Canada product - the Twin Otter - is also build on a variety of concrete molds. If you taxi past the Viking hangar at Victoria International Airport, you will see a wide variety of concrete molds sitting on shelves. Those concrete molds are used to make the dozens of small aluminum fairings, etc. on Twin Otters. Though I suspect that many of the non-structural fairings on Viking-built Twin Otters are now made of fiberglass. Remember that Viking production of new Twin Otters grew out of an extensive network of overhauls and PMA (Parts Manufacturing Authority) until the weight of new components eventually out-weighed the original components in major overhauls and major repairs.
IOW Viking did not need to learn how to build many new parts by the time they started building all-new Twin Otters.
The moulds are referred to as form blocks and are also commonly made of dense stable hardwoods
like "rock maple", phenolic composite, MDF, epoxy etc. depending on what's being made, complexity
of the shape and how much force is required in the forming process.

Something to remember about the "concrete" used to make a fuselage mould, male or female, is that it
ain't the same as what you use to pour a patio slab, sidewalk or even the floor in a multi-story building.
The mix would be quite different and the engineering of the form would take shrinkage into consideration.
Also the male mould used to build the Mosquito fuselages didn't require tolerances of a few thousandths
of an inch because of the nature of the airframe construction techniques, which fall under the classification
of cold-moulding. A boat-building term that indicates that no heat source, steam or direct, was used to form
the wood used to construct the hull.

Frankly I'm also skeptical about the story that the wooden moulds used by DH in the UK actually changed
any noticeable amount with changes in temperature and humidity, properly seasoned timber used in the
methods used to construct the forms isn't going to change by any great amount with the change in seasons.
It's more likely that they went to concrete moulds at DH Canada because they could and it enabled them to
produce the required number more quickly.

There is a lot of mythology around the Mosquito one of the biggest being the tropical climate failures, which
Geoffrey De Havilland et al were quick to blame on the glue, despite an official investigation that determined
the majority of the failures were due to poor quality control during construction.

The fuselage of the Northrop designed Lockheed "Stars", Vega etc., was built up by layering the plys into heavy
concrete female moulds, a rubber bladder and fitted cover were bolted down and the bladder was pressurized
to press the layers of ply and glue together. Only one shape of mould was required because the fuselage was
symmetrical on all axes. Which was a clever decision in terms of simplifying the process of manufacture, almost
the exact opposite of the methods used to construct the Mosquito.
 
Last edited:
The moulds in the Mossie (Pardon me, De Havilland) museum are concrete and were apparently used in Hatfield from start.

A minor point: the 'male' concrete moulds on display at the Mosquito Museum were for the DH.103 Hornet.

Then they should be used to build a Hornet!

Mosquitos are nice and I've seen a few in Canada and the US, but seeing a Hornet fly would be ausgetzeichnet! I have no qualms about builders simplifying and being practical to get one flying in our lifetimes. As someone else said, a lot of todays warbirds have been reproduced from scratch because the original parts and materials are long gone. Don't spend years doing everything like the original if it can be simplified to get the airplane in the air before those of us old enough to care die off.

The classic bad example was the group paid $2,000,000 to have a Wright Flyer fly at the centennial and failed because they tried to do everything exactly as the Wrights did and failed to make the date. Several other teams built practical replicas with modern construction and powerplants and got them flying in time.

Another reason for flying replicas is that the supply of original flying warbirds is getting smaller all the time and flying replicas will help preserve those originals for future generations. If DeHavilland were still building airplanes, I'm sure they would be using the best of todays materials and techniques and not those of the middle of the last century.
 
Speaking of Mosquito molds ... British Mosquitos were built on wooden molds, but those molds expanded and contracted with changes in humidity. OTOH deHavilland of Canada used concrete molds that were more stable.
Interesting. I suspect that concrete molds would present problems of their own, mainly with getting accurately sized and shaped output. Concrete shrinks as it cures. In the US, concrete was used to speed the building of machine tools in both world wars, and just this issue had to be overcome.
It's possible, and regularly done in specialty fabrication processes, to formulate concretes with not only the classic shrinkage during cure, but also expansion with cure and very close to zero dimensional change with cure. Tooling most often is built with the latter.

Approximately zero shrink concrete is common enough these days, at least in USA, that it's sold in fifty pound packages by the big-name construction and home maintenance supply stores.
 
Last edited:
PLYWOOD PERFECTION
by Alec Lumden
Aeroplane, November 2000.
 

Attachments

  • 929.jpg
    929.jpg
    909.8 KB · Views: 63
  • 937.jpg
    937.jpg
    474.3 KB · Views: 47
  • 938.jpg
    938.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 44
  • 945.jpg
    945.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 43
  • 946.jpg
    946.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 59
  • 930.jpg
    930.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 61
  • 931.jpg
    931.jpg
    813.2 KB · Views: 62
  • 932.jpg
    932.jpg
    774.2 KB · Views: 59
  • 933.jpg
    933.jpg
    967.1 KB · Views: 61
  • 934.jpg
    934.jpg
    736.9 KB · Views: 60
Then they should be used to build a Hornet!
We could dream!

About five years ago Pioneer Aero Ltd at Ardmore were restoring Sea Hornet F.20 TT193 to flying condition. Not sure if that project is still ongoing or not.
 
Very good articles about the mosquitos design and construction;
 
Interestingly, the wing for it was discovered on a farm roughly 30km south of my place in Alberta. Lots of work to be done to it though, it includes the wingfold half at each end and from spar to spar. Probably only good for reverse engineering.
 
I wonder what the parts issues are, given that the Hornet would have to be restored the same way the Mosquitos that are flying have been; essentially a total reverse engineering based rebuilt using few original parts. I do see how perhaps the engine deal would be a big issue, given that Merlin 130 production was a drop in the ocean as far as R-R Merlin production, those engines were basically unique to the Hornet, and though based on the same design as the 60 and 100 series (as well as the two stage Packard Merlins), ancillary rearrangement, the handed reduction gearboxes and the downdraft supercharger system are all unique to the 130 as far as British built Merlins.

However, the XP-82 Twin Mustang can maybe be of some help in reverse engineering handed Merlins, as the -20 series Packard Merlins built for the XP-82 and P/F-82B used the same concept of handed reduction gearboxes, though that doesn't help much with the ancillary rearrangement and downdraft superchargers.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom