 | Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft?| Aviation Discuss Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft? in the World War II - Aviation forums; Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft? I've had it put to me like that a few times, ... |
|
02-09-2008, 11:19 AM
|
#1 | | Member
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: London
Posts: 91
Country:  |  Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft?
Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft? I've had it put to me like that a few times, which is why I'm asking.
Much has been made of it's low Radar signature courtesy plywood construction and other things like rubber block suspension and radiators within the wings.
But was this much by accident than design, there were plenty of good wood and canvas aircraft about surely?
Your thoughts? | 
|  | |
02-09-2008, 12:11 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,285
| Those big engines and propellers kind of defeated the concept of "stealth".
Just because an airframe is made of wood, doesn't mean it absorbs radar pulses, or scatters it.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
02-09-2008, 12:34 PM
|
#3 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 9,240
Country:  | agreed, the Mossie in any form was never considered stealth a/c | |
| | |
02-09-2008, 01:12 PM
|
#4 | | Member
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: London
Posts: 91
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by syscom3  Those big engines and propellers kind of defeated the concept of "stealth".
Just because an airframe is made of wood, doesn't mean it absorbs radar pulses, or scatters it. | Okay, so stealth is an entirely modern concept/term in aviation?
The Mosquitoes low but not absent signature never affected it's being selected for a job?
The V1 was never called a cruise missile because the modern ones hadn't been invented yet, but surely this is what it effectively was?
I bring this up because I wonder if the same circumstance surrounds the Mosquito....the term stealth doesn't seem to have been applied even if thats what it effectively was.
My true thread object is find if there was anything that could be deemed equivalent to the Mosquito.
The Mosquito I gather was drawn up to be an unarmed Bomber...fast enough to stay out of trouble, the same attitude would be applied to the Vulcan years later.
Staying out of trouble requires stealth as well. | |
| | |
02-09-2008, 02:27 PM
|
#5 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,208
Country: | Actually the Mossie did have a very low radar signature and if I remember right needed a special IFF system (transponder) so friendlies could track it on radar - this was more of an accident rather than an intensional design feature so to answer the question, to a degree the Mosquito was the first "Stealth" combat aircraft.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | 
| | |
02-09-2008, 02:46 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 121
| Apparently Galland makes the comment that the Mossie was difficult to track, however what he based that on is unclear.
I really should ask SES over at the Gyges site about the extent to which this was an issue. He's got a separate page on anti-Mosquito ops and ground control: Home
Control overview at: Home | |
| | |
02-09-2008, 03:57 PM
|
#7 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,208
Country: | Great Info!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
02-09-2008, 04:16 PM
|
#8 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 9,240
Country: | well guys since I am writing a book on night anti-Mossie ops, simply put the Mossie was tracked both intruder and LSNF and recon types, catching the bird was another story, it was NOT stealth | |
| | |
02-09-2008, 09:11 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 121
| Thanks Erich. I've read a number of accounts, mostly IIRC from the Coastal Strike boys off the Norwegian coast who used to say they could hear a buzzing in their 'phones when they'd been "painted" by German radar - anything to it, do you think? | |
| | |
02-10-2008, 06:56 AM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: NIAGARA
Posts: 4,583
Country:  | I disagree that the Mosquito was stealthy but considering the equipment of the day it would've been tougher to paint . The trouble would be painting it with radar the other aircraft would show up a little better but not much . The operator of the radar would be the deciding factor. Adjusting the radar to discriminate between ground clutter, rain , atmospherics birds etc would all come into play.; These were all controlled by the operator if you had a good operator it would be no problem but recall radar was still in its infancy and the operators were on a steep learning curve. I can't recall if the German radar had MTI (moving target indicator) which removed targets that weren't moving or if he had to diseminate all the targets presented . Aspect angle of the radar signal (if the target was sideways or pointed directly at the radar) also plays a huge factor . Those props, radios, engines ,armour plate , seats weapons etc would make it non stealth
__________________  | |
| | |
02-10-2008, 08:08 AM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,764
| The first truly stealth a/c is the Ho/Go-229 which would've been undetectable by any radar equipment of the time. 
Regarding the low radar signature of the Mossie, well I doubt it was much lower than for another a/c of similar size, its not like it was the only a/c with hidden away radiators. The wooden airfram wouldn't have helped much either, esp. since the skin was metal. The a/c with the lowest radar signature in full frontline service by WW2 was probably the Yak-3.
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland
Last edited by Soren : 02-10-2008 at 08:14 AM.
| |
| | |
02-10-2008, 08:11 AM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: NIAGARA
Posts: 4,583
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren The first truly stealth a/c is the Ho/Go-229 which would've been undetectable by any radar equipment of the time. | how so?
What gave it these magical properties that was not attainable by any other aircraft
__________________ | |
| | |
02-10-2008, 09:04 AM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,764
| You don't know much about how to reduce radar detectability do you ?
Ever wondered why the B-2 is shaped the way it is and why it is todays stealthiest a/c ??
Also read up upon the radar equipment of the day please, it wasn't going to be any good against the Go-229 and that's for sure.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland
Last edited by Soren : 02-10-2008 at 09:06 AM.
| |
| | |
02-10-2008, 09:13 AM
|
#14 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,208
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren Regarding the low radar signature of the Mossie, well I doubt it was much lower than for another a/c of similar size, its not like it was the only a/c with hidden away radiators. The wooden airfram wouldn't have helped much either, esp. since the skin was metal. The a/c with the lowest radar signature in full frontline service by WW2 was probably the Yak-3. | But it was a fact - despite the metal items within the Mossie's airframe it still painted a lower radar signature than other aircraft of the day - it seemed the plywood absorbed the radar. There was a recent book called "The First Stealth Fighter: The De Havilland Mosquito" by John Melendez that detailed a lot of the Mosquito's "Stealthiness."
As far as the Ho/Go-229 - it would of had a lower radar signature for sure, as far as being totally undetectable? It's had to say. Unless the aircraft's surface totally absorbs all the radar or the surface is able to deflect the radar away, it going to paint a signature. Had the -229 been built I don't think the priority of the aircraft would of been to avoid radar.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
02-10-2008, 09:13 AM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: NIAGARA
Posts: 4,583
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren You don't know much about how to reduce radar detectability do you ?
Ever wondered why the B-2 is shaped the way it is and why it is todays stealthiest a/c ??
Also read up upon the radar equipment of the day please, it wasn't going to be any good against the Go-229 and that's for sure. | Have you ever worked radar? touched it ? Done a lobe check? ad infinitum.... I have for 10 years ..So what your telling me is that just the look will affect radar . .. how the radar is dispersered by the shape of the aircraft was all figured out by the LW . Yeah OK
__________________
Last edited by pbfoot : 02-10-2008 at 09:16 AM.
| |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 AM. | | |
..
