Wilsons Sandbox

Dave... You're the only Lister that grasped what I was trying to say! I like your solid wood analogy. All the others completely missed the point. Maybe I wrote it badly. By the way I think that Mosquitos were built with Aerolite glue which is brittle but sets into an initially very strong joint that deteriorates over time. I've been told that this is why the older Mosquitos sometimes dropped out of the sky. I once built most of an Evans VP1 ultra light plane using Aerolite and chickened out of completing the project after 10 years for this reason among others! None of these joints were even screwed. Viv

Given the Mosquito comparison is it not possible that longevity but weight and speed of production was the deciding factor in the construction of these aircraft, given the lack of manufacturing ability in England prewar (no insult) and the "cottage industry" factor maybe this was the best way for the British to build these aircraft, as compared to the US industrial force (see a movie called Willow Run about Ford building B24's) I just read that the Russian Yak had a combat life of 15 hours? So perhaps no one thought to glue or not to glue would be a relevant thought 50 years after the car/plane was made. Joe

The Mosquito comparison is not a valid one because the parameters are different. An aircraft requires strength and rigidity but with just enough flexibility so that the structural members don't snap under stress. In a very real sense, the Mosquito's timber framework is its chassis whereas, your MG-T already has a chassis, a steel one. The timber framework in the body tub is really just there to have something to nail the tin onto. It is a well known fact that the flexibility built into a T chassis is an important part of its suspension system - it helps to keep equal weight on all four tires on uneven road surfaces (a job handled by softer springs in more modern designs). Conceptually, the idea of using a glued-rigid timber body structure to try to add rigidity to a steel chassis which was meant to flex, lies someplace between foolish and absurd. However, that having been said, it should also be remembered that the design/operation of these cars, as pleasant and fun as they are, is still ultra low-tech verging on primitive and therefore, whether you choose to glue or screw probably makes not a whit of difference or at least, a very small whit. By the way, the coachbuilt Rolls Royce etc. comparison is also not a valid one because these cars tend to be built on massive chassis designed to flex not at all, or very little. Assembling with screws has tremendous advantages, as has been pointed out, in that it allows for adjustments during construction as well as easier replacement "down the road". In use, the joints that need to move will be able to move while those joints that don't need to move will remain tight. In a design sense, very neat! Badger (Industrial Designer, by education anyway)

Upun my word. If yew had twigged me to cedar comments about alder choices for body assembly, I wooden have believed it. I think I'll leaf it alone. BTW, does anyone know what type of screws were used on the Mosquito to prevent the plywood from delaminating?