Thanks, it’s been a while since I’ve read much on US aircraft from WW II (once I discovered the experimental aircraft the Germans were building, I got hooked on that).
I think that is true of combat aircraft, at least after the very beginning. I believe that the Curtis P-26, which was still in use at the beginning of the war, had fabric-covered, wood-structure wings.
Several training planes had a lot of wooden structural members. For example many of the Army BT-13 (Vultee Vibrator) trainers had plywood outer wing panels and the fuselage aft of the rear cockpit plus all of the tail assembly was plywood.
In addition I’m pretty sure the AT-17 (Cessna Bobcat) and the Stearman PT-17 had wood wings covered with fabric.
Of the combat planes, the B-25 metal frame control surfaces covered with fabric. There might have been some others also.
Yep, that looks like it.
I’m not aware of a Curtiss P-26 but the Boeng P-26 was one of the first all-metal, moncoque planes used by the US military. AFAIK I was not still in service in the US and the only that saw action were in the Philippines.
As for control surfaces on the B-26 and many other WWII planes, which I already mentioned, please note that wood is not fabric.
I’ll concede the other planes but all the examples given are trainers which did not see front line service.
It was Boeing and not Curtis, and it was the first all metal US AAF plane. It also had externally braced wings, not cantilevered, and was the last US AAF plane with that feature. I remembered the wing braces and I just assumed wood wing spars.
The B-26 had metal skin control surfaces. It was the B-25, as my post said, that had “metal frame control surfaces covered with fabric.”
And the first sentence in my post said that no wooden structural elements was “true of combat aircraft” and I specifically identified all of the others as trainers.
You don’t have to “concede” anything. I wasn’t correcting anything.
Except the De Havilland Mosquito, aka the wooden wonder, which was used for reconnaissance, night-fighting and bombing. IIRC something called “reverse lend-lease” gave the USAAF some Mosquitoes.
“The “Wooden Wonder” was constructed from Alaskan spruce, English ash, Canadian birch and fir, and Ecuadorian balsa glued and screwed together in new, innovative ways, and motivated by the world’s finest reciprocating, liquid-cooled power plants, a pair of Rolls Royce Merlins. There has never been a more successful, combat-proven warplane made of wood.” From here
Say David, while I’ve got your attention, can you explain to me why I’ve seen two different designation numbers (I think that’s what it’s called) for the bomber named in honor of Billy Mitchell? I’ve seen it called the B-24 and the B-25. Which one is correct or are both right?
B-24 “Liberator” High-wing, 4-engine heavy bomber
B-25 “Mitchell” Mid-wing, 2-engine medium bomber
Well I’ll be jiggerd. I did not know that we operated Skeeters in WWII. A fine aircraft with mucho cool factor.
At any rate this whole wooden airplane thing has gone astray from the OP somewhat but I’ll take my parting shot by saying that wooden airplanes need more preventive maintenance than metal ones 
For sake of argument I always considered an otherwise metal plane with fabric covered control surfaces for practical purposes to be all-metal. Even the F-14 has fabric surfaces, though on the fuselage. There are a pair of inflated fabric and rubber bladders on the top of the fuselage where the aux flap (the flap surface closest to the fuselage) overlaps as the wing sweeps back. It provides an aerodunamic surface that flexes enough to conform as the flap and wing slide over it.
Agreed. Here’s a Mosquito at the Air Force Museum, in USAAF livery.
I think that a lot would depend on where the aircraft were stationed. I would imagine that airfields in England had the facilities to keep their aircraft much cleaner than planes operating out of Guadalcanal or New Guinea.
I’m not ignoring the question. silenus already answered it. Whoever said that the B-24 was name the Mitchell was seriously mistaken.