whats stopping 'just jane' being a flyer??

Just Jane is wonderful as she is,she starts her engines in an atmospheric place up close and personal to people,she does her engine run ups close and personal and taxys close to the people.
She does’nt disappear for while and then seen at a distance for a few minutes,the noise ,atmosphere and smells are with you from start up to shut down.

And DGH’s comment “It also takes a brave company to come out and say that they won’t support a Mosquito because they dont understand wooden aeroplanes anymore.” probably hasn’t been phrased all that well, but probably isn’t a million miles away from reality. Skilled woodworkers are getting harder to come by as the years go by, and they’re unlikely to be taken on by a modern aerospace company.

True, but being DA doesn’t mean BAe are going to build it, were talking design surely…. :confused:

And as I said, design is design, analysis is analysis. BAe designers are more than capable of designing in any material.
The only fly in the ointment, as has been said, is the available data on the behavior of the glues used 60 years ago, and the effects today on the material properties of the composite, and as such, from this point of view, one can understand BAe not supporting DA.

My 2p’s worth…

NX611 – keep it as it is. Maintain it, run it, taxi it, go to see it. Thereby giving the Panton brothers a little bit of your money to help keep it that way.

Mosquito – some interesting comments regarding Design Authority and BAe. I’m somewhat confused though, I thought BAe had delegated DA for Mosquitoes now? I was told TV959 was surveyed only a few years ago by a third party who actually had the DA for the type.

And DGH’s comment “It also takes a brave company to come out and say that they won’t support a Mosquito because they dont understand wooden aeroplanes anymore.” probably hasn’t been phrased all that well, but probably isn’t a million miles away from reality. Skilled woodworkers are getting harder to come by as the years go by, and they’re unlikely to be taken on by a modern aerospace company. True enough, the Mosquito was of composite construction, but you must remember that the material itself used to be alive. Wood doesn’t stay in one state over the years as aluminium does, it is far more susceptible to changes in temperature, moisture, etc. And when you get minor deteriorations in a wooden structure, they’re harder and more expensive to replace than corrosion in metal structures.

Ok, now how about any plans to make HR792 taxiable and eventually airworthy?

Anyone?

Incoming……………………….. 😮 😮 😮

Cheers

Cees

“I spoke to one of the Panton brothers a couple of years ago and he said it would’nt take much to get her airworthy” They indicated to me that about £1M should get her airborrne.

Yes – that was what I assumed. I was just intrigued by DGH’s comment:

It also takes a brave company to come out and say that they won’t support a Mosquito because they dont understand wooden aeroplanes anymore.

Essentially then, there’s no benefit to type design responsibility for the Mossie being handed over to a third party, other than perhaps access to drawings (and there are already drawings available at the NASM in Washington, generally these are Canadian production related, or at least the small number of copies I have are).

IBTW – I doubt that a Mosquito restoration would need BAe’s approval, anyway – did they have to approve TFC’s Beaufighter restoration, and do they approve all the Spitfire restorations out there? If they do, I’ve never heard anything about it, so could someone in the know confirm that?

Of course not – the Mosquito is not considered to be ‘complex’ in the same way that the Spitfire and Beaufighter are not classified as complex. the issue with DA/Bae and the Mosquito is that they did not hand over Type Design Responsibility of the de Havilland military aircraft to de Havilland Support Ltd. As these aircraft can only (as ex military machines) be operated on a ‘Permit to Fly’, the non complex types, including the Mosquito, would not be a problem to restore and operate in the UK. Or at least thats my understanding of all the ‘red tape’.

Know Warton is on the coast…… 😉

Yes, I knew that.

Eddie has hit the nail on the head with what the problem is with wooden aircraft. As for needing a DA from Bae, I only really know about jets but from what I understand the CAA have at least consulted with Bae over the prospect of a civil mosquito and that was there answer. As for whether or not you believe me I care not either way. 🙂

I imagine they understand wood well enough… it’s the adhesives etc that are tricky. As I understand it, there’s no reliable way to test how strong a 60 year old glued joint is.

BTW – I doubt that a Mosquito restoration would need BAe’s approval, anyway – did they have to approve TFC’s Beaufighter restoration, and do they approve all the Spitfire restorations out there? If they do, I’ve never heard anything about it, so could someone in the know confirm that?

It also takes a brave company to come out and say that they won’t support a Mosquito because they dont understand wooden aeroplanes anymore.

What……. 😮

Don’t believe that for one moment, a pretty lame excuse if ever I heard it.

So, if RR299 hadn’t crashed, does that mean BAe would have grounded it by now or not as the rumour has it, passed it onto BBMF, as they no longer would have supported it as DA…..?

Of course not.

As a design engineer analysis is analysis, material properties are material properties. In the past I’ve had to design structures in steel, concrete, timber, masonary, aluminium, GRP & composite construction.
In fact you could argue that as most modern aircraft are of composite construction, BAe should be in a better position know to understand the Mossie’s design, as it probably can lay claim to be the worlds first successful composite construction combat aircraft.

I think ‘JJ’ fills an important role as it is. PA474 does the flying stuff, NX611 the upclose and personnel stuff. It also nice to know that if heaven forbid anything happened to PA474 there is an aircraft in the background that could ( all parties and money willing ) be brought in to replace it.

On the subject of Bae and there support of historical aircraft I think it has already been stated that they do far more than they have to. It has to be remembered that they are here to make a profit and are one of the largest employers in the country. Try telling a family in Lancashire that they will be out of work because there employer is being sued for taking a frivolous attitude to letting some cranks fly an old plane at the weekend and see what the reply is! I don’t think I would be to keen on signing the paperwork to let a Lightning fly in this country ( and there my favourite planes ) or saying a Shack is ok to fly when all the mainspars are passed there sellbye date. It also takes a brave company to come out and say that they won’t support a Mosquito because they dont understand wooden aeroplanes anymore.

I think the situation with the Mossie could be overcome if there is a company out there that can prove to Bae that they have all the neccesary experiance and know how. The Shack like-wise if someone has the technology and money to prove that the spars are still safe. The Lightning, thats a different kettle of fish I don’t see how that would ever be overcome unless it was restricted to one airfield near water.

Know Warton is on the coast…… 😉

I can understand the Pantons’ hesitation about letting “JJ” fly.

I wouldn’t :rolleyes:

I spoke to one of the Panton brothers a couple of years ago and he said it would’nt take much to get her airworthy but they werent sure they “wanted” her to fly.As he said “if” the worst happened to her what would be Kirby museum and their brothers memorial without Jane.
I think if they wanted to it could fly ,but at that time there wasnt the “want” or commitment to do so.

totally agree Melvyn,have heard ****’s talk twice(including a visit by him to Oxfordshire Aviation Group) and thoroughly enjoyed it both times…would gladly recommend it to any other groups/clubs etc in the “speakers” market
BTW…Melvyn have replied to your PMs re-you visiting us but they don’t appear to have been read??????
colin
oxfordshire aviation group
www.communigate.co.uk/oxford/oag

Last seen rotting at sandtoft Lincs. Could be traveling `down under` ?

I know there are a lot of aviation fans in the UK (both average and wealthy…witness the number of flyable warbirds) I wish some could get together and make somthing happen in regard to a Lanc or Mossie.

Lots of fans – yes.
Lots of wealthy people – possibly.
Lots of wealthy people interested in aviation but willing to take a chance on something a bit unusual – er, Walrus, anybody?
Sorry but if it isn’t ‘sexy’ like a Mustang or Spitfire, then they are not really interested. Look at the Lincoln, for example; I have no idea if that was a viable proposition for returning to airworthiness then, but it certainly isn’t now. I can remember finding the parted out remains of a B25 behind the hangers at North Weald (I think the Lincoln was also there at the time) – these were old ‘planes ripe for restoration by a man with money, dedication, and passion: instead they probably still sit and rot somewhere.

Flood

When Doug Arnold had G-LANC it was with the intention, no matter how short lived, to get it flying. The Charles Church Lancaster was an even safer bet. A lot of work had been done on sub systems and parts and much of the graft of the rebuild was covered. It was the hanger roof collapse and the death of CC that finished it.

D1ck Richardson tells a great story of how he had got all four engines on that one running and wanted a photo but there was no one else around (can you imagine that today?) so he made sure the brakes were ok, set a reasonable idle and got out to take the pics himself.

He also does a very good talk about bringing it over the Atlantic.

While not directly relevant to this discussion, I saw somewhere that the Sea Vixen was sponsered to the tune of £120,000 this year to do ~20 shows, and still made a loss…

Jonathan

As ever, an interesting discussion from some easy sounding questions. A couple more points:

Simple a/c and complex a/c carry hugely different challanges and risks. The operator’s history (or lack therof) will influence support decisions, as well as a ‘sound business plan’. That’s the difference between a Swordfish and a Vulcan.

Lottery funding. As a rule, you have to have (righly in my view) match funding from other sources and a business plan. After that there are lots of other challanges, some obvious, some not so. But without these first two, you aren’t even going to get to the starting gate with the HLF. It’s not a wishing well, which some posts seem to imply it might be! 😉

I don’t ‘do’ numbers. But in really oversimplified terms, if buying an a/c costs 1 groat, looking after it static may cost in the order of 10 groats, getting it to taxiing condition costs 100 groats and getting it to fly will cost 10,000 groats. Keeping it flying for a five year period will cost in the order of 100,000 groats. Any way you cut it, that’s a lot of groats. To take a 100 groat taxiing aircraft to flying requires another 9,900 groats. Hmmm. Or half that (still a lot!) IF you can get a lottery grant. Hmmm. Worth it? Sure. Find the money? unlikely.

Do we really need another Lanc flying? IMHO, not in the UK. Australia, maybe. (There were a lot of dead RAAF crews in Europe.) Given John B’s post, a Mosquito would make a lot more sense. But while it’s great to say ‘it should be so’ on the forum, there’s a lot more ‘it should be’ required to fly big planes!

I heard once that a Vulcan used as much fuel as a Mini would take to drive around the world – but just while the Vulcan taxiied to the threshold, before it took off. True? Doesn’t matter. Just think of the costs!

Cheers