New build mossies

The vast majority of Mosquito drawings do still exist on microfilm, and some can be obtained from the NASM in Washington – a set for the Mosquito F-8 (Canadian production) are available for about $250 on microfilm. The quality is variable, but presumably that would reduce the costs a lot?

Originally posted by Firebird

My comment was from 25 years of that kind of work experience and meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek……..:rolleyes: 😉

Graham,

I knew where you were coming from. 🙂

I just wanted to reinforce the the point that many people even in main stream engineering have trouble getting their brain round the numbers. Typically, production quality drawings are going to cost £2/2.5k each. The ‘special washers’ take just a few hours but the complex stuff can take many weeks.

I am sure it will soon all be outsourced to India. However with the advent of CAD, non technical management lost the visibility of the difference between a Draughtsman and a Designer.

Mark

—————————————————————————-

“Put the key of despair into the lock of apathy. Turn the knob of mediocrity slowly and open the gates of despondancy – welcome to a day in the average office”

David Brent

Originally posted by Mark12
Firebird,

40 hours per drawing number is a rule of thumb estimate that I have used to justify a quote to senior sales management.

“Unless we have made significant improvements in efficiency, job ‘A’ completed, took ‘X’ drafting/cad personal ‘Z’ hours to get ‘Y’ drawings out of the door to production/ customer, therefore ……….. pro rata etc”

Getting the drawing number count accurate, including the number that don’t get out the door, is the clever bit. 😉

Checking, wait for it………….add 50%

Calcs and analysis ……….shall I stop there?

Mark,
My comment was from 25 years of that kind of work experience and meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek……..:rolleyes: 😉

My experience of the 40 hour rule-of-thumb figure always seems to fall short of reality….:rolleyes: 🙁

Regards,
Graham

I find it amazing that a plane that was designed in a few months, during W.W.II, and built mostly by cabinet makers, using timber and glue that was far below the specs of modern day materials, should be so hard to reproduce.

Sadly in those days if it flew it was good enough, but today’s world of paperwork, and alike bull ****, just makes doing anything like this almost impossible. 🙁

I would love to see a Mossi flying, and sometimes building new planes is the only way to go, as the originals are to valuable to risk destroying, as happened a few years back.

I mostly work on preserved steam engines, and I have a very good understanding of engineering, but what we do to keep engines running these days, entails us building almost new ones from old, and the paperwork and bureaucrats are there too.

I sometime wish we could get rid of those people who make a living from the rest of us who just want to enjoy our hobby!

Firebird,

40 hours per drawing number is a rule of thumb estimate that I have used to justify a quote to senior sales management.

“Unless we have made significant improvements in efficiency, job ‘A’ completed, took ‘X’ drafting/cad personal ‘Z’ hours to get ‘Y’ drawings out of the door to production/ customer, therefore ……….. pro rata etc”

Getting the drawing number count accurate, including the number that don’t get out the door, is the clever bit. 😉

Checking, wait for it………….add 50%

Calcs and analysis ……….shall I stop there?

Mark

——————————————————————————

“Put the key of despair into the lock of apathy. Turn the knob of mediocrity slowly and open the gates of despondancy – welcome to a day in the average office”

David Brent

Mark 12

Just to pick up on your control column analogy – it was the same as the Oxford column!!

Interestingly, especially for a British aircraft, all the drawings survive with BAe. De Havilland kept everything, and you can still get drawings for most of the DH range. Of course you cant actually use them without product liability getting in the way, but they are there!!

Glynn has made a superb job with the fuselages, but all of you bear in mind that it has taken him 10 years plus to produce one…. OK, a lot of that was jig and prototype work, but it makes you think. And he hasnt started the wing yet!

Cheers

Bruce

Originally posted by dhfan
but just playing with the drawing hours, they don’t work. IIRC, it was 11 months from start of detail drawings to first flight.

Dosn’t that depend on how many draughstman and designers you are going to use?

We are going to have to certify this with the CAA.

I am sure Salisbury Hall didn’t do all the drawings before the first flight. For a prototype lash up, you don’t have to. We want a a control column. Fine we can take the Albatross column, cut it down and modify it using the yoke from the xyz. That sort of thing. One design scheme and ‘talk it in’ on the shop as opposed to 300 detail, sub assembly and assembly drawings that will be required for production and required by us for the CAA certification.

OK then give me the parts count for the Mosquito of your choice. I have the schedule of spare parts for the Mk V & IX Spitfire in front of me. Over 600 pages of closely typed one line numbers and that is not the whole story drafting wise by any means.

Mark

——————————————————————————

“Put the key of despair into the lock of apathy. Turn the knob of mediocrity slowly and open the gates of despondancy – welcome to a day in the average office”

David Brent

Looking at it from another angle,how much would computer generated images to make the film plausible cost,would they need 12 mossies then,if they can make 3 mossies then use CGI to make up the rest.

Re: To produce one dozen flying Mosquitos firstly take…..

Originally posted by Mark12
In my experience, be it manual or CAD, to produce one drawing with checking takes about 40 hours.

Is that 40 hours once pass drawing + checking

Or, 40 hours drawing + checking + backdrafting + rechecking + backdrafting + re-checking………..;)

I’m not sure how much of the DH infrastructure was used for the Mossie.
AFAIK, it was ALL done at Salisbury Hall. That said, I imagine they could have used the Hatfield drawing office for the drawings but that would seem to defeat the object of moving away. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything regarding the number of people employed at SH but just playing with the drawing hours, they don’t work. IIRC, it was 11 months from start of detail drawings to first flight.
On the construction side of course, they were highly skilled and extremely experienced aviation woodworkers, which has got to be a lot easier than learning as you go along.

Originally posted by Seafuryfan
I didn’t know that, dhfan, were they

633 Squadron: Mission Accomplished (NOT)
633 Squadron: Airfix Vs CGI
633 Squadron: 16 Numbers Over 617
633 Squadron: The Pinning of Skippers Tail
633 Squadron: Norwegian De-flowers English Maiden (again)
(or am I confusing that with Mosquito Squadron?)

I can’t remember the last one

They’re all around here somewhere, but one was close.:)

633 Squadron: Operation Rhine Maiden

To produce one dozen flying Mosquitos firstly take…..

Last evening I started to look at these numbers in a little more depth.

I just took say 100 men, 40 hour weeks, 50 weeks a year, 5 years duration and £40 per hour flat – and this was my first cut.

Interstingly that comes to £40m – exactly the same as my SWAG estimate. That’s ‘Swinging Wild Arse Guess’ in the automotive gentleman’s carriage trade – your instant straight off the top of the head ‘gut reaction’ number.

The second rule of contract estimating actual, as opposed to what you tell the customer, is that the final figure is usually 2.4x the ‘gut reaction’ estimate. 😉

So we may be pushing well up to £100m to complete this task.

Another way to look at these numbers is to look at the drafting register actual. How many drawings are going to be produced for this task. My first ‘gut reaction’ number is 30,000. In my experience, be it manual or CAD, to produce one drawing with checking takes about 40 hours. “Can’t be I here you cry”. Trust me. This covers special washers to major castings/fabrications then averaged. So again the number is over £40m for the drafting alone. OK some of the drawings may still exist.

I have assumed the route forward on this would be to acquire the best Mosquito available and strategically consume it with a reverse engineering programme, using the principal assemblies to develop the major layouts, datums and jigs/fixtures.

So come on you Mosquito Gurus, tell us how much De Havilland declared the ‘Private Venture’ Mosquito stood on the books before being absorbed and let us ratio up 60 years. DH of course had trhe infrastructure in place to do the task. We will have to pay to develop and recruit for it.

Interesting – but I would put my money into Hornets. The sexier the aircraft – the lower the financial risk.

Mark

——————————————————————————

“Put the key of despair into the lock of apathy. Turn the knob of mediocrity slowly and open the gates of despondancy – welcome to a day in the average office”

David Brent

Originally posted by Melvyn Hiscock
Er, well, the title was certainly the same, after that it sort of wandered a bit.

MH

OK i concede that but to the “average” cinema goer they would’ve heard about Memphis Belle but 633 squadron,mmmmm.
But i still think theres a good story and good updated flying sequences to be made,lets hope to hear some more good news and progress regarding the Mosquitos.

Originally posted by trumper

Ok Memphis Belle was a re make but it was based on the truth and history,

Er, well, the title was certainly the same, after that it sort of wandered a bit.

MH

I didn’t know that, dhfan, were they

633 Squadron: Mission Accomplished (NOT)
633 Squadron: Airfix Vs CGI
633 Squadron: 16 Numbers Over 617
633 Squadron: The Pinning of Skippers Tail
633 Squadron: Norwegian De-flowers English Maiden (again)
(or am I confusing that with Mosquito Squadron?)

I can’t remember the last one

If the Mossies are available, Frederick E Smith wrote half-a-dozen or, thereabouts, sequels to 633 Squadron.

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of making it better (NO Airfix-style special effects!)…

Still, a movie about, say, the Amiens prison break would be pretty gnarly!

I think i should’ve re phrased my original message,why re- make something thats been done if you are going to all the trouble and expense to make a film.
Make it about something else,you are in a danger of the wider non aviation minded people looking at the new release and saying “oh it’s that warplane film that was on the telly recently,why bother”.
A chance to do something with a clean sheet,Shoot a film that that makes you go WOW.
Ok Memphis Belle was a re make but it was based on the truth and history,i think 633 was fiction so has’nt got the credibility.
Oh why don’t these film makers ask us for help,theres a vast amount of knowledge on forums from all angles.:rolleyes:

Sacrilege!

633 is a great little war movie! OK, so it bends a bit from the book, but even after almost 20 years since I first saw it, it still enthralls me!

But then, the saying “simple things please simple minds”…. :p

Why bother with 633 squadron,it was’nt that good a film,how about the pathfinder jobs,the prison busting mission,there must be another story or slice of history they could use.