As a follow on to the Beaufighter engines thread, I was just thinking about this whole Design Authority problem. Apologies if this has been gone through already.
I appreciate the CAA want to have a manufacturer to provide back up so you don’t have someone in the back of a nissen hut knocking out “improved” spares on his 1940 Myford based on something he came up with after 5 pints of Tanglefoot.
Now, my question is what constitutues the basis for a design authority ?
Marshalls of Cambridge have agreed to provide Design Authority for XH558. As they are not aircraft manufacturers, but, however do design & carry out significant modifications to aircraft. Does this imply that the requirements are that you have facilities to provide monitoring, design & analysis to levels specified by the CAA. If this is the case would it not be possible to gather a few like minded souls with the necessary expertise to specialise in the maintainence design & analysis and modification, of historic aircraft. This could take on the Design Authority and help provide a dedicated specialist service.
I appreciate that part of taking on the design authority is the liability issue.
As to whether a large enough market exists to undertake this I do not know.
What aircraft are we aware of that has this issue as a stumbling block ? The Shackleton springs to mind as one.
By: Mark V - 13th May 2010 at 21:45
Thanks Bruce, so what role to BAE play in keeping Spitfires flying? Strucutral Repair Schemes? Modifications?
Are Spitfires/Hurricanes on Permit to Fly?
Pretty much nothing on a day to day basis – all the repair schemes etc were concieved when the aircraft were in service and still largely relevent today (apart from the battle damage ones!). Modifications are not as popular as they used to be!
Yes – in the UK all civil operated (and UK registered) Spitfires, Mustangs Hurricanes etc are on a Permit to Fly.
By: Nashio966 - 13th May 2010 at 21:03
AFAIK The Shackleton is not even classified as “complex” lol
By: richw_82 - 13th May 2010 at 21:01
What aircraft are we aware of that has this issue as a stumbling block ? The Shackleton springs to mind as one.
Er… it doesn’t. The Shackleton Preservation Trust is the DA, and it is not the problem.
By: ThreeSpool - 13th May 2010 at 20:59
Yes, but in practice, it isnt an issue.
DA is an issue for larger, more complex aircraft. It isnt an issue for Spitfire, Hurricane and so on.
Bruce
Thanks Bruce, so what role to BAE play in keeping Spitfires flying? Strucutral Repair Schemes? Modifications?
Are Spitfires/Hurricanes on Permit to Fly?
Sorry for the questions, a bit unknowledgable when it comes to war birds 🙂
By: Bruce - 13th May 2010 at 20:49
Yes, but in practice, it isnt an issue.
DA is an issue for larger, more complex aircraft. It isnt an issue for Spitfire, Hurricane and so on.
Bruce
By: ThreeSpool - 13th May 2010 at 20:42
Sorry, Thread Bump 😀
It is relevent to my question, who holds Design Authority on the Spitfire? BAE?
By: Mark V - 26th September 2003 at 14:46
Hi James,
de Havilland Support was jointly set up by the Moth Club and The DHC-1 Chipmunk Club but is a seperate organisation. Lots of info here:
By: JDK - 26th September 2003 at 13:46
Er –
Thanks Mark V – Probably. Isn’t de Havilland Support and the dH Moth Co hand in glove? Not having a Moth I didn’t read the small (OK quite big) print properly.
Cheers
By: warbirdUK - 26th September 2003 at 13:42
Originally posted by Guzzineil
I don’t believe that you need to be a manufacturer.. one of the operators over here act as DA for some of the De Havilland jets.. however British Aerospace still hold DA for the Spitfire Hurricane don’t they ?? presumably more profitable than providing support for Concorde (yes yes I know its those French’s fault too!)Neil.
I’m pretty sure that BAe don’t have DA for the Spitfire, they may have for the Hurricane as Hawker was taken into BAC then BAe If my memory serves me.
There are many companies with DA’s but with the product liability laws in the States & now in this Country it is very difficult to get approval to make new parts. It would be very easy to make replacement parts for RR Merlin’s etc but Rolls Royce would never approve the parts I know, we asked!!
Cheers……….
By: DOUGHNUT - 26th September 2003 at 13:05
Surely the idea of an ‘owners club’ taking over the DA is a good one. Assuming the group has the resourses to coordinate the nessecary paper work and to apoint engineers with the correct experiance. The CAA should accept that companies such as ArCo have more current expericance of the Blenheim than say BAE.
Do DA still apply to unique and sole survivors, such as the Shuttleworth Gladiator ?
DOUGHNUT
By: Mark V - 26th September 2003 at 10:48
hi JDK,
I believe you are meaning de Havilland Support based at Duxford?
By: JDK - 26th September 2003 at 10:36
Interesting points Shorty.
I can add that the deHavilland Moth Club has taken (IIRC) design authority for all ‘real’ dH aircraft – NOT Mozzies, but Tigers, et al, from whover is BAe this week. They are a club of owners, operators, pilots and (like me!) non-owning, non-flying enthusiasts. I think that fits your idea, albeit a lot smaller than warbirds etc.
Cheers
By: Guzzineil - 26th September 2003 at 00:57
I don’t believe that you need to be a manufacturer.. one of the operators over here act as DA for some of the De Havilland jets.. however British Aerospace still hold DA for the Spitfire Hurricane don’t they ?? presumably more profitable than providing support for Concorde (yes yes I know its those French’s fault too!)
Neil.
Sign In
September 26, 2003 at 12:21 am