Getting new airworthy Spitfire parts made

The new build Yak 52’s being non annex 1 was/is a massive embarrassment to EASA’s policy. When I raised some searching questions as to where this could lead the then head of EASA General Aviation he told me personally “no because this must never happen again”.

Ultimately its up to the governments NAA whether an aircraft type is Annex 1 or not, but assessed/ agreed against EASA produced guidelines. The Yak52 was an inherited situation i.e. when Romania joined the EU, Aerostar were building an ex military type with no civil certification and selling it to civil operators . EASA grudgingly accepted the Romanian CAA proposal rather than shut down Aerostar (loss of jobs, etc). So this, being an oxymoron, lead to a lot of complication about registration/servicing etc which were eventually overcome.

I’m pretty sure it won’t be allowed to happen again in Europe with say a proposal for an unlicensed serial production of an old type……it’s a red herring to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore I’m sure the CAA would not let a non certified type fly in the UK which is outside of the strict Annex 1/Non Annex 1 criterion.

Note the new build FW190’s are accepted by LBA/EASA as being a continuation of previous production, albeit with a 60-70 year gap, but crucially the production organisation has written agreement from the recognised design authority, EADS which has a direct inheritance line back to FW. Rest assured BAESYSTEMS would never grant such permission.

Re 18

David,

I was always referring to ‘refugees’ from – as far as I know – some of the former Warsaw Pact countries. Whether they were new build or old build or ex military, I never took much notice.

They were flown here on their first registrations and certifications – provided they were supported by mechanics certified in the country of origin.

That’s me lot.

John Green

John -It related to the difference between newly built 52’s and former military examples and how they were licenced. There is plenty of information related to it on the net.

As I said, it doesnt matter who fabricates them – but they are fabricated, not manufactured…..

No I won’t – I don’t have the time!

Thanks for your reply

I think you might be when you understand the rules! Broadly, Inspection and repair, with fabrication of replacement parts is quite permissible under the rules. It is not permissible to manufacture a new aircraft. It doesnt matter who fabricates those replacement parts, as long as they arent manufacturing them…….!

Re 14

David Burke

Well, for all that, here they were and here they flew. I flew one or two of them.

What on earth would some of the ‘relevant governments’ inform the CAA about ?

John Green

John – it wsn’t to do with bringing engineers over . It was to do with the relevant governments informing the CAA that the aircraft were not strictly speaking able to fly on their registers abroad. There is plenty of reference material regards it on the net.

Re 12

David Burke

Yes David, again, that is right. Transfering to British registration meant avoiding the expense of importing engineers ansd paying for their board and lodging. As you write: not as many left as were – but still some and legal.

John Green

John – in the past decade the majority of Russian and Lithuanian registered Yak-52’s transfered to the U.K register. There are not the numbers of Russian aircraft flying over here that there used to be on their home registers.

David,

Thanks for that. But, they still can fly. I don’t know the rules in the U.S.

Over here and flying, I’ve seen Let 410’s, Antonovs, Yaks, all still on their certification and registration of origin. The only proviso seems to be that maintenance and servicing must be carried out by engineers certified in the same country pf origin as the aircraft.

John Green

John – not really that simple! Lots of warbirds operating in the U.S for instance operate on Limited or Experimental category which limits what you can do. Hence why N reg warbirds operating in the U.K often transfer to the U.K register.

Not, if you don’t go down the CAA certification and registration route. Make it abroad under that countries internationally approved design and manufacturing code, then certify and register it in that country, then fly it anywhere !

Whitley Project

It might be worth contacting Steve Vizard on the IoW. He might be able to manufacture at least some parts.

John Green

Produce a new aircraft and you need to go down all the paths of certification and design . Its always easier to repair an existing aircraft !

It is not permissible to manufacture a new aircraft. It doesnt matter who fabricates those replacement parts, as long as they arent manufacturing them…….!

So you can’t legally manufacture a new aircraft, but you can legally fabricate all the “replacement” parts you need to make one? So that’s how those Spitfires get made 🙂

I think you might be when you understand the rules! Broadly, Inspection and repair, with fabrication of replacement parts is quite permissible under the rules. It is not permissible to manufacture a new aircraft. It doesnt matter who fabricates those replacement parts, as long as they arent manufacturing them…….!

I’m not fabricating them Bruce!

Yes, Supermarine would be the first port of call.

It is potentially a minefield however – one wouldnt normally just buy airworthy parts; one would be working within an appropriately accredited organisation who would be using them, and be authorised in their own right to determine serviceability.

That doesnt just apply to Spitfire parts; it applies to any new manufacture parts. Or are you fabricating them? (there is a difference….)

Bruce

Supermarine Engineering in Stoke if you want the finished item to fly on an airworthy UK registered aircraft – or any other similarly CAA approved organisation. I mention them first as they are ‘in to’ Spitfire items, small runs, have the drawings etc.

I could ask next week if I remember