Comprehensive set of Mosquito drawings found at Broughton.

Let us hope that TPMs fund raising activities aren’t in any way affected by the ongoing shenanigans at TIGHAR.

Perhaps the project will finally raise the profile of the use of wood in engineering, for too long dismissed there are qualities which make it attractive and durable especially with modern adhesives.

The drawings have increased TPM’s options it would seem.
http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/2018/02/03/bringing-de-havilland-mosquito-back-home/

Bringing the De Havilland Mosquito Home
The People’s Mosquito Ltd, a UK-based charity dedicated to restoring a De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB.VI to UK skies, is in detailed discussions to bring a significant proportion of the restoration build back to the UK.
…
Under the revised plan, The People’s Mosquito will continue to partner with Mosquito Restorations, Aerowood and Avspecs in delivering the wooden structural components, including fuselage and wings. However, all forgings, control surfaces, undercarriage, key aircraft systems, as well as engines will be delivered, installed and tested in the UK.
…
Technical data paves the way for a UK-built Mosquito
“The wealth of technical data we have unearthed over the past few months, coupled with an extensive network of specialist aerospace companies in the UK, means we now have the technical specifications and capability to complete the assembly of RL249, here in the UK,” explains John Lilley, Managing Director.
…
Media interest in the project has been considerable, including interest from several documentary makers. The decision to bring the build back to the UK is therefore seen as an enabler for providing TPM’s supporters with unprecedented access to the restoration, as well as providing young people with extensive opportunities for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education.
John continues: “It’s an incredibly exciting time for the project as we progress commercial negotiations with our UK suppliers, but for the foreseeable future, we continue to prioritise fundraising activities as we seek to secure our fuselage through suppliers in New Zealand.
…

BTW, the latest Wings Over NZ Live show includes an interview with Corin McCrae of Aerowood.

In America, or elsewhere for that matter, all you write maybe true and correct. But remember, there are no blanket lawsuits or defences to such, all is variable, there is no such ‘one size fits all’.

Insurance can be, and more often than not is, individually tailored to deal with a particular requirement unconnected with statute. As for vexatious litigants, it soon becomes apparent when that stage is reached. They will reach it only once !

It has occurred to me on more than one occasion that legal culpability in Britain enjoys a narrower definition than in the States.

A few points;-
A company cannot get insurance for actions which contravene statutory law. Most of these legal cases alledge some regulations have been broken, so any legal costs prior to final ruling must be bourne by the accused. Hence they need to pay considerably sums of money up front which can only be claimed back after settlement. Also if the judgement goes against you then the insurance company will walk away.

The legislation applied is that of the land where the infringement is alleged to have been committed. As this nonsense was rife in the US, the way the Uk system works is irrelevant.

The cases reportedly successfully pursued in America are a order of magnitude more ridiculous than here in the UK;- e.g. A/C owner commission maintainance, maintainance organisation removes rudder but leaves A/C on ramp, owner turns up a tries to take A/C for a flight, dies in ensuing crash, his estate undertake a successfully legal action against both maintanace organisation and I believe, the A/C manufacturer.

Drawings for out of production aircraft whose parent films are no longer around are in the public domain.
That’s how the new build Great Lakes biplane got started.
The FAA (or some other part of the govt) holds some of those drawings/rights and a recent court case upheld the public’s right to access them, something important for the owners and restorer of vintage types.

Now asking Boeing, Piper or whoever for drawings is a different manner.
I can understand why Piper doesn’t make drawing available for PA-28s. Doing DIY repairs or mods to an aircraft is different from some guy doing some repairs to a rusty Capri or Vauxhall.

America is still far ahead of most countries in “can do” spirit, but given the number of hungry lawyers out there firms have to be responsible to their shareholders. Look at the government and media reactions to the recent Hunter crash (are they still grounded despite the aircraft design apparently not being at fault?) you can appreciate the liability concerns.

Still, you would think Boeing (or whoever) would use some of its attorneys to come up with a plan to allow access to plans for certain historic types.
If someone wants to build a Model 80 for non-commercial use, there should be a way around that.
I seem to recall a story that when the U.S. Air Force Museum wanted to build a replica P-26 for display, Boeing stipulated it would cooperate only if the airframe were made of mild steel tubing, thus insuring it would never fly, despite the fact the museum doesn’t fly its aircraft. One might think it would trust one of its biggest customers.

Vega

Having spent many years in General Aviation, I’m aware of all the points you make and agree that your summary is accurate. My experience in America, limited as it is, has made me aware that rather than find an excuse for not doing something, Americans generally will, the more readily than is the case in GB, find an excuse to do it – whatever it is.

I repeat my point about commercial insurance. Risk, whatever it is, is always quantifiable. Premiums should not be excessive and will be linked, among other things, to the incidence of aviation accidents related to the circumstances in this discussion. This point and the above, are most emphatically not ‘in my dreams’.

In addition, in this country we have a concept of vexatious litigation. It applies to those litigants who continuously but hopelessly apply to the courts in the hope that the next hearing will provide a different and more favourable outcome. I don’t know whether they have anything similar in America. If they have, it should be used. Judges can be very sympathetic to such.

John
I guess you’ve tried to get a P38 drawing of out of Lockheed, a P51 drawing out of Boeing or a PA28 drawing out of Piper or an Agcat drawing out of Schweizer?

As pointed out before these are Design Authorities whereas the Smithsonian is a library, and in the eye’s of the law, a Design Authority has a fundamentally different legal responsibility;- check out “duty of care” and “ANO”

America, far from being the “can do will do” of your dreams, is in reality was the birth place of the pathetic legal stupidity behind this attitude which has been deeply damaging.

Did you know BAESYSTEMS in the days of Jetstream were paying more US legal fees defending stupid actions than it was making by selling Jetstreams…….it killed the program……in the 1980/90’s the entire US GA aviation industry was brought to its knee’s by legal stupidity, Cessna suspended all propeller aircraft production in 1986, Piper went in and out of bankruptcy, under various names, suspending or eliminating some long-popular models from its product line and some other withdrew all together. The US government in the mid 90’s attempted to address thie problem of third party liability with a Bill called GARA but nonsense lawsuits keep coming.

There is hardly a risk that exists that cannot be covered by commercial insurance.

The Americans have a policy of ‘can do’.

The British have a policy of ‘can’t won’t.

The difference between BAe and Smithsonian, is that the Smithsonian is not related to the original design companies, but BAe is, which I believe makes them culpable “if that’s the right word”, in legal terms.

Bob T.

Correct, Smithsonian aren’t too worried as long as you aren’t making money off of their drawings. Their prices are also VERY reasonable.

There are a number of businesses in the UK who are still willing to supply drawings. Some with an NDA so that you can’t profit from those drawings (which is fair enough!) and others with a disclaimer similar to the Smithsonian.

Nicko, I wish you did have that OCE scanner or something similar. I have a complete set of B-17 blueprints on microfilm that need to be digitised!

Not quite. I still have a copy of my original agreement. The Smithsonian stresses that the drawings are to be used only in connection with non profit making, and non commercial restoration and educational purposes. Model making is included without reference to scale.

Don’t the Smithsonian drawings come with a disclaimer that prohibits their use for the construction of an aircraft?

I believe they lost the case Bob.

I believe BAe’s reason for not allowing people to obtain copies of their drawings, stems from the time they supplied a set of Camel drawings to some one in America. He built one, crashed it, and died. His money grabbing family then went and tried to sue BAe/Hawker Siddley, for a large amount of money. It cost the company a lot of money to defend the case….

Bob T.

When I went to BAE Systems at Farnborough in 2014, I was free to scan (on their computer with their equipment) what ever I wanted as long as it wasn’t drawings or fatal crash photos. I had told them what I was interested in in advance and they provided me with a print-out of list of albums and archive boxes with the material I was after. I was told I couldn’t scan drawings because they are proprietary. They didn’t specifically say because of liability but that sounds a likely statement. I’m not saying the stuff was thoroughly catalogued, but good enough for me to find a good wad of information. There is nothing to say that there would not have been more useful stuff that wasn’t catalogued adequately but I can’t complain!

Also, I don’t think my wording in the first sentence of my post #12 was right; any (incomplete) set of Mosquito drawings has got to be significant!

It might not be inactivity as much as lack of resource and poor archiving and cataloging policies? I wouldn’t be too surprised, as you see variations of this elsewhere.

“product liability issues?”

A convenient excuse put forward by the bean counters to justify inactivity. Those matters can be covered by commercial insurance. It wasn’t a problem for the Smithsonian.

All the drawings at Farnborough moved to Duxford. It is under the care of de Havilland Support. It is still as difficult as ever it was to get access to the drawing library owing to product liability issues, but at least it is all safe.

OCE scanner

The machine was a model similar to the one pictured below… You could put a stack of cards (2″ thick or so) in the left, and the scanned cards would fall in to the cavity on the right. When the place was closed down, there was a big fight with a clearance house over disposal of such things – if things had been a little more civil, I would have tried to buy it.