Defunct Types Resurrected into Production

The A-5 Vigilante.
Original production run 1958-1964, then a follow-on order for 36 RA-5C’s built from 1968-1970.

The TR-1 looks similar to the U-2 but it is a larger aircraft all round , I cannot see any significant comminality between the two apart from role , layout and manufacturer .

Not quite – the TR-1 was structurally identical to the earlier ‘2nd series’ U-2R version, but was given a different designator for political reasons.

[SNIP] You may run into problems calling it a “de Havilland Mosquito”, but then you could always call it a “Rhodes Aerospace Blood Sucking Winged Insect Mk. 1” instead.

I would name the aircraft after more important individuals or places.

Pity that no role could be found for the aircraft in the real world. The bomb bay is too small as an overnight mail carrier, while all other roles can be undertaken by modern aircraft. Find a new use for this aircraft that cannot be undertaken by anything newer and you might have a chance, but I doubt it. Best stick to Airfix, I reckon.

I should think that you could build a 100% exact Mosquito reproduction by copying an existing example without running into any problems with the manufacturer, as any patents or registered designs (if ever there were any of the latter) relating to that aircraft have long since expired.

You may run into problems calling it a “de Havilland Mosquito”, but then you could always call it a “Rhodes Aerospace Blood Sucking Winged Insect Mk. 1” instead.

However, certifying your “factory” and the design to satisfy modern civilian airworthiness requirements (if the latter is at all possible) would cost so much that a limited-run production would be too expensive to sell.

Replicas are a bit of an oddity in the collector market. They dont command a particularly high price, and it is entirely possible that they would not recoup their investment if sold on. That’s not a reason for not doing it, but will be considered by many of the collectors.

In the case of the Mosquito, I am sure a case could be made to the CAA to build one in this country – BUT, it will/would require deep pockets, and some form of identity to start with. Any Mosquito that flew in this country would require substantially new wooden parts, but would need enough original airframe parts to justify it not being a new build aircraft.

Sufficient drawings and other information do exist…..

Bruce

Why on earth would you want to build a 99% scale replica, surely more straight forward and better in all respects to build it full scale?

Because if you built an exact replica BAe Systems might not allow it as they own the design rights. Build a replica, slightly out of scale and out of composite materials and they might not be able to do anything other than moan. Then again, it’s all pie in the sky, as with most “what if…” and “how about…”

I have often though it feasible to build a 99% scale replica DH Mosquito…

Why on earth would you want to build a 99% scale replica, surely more straight forward and better in all respects to build it full scale?

The TR-1 looks similar to the U-2 but it is a larger aircraft all round , I cannot see any significant comminality between the two apart from role , layout and manufacturer .

I would agree that the U-2R (f/f 28/08/67) bears little in common with the
U-2A (f/f 04/08/55) However the point being made was that U-2R production ended in 1969, after only 12 were built. New orders for the U-2R were issued in 1979, a total of 37 additional airframes were built. The name change to TR-1 was an attempt to get away from the 1960’s ‘Skyplane’ tag. The first new build was the ER-2 for NASA (f/f 11/05/81), the TR-1A (f/f 01/08/81) and the two seat TR-1B (f/f 23/2/83)

Yes, but I don’t think they call them new.
Ectors were licensed as Ectors…not Cessnas, IIRC. But I could be wrong.
In any event, $150,000 for a two seat Cessna is out of my price range.

Back in 1975, I visited Kenmore in Seattle and they had dozens of surplus U.S. Army and Air Force Beavers waiting for refurbishment. Most were without wings and many have the late flat Army brown colour schemes typical of the period. There were big auctions of them at AMARC around that time. Those that weren’t bought by Kenmore were bought by similar firms out of Canada.
Like DC-3s, a Beaver has to be really wrecked before its not rebuilt.
They were never cheap (even surplus) and never will be.
The DHC-2 website has many photos of Beavers from that period.

Viking now has the TC…I think it will be awile before they produce new airframes. There are probably still enough wrecks/derelicts and projects to fill the market for “new” planes for awhile.
I’d also wonder about engine sources.
Not everyone can afford a PT-6 (yes, they have a long TBO, but overhauls are very expensive) and don’t know the supply of parts and rebuildable cores for P&W Wasps.

I may be wrong but I get the impression that Kenmore have a tame engine factory tucked away in the background as they seem to be able to manufacture anything they need if it is not available any other way. I was just wondering what the difference in cost is between the two engines assuming both are bought new I would have thought the PT-6 would probably come out at least marginally cheaper in the long run.
I don’t think Kenmore need worry about a lack of business for a few years yet nor any other company that is doing the same thing.

Wright Flyers? got to be more now than Wilbur & Orville actually built…

Doesn’t Air Repair do the same thing with Bird Dogs today?

Yes, but I don’t think they call them new.
Ectors were licensed as Ectors…not Cessnas, IIRC. But I could be wrong.
In any event, $150,000 for a two seat Cessna is out of my price range.

And Kenmore reckon they can sell all the Beavers they can get their hands on to refurb. They also reckon that there is enough interest in the type to sell as many as the factory could produce.

Back in 1975, I visited Kenmore in Seattle and they had dozens of surplus U.S. Army and Air Force Beavers waiting for refurbishment. Most were without wings and many have the late flat Army brown colour schemes typical of the period. There were big auctions of them at AMARC around that time. Those that weren’t bought by Kenmore were bought by similar firms out of Canada.
Like DC-3s, a Beaver has to be really wrecked before its not rebuilt.
They were never cheap (even surplus) and never will be.
The DHC-2 website has many photos of Beavers from that period.

Viking now has the TC…I think it will be awile before they produce new airframes. There are probably still enough wrecks/derelicts and projects to fill the market for “new” planes for awhile.
I’d also wonder about engine sources.
Not everyone can afford a PT-6 (yes, they have a long TBO, but overhauls are very expensive) and don’t know the supply of parts and rebuildable cores for P&W Wasps.

And Kenmore reckon they can sell all the Beavers they can get their hands on to refurb. They also reckon that there is enough interest in the type to sell as many as the factory could produce.

-And Ector made “new” (though I suspect out of surplus parts) Cessna 305/O-1/L-19s in the 70-80s.

Doesn’t Air Repair do the same thing with Bird Dogs today?

S-64 Skycrane, rebuilt original sikorsky models and new builds under Erickson.

I wonder if they’re really new builds or whether they are refurbished CH-54s? Anyone know with certainty?
Other firms do that with Hueys (and in ther past with Bell 47s) …basically using new or surplus parts and assigning their own serials. Fairly easy to do with helicopters where the dynamic components are the expensive bits and have to replaced/overhauled regularly.

A couple more to add…
-Brantly helicopters…they were making new ones in Texas a few years back.

-And Ector made “new” (though I suspect out of surplus parts) Cessna 305/O-1/L-19s in the 70-80s.

It might not have been mentioned above, but what about the NAC Freelance (Britten-Norman BN-3). I read in, ahhhhhhhh…

…some magazine or other that there were plans to restart production, using unfinished airframes. I also heard a rumour that the Slingsby T-67 Firefly was going back into production.

I have often though it feasible to build a 99% scale replica DH Mosquito aircraft, using composite materials, but with original Merlin engines. All other components would be new. The aircraft would be covered in fabric and small and sound like the real thing. That way BAe Defence Systems couldn’t really complain, as you would be building a scale replica and not simply restarting production of an aircraft you don’t own the design rights to.

There would be more than enough interest from those with deep pockets to build maybe six. What would be really fun is to think of an aircraft no longer in production, but which a new use could be found. If you can find a profitable use for an expired aircraft then you might stand a chance of making things happen, but alas not in this country.

U-2 production had ceased when the essentially similar TR-1 was ordered in the 1980’s. The TR-1 was renumbered U-2S when they returned to the USA in the 1990’s.

The TR-1 looks similar to the U-2 but it is a larger aircraft all round , I cannot see any significant comminality between the two apart from role , layout and manufacturer .

TU-160. Significant pauses, mostly due to financial crisis.

The Tu-160 is not ‘in production’ – e.g. there are no new airframes being built.

Existing airframes have been upgraded – and some test airframes were refurbished and put into service, but AFAIK, there are no new builds.

You might as well say that the Antonov An-225 Mriya is being put back into ‘production’.

The test airframe that is at Gostomel is rumoured to be a candidate for bringing up to flying status – making a total of two airframes.

Ken

C-5

The C-5 Galaxy with the last “A” model delivered in 1973. The line was reopened in 1986 for the “B” model. Others to consider:

Shin Meiwa PS-1/US-1. Line reopened a few times for improved versions, but this may be best labelled as very limited and drawn out production.

TU-160. Significant pauses, mostly due to financial crisis.

Sea Harrier. Production Gap between the FRS-1 and the new build FA2, although the line was busy with upgrades.

S-64 Skycrane, rebuilt original sikorsky models and new builds under Erickson.

A-70? May see the light of day

S-25? Some uncompleted airframes were completed after close to a 10 year delay. New Builds?

How true it is I have no idea but I heard or read a rumour that Viking were/are planning to put the Beaver back in production too.