How easy would it to build a kit for DH Gipsy Moths

Nobody can stop you building a Gypsy or a Tiger Moth. Problems only arise if you choose to sell it as something it is not. It would not be a DH Moth in a legal sense, no. But if it looks like Moth, is built like a Moth, from the same materials and to the same specifications as a Moth, would that detract from the pleasure of of owning and flying what is, in all respects other than legal semantics, a Moth??

If I build one to the exact same specs it is a reproduction. Nobody in their right mind could be persuaded that is is anything else, nor would anyone in their right mind try to pass it off as an original. I differentiate between a “replica” and a “reproduction”; a reproduction is not merely a look-alike, but built exactly as the original.

Nobody can legally stop you from selling a kit of parts for a “Moth” or whatever you choose to call it, any more than they can stop you from building an Isaac’s Fury. (Which, in case anyone wonders, is not a “real” Hawker Fury…) It would just happen to be a very well proven, very authentic REPRODUCTION of something bearing an uncanny resemblance to a certain DeHavilland product. I am not talking about putting one in production as a certified airplane.

I still think the attitude is one of sheer snobbery. Who would suffer if people built Moths from plans? Would British Aerospace go out of business?

The nicest thing about flying is that, for the little amount of time you’re actually up there, it is a world of wood, metal, fabric and the laws of physics – none of the legal and paper bullsh.t that surrounds aviation can touch you……

I think somebody needs to read some sections of the ANO and have a basic understanding of legal requirements for building an aeroplane.

As someone who is spending a lot if time and money on designing an SSDR type at the moment, I’ve already realised that serial production of that airframe, in kit or completed form is an absolute minefield. Litigation, insurance worries on this new build is so complex, it scares me. For me it’s purely a case of achieving something I want to do, it will never pay it’s way even in part for the amount of work that goes in.

With what you are suggesting, what you forget that In the end somebody qualified has to put their name to it that it is airworthy to some standard (be it SSDR, permit, CofA etc) you can’t just build a plane and fly it, it must be insured and no insurance company would touch you.

I think the only loophole is foot launched gliders below a certain weight, I think they still require no form of certification not do they need to meet any design standard. Even the unregulated SSDR has rules to follow.

Quite why anybody would want to fly anything self designed that they don’t have calcs for though defies me!

FB

Very nice Peter! 🙂

I bought a set of plans of the DH60 a few years ago from a source in the UK. They were drawn by an Englishman in Switzerland who had access to drawings from BAe and an airframe that was in Switzerland at the time and which is now in Germany I have been told. The plans are very well drawn and very complete all metal fittings are there. I am not an expert in DH Aircraft but from what I have seen a lot of the fittings of the Gipsy and the Tiger are identical.
Working from these plans I have got this far:

Peter

Gooday all

What about the wing root assembly and the corresponding castings on the fuselage and the centre section. Can Tiger Moth parts be used there?

cheers
Ross

Im affraid thats not the case, you can build one if you like and call it somthing else but i think you will find you wont be able to call it a DH Moth, infact you may have trouble calling it a Moth at all.
Now the problem here is that the DH Moth range are still supported by DH support who hold the TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet) for the types.
This means that they are still, although out of production, Certified types.
You can obtain the drawings from DH Support at Duxford, however when you do you will have to sign a disclaimer that you will not build from the drawings. They are for referance use only durring rebuilds etc. British Aerospace still own the rights.
Now in the UK even the Gipsy is on a full Cof A not a permit, this changed a few years ago before someone leaps on me from a great height!!! Existing A/C that were on a Permit still are but new imports or rebuilds will be on a CofA. I know of one A/C that left the UK on a Permit and exported to the USA. When is was reimported it had to go onto a CofA!
In the USA the Gipsy is on the experimental cat, where as the Tiger in on a Standard cat CofA. This allows more lea way.
If you want to design and build a REPLICA Gipsy Moth you will need to design it yourself and get the design past the LAA who will treat it as a new type.
You will however have to be extreemly carefull not run foul of some nasty litigation fron British Aerospace i fear.
The Gipsy Moth is still a fully suported certified A/C in the UK, i have to admit to wishing it wasnt, it would make life alot easier!!
If you want to design and build you own

Nobody can stop you building a Gypsy or a Tiger Moth. Problems only arise if you choose to sell it as something it is not. It would not be a DH Moth in a legal sense, no. But if it looks like Moth, is built like a Moth, from the same materials and to the same specifications as a Moth, would that detract from the pleasure of of owning and flying what is, in all respects other than legal semantics, a Moth??

If I build one to the exact same specs it is a reproduction. Nobody in their right mind could be persuaded that is is anything else, nor would anyone in their right mind try to pass it off as an original. I differentiate between a “replica” and a “reproduction”; a reproduction is not merely a look-alike, but built exactly as the original.

Nobody can legally stop you from selling a kit of parts for a “Moth” or whatever you choose to call it, any more than they can stop you from building an Isaac’s Fury. (Which, in case anyone wonders, is not a “real” Hawker Fury…) It would just happen to be a very well proven, very authentic REPRODUCTION of something bearing an uncanny resemblance to a certain DeHavilland product. I am not talking about putting one in production as a certified airplane.

I still think the attitude is one of sheer snobbery. Who would suffer if people built Moths from plans? Would British Aerospace go out of business?

The nicest thing about flying is that, for the little amount of time you’re actually up there, it is a world of wood, metal, fabric and the laws of physics – none of the legal and paper bullsh.t that surrounds aviation can touch you……

Sounds like chapter and verse!:)

I had the same thought many years ago – with modern CNC equipment and an expensive, but reasonable price tag . I thought it ought to be possible to make a limited production run of Moths at a decent profit.

I contacted the Moth Club and asked advice about obtaining drawings – their reply was downright snooty! They don’t “approve” of people building replicas, I was told! People might (oh, the horror!) pass them off as real Moths!!! (Forgive the exclamation marks, but I am trying to get my incredulity across!!) What rubbish and what a stupid attitude.
I pity the poor gullible buyer who can’t read the construction date on the paperwork and thinks he is getting a 1930s/40s Moth….

If you built a Moth to original drawings and original specs it is a Moth, just not one built by D.H.

Im affraid thats not the case, you can build one if you like and call it somthing else but i think you will find you wont be able to call it a DH Moth, infact you may have trouble calling it a Moth at all.
Now the problem here is that the DH Moth range are still supported by DH support who hold the TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet) for the types.
This means that they are still, although out of production, Certified types.
You can obtain the drawings from DH Support at Duxford, however when you do you will have to sign a disclaimer that you will not build from the drawings. They are for referance use only durring rebuilds etc. British Aerospace still own the rights.
Now in the UK even the Gipsy is on a full Cof A not a permit, this changed a few years ago before someone leaps on me from a great height!!! Existing A/C that were on a Permit still are but new imports or rebuilds will be on a CofA. I know of one A/C that left the UK on a Permit and exported to the USA. When is was reimported it had to go onto a CofA!
In the USA the Gipsy is on the experimental cat, where as the Tiger in on a Standard cat CofA. This allows more lea way.
If you want to design and build a REPLICA Gipsy Moth you will need to design it yourself and get the design past the LAA who will treat it as a new type.
You will however have to be extreemly carefull not run foul of some nasty litigation fron British Aerospace i fear.
The Gipsy Moth is still a fully suported certified A/C in the UK, i have to admit to wishing it wasnt, it would make life alot easier!!
If you want to design and build you own

Another question for you: how easy would it be to start manufacturing the Gipsy Moth (to buy complete and ready to fly) – perhaps utilising a welded steel fuselage frame (less parts = lower price) and a new engine? Would there be a market for such an elegant aeroplane, though? And would you buy an aircraft that although looked and flew like the original, contained parts probably manufactured in China and America (again to keep costs to a minimum)? One idea to reduce manufacturing costs perhaps would be to make each wing rib out of a single sheet of plywood cut my laser, or have them properly made in China, but not out of bamboo :o)

And how much would you be prepared to pay for one?

I had the same thought many years ago – with modern CNC equipment and an expensive, but reasonable price tag . I thought it ought to be possible to make a limited production run of Moths at a decent profit.

I contacted the Moth Club and asked advice about obtaining drawings – their reply was downright snooty! They don’t “approve” of people building replicas, I was told! People might (oh, the horror!) pass them off as real Moths!!! (Forgive the exclamation marks, but I am trying to get my incredulity across!!) What rubbish and what a stupid attitude.
I pity the poor gullible buyer who can’t read the construction date on the paperwork and thinks he is getting a 1930s/40s Moth….

If you built a Moth to original drawings and original specs it is a Moth, just not one built by D.H.

Contact Tom Ditrich at www.tigerboys.com.
They had a couple of Gypsy Moth kits for sale.
I think one is sold ( resonable price)but there may be one kit left.
Tom is building one himself and if you can’t tell it from an original.

Another question for you: how easy would it be to start manufacturing the Gipsy Moth (to buy complete and ready to fly) – perhaps utilising a welded steel fuselage frame (less parts = lower price) and a new engine? Would there be a market for such an elegant aeroplane, though? And would you buy an aircraft that although looked and flew like the original, contained parts probably manufactured in China and America (again to keep costs to a minimum)? One idea to reduce manufacturing costs perhaps would be to make each wing rib out of a single sheet of plywood cut my laser, or have them properly made in China, but not out of bamboo :o)

And how much would you be prepared to pay for one?

.
The Walter came in 3 models, the smallest being the Mikron at 65HP, but the Minor was also available in 2 sizes, being a 4 cylinder and a 6 cylinder, in some ways mirroring the Gipsy Minor, Major and Queen.

The Walter Minor 4 cylinder lives on today as a new build engine available from Avia as the Avia M332 with 145HP, seemly more than enough for a DH60 Moth given the Cirrus Mk I was 60HP and the Cirrus Mk II 90HP, and the Gipsy Mk I 100HP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_M332

The real question is what to call it?

A “Walter Moth” or an “Avia Moth”

smiles

Mark Pilkington

This has been an interesting thread. Blue Max, who has rebuilt a Moth from the ground up, as well as leading the Biggles Biplane restoration, hasn’t got round to commenting (He’s a bit busy fitting the tailplane at the moment :diablo:), so I hope you won’t mind a few observations from my, rather less experienced, point of view.

With something over 16,000 Gipsy Major engines of various marks built over the years, the overall supply stream for the engine isn’t going to run out too quickly.

Some bits are getting harder to find, but most service items including valves, heads, pistons etc., can be re-engineered. However in many areas it is the paperwork that is the problem.

Many Gipsy and Gipsy Major engines are fitted in aircraft carrying Certificates of Airthworthiness, when this is the case, every component has to be individually certified. Often the cost of certification costs more than the value of the components.

A specialist engine restorer such as Vintec can provide ‘as new’ Gipsy Majors, with all certifcation in place. But I hesitate to guess the price!

As you say Scion, if you can build a replica under an experimental classification, then this becomes less of an issue.

Making up metal fittings and even a wooden parts kit to original specification, wouldn’t be impossible, at a price. Specialist DH60 restorers such as Ron Souch in the UK have almost certainly got the expertise, drawings and access to materials.

Based on my time with the Walter Mikron II in the Tipsy Trainer, I really don’t think it would be powerful enough for the job in a DH60. It is a little jewel of an engine, but while it is nominally rated at 62hp, at 2650rpm, it is almost unfeasibly high revving. It is also a small capacity engine, so doesn’t have the torque needed to swing the bigger propeller you would need for a Moth.

The Gipsy Major, with anything from 100 to 145 hp is a more viable proposition and as in the ‘Biggles-Biplane’ replica, a later unit can be successfully converted to run in an upright configuration.

Fascinating, wonder what a new engine costs?:D

(and it is when and not if) Gipsy Majors become difficult to maintain (ie we run out of heads and valves and crankshafts)

When that happens, just get The Vintage Aviator in NZ to build new ones!
RAF1a
After new RAF1s, and Oberursels, a Gypsy should be a piece of cake…..

Looks like someone left the door of the *** unlocked!!!

DH 60

The DH60 in many ways has always been a bit like the lumberjack’s axe in that several of them have had 3 fus 4 sets of wings and 5 engines but are still the same aeroplane!

So that should make no difference. The protacol has been set with the metal fittings set for the Comper Swift which is easily, though expensivly, available in England.

John Greenland in the UK produced a “late production” Comper Swift though he did not use that fittings set. John had good Pobjoy engine to put in the project.

G Major engines have been “re-inverted” but I still have not worked out what they have done with the “Wet” sump.

I suspect that to produce a set of fittings for the G Moth there may be some form of legal problems as the aeroplane has been supported by different organizations throughout it’s life whereby the Comper Swift is somewhat of an orphan. The attachement is of one of our contributers starting the G Comper Swift at Albion Park

Cutting

Lazer?Go waterjet,no worries on heat effected zones on cut edges.All you need is a Cad file and a good system of organising the parts.All fastener holes can be centre marked..And I have enough trouble doing the Spit so if I was arm twisted enough might be able to help.Ummm how many parts we talking of here and what have I got myself into??:eek::(:rolleyes:

There have been at least two new-build fuselage projects (wings existed in each case) here in the UK. As far as I am aware neither came with any metal fittings so the problem must have been solved.

Why not contact the De Havilland Moth Club for info/advice?

http://www.dhmothclub.co.uk/

Moth Major

If you build a DH-60 Moth Major, you instantly solve the engine problem. My mate Mike did just that in NY!

G’day 😉

I am sure you know about the experimental category in Australia. Any Gipsy Moths built would be done under that, they would not be type-certified aeroplanes. They would not be DH Gipsy Moths, they would be replicas, very close replicas

That gets around a lot of things, paperwork wise, and allows that they could be maintained by the builder.

I have been told and others may be able to confirm this, that in a wooden Gipsy Moth the fittings are made out of flat metal plate.

If so that is a dead sitter for lazer cutting of the fittings.

I was thinking powered by a converted Gipsy Major, though becoming harder to get, there is still enough around. Lang Kidby had one converted for the Avro Avian that he flew from England to Australia a while back.

Another benefit if the project were to have engine other than a Gipsy would be that it could serve to sort out a suitable replacement engine for Tiger Moths when (and it is when and not if) Gipsy Majors become difficult to maintain (ie we run out of heads and valves and crankshafts)

cheers
Ross

cheers
Ross