Mosquito For Sale

what was so insurmountable that they stopped?

I think I mentioned it above 🙂

Cubic money…..

Bruce

‘Like’

Would be funny if its nothing more than a case of self-fulfilling prophecy. No one’s tried it, so everyone says its impossible and everyone says it’s impossible because no one has tried it!

The recent round of discussions with the CAA was by a serious potential operator, and therefore had nothing whatever to do wth ‘The People’s Mosquito’.

Your guess would be incorrect. I understand that a prospective purchaser in the UK had been working for a considerable time along with the builder of this Mosquito and the CAA with a view to having it registered in the UK.

Right and wrong it appears.

I know of the “People’s Mosquito” project which was looking at one of the New Zealand built aircraft, but honestly, having a meeting at Gatwick and coming away with a list of approved organisations isn’t exactly making great strides in terms of finding out what modifications and material substitutions are currently acceptable, or getting new ones approved.

Of course, there may be another group. If they got farther, then it begs the question to be asked – what was so insurmountable that they stopped?

Don’t all wooden aircraft use a modern equivalent glue? I know the comet racer has glue that is far better than the original as things have come a long way since the 30 ‘s…It more than likely comes down to cost incurred.

In a typhoon airframe for instance if I wanted a different spec tube it would have to go through all the stringent checks the caa have, which incurs huge cost. However I could not share that cost with any other projects to reduce the outlay as each project will have to go through exactly the same checks. It would make things a lot cheaper to do it once….Perhaps it can change 🙂

John,

I don’t know enough about it, so I can’t answer that.

My point was that I see no reason why a modern glue cannot be substituted by modification. Mikes point is good; the fact that someone has been working with the CAA for a time, suggests that they weren’t turned away at the first hurdle. In fact it suggests that at least some of the potential issues had been addressed.

Cubic money……

Re 61

Bruce, I’m genuinely puzzled by your comment: ‘Some of the glues now in use were developed as a result of Mosquito manufacture’

I’m aware of your qualification ‘some’, does that include resorcinol ?

If so, it begs the question: Why did extremes of heat, moisture and stress cause the Mossie airframe to fail ? Most of the glues now in use are to a varying degree, water and heat proof.

Your guess would be incorrect. I understand that a prospective purchaser in the UK had been working for a considerable time along with the builder of this Mosquito and the CAA with a view to having it registered in the UK.

I can’t see anything as to why it would be a problem. Looking at the categories, a Mosquito comes in as an Intermediate type.

My guess is no-one has yet gone to the CAA with all the necessary documentation – as you can bet the work involved will result in a fee being charged.

Some of the glues now in use were developed as a result of Mosquito manufacture…..

I see no reason why a modification cannot be raised to cover new glues.

Does the Mosquito require a design authority – is it a complex type? That used to be the sticking point (pun intended). Not sure if it would be now.

Bruce

All Spifire and Hurricane re-builds take place in organisations that either have or, are part of, an organisation that has status as an internationally approved Code of Practice facility. These re-builds do not depart in any significant way from the pattern of airframe and engineering design laid down from new.

That appears not to be the case with the DH Mosquito. The problem with this aircraft seesm to be one of airframe integrity vis a vis the chemical bonding agents in use during the time of original manufacture and the bonding agents now in use which are vastly superior in terms of adhesion and longevity.

In terms of the structural use of glues, technology has galloped. Epoxies, polysulfides, polyurethanes and resorcinols all perform well – depending on the application – as adhesives and fillers. Unless anyone else has knowledge to the contrary, this seems to be the sticking point (no pun ntended) for our CAA. They seem to be insistent on using original specification glues which are inferior to modern ones.

I seem to remember Glyn Powell making the same point.

Okay I’m less confused after reading CAP 533. Complex types are required to be supported, it appears Intermediate and Simple do not. (unless the ex manufacturer write grumpy letters to the CAA. )

Presumably BAE are the design authority for the Shackleton too? How are you planning to approach the matter?

Thankfully, our founder managed to purchase the design and all associated rights to Shackleton back in 1993.

As to Bruce’s point – it does make you wonder. CAA mention in a Nov 2007 response to a consultation paper that no Type Certificate Holder or Design Authority exists for Spitfire? Page 11, para 23.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1646/Comment%20Response%20Doc%20for%20A8-21.pdf

Okay, so I’m now officially confused!

However, even in the US there is a morotorium on issuing new exemptions for ride programmes, and in some cases (including, I undertstand Planes of Fame at Chino) existing exemptions are not being renewed.

Let me just throw this little morsel in:

BAe systems, are, technically, the type certificate holder for the Spitfire and Hurricane.

They have not divested themselves of their responsibility in this regard, but they have nothing to do with any of the rebuilds that have happened, or are ongoing.

Why is a Mosquito any different?

Bruce

The sad Mustang accident will be in the minds of those moving forward with the proposals, but the setbacks should be viewed in perspective.

Other incidents were the Barry Hempel Yak 52 fatality, and the Tiger Moth break-up at Queensland. At least 2 of those accidents involved aerobatics in the final part of the flight.

Paid-for flying in warbirds will be on the clear understanding by passengers that risk is higher than with conventional CAT carriers, and that small risk will be accepted, as is currently the case with B-17 and Lancaster air-experience flying.

Presumably BAE are the design authority for the Shackleton too? How are you planning to approach the matter?

Bruce, that might be so for the Vulcan but down at the bottom of the aviation “food chain” where I am, the response to wanting to change to a permit was a firm “No” as long as there was a Type Certificate holder. This was despite the TC holder being 12,000 miles away and that it is arguable that the Glos-Airtourer was UK-built from NZ parts and therfore a true “orphan” in EASA terms.

Re 50

“..subject to the usual checks and balances…”

That is the problem. Daddy knows best. If a NZ aviation engineering and manufacturing facility is conforming to and operating under an internationally approved Code of Practice with all that that entails including assembly related scrutiny and airframe performance analysis, then the British CAA or, any other Aviation Regulator, should, after examinarion of relevant documentation, issue a Certificate of Registration and clearance for flight.

But no, we have to be seen to justify our existence. So, here’s a few extra hurdles and hoops.