Mosquito KA114 rebuild

Could be very exciting…

Certain to be 🙂

Ig Glynn Powell/Avspecs are succesfull with the first Mosquito, this opens the doors for quite a number of derelict airframes that dont merit a formal ‘listing’ as survivors.

Could be very exciting…

Bruce

. There are/were 8 to 10 Spits being rebuilt in NZ and costs could be compared easily enough

John

8 to 10 😮 I didn’t know there were that number of Spitfires in New Zealand let alone under restoration! Someone has been holding out on me!

Myself, I can’t see any difference between using the HARS Mosquito metal bits and the donor structure from the SAAF/SA Metals that is the principal ‘seed corn’ of the current crop of Spitfire restorations.

Mark

Mark and Dave

I don’t want to go into specific companies or sales but I was quoting apples with apples ie a complete flying P40 @ 20-30% of what you are quoting for a Spit and thats a fact – When a P40 is openly put on the market (recent sale) for US $1M it will sell for less and that less is around Aus $1m or 400.000 pounds sterling or 20% of the UK price of a Spit rebuild in Blighty.

I sugest you have a chat with Pioneer or Avspecs on the NZ price of a Spit – I didn’t ask but I suspect it’s a lot less than NZ $5m. There are/were 8 to 10 Spits being rebuilt in NZ and costs could be compared easily enough

Bruce

There are serious amounts of Mossie metal down here – I remember about 15 sets recovered from Narromine in store at the HARS facility near Sydney so I think the potential is quite good given the NZ moulds have happened and seem to produce a Fuse pretty dam quickly

Regards
Guys
john

cost of re-build

A bare airframe costs “X” to rebuild. (either metal or woodwork)

The systems (pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, mechanical, engine, fuel, oil, water, etc.) cost significantly more. This is where the majority of the investment goes, which is why you see some airframe projects sold on before their systems are fitted out. There is a chance that the maker will see a return or profit on his/her investment at this point.

I would say however that in NZ /Aus for instance a P40 with almost totally scratch built structure would be 20 to 30% of the price you quote for a Spit – something is wrong here ?

John,

…and how much is the NZ/Aus ‘the structure’ cost as a percentage of the selling price, including profit?

…and please define what is include in ‘the structure’.

Mark 🙂

No, Mark 12 is right – for the moment

Most of the Spitfire rebuilds have historically been done in the UK, and the prices he quotes are what it costs to build a Spitfire. Pricing an airworthy Spitfire at 2m leaves some (not much) room for profit. As it stands, the build price is now pretty much what it is worth at the end of the day, meaning that some companies are run more as a hobby than as a real going concern. In the UK, figures of £40 per hour are the norm – translate that to $NZ…

Now, even if NZ starts building Spitfires at the rate they were being done here in the 80’s and 90’s, the initial projects are that much worse, so the end figure wont be that far different, by the time one has scratchbuilt structure and machined parts.

Is the P40 price you are looking at for a completed, flyable aircraft?

Looking at KA114 – I think the vast majority of the metal fittings will be sourced from the one airframe. The stocks of parts in Australia could well end up being used in 2-3 more aircraft down the line. It would be great to add to the survivor list!

Bruce

Hi Bruce

Well said . The wing and fuse I saw were stuffed as have been every Mossie that was disposed of around Narromine where I grew up – I suspect that in the case of Mossies in Australia there will always be a source of some of the metal as so many just rotted into the ground. The climate preserved much of the metal. I do however suspect that a lot of parts in NZ will be new build.

Mark

I agree with your assumptions about the probable Mossie re use of parts I was stating that in an ideal world you would ask for all new parts. The site mentions in fact that a lot of the metal is being reused. As I stated above there is a lot of metal about to choose from in Aus and NZ as many were left to rot into the ground.

I would say however that in NZ /Aus for instance a P40 with almost totally scratch built structure would be 20 to 30% of the price you quote for a Spit – something is wrong here ?

Regards
John P

You must understand that when a Mosquito deteriorates, it really deteriorates. KA114’s fuselage, as is well evident from the photos now freely available on the web is well beyond any form of rebuild. There is nothing there to rebuild. Once the ply/balsa sandwich has gone, you are left with a few stiffeners and stregtheners at important points, and thats it. The de Havilland design is VERY clever. The wing does all the work, and the fuselage essentially goes along for the ride. Thats a bit too simplistic, but is fairly accurate. This was always the only way to rebuild seriously deteriorated Mosquitoes, and there are more round the world that could come back to life as a result of this venture. Anyone remember a For Sale ad in AM back in the eighties ‘For Sale – 2 complete Mosquito aircraft, no wood to speak of…’

Bruce

John,

I believe there is just one little flaw with the ‘make all new “Non wood bits”‘ strategy – cost. It doesn’t really work on a Spitfire even with high flow, desirability and value, let alone a single or small batch of Mosquitos. Even recognising the Antipodean technology pool and attractive labour rates currently prevailing, to actual manufacture from scratch every steel or aluminium fitting and forging to world wide aerospace quality and acceptance standards, together with all the associated tooling and proof testing, would send the cost of a Mosquito to probably x5 of the perceived current market value.

You will know that as an engineer I see £2m in a fresh completed Spitfire, but the market sees about 60% of that. It just about works because of the scouring and networking for donor parts worldwide and bucket loads of enthusiasm. I suspect some of the projects require ‘creative accounting’ to justify continuation.

For a very select few at the top of the collectors ‘tree’, cost is immaterial and of little consequence. For the next band down the scale, potential ‘negative equity’ at the end of a restoration is a major deterrent to actually committing. In this situation serial provenance and the associated ‘added value’ makes the difference between committing or not. Perhaps the world is overfull of flying warbirds but if you want to keep seeing them coming I think you will have to pay the price of losing some of the originality.

For those particularly interested in this provenance aspect I would urge you to read in full the ‘Old Bentley Number One’ case highlighted by Jagan yesterday. http://www.gomog.com/articles/no1judgement.html
I believe that the intent at the time, with full transparency, is just as important as the actual ‘metal/material’ used or consumed and in the case of the Bentley, the judge concurred.

Mark

Hi Mark

No if it were my Mossie I would ask the chaps to make all new “Non wood bits” and leave the old bits on the old wooden bits and restore 3 or less static mossies and I think that is the point of my posts. I don’t have a problem at all with total new builds and the assumption of existing identities. My main point as I keep re iterating is that we can have the best of both worlds if we static restore the old bits and pass them on and construct new build aircraft to fly. The less old bits flying about the better I say and the greater trust I have in the overall integrity of an airframe.

At present we do have an issue with engines but even that will be solved in time and technology at least with mainstream types such as P&W, Allison and Merlin maybe even DB 601/605.

I think we are really at the same point here you are more focused on the provinance issues which can be circumvented if the passed on scrap is stripped of it’s identity and just restored as a representative of the type rather than linked to the source identity.

Anyway a good discussion here on both threads

Kindest regards
John P

they could try and repair or mockup the fuselage of the original mosquito for static display.

John,

…yes, but would you take the best ‘non wood’ bits from three Mosquitos like the KA114, to get one flying?

Mark

To all

The Mossie was/is in bad shape and as it happens Glyn has built the new “universal” moulds which allow any Mosquito version to be constructed from scratch. This is entirely in line with my thread on warbirds scrapping,

New mossies can be built and the original wood could be preserved if possible and fitted with non airworthy metal – two mossies!!!. It is of course a little more difficult with a Mossie given it’s construction to rebuild one – there are no original structures flying and I suspect there may never be with the possible exception of the extensively reconstructed Canadian example.

As to why do it in New Zealand – Have you seen the exchange rate USD Vs NZD as well as the lower wages and the less litegous legal system. There are currently in excess of 30 WW11 Warbirds in Australia and New Zealand undergoing restoration for US collectors and the reasons are obvious. The US industry has begun to price itself out of the market and the legal system may well finish it off if legislators don’t do it for them . Far easier to send the planes downunder to the “factories” . You get good quality at a far cheaper price.

Regards
John P

The woodwork on KA114 was always in a bad state, and this was always going to be the way forward in restoring her. The point is that the owners/restorers are being entirely transparent in what they are doing. They are creating a new wooden airframe, using all the available parts of an existing one. The fuselage is not even in a state where it could be displayed in static condition. The wing was a little better, but it isnt great. Well done to Mr Yagen for having the foresight to see this as a going concern.

I have no problem with identifying the completed project as KA114.

Bruce

Hmmm…maybe a good choice…Ray hasd been known to take quite a while on restorations….8 years on the Firefly and STILL working on the Lone Star Hurricane…

Mark

Most of the communication with this shop is done by fax and e-mail. People use them because they work fast, the quality is excellent and very reasonably priced.

Interesting stuff…and this is the place that is also repairing Paul Page’s Erie, Colorado based Spitfire…wonder why that thing did’nt wind up up the road with Ray Middleton instead? Would’ve made it a LOT more convenient to view progress on if it was just a half hour drive up the road instead of flying halfway around the world….

Mark

David,

What identity will your project carry?

Cees

mosquito remains

Good Question!

Once you have scavanged all of the metal fittings and used the original woodwork as a 3D reference, you will have either picked the original to pieces, and reduced it to matchwood, or have two mosquitos on your hands, and transferred the data-plates.

The original fuselage (If saved) would still form a good exhibit in its own rite, if kept as it is. What would be the difference between this and the Halifax at Hendon? This is the tricky question of provenance, once again though.

They are doing a great job, however. I would much prefer to see a re-built mosquito fly, than rot in a shed somewhere.

My project could potentially use an original Sea Hornet rear fuselage in its construction, but these relics have laid in a field for decades before being rescued. They are reduced in strength and out of shape, and damaged. Once new bulkheads and skins have been replaced, what is original? The original relic has historical significance in its own rite, even though it is not complete, it represents a record of the design of the time. This is why I decided to do a newly built fuselage/cockpit to sympathetically display original parts.