The People's Mosquito Registered with the CAA

I will enjoy seeing it, whatever it is called. replica, Recreation. !!!

If it look like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck, its more than likely is a Duck. Or in this case a Mosquito.

I was one of the lucky ones to have seen mosquito’s flying, many have not I look forward to the sight and sound

You would need to be probably at least 35 now to have that memory

To me Recreation is a better term.

With a name like “The People’s Mosquito”, I’d expect it to be on the Chinese register. 

R6915, you make an interesting point about the Spitfire Society. They are in essence the DA for the Spitfire. However, your Spitfire is non-flyable. So not subject to CAA regulation. It is not a replica either because it has been built using non-original designs wooden frames for example.

Bradburger, I fear you don’t understand what a DA is and the legal responsibilities they have for the continual airworthiness of their design(s). There may have been limited comms between BAe and the Mosquito builders – but it is quite clear to me that they, BAe, wanted nothing to do with it. Extensive comms between the builders and the CAA would have taken place and stage checks included during the build as a risk reduction measure.

As I said previously, the term replica is a legal one – it is designed to provide a firewall between this build and all the other DA built machines.

The Mk designation has nothing to do with the situation (as you stated and then sort of dismissed).

New build wouldn’t work either – all DA machines were new builds at one point.

As far as facsmile is concerned I find that less acceptable than replica. I Can’t see the CAA the regulators, in this matter, changing their minds re a new term any time soon.

I find it strange that they have been able to register it as a “DH 98” thou’. Another legal term Trade Mark this time.

As far as the project is concerned I wish them all the best going forward. 

I see that the can of worms is slowly opening as predicted!  I’ll offer some thread drift to bulk out the conversations if I may!

In the mid 1980’s the then new Spitfire Society was formed and memberships rapidly increased. Jeffrey Quill (JQ) was soon inducted to become President along with some more Spitfire names familiar to we armchair pilots. The founder – Wing Commander Retd. David Green and JQ in conversation expressed the wish that a full size Spitfire (non flying) prototype (K5054) be built for students to study the first of the nearly 23,000 that were manufactured in a stream of developments over the next 12 years.

It was to be created from a range of materials, such as the fuselage frames from timber. The skin was aluminium and so on. By about 1990 the forthcoming construction was being talked about quite widely. In common with this topic considering what to ‘call’ the Peoples Mosquito, had also started to emerge about this Spitfire Society sponsored construction.

JQ , as his published books also show us, used the English language very effectively. He considered ‘Replica’ to be a good possibility, but wasn’t quite comfortable with it! He decided that the term FACSIMILE felt easier. We trustees took that to be a clear indication of what was needed and in all conversations and documents thereafter when we refered to our K5054 as that !

Does FACSIMILE suit the ‘Peoples Mosquito’ ?   Purely a suggestion for consideration.

I don’t disagree with the CAA’s view and approval/certification process classifying what is in their eyes a replica, but it has been argued in the past (and still is) that a lot of the Spitfires for instance rebuilt from those high speed crash recovered wrecks, should be classified in the Replica category.

(It did cross my mind that it might be because the said aircraft is being built as an FB.IV as opposed to the NF.36 it was originally built as, but probably not).

Personally I think a ‘New Build’ category might be better in such circumstances (I would class the Flugwerk built 190 kits as lookalikes rather than’ new builds’ since they differ in many ways to the original design) using the last two points (maybe even the first) as outlined in Oracal’s post.

As I said, it may well open up the old can of worms again!

Cheers

Paul

I was going to say, but Oracal has said some of my words, that the term replica is a legal term. Used to describe a one-of-production (or limited and clearly defined production run) in the form of an exact copy of the original by an authorised third party. That is to say authorised by, in this case, the CAA.

The only organisation that could build a non replica is BAe, who by default are the authorised Design Authority (DA) for the Mosquito. But, they could appoint an agent to carry out the build on their behalf. That agent must have a full understanding of the continual  airworthiness requirement of their work and be registered as the DA, by in this case, the CAA.

The DA of Vulcan 558, BAe, appointed a third party agent to handle the DA activities during the build up to and subsequent civil flying activities.

However, the result here is we have a replica built by an authorised third party. Which I as a Senior Aerospace Engineering Manager are very happy with.

I don’t understand why people get their knickers in a twist over the use of ‘replica’. The meaning of the word replica is, “an exact copy”. 

The UK CAA’s view on this is;

Normally replicas are one-off constructions that conform with the original design. These can be given a Permit to Fly provided they are not part of a volume manufactured series. There are exceptions for example where the original manufacturer has re-opened a production line. Any design changes from the original will need to be approved by the CAA. When deciding whether a replica ex-military aircraft can have a Permit to Fly we will consider:

• The likely number to be constructed;
• The design standard used, including modifications to the original standard; and
• The production facilities and processes.

If enthusiasts want to engage in endless circular arguments fine – but really, life is too short. Anyway, another full size Mosquito in the air can only be a good thing – can’t it? At least it’s not a Supermarine Spitfire mk 25/26/26b.

Yes Prop Strike, I found the use of ‘Replica’ interesting!

Could open that old can of worms again with the other WWII types, which people claim should be classed as replicas!

Cheers

Paul

Replica ??

We’ll never hear the end of that…

In the eyes of many, this term will detract from the appeal and significance of the resultant aircraft, which is a bit of a shame, as in essence it will surely be a similar (re) creation as the magnificent Avspecs examples, which are cherished as ‘real’ Mosquitos, albeit of course with a new build wooden airframe.

I fear ‘that’ circular debate will raise its head, yet again.