It’s all to do with what the CAA will allow on a UK reg. As Yak11Fan says, no aerobatics in a UK registered 450hp conversion….G-IIIG was a standard 220hp version and also had CAA approval for ‘wing seats’

The rigs are approved and STC’d AFAIK…

Shame N54922 is being fitted with a cowling, always the best one IMHO, but a 8ugger to roll with only 2 ailerons……:D

Im with you, 54922 always my fav without the cowl, but as you say a ****** with only two ailerons. Big T did say there were plans to fit four so she would be the same as all the rest, when he has a couple of minutes to spare;)

[QUOTE=Joe Petroni;1096942]No, the main reason is that people keep coming forward to take on the TRA!

Quite right T6 it is i understand only a minority who want them to stay on a Full CofA and they are the ones i presume keep persuing someone to take on the TRA. And yes you are right if no one takes it on then they go on a permit which has to be the best result for the aeroplane. So why is a small minority intent on persuing this course of action, seems madness to me:confused:

With all the tens of thousands of hours flown on all marks of JP’s, to put an aerobatic restriction on them and at the same time not restrict the “G” sounds a bit nearsighted. It is not the maneuver that might cause the structural failure, but the stress put on the stucture that might cause it. One might pull 5 or 6 G’s in the break if one wanted to. One could also do a nice roll with very little increas in positive G applied. One is aerobatic, the other is not. What have the Australians done?

i think you need to check on the official meaning of the term Aerobatics! i think you will find, i am happy to be corrected here if i am wrong:) , but i think anything grater than a rate one turn and 45degree’s of bank are officialy classed as Aerobatics!! therefore if you pull 5 or 6 G ( its ‘G’ by the way not G’s) then you would surely exceed this?
It also sound reading the AD that once a reliable NDT inpection is found then the resriction may be lifted. As always were looking on the black side here:rolleyes: At the end of the day if there is any possibility of a structural failure then steps need to be talken, it does seem to be worded badly and a G limit should also be imposed 🙂

Here is a link to an 82-C, the shape of the panel looks the same but yours has a few extra instruments added.

http://www.torontoaerospacemuseum.com/tigermoth/tigergraphics/tiger03T.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.torontoaerospacemuseum.com/tigermoth/gallery.htm&h=95&w=200&sz=21&hl=en&start=22&tbnid=LlmZPPLS_D-6iM:&tbnh=49&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddh%2Bmoth%2Bcockpit%26start%3D21%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Only two extra intrument compared to the DHC Dwg 1979 that replaces DWG 1486. And one of thoose is shown as an option of a clock on the upper far right, the one below it seems to be a hole cut for a modern Altimeter. Trust me Its a 82c, i reconise it, ive flown one, ive got the drawing infront of me!! As for it not being the same as the one in the link, i have 4 82a intrument panels in my workshop at the moment, every one is slightly different, and not one is to the original drawing.
And as for, “its got to many instruments for a 82a” thats because its an 82c;) which is very different to a 82a in many ways, incuding how it flies!

These sure add to the collection and provide an income to the colection to allow them to carry out further work to the collections A/C. They are not talking away resources from the collections A/C mearly using the resources that they have to earn an income to support the collection, im sure that none of its for free.

Some loverly pics, sadly not only some aeroplanes no longer with us but some faces spotted too, Ray and Mark Hannah and Norman Lees to name but a few:(

Now that is good news:) love the new paint as well, always preferred that to the Korean scheme:D

Thats G-ACZE belonging to Brian Woodford’s Wessex Aviation 🙂