Rear fuselage of the Il-2 is wooden structure and skin so in all probability nothing survives of that section other than fittings, at least in any meaningful sense.

OK, PH-NKD is an AT-6A so falls under the TCDS so qualifies for N reg over here. There is a UK T-6D which is migrating to France to continue its rebuild which will also be transferring from the G-reg to the N-reg in due course

Presumably is that propeller blade is from the aeroplane in question we’re looking at up to a Mk 5? In one of the Nordic states – another PR.IV?

Truly a work of art. The effort put into this has been astounding, the result is glorious. I have, however, a question.

The team rightly used as much as possible of the original craft – this is certainly a restoration not a re-creation. However, the forces involved in the original crash were significant and and imparted stresses and deformation – cracked and torn metal and subsequent corrosion will play havoc with material strength and integrity . In straightening and re-forming the original metal, what structural analysis has been completed on the individual components and the structure as a whole to ensure that she is strong enough to take to the water again at speed?

I am in no way trying to detract from the result of this restoration, indeed I look forward to seeing it in the flesh on a future trip to the UK.

This is what appears on the tailcone portion…….[ATTACH=CONFIG]261539[/ATTACH]

You simply ask. It’s fairly simple to ascertain whether someone you are talking to is sufficiently up the food chain to legitimately give consent. And if you’re unsure then discretion should win out and the camera stays in the bag. These aircraft may be of interest, but they are private property in a (generally) private location. Just because a hangar door may be open does not make it a public free-for-all. Simply regard a hangar as an extension to a persons home. You wouldn’t start snapping photos of the contents of a persons garage just because the door was open, so why assume that an aeroplane hangar is perfectly fine?

Hi Bob, a lot of the cost of doing these items is in the first one to be done – the design, production and proof of the tooling and methods. The subsequent production items come out considerably cheaper because of this initial and hugely expensive effort and expenditure. If this wing jig and tooling are, for the purposes of non-TPM usage, out of circulation, then anyone else wanting a Mossie wing will have to start once again from scratch with all development costs involved. This could be the tipping factor in the viability of others undertaking a Mossie to flight project. It may not be the case, and I hope I am proved wrong, but the removal from circulation of fundamentally important equipment seldom has a positive outcome.

Will I be pleased to see a Mossie flying in the UK in the medium to long term? Hell yes. But not if it is at the cost of another one, two, three or however many that may have flown sooner had this played out differently. I can’t get overly nationalistic about where these aeroplanes are based at any given point in time. They are singularly the most mobile of creations and I am certain that even without TPM the UK will again have the pleasure of having a home based Mossie in the not too distant future. The more there are flying, the more likely this becomes, not the reverse.

I suppose the way to look at it is that aeroplanes, just like your car or any other item are private. If in a museum, fair game, but in a private hangar, well, private. A friend had photos of his plane plastered over the iterweb, inside his own private hangar simply because some kid with a hanglider which was lodging overnight had given a photographer permission. Did this kid have authority? No. Just because someone says it’s fine doesn’t mean it is. If you can’t verify that appropriate permission has been received, the decent thing to do is use discretion.