Newforest:
A small correction to my original note….DH60 CF-AAA does have leading edge slats, the same as English Tiger Moths. Quite an innovation for 1935 I would have to say….and another reason the Moth line are such sweet flyers! For some reason I did not recall seeing them on on CF-AAA in 2004 however they are quite visible in the linked photo. Canadian-built Tiger Moths do not have slats.
Regards, Mk.1
——————–

DH60 Moths in Millitary use

DH60 CF-AAA is indeed alive and well in Orangeville, Ontario (30 km N. of Toronto). The aircraft belongs to and and is lovingly cared for by Mr. Watt Martin, an AME/pilot and the Moth “go to” man in Canada. Watt kindly gave me a chance to fly her for a bit on a weekend trip we made from Brampton, Ontario (home base of the Great War Fying Museum) to the Geneseo Airshow in upstate New York a few years ago. Watt’s DH60 handles much the same as Jerry Fotheringham’s DH82A albeit on slightly less power, a 125hp Gipsy, and sans wing slats. I recall the left side of the airplane being quite hot and “carbon monoxide-ish” with the proximity of the exhaust pipe. It was a quite a thrill to fly an aircraft with as much history as CF-AAA. I am priviledged to be one of the fortunate few Canadians to be able to log one of the most famous Canadian registrations in my personal logbook. Watt Martin is a true gentleman and a pillar of the Ontario flying community.
Mk.1
——-

Mosquito – Canadian Press Report

Gents:
I do believe its high time we all took a look in the mirror and cooled this one off a bit….after one or two deep breaths perhaps. JDK put in quite aptly a couple of posts back and I commend him for his remarks. In researching this issue a bit behind the scenes here in Calgary (via consultation with people that have 20-30 year direct histories with the restoration efforts/storage of the aircraft in question) I have now found merit in both “sides” arguments, regardless of how empassioned they have become. Tom and Richard have duly covered the process that is to be followed in the disposition of historical Canadian aircraft like the Mossie so that aspect does not need to be rehashed. While we in Calgary would dearly love to see this wonderful aircraft restored to her former flying (or even static) glory, unless a substantial infusion of cash were to be forthcoming, this will likely not materialise in the near future. As for the issue of paid salaries at the said museum vs ongoing aircraft disposals to cover same, I see this as one of the issues that should definitely be debated and resolved by Calgary City Council. Curtailment of this practice is certainly of equal importance and ultimately of much greater threat potential to the survival of the museum and the collection itself. City Council will soon debate the disposition of the Mosquito at which time I’m sure that certain prominent voices in both camps will be heard if they have not been already. As all of us forumites would undoubtedly agree, the underpinning premise should be to do what is ultimately best for the aircraft, as it is of a construction that will not “store” indefinitely. The decision will unfortunately be rendered by non-aviation-minded people that I’m sure have widely ranging views regarding the allocation (or recoupment) of public funds vs preservation of historical/wartime artifacts. I encourage all of you, “on all sides of all the ponds”, (instead of firing barbs at one another on this forum) to e-mail your views into the addresses provided and let the cards fall where they may. As many of you have already remarked, as long as due process is followed, some form of resolution (over the status quo) will undoubtedly ensue for the betterment of the airplane. If the City decides the Mossie will not be sold, then I think they must be pressed into action (ie. commitment of funding) to engage a plan for her near-term restoration. As a historic aviation minded citizen and tax-payer of Calgary, above all, I want to see this beautiful airplane have a chance at making a comeback, regardless of the avenue.
Regards to all,
Mk.1
—————-

Mosquito – Canadian Press Report

It seems to me that the mission of Calgary’s AeroSpace Museum (a mis-named facility for “official” reasons I unfortunately cannot recall) or any other museum for that matter, is to both protect significant historical artifacts and/or display representative facsimilies (conversions, replicas, models, etc.) for the education of present and future generations. In the case of the subject Mosquito (presently owned by the citizens of Calgary and all Canadians, per the remarks of the gentleman from Ontario), it is acknowledged that this particular aircraft is not a Canadian built Mk.35 and was not flown by RCAF crews, however it is highly representative of the aircraft that were built here in Canada and flown by Canadian aircrew (not to mention its history mapping northern Canada). Furthermore, it seems ironic and disheartening to me that with the recent construction of a new museum in Calgary that is dedicated specifically to the preseravtion of RCAF history, that this aircraft could even be considered for sale to parties outside Calgary, or the country for that matter (with all due respect to our brethren in the UK that place a much higher significance and value on historic/wartime aircraft). Had Hitler knocked on Calgary’s doorstep in 1940, I suspect (and hope) that current day lack of interest would not be so prevalent. As we are all aware, restorations of aircraft like the Mosquito require large injections of funding and skilled (typically volunteer) labour to complete, hence this particular aircraft’s current state of cold storage. The Mossie’s current status however, is not justification for a hasty and irreversible decision by City Council whom may or may not understand and/or appreciate the true significance of such an aircraft. My only additional comment is that if a wealthy city like Calgary cannot muster the resources to properly display the Mossie in either of its museums, then I (a Calgary taxpayer and private replica Spitfire restorer/pilot) fully support “donating” it to the Nanton museum (Peter’s HQ) to be displayed alongside the Lancaster and Bolingbroke.
Regards, Mk1
—————-

Spitfire Replica. Any Lower Cost Power Unit Alternatives?

Hello Tom:
A few more words from the replica builder/modifier soap box:

1. Budget at least $100K to get a properly scaled replica Spit flying, regardless of much of it you scratch build/machine. $$$ are directly offset by fabrication time.
2. A LOM will likely set you back @ $30+K, its designed for a 2-bladed prop (ie. only esthetically applicable to very early Mk.1’s), its air cooled and impossible to cowl esthetically accurate in the Spit nose profile (except the PR VIII model)). I would stay with a V8 auto engine as they lend themselves to a more realistic looking/sounding replica and the substantially lower acquisition cost will offset the higher-priced PSRU. Terry Wilshire can give you valuable guidance in this area of engineering.
3. My 70% replica runs a 100% homebuilt prop/PSRU combination, bolted to the back of the 215 Buick V8. It was built at very low cost by the original builder and his machinist partner. This combination runs extremely smooth and does not appear to suffer from destructive harmonics albeit it only has 62 hrs flying time on it. If you plan on using a high power/high rpm LS2, I would strongly recommend spending the bucks on a proven PSRU. This is the most critical lump of metal in the entire airplane.
4. My 3-bladed prop is hand carved 6-ply laminated birch. It is kevlar coated and precisely balanced with epoxied and turned aluminum no-crush bosses that fit into a machined aluminum sandwich-block hub (making it ground-adjustable). I may eventually break down and by an MT for the bird after I get her flying again (upon gathering enough flight performance data to accurately spec a new prop). Terry Wilshire and others have used certified or cut-down (eg. Twin Otter) propellors on their replicas in the 66-80% scale range. You need a bit of luck and a few connections in landing one of these propellor “opportunities”.
5. My PSRU is a cog-belt unit fabricated of welded aluminum plate. It employs both sealed and “interval greasable” bearings (via injection tubes/nipples). I suspect the lead ballast “donut” molded around the PSRU likely has a significant positive damping effect on any vibration that the prop/drive combination may try to generate.

Good luck and keep at it sir,
Mk.1
———–

Martin Mars may be staying in California

Gents:
Somebody pre-empted me as I was about to post the same Mars landing sequence photos, but pasted together in a continuous strip. They are quite impressive when they are pasted together however the trick is getting the strip under 300 MB to be able to post it. I believe the photo credits go to M/Gen Brian Vernon. In speaking with my brother a few nights back, he told me that someone on the landing approach shoreline of Lake Elsinore had taken a nice seqence of pictures and these appear to be them.

Although these shots are similar to ones already posted in this thread, they clearly show the finesse required to operate the Mars in such small reservoirs. My brother has had to grease the bird onto the water within 100 ft. of the downwind end of the lake (when there is any wind!) in order to have a fighting chance at grabbing a 50-60% load. Under ideal conditions, a pick-up run will be 25-30 seconds however the best he has been able to do in Elsinore is @18 seconds translating to a ~5000 USgal load. To do this, he carries minimal fuel and uses 1.8 of the 3 miles available for the pick-up and then needs the remainder to build the Mars’ airspeed up to a minimum engine-out airspeed of @120 mph prior to over-flying houses and trees. Every (pick-up) departure from Elsinore is done with the “thumb on the dump button” for obvious reasons. Working out of that duck pond has required the use of all his old float-flying tricks including circular take-offs, downwind runs to get on the step, etc. When he described his approach to land in the first 100 ft of Lake Elsinore, it harkened back to our early flying days at Pitt Meadows, B.C. where we won the combined spot-landing/flour-bombing trophy in my Citabria at the 25th anniversary fly-in/air-show (he as pilot, yours truly as bombardier). He has always had the midas touch for spot landing airplanes, of any size, and it clearly shows in these photos. I guess all this just serves to reinforce the old adage that “runway behind you is wasted real estate”. We were both taught by our old instructor (in Fleet Canucks) that if you did not touch down on the numbers and/or make the first turn-off, you had better not show your face in the airport coffee shop……extremely valuable coaching for Mars operations at Lake Elsinore!!! As for the question re: would he rather be flying something newer? I can comment that for water bomber pilots in general, “programmable” airplanes have very little appeal. Flying the biggest “day-VFR” airplane in the world, and a boat to boot, does have a good deal of that appeal.
Mk.1
———–

Martin Mars may be staying in California

Gents:
Interesting disscussion re maneuvreability of the Mars. I can say from first hand experience that the “not very maneuvreable” argument would prevail in this instance. From one short flight in the old bird and numerous discussions with my brother (the chief pilot), I can comment that the pilot in command must always be planning/processing at least 2-3 seconds ahead of every control input (particularly on ailerons) as the Mars is indeed very slow to react and even slower when at her 162,000 lb gross weight. Even at METO power, when all 10,000 horses are pulling, she is not “blessed with power”. With large water/fuel load combinations and hot weather conditions (usually associated with fires), the Mars does not have a generous performance margin. At high altitude fire locations (above 6,000 ft) in the mountainous B.C. interior, the old girl must be flown very carefully. When her sheer physical size, weight, power to weight ratio, absence of hydraulic boost on ailerons, combined with violent thermals are all factored into the equation, the result is an airplane that is extremely physically demanding to fly in a confined (mountainous or smoke-constrained) area. Full aileron deflection (stop to stop) inputs requiring both pilots to put all their strength into the roll (and counter roll) are not uncommon. My brother is (and has to be) in the best physical shape to safely fly the airplane in the role it now serves.
As for the effects on the life of the airframe, key structural components on the Mars were extensively strain-gauged during flying operations a few years ago and the airplane’s operating limitations were established based on this realtime stress-strain information. Overall, both Hawaii and Philipine Mars are in excellent physical condition. Hawaii Mars (CF-LYL), the red-tailed airplane now in California, looks almost new inside as it was completely refurbished a few years ago. The people in the hills around San Diego are very fortunate to have access to the Mars and its highly dedicated air and maintenance crews. I’ve attached a photo taken this summer, taken up on the wing, when showing “his uncle’s Mars” to my little guy.
Mk.1
——–