Here’s a publically shared image from mid-last year

http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1416033/

Moggy

Let’s hope she does make it back into the air one day.

cool…..I shall dig out my sample and look for markings/supplier

I’ve looked at both of my Hornet spares manuals, and although they note the rails and canopy, they don’t break the canopy assembly any further down. I’ll have to strip down one of the canopies to ID the bearings used.

Hi Tony, what’s the profile?
On the Stirling finding something similar, then machining it to match exactly was the only option.
Dc

You’re always better to start with an unrestored airframe than to take one restored to static (or partly restored) without airworthy-grade paperwork support.

Because you’ll be taking the whole thing back to basic bits, checking (and dumping a lot) and then starting a whole new rebuild.

Something that’s not been made explicit so far is that to use Glyn Powell’s facility (and or Avspecs) is the only current way of getting a new flyable Mosquito. You could go another route, but you’ll pay a lot more and you’ll have an infinitely greater number of ‘project fail’ points built in.

In the case of a Mosquito new wood is the way to go. Though not on the market, there are a couple of potentially suitable potentially sound airframes, but if issues were discovered with the wood structure in the restoration process, you’ll be building a whole new item – Wing, fuselage or empennage section.

Hi James,
The point I’ve been trying to put over, is that starting with a complete airframe is the best way of quickly collecting together all of the many thousands of components it takes to turn into a flying aircraft. It is likely that much of the metal and wood will be replaced, but that is the same with any flyer. I’m not advocating restoring the NFII to flight, it was only picked as an example of a complete working airframe that would be a good practical candidate (there are others).

Starting with only an identity and very little else will be a massive task.

Mark12 is correct in saying that people need not reinvent the wheel. Glyn’s workshop is the place to build future Mosquito airframes. The effort and skill invested in the tooling alone would take another organisation 10 years to prepare, so why not utilise what is proven already.

Starting with a complete taxiable NF.II would mean throwing pretty much every single piece of wood away – just retaining servicable metal components . That would be an incredibly sad ending and probably not something that her owner would want to see.

I appreciate that David, I’m just making a point. Taking a complete airframe, would be the quickest route to achieving the restoration/re-build of a flyer. Starting with an identity, and a bucket-full of parts will take a lifetime.

As for the NF.II, I’ve seen it up close, and it stands as an inspiration to what someone can achieve.

It is still currently registered as a Bolingbroke IV T, G-BPIV/RCAF 10201

https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=BPIV

So I guess this has set a precedence then?

This is my favorite painting by Philip E West.

“Hornets Sting”

This image really doesn’t do it justice as the original and prints are amazing.

Hi Nicko,
Actually my mistake! Should have looked at my panels before commenting….doh. The RAF Vampires have the bob weight on the LH side too. The RH slot is where an accumulator would normally be fitted.

By the way, I’ve made several panels now from Tufnol and it is easy to work. You just need the right particulate mask and work in a well ventilated or “extracted” area to do so. Like working with any material, you should check its specification sheet first, and take precautions accordingly.