As Bruce has said, in the case of the mosquito prototype, identifying a period in its life that it best represents in its current state is the best way to move forward. During its initial flight program the fuselage was replaced, and the rear engine nacelles were lengthened to name but two major changes in its life. It is not possible for it to become the aircraft when it first flew again, but to conserve its “originallity” it is best to re-paint it back into its 1946 colours of brown/green cammo and yellow undersides. It has after all spent 60+ years in this configuration, and represents its definitive modification state.
Looking at other prototypes in the UK, the Sea Vampire prototype at Yeovilton was not 100% complete for many years, and the interior is still fairly sparse. I would like to see this important airframe completed but it will never contain as much original 1940’s parts as say the mosquito prototype.
On a smaller scale, when deciding what Hornet mark to build I had to look at what parts I had, the best information accessible, and what photos were forthcoming. On the face of it all the larger airframe pieces appeared to be from Sea Hornets, but when I looked in greater detail it became clear that an RAF Mk.1 aircraft from ’46-47 would be the best way to display what original parts were available in context.
The surviving detail drawings are mostly from the earlier marks, and the prototype was extensively photographed inside and out to form a basis to work forward from. A Hornet Mk.1 shares almost 95% commonality with the first Sea Hornet F.20’s so this was also a good way of re-uniting both the FAA and RAF pilots.
Sign In
