I’m saddened to hear of Mr. Henshaws passing.

I was fortunate to attend one of his talks at the fighter collections open evening a few years ago. It was incredible to hear first hand accounts of many of his achievements. He had a fantastic full life, that anyone could wish for.

Bl##dy H@ll 😮

Have you ever seen such a fantastic line-up of “stored” projects!

Amazing.

May I suggest contacting the current owners/restorers of WM224 instead?

They are bringing this complete TT.20 meteor up to full display standard and would probably bite your arm off for these!

They can be found at the East Midlands Aero park. Just google for their website, or post a question for their contact details on this forum.

“Hornet Project”….. work’s for me too!

Sadly no data plates seem to exist though, so this will always be a new-build incorporating some original components.

“Using CAD will help make things fit together. Maybe £1.5m isn’t realistic, but was it realistic to built replica Me262 and LW190 aircraft? Regarding using original Mosquito fittings, what I propose is a 99.9% scale version.”

Hi Phillip

Yes using CAD in certain areas could be a good idea, but it is no substitute for an experienced toolmaker/draughstman. I often see automotive projects chewing the CAD hours, and alone eating up budgets before anything is actually made. If someone is to make a replica, re-build, or restoration, may as well make it 100% scale using original parts. The airofoil section, fuselage dimensions, and flying surface areas have all been designed for the actual size they are. Any scale replica would effectively start the design of a new aircraft, that would actually cost more and have little connection with the original.

If someone wants to make a flying Mosquito again, they better have a big budget prepared, and not expect to even break even if it is sold on. The team in NZ have done a fantastic job in making a mini assembly line to revive this type. Personally I think that every viable project should be pushed through their doors, and not waste resources on establishing new tooling elsewhere.

“Just the Hornet, but the engines were identical and rotated in the same direction; it was an idler in the reduction gearing that reversed the direction of the prop.”

– Correct, and the Starboard engine nacelle/prop and spinner is slightly longer than on the port side consequently!

It doesn’t need saying, but Gwyn/Avspecs are doing some fantastic work on their Mosquito construction! Very impressive.:)

Notwithstanding that I am spending much of January and February in Italy with work, I will be attending cockpitfest 2007 with a “growing” Hornet cockpit interior!

Looking forward to it…….

Suggestion

Based on the example on the Bluebird K7 example, let me change the inflection of this thread slightly. Why not offer HLF funding for already extinct aircraft types, that may have a particular historical significance, or being a good example of the manufacturing process involved. A wellington is a good example of a uniquely applied technology (although it is obviously not extinct). The Hornet as the pioneering use of aluminium to wood Redux (Araldite) technology, The Whitley for its very unique airframe frame/hoop/section construction.

Where there might be substantial remains of of a type left (but not a complete one) restoring these sections together actually destroys much of the original. These original parts are exhibits in themselves, if they are unique survivors of a particular type. In this case, why not support a professional reproduction of the whole, and retain the origional partial remains alongside?? This is surely a national museum task to preserve the history over $$ value concerns.