I should think that you could build a 100% exact Mosquito reproduction by copying an existing example without running into any problems with the manufacturer, as any patents or registered designs (if ever there were any of the latter) relating to that aircraft have long since expired.
You may run into problems calling it a “de Havilland Mosquito”, but then you could always call it a “Rhodes Aerospace Blood Sucking Winged Insect Mk. 1” instead.
However, certifying your “factory” and the design to satisfy modern civilian airworthiness requirements (if the latter is at all possible) would cost so much that a limited-run production would be too expensive to sell.
-And Ector made “new” (though I suspect out of surplus parts) Cessna 305/O-1/L-19s in the 70-80s.
Doesn’t Air Repair do the same thing with Bird Dogs today?
Dornier Seastar
The latest efforts for that aircraft are “just” a fresh attempt at (finally) starting series production, which so far has not come about since the prototype flew many years ago, so does that one really count?
It could just be one of those daft internet rumours, but I’ve read that the Russian government have asked Yakovlev to build a new batch of Yak-18T’s for the Russian Air Force.
Mentioning that manufacturer rings a bell; we’ve forgotten the newly-built Yak-3 and Yak-9 (with Allison engines)!
Two more:
The Grumman AA-5 Tiger and the Rockwell 114 Commander were also resurrected in the 80ies/90ies, but are currently (I think) not produced by anyone.
The Husky is similar to the PA-18, but actually differs in lots of details from it, so it’s not a resurrection of that. I think someone else owns the PA-18 type certificate now (Christen/Aviat never did; Piper wouldn’t sell it to Frank Christensen) and markets it as a homebuilt and/or under a different name.
American Champion Aircraft successfully resurrected the Champion/Bellanca Citabria/Scout/Decathlon some years ago, and still sell them today. They also recently introduced a “new” Aeronca Champ (I think) as an LSA aircraft.
RUAG Aerospace is marketing the Dornier Do 228 again as the Do 228 NG, but as far as I know the examples delivered sofar are refurbished original Dornier airframes.
Cessna stopped production of all piston singles in the mid-Eighties and resumed production of the C172, C182 and C206 about ten years later, so they might count as well.
The “recent” talks about the Globe Swift have been going on for about 20 years now….
The Bölkow Bo 209 Monsun and the Mylius My 102 Tornado were to be relaunched by Mylius Flugzeugbau in the Nineties, but the company went broke before they could build any new airframes (the ones they displayed were original, slightly modified airframes).
A company in Poland has for some years now been building and selling new Bücker Bü 131 Jungmanns based, I believe, on the version built under licence in Czechoslovakia (as it were). They have a Walter engine instead of a Hirth.
Bitz Flugzeugbau in Germany built a handful of Bücker Bü 133 Jungmeisters in the late Sixties.
A gorgeous, “new” Luscombe Phantom was displayed at “AERO 2010” in Friedrichshafen/Germany in April, equipped with a “modern” Australian Rotec radial engine.
Also at “AERO”, but some years ago, I saw a newly-built Bölkow Bo 208 Junior with a Rotax 912 engine. The intention was to certify it as a microlight, but never heard anything about again.
Willy Messerschmitt had plans for relaunching the Bf 108 in the Seventies, but it never progressed further than the drawing board.
Finally, plans were recently announced to put the Fokker 100 back into production.
I started off with a normal PPL (have flown Bölkow Monsun, Cessna 152, Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28) and now fly 3-axis microlights (currently a Tecnam P-92; Remos G3/600 and FK-9 before that):
The latter are fun to fly (nimble controls), generally cheap to rent, often quite new (with pleasing interior), can land and take-off almost anywhere and many are faster than a C152 or C172. The downsides are that (1) their empty weight is often quite high, rendering it virtually impossible to take a passenger legally and staying below the 450kg MTOW, (2) there are quite a few dodgy designs around which take some knowledge of the field to filter out, (3) they often have flimsy details which don’t endure rental operations and break, thus resulting in no aircraft available when you want to rent one, (4) you can’t go abroad easily, as there is no mutual international recognition of such aircraft, and (5) there are essentially no further ratings/qualifications available.
Cessna 172 and the like are generally robust and stable, can (at least in theory) carry more than one passenger, and you can go abroad with essentially no problems. The typical rental aircraft is however often very old and “tired”, and typically more expensive to rent. Another advantage of the PPL is the possiblity to add ratings, such an instrument or a twin rating.
If you want to go from A to B, and want to bring passengers, then go for the PPL. If you just want to fly for the fun of it, i.e. local jaunts on a summer’s evening, then 3-axis microlights might be the right thing. If in doubt, go for the PPL, as it is easier to “downgrade” your licence to microlights than vice-versa.
Does the free running spinner serve any purpose on the type?
IIRC, it’s part of an automatic propeller blade pitch control. The faster the aircraft flies, the faster the spinner is turned by the vanes on the spinner, and a related mechanism moves the blades towards course (high angle of attack) pitch for cruise configuration. Also found on some Arado and Czech aircraft (Aero 45/145, I think).
That is really, really sad 🙁
LV 905 returns home…
Any chance of adding the a/c type to titles like this? Not all of us know RAF serials from A0001 to XX999 by heart…
Pretty sure there aren’t any on a Catalina…
Have you tried this German engine specialist?
.., I can only think the CAA like most government departments pick on the easy targets.
Seems like you are the one picking an easy target (the CAA)
The engine in the crashed aircraft is hardly cool and you have already determined the cause as being the banner towing activity as such? Based on ever-reliable (not!) media reports?
What qualifies you to designate the London helicopter pilot an “idiot”? You thinkthat the flag is inappropriate for the aircraft, but you don’t actually know? What exactly do you know about CAA regulations re banner towing? Have you considered the fact that the “idiot” just might be a highly qualified professional, not interested in risking his life in any way?
All in all, very broad, sweeping and speculative statements which taint yourself rather than the CAA…. :rolleyes:
G-AJUF was re-registered in Norway as LN-ORF in 3.52
Google reveals that it later became SE-CGP, a registration which gives no hits in the official online Swedish register.
Its down on the participation list as TBC to fly.
Which could merely mean that a request has been made. I’ve lost count of how many airshows in Germany alone Messerschmitt Foundation aircraft have been “tbc” and never shown up. I wouldn’t hold my breath on this one.
They have brought one to RIAT before although it did not fly.
Which one was that? The non-airworthy, static Bf-109G2 which I recently posted a picture of (the one which is now in overall silver)?
If they are crated up and then shipped out, apart from the ship sinking the flight over water is eliminated so what’s the problem with being away from home ?
I don’t know, ask the Messerschmitt Foundation or the EADS Historic Flight
Sorry to be a spoilsport, but….
The Messerschmitt Foundation aircraft never venture very far away from their base, the occasional appearences at La Ferté Alais and Berlin being the exceptions. I’d be very surprised if they bring a flying aircraft all the way to the RIAT and I can’t find anything to this effect on the RIAT website.
What’s the source for this information?