Mossie Plans Found

[allardjd 1,853]

Discovery of lost WW2 Mosquito plans will allow 'Wooden Wonder' to fly again

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/discovery-lost-ww2-mosquito-plans-will-allow-wooden-wonder-fly/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

It seems someone has found a large cache of microfilmed (actually looks like microfiche to me) engineering drawings for the Mossie including the known variants and a number that were proposed and at least partially designed, but never built. 

 

It appears someone, calling themselves a "charity" already has their hand out for the public to contribute several million Pounds so one can be built.  I'm not so sure that's a great idea.

 

It was a great plane - along with the Spitfire and the Lancaster, certainly takes its place as one of the definitive WWII-era UK types, but not sure it's a great candidate for building from scratch in this day and age.  The aviation authorities are pretty good at how to certify a metal airplane, and maybe even fiberglass ones, but I can see no end of hoops the CAA (never mind the EU aviation authorities, if they still have a dog in the fight) will require them to jump through to build one from wood.  Using modern adhesives will be a two-edged sword, staving off some of the moisture and delamination problems of the original, but confronting the licensing authorities with a host of new materials for which they will require no end of testing, etc.  Government will screw this up to the point where it will become, if not impossible, then impossibly expensive.

 

John

[mutley 4,498]

Wow, that was some find.

6 million to build one is a tall order and what about the engines?

Joe

[allardjd 1,853]

Air India flight in US denied take-off over seat belt tags

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/59939095.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

I offer this as evidence to support my comments in the original post about aviation authorities running amuck...

 

John

[Quickmarch 488]

The Kiwis re-built that one. I was at a party South of Auckland, 2011 or 2012, where the process was being talked about and I met the guy who was the wood importer. Pretty fascinating story. The group made many references to having a set of plans to work from. That newspaper article is referencing a new find. By no means the only drawings in existence.

 

Also, see: http://www.vicair.net/mosquito.html. One that was rebuilt at CYYJ just up the street from my condo.

 

New Zealand is a fabulous place to be if you're interested in warbirds. There's Mastereton, see this site for a pretty complete listing - http://www.warbirds.co.nz/sites.htm. There are many other facilities like Omaka - where they build brand new aircraft with new rotary engines, see: http://www.omaka.org.nz/. Then they go out and fly them.

 

The nice thing about NZ is that they are actually allowed to do this sort of thing. They do this by clipping all the lawyer's wings.

[allardjd 1,853]

13 minutes ago, Quickmarch said:

 

The nice thing about NZ is that they are actually allowed to do this sort of thing. They do this by clipping all the lawyer's wings.

 

Sounds like a good place.

 

John

[hurricanemk1c 195]

The charity has been going for quite a while now and have the wing ribs for the aircraft and the remains of RL249 http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/

[allardjd 1,853]

I guess they have a different definition of "charity" than I do.  I'm not against what they are doing, but don't see how it's characterized as a charity.  A non-profit, perhaps, but what's charitable about it?

 

John

[hurricanemk1c 195]

Registering as a chairty enables them to do business but on a not-for-profit basis.

 

Vulcan to the Sky is a charity, as are a number of different organisations that do similar things.

 

Quote

 

Section 1 Charities Act 2011 provides the definition in England and Wales:

(1) For the purposes of the law of England and Wales, “charity” means an institution which—

(a) is established for charitable purposes only, and

(b) falls to be subject to the control of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to charities.

The Charities Act 2011 provides the following list of charitable purposes.^[23]

1. the prevention or relief of poverty
2. the advancement of education
3. the advancement of religion
4. the advancement of health or the saving of lives
5. the advancement of citizenship or community development
6. the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
7. the advancement of amateur sport
8. the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
9. the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
10. the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
11. the advancement of animal welfare
12. the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
13. other purposes currently recognized as charitable and any new charitable purposes which are similar to another charitable purpose.

A charity must also provide a public benefit

 

 

So they would qualify under 2 and 6

[allardjd 1,853]

OK, understand.  That's a more wide-ranging definition of charity than is common here.  Charities are non-profits but not all non-profits are charities.  Restoration of historic aircraft, while arguably a good cause and in the public interest, would not likely be characterized as a charity here. 

 

Once again, we're "...separated by a common language...".

 

John