The People’s Mosquito

[Brevet Cable]

Website link here : http://aerosociety.com/Events/Event-List/2655/A-Display-Pilots-Story
Unfortunately , no venue listed & the map places it somewhere in Northern Arizona !!

Now I know Cardiff can be like the Wild West at times ( particularly with regards the drunks ) but I never realised it was that bad.

[Shortfinals]

Try the Branch Secretary, Mr Derek Sheehan on info@raescardiff.org.uk ?

Either that, or when I go to my brother's house in the Vale, I shall expect to see the Arizona Desert!

[Private Custard]

From what I can gather, it could be one of two places. Just a guess though!

http://aerosociety.com/About-Us/Branch-Division/Cardiff

[Shortfinals]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/search?q=f-22%26p-51&src=typd[/tweet]

Ah well. Nice try, anyway! For that effort - here's a look at one of my Stateside pics (I live in Massachusetts)

Cheers

[BillRamsey]

Details here.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-displa ... 7420607776

[BillRamsey]

'Mossie Bites'. The first edition of The People's Mosquito quarterly journal now out there. Includes news of the first fund raising target met.

[Ryan.]

Certainly great to have more information on the project.

Would be truly special to have one on the UK airshow scene. Glad it's not being restored in its NF.36 mark though, that nose!

[Shortfinals]

TPM made a considered decision (which included the fact that drawings for the NF.36 nose were not available) and chose, in consultation with our assigned Design Liaison Engineer from the CAA SARG, to proceed with an FB.VI build. However, it will not have passed anyone's notice that by a few small changes (removal/substitution of the gun access panel under the nose; addition/removal of Browning .303 barrels and various radar and radio aerials) you can quickly change the visual look of the aircraft to that of a T.III, FB.26, FB.XVIII, NF.II, FB.40, T.27, the unarmed Mark Six, even the rare FB (TT) VI and (with the exception of the hook and the four-bladed props) the prototype Sea Mosquito. As you can imagine, the range of colour schemes available is very large - you can have fun working them out - and covers everything from the Norwegian Air Force to that of the Dominican Republic. We take no credit for the idea, of course, as the BBMF are past masters at this!

[Shortfinals]

We have had a enquiry (originally answered by Wg Cdr Bill Ramsey, TPM's Director of Operations) regarding the mechanics of how the restoration of RL249 will proceed.

In some respects we are aided by the fact that de Haviland's designed the DH98 airframe (not considering the R/R Merlin power units) to 'consume' only 60 lb of heavy forgings, and approximately 250lb of light-alloy castings (this from the weight table shown in the classic film 'Mosquito').

We are in possession of 22,300 original production drawings (of various Marks of Mosquito) and these are currently being surveyed. For those of you who can visit the TPM stand at some of the UK major airshows this year, you will be able to see a wide selection of these drawings displayed, and be able to speak to company officials (I was at Legends and RIAT, recently, and we will be at East Kirkby, Dunsfold, Scampton and Duxford) We have made contact with several UK companies (and one N.Z. one) regarding specialist production of new components such as oil coolers, radiators and cabin heaters - as you know, these are mounted together, as a 'block', and secured on a light alloy 'tray' which forms the leading edge of the inner wing. Some of these items will have a relatively long lead time, as the radiator cores must be ordered from a German company, for example (according to our NZ sub-contractor)

There are also collections of components on New Zealand, and, indeed, in the USA (I have inspected one of these). As you are aware, various museums around the world hold Mosquitoes and/or components, and we know of at least one example of components being loaned from an Australian museum to a company in New Zealand for 'reverse engineering'.

We have already had successful discussions (following a visit to Farnborough) with a specialist producer of elastomerics in the south of England, who will be more than happy to produce the rubber-in-compression (or to be more correct, 'rubber-in-distortion') undercarriage components for TPM.

The companies we are using in NZ have already successfully 'produced' KA114 and TV959 (albeit from more substantial remains), and have at least two more aircraft planned. We are confident of their expertise, and their ability to rise to whatever engineering challenges they might face.

If we find that we need a particular part for which there is neither a serviceable one to hand, nor a company drawing, then modern 'reverse engineering' is an option for the production of vintage parts (see examples below)

http://www.aircorpsaviation.com/reverse-engineering/

http://www.3daeroscan.com/

I do hope that this has answered some of your questions. I am sorry that I, personally, will not be in attendance at any other UK shows this year to answer you personally (I am based in the US - I met a nice American lady following my job at Farnborough!) Please understand that none of the Directors of TPM receive a salary. As a Board, we are doing this because we earnestly wish to see a Mosquito back where it belongs - in British skies!

Thank you

Ross Sharp
Director Engineering, TPM

http://www.peoplesmosquito.co.uk

bit.ly/TPMClub

tpmstore.co.uk

[FarnboroJohn]

Forgive me for persisting, I can't quite pull the facts together from your post, though I am grateful for it. A bit more specificity in just a couple of areas would really make my day.

I note the mention of a collection of 22,300 drawings: my ancient copy of Mosquito (Robertson and Sharp) notes packs of 3,000 sent to each of Australia and Canada to enable the start of production. It does really depend on which drawings you have, though! Do you have a complete set for any one Mark and are your 22,300 all different or inclusive of copies? Is anything significant missing?

So as far as the difficult components - the heavy forgings - are concerned, could you just confirm that you are saying one of the following:

1. You have the bits, sufficient for s sensible flying life

2. You have all the drawings for those bits and a supplier with the equipment to produce them

3. You are able to reverse engineer not only the physical shape but also the necessary materials and processes to produce the items new to the required quality, by using an extant part as a pattern.

or that in fact

4. You haven't solved this one yet and it remains a stumbling block squarely on the critical path.

Its entirely possible of course that I've missed an obvious, simple, straightforward option and if so, do please set it out.

The other significant lump I asked about was engines: the population of Merlin-engined warbirds around the world is substantial and its difficult to believe that many engines are not already part of somebody's reserve stock for their own aircraft. To have a credible engineering set-up for your planned operation how many engines will you need, of presumably very similar performance? I'm no engineer but I should have thought for a twin-engine aircraft four would be a sensible minimum if you are to avoid frequent cancellation of bookings through unserviceability: two on the aircraft, one fit for immediate exchange and one in second/third-line servicing.

If of course there are thousands of airworthy Merlins kicking around at bargain basement prices, no problem.

Congratulations on having been a resident of the finest town in Britain.

John

[Shortfinals]

In answer to your queries (in no particular order):

a) It is true that the number of Merlins are finite, but more are coming onto the market each year (we were recently offered an 'uninstalled' Merlin 25 from a Swiss source). I have firm quotes for two Merlins from a U.K. company to hand. I would be happy with three, not four, engines, if it came to that. One U.K. company is certified by the CAA to produce new (not refurbished) Merlin cylinder heads. U.S. firms have a wide range of after-market Merlin components available, due to the air racing scene.

b) We are confident that both AvSpecs and Aerowood in New Zealand have the expertise and resources to overcome any engineering challenges that may arise. They have proved this twice already. We might not have all the heavy metal components to hand at this moment - this does NOT mean that they cannot be procured or made to order (see KA116 and TV959)

c) If a metal component does NOT have a drawing available, then there are sufficient 'reverse engineering' companies in the marketplace (see links in previous post) to ensure that an existing part on a Mosquito can be scanned and reproduced. Reverse engineering is more expensive, but it does work. If necessary, smaller components can be prototyped using additive manufacture and tested in place before metal is cut. These days, the technical solution to many engineering problems is a simple one - money.

d) Specifications for various alloys and plastics used in the original DH98 design have changed in the intervening 70+ years, which is why substitution of such materials is subject to decisions made by both the CAA of NZ and our own CAA. We have had extensive consultations with the CAA, including presenting an Engineering Plan to Senior Officers of the Safety Regulation Group at a conference at CAA House; this was approved.

e) The aircraft will be produced under New Zealand Civil Aviation Law (in liaison with our existing CAA-assigned Design Liaison Engineer) via a process which has already given rise to two flying Mosquitoes.

[FarnboroJohn]

In answer to your queries (in no particular order):

a) It is true that the number of Merlins are finite, but more are coming onto the market each year (we were recently offered an 'uninstalled' Merlin 25 from a Swiss source). I have firm quotes for two Merlins from a U.K. company to hand. I would be happy with three, not four, engines, if it came to that. One U.K. company is certified by the CAA to produce new (not refurbished) Merlin cylinder heads. U.S. firms have a wide range of after-market Merlin components available, due to the air racing scene.

b) We are confident that both AvSpecs and Aerowood in New Zealand have the expertise and resources to overcome any engineering challenges that may arise. They have proved this twice already. We might not have all the heavy metal components to hand at this moment - this does NOT mean that they cannot be procured or made to order (see KA116 and TV959)

c) If a metal component does NOT have a drawing available, then there are sufficient 'reverse engineering' companies in the marketplace (see links in previous post) to ensure that an existing part on a Mosquito can be scanned and reproduced. Reverse engineering is more expensive, but it does work. If necessary, smaller components can be prototyped using additive manufacture and tested in place before metal is cut. These days, the technical solution to many engineering problems is a simple one - money.

d) Specifications for various alloys and plastics used in the original DH98 design have changed in the intervening 70+ years, which is why substitution of such materials is subject to decisions made by both the CAA of NZ and our own CAA. We have had extensive consultations with the CAA, including presenting an Engineering Plan to Senior Officers of the Safety Regulation Group at a conference at CAA House; this was approved.

e) The aircraft will be produced under New Zealand Civil Aviation Law (in liaison with our existing CAA-assigned Design Liaison Engineer) via a process which has already given rise to two flying Mosquitoes.

Thank you very much indeed for both detail and promptitude. I'm now behind you all the way!

Cheers

John

[BillRamsey]

Hi John, thanks for your (open-minded) interest. It's always a pleasure to be able to put some facts out there. Do come and say hello if you are at any of the shows we are doing - next East Kirkby at the weekend.

Bill Ramsey

[FarnboroJohn]

Hi John, thanks for your (open-minded) interest. It's always a pleasure to be able to put some facts out there. Do come and say hello if you are at any of the shows we are doing - next East Kirkby at the weekend.

Bill Ramsey

Will do, though I don't know when, I'm not doing East Kirby unfortunately.

Cheers

John

[Spiny Norman]

I think UKAR should back this to the hilt, not just individually, but in the form of openly supporting it. There's space up there between Squadron Prints and Aviation News for a TPM logo...

To see a Mosquito in British skies after far too long a gap would be the highlight for many a year's display season.

We've put money into Cold War bombers and maritime fighters, let's support a WW2 British classic design.

[BruceWG]

You will, I hope excuse my first post in a long time here being a little controversial. Some will know me over on the Key forum, where I have been a moderator for over ten years. Others may know my background being in the preservation of de Havilland aircraft, including the Mosquito, during twenty years at the Mosquito Museum. I have also worked in the industry, restoring aircraft and running businesses that do. In short, I am reasonably well connected, and pretty well educated when it comes to the restoration and operation of warbird aircraft.

I have, like many of you, been following the ups and downs of the Peoples Mosquito project for some years. You should know from the start that nobody wishes to see a Mosquito fly in the UK more than I do. Back in the day, I was an active supporter of RR299, and indeed carried out a little work on her too.

When the project started, I well remember a particularly bad tempered debate on the Key Forums, when many said it wouldn't be possible to restore a Mosquito to fly in the UK, or indeed to fly in UK skies. I don't subscribe to that point of view. I take my hat off to the gentlemen who have brought the project as far as it has - what has been done so far is to establish a possibility - to plant a seed. But it has yet to go very much further than that. That is a frustration, and I think it is important that supporters, whether monetary, or pure 'attaboy' support have faith in the team to produce an airworthy aircraft. It has been suggested that the aircraft could fly in 2021 or 2022 - which is only five years away, and it seems that there is much to do to reach a point where work can commence, let alone get to a point where there is a realistic chance of success. (Wing rib production not withstanding)

Fundraising is clearly key. I believe that around 120K has been raised since the start of the project, and whilst for much of that time the team were establishing protocol, and working out whether the job could be done at all, that isn't a very great deal of money. It wont pay the wages of the skilled individuals in New Zealand who will be building the aircraft for very long.

I think then, that it is reasonable and appropriate to ask some clear and direct questions of the team at TPM regarding fundraising to start with. So, may I ask please:

1/ Do you have a plan for fundraising over and above what has been done to date? At current rate of progress it is painfully clear that none of us reading this will live to see the aircraft fly.

2/ The New Zealand team have proven twice over that they have what it takes to build a Mosquito, and know roughly how any staged payments will need to work. So, coupled with the above question, how can you guarantee that you will be able to keep the funds flowing? One cannot expect the guys at Avspecs to work for nothing, or to hold open a window for you whilst you wait for fundraising to catch up.

3/ Should fundraising prove unsuccessful, and it is apparent that the project cannot proceed, do you have a plan for the money raised in your name?

Now, from an engineering point of view, the aircraft is reasonably well known. Its strengths and weaknesses are well understood. I am a little concerned by statements made that appear, at first sight to fly in the face of established expertise. An example may be the comment that you intend to fit a stiffening strake on both sides of the fuselage - when the majority of the 7781 aircraft built did not have it or need it. Another may be the statement that you would only fit Bendix Stromberg carburettors, as the originals are unreliable (which was not the conclusion of the report into the accident to RR299). These sorts of things come across as trying to blind people with facts.

I am also concerned regarding the amount of original material you have to hand. It is well established that RL249 exists as an ephemeral identity, with a few corroded parts that were removed from a scrap pit at Coltishall. It is easy to say that there are only so many pounds of castings in a Mosquito, but that little fact belies the truth of there being, in terms of quantity, a lot of metal parts in the construction of the aircraft. Both KA114 and TV959 used almost entirely original metal parts in their construction, and PZ474 will be similarly blessed. Saying that they can be reverse engineered if necessary is quite true, and is a process I have used myself many times (a decent toolmaker is much, much more useful than Computer aided design for one off production), but it adds enormous cost to the project. If you literally start with nothing, that £5m figure will quickly grow. So my next question:

4/ How do you intend to go about procuring as many original parts for the aircraft as possible, in order to maintain a degree of originality, and to reduce ultimate costs?

I hope that none of this comes across as overly negative - that is not my intention. What I would hope is that a degree of open-ness at this point will turn the project from a possibility into a probability, and that more people feel able to support your work. I genuinely wish you well, and would wish to see an open dialogue that brings in more financial support, in much the same way as the Vulcan was supported in the past.

[Brevet Cable]

http://www.peoplesmosquito.co.uk

Linkee no workee.
https://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/ is the correct link.

[Mike]

I'm afraid that I lost what little confidence I had left in the project when the Chairman made a series of posts on the project's Facebook page recently claiming that backing TPM would be the only chance to ever see a Mosquito fly in the UK. His logic was that the CAA would never allow any of the other flying examples to fly in UK airspace as they had been built without any audit trail. Palpable nonsense, considering that they were built in the same facility, and using the same subcontractors, as he is proposing to use.

To those who don't think that TPM is catchy enough, you will be pleased to hear that I now refer to the project as 'TIM'. The Imaginary Mosquito.

[FarnboroJohn]

I'm afraid that I lost what little confidence I had left in the project when the Chairman made a series of posts on the project's Facebook page recently claiming that backing TPM would be the only chance to ever see a Mosquito fly in the UK. His logic was that the CAA would never allow any of the other flying examples to fly in UK airspace as they had been built without any audit trail. Palpable nonsense, considering that they were built in the same facility, and using the same subcontractors, as he is proposing to use.

The CAA does have issues with the documentation of some foreign projects. The point has been made in various places that TPM's intention is to avoid such problems by involving the CAA from the outset, which is certainly prudent caution, albeit potentially bureaucratic. I almost can't believe I'm saying this but after the post-Shoreham investigations revealed the extent of non-compliance with documented maintenance requirements, I endorse the CAA full audit trail approach to manufacture. Whether or not it is justified in relation to visits by the aircraft already flying, it is valuable assurance for "RL246".

As far as cost goes I agree with BruceWG's points about the additional cost of reverse engineering/new tooling. The fact that its possible doesn't make it affordable. It would be useful to have some sort of order of magnitude figures for best case/worst case project cost of the required new items before we start - indeed I would regard that as the very minimum required to justify initial commitment by all sides, including donors.

However, actual feasibility isn't in doubt. Currently there are three flying Mosquitos on the wrong side of the Atlantic, two of them from NZ. If what it takes to get one this side is bureaucracy and a bit of transparency re costs, let TPM provide the costs with a very rough breakdown and after that lets back them fully.

John

[qwerty]

There is sadly little real interest in airshow bookings for a Mosquito in this countries current shrinking marketplace. Despite the current enthusuiasm this has not been evident when 2 Mosquitoes came on the market in the UK in airworthy condition in the last 40 years. One ended up with Kermit Weeks who was surprised not to be out bid by a UK buyer.He expected to pay more. So if one is built dont expect to see airshow income keep it in the skies.

[planenuttoo]

There is sadly little real interest in airshow bookings for a Mosquito in this countries current shrinking marketplace. Despite the current enthusuiasm this has not been evident when 2 Mosquitoes came on the market in the UK in airworthy condition in the last 40 years. One ended up with Kermit Weeks who was surprised not to be out bid by a UK buyer.He expected to pay more. So if one is built dont expect to see airshow income keep it in the skies.

Logical comments, but I doubt any owner of a historic aircraft can survive on airshow income alone.

[BruceWG]

What you do with it once you have it is another thing entirely. The aim of the exercise is to build an airworthy Mosquito. How it is operated, and how it is then funded is another question. Airshows may be bigger, or smaller in 5-10 years. We don't know. Once you have it though, it could, for example be operated by a third party - such as the Shuttleworth Collection (Runway not withstanding). Perceived lack of airshow revenue isn't a reason for not doing it, and I would remind you that it has two seats...

[BillRamsey]

Hi Gents (Ladies?), thank you for this recent burst of activity. Only excuse is we're all extremely busy with the day jobs and getting ready to attend East Kirkby at the weekend (open invite to anyone to come and say hello and challenge our plans face-to-face). I am most grateful for your questions - as you might know I and the team have long recognised the need for the utmost transparency when dealing with other people's money and asking for more. As you know I am just the simple pilot (behind the scenes I am trying to compile a booklet of Mosquito Pilots, past and present, experience to utilise come the great day) who only looks forward to seeing and hearing a Mossie airborne again. Therefore I have alerted Ross across in the USA to your questions so bear with us and I'm sure he'll post the technical responses when he can. I would just say you are right 2021 is highly ambitious - as with the whole project, dependant upon us continuing to raise the profile and accelerate fund-raising - a growing number of people are trying to do just that. I'd probably query the lack of appetite for a Mossie at Airshows point. I probably know as many organisers as most and that is not my impression.

Please give Ross the chance to reply, then by all means ask away again. I don't intend to get bogged in the same endless spiral which dogs another nearby thread (!) but I'll do my best to make sure we are available to answer reasonable stuff.

As you say, it does have two seats...........

Bill Ramsey

[Shortfinals]

Thanks you to Bruce for your informed comment regarding the Mosquito. It is most appreciated. If I might expand a little?

a) You are quite correct in that reverse engineering increases costs of any project. As you said, it is a feasible solution for missing/unserviceable parts, etc. - just not a cheap one. This will be explored as/when the team in New Zealand deem it necessary to do so.

b) As to availability of components, we will obviously investigate all avenues of availability, wherever they might lead. We have already been in discussion with one Canadian museum regarding parts, and I, personally, have inspected a large store of Mosquito components in the United States, and provided photographs of same to our contractors in New Zealand. Sourcing Mosquito parts is not easy, but the companies we are working with are confident they can supply us with a firm quote and a Mosquito (although the delivery date of 249 might variable due to 'unknown unknowns'). And yes, these as yet unknown factors will, undoubtedly, affect the end costings.

c) As to the matter of the port side external strake. We discussed this with the SRG (now SARG) of the CAA, and - although what you said is correct - we decided to act with an abundance of caution. We have the official 'mod' drawing for the installation of this part, so it is not an unknown in engineering terms. Post war, the Swedish Air Force lost several Mosquitoes to in-flight failure of the rear fuselage (this is what grounded their fleet of J30s). We do know that those B. Mk IV and PR. XVI assigned to the 'Highball' mission received this extra strake to strengthen the rear fuselage, and to aid in absorbing the extra loads imposed by deck landings. This strake was also a common fitment to the TR.33/37, in postwar RN service, despite the fact that no FAA Squadron operated regularly from a carrier deck. In other words, if a simple addition of an extra strake will increase the 'durability' of that part of the Mosquito in everyday usage, then why not fit it? It would seem logical to do so, as there is very little cost/time impact. This has already been fully discussed with our assigned Design Liaison Engineer from the CAA, who is in agreement.

d) We are still assessing the 20,300 drawings which we have been gifted, and, undoubtedly, some of these will contain data which can be used to manufacture components which are not yet to hand. The CAA are happy that such drawings be used to generate 'releaseable' parts, following consultations with them, on a case by case basis. Times change, materials change - but where there is a will there is a way (and an approved 'mod').

e) The process is neither simple nor quick, but the companies involved have already done this twice, with another Mosquito being worked on as we speak, and another planned. Our contractors are confident they can deliver, and therefore, so are TPM.

I would like to say that TPM welcomes the involvement/comments of all those who would wish to see a Mosquito in British skies, especially those with expertise in this field. No-one said it would be easy, but we have laid the framework, got the approval, and started work.

Regards

Ross Sharp
Director, Engineering, TPM

[Shortfinals]

Oh, and I note that the fact that the Mosquito 'has two seats' has been mentioned. It is correct that it is extremely difficult - in the present climate - to predict the 'shape' of UK airshows in the near to mid term, but there will always be a market for the type of operation which allows paying passengers to be carried. Several companies which own WW2 aircraft could not exist without this added income. Indeed, with petrol consumption close to 100 gallons/hour in the cruise (at 197 kts, according to tables in A.P. 2019) this type of operation will become a necessity for 249. Needless to say, we are in contact with Jerry Yagen's team in Virginia Beach, and intend to pick their brains with regard to the operation/costings of KA114 !