The People’s Mosquito

[Mike]

And you gleaned all your information from their website, or ffrom elsewhere ?

From elsewhere. In this case, several friends & contacts in the Antipodes, whose judgement I trust and who seem to regard this as a serious initiative.

[Mooshie1956]

I also picked up the info from Avspec's FB feed.

[Pat Murphy]

Regardless of who is first or how it's paid for, it's good news all round if we finally get a Mossie back in UK skies. As far as who builds them is concerned and conforming to standards, I'm pretty sure Avspecs know what they are doing and what is required to get it to fly in the UK, otherwise why would they bother taking the job on if they couldn't deliver? Which of course, they already have...TWICE!! KA114 took a while but TV959 was completed in a lot shorter time frame.

A bit more meat on the bones from Pathfinder Trust wouldn't go amiss but at least I now know who owns the collection of Parts in Avspecs Hangar with DZ452 written on the boxes

Now to start saving up for another trip down under...this time to see it fly!!

[Mike]

least I now know who owns the collection of Parts in Avspecs Hangar with DZ452 written on the boxes

I suspect they are still owned by Avspecs/Glyn Powell, until the new Trust raises the funding to purchase them.

[FarnboroJohn]

As far as I know the RAF still has two B35/TT35: TJ138 and TA639. They've no need for two, let alone two of near enough the same Mark.

Get one down to New Zealand, put the systems on a new build airframe and hand it over to BBMF. Job done.

No reason why the charities can't compete to fund it.

John

[pbeardmore]

"and hand it over to BBMF"

And what do they do with it?

[Mike]

As far as I know the RAF still has two B35/TT35: TJ138 and TA639. They've no need for two, let alone two of near enough the same Mark.

Get one down to New Zealand, put the systems on a new build airframe and hand it over to BBMF. Job done.

No reason why the charities can't compete to fund it.

John

It is a common misconception that the RAF and the RAF Museum are the same entity. They are not.

[FarnboroJohn]

"and hand it over to BBMF"

And what do they do with it?

What they were going to do with RR299 had it not had its fatal crash at Barton. Add it to the fleet and crack on.

"It is a common misconception that the RAF and the RAF Museum are the same entity. They are not." And your point is? RAFM already gave their Mosquito TIII to Norway, can't remember if they got anything back for it: at present they are sitting on two near-identical assets at the same time as lending their only real Typhoon to Canada (again, in exchange for what I'm not sure): its clearly a misuse of national heritage assets and a better one would be to redeploy one into the live end of the heritage business to complete the BBMF fleet. If somebody can't work through the administrative questions successfully to achieve an aim like that then our administrators need to buck their ideas up.

John

[pbeardmore]

That was 21 years ago. We have no idea whether they have the resources or the politcal support. As an outsider, I get the impression that they pretty much have their hands full with the present collection.

[HuwJHopkins]

"It is a common misconception that the RAF and the RAF Museum are the same entity. They are not." And your point is? RAFM already gave their Mosquito TIII to Norway, can't remember if they got anything back for it: at present they are sitting on two near-identical assets at the same time as lending their only real Typhoon to Canada (again, in exchange for what I'm not sure): its clearly a misuse of national heritage assets and a better one would be to redeploy one into the live end of the heritage business to complete the BBMF fleet. If somebody can't work through the administrative questions successfully to achieve an aim like that then our administrators need to buck their ideas up.

John

So you propose taking one of the RAFM Mosquitos, gutting it for the dataplate and systems, throwing away all the rest of the airframe, and building a new one around the parts. A total wase of a complete airframe, that would take the preservation out of the historic aviation preservation scene.

Much better to take an identity of something that isn't currently a complete airframe to attach to, what will be in all but a small percentage, be a new airframe.

[Mike]

RAFM already gave their Mosquito TIII to Norway

No, they didn't. The Mosquito T.III was never owned by the RAF Museum.

[FarnboroJohn]

RAFM already gave their Mosquito TIII to Norway

No, they didn't. The Mosquito T.III was never owned by the RAF Museum.

Ah. Now you have engaged my interest. Who did own it then, because it was in RAFM Hendon and then went from there to Norway. I'm sure it was advertised at the time as a museum to museum thing, but I'm always willing to learn.

And Huw: The most historic thing any Mosquito B/TT35 did was appear in 633 Squadron (and I know TJ138 didn't, fairly sure TA639 didn't either). Old and historic aren't quite the same thing. If you like, take the systems off, stick some plastic bits on to recomplete the airframe and then hang it from the ceiling of a museum, that seems to be the fashion these days and it worked for me when I was a kid. Come to that, when I first saw TV959 that is exactly where it was..... a bit under-provided in the port wing of course. How much original woodwork is in that now that it flies in the States?

Then recost the flying Mosquito for UK project without a mass of manufacture from scratch, with a couple of appropriate Merlins right off the bat, and see where we are on the funding target. The real problem all along has been the absence of a donor airframe. All three of those currently flying were rebuilt from near complete remains, not "a carrier bag of bits" as past posters on here have put it.

John

[ErrolC]

Wasn't there a plan for one to end up at Biggin Hill?

As far as I'm aware, despite much excitement and fanfare following the initial statement, nothing more seems to have come of it and it has faded from view - I seem to recall a statement saying this was no-longer being pursued, however I may have made it up

From memory, AvSpecs said this a few months ago in response to a question in one of their FB posts.
I also knew this was the case somewhat earlier by non-public means.

[jalfrezi]

RAFM already gave their Mosquito TIII to Norway

No, they didn't. The Mosquito T.III was never owned by the RAF Museum.

Then recost the flying Mosquito for UK project without a mass of manufacture from scratch, with a couple of appropriate Merlins right off the bat, and see where we are on the funding target. The real problem all along has been the absence of a donor airframe. All three of those currently flying were rebuilt from near complete remains, not "a carrier bag of bits" as past posters on here have put it.

John

I very much doubt any Mosquito airframes currently in museums would be structurally sound enough to return to flight due to the way they were constructed and the glue used, so you'd probably end up having to build the airframe from scratch anyway. I can't imagine the CAA would let anything other than a new build Mosquito fly in this country due to potential delamination issues.

[Mike]

Ah. Now you have engaged my interest. Who did own it then, because it was in RAFM Hendon and then went from there to Norway. I'm sure it was advertised at the time as a museum to museum thing, but I'm always willing to learn.

It was owned by the MoD. It was sold via a complex deal that allowed them to purchase the Nash Collection of significant early aeroplanes from the Royal Aeronautical Society, which now form the core of the Grahame White Factory aeroplanes at Hendon. I believe this comprised 9 aeroplanes, including the Fokker D.VII, Sopwith Triplane, Caudron, SE5a, Camel, two Bleriots, Avro 504k, and the Farman which was traded to Peter Jackson a while back. The Mosquito was sold to a dealer (giving MoD the funds to purchase the Nash aeroplanes), who then exchanged it with the Norwegians for a number of surplus F-5s. Subsequently the ownership of the Nash Collection aeroplanes was passed from the MoD to the RAF Museum.

[Mike]

I very much doubt any Mosquito airframes currently in museums would be structurally sound enough to return to flight due to the way they were constructed and the glue used...

Not only this, one of the pair was moved incorrectly by the RAF without being correctly braced, and suffered a broken back. It has since been cosmetically repaired for display, but is structurally knackered (I think that is the correct technical term!)

[FarnboroJohn]

I very much doubt any Mosquito airframes currently in museums would be structurally sound enough to return to flight due to the way they were constructed and the glue used...

Not only this, one of the pair was moved incorrectly by the RAF without being correctly braced, and suffered a broken back. It has since been cosmetically repaired for display, but is structurally knackered (I think that is the correct technical term!)

I suppose inevitably it wasn't the one that was sabotaged by the ground crew who put it in front of a hot air blower to knacker the glue because they were fed up with the CO indulging himself with it? Sounds like either could make a sensible basis for a flying restoration. The whole point about Avspecs' set up is that the state of the woodwork is irrelevant.

John

[Shortfinals]

For information, The People's Mosquito have just issued the following statement:-

http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/2017/ ... -sum-game/

[FarnboroJohn]

Right attitude in the statement, but a joint statement would have been even better.... less appearance of trying to beat the other party to the draw. Anyway, best of luck.

John

[Pringles]

Right attitude in the statement, but a joint statement would have been even better.... less appearance of trying to beat the other party to the draw. Anyway, best of luck.

John

I think the difficulty with a joint statement is this:

It is therefore disheartening that, despite increasing public awareness and a supporter base that grows each day, The People’s Mosquito received no communication from The Mosquito Pathfinder Trust – either informally or formally ­– prior to its recent launch.

Sounds like TMPT are not interested in cooperating with TPM...

[Brevet Cable]

More to the point, it seems like bandwagon-jumping......TPM struggle on for several years, then suddenly get a lot of media attention for their project. Next thing you know, TMPT pops into existance with what is effectively the same plan as TPM.
You can see why TPM would feel somewhat narked.

[GertrudetheMerciless]

I'm not sure what the problem is? I doesn't take too long a memory to remember what a shambles the launch of TPM was, however good their set up has been made now. TMPT seem to have been going about their business in a different way in the background before going public, for which maybe they should deserve some credit.

I say we wait until the launch events before we pass judgement.

[Brevet Cable]

TMPT seem to have been going about their business in a different way in the background before going public, for which maybe they should deserve some credit.

For how long, because it sure as heck doesn't say on either their website of the CC's page ( http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1173706&SubsidiaryNumber=0 ) and their facebook page has only existed for a couple of months.

Interestingly, DZ542 was supposed to have been in line to be restored by Avspecs was back in 2015, so what happened ?

[Mike]

Interestingly, DZ542 was supposed to have been in line to be restored by Avspecs was back in 2015, so what happened ?

PZ474 happened. A customer (Rod Lewis) came along with (lots of) money and a starter airframe.

Now they have a potential customer for DZ542, it is back in the queue again. Assuming they can come up with the required downpayment of £750k, it will be the next one in line.

I understand that the discussions that have led to the recent announcement have been ongoing for some time in the background, so it is not something that just started a couple of months back as you are suggesting.

[Brevet Cable]

Then maybe they should tell people that, then.
As it stands, they give the appearance of only having existed for about 3 months.

Compare the information ( or lack of ) on their website to that of TPM.....there's nothing on the people involved other than 4 names; There's scant information on the airframe regarding it's condition or how much 'restoration' is required ( or is it presumably going to be a 'dataplate restoration' like TPM's is going to be ); There's no information on how much it's planned to cost ( which is something I'd say is essential for a charity asking people to donate to it )

As I posted previously, their website is all flash and no substance.