Mosquito KA114 Roll Out today

[Dave Homewood]

Though incredibly realistic to look at (i looked at them yesterday) the guns and cannons are all specially made resin replicas. A chap in Wellington has made them and they are stunning, but no, they won't fire.

[ErrolC]

Presumably TVAL didn't make these replica guns, but here is their page on WWI aircraft guns, to give you an idea of what is possible.

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects ... craft-guns

[Lynn Allen]

Dave, what ever happen to the Mossi that lived in a barn I believe on the North Island for many year? He removed the tail so that it would fit into the barn...

Thanks for the updates,

Lynn

[DaveM2]

Dave, what ever happen to the Mossi that lived in a barn I believe on the North Island for many year? He removed the tail so that it would fit into the barn...

Thanks for the updates,

Lynn

Lynn

You will be thinking of the time capsule that (still) lives at Mapua (top of the Sth Island near Nelson). Tail was attached last time of visited back in 2005. Combat veteran Hudson has departed to Bill Reid (Anson owner), however the other gems - P-40, P-51 etc are still in situ.

Dave

[Dave Homewood]

Unless Lynn knows about another Mosquito stashed in a barn in NZ? Wouldn't that be a great find? haha

For those interested in the replica weapons, here are some shots from yesterday. I have blanked out the maker's address and phone number on the box, but if anyone really wants to contact him I'm sure Avspecs will pass on a message to him. I hear his replicas are now in some demand for other projects, and rightly so. He has apparently done work in the past for Weta Workshops.

[JDK]

Further, in the big scheme of those that tax us literally to death on the federal level (meaning FAA or the equiv in Aussie land) ...

Oops, Gary. For the 'southern Canadians' on the board, New Zealand is where the restoration is being carried out and all credit to them, though there has been input globally to this restoration, it will be the New Zealand CAA who will be requiring and stamping the paperwork, and I presume then the US' FAA. No Australian CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) involvement, no jurisdiction, unless they decide to fly it to here...

I would love it to be an Australian project, but it isn't, and our Kiwi cousins rightly don't like to be muddled with their somewhat noisier, larger neighbour. Reminds me of somewhere else, too. Can't quite think where...

Regards,

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks James the diplomat - one of the finest West Islanders I know.

[Firebird]

The test pilots who I know have been chosen are New Zealanders, both hugely experienced warbird and multi-engine pilots. Both of them are experienced test pilots, and neither have any Mosquito experience. I have every confience in both men. When their names are released publicly you will relise there was never anything to fear. There is a third pilot in the mix who's name has not been mentioned to me, but I suspect he may be another well known NZ warbird test pilot.

And there's still a number of the ex-BAe TP's around that displayed BAe's RR299 back in the 80's/early 90's that these NZ TP's can get extra info from should they wish to.

[marine air]

As far as the U.S. examples, I think F.A.R. 61.63 covers some of this. I stumbled across this looking for something else and it addresses Type Ratings in multi-engine aircraft where a second pilot's position is not available for checkride purposes.
Some examples that come to mind would be the F7F Tigercat, P-38 Lightning, and the F-5. My suggestion would be for a guy to get some Lockheed L-18 Hudson time before transitioning to the Mosquito. The Hudson is supposed to be difficult to take off and land successfully.

[JDK]

Interesting. Thanks for the FAR pointer.

The Lockheed Hudson is the Model 14, the 18 and others (Ventura etc) are later types with different characteristics, but some have the same wing as the Model 14. The Hudson and Model 14 aren't exactly 'difficult' to land or take off, but have characteristics that made them 'hot ships' in the early 1940s, and control combinations that can set you up for an unrecoverable situation - do it right, avoid certain issues, and they're straightforward. Don't, and they'll kill you, without a chance of escape.

For instance the large Fowler flaps offer remarkable options for landing, but can be fatal in a go-round. For that reason the only flying Model 14 / Hudson in the world does not use the full flap option for landing but a lesser, but still pretty 'barn door' position. Like most warbirds, it's also flown well within the envelope and short of any known risk corners, and at lighter loads and from bigger fields than wartime conditions.

Regards,

[JDK]

The focus on the piloting question misses the point (IMHO) and is the result of the focus on pilots as the only people in aviation, as the public have been led to believe. (A simplification, of course.) The flying characteristics, challenges and shortcomings of flying a Mosquito are extensively documented, and while (like many other types of the era) it has some critical performance corners that would not be accepted today, there's nothing unknown or mysterious.

Contrast that against the rebuild. To date, no-one has completely rebuilt a Mosquito to fly. From the Mosquito restorations I've followed, or been involved tangentially with, there are significant gaps in the documentation and data on the construction of the type - there's certainly no 'Mosquito builders handbook' or one-stop source of complete plans. While gaps can be filled for a static restoration with best estimate of manufacture, no such luck with the building of a flying example.

Additionally, the Mosquito was built in the UK, Australia and Canada in W.W.II, and there is significant legacy material in those countries to assist in rebuilds, as well as material in places like the US' Smithsonian, as well as precedent. New Zealand has not (to date) built a complete Mosquito from the ground up - but thanks to the work of Glyn Powell and the Avspecs team, that day is not far off, a real lesson in Kiwi achievement.

The answers to the three restoration questions, which I've learned from much study, are as follows:

1. When it's ready.

2. The colour/s won't make it fly any better or worse.

3. Finding pilots is easy. The trick is finding one who you can really trust not to stuff up.

Regards,

PS: Thanks Dave. Have a/the Pav.

Last edited by JDK on Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Dave Homewood]

Don't, and they'll kill you, without a chance of escape.

Well I have read a lot of crash reports regarding Hudsons in RNZAF service. Apart from those shot down by enemy action, it seems the common thread in accidents were take offs and landings, usually swing and ground loop related. But it is quite surprising that in many of the cases occupants, sometimes all five aboard, walked away without a scratch. Other similar crashes saw all aboard perish. I think in most cases it was not the crash they killed them but the ensuing fire.

And it's Avspecs, not AvSpects.
http://www.facebook.com/Avspecs

Ha, most of the Americans here will be wondering what a Pav is. Some might misguidedly think it's an Australian delicacy.

[JDK]

Avspecs typo corrected.

The Hudson or Model 14's take off and landing characteristics have had a lot written about them, unfortunately much of it somewhat generic, imprecise and often understandably focussing on the often tragic consequences. (See the 1940 Canberra air crash which wiped out much of Australia's senior command in a catastrophic accident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Canberra_air_disaster )

But the fact remains that if the Model 14 was flown as it was supposed to be, it wasn't dangerous. The issue was that it wasn't as tolerant of 'near enough' or inexperienced techniques as earlier, less performance critical, simpler (systems-wise) types that were being flown by the pilots of the late 1930s. I would say then that it wasn't a question of being 'difficult' or that it was 'dangerous' (both terms can be applied, but aren't strictly accurate) but that it required precise and careful flying of a precision not the norm for the training and systems of the day - hence the accidents.

Either way, on the Mosquito topic, apart from some well planned elements, the real hard work and major achievements have already been undertaken in the research and restoration processes. Flying it will only be proof of concept, and the carefully selected pilots will simply be re-proving that. Very carefully, we hope, and working hard, by whichever route, to ensure no surprises. Many of those potential surprises will, we trust, have also been eliminated by the restoration work as well.

Regards,

[Jeff H]

She is a thing of beauty and I am really enjoying all the chat about this bird, the lucky ones selected to fly it and all the other talk. Thanks to those who are much better versed than I for their contributions to this post.

Jeff

[gary1954]

Great discussion. I wish them the very best in this new adventure.
I would like to see Mr. Weeks pull his Mossie, Liberator, and Martin Marauder
Out of storage and put them into play all around the US; but not in Seattle.