Awesome little prewar homebuilt

[Dave Homewood]

NZ5218, if you refer to KA114, it's clearly not a replica as it is a restoration based on an existing original aircraft. Same goes for NZ2308, TV959, etc. and most of the Tiger Moths, Fox Moths, Rapides, etc around the world that have had their woodwork replaced. There's a big difference between a rebuild/restoration, and starting from scratch like a homebuild.

Peter's point about the Flea at Ashburton Zac is that it has a fake registration, no Flea was ever registered as ZK-AAM and the AAM must refer to Ashburton Aviation Museum. So he's wondering is the aircraft a genuine original non-registered project started back in the olden days before they all ended up grounded, or has someone built a mock up Flea for display status?

[Deleted]

It's a good point about AAM indeed. I've seen a photo - somewhere - of that fuselage in storage looking rather sorry, and I think I've seen mention somewhere of when it was started. I'll take a look around and report back with my findings.

[Deleted]

The blog NZ Civil Aircraft says: "And as a footnote, another Flying Flea was built in New Zealand in the early 2000's - a HM 14. This was a partly built project that was donated to the Ashburton Aviation Museum who completed the aircraft for static display and painted it as ZM-AAM." (http://nzcivair.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/post-ww-2-flying-fleas-of-new-zealand.html)

David Wise has this to say: "A partly built Pou was given to the Ashburton Museum and was completed as a static exhibit by a team led by Ray Chalmers. It was reported there in 2005, and was painted as 'ZM-AAM' by 2011." (http://www.flydw.org.uk/DWZM.htm)

And I found the photo I was looking for....it's by FlyerNZL on page 2 of this very thread!

EDIT: I may have found a lead pointing to it being a project intended to fly. Recently I found online several (all?) back issues of the 'Pou Review' newsletter, and there in issue 2 (April 1993) is a letter from Alan McDonnell of Christchurch. Mr McDonnell, who wrote then he had 25yr experience as an Avionics Technician in the RNZAF and then 6yr with Air NZ, said he had a 1/3 share in a partially completed Flea (pictured below) which was to be registered as a microlight.

McDonnell flea_zps78sfm5mt by Zac Yates, on Flickr

The exhaust set up on this project looks very, very similar to ZM-AAM. Could this be the same machine? Does anyone know Alan McDonnell, or the other two unnamed people involved with this project?

[nuuumannn]

My wife's father used to live in the Coromandel in the 1990s and he was pals with a guy named Vince (can't remember his sir name) who had built a Pou du Ciel, My wife's father had seen it, but I don't know whether it was ever finished. Vince died a number of years ago and I've been trying to get a bit more info about the Flea, My wife doesn't believe that it was ever completed.

NZ5218, if you refer to KA114, it's clearly not a replica as it is a restoration based on an existing original aircraft.

Actually Dave, that's not strictly accurate. KA114 is a new build incorporating original components. It was built from the ground up. It's fuse, wings, main structure are all new, unlike the Bf 109 Black 6 in the UK, which is almost entirely original; the same aeroplane broought home from the desert in North Africa. KA114's like that 'original' Spitfire Mk.I that was dredged out of the sand in France; not much, if anything was used in the rebuild. An entirely new airframe was built, just like KA114. They're not restorations, they're reproductions.

I had this discussion with bods at the RAF Museum regarding its Sopwith Pup; the museum maintains that it is an original Pup, but its not. It was built by Desmond St Cyrien as a ground up reproduction incorporatimng original parts, a couple of interplane struts and a few other bits, he even concocted a story about an airship shed in France where he 'found' the Pup, which was fictional. To add to the illusion that it was original Tommy Sopwith, who was still alive when St Cyrien built it, examined it and said it was like a new production aircraft. St Cyrien twisted this to his advantage and claimed that Sopwuith had said it was an original production machine as new. As it is, the museum claims to this day that its Pup is original, but its a new build. I spoke to Tim Moore of Skysport once who claimed the same thing; St Cyrien was having everyone on, not through malicious means but because he had a wicked sense of humour!

[TS]

Thanks nuuumannn you've explained that well. As I like to see these aircraft restored and flying, like everyone else I feel it is pushing the envelope a tad on some of these restorations in calling them "original"..

Just like a Vintage car that was restored from a rusting, rotten hulk and calling that original, is it or isn't it??

[Dave Homewood]

Grant, you're wrong. Mosquito KA114 is a rebuild of an original aircraft. It's not a reproduction. That is its legal status - legal identity-wise KA114 now is the same aircraft as it was 70 years ago, simply rebuilt. It has not reproduced or been reproduced.

Just like the Fox Moth you rode in back in September, that's not a reproduction legally either, it's the real thing, despite the fact it had all new wood built around its genuine metal components and its old wood formed the basis of the Fox Moth in MOTAT. There have been many de Havilland types that have had new wood added as the older structure has worn out - but they remain the same aircraft, not a reproduction of - are you prepared to tell Mandeville and others they are merely building reproductions?

A reproduction is like the Albatros fleet that TVAL has been building. Built to exact standards as the original but not starting with the real thing as the basis. KA114 did start as a real aircraft, it was restored and rolled out as a restored version of the same aircraft.

[Dave Homewood]

Avspecs and Mosquito Aircraft Restorations Ltd did not have to concoct any stories either, the original aircraft was at Ardmore on site and parts from it were used and incorporated into the rebuild. That is where the distinction lies from your Sopwith Pup story where no original airframe existed.

Some while back some Poms tried to claim KA114 was merely a replica, so I took pleasure in informing them that given their own way of working this out, their BBMF Hurricane "Last of the Many" must also be a replica as it was rebuilt from a lot less original material than KA114 was. That shut their gobs smartly.

[Peter Lewis]

Mar 18, 2015 15:25:01 GMT 12 nuuumannn said:

My wife's father used to live in the Coromandel in the 1990s and he was pals with a guy named Vince (can't remember his sir name) who had built a Pou du Ciel, My wife's father had seen it, but I don't know whether it was ever finished. Vince died a number of years ago and I've been trying to get a bit more info about the Flea, My wife doesn't believe that it was ever completed.through malicious means but because he had a wicked sense of humour!

Waikawau Bay is in the Coromandel

See listing on known Fleas, page 1:
"unreg by Angus Denize, Waikawau Bay - built 1930s, Cr on first test flight Waikawau Bay beach summer of 1947")

[nuuumannn]

legal identity-wise KA114 now is the same aircraft as it was 70 years ago, simply rebuilt. It has not reproduced or been reproduced.

Legally or not Dave, the fact of the matter is that the fuselage and wings etc were newly built, so you can argue until the cows come home that it's original, but it isn't. There's no structure there at all from the original KA114. Its all new built in Glynn's workshop. Take a look at these threads. All these photos show that KA114's structure was built from scratch using jigs constructed for the purpose, albeit designed from the original, not reconstruction from the original parts.

www.mossie.org/KA114.htm

www.warbirdsonline.com.au/2014/02/11/de-havilland-mosquito-restorations-in-new-zealand/

spirit.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-11-24_mosquito.asp

Take a look at the image at the top of the EAA page above, that's KA114's original fuselage. The pic below it is what is currently flying. They are not one and the same thing.

their BBMF Hurricane "Last of the Many" must also be a replica as it was rebuilt from a lot less original material than KA114 was.

That's not strictly speaking true, PZ865 is largely original welded steel tube structure under the new fabric skin covering the rear fuselage, the wing box etc is largely original too; the aircraft was maintained in airworthy condition for much of the post war years. You might be thinking of LF363, which was destroyed in a fire on landing and 'rebuilt'.

[nuuumannn]

See listing on known Fleas, page 1:
"unreg by Angus Denize, Waikawau Bay - built 1930s, Cr on first test flight Waikawau Bay beach summer of 1947")

Nah, it's a lot more recent that that, Peter, my wife's not that old!

[Dave Homewood]

You need to talk with the people who restored KA114 to be put straight Grant. Only last week I was discussing this very point with Mike Tunnicliffe who works for Mosquito Aircraft Restorations (Glyn Powell's company) and he confirmed what I have said and already knew. Yes new structure was added to the aircraft, but what aircraft when being rebuilt does not have that done? You're implying it's no longer the same aircraft and is a reproduction of the original, which is not correct.

[nuuumannn]

You're implying it's no longer the same aircraft and is a reproduction of the original, which is not correct.

I'm sorry Dave, I disagree. It isn't the same aircraft. The fuselage is not the same as the one that was built in Canada, nor are the wings, tailplane etc. It was built in Glynn's workshop. Yep, I wouldn't argue with the guys who built it, but they built it from scratch using original components as a pattern and where available incorporating them into the new build.

I've talked with a few people about this too, and the term 'restoration' can loosely be used to describe the likes of KA114, but what's flying now is not the original aircraft, but a rebuild of the original. From the picture on the EAA page, you can see the deterioration in the structure, there's no way that any aircraft restorer who hoped to fly their machine would put that into their build. Wooden structure just doesn't survive the ravages of time and does not maintain its structural integrity. Major structural components would have to be substituted for newly manufactured items. If this were the case, then you could argue that it might be original, but even then, in KA114's case, the aircraft was built from scratch. The wings were made from new bits of wood and built on the jigs shown. The fuselage was built from new bits of wood and made using the moulds shown. That is not an 'original' aircraft, but a reconstruction using the exact techniques, processes and materials used in the original. A 'new production' as Tom Sopwith stated about Des St Cyrien's Pup. In fact, your mention of TVAL is closer to KA114 than you realise, because they do exactly the same thing.

Take a good look at these pics, Dave, from Glynn's own website:

www.mosquitorestoration.com/gallery04.shtml

www.mosquitorestoration.com/gallery02.shtml

You can plainly see the manufacturing process. Yes, there are original metal brackets etc, but the wooden structure is all new build.

[baronbeeza]

Mar 18, 2015 16:11:06 GMT 12 nuuumannn said:

spirit.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-11-24_mosquito.asp



Take a look at the image at the top of the EAA page above, that's KA114's original fuselage. The pic below it is what is currently flying. They are not one and the same thing.

I see a Mosquito on the trailer. The one flying must be the same aircraft otherwise do we have a second Mosquito somewhere ?
Surely you can't have an original aircraft,  admittedly in poor condition, and then restore that aircraft with no expense spared to end up with something different. You have to ask then where did the original aircraft disappear to during this process ?
In my eyes it has been restored.
It doesn't matter what parts were replaced along the way, you can't lose something by improving it.
Even GA aircraft can be rebuilt about a data plate, the Cessna 180/185 would have examples there but there are numerous other aircraft about with odd wings etc.
The main thing is conformity, it has to conform to the original type specs or have otherwise approved mods or deviations.
In my book as long as everything is recorded and approved then the machine still conforms. The history of those parts is somewhat irrelevant, - they may be new, reproduced or obtained from another machine. Engineering wise you still have a machine that conforms so is therefore airworthy under whatever process the regulator has permitted.

It would be a shame to lose an original aircraft after you spent millions restoring it.

[Dave Homewood]

I am not stating that the woodwork is the original wood, not at all. I am saying the legal status of the aircraft is that it's KA114 restored (rebuilt). The woodwork has been reproduced yes, the aircraft has not. The woodwork is merely a new component added to the aircraft. Do you not consider aircraft that are re-skinned in metal sheet skin during a major service or a restoration as being the same aircraft either?

How many thousands of aeroplanes had new wings, and new fuselages fitted after accidents or deterioration during Air Force service? Loads. They retained their identity too and rolled out as the same aircraft with the same logbooks and history.

You can rest assured if this was a reproduction then CAA and FAA would not be allowing it to be called KA114.

How many genuine 100 year old Albaros's did TVAL start with then?

[nuuumannn]

Even GA aircraft can be rebuilt about a data plate, the Cessna 180/185 would have examples there but there are numerous other aircraft about with odd wings etc.
The main thing is conformity, it has to conform to the original type specs or have otherwise approved mods or deviations.

Yep, that's right, but its not the same thing as the old saying of 'it's an original hammer, but it's had three handles and two heads', because KA114 was built using new materials in a workshop and incorporating original brackets etc. That image clearly shows the amount of deterioration that a wooden aircraft is subject to. Take a look at the images of the fuselage in Glynn Powell's site that I posted in the thread above. They are not the same thing.

Unfortunately for us all, we'll probably never agree on this definition and I'm certain that this won't be the last time this issue will be raised, so I'm just going to agree to disagree and let it lie. If it's a restoration to you guys, then so be it.

[Deleted]

Guys, this is a thread started about a really cool little home built Dave found pics of but is now essentially about Mignet HM.14s - neither of which surely apply to KA114?

Interesting to hear about another post-war Flea project. I wonder what came of it, and whether anything remains?

[noooby]

There seems to be some confusion around the terms "original", "restored" and "reproduction".

Legally, "Original" refers to the fact that the aircraft is largely as it left the factory, with the same components installed as it had the day it was delivered. Spitfire MH434 is an example of an aircraft that has never been restored since it left the factory. Repainted possibly, but not restored.

"Restored" refers to the fact that the subject aircraft/motor vehicle/boat, has the same data plate as it did when it left the factory, but that significant parts/pieces of the aircraft have been rebuilt or replaced if necessary. Some original parts are incorporated back into the aircraft and I believe there is a legal minimum percentage that must be on the aircraft (10% original???).

"Reproduction" refers to the fact that the subject aircraft may be built to original specifications, or close to original specifications, but lacks an original data plate. I believe you can by reproduction P-51 Mustangs out of Germany that are built to the exact same spec's as the original P-51, but as they do not have a data plate, they are basically Homebuilt Reproductions.

While we all may feel that some of the terms above mean one thing or the other, the law, as it is written, only has one set of definitions. Mine aren't 100% accurate or complete, but they give you the general idea.

Now. Who can sell me a nice Flying Flea! I've always loved them Them and Wallis Autogyro's.

[baronbeeza]

I do Annual Reviews on aircraft and we have quite a comprehensive checklist to consider and then using our knowledge and experience we determine how best to answer each block.
It is a conformity inspection. To be airworthy either the machine conforms or it has approved log entries for any deviation or modification. All very straightforward and routine normally. If the engine has been replaced with another type, common for example with the 'H' engines in the C-172N models, then you will be checking a few details.
The engine would have been certified and fitted iaw with a mod or STC. All I would be doing is checking that the Flight Manual supplement is correct and appropriate to the new engine but also that the gauge markings and placards are also correct.

Over a period any aircraft is going to have any number of replacement parts and repairs.
As far as airworthiness goes all these parts must have been introduced iaw accepted procedures and we have a variety of regs and circulars providing guidance.
The parts can be sourced as new, from another machine, manufactured or whatever. There are procedures for all and the log books or worksheets will record the details.
There is nothing to say what is original and what is not.
A tyre gets replaced. A wheel. An engine. A propeller. A wing.
All the same, as long as the records are correct and the aircraft conforms then there is no issue. Indeed many fleets have rotable parts that meander from aircraft to aircraft. The elevators on the CT4-B would be an example there.

I say that as from an engineering perspective there was no problem, that is the way maintenance is conducted. The CT4 was a little different in that we soon discovered that with manufacturing tolerances some aircraft flew differently to others. More specifically it was found that the airframe/tailplane/elevator matching had an effect on the inverted flight characteristics. Normally it makes little difference and with the average GA aircraft it is common to see mismatched rudders and flaps etc fitted.

With skin and structural rework it is common to identify the newer items with some felt pen markings. Job number and date etc. Other than that it is still a conforming part and the machine is still original. The markings just provide guidance for future inspections when we are looking at corrosion issues for example.

An aircraft is just a machine and is maintained accordingly. There are procedures that need to be followed and indeed they are well established and pretty common between countries. Historical and originality generally don't feature as terms in the engineering publications.
Conformity is the biggy....

The machine must be as presented in the logs and conform to the manufacturer's data. Any deviations must be recorded and have been certified iaw approved procedures. The regulator, CAA or FAA etc get to have a say there.
It is possible to change model or variant under the rules. Not so common but again not entirely unusual. Just as long as it conforms..

This is the same for all aircraft, Flying Flea or Mosquito included.

[Deleted]

Mar 19, 2015 8:36:13 GMT 12 noooby said:

Now. Who can sell me a nice Flying Flea! I've always loved them Them and Wallis Autogyro's.

No need to find one for sale - just read the book and DIY sites.google.com/a/flyingflea.com.ar/www/home/traditional-fforg-menu-1/hm-16

[baz62]

Mar 19, 2015 8:36:13 GMT 12 noooby said:

There seems to be some confusion around the terms "original", "restored" and "reproduction".

Legally, "Original" refers to the fact that the aircraft is largely as it left the factory, with the same components installed as it had the day it was delivered. Spitfire MH434 is an example of an aircraft that has never been restored since it left the factory. Repainted possibly, but not restored.

"Restored" refers to the fact that the subject aircraft/motor vehicle/boat, has the same data plate as it did when it left the factory, but that significant parts/pieces of the aircraft have been rebuilt or replaced if necessary. Some original parts are incorporated back into the aircraft and I believe there is a legal minimum percentage that must be on the aircraft (10% original???).

"Reproduction" refers to the fact that the subject aircraft may be built to original specifications, or close to original specifications, but lacks an original data plate. I believe you can by reproduction P-51 Mustangs out of Germany that are built to the exact same spec's as the original P-51, but as they do not have a data plate, they are basically Homebuilt Reproductions.

While we all may feel that some of the terms above mean one thing or the other, the law, as it is written, only has one set of definitions. Mine aren't 100% accurate or complete, but they give you the general idea.

Now. Who can sell me a nice Flying Flea! I've always loved them Them and Wallis Autogyro's.

Actually MH434 has had a total rebuild (well you cant fly an aircraft for 60 years without doing one at least once!) but she is largely as she left the factory.