Spitfire Mk 26 - real or not real?

[The B Word]

There's a buch of enthusiasts at Enstone Airfield building a Squadron of 12x Supermarine Mk26b Spitfires at present. The name Supermarine was bought by an Australian a while back and the Mk26b is about 90% the size of the earlier Spitfires built in the 30s and 40s. It is all metal, has a 6 litre V8 and has the narrow track undercarriage that was always a handfull - see here for more Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire (http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Mk26B.htm)

Now there are those that say it isn't a real Spitfire - but it is manufactured by the Supermarine Aircraft Company. One of those that have had a right spat about them is Carolyn Grace (shame I thought better of her) in a recent edition of the Light Aviation magazine:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f71/JonoHolland/f945051b-1.jpg

I for one think it's great as it brings the spirit of Spitfire flying within the reach of those less priviledged (some would say unlike Mrs Grace?!)

The B Word

PS. yes, I know Mrs Grace lost her husband and she finished his Spitfire and now flies it in his memory. But does that excuse her opinion in the letter?

[ZeBedie]

I had a little sympathy with what she was saying until I read the last sentence. She sounds like an arrogant, self-important woman.

[Milo Minderbinder]

She is absolutely correct. You wouldn't sell a 1990's built KopyKat as a real E-Type Jag, why should a kit plane be treated any differently?
To suggest that something with a 6 litre V8 engine is in any way on a standard with a Merlin or Griffin fitted aircraft is just absurd.
Its a replica. Thats all, and thats what it should be sold as.
As for the name - so what? Its not the same company.

[NutLoose]

As her's has been rebuilt and as with most these days it is nothing but a full sized glorious replica with a data plate on it....
Same person who taxied her Spit straight into a Jet Ranger I believe, some skill there... She has also had it on it's nose before..

As for her referring to the skill of those flying them, The stupid thing is, it is all down to money, some of the warbirds pilots I have seen, I wouldn't let them loose with a pram, but they can afford the expensive toy, or does she think just because she flies a Spit she is a better pilot?


.

[500N]

Hopefully someone can answer this.

Why when building these replicas did they choose to design an 80% and then a 90% replica instead of just going for the full size to begin with ?


Not that this is the reason but the Spitfire cockpits never looked that big in the first place and we are only getting bigger in size compared to the men and women in the 1940's.

.

[Milo Minderbinder]

Pure guesswork, but maybe because all they could use were car engines and it improved the performance. It'll reduce the cost of the airframe as well.
They're flown as Light Aircraft - does scaling down bring them below the weight limit?

[The B Word]

500N

The answer is on the website:

I received an invitation to lunch with Alex Henshaw at his home and we ended up spending the day together, we were both like kids talking all things Spitfire, it was interesting in that a lot of the same problems Alex and his team had.We have encountered the same problems in production but as Alex said if it was easy every one would be doing it. A truly amazing man, who has followed us with pride and said we have now made the Spitfire immortal and the memory will never fade. He said it was a pleasure to see them in production again. he could fully understand why we only produced 90% scale aircraft in today's world. Engine reliablity and horsepower was the main factor, with purchase cost and hanger space also being an issue. Alex made the comment that for all the problems in manufacturing the Spitfire it has never been surpassed in pure flying for the joy of the pilot . He also made the comment that he had flown many other types of aircraft but nothing comes close to a spitfire to be at one pilot and machine.

[The B Word]

Milo

The difference is that this is made by Supermarine - it's a bit like saying today's Triumph Motorcycles are not real Triumphs because they are built in a factory in Hinckley (which is reputedly the best in the world) rather than built in Meriden (which by the time the Unions finished with it was the worst in the world). Or the new Mini, or the new VW Beetle, or the new Fiat 500, or the X-Type Jag, or the Landrover Defender, or the new Range Rover, etc...

The B Word

[NutLoose]

Spitfires were built by every man and his dog scattered all over the UK and brought together at various factories for assembly, and NOT just Supermarine.

[PENNINE BOY]

She does seem to come over as up her own ar--!

I remember a few years ago we had flown in to Duxford and were sat on the grass as she came walking past the control tower after doing several flights for a corporate day.

I asked her how much would it be for a trip in the Spitfire, would have been for my old man who used to fly them in the second world war. Her reply was I am rather fussy who I take in the Spitfire!

Shame she didnt remember the bucket that was placed many years ago in the hangar at Duxford towards the rebuild fund for the engine :=

[abgd]

Oh piffle... If any ex-WWII pilots want to complain, then I'll give them a hearing.

Personally I'm glad that there's one company that makes a reasonably close replica, though I know full well I'll never be able to afford it. Nobody in the know will confuse it for the real real deal, so it's not fraud (except for the dummy radiator option). And at least it isn't built out of either plywood or composites.

If they did make a 100% spitfire, what engine would you put in it anyway assuming Merlins are no longer practical?

[PPRuNe Pop]

I am surprised and disappointed that Carolyn Grace has seen fit to denigrate this project. I respect her and her husband Nick, who put together the Spitfire she flys. It is, of course, in many ways a replica itself although built from one that was real. If you make anything that has to be added is it then not a replica.

I have flown many replicas, including a Camel, Sopwith Pup, an Albatross, a DR1 (Fokker Triplane) and others, all built from scratch but with the SAME skills that Tommy Sopwith and the German designers employed in the first war. These aircraft were, therefore, like the originals and flew like them and some had a bite like them. It took some skill to fly them but I cannot say that my skills were any better, or worse, than those who flew them in wartime. What I do know is that they WERE just like the real thing - they were built like that and to be like that.

Carolyn has a point when she mentions flying a scale model Spitfire is different to a real Mk26, but that does not and should not be a reason to put it down. Indeed, it is that point where she lets herself down because it is not so different as to be worthy of her remark that these models should not be compared to the pilots who flew them and to the Spitfire itself. It is well known that some skills were short in flying her own Spitfire, but she can still claim and be proud that she carries on with Nick's dream.

[jxk]

I visited the Mk26 'factory' when I was staying in Brisbane it was sign-posted Castle Bromwich, this must make it authentic surely!!.

[stickandrudderman]

She sounds like someone who's position as prominent Spitfire pilot is under threat, not just by the replicas, but by the ever increasing numbers of airworthy Spitfires which are competing for the attention that she obviously revels in.
Her ego is expanded in a shrinking market and is causing her some discomfort, poor lamb.:ugh:

[Hairyplane]

I have to say that the Mk 26 doesn't exactly invoke the same 'sight and sound of freedom' that the original does.

However, thanks to those who gave their lives in pursuit of freedom, we speak English, enjoy freedom of speech and opinion and, more to the point here, can call our whizzer anything we like.

HP

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

it's a bit like saying today's Triumph Motorcycles are not real Triumphs because they are built in a factory in Hinckley (which is reputedly the best in the world) rather than built in Meriden (which by the time the Unions finished with it was the worst in the world).

Oi! I have a 1979 Meriden-built T140D; by then, the factory had got them right, and the late Meriden Bonnies were the best they made. It sounds good, vibrates, oozes character; it's a Spitfire compared to the modern Triumph's PA28!

[robin]

She sounds like someone who's position as prominent Spitfire pilot is under threat, not just by the replicas, but by the ever increasing numbers of airworthy Spitfires which are competing for the attention that she obviously revels in.
Her ego is expanded in a shrinking market and is causing her some discomfort, poor lamb.

Can we refrain from personal abuse here.

The thread is about whether or not an 80% replica minus Griffin or Merlin engine can be compared with 'the real thing'.

The views on both sides are strongly and deeply held and I don't see that anything she said denigrates those who build, own or operate the Mk26.

She is only pointing out the simple truth. The Spit is a different, bigger and more challenging beast.

Look at the recent French 80% replica of a Mosquito and the way that the test flight went with modern engines. The only thing it had in common with the DH Mosquito was the name.

[10W]

She is only pointing out the simple truth. The Spit is a different, bigger and more challenging beast.

Indeed she is, but is also inferring that the skill of a Spitfire 26 pilot in no way can be compared with her or other people who fly the real thing. How does she know what the level of piloting skills of a Spitfire 26 pilot are ? Does she personally know them all and what their aviation career has been and what they have flown ? And what makes her think she has fantastic and superior skills when you look at some of the incidents she has had.

She had a valid and good point that the aeroplane itself is not the same as a real Spitfire, but when she starts putting down people she doesn't even know, then she needs to remember she's in a very big greenhouse and her track record is in the public domain. Throw rocks and you can break a lot of glass.

I'd love a go in a Spitfire 26 ... and a real one :ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've met her and she's lovely - every bit the delightful person she is in the Nick Grace video and 'Going Solo'. I haven't read the LAA piece on the replica so can't comment on the relevance of her letter.

[maxred]

There are two of them at Perth, and I have had the opportunity to get a close look at them. I also have seen them flown, and displayed. Now..

Great workmanship, from a distance they look great, and I am sure the guys that have them have some good fun. Do I think they are worth a 100k investment? No. I would rather have a YAK50. In the air they sound odd, because you see the famous outline, but no sound. That is a disappointment. I also, like any single seat aeroplane, would find it all a bit pointless, unless, you had some real power, and could do something with it. My point of view..

I also understood, and it was a comment from someone else, that they required an inordinate amount of maintence, relative to its mission profile, but that may have been sour grapes, and no doubt someone who owns one could confirm.

[Hairyplane]

Maxred - count the number of seats in a Mk 26 again...;)

HP

[gasax]

I've had a close look at 3 of these replicas now. As a kit aircraft it is quite complex and more of a challenge than many of the modern 'quick bulds'.

From a distance (well quite a distance) they are fairly convincing - but then the scale and proportions strike you as not quite right.

In flight - well they are nothing special - any well flown Chipmunk is more interesting. (yes I'm sure they are aerobatted in less complex air than the UK's) - but here a couple of not so fast low passes is not going to impress.

Are they worth the money - well no where close in my judgement. Are they difficult to fly? Not particularly it would seem from the people I've spoken to.

But I think we should be very clear they are light aircraft with a visual resemblence to the Spitfire - they share absolutely nothing else with a Spitfire apart from the same medium - air.

If you want one fine - but do not pretend it is a Spitfire or it was built by the company that built Spitfires. Basically stop pretending it has anything beyond a visual resemblance.

But that still does not justify Caroline Grace's parting shot - yes I'm sure they are easier to fly than a real Spitfire, but that does not mean the people who do fly them are not 'skilled'. Anyone moving to a 'real Spitfire' will require conversion training - but as the RAF and perhaps more particularly the ATA showed most pilots could fly a Spitfire as well.

[piperarcher]

Hopefully someone can answer this.

Why when building these replicas did they choose to design an 80% and then a 90% replica instead of just going for the full size to begin with ?


I thought it was because a kit build company is not allowed to make an exact replica of someone else's product. Might be to do with patents, copyright etc.... Its the same with cars. AFAIK, all the kit cars out there are never 100% replicas of the real things, otherwise the original manufacturer will claim loss of earning and various breaches of this that and the other. That said, you soon know your not buying a real Ferrari Testarossa because it could look like an MR2 inside :rolleyes:. Same with these Spitfires I presume. Some people will notice they dont quite look or sound right, but for many others they think they will have seen a real spitfire and take a bit of delight in that, and theres nothing wrong with that :-)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that Mrs Grace has been really rather churlish.

Of course it's not a real Spitfire, of course it doesn't come close to the handling and performance. It's pretty close to it visually, but scaling size and weight and using a modern engine clearly didn't allow them to do an exact copy - scaled or not.

I don't think that anybody's ever pretended otherwise.


But the people who have built them have put a massive labour of love into that, and the people who fly them - often the same people - are getting enormous pleasure from flying the nearest they're likely to ever get to a "real" Spit. Plus it gives much pleasure to the rest of us who like seeing a really beautiful aeroplane - which it is, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than buying a PA28. There is much to be admired in it, and if part of that is the association with the iconic aircraft that it is a tribute to - why the heck not.

G

[NutLoose]

It is also not a bl++dy model, she simply shows she herself for what she is in that letter.. call it what you like but it is plain and simply an aircraft............

but she can still claim and be proud that she carries on with Nick's dream.

Paid for by all the people she has roped into the supporters club, without them i think it will have long since been sold.. Why do these people suddenly think they are better pilots than those that do not own one???? Better pilots do not taxy into Helicopters.....

[Justiciar]

Is there any part of the marketing or branding of the Mk 26 which suggests that it is the same aircraft as the original? As I understand it the idea is to keep the spirit of the original alive. Does anyone claim to be on a par with an original Spitfire pilot just because they fly a mk 26? I don't believe so!

It may take a certain level of skill to fly the original but I bet it was far from being the most difficult aircraft of its era to fly and I bet there are a few aircraft today which are more of a handful to fly safely!

I really don't understand the reasoning behind the letter. It appears to demonstrate nothing exceopt a rather narrow view of others and an inflated view of themselves.

[ShyTorque]

Well said that person! :D

The fact that someone has gone to the trouble to build a reasonable lookalike of a Spitfire is a tribute to the real thing. Has anyone ever pretended it is anything other than that? I doubt it.

I used to drive a Spitfire but didn't think I was a fighter pilot. Anyway, it was the most unreliable car I've owned and went very rusty, too! ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

It can get sillier....

Stealth condoms shot down | Special Delivery | Find Articles (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6678/is_1991_Summer/ai_n28605115/)

G

[vintagemember]

It is unfortunate that the editor of Light Aviation magazine chose to write an article stupidly comparing the Mk26 Spitfire to the real thing. It is a look - like, no more, no less. The editor seems to be of the opinion that because the builders of the Mk26 kit own the name 'Supermarine', the product is a Spitfire. He told me so!

In my opinion it's a ghastly parody of the original, but that's only my opinion. Others might like it.

[Justiciar]

a ghastly parody of the original

I would be interested to know whay you say that. I have not flown one of these aircraft and doubt I ever will, but I would think it should be judged in its own terms. I see that someone compared it unfavourably to the Chipmunk, which I have flown extensively. I suspect that most modern light aircraft compare unfavourably to the Chipmunk:ok:

The right question should perhaps be be to ask how it compares to other modern kit permit aircraft in terms of handling, economy and speed, not to mention cost. On the latter point it may not do too well as I believe these kits are quite expensive.

Based solely on what I have read I get the impression that a genuine Spitfire is possibly slightly easier to fly than say a Christen Eagle, which I have also flown, though not much. Were it not for the fact that the real thing is valued at >£1m I suspect we would not be having a debate about the worthiness of modern Spitfire pilots above all other pilots :sad:

[patowalker]

As I understand it the idea is to keep the spirit of the original alive.
Oh, come on. It was to make money, by selling a product to those who fancy themselves as WWII fighter pilots and can afford the kit.

[stickandrudderman]

Can we refrain from personal abuse here.

I already have refrained!

I'd love a go in a Spitfire 26 ... and a real one http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I've had a go in a real one, and I'd still love a go in a MK26.

One doesn't negate the need for the other.

[NutLoose]

It is unfortunate that the editor of Light Aviation magazine chose to write an article stupidly comparing the Mk26 Spitfire to the real thing. It is a look - like, no more, no less. The editor seems to be of the opinion that because the builders of the Mk26 kit own the name 'Supermarine', the product is a Spitfire. He told me so!

Why is it stupid, what else should he have written an article comparing it to, a double decker bus? If it is a scale or semi scale " replica" even if not accurate, surely the ideal aircraft to compare it to is the real thing..

She needs to get a life.

[Justiciar]

Oh, come on. It was to make money, by selling a product to those who fancy themselves as WWII fighter pilots and can afford the kit.

What a bloody nerve :=:= How dare they try and make money. I dont't know what western civilization has come to:ugh:

Probably a demonstration of stupidity for anyone to think that they can actually make money from aviation.

[billiboing]

I would like to wish Paul the very best with this project but have some reservations as to whether 12 will ever get built.

There is a video on the website going back to last April 2011 in which Paul says he expects the first completed in 3 months. Having built several kit aircraft they always take three times as long.

The first from what I have seen is quite a long way from being finished. 1/20th shares were going for £11000 each which makes the kit around £220000.00 for each aircraft. To build 12 will require alot of money!

Would be nice just to see one flying tho!

Best of luck with it all guys- and who cares if it is only 90%. The shape of it makes it a very gorgeous and sexy aeroplane.

[maxred]

Sorry HP. Note to self-must do better and count the seats in a REPLICA spit. What is the derivation of a single seat 90per cent replica Spitfire??

Do all the MK 26 have two seats??

[Heston]

How many seats are there in the Grace Spitfire?:}

H

[Genghis the Engineer]

I believe there are single and two seat versions.

G

[Squeegee Longtail]

The real deal?
Of course not. It's like sticking things on your car to make it look like the GTi model. Doesn't make it a GTi.

Now if you want a replica/lookalike (or whatever you want to call them), which has the sound and matches (or exceeds) the performance of the WW11 original, try this:
Thunder Mustang Home Page (http://www.thundermustang.com/)

I have seen and heard one fly. Awesome. IF I was inclined to go down the replica route, that's the one for me. (It's still not a P-51 though ;))

[maxred]

Yes guys I did realise that the Grace Spit has two seats. I also did realise that it was a Mark 26.

Having an exciting day at the office, I then realised that the two at Perth are single seats, but I thought the singles were also designated Mk 26.

Silly me.

Swiss cheese anyone?????

So smarty pants - what is the designation of the single seat ones?????

[patowalker]

A description of all the different marks of Supermarine Spitfire and Seafire (http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spits.htm)

[maxred]

Not wanting to make a meal of this, but Ghengis looks right. The replicas are 25, and 26. The 26 being the 90% one, but with one seat and two seat variants.

Woud someone who actually owns one like to confirm???

I just Googled it

[POBJOY]

A couple of points here.
I think the correct name for the 90% version is 'Supermarine MK26b'.
However the 90% bit seems a bit optimistic when you look at the actual dimensions.
The usual giveaway on most 'scale' versions of anything is the canopy set up, and has the effect of giving a caricature look to the finished item,which in itself usually spoils the 'classic' lines.
Nicks aircraft was not a data plate project but a well engineered rebuild (due to rivets needing to be replaced) of an aircraft that had an operational record before being converted by Vickers to two seat configeration.
It is unfair to compare the two machines and as such the customer will decide what he wants out of it.
Carolines comments may offend some people;but again they are only comments and as such not the bible of what everyone may think.
If a group of enthusiasts want to enjoy themselves with scale machines good luck to them,but you can never replicate the sight and sound of the real thing without a Merlin**.
**As an engineering project in its own right the mk26b has merit and certainly begs the question why not a true 100% version with a 4-500hp v8!!! we can then have a crop of BoB films without CGI. (Kenley still available)

[maxred]

Thank you Pobjoy - I would agree. But does it have one or two seats, the MK26B??? Or have I totally lost the plot?

[KembleKid]

I'm a member of one of the Enstone Mk26b syndicates, and I'm saddened by Carolyn Grace's comments.

I'm just an ordinary bloke with a PPL who has chosen to spend his own hard earned money to be able to build, part own and fly a kit aircraft.

This project is giving me (and others) an opportunity to do something a bit special. I'm not asking anyone else to fund my hobby and I'm not trying to kid anyone that these aircraft are anything other than what they are - a very good kit modelled on a Spitfire and designed for people like me, not the Carolyn Graces of this world.

[The B Word]

Shaggy Sheep

I know what I prefer and it isn't made in Meriden!

1979 T140D
http://classic-motorbikes.net/images/gallery/1979-t140d.jpg

2011 T100 SE
http://www.jcsmotorcycles.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/T100_2010_rhs_jetblack_fusion_534x3091.jpg

Mine was built in Hinckley and looks like a Bonnie, sounds like a Bonnie (with the aftermarket Triumph pipes) and has better performance than an old Bonnie.

Now I guess the Mk26b is a similar prospect to the argument - it looks like a Spit, doesn't sound much like a Spit (but given the right engine isn't bad) and is sh!t loads cheaper to run and own than a Spit.

I personally think Mrs Grace should apologise for her churlish outburst and she has seriously gone down in my respect for her as a fellow aviator of 40s vintage aircraft.

The B Word

[POBJOY]

Maxred; the Mk 26b does have two seats, but it is not a replica of the original Spitfire Trainer (that had two 'bubble' hoods on separate cockpits) with the second seat higher than the front one so the instructor had some forward vision.Nicks aircraft does not use the original Vickers mod as in service with the Irish Air Corps,but has a hood similar to the front seat,and set in line.
The MK26b uses the space behind the front cockpit as a 'jump seat' for a passenger.

[Corporal Clott]

I actually would be very proud to own a Supermarine Mk25, Mk26 or a Mk26b. They certainly look much better than this!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/CroiseAC-1.jpg

:yuk:

CPL Clott

[excrewingbod]

Given the nature of the LAA Magazine, I was surprised at Ms Grace's letter. After all what was she expecting in a magazine on amateur-built and vintage permit-to-fly aircraft?

The Mk26 Spit kit, seems to generate a lot of debate, unlike other Spitfire replicas (scale or otherwise). People tend to forget these replicas are generally constrained by the limitations that allow the oversight to be undertaken by the LAA, rather than the CAA.

I much prefer the T51 with the V6 - sounds and looks beautiful.

[robin]

I'm a member of one of the Enstone Mk26b syndicates, and I'm saddened by Carolyn Grace's comments.

I'm just an ordinary bloke with a PPL who has chosen to spend his own hard earned money to be able to build, part own and fly a kit aircraft.

This project is giving me (and others) an opportunity to do something a bit special. I'm not asking anyone else to fund my hobby and I'm not trying to kid anyone that these aircraft are anything other than what they are - a very good kit modelled on a Spitfire and designed for people like me, not the Carolyn Graces of this world.

I've looked at both the Mk26 and the FW190 kits and the ones I have seen are impressive. Carolyn has not denigrated the skills of those who build these aircraft.

However I have also seen the rebuilds of the full-sized versions of classics at places like Duxford and that is in a different league. I'm not sure I'd turn my head to watch the new breed pass by, but appreciate the skills of the builder.

I would feel the Mk26, is like a 125cc version of a Triumph Daytona. Still a challenge, but .........

[patowalker]

... and I'm not trying to kid anyone that these aircraft are anything other than what they are - a very good kit modelled on a Spitfire and designed for people like me, ... Unfortunately, the Light Aviation article gave a different impression. The caption to one of the photos is just an example: "AT will soon be joining Caroline Grace as one of the very few Spitfire pilots".

[Penny Washers]

Quite so, Pato. Carolyn was objecting to the article in the magazine, which seemed to try to blur the difference between a real Spitfire and these replicas. She was right to do so. We should all oppose the re-writing of history Or did America really win the war single handed?

As for Carolyn herself, she is a very sweet person, but like all little 'uns, she can be fierce. You need to be if you are a female in aviation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I explained to the man that my father worked for Supermarine from 1945-57

I think my Dad started at Supermarine (/Vickers Armstrong) as an apprentice about 1956, leaving sometime in the mid 1960s when they closed down the drawing office. They may have met

G

[flyinkiwi]

I much prefer the T51 with the V6 - sounds and looks beautiful. The V6 powered Mk 26b sounds pretty good too

fXX3gcT2okI

And the looks, well, it looks like a Spitfire to me... ;)

[stripman]

Just to set the record straight the MK26 Spitfire is a two seater 80% replica, originally powered but the Jabiru 5100 flat 8 engine but some now being completed with a V6 engine. The MK26B is also a two seater but at 90% and powered by either a V6 or V8. For the people not convinced by the shape and sound try this,

Supermarine Spitfire MK 26 - YouTube

As someone lucky enough to fly one, its awesome and shed loads of fun with great handling in the air at least. It is actually a very clever copy given the constraints of size, cost and engine availability and hats off to Mike Sullivan for persevering with the project.

As for Carolyn's comments, it's obviously upset a lot of people and was not the best thing to do. I wouldn't put down any bodies pride and joy.
Each to their own!.

[jxk]

I think my Dad started at Supermarine (/Vickers Armstrong) as an apprentice about 1956, leaving sometime in the mid 1960s when they closed down the drawing office. They may have m

I started as an Apprentice 1954/55 at Main Hangar, Eastleigh:8

[Genghis the Engineer]

Small world 'innit, although Genghis Sr was at South Marston. I think he worked mostly on the Attacker and the Scimitar.

He too is still doing well, although he drifted out of aviation in the late 60s into chemical engineering.

G

[Chevytriker]

Kemblekid - what happened to the face-book builders page? I was enjoying that

[stickandrudderman]

Welcome to Pprune Mr H!

[abgd]

**As an engineering project in its own right the mk26b has merit and certainly begs the question why not a true 100% version with a 4-500hp v8!!! we can then have a crop of BoB films without CGI. (Kenley still available)

A real copy should have at least 1000 horsepower, so unless such an engine becomes available isn't it better to have an 80% aircraft with 400 hp engine, than a 100% version with 500?

[Aeronut]

Equally the pilots who will fly the scale model Mk26 should be pleased and proud of their skill in flying this scale model but should never be compared to the pilots that flew and indeed fly the genuine Spitfire

Does that include the skill of taxying into other aircraft on the ground?


Airshow News (http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/archive1.htm)
Carloyn Grace's Spitfire (ML407) was involved in an accident when its propeller blades struck a helicopter as it was taxiing to a halt at Duxford airfield on the afternoon of 31 March 2001? No one was hurt in the accident but the helicopter, a Jet Ranger (G- JWLS) was badly damaged. The Spitfire was out of action all last year and had been made ready for this season. It will now need a new propeller and the Merlin engine will have to be tested for shock loading. It is hoped that the Spitfire will be fixed and able to participate in this years airshows.

Doesn't say who was at the controls but Jetranger G-JWLS appears not to have ever recovered from this meeting with a real Spitfire.

[POBJOY]

ABGD The power required for an aircraft has more to do with its weight rather than size. As a 100% replica would be very light compared to the original (for many reasons) 4-500 HP V8 would be adequate and very affordable. Engine/prop packages are already available of the shelf (in the States) and the thrust via the gearing would be excellent.
As the machine does not have to be stressed for combat or carry a war load the construction is more akin to the fast retract singles that Piper and Cessna have produced in the past,but with a slim fuselage and only two seats.
A 180-200 knot cruise and an authentic sound coupled with a lower wing loading should make for a a safe handling machine that looks right,and could acccomodate two full size pilots with ease.
I suspect that the 'scale' issue has more to do with regulations rather than the cost of going the extra mile to full size.After all the cost for these 70-90% versions is quite high for something that does not really replicate the original's classic lines.

[Dark Star]

90% Scale is the linear dimension which means the effect on volume and therefore weight will be 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.729 i.e. 72.9%

Similarly 80% gives 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.512 i.e. 51.2%

[smarthawke]

I have to agree with young stripman that when you see and hear the Mk26 with the Jabiru flat 8, in flight and at speed, it really looks and sounds like the real thing - especially when flown with the power/rpm set just right.

By strange coincidence, stripman was actually flying that flight in the video in women's clothing....

[Ringway Flyer]

Just for the record (I'm sure you all know anyway) the Grace Spitfire is a Mk IX. The last of the original Spitfires were Mk 24s - there never was a 'real' Mk 25 or 26....

The Mk 25 was an 75% scale single seater and the Mk26 an 80% scale two seater.

[Chevytriker]

Ringway, I think the Mk25 is an 80% scale, and the 26b is the 90% scale two seater.

[thing]

I can see her point, flying a 400 hp 80% replica isn't the same as flying a genuine Spit. How can it be? Or is it the way she puts her point over that rankles with everyone? I don't know Carolyn Grace, probably never will but if I wanted to buy and fly a scale Spit or indeed a real one I wouldn't really give a poo what she or anyone else thought. It's my money and I can do whatever I want with it.

As for taxiing into a chopper, women have always been dreadful at parking, it's genetic so cut her some slack.

[2high2fastagain]

I wonder what Dowding and Park would think? Would they call the Mk 26 a Spitfire when it is sporting a VNE of 220 knots, a ceiling of 18,000ft and a chevrolet engine? Not sure if it would do so well against old Herman's Bf109 boys over Kent.

While Mrs Grace's comments may be a little harsh, I think her general point is quite correct. It's cheeky at best to take the name Supermarine Spitfire and assign a Mark number to a scale replica, even if it is legal, honest decent etc.

Still, that said it's a lovely replica - not perfect in the lines, but still lovely. Best of luck to the boys building up the squadron of them.

[thing]

Can't they build a 'new' original now though apart from the donk? I seem to recall reading an article where it was deemed possible.

[thing]

I agree with your sentiments, having said that I'm unlikely to be around in 30 years time anyway so make hay while the sun shines and make the most of these historic machines. There has to come a day when the sound of a Merlin is no more. Other than in recordings.

[thing]

I was thinking more of the demise of 100LL.

[thing]

Well I'm hoping to retire to Australia in around ten years time so Europe can disappear up it's own orifice AFAIC.

[Katamarino]

The feckwit bureaucrats in Australia seem to be intent on bringing aviation there down to the level of Europe, sadly.

[patowalker]

But most piston powered GA and most Merlins do not operate in Europe.

Best place to see Merlins is at the Madison regatta.

[abgd]

The power required for an aircraft has more to do with its weight rather than size

A 100% spitfire might look better, but presumably a 'spitfire' with 50% the regular wing loading would be mighty different in terms of flying qualities... It seems to me that if you're going to build a 100% replica, it may as well be a copy.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A 100% spitfire might look better, but presumably a 'spitfire' with 50% the regular wing loading would be mighty different in terms of flying qualities... It seems to me that if you're going to build a 100% replica, it may as well be a copy.

Hmmm, not I don't think I would.

There's a lot of expensive internal structure on a military aeroplane that you just don't need in civil use. The armament feeds and supporting structure can go, the carry-through for weapons back loads and vents for gun-gas become irrelevant, the level of structural redundancy to allow for battle damage is also no longer required and modern analytical tools would allow you to build a much simpler, and thus cheaper, structure. Plus much better more modern materials are available.

I think if I was running a project like that, I'd take a lot of persuading that a direct copy was a good idea. A 1:1 flying replica, with a facsimile cockpit is as far as I think I'd go. It can still have a big engine, still be aerobatic, and it's not that hard to match handling with a few design tricks.

G

[harrier1127]

All I can say is I have flown the 80% build and thought it was terrific.It has also been flown by a member of the BBMF who said the handling was just about the same as the real thing, just with a few less horses under the bonnet

[abgd]

Points taken, Genghis. Though I wonder whether any of the high-altitude reconnaissance versions were appreciably stripped down.

I've always been sweet on the concept of the Silence Twister... A German spitfire-alike.

[clive ducros]

I say good luck to the enthuisiasts but then I may be a little biased as I spent over ten years building my own full size replica "Spit", the Prototype K5054! I wrote a book on the project a few years ago and have just recently published an Ebook on Kindle. It's called Birth of a Spitfire if anyone's interested.

[POBJOY]

Clive; your project was a fair time ago now.If you had the benefit of new materials and an 'off the peg' 400hp Eng-prop i suspect the machine would be being built all over the world. I think what the 'Supermarine mk26' shows us is the ability to 'production line' a product to make it easier for customers to finish/fit out. You only have to see how many 'Rv's' are around to see what the market needed for 'construction' purposes.I always remember the high numbers of Rollason Turbulent and Beta projects that never progressed due to the skill required to build them down to the required weight (you needed to be a bit of a cabinet maker).(They were however great machines to fly)
I think 100% with 4-500 hp V8 would give ample performance and make a practical two seater.If it 'cribbed' the wing join outboard of the UC (like Hurricane) then the size of components and storage space is simplified.Clives machine (like the Jurca) had a one piece wing that makes for a huge space requirement if derigging required.Your machine looked superb Clive it would have been so much easier for you if one of the (now available) complete V8 eng/prop packages was around at the time.I recently looked at a Jurca project and came away with a very high regard for the skill and ability of the builder,and in no doubt as to the complexity of the work required.

[Hairyplane]

Hi Clive!

Long time no hear! Messenger KBO was sold on but should be flying again soon.

If you want to fly any time you are back in Blighty, let me know and I'll meet you at Old Warden. we can get the Storch, Magister etc. out.

Nicky is still wearing and enjoying your old Irvin!

Pity your old Spitfire had its wings sawn off - aaaargh! I wonder if it could be resurrected??

I thoroughly recommend Clives book to all - a great read. I still have my autographed copy.

All the best

Peter

[fwjc]

abgd

Totally with you there. The Twister is a great aeroplane that pays homage to the Spit silhouette without pretending to be one - it doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is.

Ref the original thread, I don't think Carolyn's words came across so well, but I tend to agree with the principle concept that a Mk26 isn't a patch on a "real" one, albeit it's a perfectly adequate aeroplane and a totally worthy project in its own right. But that's no reason to slate a team of enthusiasts for whom this is likely to be the closest they'll get to flying a "real" one, and at least they can legally put Spitfire in their log book. How hollow that might appear to others shouldn't influence those involved, since they're not the ones with the logbook entries.

[unimo55]

Of course the Mk 26 is not a 'real' Spitfire, anyone who pretends it is aligns themselves with the types who pretend that any classic car replica is the real thing. The clue is in the word 'Replica'. That said, I wouldn't criticise anyone for doing whatever they can afford to live their dreams, if it makes them happy, what business of anyone else's is it?
I had the privilege of performing the first flights and LAA acceptance schedules (minimum 5 hours, 15 landings and a 2 hour endurance flight test) on 2 examples of the Mk 26. The first was beautifully put together to a very high standard and I was the build stage inspector. The second was thrown together in an appalling fashion and should never have been signed off during construction.
Some chaps have commented on this that the Mk 26 must be much easier to fly than the real Spit. This is not necessarily the case, just because an aircraft is light and low-powered it does not automatically follow that it will be easier to fly than something which is heavy and high powered, in fact the opposite is often the case.
I was extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to handle the controls of Carolyn Grace's Spit, on board with her husband, Nick, when I was a lowly PPL with barely 400 hrs on Ercoups, 150s, 172s, 182s, Beagle Pup, Turbulent, DR1050, & Super Airtourer and I found it absolutely delightful with its responsiveness, power, control harmonisation and momentum.
More than 20 years later, having soloed some 105 different types of piston singles and twins, most under flight test conditions, I found my first Mk 26 a bit of a challenge, at least from hard, but not very smooth, runways, although it became a doddle from smooth grass. Both the Mk 26s I flew had the Jabiru flat 8 engine and the power from this unit is plenty for this very light and skittish aeroplane, its nominal 180 HP through the MT 3 bladed CS prop certainly giving considerably more thrust than you would feel from a 180 HP Lycoming with a Hartzell.
The Mk 26 is a fast aircraft for its size and conventional shape and construction method and as such, great care and a higher than usual homebuilder skill is required to complete one as a good example. Ovalling rivet holes to make them fit and filling skin fit gaps and profile faults with polyester is simply not acceptable. Properly built, they are a delight, once in the air and looking out over the long nose and at the elliptical wing planform, well a man is allowed to dream isn't he?..........
If they were strong enough and approved for aeros, I believe they would be more fun than an S1S!
Mrs Grace's response to the LAA mag piece was not, I believe, intended to denigrate the efforts of the owners and pilots of these machines, but simply airing her irritation of all the hype originating from the kit manufacturer and picked up by the owners calling it a Supermarine and suggesting that it could be compared to the original.

[F1-69]

Hello all my name is Philip , I fly the mk26b named High Lady she is the blue one that is owned by super marine aircraft. We took her to sun n fun this year and I flew it for a couple magazine and also in the show, there were a couple fellas that came up to the plane during the week that flew spits during the end and after ww2. They couldn't tell the difference , except when they sat in it and they said it was bigger than the orig inside, as far as commanding attention she is no slouch either every time I took off the whole show would stop and watch , she flies great no bad habits , so until some of the people on here actually fly the plane I think they shouldn't have such a ****ty attitude about it.just my little take:ok:

[mary meagher]

Unimo55 raises a point I havn't seen elsewhere. Is this replica strong enough to throw around properly? In WWII, Spitfires were flown by young lads trained in Tiger Moths, then possibly a few hours in a more demanding type, and after a very short apprenticship were dogfighting the Nazi intruders. The original Spitfires could not be that difficult to handle for the original few, who were probably considerably younger than those who will be able to afford and fly the replicas.

[F1-69]

+6 -4 that enough for me:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree, yes there are aerobatics that need more than +6/-3, but most of manage to enjoy ourselves quite enough within those numbers. Personally I start to feel distinctly uncomfortable beyond that and leave it to the sort of hooligans who enjoy that stuff.

G

[Morraine]

Mk24 last genuine Spitfire. Mk25 75 percent replica, Mk26 80 percent replica, Mk26b 90 percent replica.
Mk26b with 430hp LS2 naturally aspirated Chev V8 first flew late 2008.
3500 ft per minute climb off the deck. 240 knots/280mph/440kmh
650kgs empty weight.
Next... Mk2b with a supercharged LS series V8 with approx 600 HP???????
As with the V6 naturally aspirated and then supercharged V6
You do the math!!!!!
Affordable for the 'average' bloke, easy to maintain.
Grace Spitfire hugely expensive to run and maintain,insure and will probably become increasingly more difficult to keep in the air as time passes and beuracracy and red tape becomes insurmountable.
See the late Alex Henshaws comment on the Supermarine website......

IMHO I think Mike should be commended for what he has achieved...the only person who has successfully manufactured an all metal Spitfire whether it be a replica or not since 1948.
The passion and determination this man has put into building this wonderful replica is beyond belief and anyone who thinks this Spitfire is a pretender should very quickly go and find an owner who is willing to take them for a flight and experience one of these machines first hand.
Carolyn Grace should do exactly that as well!!!
Cheers

[F1-69]

burnett tx airshow this sat ill be there with high lady , but i dont think it will close mouths cause when she breathes fire jaws will drop

[Captain Gadget]

Hi F1-69

I dropped you a PM the other day - please have a look before you go off jaw-dropping at Burnett, Tx!

Gadget

[Say again s l o w l y]

I wonder what Carolyn would think of the Thunder Mustang then...

I know Carolyn and had a hand in the initial training of her son, she is generally very nice, but I'm afraid in this letter she's not come across very well at all...

[F1-69]

Some people get kinda crazy on this stuff, I have over 13000 hr and I have flown many planes , I race at Reno , I'm not fluffin my own pillow but this airplane is really fun to fly , no bad habits . When she flies people don't go oh it's a replica they see and hear a spitfire, if you go to aafo.com you can see pics

[Bushebiggles]

I am also a member of the Enstone groups and a keen PPL, I saw this as an opportunity to fly an Icon, even if not full size. I have seen the first taking shape, but still 6 months form flying status. The other two seem to lack members and enthusiam to get the projects started.
With the support shown on the forum, are there none to join and give impetus to geting these legends airbourne

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The B Word said:

Mine was built in Hinckley and looks like a Bonnie, sounds like a Bonnie (with the aftermarket Triumph pipes) and has better performance than an old Bonnie.

But it isn't a Bonnie.

This is:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/DSC03711res.jpg

Mine's a real Spitfire (old, full of chracter). The modern copy of the Bonnie from Hinckley is a modern characterless bike. A Mk26!

For comfortable fast long distance I have a modern bike as well (Japanese - little character but does the job well). The Bonnie is for characterful bimbles.

[India Four Two]

In WWII, Spitfires were flown by young lads trained in Tiger Moths, then possibly a few hours in a more demanding type, and after a very short apprenticship were dogfighting the Nazi intruders.

For a first hand account by one of these "young lads", read First Light by Geoffrey "Boy" Wellum. He flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain, aged 19.

The best book by a WWII pilot that I have read. :ok:

[Nervous SLF]

I certainly have no wish to offend you and I hope none is taken from my next few lines but.

The bike you have posted the picture of is indeed a fine looking machine. However for someone my age it isn't quite
a proper "Bonnie" as it has a front disc brake but much more importantly the rear brake pedal and therefore the gear pedal are now on
the wrong side. The original bikes were made properly with the gear pedal on the right hand side with the rear brake pedal
on the left. ALL the fault of the Americans who insisted. I disliked riding machines with that configuration as it felt
out of balance. I always considered braking with right hand - left foot was much more natural, rather like when walking
your left arm moved forward when your right leg did the same.

However I am still a tad jealous that you have one as SWMBO refuses to allow me to have a motorcycle.

Please ride with care, there are too many idiots around who say after an accident that "I didn't see the motorcycle"
mainly because they are too stupid to be driving IMHO

[stickandrudderman]

There are plenty of idiot motorcyclists around who seem to think that they are invincible.
A motorcycle is a great tool for zipping in and out of traffic, but very few motorcyclists understand how to do it with the car driver and therefore their own safety in mind.
I do consider myself reasonably well qualified to talk on behalf of both camps but I sense a soap-box moment coming on and am off to take my medication.......

[Say again s l o w l y]

More people are killed and injured in bike crashes that involve no other vehicle than those that involve SMIDSY moments in the UK.

What that has to do with a Mk26 Spitfire replica I have no idea though!

[F1-69]

Check out nov issue of kitplanes magazine we made the cover and a 14 page write up

[Squeegee Longtail]

Mods - please close this thread!!

It is now nothing more than a Mk26 fanclub.

It started as - Spitfire Mk26- real or not? It has been established that it is not, never will be.

Good enough (for some) in it's own right, but not a "real" Spitfire.

End of story. Move along now.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh do pipe down.

[F1-69]

The company owns the name supermarine , as given to them by the family of supermarine who thinks the 26b is beautiful, sooooo it's a supermarine spitfire mk26b , take that for whatever it's worth , and a very nice 14 page article in nov kitplanes with me flying it so I'm a little bias

[500N]

Squeegee Longtail

It may not be "real" in whoever's eyes, but look at it from another perspective.

With so few Original spitfires flying, it may be the ONLY chance a person, child, enthusiast, son or daughter of an airman killed in the war has
to see the grace, lines, speed and flying ability of an aircraft that
resembles a Spitfire (or is a Spitfire depending on your point of view).

And if that gets another person into the flying fold, even better.

I collect original old firearms and do to an extent look down
on copies but, it allows others to get into the sport who then
progress upwards to owing originals.

[A and C]

This thread is just a storm looking for a teacup.

[abgd]

Three thought experiments:

1) A company makes Spitfires to the original blueprints, with a few materials changes to sidestep the corrosion problems and a minimal number of other safety-related changes to the original design.

2) In a parallel universe, the war ends in 1942 and 15,000 redundant Spitfire pilots return to a prosperous peacetime. Jets aren't developed, so the RAF holds on to its piston fighters. Supermarine decides to tweak the design to make it more economic and practical for nostalgic private pilots, and to avoid completely disbanding the workforce.

3) Supermarine carries on making Spitfires into 1948, though most never see conflict and are of a type that never flew in WWII.

Would any of these aircraft be real Spitfires?

[Crash one]

Yes they would. "Spitfire" is not dependent on where or when they were used. It is dependent on the current Mk/spec that the ORIGINAL manufacturer puts on them.
If some bloke called Henry Ford (not the original), builds a plastic copy of a Mustang with a Fiat 500 engine, is that a "real" one?
Item one would depend on the licence/approval from the original manufaturer.

[Rod1]

But the kit manufacturer is now the original manufacturer – he bought the rights to Supermarine.

Rod1

[cockney steve]

So, we have the ford Capri.....this wasa cult car in the 70's, but to some, the REAL ford capri, is the Consul Classic/375 Capri of '61-'64.

"the car you always promised yourself" caused a sensation (and a lot of pubescent schoolboy wet-dreams) when it appeared in 1969. (mark 2 introduced '74, mk3 '78 to '86 ) BUT surely it's NOT a "proper" Capri?- production of that ended five years earlier!

To me, a Spitfire will always be a WW2 Merlin -powered machine(not a Griffon!) but we have to accept that trade-names are bought and sold, together with designs etc. the Mk. 26 is NOT a "traditional" "authentic" "original" Spitfire.
It's a 21st. Century model that bears a close resemblance to the "heritage" machine....call it a pastiche if you will, it's still a Spitfire,-just not THE Spitfire!

[Crash one]

But the kit manufacturer is now the original manufacturer – he bought the rights to Supermarine.


He may have bought the rights to the name Supermarine, but he cannot be the original.
Shirley it is a contradiction in terms, how can anything (become) an original?

[TheiC]

I had the immense pleasure of being at Duxford, only a day or two after the beautiful restored Mk I Spitfire was rolled out. I was allowed to observe it very closely, but did not ask to touch.

It seemed tiny, but over-aweing me was its history, not its size. My father fought in WW2, along with his brothers-in-arms and their opposers, far too many of whom did not outlive that conflict.

That sense of history lives on through the Marks, as it does in so much other wartime artefact. We see, and when lucky, can touch, the results of furious efforts to advance technology in the name of freedom.

Do the manufacturers of the Mk XXVI think that their product sits in the same family?

[IanPZ]

Just read this thread, and have come to three conclusions...

1. Everyone who owns something (whether spitfire, triumph bonnie, or a conker on a string) seems to be convinced that the only 'real' one is the same as theirs, and anything else is not real....not a surprise really, as it helps create a sense of elitism (not meant purjoratively, just literally). I can understand that, but it's all a matter of perspective.

2. Surely a real mk26b spitfire is exactly what it is. It certainly isn't a 'real' mk24, but then the mk24 isn't a 'real' mk IX

3. I wish I could read the article F1 mentions, but can't find a copy of kit plane in any of my local newsagents...Doh!!! Any ideas where I can get one? (am in the uk)

[BEagle]

The so-called Spitfire Mk26 is simply a scale model of the true aircraft.

Just as the Isaacs Fury was a 70% replica of the original Hawker Fury, this 'Spitfire' is a 75-90% replica of the original Vickers-Supemarine Spitfire.

To pretend that 'the Mk26B is a new mark of Spitfire from Supermarine' is simply self-delusion.

When is the 'Spitfire squadron' at Enstone now expected to take to the air? I wish them the very best of good luck, but I'm afraid that I have my doubts.

[aviate1138]

Having built a few kit aircraft for myself I doubt if one of the actual MK26A or B Spitfire builders regards their projects as anything other than a scale replica of a charismatic aircraft and nothing more.

For sure the main spar is no replica of the original ones!

Watching a Mk24B being built near Blackbushe I can see it isn't a 'fastbuild' type of kit.

Better a well built scale Spitfire than no Spitfire at all. The French Mosquito replica is better than no Mosquito at all.

But for the hairs on the back of the neck/lump in throat stuff real Merlins propelling real Spitfires and Mosquitos, Lancasters has it every time. :)

[BEagle]

aviate1138, I would hope that the folks building their scale replicas agree with you.

But there are some out there who insist that an aeroplane is something which it is not. I once encountered some pilot in the USA who insisted that the ex-Luftwaffe Piaggio P149D trainer he owned was a 'Focke-Wulf warbird'.....

OK, it might have been licence built by Focke-Wulf GmbH, but a mid-1950s trainer is hardly a 'warbird'. Which is a silly expression in any case!

[patowalker]

Fake Rolex watches come to mind. Even though they can keep accurate time, they are no more a real Rolex than a Mark 26 is a real Spitfire.

[Rod1]

“Fake Rolex watches come to mind. Even though they can keep accurate time, they are no more a real Rolex than a Mark 26 is a real Spitfire.”

But what if the fake manufacture bought Rolex out and carried on producing watches?

Rod1

[abgd]

There's a funny thing... I have met a handful of ex-WWII aircrew through my line of work (doctor). Just a random sample, which is something you never get on the telly.

One talked about flying with real enthusiasm and had flown for the rest of his life. Another talked about the P51 as 'my plane' but I got the impression he didn't particularly want to talk about the war, so I left it at that. He had told me he'd never flown again though. Another spoke fondly of Tiger Moths... but didn't volunteer anything about his time in bombers and again I didn't push. I was surprised at the diffidence with which many of them talked about their experiences. But of course, on reflection, honourable men don't enjoy killing other men or sending young men on their own side to their deaths. I think it's fair to say that none of them seemed to fetishize military hardware in the way people those of us never involved in the conflict sometimes seem to.

I'm sure those of you from an older generation will have met more of these men than I have, but I feel very privileged to have done so. They saved us from a very bleak future, as did many of their generation who fought in less glamorous ways. It's something that I think about most days.

In 15 years time, few if any of them will still be alive. My son is unlikely to meet any, ever. Eventually WWII and the holocaust will fade into history and the shadow they cast will be no greater than that of Genghis Khan, or Napoleon.

Whilst I will mourn them and remain glad to have heard a fraction of their stories, I will be pleased. Even now, WWII casts such a shadow that it's hard to travel anywhere in Europe and not be acutely aware of how the war continues to affect our daily lives and politics. Ultimately, only time will heal these rifts completely. And by then, we'll have other concerns.

When this day comes, the spitfire will be nothing more than a very nice aeroplane. And there's nothing wrong in that.

[patowalker]

Supermarine Aircraft only bought a name, not manufacturing expertise or capability. It is the same as Volkswagen buying Bugatti.

[Captain Gadget]

OK, I'll bite.

BEagle wrote:

When is the 'Spitfire squadron' at Enstone now expected to take to the air? I wish them the very best of good luck, but I'm afraid that I have my doubts.

Well, the first airframe, EN-A (now its RAF-approved tailcode) has now reached its anniversary in construction and is now approaching the first ground run stage:

http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad216/amyoungz/DSC03913.jpg

Hopefully she will fly around the turn of the year.

Now let me state at the outset that this is not a real Spitfire. If she were, she would cost £1.5-2m, would burn 15L of AVGAS per minute at full chat, would need 5 hours of costly, expert maintenance for every hour spent in the air - and I would only ever be able to watch her fly.

This is a 90% scale replica (rather a good one, if I say so myself, as an interested party). Its MTWA is only approximately 80% of that of a Bulldog but it has a much slicker airframe, retractable gear and 25% more power. It burns 38-40L of AVGAS per hour and will cruise all day at 150KIAS - faster if the mood takes you and your wallet will stand it.

It's the closest that mere mortals such as I can ever hope to get to the peerless original. If you're lucky enough to know someone who owns a genuine Spit, has deep enough pockets to operate and maintain it and has been let out of the looney bin for long enough to pass you the keys to the hangar, good luck to you (I know - and, sadly, have known - several that are/were, incidentally).

For the rest of us, this is as good as it gets. And, as one pilot who should know has already put it, it's the best fun you can have with your clothes on.Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire Mk.26b - YouTube

Tailwinds

Gadget :ok:

[Lone_Ranger]

The reasoning from defenders of the spit-thing being called a Spitfire seems to be something like.....................................
So what if it doesnt have a merlin, is smaller, has a different construction, less performance etc etc, its still a really nice plane

Yea great, so why try make it look like a Spitfire, call it a spitfire and buy the rights to the makers name?

Why not just make a really nice plane?

[BEagle]

Hopefully she will fly around the turn of the year.

That's great - don't forget to tell the Oxford Mail!!

But what about the other 'squadron' aircraft? How many are under construction?

[Lookleft]

I remember when the project first caught the attention of the aviation media and it was stated at the time that they were given permission to designate the replicas as Mk25 and Mk 26. My understanding is that the Me262 replicas in the US have been given factory serial numbers because they are so close to the original (but still replicas).

[fujii]

This thread has been hijacked by some overly precious armchair pilots. There a number of replica aircraft out there which use the original name. Mustang, FW190 to name two. There are also other aircraft with the name but no resemblance to the original. Mustang again, Texan etc.
It's easy to sit back and criticise but when these armchair experts get up off their backsides and buy a genuine Spitfire they will have paid for the right to complain. I'm sure that if given the chance to fly a MK 25/26 they wouldn't knock it back because of the name.

It reminds me of the story, real or not, when two enthusiasts were at an airshow and criticising the paint scheme detail on a warbird when a someone nearby (the owner) turned and asked them "what colour is yours?"

Meanwhile the MK25/26 owners are having more fun than you can poke a stick at.

[Captain Gadget]

BEags

There are currently 2 more airframes partially syndicated - EN-E and EN-J. Not sure of the latest syndicate numbers, but I do believe that some further shares have recently been taken up so we may be close to cutting metal on at least one of those. Hangar space is a limitation though; carrying out much of the build with the wings fitted (as has been the case with EN-A) may be a luxury that cannot be repeated for the later frames (the wings are removable for transport and only actually need to be fitted for rigging of the ailerons and flaps; I understand that most of the remainder of the build can be done with them removed and stored separately). I'm also told that so much has been learned by the EN-A build team that they anticipate much quicker completion of the second and subsequent aircraft; that said, however, she is a stressed-skin monocoque like the original and there is hardly a straight line on her, so it isn't exactly Airfix or Lego!

I believe that there is a lot of pent-up interest that is currently sitting on various fences - having doubts, exactly like you, BEags. When EN-A flies (and I'm sure the media will be there in force, not just the Oxford Mail!) I anticipate that we will see a step change in pace on the project as a whole. In the mean time, we syndicate members-in-waiting have little choice but to sit on the sidelines, do our LAA metalwork courses (sensibly a mandatory requirement for tin-bashing novices like me) and wait for the remaining slots to fill up. Doh.

BEags, following your (as always) extremely pertinent and helpful advice on revalidating my lapsed PPL, I am now in the process of reacquainting myself with the mighty 'Dog and (weather permitting, which so far it hasn't been) sharpening my aerobatics and formation skills in anticipation.

With luck (and I stress that this is purely my personal view) there could be 3 ac flying by the end of 2013.

Oh, and well said, fujii!

Gadget :ok:

[BEagle]

Well, it'd certainly be great to see a 3-ship of MK26 aeroplanes flying together in 2013; let's hope that will catalyse interest and more will then follow.

As the MK26 is a non-EASA Annex II aeroplane, there will be no need for an aerobatic rating; however, any pilots wishing to conduct aerobatics on the MK26 would be strongly recommended to take the AOPA/BAeA Basic Aerobatic Course if they have no previous aerobatic experience.

[Captain Gadget]

BEags

Once again, good advice. However I should add that, since no Mk26Bs are yet flying in the UK, and despite the manufacturer's claimed +6/-4 limited aerobatic clearance (limited because the engine has no inverted oil system), the Mk 26B will not be cleared for aeros in the UK until and unless the LAA says otherwise.

However, hope springs eternal...

Gadget :ok:

[Unusual Attitude]

Chap at my local airfield has a Mk26, I believe it was bought from Aus and shipped to the UK where he flew it on its Aus reg for a while and was able to fly aeros in it. As soon as it got transferred onto the LAA he had to stop, crazy eh, same aircraft, same airspace just different paperwork.....

Have the same issue with my own aircraft where its fully aerobatic everywhere in the world other than the UK!

Regards

UA

[minesastella]

http://vimeo.com/53429216

[F1-69]

I have about 50 hr in our two now, I fly them at many air shows and museum flyins , it's a 90% scale airplane and about 90% of the people that see it love it, the other diehards still like it but the same bull about not being real, the problem is find one flying to bring to an airshow, here is the cool thing I fly mine to an airshow, fly in the show give a few rides , and then don't have to work on a thing, she is a blast

[Squeegee Longtail]

The thread's title is -

Spitfire Mk 26 - real or not real?

it is not entitled -

Spitfire Mk 26 - good or not?

That's a completely different question entirely.

F1-69 when you go to those shows, do you tell everyone it's a "real" Spitfire?

[Say again s l o w l y]

A thread's title bears no resemblence to what is actually contained within the thread. As anyone who's ever used a web forum will be able to explain.

Everyone knows that the Mk 26 isn't a "real" spitfire. No-one is pretending that it is.

[Floppy Link]

Not "exactly" true...I overheard one from the local field talking to a big ATC unit - on being told "pass your message" he replied "(Reg) is a Spitfire etc etc - no hint of the word replica at all.

Must have felt good knowing that all the airline pilots on frequency were thinking "ooh a Spitfire"

I do want one though...

[Rod1]

The size has now gone up to 90%, wonder if there is a plan for 100%?

Rod1

[patowalker]

That would not please present owners.

[Richard Westnot]

If it looks like a Spitfire, why not just fly it like a Spitfire whether original or not ?

It looks a blast at a fraction of the cost.

[Barcli]

clearly the sibson one is clearly cleared for aeros clearly from the clear video above.......

[ZeBedie]

clearly:rolleyes:

[F1-69]

I do a show with ours and I have a low level acro waiver , it loops and rolls very well, oddly enough on the back of my waiver it says supermarine spitfire

[Obi_Wan]

I order to address earlier posts, the reason the originals were (still are) trickier to fly is because of the way they were made. Over-engineered for reliability to account for variability due to the build process, i.e. war-time, and to allow those early pilots with very little training to make a good fist of flying it, and to be able to get it back on the ground in one piece, despite having less training hours than most newly qualified PPLs these days. Current copies don't need the reinforcing for machine guns either!

From those who I've heard of who have flown both, (not many to chose from nowadays) it is clear that the 90% copy flies the way the original ones did on a good day.

Aside from the legal complexity, whether it deserves the name is down to subjective personal opinion. The current Healey 3000 "replica" has a space frame chassis, ABS brakes and reliability the original could never match. Some say it's better, (technically it is) others say it doesn't have the character of the original, which depends on your definition of character!. On the legal side, Healey have sold them the Healey Motor Company name to market it as the HMC 3000.

Same goes for Vanwall. The current replica, or reproduction, as it is called, goes faster and handles better. What upsets purists, and outrages me is that you can spec it with a Ferrari engine. The very team that Vanwall were set up to beat. And did.

Can you call the Mk26 a Spitfire, you can if it matters to you. Think of it another way, how many people call their vacuum cleaner a Hoover? Tens of thousands more then Mr. Dyson would be happy with. Less emotive, but same legal implication.

As has been written in several posts, most currently flying Spitfires have been rebuilt so many times can they genuinely be original? If they can, then are the current Hurricane copies/reproductions (100% scale and built to the same drawings and methods) more genuine than restored Spitfires, as those Hurricanes are not restored and rebuilt, but are fabricated as they were done all those years ago?

I can only imagine my old CO telling us to "buckle up and fly the darn thing" if he were still here to vent his wrath. If you've got the stick in your hand, that view out of the window, and THAT wing profile to look at, the emotive side of you really doesn't care what name it carries. If it does, you're flying for very different reasons from me.

Old Ben

[Captain Gadget]

Well said, Obi Wan.

May the Force be with you.

Gadget :ok:

[F1-69]

I smell a Nobel peace prize in the works for ob1:O

[Crash one]

I don't think the 90% copy flies the way the original ones did in as much as 300+ mph. Or am I wrong again?

[Rod1]

Having followed this thread for some time I agree the Mk26 if a fake, as it was not designed by the original designer. The original prototype Spit was designed by Mitchel, who then died. All the production versions were modified aircraft done by a different designer. The only original Spit is the prototype; all the others are fakes designed by others.;)

Rod1

[SpitfirePerth]

90% Scale is the linear dimension which means the effect on volume and therefore weight will be 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.729 i.e. 72.9%

Similarly 80% gives 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.512 i.e. 51.2%

That's very good. My mk26 weighs 800kg approx. WWII mk1 was about 2000 - 3000 kg, mk24 was 7000kg!

A thread's title bears no resemblence to what is actually contained within the thread. As anyone who's ever used a web forum will be able to explain.

Everyone knows that the Mk 26 isn't a "real" spitfire. No-one is pretending that it is.

Real or not, great question. If you think not, come with me through the hangar, close your eyes as we walk towards the mk26 spitfire. If you walk into something & it hurts, we'll call it Scotch Mist.....

The mk25, mk26 and mk26b are aircraft in the image of original spitfires. They are not true replicas. I am guided by definitions of real & replica, as well as the curator of the Scottish Museum of Flight. They are never to be portrayed as "a genuine warbirds" at air shows or otherwise, but they have and will enthuse young & old alike, helping keep the memory alive.

As it says above, what colour is yours?!

Iain

[Brad2523]

Well after all that I still prefer the hurricane.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I amused myself a couple of winters ago by creating a replica hurricane on paper. I set myself the target of 100% scale, modern technology and reliability, flyable on Hurricane pilots notes with only numbers changed.

If at some point I have 2 spare years and about £150k + money to live on, I might just do the detail design and build as well!

Until then, the Mk.26 is what's out there, and power to the collective elbows of the designers, builders and pilots.

G

[abgd]

Personally I'd actually prefer a mini Sea-Fury. And a subscale Vampire.

[Danny42C]

Blast from the Past ! (but Johnnie-Come-Lately has only just spotted this Thread - usual playground "Military Aviation">"Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII").

The B word (your #1),
...the narrow track undercarriage that was always a handful...
Not on the real thing ! Did 75 hrs in summer '42 on Mks.I and II at OTU, sent to India (where there were no Spitfires then), went back in after war in '49, flew 300 hrs Mk.XVI (20 Sqn) and a few on XIVs and 22s.

The general rule was/is (on tail-draggers): wide track, good - narrow track, watch it !. The Harvard (which we'd nearly all come from) would do a graceful pirouette at the drop of a hat. But the Spit had beautiful manners (on ground and in air), never heard of anyone (inadvertently) ground-looping.
...PS. yes, I know Mrs Grace lost her husband and she finished his Spitfire and now flies it in his memory. But does that excuse her opinion in the letter?...
I think so. Her point is valid, maybe firmly expressed, but still good.

There have never been any full size Spitfire replicas AFAIK (what would you use to replace a Merlin ?), plenty of full sized plastic fakes as gate guardians, of course. And a variety of nice downsized flying models of Spits (wasn't there one a few years ago that used a Jaguar 5300 V-12 ?), but that's all they are, whether or no you can shoehorn a man into them (there wasn't much spare room in the real thing, come to think of it).

That leaves the Mk.IX(T). Apart from supplying the 20 (?) Mk.IXs for the conversion, the RAF (wisely) had nothing further to do with them. Any military pilot of wings standard could jump in a Spit and fly it away (as thousands of us did). ♫....Why was it born at all ?..♫

I think the buyers, Irish, Indian, Belgian (any more ?), who were rebuilding their Air Forces post war, saw them as a cheaper (sterling) altenative to the second-hand Harvards (needing dollars). They were buying bargain basement late model Spits anyway, these should be the ideal advanced trainer for them. The Grace Spitfire, is, of course, one of these hand-me-downs.

Except that it didn't work (note that the BBMF has chosen as a lead-in for their new boys, not one of these, but - a Harvard !)

Will have a good long read through this interesting Thread and put oar in from time to time, if I may, and if Moderator will have me.

Danny42C.

[Silvaire1]

There have never been any full size Spitfire replicas AFAIK (what would you use to replace a Merlin ?)

An Allison...

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/images/news/2015%20ehl/7-15-2015-homebuiltspit2-960.jpg

https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/2015-eaa-airventure-oshkosh/07-15-2015-homebuilt-replica-spitfire-to-appear-in-oshkosh

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=1940K

[India Four Two]

And a subscale Vampire.That might be a tight squeeze!

I had a flight in a T11 in 1968 at Shawbury when I was 21. Two years ago I had a few more flights while in NZ. Great fun - "Fly it like a 250kt motorglider!"

I wrote to a friend that the cockpit seemed more cramped than I remembered from my halcyon days.

He charitably suggested that perhaps I was flying a 7/8 scale Vampire! ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Now designing a replica vampire would be a lot of fun, although I have no idea what engine you'd want to put in it.

There was the Sadler Vampire in the 1980s, but that can probably be improved upon!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadler_Vampire

G

[treadigraph]

I think the Allison-powered Spitfire in Silvaire's post is the Jurca designed full scale replica. Looks great! Clive Du Cros' prototype Spitfire replica was also full scale.


A scale A-10 might be fun!

[Danny42C]

Silvaire1 (#148),

I'm glad to be proved wrong ! Looks fabulous; no reason it shouldn't handle like the real thing (which is just about the nicest aircraft which I ever flew). Never had a IX, but, as you know, the XVI which I knew best is just a IX powered by the General Motors' "Packard Merlin". Impossible to tell the difference unless you took the engine panels off.

Wish I'd had a uniform as smart as that when I was a Sgt-Pilot (and I had a pair of Morland "Glastonburies" just like that).

Danny.

[Silvaire1]

Danny, glad you enjoyed the photo. I checked out the replica one evening before dusk on the flight line at a fly-in, and it's quite an accomplishment. You'd like it! The builder flies it all over the place and I think that's remarkable too.

My father was a Supermarine designer until 1957 and is still with us, sometimes telling his quite interesting stories of that time. Tonight it was about running across the runway at Eastleigh to get lunch at the canteen, at age 17 or something, and almost being run over by a plane on short final. Good stuff.

[India Four Two]

Now designing a replica vampire would be a lot of fun, although I have no idea what engine you'd want to put in it.
The Goblin is 50" in diameter, so 7/8 would be 44". Surely there must be a small turbo jet that would fit?

With regards to Spitfire replicas, I saw this beautiful 7/10 scale Mk I at the Springbank airshow last year:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/Spitfire%20I%20IMG_2157_zps2gnxcwvq.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/Spitfire%20I%20IMG_2156_zps2fcdxpcl.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/Spitfire%20I%20IMG_2160_zps6clbkls9.jpg

Apart from the tailwheel and the prop, if there was nothing nearby, you would be hard pressed to tell it from the real thing.