PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 16th Jan 2012, 10:47   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 61
Posts: 594
Counting seats

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

HP
Hairyplane is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 11:12   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,076
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.
gasax is online now   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 11:21   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South-East, United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Quote:
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 . 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 :-)
piperarcher is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 11:54   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11,193
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
Genghis the Engineer is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 12:03   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a bolt
Posts: 8,576
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............

Quote:
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.....
NutLoose is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 12:35   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 58
Posts: 798
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.
Justiciar is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 14:02   #27 (permalink)

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering in hyperspace and the FIR
Posts: 9,163
Well said that person!

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!
ShyTorque is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 14:09   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11,193
It can get sillier....

Stealth condoms shot down | Special Delivery | Find Articles

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 15:36   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 29
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.
vintagemember is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 15:47   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 58
Posts: 798
Quote:
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

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
Justiciar is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 17:05   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 70
Posts: 736
Quote:
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.
patowalker is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 17:20   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 50
Posts: 911
Quote:
Can we refrain from personal abuse here.
I already have refrained!

Quote:
I'd love a go in a Spitfire 26 ... and a real one
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.
stickandrudderman is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 17:37   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a bolt
Posts: 8,576
Quote:
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.
NutLoose is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 17:42   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 58
Posts: 798
Quote:
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

Probably a demonstration of stupidity for anyone to think that they can actually make money from aviation.
Justiciar is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 17:43   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: oxford
Posts: 81
Im not sure if most blondes will notice it is only 90% size!

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.
billiboing is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 18:00   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,006
Unhappy

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??
maxred is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 18:14   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 320
How many seats are there in the Grace Spitfire?

H
Heston is online now   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 18:18   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 11,193
I believe there are single and two seat versions.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 18:30   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 209
Spitfake 26

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

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 )
Squeegee Longtail is offline   Reply
Old 16th Jan 2012, 18:53   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,006
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?????
maxred is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 15:58.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network