Spitfire Mk 26 - real or not real?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South-East, United Kingdom
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
. 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 :-)
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
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............
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.....
but she can still claim and be proud that she carries on with Nick's dream.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
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!
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!
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.
In my opinion it's a ghastly parody of the original, but that's only my opinion. Others might like it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a ghastly parody of the original
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
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it the idea is to keep the spirit of the original alive.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we refrain from personal abuse here.
I'd love a go in a Spitfire 26 ... and a real one 
One doesn't negate the need for the other.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
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!
She needs to get a life.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: oxford
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
Do all the MK 26 have two seats??
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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
)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?????
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?????