Mk 26 spitfire
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.