How rich to own and operate a Spitfire?

[QDMQDMQDM]

I have been doing a bit of daydreaming recently. What is the consensus on how rich you need to be to own and operate a Spitfire, say, 50 hours per year?

Reckon £1m purchase price and £2500 per flying hour.

I would say you need to be worth roughly £10m so that it doesn't hurt too much.

Thoughts? Perhaps some Spitfire owners may like to comment....?!

QDM

[Blinkz]

Sounds about right, altho you would hopefully be able to get some money if you display it or allow it to be used in films or something.

I have to admit to giving this some thought myself :p Shares anyone? :D

[BRL]

The insurance for one is about 50k a year now I believe.

[MichaelJP59]

But if you'd bought a Spitfire 20 years ago, how much money would you have made as valuations have shot up.

Don't know if that's enough to offset the maintenance costs though.

[QDMQDMQDM]

50K insurance sounds about right for something like this -- it's only 5% of the hull value and what's the chance of a Spit flying for 20 years with no mishaps at all?

Hmm, maybe £2.5K per flying hour is too low.

QDM

[Small Rodent Driver]

When I made an idle enquiry to a Spit owner recently, I was told that it runs at about £3.5k per hour.

Insurance circa £50k

Appx 8hrs maintenance to 1 hrs flying

Merlin Engine lifed at 500hrs with rebuild figures of circa £85k before anything needed.

Bit out of my reach sadly:{

[18greens]

It makes Jet ownership look cheap. Hunter share £20,000 plus about £1500 per hour to run it. (and its faster)

[OlaM]

"I was told that it runs at about £3.5k per hour.

Insurance circa £50k

Appx 8hrs maintenance to 1 hrs flying

Merlin Engine lifed at 500hrs with rebuild figures of circa £85k before anything needed."


Mother of God. Makes me wonder how much money passed before my eyes at Flying Legens this year.

[Maxflyer]

Squadron Leader Skipper: How many hours in Spits?
Simon: Ten and a half, sir.
Squadron Leader Skipper: Let's make it eleven, before Jerrie has you for breakfast.
Pilot Officer Archie: [Watching the embarrassed pilot follow Skipper to his plane] Spring chicken to Skyhawk in one easy lesson.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

****ehawk, actually, Maxflyer. But good line, none the less. :ok:

And dont forget....

"You can teach....... monkeys to fly better than that!"


Oh, and ......

"Takka, takka, takka, takka........"


SSD

[tmmorris]

Anyone know, by the way, whose the Spitfire was that was circling over Abingdon/Radley/river Thames on Wednesday 7th at about 4.30pm? It made my afternoon.

Tim

[QDMQDMQDM]

So if it is £3.5K per hour and you were able to do as much as 50hrs per year, then you are talking £175K, say £200K total to cover incidentals, per year. Maybe you could skimp it down to £150K.

Even on £10m capital it must feel like quite a lot of money. I mean, you'd have to really want to do it.

If you were worth £50m, on the other hand, you could just do it on a whim.

QDM

[treadigraph]

However you finance it, at the end it's money spent with no guaranteed return other than pure pleasure... which has to be the main aim!

I believe a major UK operator would have little interest in restoring warbirds if he - or they - couldn't fly. Hard to argue with the sentiment in my opinion.

If I had a few mil in the bank I'd buy one, or P-51, or a Bearcat - and hopefully one day be able to fly it as well. Though I'd be worried about trashing it.

One can dream QDM3, never does anybody any harm!

"I see them. Bloody marvellous!"

[QDMQDMQDM]

When I buy my two-seater we'll have a little lottery among the regulars on this board for a flight.

Promise!

QDM

[Rans Flyer]

The closest were likely to get is buying a mk26 in kit form.

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/

2 seats, all metal and you maintain it yourself via the PFA.

Now were did I leave that spare fifty grand….. ;-)

[A and C]

The biggest problem with flying these old aircraft in the UK is the CAA attitude to letting people pay for flights.

The CAA regard all passenger flights as "public transport" and so are not permmited this has the effect of making it very hard for opperators of these types to cover there costs with displays and film work.

The big problem is the buy a t-shirt and get a flight brigade , this is clearly a way of getting around the law and leads to this type of flying not being properly regulated.

It is leagal to charge for pleasure flights in permit aircraft in some parts of the EEC and so some of the more reputable opperators are trying to change the law.
Some parts of the CAA would like to see the law changed so that the practice can be properly regulated but the leagal department seems reluctant to change things.

I know one warbird company that is of the opinion that if pleasure flights became leagal there financial problems would cease overnight.

The question that I have to ask the CAA is do they think that it is better to have a warbird industry running on a shoestring with some opperators by-passing the law or to permit a "sub-public transport" passenger flying so that the industry can properly finance its self and the CAA can then be in a position to properly regulate such flying.

[KCDW]

Caroline Grace runs her Spit as a business doesn't she?

Presumably she makes money out of it, but reading some of the figures bandied about, it's hard to see how!

[IO540]

Surely for the purchase price one could get an ex military turboprop trainer. Similar perf to early Spitfires, and far cheaper to run per hour.

Unless I am missing something obvious, if the figure of 8hrs maintenance per hour airborne is true, a Spitfire must be (statistically speaking) constantly very close to developing a fault. Unless it is purely preventative work. What takes the 8 hours?

[J.A.F.O.]

IO

You miss the point. Not everything in life can be measured by the figures on a balance sheet.

You can buy something as fast as a Spitfire.

You can buy something more comfortable for touring than a Spitfire.

You can buy something with better aerobatic performance than a Spitfire.

But it wouldn't be a Spitfire.

To see one, to hear one, to sit in one and take in the smells whilst contemplating what those young men were doing in them 65 years ago this week.

And, I am sure, to fly one.

That is why you buy a Spitfire, not because it goes quickly and makes financial sense.

Edited to add - Even though I'd prefer a Hurricane.

[treadigraph]

What J.A.F.O said.

I actually don't are whether it's a Spitfire, Mustang, Bearcat, whatever... these aeroplanes have a personality way above any other.

Couple of years ago at Duxford Rob Davies and Taff Smith were getting airborne in their respective P-51s - the noise of the Merlins raised the hairs on - and sent a shiver down - my back... I hear that sound a lot, but on that occasion no one else airborne, no commentary, just that Merlin sound. Wow. And I prefer Griffon powere Spitfires. Turbines? Pah!

Yes, and I'd like a Hurricane too! And a Tigercat... and a huge win on the lottery so we can all have a go.

[Confabulous]

Anyone know if the story that the Hurricane was negatively stable in pitch is true?

[IO540]

Wot you mean like a Tomahawk?

[Lowtimer]

Haven't flown either personally but from reputable historical and modern reports quite a lot of Spitfires and Hurricanes are / were unstable in pitch. There is a lot of variation between individual aircraft, not just because of major mark differences but also because of individual bits of kit fitted or not fitted. During WW2 a great deal of hardware tended to be loaded into aeroplanes over their service lives, most of it steadily moving the CG back. Radios, IFF sets, extra this, bolt-on that, etc. The Shuttleworth Sea Hurricane was seriously tail-heavy and unstable in pitch until they got rid of the tail hook and replaced it with a lightweight composite replica. The consensus on a well set up Hurricane is that it is just about pitch-stable in most modes of flight but very weak, possibly slightly divergent in a full-power climb. Deakin's Avweb piece on flying the Hurricane here is quite illuminating.
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185849-1.html
As for the maintenance requirement... well, it depends what you call maintenance. You're not having to re-arm them and re-charge the oxygen systems these days. but on the other hand you are paying a great deal more attention to care of the engine and prop than would have been the case in WW2. If you have to fly through a rain shower with wooden prop bladed, you may well end up having a pre-emptive refinish of the blades rather than end up having to replace them at hideous expense in a few months' time. During WW2 nobody needed to think like that. Lots of pre-heating, oil analysis, a near-fanatical inspection regime, and a generally pre-emptive approach to anything going even slightly wrong, for wear, for corrosion etc., is what keeps a highly tuned machine going safely, for which the expected service life at time of original manufacture was a maximum of few years and a few hundred flying hours. Just the cleaning, in order to spot any unusual dribbles or stains, or any defects that might be hidden, and to keep the aeroplane looking nice, is a major task.
According to a P-51 crew chief in Flight Journal here - http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/mustang/crewchief1.asp
a P-51, which he regards as a low-maintenance aeroplane compared to a P-38 or P-47 still takes lots of TLC even when new. His comment on a maximum plug life of 15 to 20 hours is, just by itself, a fairly serious source of labour hours, when you consider the time taked to remove, properly inspect, clean, gap and refit 24 plugs without damaging anything, including yourself, in the process.

[High Wing Drifter]

Lowtimer,
but on the other hand you are paying a great deal more attention to care of the engine and prop than would have been the case in WW2. Lots of pre-heating, oil analysis, a near-fanatical inspection regime, and a generally pre-emptive approach to anything going even slightly wrong
This reminds me a comment that Martin Brundle made after the recent Imola GP where there wasn't a single retirement inspite of engines needing to last two full weekends. He basically commented that i appears that previous year's unreliability problems stemmed from the constant preventive maintenance :uhoh: Probably apples and oranges, but food for thought (pardon the pun).

[Lowtimer]

I think that's a very good point in some contexts. Assembling and disassembling things, it often makes them go wrong or wear out, especially if they are engineered to very fine tolerances as modern machinery often is. I used to rebuild crossflow Ford engines in Mark 1 and Mark 2 Escorts, A-series lumps and old XKs all the time, and with some love and care it was not very hard to make one that fitted together better, ran smoother and lasted longer than they came out of the factory. But there's no way I'd take apart the major moving components of my 94,000 mile BMW diesel straight-six, even if I had the facilities. I might in the fullness of time replace the injectors but I don't think it would be improved for a hand rebuild that included re-ringing, replacing the main bearings, or any of the things we used to do quire routinely. I'd never be able to hand-build an engine of that power and economy to be absolutely oil-tight and emissions compliant the way it is now, it would just not be as good as it has become by running-in from a factory build. But for lower tolerance old-fashioned things, pre CNC tooling, machines characterised by deliberate oil consumption, big parts and grease nipples everywhere, they can usefully absorb quite a lot of maintenance without being seriously disassembled, and indeed be designed to receive it.
There's a really good article on "disturbing things" by Bud Davidsson, here:
http://www.airbum.com/grassroots/GrassrootsKarma.html

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi all
Sometimes I wonder if those aircraft are over-maintained. After all,virtually all of them have been rebuilt with modern materials. There should be no reason why one couldn't operate them in a modern fashion,ie; leave out the excessive fettling and just fly them and fix what's actually broken,using an intelligent modern maintenance schedule. Perhaps people need to have a little more faith in aluminium and steel and a little less obsession with analysing everything to death.I can understand minding the engine carefully but surely there's scope for a bit more flexibility.
regards
TDD

[bingoboy]

Assuming you've the cash and will to buy and fly a Spitfire then surely the first hour is very expensive and every one after that a lot cheaper. (Unless the £50 insurance is of the by the hour type)

[yakker]

HWD, the reason the engines have been more reliable is not due to maintenance but the engineering design. At the cutting edge of technology parts are designed so the engine lasts one race, but with the new rules the penalty for engine failure is quite severe. As a for instance the cylinder head bolts are now made from different materials, different machine processes to make sure they do not fail, the cost of these bolts is 8 times the originals!

Lowtimer, if your BMW was being raced then the engine would benefit from being stripped and rebuilt, just as the Escort engines did. However the starting point would be better as modern parts are better quality and accuracy, but a road car engine is still only built to a standard. For instance, a crank from a modern engine is better balanced but still not as good as it could be, back to costs again.

With regard to aircraft engines, I do sometimes think we over maintain them. After all a Merlin engine has been run long enough to know its weaknesses, and surely these weaknesses are the only points we really need to keep an eye on. Our Yak had another engine fitted at 500 hours, when the 'old' engine was running well. In the USA they are run on condition, and have clocked thousands of hours with no problems.

[Dannyboyblue]

Well if anybody fancies a project,,,,,,,,

I have an 80% replica for sale, pm me if youre interested.

Chatting to mark hanna while he was refueling his spit in dundee in 1997 we chatted about costs, he said maitenance costs alone took 70% of his budget. I think he put 350 litres of avgas in for a 2 hour flight! They are expensive beasts.

Good old mark, sorely missed