Spitfire Mark 1a replica - with a few differences

[tartare]

A full size, flying carbon fibre replica of a Mk1 - underway in Adelaide.

A rare life-sized, operational replica of a WW11 Spitfire is taking shape in a Hobart shed - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-25/from-model-planes-to-life-sized-model-spitfire/9558988)

[megan]

underway in AdelaideSenior moment there tartare, Hobart. ;)

[TBM-Legend]

Nice headline pic of 41 Sqn Spitfire MkX11's....mit Griffons!

[tartare]

My apologies - an unforgivable geographic error!

[Bull at a Gate]

Another full size replica in Australia:

Replica Spitfire pilot soars with success after given okay to fly to work 365 days a year - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-21/replica-spitfire-pilot-soars-with-success-after-given-ok-to-fly/9571706)

This one flies!

[Buster Hyman]

Ha! What a coincidence. I just watched Guy Martins Spitfire on Netflix!

[Danny42C]

Lovely idea - but can never handle like the real thing - nothing can ever handle like a real one, and the Mk.1 and II, being the lightest, handled best of all.

The South American River sells facsimile Pilot's Notes for it, btw.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've never flown a real Spit, but clocked up 9 hours in an Australian Supermarine Mk.26 80% scale replica.

Some lengthy conversations afterwards with colleagues with 3/4 figure hour Spitfire time led me to conclude that it handled very like a real Spit, but flew at a completely different set of numbers. (Basically halve everything, half the climb rate, half the level flight speed, but also halve the take-off and landing distances was my conclusion).

G

[treadigraph]

Obviously much prefer the real thing but the best replica to date has to be the Jurca MJ-100 - full scale and looks fairly accurate, though it's a bit of a cross between a MkV and a MkIX!

The one at the link below has an Allison rather than a Merlin.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8529567

[KenV]

Since only the look and shape will be the same and everything else different (all the way down to using carbon fiber vs aluminum for the primary structure) who has done the loads analysis and strength engineering to ensure this thing is indeed flight worthy? And he's using a V8 car engine (looks probably like a small-block Chevy engine) rather than an aero engine? Who's done the analysis on that? How's he going to get this thing certified to fly, even in the Experimental category.

[tartare]

Well - I guess it'll either break up in flight - or go like a cut cat - or both!!

[cynicalint]

Perhaps he ought to be introduced to Mike Hughes in the Mojave desert, who just built, launched, rode and survived a rocket project which took him to 1876 feet altitude in an attempt to prove the earth is flat. They can compare notes.

[megan]

And he's using a V8 car engine (looks probably like a small-block Chevy engine) rather than an aero engine? Who's done the analysis on that?V8 is widely used, mostly seen in P-51 replicas and the Spitfire mentioned by Genghis.The South American River sells facsimile Pilot's Notes for it, btwAvailable for free on the net, as are most Spit marks, will dig out the link.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/l3kww2bk8q6sk/Pilot's_Notes

[Genghis the Engineer]

Since only the look and shape will be the same and everything else different (all the way down to using carbon fiber vs aluminum for the primary structure) who has done the loads analysis and strength engineering to ensure this thing is indeed flight worthy? And he's using a V8 car engine (looks probably like a small-block Chevy engine) rather than an aero engine? Who's done the analysis on that? How's he going to get this thing certified to fly, even in the Experimental category.

As it's Australia, presumably either Recreational Aviation Australia, or (more likely) the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, both of whom have CASA permissions to oversee amateur design/build/flight projects.

The Supermarine Mk.26 aeroplanes (http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/mk26b-90) went that route with some success. They developed V6 and V8 engines from automotive blocks also, which may be what this new project is using?

In the UK it would be the Light Aircraft Association or the British Microlight Aircraft Association - most countries have some similar structure.

G

[KenV]

As it's Australia, presumably either Recreational Aviation Australia, or (more likely) the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, both of whom have CASA permissions to oversee amateur design/build/flight projects.

The Supermarine Mk.26 aeroplanes (http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/mk26b-90) went that route with some success. They developed V6 and V8 engines from automotive blocks also, which may be what this new project is using?

In the UK it would be the Light Aircraft Association or the British Microlight Aircraft Association - most countries have some similar structure.
G
Those are kit planes. Has this builder considered why the kit planes cost so much more than the custom job he's building? Maybe because the kit designer/manufacturer has done the (expensive) loads/strength analyses and gone through the (expensive) certification process for their kits? Once this guy is done with his build, he's going to have to pay someone to verify his loads/strength numbers, not to mention his build methods and techniques, and submit them to the airworthiness authorities before he can even begin the certification process. And then he's got to complete the cert process. If he hasn't done a thorough job of documenting all the analyses and the build, he won't even be able to begin certification. None of this is quick and none of it is cheap. He may find that his "cheap" solution is way more expensive than the kit which has the advantage of spreading all those certification costs over multiple units. This guy might be producing a very detailed and "accurate" replica........of a non-flying Spitfire.

And about that V8. The GM LS series (Gen III small block) does not use a distributor. The photos of the V8 in this airplane has a distributor, meaning it is at best an LT series engine (Gen II small block). The LT has good performance, but not good durability. It was designed with a passenger car duty cycle in mind which spends 95% of its time at quarter throttle or less. A bad choice for an engine that must run continuously at higher throttle settings. It also has what appears to be a standard dual-bowl, double-pumper Holley carburetor. Again, good performance, but no carburetor heat, so a bad choice for an aero engine as it will tend to ice up. And will almost certainly be useless at zero G or less. There's a lot about this build that looks dodgy to me. But admittedly I'm thousands of miles removed and have precious little information to go on.

[Beez51]

Big block Chev engine not small block. Rocker covers are too wide for small block and Merlin are a supplier of aftermarket blocks and heads. Look like cast iron heads since they are painted. 500cu in plus. Good luck with the reduction gearbox. Great therapy to build but I'll go sick if I'm asked to test fly.

[KenV]

Big block Chev engine not small block. Rocker covers are too wide for small block and Merlin are a supplier of aftermarket blocks and heads. Look like cast iron heads since they are painted. 500cu in plus. Good luck with the reduction gearbox. Great therapy to build but I'll go sick if I'm asked to test fly.In retrospect, you appear to be right. The rocker covers not only appear too wide for a small block, but also appear to have three retaining screws on top and four on the bottom, which is unique to the Chevy big block. And the scary part is that all the big-block Chevy aero engine suppliers I could find used aluminum heads, not cast iron. So it appears that he's using an automotive version of the engine. Certainly a much cheaper option, but is it certifiable? And even if he got it certified, how long would it last in an aero application before it blew or needed overhaul? Looks like yet another short cut that may bite this fine craftsman in the end.