What kit to build, Titan T-51D Mustang or Supermarine Spitfire Mk26B
 

As a kid I dreamed of becoming a pilot. Once I got my CPL (1990) a new dream introduced itself: fly a Spitfire. That seems to be just a tad far fetched. As my retirement closes in, the day before yesterday I started pondering on what to do in that future (still some 8 years from now if that date is not pushed back before I reach the age of 59).

And out of nowhere came this search for kit planes, one lead to the other and before I knew it, I stumbled over two highly intriguing kits: one made by a company called Titan, they offer a 75% scale replica of a Mustang P-51D, their replica is called T-51D. And a 90% scale replica of a Spitfire by a company called Supermarine, their 90% scale model kit is called Spitfire Mk26B. Now, I'm not a fool and do realize neither of the two come to get even close to the thrilling experience the real stuff must have given it's pilots.

There is a difference between the 220 kt VNE of the replica kit and the 389 top speed of the originals, but a plane that does a cruise of around 163 kt with a max service ceiling of 18.000 ft (oxygen!!) and a g load of +6 to -4 g does sound really thrilling to me. The only piston engine aircraft I ever got to fly that speed wise came close to that 220 kt Vne was a Beechcraft Baron BE58, I never dared loop or barrel that one, both replica's should be able to, the Mustang replica being somewhat slower that the Spitfire replica. The T-51 offers passengers much more view that the Spitfire..

I'm looking for the feedback from people that actually built either kit and flew them. I want to learn what these people ran in to building, what they would recommend future builders to do differently as they learned after they completed their kits, how it flies, how they do maintenance, what avionics from where and why, etc etc etc.

I'm utterly new to this forum, for now I'm not allowed to add pictures or URL's, Google is your friend finding pictures of mentioned kits.

I think the Titan Mustang looks far more pleasing to the eye than the Spitfire Mk26.

Agreed, Titan Mustang for me too! But obviously it’s down to personal choice.


Rob

Hi.

If you are in the UK, have you joined the Light Aircraft Association yet?

Both types are on their approved list of ‘Self Build’

Titan Mustang 355, Spitfire Mk26 324

I am sure you will get advice, and opinions on both.

Looks like you will have to join the NVAV (https://www.nvav.nl/home). You will have to have a chat with them to see if these kits can be built and flown here. Joining other associations such as the LAA or the EAA might certainly be worthwhile as they will have more experience with these types. Best thing to do in my view is find someone who will let you have a close up look at the type, perhaps even fly it, so that you can see if that is really what you're looking for. Discuss problems that cropped up during the build, etc.

Edit: on PPRuNe, you might consider asking this question in the Private Flying forum.

I have high single figure hours on the Mk.26, all solo. I know a lot of real Spitfire pilots and have chatted Spitfires with them.

Within its non-aerobatic restriction, the handling and general view out, and workload of the Mk.26 seems to be very representative of the real Spitfire. Performance-wise, halve all of the performance numbers. Halve the original 4000fpm climb rate, the 340mph level speed, but also the take-off and landing distances. The one I flew was well made, would be easy to manage as an aeroplane, although in generic terms I don't have good thoughts about Jabiru engines, this one gave me no trouble and looked and sounded well: I don't know about the Subaru (?) in the 26b. Most builders have done a rubbish job of replicating the original Spitfire cockpit, and I don't know why as this is not a massively difficult task. The undercarriage was very unreliable and I was regularly needing to recycle it - I don't know if that's endemic, or just that aeroplane that week. I didn't, but it would be a very easy aeroplane both to ground loop, and to put on its nose.

If I had the money, would I own a Mk.26b? I'd seriously consider it.

I'm afraid I've not even had a chance for a good look around the outside of a Titan Mustang, so can't offer a useful opinion on that.

G

One of our fellow PPRuNers has been test flying a Jurca MJ-10 3/4 scale Spitfire which looks very convincing with the right engine fitted. Unfortunately though it's a wooden plans build rather than a kit. The full scale MJ-100 looks even better and one is flying in the US with an Allison V1710 fitted - videos of it sound very nice!

Kit Fighters
 

To be honest neither of them really 'look right' and when you consider the cost and limitations I think a Yak or Zlin would be a better option.
The jurca options look better but have to be built from plans so there is a lot of work there.
Myself I always thought a 8/10 Typhoon / Tempest with a Gypsy Queen engine would work well as the firewall fwd bit would look ok and at one time there were a lot of Queens with props available as the Doves / Devons were withdrawn from use.
Trying to get an engine/prop combination to replicate a 'Mini Merlin' is difficult although I did some flying with a Rover V8 in an Auster airframe to prove the concept. This was direct drive with a ground adjustable prop, and once the correct radiator position was found it performed well and was very smooth. Using modern available parts with suitable matched prop/gear drive a reliable 300+ HP should be possible with a V8.
One of the advantages of using a Queen was the supply of the powerplant (with cowlings) available from dead Doves which would have saved a huge amount of build time.
Treads can post an image of the Jurca MJ10.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a80687c7ab.jpg

The Jurca MJ-10.

Jurca also did a wooden scale Mustang, the MJ-7 Gnatsum. See what he did there? Several versions and scales; I think kits also by Sturgeonair and Falconar.

Pobjoy might remember the example built by Bill Wilkes which lived in the Tiger Club hangar at Redhill for a bit. Sadly lost in a fatal air display crash with another owner in 1983.

Some brief flying footage of G-BEFU here from around 1981: https://screenarchive.brighton.ac.uk/detail/7312/ (at 1:52-2:05).

That's a find! 1981? The B-17 pass looks a bit Don Bullock-ish (unless Keith Sissons went that low as well - I always thought he was a bit more conservative); if so, dates it pre September 1980, no doubt the Enstrom was in the sure hands of Dennis Kenyon.

Shoreham Show
 

Keith could fly like that but chose not to, DB usually did until Biggin Hill. DK always gave a 'spirited' Enstrom display although he normally flew the turbocharged version which had the extra 'puff'.
RG was a regular competitor in the aerobatic world and moved on to a Pitts.

I visited Bill Wilkes workshop in Caterham when he was building the scale mustang, the structure was 'substantial', and being all wood and ply skinned it was no lightweight.
As I recall he had obtained a Ranger engine (as fitted to the Fairchild Argus) which gave 175-200 hp depending on spec. It duly appeared at Redhill and I believe one of our ETPS members did the permit approval tests. I never saw it doing a 'tight display' prob for very good reasons, and indeed the next time I saw ii was from the Swift as I ran in for my display slot at Barton, and the broken remains of the scale mustang were still on the airfield it having spun in earlier in the afternoon. This highlights the 'issue' with an all wood structure (structure and skin) it is very difficult to make them 'light'' ( especially if building a scale aircraft), and because the wings have a higher % weight factor if ply skinned the whole structure has a energy factor that is quite unforgiving if the speed bleeds. As a comparison the Rollason Beta (100 hp Continental) was not a 'scale' copy and could be designed accordingly, although it was very difficult to homebuild (hence not many finished).

He had the 200hp Ranger according to G-INFO. I recall it as quite a large beast for a homebuild, at least in comparison with the Turbs, Cassutts and Betas in the TC hangar!

Bill Wilks also built this Mini-Imp, around 1985:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3f5b1940d8.jpg

I recall there were a lot of 26’s at Enstone. Might be worth trying to see one there and maybe even buy a share in one. Quicker and cheaper than a fresh build.unless you really want to build one...

MK 26
 

Much better off with a Yak, Zlin or CAP10, poss even a Cassutt. In fact a Cassutt is a lot of fun on 100 HP and cheap to run.

Now for sale on Banstormers, and you even get some change from $1m!

https://www.barnstormers.com/classif...FIRE-MKIX.html

A lot? Well, there's one that has been flying until damaged on the ground earlier this year, an early one in the back of the hangar which used to fly but hasn't for a few years, and another which is 90% complete (another 90% to go?). There are also groups looking to build more. If you want to build one yourself, then ask a Mk 26b builder about the quality of the kit.

NB The one that has flown a good bit is only flown off hard runways due to an early issue with grass!

The original marketing of the '26' suggested groups would form with several aircraft. This was Enstone based, but the reality of an expensive kit that always seemed to have 'issues' rather damped the situation. Also the value of the finished build was less than the real cost of construction.
I think the lack of 'bang for your buck' factor was the problem and when you consider the number of Vans out there it rather confirms the point.

I test flew BEFU for the PFA and Bill at Redhill in `77,78,79.We had all sorts of problems,common to lots of homebuilt machines; ,in this case it related to ergonomics of the controls.Bill was about a foot taller and bigger than I was(then),as I raced Cassutts/Betas/Titchs and others for the PFA,was a current QFI ,and T-Club check pilot.The u/c was raised/lowered by winding a floor mounted circular horizontal wheel,under my right leg,the flap lever was behind my right hip,i wore a back parachute and sat on a couple of cushions.The early prop was ground adjustable only,and the engine used oil..a lot. However it flew quite well ,within the limitation of having to ground adjust the prop after flight,almost stall the aircraft to be able to operate the flaps,and u/c......
more to come,gotta go