Home Built Spitfire
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scratch Built Full Scale Spitfire
What an amazing achievement.
Wonder what the final cost was, didn't hear it mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/v/pzkoTulqA1U&autoplay=1&rel=0
Wonder what the final cost was, didn't hear it mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/v/pzkoTulqA1U&autoplay=1&rel=0
Last edited by Acrosport II; 28th Mar 2016 at 06:10. Reason: Incorrect Title
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impressive but his description of how he has mounted that Allison sounds scary. That much horsepower I would want proper engine mounts.
I thought the same. Its fine when its brand new, but after a few hours.
I'm sure they could have made a suitable, strong, conventional type engine mount. Hell, they made everything else.
Looks like the real thing.
They didn't say how long it took them to build it either.
Homebuilts take 1000-2000hours don't they, and that's with all the parts pre made in kit form.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for posting that Acro - truly wonderful stuff!
(Lucky he's not is Oz, would never be allowed to get away with it here, he'd get caught up in Part 132 and have to convert to limited category...)
(Lucky he's not is Oz, would never be allowed to get away with it here, he'd get caught up in Part 132 and have to convert to limited category...)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it still possible to source an airworthy engine for these things that isn't going to break the bank? There are plenty of Allison V12s around that were built for ground based use and lack all that exotic stuff needed for air use - and they have been severely derated.
Eyrie,
Blowie is correct, have a look at the completely unnecessary and stupid CASR Part 132.
It completely screws up the whole concept of Experimental as it applies to Air-racing/Exhibition and Mil. replicas. Nobody (including CASA) knows more about this area than Blowie, believe me. It turns two simple rules (CAR 262AM and AN) that were to be incorporated into CASR Part 91, into hundreds of pages of new regulation and MOS, with a whole raft of new strict liability criminal offenses.
All so they can be "administered" by AWAL, to bring in a bit more revenue for AWAL, so called "air safety" regulation being used to shore up the cash flow of an Association - at the expense of a class of amateur builders and aircraft owners who are quite happy with the present CASR Part 21 and general flight and maintenance rules that apply to any aircraft.
No nonsense of risk based rule making and cost/benefit analysis for justification of Part 132, just a cosy little stitch-up, in my opinion.
Part 132 is a glowing example of how hard it is to kill a bad idea, despite the policy of several CASA CEO/DAS ( including Skidmore), overarching Government regulatory policy, and specific Government policy as it relates to these aircraft, and which gave rise to Part 21-35.
The "Iron Ring" reigns supreme.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Quite contrary to long settled law, CASA are increasingly unlawfully intruding into the activities of conventional amateur builders, we are in danger of not only losing what we have had since 1998, but even reverting to pre-AABA. The CASA ill-informed micro-managers and bureaucratic empire builders can't help themselves ---- all in the name of air safety, you understand.
Blowie is correct, have a look at the completely unnecessary and stupid CASR Part 132.
It completely screws up the whole concept of Experimental as it applies to Air-racing/Exhibition and Mil. replicas. Nobody (including CASA) knows more about this area than Blowie, believe me. It turns two simple rules (CAR 262AM and AN) that were to be incorporated into CASR Part 91, into hundreds of pages of new regulation and MOS, with a whole raft of new strict liability criminal offenses.
All so they can be "administered" by AWAL, to bring in a bit more revenue for AWAL, so called "air safety" regulation being used to shore up the cash flow of an Association - at the expense of a class of amateur builders and aircraft owners who are quite happy with the present CASR Part 21 and general flight and maintenance rules that apply to any aircraft.
No nonsense of risk based rule making and cost/benefit analysis for justification of Part 132, just a cosy little stitch-up, in my opinion.
Part 132 is a glowing example of how hard it is to kill a bad idea, despite the policy of several CASA CEO/DAS ( including Skidmore), overarching Government regulatory policy, and specific Government policy as it relates to these aircraft, and which gave rise to Part 21-35.
The "Iron Ring" reigns supreme.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Quite contrary to long settled law, CASA are increasingly unlawfully intruding into the activities of conventional amateur builders, we are in danger of not only losing what we have had since 1998, but even reverting to pre-AABA. The CASA ill-informed micro-managers and bureaucratic empire builders can't help themselves ---- all in the name of air safety, you understand.
Leadie, curious what is planned to constitute a replica warbird under 132? Given that this is effectively an entirely new airframe of completely differing construction (wood, instead of ali) and has a different engine and prop, does just looking like a Spitfire make it so? How would a Mk26 fair under the same regs?
I also am interested to know the facts behind the comment that amateur built aircraft will be reverting to "pre-ABAA" As the builder of 2 aircraft, one ABAA and one Experimental and now into another, I am puzzled by the comment.
Vag277,
With the way CASA are going, I am certain all will be revealed soon enough.
What would be your reaction if you were ramped, and got an RCA/NCN/whatever it is called now, grounding you Experimental or AABA aircraft, because some or all of the basic airframe did not conform to that standard that would apply to an aircraft produced under a production certificate, effectively to ICAO Annex VIII standards.
And, once again, proposed new maintenance "rules" for light aircraft ignore the requirements for Experimental Amateur Built --- CASA simply refuse to amend the applicability clause to exclude Experimental Amateur Built, as was intended in 1998.
AndyRR,
The "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies like a duck" CASA discretionary classification standard, contrary to law, but since when did that worry CASA too much, see the first part of this post.
Tootle pip!!
With the way CASA are going, I am certain all will be revealed soon enough.
What would be your reaction if you were ramped, and got an RCA/NCN/whatever it is called now, grounding you Experimental or AABA aircraft, because some or all of the basic airframe did not conform to that standard that would apply to an aircraft produced under a production certificate, effectively to ICAO Annex VIII standards.
And, once again, proposed new maintenance "rules" for light aircraft ignore the requirements for Experimental Amateur Built --- CASA simply refuse to amend the applicability clause to exclude Experimental Amateur Built, as was intended in 1998.
--- curious what is planned to constitute a replica warbird under 132?
The "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies like a duck" CASA discretionary classification standard, contrary to law, but since when did that worry CASA too much, see the first part of this post.
Tootle pip!!
All will be revealed by whom? What reg change project is this being done under. Ramp inspection would not reveal that and Annexes have no regulatory power in Australia unless specifically called up in Regulation or MOS. Exemption instrument for experimental amateur built aircraft was renewed a few weeks ago. What info are you privy to that the rest of us builders don't have?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie, curious what is planned to constitute a replica warbird under 132? Given that this is effectively an entirely new airframe of completely differing construction (wood, instead of ali) and has a different engine and prop, does just looking like a Spitfire make it so? How would a Mk26 fair under the same regs?
Were all Spitfire Wings metal (internal construction)?. Or were the early models, or late models, some wood (Think Mosquito, shortage of metals).
It really is an 'Experimental' if they used original plans but substituted metal for wood for the internal wing construction.
Still a nice looking Aircraft, that appears to fly well.