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

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.

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...)

Actually in Oz it would be a Amateur built Experimental. No problem.

The man is a master mechanic, and you question the engine mounts?

cool where do i get qualified as a master mechanic. From his description it sounds scary. Would you say a aircraft looks good from it's paint job.....no you look underneath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN5fFZQZFbk

It looks better than his description

MY personal favourite is the Bally Bomber, a scale (single-seat!) B17 he'd built from scratch.


Looks verrrrry nice...

Hasher
If you need to ask, you will never be one:E

Eddie cool story bro

Hasher thanks

There are at least 4 SAC spitfire replicas underway in Oz that I know of. Very similar to the video.

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.

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!!

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?

Actually I didn't pick up on that.


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.

Vag277,
All wonderful stuff, regulatorally (is that a word?) correct, and doesn't mean a damned thing to CASA empire builders and micro-managers.

CASA regulations/MOS are littered with "--- or as required by CASA" and/or " --- CASA is satisfied/ to the satisfaction of CASA".

Re. the maintenance instrument --- the whole point is that regulatory changes scheduled in 1999 were never made, and there is no plans to make them, almost 17 years later, so the whole amateur built movement owner maintenance is dependent on a legislative instrument, which is only intended to cover short term situations, until "regulations" catch up. An instrument that can be cancelled at any time, or just not renewed.

They did it with the approved data "rules", turned them on their head.

And an instrument that has strong opposition within and without CASA, which is a major element in why the legislative change has never been made.

There is, once again, a significant push for all maintenance on all aircraft to be conducted in an approved org. by licensed persons. The Jabiru situation is the catalyst/excuse/justification. This includes limiting Schedule 8 maintenance to little more than fueling and checking the oil. There has even been a move to require all daily inspections to be carried out by a LAME, if a "LAME is reasonably available".

All in the interests of air safety, you understand. Definitely not commercial/union opportunism, banish the thought from your mind.

Tootle pip!!

This Spitfire would qualify as an amateur built experimental. Based on a design by Marcel Jurca from France. I believe this is this is the aircraft in the original youtube clip.
MJ-100 #Deford - N1940K

The prototype spitfire was all wood and subsequent versions were all aluminium. Apart from the external appearance the Jurca full scale replica would have little in common with the original spitfire which had quite a complicated structure to fabricate. Plans are $1500 if your keen to build your own!

The prototype Spitfire K5054 was all wood but production aircraft were aluminium.


Amateur built aircraft maintenance licencing regs could possibly be changed but that would need drafting effort by the proponents as the small number of people affected probably results in very low priority.

SaS,
You obviously have not been following the development of CASR 132, and the sodding around and bastardisation of CASR 21 to fit this completely unneeded and unjustified CASR Part
Tootle pip!!

SaS,
You obviously have not been following the development of CASR 132, and the sodding around and bastardisation of CASR 21 to fit this completely unneeded and unjustified CASR Part 132.

Vag277,
Another apologist for CASA!! The change was "drafted" and ready for "making" almost 18 years ago ---- mid-1998. And all it was, was a few words (6-8) in the applicability statement, if you want to see the equivalent, have a look at the applicability statement re. non-certified aircraft in FAR 43.

Do you really think having to re-do a legislative instrument every two years is less work, less time, less expense.

It hasn't happened, because the forces in industry and CASA that simply hate any kind of owner maintenance will not let it happen, and live in hope that "CASA" will be finally be pressured into not renewing the instrument, much easier than reversing a regulation. It got too bleeding close with Albo. as Minister.

"Small number of people", too right, just a small number, in the thousands.

Tootle pip!!

Not an apologist. Just learned many years ago that slagging off and abusing people will never result in anything being delivered. I was part of the team that won the right for SAAA to do stage inspections, issue Permits to Fly and eventually CofA for ABAA aircraft, long before Experimental came into being. I have done the work to have an ABAA issued on a new type added to the list. One of the last before Experimental came into being.


Instead of complaining and abusing I helped get the work done.

Vag277
re. your AABA comments, that was a system that was a disaster for amateur builder, in the best Australian fashion bureaucratic, inflexible and expensive. Accordingly, the SAAA version of an Experimental Amateur Built category, as they presented it to Leroy Keith, never saw the light of day in 1997, it was AABA rebadged. It was promptly canned, in its entirety.

That is why we adopted the US style Experimental amateur built, not bureaucratic, not inflexible, no limitations on design, and as cheap or as expensive as YOU wanted to make it, but eliminating all the mandated SAAA costs. The SAAA "business model" was a handbrake on amateur building, as subsequent events demonstrated so graphically.

And no, there wasn't an upsurge in accidents, despite the "expert" predictions, but there was a huge upsurge in VH- amateur building, and particularly when we arranged an amateur built register for RAOz, ne. AUF.
The numbers really took of after 1998, in 10 years AUF/RAOz number went from under 3000 to over 10,000 members, and the aircraft numbers did likewise.

I was there, too.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The AABA "C.of A" was not a legitimate C.of A. at all, just an affectation, in reality it was no better than a Permit to Fly of the day, or the subsequent Experimental Certificate

Not so, K5054 was metal with a wooden prop>>

Was K5054 really of all-wood construction? I can't find any reference to it and what photos there are seem to indicate it was aluminium.

Also, the S6a's and b's of the late 20's were stressed aluminium airframes, so it would seem odd that Supermarine would suddenly build a wooden airframe for their latest model.

Any references?

From where does this sort of nonsense emanate? As TBM says, K5054, the prototype, was all metal. They did build, as was customary in the industry, a mockup out of wood. For the unaware, mockups don't fly.

LeadSled, as things now stand that US Spitfire look alike is an Experimental Amateur built, not a warbird, just because it looks like one.
I'm well aware of CASA's antipathy to Experimental. Please pm me.
Also well aware of how the organisations like SAAA, RAAus, GFA etc love getting CASA to force people to join the organisation and give it money. For example the stupid SAAA maintenance course which teaches nothing about maintenance but is all about paperwork. If paperwork is what is wanted a written checklist of what is required will suffice.
Just as the SAAA business model was a brake on amateur building the GFA model is a brake on soaring. Lovely activity but GFA has made everything in it compulsory or prohibited.

Eyrie,

I agree.

When I use the word "freedom", I mean in the Oxford Dictionary sense, or the sense used in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Not the Australian meaning: The freedom to be regulated to a standstill by every Nanny, bureaucrat or otherwise, with attitude.

I was with Leroy Keith when he first had a flick through the 1996 SAAA AABA re-badge as Experimental Amateur Built. He just could not understand the mindset, that a group of people would want to opt for a whole bunch of restrictive regulations, which the then CASA had no intention of , and didn't, enact. We didn't have to persuade him to bin it, bin it he did.

I knew, as you probably did, what was really going one, but one undercurrent was really sad. And it is there to this day.

I had some long sessions with the then hierarchy of SAAA over the Experimental Cat., and that was the very strongly developed attitude that Australians could not be trusted with the freedoms US aviators enjoyed, that Australian aviators needed to be "regulated" for their own good.

OutCASAing CASA.

Time and again, in matters of airspace management, I hear the same thing. The US system will not work here, because of the culture, the culture of Australian pilots needing to be governed by detailed and prescriptive criminal law, because they can't be trusted to use common sense. Only a one-size-fits all straitjacket to fit the "culture" is permissible.

Very sad.

The yanks don't have nonsense like Part 132. There would be a civil war, if FAA tried, but they wouldn't try. Here, AWAL is hand in glove with CASA, and sod the interests of their members, who, presumably, cannot be trusted as their US counterparts are trusted.

Tootle pip!!

Apologies to all! I was wrong! Confused myself with the replica built by Clive Du Cros in the UK.K5054 was metal.


In relation to SAAA over the years, the requirements were laid down by the regulator. The alternative was to pay the regulator's charges to do the same thing with less experience in the world of amateur building. The requirement for the acceptable approved person in the early '90s was a CAA requirement to grant the authorisations required at the time. The cost of that person had to be covered from somewhere. The CAA was not going to cover the cost.


The organisations do not to force people to join". One does not have to be a member of SAAA to build an aircraft: the RA-Aus membership is their condition to grant a certificate to fly the aircraft in accordance with the CAO 95 series exemptions and they came about as a result of a parliamentary inquiry into the fatal accident rates in early ultra-light aircraft.

Vag277 said "the RA-Aus membership is their condition to grant a certificate to fly the aircraft in accordance with the CAO 95 series exemptions and they came about as a result of a parliamentary inquiry into the fatal accident rates in early ultra-light aircraft."
It is apopular misconception that the CAO's requirRA-Aus and their ilk. This is not the case. CASR Part 200 exempts CAO 95.10, 95.32, 95.55 aircraft and others from the CASR's which includes Part 47 which deals with registration of aircraft so these aircraft are by definition "unregistered aircraft" . CASR 200.25 completes the circle:
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 200.025

Flying unregistered aircraft For paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if:
(a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and
(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body's operations manual.
As you can see there is no requirement either by the CAO or the CAR's or the CASR's for membership of RA-Aus. For example CAO95.55 says:
6.1(d) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RAA Operations Manual;
It is the RA_Aus Operations Manual (approved by CASA) that dictates that membership is a requirement. How CASA can approve a manual with such a requirement when none exists at law is beyond me.

Vag277,
The then president of SAAA's submission to the Forsyth enquiry asked that CASA force anyone building or OPERATING an amateur built Experimental to join SAAA. "To maintain the standard" Wonderful!
I own an aircraft built under 101.28 complete with stage inspections etc etc and a CASA test pilot report. Wasn't much of a standard. There were a bunch of pretty obvious things wrong with it. Mis-rigged controls, twisted flaps, wings of different span, incorrect mass balance of the elevator, dangerously flexible aileron mass balances etc etc etc. All now rectified under LAME supervision.
SAAA has also singularly and comprehensively failed to defend CAR21 or keep the pressure up to pass the necessary regulations to bring the operation in line with what happens in the US. It could do us a favour and wind itself up.
Not to mention being so incompetent as to let an employee lose $150,000 (about that so I've heard - something that seems to have been kept out of written mention).
You forgot to mention that if you build your own aircraft you need to do the SAAA maintenance course. It would be nice if it actually had anything to do with maintenance. Yes, I know how it came about - a bunch of silly people thought the 101.28 aircraft they had built were somehow "better" than Experimental and after finding out they needed to take their aircraft to a LAME for annuals instead of signing it out themselves, wanted to be able to do this. Instead of simply handing these idiots a form applying for an Experimental certificate the SAAA pandered to them and got CASA to agree to let them sign them out if they did the SAAA course. SAAA then got that made compulsory if you built your own Experimental. Same with the weighing issue. Instead of pressing for an exemption for E-AB for weighing you need to do the SAAA weighing course. Great! You can glue/rivet the mainspar but can't weigh the aircraft unless you do a course. Nice cash cows for SAAA.
Everyone I've spoken to who has done it reckons it is worthless as all it talks about is paperwork. Most of us can read. A simple .pdf on the CASA website would suffice.
The greatest danger to recreational aviation in Australia comes from the recreational aviation bodies themselves as the bunch of silly, would be, amateur aviation bureaucrats running them pander to CASA for a pat on the head or a belly rub. Really people, you don't also have to enthusiastically hump CASA's leg.

There was a thread on here the other day about the departing of some of those running the SAAA. I believe that the forced membership ethos is not part of the newer leaders of SAAA and that this was one of the reasons for the departures.

Vag277,
The real alternative, the preferable alternative, anathema to SAAA, was to have no charges at all, for no mandatory inspections, and for no mandatory membership of SAAA.

That is what you got, and as predictions then, and history now shows, that freedom has not resulted in threats to "other airspace users and those on the ground under the flightpath", the limit of CASA's jurisdiction by political imposition. A political imposition (by legislation) opposed by those within and without CASA of the "they can't be trusted" brigade.

With the responsibility squarely with the builder, and with the approved person issuing the Certificate restrictions reflecting his/her responsibility for "other airspace users and those on the ground under the flightpath", and not anybody who voluntarily associated themselves with any risks associated by the builders efforts.

Eyrie,
Once again, I agree. George Markey must be spinning in his grave.

To create/maintain the cash flow, the only standard applicable the standard of living for those with their hand in the till -- or, more correctly, their hands in compulsorily acquired members pockets, the economic term is "Rent seekers".

Re. Forsyth, the attitude of SAAA from 1996 to now hasn't changed much, has it?? Why are so many afraid of freedom?? The freedom to take responsibility for yourself, not sub-contract it to somebody else.

Tootle pip!!

About all I've gotten for my membership the last couple of years are monthly emails detailing the latest changes to the endless Conga line that forms the NC.
Not one explanation ever for the endless changes.
Those of you close to the action may be privy to what's going on but the more isolated of us are starting to wonder what we pay our fees for.

Folks,
Just to add to my previous comments:

In the US, EAA membership is entirely voluntary for amateur builders (and many more) and yet a very large proportion of amateur builders are VOLUNTARY members, with access to a wide range of advice and assistance.

Is there a message hidden there, somewhere??

A bit like AOPA USA, where around 60-70% of ALL FAA licensed pilots are members of AOPA.

Tootle

..and the EAA have no delegated powers, or formal regulatory function. As far as 14CFR-Chapter1 is concerned they don't exist. This gives them enormous negotiating power with the FAA because there are no exemptions or permissions that they hold that can be withdrawn. If the FAA don't cooperate they can get their members to go to the politicians.... and it works.