Spitfire Mk 26 - real or not real?
Equally the pilots who will fly the scale model Mk26 should be pleased and proud of their skill in flying this scale model but should never be compared to the pilots that flew and indeed fly the genuine Spitfire
Airshow News
Carloyn Grace's Spitfire (ML407) was involved in an accident when its propeller blades struck a helicopter as it was taxiing to a halt at Duxford airfield on the afternoon of 31 March 2001? No one was hurt in the accident but the helicopter, a Jet Ranger (G- JWLS) was badly damaged. The Spitfire was out of action all last year and had been made ready for this season. It will now need a new propeller and the Merlin engine will have to be tested for shock loading. It is hoped that the Spitfire will be fixed and able to participate in this years airshows.
Doesn't say who was at the controls but Jetranger G-JWLS appears not to have ever recovered from this meeting with a real Spitfire.
Last edited by Aeronut; 18th Jan 2012 at 17:13.
Size v Power
ABGD The power required for an aircraft has more to do with its weight rather than size. As a 100% replica would be very light compared to the original (for many reasons) 4-500 HP V8 would be adequate and very affordable. Engine/prop packages are already available of the shelf (in the States) and the thrust via the gearing would be excellent.
As the machine does not have to be stressed for combat or carry a war load the construction is more akin to the fast retract singles that Piper and Cessna have produced in the past,but with a slim fuselage and only two seats.
A 180-200 knot cruise and an authentic sound coupled with a lower wing loading should make for a a safe handling machine that looks right,and could acccomodate two full size pilots with ease.
I suspect that the 'scale' issue has more to do with regulations rather than the cost of going the extra mile to full size.After all the cost for these 70-90% versions is quite high for something that does not really replicate the original's classic lines.
As the machine does not have to be stressed for combat or carry a war load the construction is more akin to the fast retract singles that Piper and Cessna have produced in the past,but with a slim fuselage and only two seats.
A 180-200 knot cruise and an authentic sound coupled with a lower wing loading should make for a a safe handling machine that looks right,and could acccomodate two full size pilots with ease.
I suspect that the 'scale' issue has more to do with regulations rather than the cost of going the extra mile to full size.After all the cost for these 70-90% versions is quite high for something that does not really replicate the original's classic lines.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Out There
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
90% Scale is the linear dimension which means the effect on volume and therefore weight will be 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.729 i.e. 72.9%
Similarly 80% gives 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.512 i.e. 51.2%
Similarly 80% gives 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.512 i.e. 51.2%
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with young stripman that when you see and hear the Mk26 with the Jabiru flat 8, in flight and at speed, it really looks and sounds like the real thing - especially when flown with the power/rpm set just right.
By strange coincidence, stripman was actually flying that flight in the video in women's clothing....
By strange coincidence, stripman was actually flying that flight in the video in women's clothing....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North West UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record (I'm sure you all know anyway) the Grace Spitfire is a Mk IX. The last of the original Spitfires were Mk 24s - there never was a 'real' Mk 25 or 26....
The Mk 25 was an 75% scale single seater and the Mk26 an 80% scale two seater.
The Mk 25 was an 75% scale single seater and the Mk26 an 80% scale two seater.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see her point, flying a 400 hp 80% replica isn't the same as flying a genuine Spit. How can it be? Or is it the way she puts her point over that rankles with everyone? I don't know Carolyn Grace, probably never will but if I wanted to buy and fly a scale Spit or indeed a real one I wouldn't really give a poo what she or anyone else thought. It's my money and I can do whatever I want with it.
As for taxiing into a chopper, women have always been dreadful at parking, it's genetic so cut her some slack.
As for taxiing into a chopper, women have always been dreadful at parking, it's genetic so cut her some slack.
Last edited by thing; 19th Jan 2012 at 16:33.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what Dowding and Park would think? Would they call the Mk 26 a Spitfire when it is sporting a VNE of 220 knots, a ceiling of 18,000ft and a chevrolet engine? Not sure if it would do so well against old Herman's Bf109 boys over Kent.
While Mrs Grace's comments may be a little harsh, I think her general point is quite correct. It's cheeky at best to take the name Supermarine Spitfire and assign a Mark number to a scale replica, even if it is legal, honest decent etc.
Still, that said it's a lovely replica - not perfect in the lines, but still lovely. Best of luck to the boys building up the squadron of them.
While Mrs Grace's comments may be a little harsh, I think her general point is quite correct. It's cheeky at best to take the name Supermarine Spitfire and assign a Mark number to a scale replica, even if it is legal, honest decent etc.
Still, that said it's a lovely replica - not perfect in the lines, but still lovely. Best of luck to the boys building up the squadron of them.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with your sentiments, having said that I'm unlikely to be around in 30 years time anyway so make hay while the sun shines and make the most of these historic machines. There has to come a day when the sound of a Merlin is no more. Other than in recordings.
The power required for an aircraft has more to do with its weight rather than size
There's a lot of expensive internal structure on a military aeroplane that you just don't need in civil use. The armament feeds and supporting structure can go, the carry-through for weapons back loads and vents for gun-gas become irrelevant, the level of structural redundancy to allow for battle damage is also no longer required and modern analytical tools would allow you to build a much simpler, and thus cheaper, structure. Plus much better more modern materials are available.
I think if I was running a project like that, I'd take a lot of persuading that a direct copy was a good idea. A 1:1 flying replica, with a facsimile cockpit is as far as I think I'd go. It can still have a big engine, still be aerobatic, and it's not that hard to match handling with a few design tricks.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Earth (just of the A38)
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I can say is I have flown the 80% build and thought it was terrific.It has also been flown by a member of the BBMF who said the handling was just about the same as the real thing, just with a few less horses under the bonnet
Points taken, Genghis. Though I wonder whether any of the high-altitude reconnaissance versions were appreciably stripped down.
I've always been sweet on the concept of the Silence Twister... A German spitfire-alike.
I've always been sweet on the concept of the Silence Twister... A German spitfire-alike.
Last edited by abgd; 20th Jan 2012 at 18:26.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Argentina
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitfire Mk 26 - real or not real?
I say good luck to the enthuisiasts but then I may be a little biased as I spent over ten years building my own full size replica "Spit", the Prototype K5054! I wrote a book on the project a few years ago and have just recently published an Ebook on Kindle. It's called Birth of a Spitfire if anyone's interested.
Clives Spit
Clive; your project was a fair time ago now.If you had the benefit of new materials and an 'off the peg' 400hp Eng-prop i suspect the machine would be being built all over the world. I think what the 'Supermarine mk26' shows us is the ability to 'production line' a product to make it easier for customers to finish/fit out. You only have to see how many 'Rv's' are around to see what the market needed for 'construction' purposes.I always remember the high numbers of Rollason Turbulent and Beta projects that never progressed due to the skill required to build them down to the required weight (you needed to be a bit of a cabinet maker).(They were however great machines to fly)
I think 100% with 4-500 hp V8 would give ample performance and make a practical two seater.If it 'cribbed' the wing join outboard of the UC (like Hurricane) then the size of components and storage space is simplified.Clives machine (like the Jurca) had a one piece wing that makes for a huge space requirement if derigging required.Your machine looked superb Clive it would have been so much easier for you if one of the (now available) complete V8 eng/prop packages was around at the time.I recently looked at a Jurca project and came away with a very high regard for the skill and ability of the builder,and in no doubt as to the complexity of the work required.
I think 100% with 4-500 hp V8 would give ample performance and make a practical two seater.If it 'cribbed' the wing join outboard of the UC (like Hurricane) then the size of components and storage space is simplified.Clives machine (like the Jurca) had a one piece wing that makes for a huge space requirement if derigging required.Your machine looked superb Clive it would have been so much easier for you if one of the (now available) complete V8 eng/prop packages was around at the time.I recently looked at a Jurca project and came away with a very high regard for the skill and ability of the builder,and in no doubt as to the complexity of the work required.