Not wanting to make a meal of this, but Ghengis looks right. The replicas are 25, and 26. The 26 being the 90% one, but with one seat and two seat variants.

Woud someone who actually owns one like to confirm???

I just Googled it

MK26B
 

A couple of points here.
I think the correct name for the 90% version is 'Supermarine MK26b'.
However the 90% bit seems a bit optimistic when you look at the actual dimensions.
The usual giveaway on most 'scale' versions of anything is the canopy set up, and has the effect of giving a caricature look to the finished item,which in itself usually spoils the 'classic' lines.
Nicks aircraft was not a data plate project but a well engineered rebuild (due to rivets needing to be replaced) of an aircraft that had an operational record before being converted by Vickers to two seat configeration.
It is unfair to compare the two machines and as such the customer will decide what he wants out of it.
Carolines comments may offend some people;but again they are only comments and as such not the bible of what everyone may think.
If a group of enthusiasts want to enjoy themselves with scale machines good luck to them,but you can never replicate the sight and sound of the real thing without a Merlin**.
**As an engineering project in its own right the mk26b has merit and certainly begs the question why not a true 100% version with a 4-500hp v8!!! we can then have a crop of BoB films without CGI. (Kenley still available)

Thank you Pobjoy - I would agree. But does it have one or two seats, the MK26B??? Or have I totally lost the plot?

I'm a member of one of the Enstone Mk26b syndicates, and I'm saddened by Carolyn Grace's comments.

I'm just an ordinary bloke with a PPL who has chosen to spend his own hard earned money to be able to build, part own and fly a kit aircraft.

This project is giving me (and others) an opportunity to do something a bit special. I'm not asking anyone else to fund my hobby and I'm not trying to kid anyone that these aircraft are anything other than what they are - a very good kit modelled on a Spitfire and designed for people like me, not the Carolyn Graces of this world.

Shaggy Sheep

I know what I prefer and it isn't made in Meriden!

1979 T140D
http://classic-motorbikes.net/images...1979-t140d.jpg

2011 T100 SE
http://www.jcsmotorcycles.com.au/wp-...n_534x3091.jpg

Mine was built in Hinckley and looks like a Bonnie, sounds like a Bonnie (with the aftermarket Triumph pipes) and has better performance than an old Bonnie.

Now I guess the Mk26b is a similar prospect to the argument - it looks like a Spit, doesn't sound much like a Spit (but given the right engine isn't bad) and is sh!t loads cheaper to run and own than a Spit.

I personally think Mrs Grace should apologise for her churlish outburst and she has seriously gone down in my respect for her as a fellow aviator of 40s vintage aircraft.

The B Word

MK26b (seats)
 

Maxred; the Mk 26b does have two seats, but it is not a replica of the original Spitfire Trainer (that had two 'bubble' hoods on separate cockpits) with the second seat higher than the front one so the instructor had some forward vision.Nicks aircraft does not use the original Vickers mod as in service with the Irish Air Corps,but has a hood similar to the front seat,and set in line.
The MK26b uses the space behind the front cockpit as a 'jump seat' for a passenger.

I actually would be very proud to own a Supermarine Mk25, Mk26 or a Mk26b. They certainly look much better than this!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...CroiseAC-1.jpg

:yuk:

CPL Clott

Given the nature of the LAA Magazine, I was surprised at Ms Grace's letter. After all what was she expecting in a magazine on amateur-built and vintage permit-to-fly aircraft?

The Mk26 Spit kit, seems to generate a lot of debate, unlike other Spitfire replicas (scale or otherwise). People tend to forget these replicas are generally constrained by the limitations that allow the oversight to be undertaken by the LAA, rather than the CAA.

I much prefer the T51 with the V6 - sounds and looks beautiful.

I've looked at both the Mk26 and the FW190 kits and the ones I have seen are impressive. Carolyn has not denigrated the skills of those who build these aircraft.

However I have also seen the rebuilds of the full-sized versions of classics at places like Duxford and that is in a different league. I'm not sure I'd turn my head to watch the new breed pass by, but appreciate the skills of the builder.

I would feel the Mk26, is like a 125cc version of a Triumph Daytona. Still a challenge, but .........

Unfortunately, the Light Aviation article gave a different impression. The caption to one of the photos is just an example: "AT will soon be joining Caroline Grace as one of the very few Spitfire pilots".

Quite so, Pato. Carolyn was objecting to the article in the magazine, which seemed to try to blur the difference between a real Spitfire and these replicas. She was right to do so. We should all oppose the re-writing of history Or did America really win the war single handed?

As for Carolyn herself, she is a very sweet person, but like all little 'uns, she can be fierce. You need to be if you are a female in aviation.

I think my Dad started at Supermarine (/Vickers Armstrong) as an apprentice about 1956, leaving sometime in the mid 1960s when they closed down the drawing office. They may have met

G

The V6 powered Mk 26b sounds pretty good too



And the looks, well, it looks like a Spitfire to me... ;)

Just to set the record straight the MK26 Spitfire is a two seater 80% replica, originally powered but the Jabiru 5100 flat 8 engine but some now being completed with a V6 engine. The MK26B is also a two seater but at 90% and powered by either a V6 or V8. For the people not convinced by the shape and sound try this,


As someone lucky enough to fly one, its awesome and shed loads of fun with great handling in the air at least. It is actually a very clever copy given the constraints of size, cost and engine availability and hats off to Mike Sullivan for persevering with the project.

As for Carolyn's comments, it's obviously upset a lot of people and was not the best thing to do. I wouldn't put down any bodies pride and joy.
Each to their own!.

I started as an Apprentice 1954/55 at Main Hangar, Eastleigh:8

Small world 'innit, although Genghis Sr was at South Marston. I think he worked mostly on the Attacker and the Scimitar.

He too is still doing well, although he drifted out of aviation in the late 60s into chemical engineering.

G

Kemblekid - what happened to the face-book builders page? I was enjoying that

Welcome to Pprune Mr H!

A real copy should have at least 1000 horsepower, so unless such an engine becomes available isn't it better to have an 80% aircraft with 400 hp engine, than a 100% version with 500?

Does that include the skill of taxying into other aircraft on the ground?


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.

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.

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%

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....

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.

Ringway, I think the Mk25 is an 80% scale, and the 26b is the 90% scale two seater.

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.

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.

Can't they build a 'new' original now though apart from the donk? I seem to recall reading an article where it was deemed possible.

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.

I was thinking more of the demise of 100LL.

Well I'm hoping to retire to Australia in around ten years time so Europe can disappear up it's own orifice AFAIC.

The feckwit bureaucrats in Australia seem to be intent on bringing aviation there down to the level of Europe, sadly.

Best place to see Merlins is at the Madison regatta.

A 100% spitfire might look better, but presumably a 'spitfire' with 50% the regular wing loading would be mighty different in terms of flying qualities... It seems to me that if you're going to build a 100% replica, it may as well be a copy.

Hmmm, not I don't think I would.

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

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.

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.