Birth of a Spitfire
 

Hi Clive!

Long time no hear! Messenger KBO was sold on but should be flying again soon.

If you want to fly any time you are back in Blighty, let me know and I'll meet you at Old Warden. we can get the Storch, Magister etc. out.

Nicky is still wearing and enjoying your old Irvin!

Pity your old Spitfire had its wings sawn off - aaaargh! I wonder if it could be resurrected??

I thoroughly recommend Clives book to all - a great read. I still have my autographed copy.

All the best

Peter

abgd

Totally with you there. The Twister is a great aeroplane that pays homage to the Spit silhouette without pretending to be one - it doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is.

Ref the original thread, I don't think Carolyn's words came across so well, but I tend to agree with the principle concept that a Mk26 isn't a patch on a "real" one, albeit it's a perfectly adequate aeroplane and a totally worthy project in its own right. But that's no reason to slate a team of enthusiasts for whom this is likely to be the closest they'll get to flying a "real" one, and at least they can legally put Spitfire in their log book. How hollow that might appear to others shouldn't influence those involved, since they're not the ones with the logbook entries.

Mk 26 spitfire
 

Of course the Mk 26 is not a 'real' Spitfire, anyone who pretends it is aligns themselves with the types who pretend that any classic car replica is the real thing. The clue is in the word 'Replica'. That said, I wouldn't criticise anyone for doing whatever they can afford to live their dreams, if it makes them happy, what business of anyone else's is it?
I had the privilege of performing the first flights and LAA acceptance schedules (minimum 5 hours, 15 landings and a 2 hour endurance flight test) on 2 examples of the Mk 26. The first was beautifully put together to a very high standard and I was the build stage inspector. The second was thrown together in an appalling fashion and should never have been signed off during construction.
Some chaps have commented on this that the Mk 26 must be much easier to fly than the real Spit. This is not necessarily the case, just because an aircraft is light and low-powered it does not automatically follow that it will be easier to fly than something which is heavy and high powered, in fact the opposite is often the case.
I was extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to handle the controls of Carolyn Grace's Spit, on board with her husband, Nick, when I was a lowly PPL with barely 400 hrs on Ercoups, 150s, 172s, 182s, Beagle Pup, Turbulent, DR1050, & Super Airtourer and I found it absolutely delightful with its responsiveness, power, control harmonisation and momentum.
More than 20 years later, having soloed some 105 different types of piston singles and twins, most under flight test conditions, I found my first Mk 26 a bit of a challenge, at least from hard, but not very smooth, runways, although it became a doddle from smooth grass. Both the Mk 26s I flew had the Jabiru flat 8 engine and the power from this unit is plenty for this very light and skittish aeroplane, its nominal 180 HP through the MT 3 bladed CS prop certainly giving considerably more thrust than you would feel from a 180 HP Lycoming with a Hartzell.
The Mk 26 is a fast aircraft for its size and conventional shape and construction method and as such, great care and a higher than usual homebuilder skill is required to complete one as a good example. Ovalling rivet holes to make them fit and filling skin fit gaps and profile faults with polyester is simply not acceptable. Properly built, they are a delight, once in the air and looking out over the long nose and at the elliptical wing planform, well a man is allowed to dream isn't he?..........
If they were strong enough and approved for aeros, I believe they would be more fun than an S1S!
Mrs Grace's response to the LAA mag piece was not, I believe, intended to denigrate the efforts of the owners and pilots of these machines, but simply airing her irritation of all the hype originating from the kit manufacturer and picked up by the owners calling it a Supermarine and suggesting that it could be compared to the original.

Hello all my name is Philip , I fly the mk26b named High Lady she is the blue one that is owned by super marine aircraft. We took her to sun n fun this year and I flew it for a couple magazine and also in the show, there were a couple fellas that came up to the plane during the week that flew spits during the end and after ww2. They couldn't tell the difference , except when they sat in it and they said it was bigger than the orig inside, as far as commanding attention she is no slouch either every time I took off the whole show would stop and watch , she flies great no bad habits , so until some of the people on here actually fly the plane I think they shouldn't have such a ****ty attitude about it.just my little take:ok:

Unimo55 raises a point I havn't seen elsewhere. Is this replica strong enough to throw around properly? In WWII, Spitfires were flown by young lads trained in Tiger Moths, then possibly a few hours in a more demanding type, and after a very short apprenticship were dogfighting the Nazi intruders. The original Spitfires could not be that difficult to handle for the original few, who were probably considerably younger than those who will be able to afford and fly the replicas.

+6 -4 that enough for me:ok:

I agree, yes there are aerobatics that need more than +6/-3, but most of manage to enjoy ourselves quite enough within those numbers. Personally I start to feel distinctly uncomfortable beyond that and leave it to the sort of hooligans who enjoy that stuff.

G

Mks of Spitfire
 

Mk24 last genuine Spitfire. Mk25 75 percent replica, Mk26 80 percent replica, Mk26b 90 percent replica.
Mk26b with 430hp LS2 naturally aspirated Chev V8 first flew late 2008.
3500 ft per minute climb off the deck. 240 knots/280mph/440kmh
650kgs empty weight.
Next... Mk2b with a supercharged LS series V8 with approx 600 HP???????
As with the V6 naturally aspirated and then supercharged V6
You do the math!!!!!
Affordable for the 'average' bloke, easy to maintain.
Grace Spitfire hugely expensive to run and maintain,insure and will probably become increasingly more difficult to keep in the air as time passes and beuracracy and red tape becomes insurmountable.
See the late Alex Henshaws comment on the Supermarine website......

IMHO I think Mike should be commended for what he has achieved...the only person who has successfully manufactured an all metal Spitfire whether it be a replica or not since 1948.
The passion and determination this man has put into building this wonderful replica is beyond belief and anyone who thinks this Spitfire is a pretender should very quickly go and find an owner who is willing to take them for a flight and experience one of these machines first hand.
Carolyn Grace should do exactly that as well!!!
Cheers

burnett tx airshow this sat ill be there with high lady , but i dont think it will close mouths cause when she breathes fire jaws will drop

Hi F1-69
 

Hi F1-69

I dropped you a PM the other day - please have a look before you go off jaw-dropping at Burnett, Tx!

Gadget

I wonder what Carolyn would think of the Thunder Mustang then...

I know Carolyn and had a hand in the initial training of her son, she is generally very nice, but I'm afraid in this letter she's not come across very well at all...

Some people get kinda crazy on this stuff, I have over 13000 hr and I have flown many planes , I race at Reno , I'm not fluffin my own pillow but this airplane is really fun to fly , no bad habits . When she flies people don't go oh it's a replica they see and hear a spitfire, if you go to aafo.com you can see pics

I am also a member of the Enstone groups and a keen PPL, I saw this as an opportunity to fly an Icon, even if not full size. I have seen the first taking shape, but still 6 months form flying status. The other two seem to lack members and enthusiam to get the projects started.
With the support shown on the forum, are there none to join and give impetus to geting these legends airbourne

The B Word said:

But it isn't a Bonnie.

This is:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...SC03711res.jpg

Mine's a real Spitfire (old, full of chracter). The modern copy of the Bonnie from Hinckley is a modern characterless bike. A Mk26!

For comfortable fast long distance I have a modern bike as well (Japanese - little character but does the job well). The Bonnie is for characterful bimbles.

For a first hand account by one of these "young lads", read First Light by Geoffrey "Boy" Wellum. He flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain, aged 19.

The best book by a WWII pilot that I have read. :ok:

Shaggy Sheep Driver
 

I certainly have no wish to offend you and I hope none is taken from my next few lines but.

The bike you have posted the picture of is indeed a fine looking machine. However for someone my age it isn't quite
a proper "Bonnie" as it has a front disc brake but much more importantly the rear brake pedal and therefore the gear pedal are now on
the wrong side. The original bikes were made properly with the gear pedal on the right hand side with the rear brake pedal
on the left. ALL the fault of the Americans who insisted. I disliked riding machines with that configuration as it felt
out of balance. I always considered braking with right hand - left foot was much more natural, rather like when walking
your left arm moved forward when your right leg did the same.

However I am still a tad jealous that you have one as SWMBO refuses to allow me to have a motorcycle.

Please ride with care, there are too many idiots around who say after an accident that "I didn't see the motorcycle"
mainly because they are too stupid to be driving IMHO

There are plenty of idiot motorcyclists around who seem to think that they are invincible.
A motorcycle is a great tool for zipping in and out of traffic, but very few motorcyclists understand how to do it with the car driver and therefore their own safety in mind.
I do consider myself reasonably well qualified to talk on behalf of both camps but I sense a soap-box moment coming on and am off to take my medication.......

More people are killed and injured in bike crashes that involve no other vehicle than those that involve SMIDSY moments in the UK.

What that has to do with a Mk26 Spitfire replica I have no idea though!

Check out nov issue of kitplanes magazine we made the cover and a 14 page write up

Mods - please close this thread!!

It is now nothing more than a Mk26 fanclub.

It started as - Spitfire Mk26- real or not? It has been established that it is not, never will be.

Good enough (for some) in it's own right, but not a "real" Spitfire.

End of story. Move along now.

Oh do pipe down.

The company owns the name supermarine , as given to them by the family of supermarine who thinks the 26b is beautiful, sooooo it's a supermarine spitfire mk26b , take that for whatever it's worth , and a very nice 14 page article in nov kitplanes with me flying it so I'm a little bias

Squeegee Longtail

It may not be "real" in whoever's eyes, but look at it from another perspective.

With so few Original spitfires flying, it may be the ONLY chance a person, child, enthusiast, son or daughter of an airman killed in the war has
to see the grace, lines, speed and flying ability of an aircraft that
resembles a Spitfire (or is a Spitfire depending on your point of view).

And if that gets another person into the flying fold, even better.

I collect original old firearms and do to an extent look down
on copies but, it allows others to get into the sport who then
progress upwards to owing originals.

This thread is just a storm looking for a teacup.

Three thought experiments:

1) A company makes Spitfires to the original blueprints, with a few materials changes to sidestep the corrosion problems and a minimal number of other safety-related changes to the original design.

2) In a parallel universe, the war ends in 1942 and 15,000 redundant Spitfire pilots return to a prosperous peacetime. Jets aren't developed, so the RAF holds on to its piston fighters. Supermarine decides to tweak the design to make it more economic and practical for nostalgic private pilots, and to avoid completely disbanding the workforce.

3) Supermarine carries on making Spitfires into 1948, though most never see conflict and are of a type that never flew in WWII.

Would any of these aircraft be real Spitfires?

Yes they would. "Spitfire" is not dependent on where or when they were used. It is dependent on the current Mk/spec that the ORIGINAL manufacturer puts on them.
If some bloke called Henry Ford (not the original), builds a plastic copy of a Mustang with a Fiat 500 engine, is that a "real" one?
Item one would depend on the licence/approval from the original manufaturer.

But the kit manufacturer is now the original manufacturer – he bought the rights to Supermarine.

Rod1

So, we have the ford Capri.....this wasa cult car in the 70's, but to some, the REAL ford capri, is the Consul Classic/375 Capri of '61-'64.

"the car you always promised yourself" caused a sensation (and a lot of pubescent schoolboy wet-dreams) when it appeared in 1969. (mark 2 introduced '74, mk3 '78 to '86 ) BUT surely it's NOT a "proper" Capri?- production of that ended five years earlier!

To me, a Spitfire will always be a WW2 Merlin -powered machine(not a Griffon!) but we have to accept that trade-names are bought and sold, together with designs etc. the Mk. 26 is NOT a "traditional" "authentic" "original" Spitfire.
It's a 21st. Century model that bears a close resemblance to the "heritage" machine....call it a pastiche if you will, it's still a Spitfire,-just not THE Spitfire!

He may have bought the rights to the name Supermarine, but he cannot be the original.
Shirley it is a contradiction in terms, how can anything (become) an original?

I had the immense pleasure of being at Duxford, only a day or two after the beautiful restored Mk I Spitfire was rolled out. I was allowed to observe it very closely, but did not ask to touch.

It seemed tiny, but over-aweing me was its history, not its size. My father fought in WW2, along with his brothers-in-arms and their opposers, far too many of whom did not outlive that conflict.

That sense of history lives on through the Marks, as it does in so much other wartime artefact. We see, and when lucky, can touch, the results of furious efforts to advance technology in the name of freedom.

Do the manufacturers of the Mk XXVI think that their product sits in the same family?

Just read this thread, and have come to three conclusions...

1. Everyone who owns something (whether spitfire, triumph bonnie, or a conker on a string) seems to be convinced that the only 'real' one is the same as theirs, and anything else is not real....not a surprise really, as it helps create a sense of elitism (not meant purjoratively, just literally). I can understand that, but it's all a matter of perspective.

2. Surely a real mk26b spitfire is exactly what it is. It certainly isn't a 'real' mk24, but then the mk24 isn't a 'real' mk IX

3. I wish I could read the article F1 mentions, but can't find a copy of kit plane in any of my local newsagents...Doh!!! Any ideas where I can get one? (am in the uk)

The so-called Spitfire Mk26 is simply a scale model of the true aircraft.

Just as the Isaacs Fury was a 70% replica of the original Hawker Fury, this 'Spitfire' is a 75-90% replica of the original Vickers-Supemarine Spitfire.

To pretend that 'the Mk26B is a new mark of Spitfire from Supermarine' is simply self-delusion.

When is the 'Spitfire squadron' at Enstone now expected to take to the air? I wish them the very best of good luck, but I'm afraid that I have my doubts.

Having built a few kit aircraft for myself I doubt if one of the actual MK26A or B Spitfire builders regards their projects as anything other than a scale replica of a charismatic aircraft and nothing more.

For sure the main spar is no replica of the original ones!

Watching a Mk24B being built near Blackbushe I can see it isn't a 'fastbuild' type of kit.

Better a well built scale Spitfire than no Spitfire at all. The French Mosquito replica is better than no Mosquito at all.

But for the hairs on the back of the neck/lump in throat stuff real Merlins propelling real Spitfires and Mosquitos, Lancasters has it every time. :)

aviate1138, I would hope that the folks building their scale replicas agree with you.

But there are some out there who insist that an aeroplane is something which it is not. I once encountered some pilot in the USA who insisted that the ex-Luftwaffe Piaggio P149D trainer he owned was a 'Focke-Wulf warbird'.....

OK, it might have been licence built by Focke-Wulf GmbH, but a mid-1950s trainer is hardly a 'warbird'. Which is a silly expression in any case!

Fake Rolex watches come to mind. Even though they can keep accurate time, they are no more a real Rolex than a Mark 26 is a real Spitfire.

“Fake Rolex watches come to mind. Even though they can keep accurate time, they are no more a real Rolex than a Mark 26 is a real Spitfire.”

But what if the fake manufacture bought Rolex out and carried on producing watches?

Rod1

There's a funny thing... I have met a handful of ex-WWII aircrew through my line of work (doctor). Just a random sample, which is something you never get on the telly.

One talked about flying with real enthusiasm and had flown for the rest of his life. Another talked about the P51 as 'my plane' but I got the impression he didn't particularly want to talk about the war, so I left it at that. He had told me he'd never flown again though. Another spoke fondly of Tiger Moths... but didn't volunteer anything about his time in bombers and again I didn't push. I was surprised at the diffidence with which many of them talked about their experiences. But of course, on reflection, honourable men don't enjoy killing other men or sending young men on their own side to their deaths. I think it's fair to say that none of them seemed to fetishize military hardware in the way people those of us never involved in the conflict sometimes seem to.

I'm sure those of you from an older generation will have met more of these men than I have, but I feel very privileged to have done so. They saved us from a very bleak future, as did many of their generation who fought in less glamorous ways. It's something that I think about most days.

In 15 years time, few if any of them will still be alive. My son is unlikely to meet any, ever. Eventually WWII and the holocaust will fade into history and the shadow they cast will be no greater than that of Genghis Khan, or Napoleon.

Whilst I will mourn them and remain glad to have heard a fraction of their stories, I will be pleased. Even now, WWII casts such a shadow that it's hard to travel anywhere in Europe and not be acutely aware of how the war continues to affect our daily lives and politics. Ultimately, only time will heal these rifts completely. And by then, we'll have other concerns.

When this day comes, the spitfire will be nothing more than a very nice aeroplane. And there's nothing wrong in that.

Supermarine Aircraft only bought a name, not manufacturing expertise or capability. It is the same as Volkswagen buying Bugatti.

OK, I'll bite.

BEagle wrote:

Well, the first airframe, EN-A (now its RAF-approved tailcode) has now reached its anniversary in construction and is now approaching the first ground run stage:

http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/a...z/DSC03913.jpg

Hopefully she will fly around the turn of the year.

Now let me state at the outset that this is not a real Spitfire. If she were, she would cost £1.5-2m, would burn 15L of AVGAS per minute at full chat, would need 5 hours of costly, expert maintenance for every hour spent in the air - and I would only ever be able to watch her fly.

This is a 90% scale replica (rather a good one, if I say so myself, as an interested party). Its MTWA is only approximately 80% of that of a Bulldog but it has a much slicker airframe, retractable gear and 25% more power. It burns 38-40L of AVGAS per hour and will cruise all day at 150KIAS - faster if the mood takes you and your wallet will stand it.

It's the closest that mere mortals such as I can ever hope to get to the peerless original. If you're lucky enough to know someone who owns a genuine Spit, has deep enough pockets to operate and maintain it and has been let out of the looney bin for long enough to pass you the keys to the hangar, good luck to you (I know - and, sadly, have known - several that are/were, incidentally).

For the rest of us, this is as good as it gets. And, as one pilot who should know has already put it, it's the best fun you can have with your clothes on.
Tailwinds

Gadget :ok:

The reasoning from defenders of the spit-thing being called a Spitfire seems to be something like.....................................
So what if it doesnt have a merlin, is smaller, has a different construction, less performance etc etc, its still a really nice plane

Yea great, so why try make it look like a Spitfire, call it a spitfire and buy the rights to the makers name?

Why not just make a really nice plane?