That's great - don't forget to tell the Oxford Mail!!

But what about the other 'squadron' aircraft? How many are under construction?

I remember when the project first caught the attention of the aviation media and it was stated at the time that they were given permission to designate the replicas as Mk25 and Mk 26. My understanding is that the Me262 replicas in the US have been given factory serial numbers because they are so close to the original (but still replicas).

This thread has been hijacked by some overly precious armchair pilots. There a number of replica aircraft out there which use the original name. Mustang, FW190 to name two. There are also other aircraft with the name but no resemblance to the original. Mustang again, Texan etc.
It's easy to sit back and criticise but when these armchair experts get up off their backsides and buy a genuine Spitfire they will have paid for the right to complain. I'm sure that if given the chance to fly a MK 25/26 they wouldn't knock it back because of the name.

It reminds me of the story, real or not, when two enthusiasts were at an airshow and criticising the paint scheme detail on a warbird when a someone nearby (the owner) turned and asked them "what colour is yours?"

Meanwhile the MK25/26 owners are having more fun than you can poke a stick at.

City of Oxford Squadron
 

BEags

There are currently 2 more airframes partially syndicated - EN-E and EN-J. Not sure of the latest syndicate numbers, but I do believe that some further shares have recently been taken up so we may be close to cutting metal on at least one of those. Hangar space is a limitation though; carrying out much of the build with the wings fitted (as has been the case with EN-A) may be a luxury that cannot be repeated for the later frames (the wings are removable for transport and only actually need to be fitted for rigging of the ailerons and flaps; I understand that most of the remainder of the build can be done with them removed and stored separately). I'm also told that so much has been learned by the EN-A build team that they anticipate much quicker completion of the second and subsequent aircraft; that said, however, she is a stressed-skin monocoque like the original and there is hardly a straight line on her, so it isn't exactly Airfix or Lego!

I believe that there is a lot of pent-up interest that is currently sitting on various fences - having doubts, exactly like you, BEags. When EN-A flies (and I'm sure the media will be there in force, not just the Oxford Mail!) I anticipate that we will see a step change in pace on the project as a whole. In the mean time, we syndicate members-in-waiting have little choice but to sit on the sidelines, do our LAA metalwork courses (sensibly a mandatory requirement for tin-bashing novices like me) and wait for the remaining slots to fill up. Doh.

BEags, following your (as always) extremely pertinent and helpful advice on revalidating my lapsed PPL, I am now in the process of reacquainting myself with the mighty 'Dog and (weather permitting, which so far it hasn't been) sharpening my aerobatics and formation skills in anticipation.

With luck (and I stress that this is purely my personal view) there could be 3 ac flying by the end of 2013.

Oh, and well said, fujii!

Gadget :ok:

Well, it'd certainly be great to see a 3-ship of MK26 aeroplanes flying together in 2013; let's hope that will catalyse interest and more will then follow.

As the MK26 is a non-EASA Annex II aeroplane, there will be no need for an aerobatic rating; however, any pilots wishing to conduct aerobatics on the MK26 would be strongly recommended to take the AOPA/BAeA Basic Aerobatic Course if they have no previous aerobatic experience.

Aerobatics
 

BEags

Once again, good advice. However I should add that, since no Mk26Bs are yet flying in the UK, and despite the manufacturer's claimed +6/-4 limited aerobatic clearance (limited because the engine has no inverted oil system), the Mk 26B will not be cleared for aeros in the UK until and unless the LAA says otherwise.

However, hope springs eternal...

Gadget :ok:

Chap at my local airfield has a Mk26, I believe it was bought from Aus and shipped to the UK where he flew it on its Aus reg for a while and was able to fly aeros in it. As soon as it got transferred onto the LAA he had to stop, crazy eh, same aircraft, same airspace just different paperwork.....

Have the same issue with my own aircraft where its fully aerobatic everywhere in the world other than the UK!

Regards

UA

Real or not, this still looks like fun !
 

I have about 50 hr in our two now, I fly them at many air shows and museum flyins , it's a 90% scale airplane and about 90% of the people that see it love it, the other diehards still like it but the same bull about not being real, the problem is find one flying to bring to an airshow, here is the cool thing I fly mine to an airshow, fly in the show give a few rides , and then don't have to work on a thing, she is a blast

The thread's title is -

Spitfire Mk 26 - real or not real?

it is not entitled -

Spitfire Mk 26 - good or not?

That's a completely different question entirely.

F1-69 when you go to those shows, do you tell everyone it's a "real" Spitfire?

A thread's title bears no resemblence to what is actually contained within the thread. As anyone who's ever used a web forum will be able to explain.

Everyone knows that the Mk 26 isn't a "real" spitfire. No-one is pretending that it is.

Not "exactly" true...I overheard one from the local field talking to a big ATC unit - on being told "pass your message" he replied "(Reg) is a Spitfire etc etc - no hint of the word replica at all.

Must have felt good knowing that all the airline pilots on frequency were thinking "ooh a Spitfire"

I do want one though...

The size has now gone up to 90%, wonder if there is a plan for 100%?

Rod1

That would not please present owners.

If it looks like a Spitfire, why not just fly it like a Spitfire whether original or not ?

It looks a blast at a fraction of the cost.

clearly the sibson one is clearly cleared for aeros clearly from the clear video above.......

clearly:rolleyes:

I do a show with ours and I have a low level acro waiver , it loops and rolls very well, oddly enough on the back of my waiver it says supermarine spitfire

I order to address earlier posts, the reason the originals were (still are) trickier to fly is because of the way they were made. Over-engineered for reliability to account for variability due to the build process, i.e. war-time, and to allow those early pilots with very little training to make a good fist of flying it, and to be able to get it back on the ground in one piece, despite having less training hours than most newly qualified PPLs these days. Current copies don't need the reinforcing for machine guns either!

From those who I've heard of who have flown both, (not many to chose from nowadays) it is clear that the 90% copy flies the way the original ones did on a good day.

Aside from the legal complexity, whether it deserves the name is down to subjective personal opinion. The current Healey 3000 "replica" has a space frame chassis, ABS brakes and reliability the original could never match. Some say it's better, (technically it is) others say it doesn't have the character of the original, which depends on your definition of character!. On the legal side, Healey have sold them the Healey Motor Company name to market it as the HMC 3000.

Same goes for Vanwall. The current replica, or reproduction, as it is called, goes faster and handles better. What upsets purists, and outrages me is that you can spec it with a Ferrari engine. The very team that Vanwall were set up to beat. And did.

Can you call the Mk26 a Spitfire, you can if it matters to you. Think of it another way, how many people call their vacuum cleaner a Hoover? Tens of thousands more then Mr. Dyson would be happy with. Less emotive, but same legal implication.

As has been written in several posts, most currently flying Spitfires have been rebuilt so many times can they genuinely be original? If they can, then are the current Hurricane copies/reproductions (100% scale and built to the same drawings and methods) more genuine than restored Spitfires, as those Hurricanes are not restored and rebuilt, but are fabricated as they were done all those years ago?

I can only imagine my old CO telling us to "buckle up and fly the darn thing" if he were still here to vent his wrath. If you've got the stick in your hand, that view out of the window, and THAT wing profile to look at, the emotive side of you really doesn't care what name it carries. If it does, you're flying for very different reasons from me.

Old Ben

Obi Wan
 

Well said, Obi Wan.

May the Force be with you.

Gadget :ok:

I smell a Nobel peace prize in the works for ob1:O

I don't think the 90% copy flies the way the original ones did in as much as 300+ mph. Or am I wrong again?

Having followed this thread for some time I agree the Mk26 if a fake, as it was not designed by the original designer. The original prototype Spit was designed by Mitchel, who then died. All the production versions were modified aircraft done by a different designer. The only original Spit is the prototype; all the others are fakes designed by others.;)

Rod1

That's very good. My mk26 weighs 800kg approx. WWII mk1 was about 2000 - 3000 kg, mk24 was 7000kg!

Real or not, great question. If you think not, come with me through the hangar, close your eyes as we walk towards the mk26 spitfire. If you walk into something & it hurts, we'll call it Scotch Mist.....

The mk25, mk26 and mk26b are aircraft in the image of original spitfires. They are not true replicas. I am guided by definitions of real & replica, as well as the curator of the Scottish Museum of Flight. They are never to be portrayed as "a genuine warbirds" at air shows or otherwise, but they have and will enthuse young & old alike, helping keep the memory alive.

As it says above, what colour is yours?!

Iain

Well after all that I still prefer the hurricane.

I amused myself a couple of winters ago by creating a replica hurricane on paper. I set myself the target of 100% scale, modern technology and reliability, flyable on Hurricane pilots notes with only numbers changed.

If at some point I have 2 spare years and about £150k + money to live on, I might just do the detail design and build as well!

Until then, the Mk.26 is what's out there, and power to the collective elbows of the designers, builders and pilots.

G

Personally I'd actually prefer a mini Sea-Fury. And a subscale Vampire.

Blast from the Past ! (but Johnnie-Come-Lately has only just spotted this Thread - usual playground "Military Aviation">"Gaining an RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII").

The B word (your #1),
Not on the real thing ! Did 75 hrs in summer '42 on Mks.I and II at OTU, sent to India (where there were no Spitfires then), went back in after war in '49, flew 300 hrs Mk.XVI (20 Sqn) and a few on XIVs and 22s.

The general rule was/is (on tail-draggers): wide track, good - narrow track, watch it !. The Harvard (which we'd nearly all come from) would do a graceful pirouette at the drop of a hat. But the Spit had beautiful manners (on ground and in air), never heard of anyone (inadvertently) ground-looping.
I think so. Her point is valid, maybe firmly expressed, but still good.

There have never been any full size Spitfire replicas AFAIK (what would you use to replace a Merlin ?), plenty of full sized plastic fakes as gate guardians, of course. And a variety of nice downsized flying models of Spits (wasn't there one a few years ago that used a Jaguar 5300 V-12 ?), but that's all they are, whether or no you can shoehorn a man into them (there wasn't much spare room in the real thing, come to think of it).

That leaves the Mk.IX(T). Apart from supplying the 20 (?) Mk.IXs for the conversion, the RAF (wisely) had nothing further to do with them. Any military pilot of wings standard could jump in a Spit and fly it away (as thousands of us did). ♫....Why was it born at all ?..♫

I think the buyers, Irish, Indian, Belgian (any more ?), who were rebuilding their Air Forces post war, saw them as a cheaper (sterling) altenative to the second-hand Harvards (needing dollars). They were buying bargain basement late model Spits anyway, these should be the ideal advanced trainer for them. The Grace Spitfire, is, of course, one of these hand-me-downs.

Except that it didn't work (note that the BBMF has chosen as a lead-in for their new boys, not one of these, but - a Harvard !)

Will have a good long read through this interesting Thread and put oar in from time to time, if I may, and if Moderator will have me.

Danny42C.

An Allison...

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/images/n...tspit2-960.jpg

https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/ea...ear-in-oshkosh

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...umbertxt=1940K

That might be a tight squeeze!

I had a flight in a T11 in 1968 at Shawbury when I was 21. Two years ago I had a few more flights while in NZ. Great fun - "Fly it like a 250kt motorglider!"

I wrote to a friend that the cockpit seemed more cramped than I remembered from my halcyon days.

He charitably suggested that perhaps I was flying a 7/8 scale Vampire! ;)

Now designing a replica vampire would be a lot of fun, although I have no idea what engine you'd want to put in it.

There was the Sadler Vampire in the 1980s, but that can probably be improved upon!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadler_Vampire

G

I think the Allison-powered Spitfire in Silvaire's post is the Jurca designed full scale replica. Looks great! Clive Du Cros' prototype Spitfire replica was also full scale.


A scale A-10 might be fun!

Silvaire1 (#148),

I'm glad to be proved wrong ! Looks fabulous; no reason it shouldn't handle like the real thing (which is just about the nicest aircraft which I ever flew). Never had a IX, but, as you know, the XVI which I knew best is just a IX powered by the General Motors' "Packard Merlin". Impossible to tell the difference unless you took the engine panels off.

Wish I'd had a uniform as smart as that when I was a Sgt-Pilot (and I had a pair of Morland "Glastonburies" just like that).

Danny.

Danny, glad you enjoyed the photo. I checked out the replica one evening before dusk on the flight line at a fly-in, and it's quite an accomplishment. You'd like it! The builder flies it all over the place and I think that's remarkable too.

My father was a Supermarine designer until 1957 and is still with us, sometimes telling his quite interesting stories of that time. Tonight it was about running across the runway at Eastleigh to get lunch at the canteen, at age 17 or something, and almost being run over by a plane on short final. Good stuff.

The Goblin is 50" in diameter, so 7/8 would be 44". Surely there must be a small turbo jet that would fit?

With regards to Spitfire replicas, I saw this beautiful 7/10 scale Mk I at the Springbank airshow last year:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps2gnxcwvq.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps2fcdxpcl.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps6clbkls9.jpg

Apart from the tailwheel and the prop, if there was nothing nearby, you would be hard pressed to tell it from the real thing.