Spitfire Mk 26 - real or not real?
 

There's a buch of enthusiasts at Enstone Airfield building a Squadron of 12x Supermarine Mk26b Spitfires at present. The name Supermarine was bought by an Australian a while back and the Mk26b is about 90% the size of the earlier Spitfires built in the 30s and 40s. It is all metal, has a 6 litre V8 and has the narrow track undercarriage that was always a handfull - see here for more Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire

Now there are those that say it isn't a real Spitfire - but it is manufactured by the Supermarine Aircraft Company. One of those that have had a right spat about them is Carolyn Grace (shame I thought better of her) in a recent edition of the Light Aviation magazine:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f7...f945051b-1.jpg

I for one think it's great as it brings the spirit of Spitfire flying within the reach of those less priviledged (some would say unlike Mrs Grace?!)

The B Word

PS. yes, I know Mrs Grace lost her husband and she finished his Spitfire and now flies it in his memory. But does that excuse her opinion in the letter?

I had a little sympathy with what she was saying until I read the last sentence. She sounds like an arrogant, self-important woman.

She is absolutely correct. You wouldn't sell a 1990's built KopyKat as a real E-Type Jag, why should a kit plane be treated any differently?
To suggest that something with a 6 litre V8 engine is in any way on a standard with a Merlin or Griffin fitted aircraft is just absurd.
Its a replica. Thats all, and thats what it should be sold as.
As for the name - so what? Its not the same company.

As her's has been rebuilt and as with most these days it is nothing but a full sized glorious replica with a data plate on it....
Same person who taxied her Spit straight into a Jet Ranger I believe, some skill there... She has also had it on it's nose before..

As for her referring to the skill of those flying them, The stupid thing is, it is all down to money, some of the warbirds pilots I have seen, I wouldn't let them loose with a pram, but they can afford the expensive toy, or does she think just because she flies a Spit she is a better pilot?


.

Hopefully someone can answer this.

Why when building these replicas did they choose to design an 80% and then a 90% replica instead of just going for the full size to begin with ?


Not that this is the reason but the Spitfire cockpits never looked that big in the first place and we are only getting bigger in size compared to the men and women in the 1940's.

.

Pure guesswork, but maybe because all they could use were car engines and it improved the performance. It'll reduce the cost of the airframe as well.
They're flown as Light Aircraft - does scaling down bring them below the weight limit?

500N

The answer is on the website:

Milo

The difference is that this is made by Supermarine - it's a bit like saying today's Triumph Motorcycles are not real Triumphs because they are built in a factory in Hinckley (which is reputedly the best in the world) rather than built in Meriden (which by the time the Unions finished with it was the worst in the world). Or the new Mini, or the new VW Beetle, or the new Fiat 500, or the X-Type Jag, or the Landrover Defender, or the new Range Rover, etc...

The B Word

Spitfires were built by every man and his dog scattered all over the UK and brought together at various factories for assembly, and NOT just Supermarine.

Grace Article
 

She does seem to come over as up her own ar--!

I remember a few years ago we had flown in to Duxford and were sat on the grass as she came walking past the control tower after doing several flights for a corporate day.

I asked her how much would it be for a trip in the Spitfire, would have been for my old man who used to fly them in the second world war. Her reply was I am rather fussy who I take in the Spitfire!

Shame she didnt remember the bucket that was placed many years ago in the hangar at Duxford towards the rebuild fund for the engine :=

Oh piffle... If any ex-WWII pilots want to complain, then I'll give them a hearing.

Personally I'm glad that there's one company that makes a reasonably close replica, though I know full well I'll never be able to afford it. Nobody in the know will confuse it for the real real deal, so it's not fraud (except for the dummy radiator option). And at least it isn't built out of either plywood or composites.

If they did make a 100% spitfire, what engine would you put in it anyway assuming Merlins are no longer practical?

I am surprised and disappointed that Carolyn Grace has seen fit to denigrate this project. I respect her and her husband Nick, who put together the Spitfire she flys. It is, of course, in many ways a replica itself although built from one that was real. If you make anything that has to be added is it then not a replica.

I have flown many replicas, including a Camel, Sopwith Pup, an Albatross, a DR1 (Fokker Triplane) and others, all built from scratch but with the SAME skills that Tommy Sopwith and the German designers employed in the first war. These aircraft were, therefore, like the originals and flew like them and some had a bite like them. It took some skill to fly them but I cannot say that my skills were any better, or worse, than those who flew them in wartime. What I do know is that they WERE just like the real thing - they were built like that and to be like that.

Carolyn has a point when she mentions flying a scale model Spitfire is different to a real Mk26, but that does not and should not be a reason to put it down. Indeed, it is that point where she lets herself down because it is not so different as to be worthy of her remark that these models should not be compared to the pilots who flew them and to the Spitfire itself. It is well known that some skills were short in flying her own Spitfire, but she can still claim and be proud that she carries on with Nick's dream.

I visited the Mk26 'factory' when I was staying in Brisbane it was sign-posted Castle Bromwich, this must make it authentic surely!!.

She sounds like someone who's position as prominent Spitfire pilot is under threat, not just by the replicas, but by the ever increasing numbers of airworthy Spitfires which are competing for the attention that she obviously revels in.
Her ego is expanded in a shrinking market and is causing her some discomfort, poor lamb.:ugh:

Spitfire
 

I have to say that the Mk 26 doesn't exactly invoke the same 'sight and sound of freedom' that the original does.

However, thanks to those who gave their lives in pursuit of freedom, we speak English, enjoy freedom of speech and opinion and, more to the point here, can call our whizzer anything we like.

HP

Oi! I have a 1979 Meriden-built T140D; by then, the factory had got them right, and the late Meriden Bonnies were the best they made. It sounds good, vibrates, oozes character; it's a Spitfire compared to the modern Triumph's PA28!

Can we refrain from personal abuse here.

The thread is about whether or not an 80% replica minus Griffin or Merlin engine can be compared with 'the real thing'.

The views on both sides are strongly and deeply held and I don't see that anything she said denigrates those who build, own or operate the Mk26.

She is only pointing out the simple truth. The Spit is a different, bigger and more challenging beast.

Look at the recent French 80% replica of a Mosquito and the way that the test flight went with modern engines. The only thing it had in common with the DH Mosquito was the name.

Indeed she is, but is also inferring that the skill of a Spitfire 26 pilot in no way can be compared with her or other people who fly the real thing. How does she know what the level of piloting skills of a Spitfire 26 pilot are ? Does she personally know them all and what their aviation career has been and what they have flown ? And what makes her think she has fantastic and superior skills when you look at some of the incidents she has had.

She had a valid and good point that the aeroplane itself is not the same as a real Spitfire, but when she starts putting down people she doesn't even know, then she needs to remember she's in a very big greenhouse and her track record is in the public domain. Throw rocks and you can break a lot of glass.

I'd love a go in a Spitfire 26 ... and a real one :ok:

I've met her and she's lovely - every bit the delightful person she is in the Nick Grace video and 'Going Solo'. I haven't read the LAA piece on the replica so can't comment on the relevance of her letter.

There are two of them at Perth, and I have had the opportunity to get a close look at them. I also have seen them flown, and displayed. Now..

Great workmanship, from a distance they look great, and I am sure the guys that have them have some good fun. Do I think they are worth a 100k investment? No. I would rather have a YAK50. In the air they sound odd, because you see the famous outline, but no sound. That is a disappointment. I also, like any single seat aeroplane, would find it all a bit pointless, unless, you had some real power, and could do something with it. My point of view..

I also understood, and it was a comment from someone else, that they required an inordinate amount of maintence, relative to its mission profile, but that may have been sour grapes, and no doubt someone who owns one could confirm.

Counting seats
 

Maxred - count the number of seats in a Mk 26 again...;)

HP

I've had a close look at 3 of these replicas now. As a kit aircraft it is quite complex and more of a challenge than many of the modern 'quick bulds'.

From a distance (well quite a distance) they are fairly convincing - but then the scale and proportions strike you as not quite right.

In flight - well they are nothing special - any well flown Chipmunk is more interesting. (yes I'm sure they are aerobatted in less complex air than the UK's) - but here a couple of not so fast low passes is not going to impress.

Are they worth the money - well no where close in my judgement. Are they difficult to fly? Not particularly it would seem from the people I've spoken to.

But I think we should be very clear they are light aircraft with a visual resemblence to the Spitfire - they share absolutely nothing else with a Spitfire apart from the same medium - air.

If you want one fine - but do not pretend it is a Spitfire or it was built by the company that built Spitfires. Basically stop pretending it has anything beyond a visual resemblance.

But that still does not justify Caroline Grace's parting shot - yes I'm sure they are easier to fly than a real Spitfire, but that does not mean the people who do fly them are not 'skilled'. Anyone moving to a 'real Spitfire' will require conversion training - but as the RAF and perhaps more particularly the ATA showed most pilots could fly a Spitfire as well.

I thought it was because a kit build company is not allowed to make an exact replica of someone else's product. Might be to do with patents, copyright etc.... Its the same with cars. AFAIK, all the kit cars out there are never 100% replicas of the real things, otherwise the original manufacturer will claim loss of earning and various breaches of this that and the other. That said, you soon know your not buying a real Ferrari Testarossa because it could look like an MR2 inside :rolleyes:. Same with these Spitfires I presume. Some people will notice they dont quite look or sound right, but for many others they think they will have seen a real spitfire and take a bit of delight in that, and theres nothing wrong with that :-)

I think that Mrs Grace has been really rather churlish.

Of course it's not a real Spitfire, of course it doesn't come close to the handling and performance. It's pretty close to it visually, but scaling size and weight and using a modern engine clearly didn't allow them to do an exact copy - scaled or not.

I don't think that anybody's ever pretended otherwise.


But the people who have built them have put a massive labour of love into that, and the people who fly them - often the same people - are getting enormous pleasure from flying the nearest they're likely to ever get to a "real" Spit. Plus it gives much pleasure to the rest of us who like seeing a really beautiful aeroplane - which it is, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than buying a PA28. There is much to be admired in it, and if part of that is the association with the iconic aircraft that it is a tribute to - why the heck not.

G

It is also not a bl++dy model, she simply shows she herself for what she is in that letter.. call it what you like but it is plain and simply an aircraft............

Paid for by all the people she has roped into the supporters club, without them i think it will have long since been sold.. Why do these people suddenly think they are better pilots than those that do not own one???? Better pilots do not taxy into Helicopters.....

Is there any part of the marketing or branding of the Mk 26 which suggests that it is the same aircraft as the original? As I understand it the idea is to keep the spirit of the original alive. Does anyone claim to be on a par with an original Spitfire pilot just because they fly a mk 26? I don't believe so!

It may take a certain level of skill to fly the original but I bet it was far from being the most difficult aircraft of its era to fly and I bet there are a few aircraft today which are more of a handful to fly safely!

I really don't understand the reasoning behind the letter. It appears to demonstrate nothing exceopt a rather narrow view of others and an inflated view of themselves.

Well said that person! :D

The fact that someone has gone to the trouble to build a reasonable lookalike of a Spitfire is a tribute to the real thing. Has anyone ever pretended it is anything other than that? I doubt it.

I used to drive a Spitfire but didn't think I was a fighter pilot. Anyway, it was the most unreliable car I've owned and went very rusty, too! ;)

It can get sillier....

Stealth condoms shot down | Special Delivery | Find Articles

G

It is unfortunate that the editor of Light Aviation magazine chose to write an article stupidly comparing the Mk26 Spitfire to the real thing. It is a look - like, no more, no less. The editor seems to be of the opinion that because the builders of the Mk26 kit own the name 'Supermarine', the product is a Spitfire. He told me so!

In my opinion it's a ghastly parody of the original, but that's only my opinion. Others might like it.

I would be interested to know whay you say that. I have not flown one of these aircraft and doubt I ever will, but I would think it should be judged in its own terms. I see that someone compared it unfavourably to the Chipmunk, which I have flown extensively. I suspect that most modern light aircraft compare unfavourably to the Chipmunk:ok:

The right question should perhaps be be to ask how it compares to other modern kit permit aircraft in terms of handling, economy and speed, not to mention cost. On the latter point it may not do too well as I believe these kits are quite expensive.

Based solely on what I have read I get the impression that a genuine Spitfire is possibly slightly easier to fly than say a Christen Eagle, which I have also flown, though not much. Were it not for the fact that the real thing is valued at >£1m I suspect we would not be having a debate about the worthiness of modern Spitfire pilots above all other pilots :sad:

Oh, come on. It was to make money, by selling a product to those who fancy themselves as WWII fighter pilots and can afford the kit.

I already have refrained!

I've had a go in a real one, and I'd still love a go in a MK26.

One doesn't negate the need for the other.

Why is it stupid, what else should he have written an article comparing it to, a double decker bus? If it is a scale or semi scale " replica" even if not accurate, surely the ideal aircraft to compare it to is the real thing..

She needs to get a life.

What a bloody nerve :=:= How dare they try and make money. I dont't know what western civilization has come to:ugh:

Probably a demonstration of stupidity for anyone to think that they can actually make money from aviation.

Im not sure if most blondes will notice it is only 90% size!
 

I would like to wish Paul the very best with this project but have some reservations as to whether 12 will ever get built.

There is a video on the website going back to last April 2011 in which Paul says he expects the first completed in 3 months. Having built several kit aircraft they always take three times as long.

The first from what I have seen is quite a long way from being finished. 1/20th shares were going for £11000 each which makes the kit around £220000.00 for each aircraft. To build 12 will require alot of money!

Would be nice just to see one flying tho!

Best of luck with it all guys- and who cares if it is only 90%. The shape of it makes it a very gorgeous and sexy aeroplane.

Sorry HP. Note to self-must do better and count the seats in a REPLICA spit. What is the derivation of a single seat 90per cent replica Spitfire??

Do all the MK 26 have two seats??

How many seats are there in the Grace Spitfire?:}

H

I believe there are single and two seat versions.

G

Spitfake 26
 

The real deal?
Of course not. It's like sticking things on your car to make it look like the GTi model. Doesn't make it a GTi.

Now if you want a replica/lookalike (or whatever you want to call them), which has the sound and matches (or exceeds) the performance of the WW11 original, try this:
Thunder Mustang Home Page

I have seen and heard one fly. Awesome. IF I was inclined to go down the replica route, that's the one for me. (It's still not a P-51 though ;))

Yes guys I did realise that the Grace Spit has two seats. I also did realise that it was a Mark 26.

Having an exciting day at the office, I then realised that the two at Perth are single seats, but I thought the singles were also designated Mk 26.

Silly me.

Swiss cheese anyone?????

So smarty pants - what is the designation of the single seat ones?????