Build yer own spit

[sabredriver]

http://www.fighterwerks.com/kitdetails.html

[AeroTRrat]

Don't foget Russ Harmuth. He builds some of the nicest Repro Spit Bits on the planet.

His Spifire is almost all wood.

http://www.spitfireaircraftco.com/

Dave

[Bill Greenwood]

Let's say one wants to design a replica of a Spitfire. What are the disadvantages to overcome? The real Mccoy burns 60gal fuel and a half gallon of oil an hour. It's engine costs $75,000 to overhaul, perhaps after 1000 hours, or a lot sooner if you race it. The prop is $50,000, the 3 gear perhaps the same. It only has a couple of hours internal fuel, not great IFR instruments, no auto pilot, mostly little baggage room and no jump seat. It can use most runways over 3000', but doesn't cool well on the ground. It's comfortable in summer, has no heat for winter. The engine uses 14 gal of coolant and 12 gal of special oil which should be changed every 35 hours. It flies better than most any warbird, but it is still no Cessna and requires a trained pilot to be safe. It is also addictive as heck. How do you overcome some of these, especially cost? Next post.

[Bill Greenwood]

What are the positive attributes of a real Spitfire? What qualities do you want to attempt to duplicate? Remember no matter how one tries to make it authentic, it is not going to be a genuine Spitfire, it will never be one of 23,000 Supermarine made. I think the foremost quality is how it flies, how it handles. The orignal is not only one of the best handling warbirds, but of any plane. I think as much as possible a designer should use the same eliptical wing and airfoil. I, am to a certain extent, separating handling from performance. It needs to be exciting, but it doesn't need a 600 mph dive speed or 9 g stress or 1700 hp. Having an Allison may save some money initailly, but it doesn't change the weight or service needs. If there is a, proven smaller, cheaper (perhaps Falconer or Jaguar V-12), I'd consider it. It seems about 3/4 scale ought to be able to retain some of the good points and perhaps bypass some of the expensive factors of the original not needed now .The other critical thing is that it really look like a Spitfire.

[Chad Veich]

I would love to see an all composite 3/4 scale (or so) Spit wrapped around a Falconer ala the Thunder Mustang. However, the market would probably be pretty limited due to the single seat. Everybody wants to take a friend!

[visaliaaviation]

bill,
I think you put your finger directly on the problem. any homebrew fighter HAS to look the part. The de Ford Spit, while looking sort of like the real deal is certainly not, up close and personal. This is where it gets a bit sticky. It was certainly Mr. de Ford's vision to build what he did and he should be aplauded for great effort. However, his effort is not a Spiitfire.
There is a vast difference between what is shown and the real thing. IMHO, the gap could be a lot closer.

I can't help but think it's where the individual builder sets the "good enough " standard. For fact, Spitfire factory drawings are available, if one realy wants them. Same goes for nearly any other WWII fighter.

[bdk]

I think you put your finger directly on the problem. any homebrew fighter HAS to look the part. The de Ford Spit, while looking sort of like the real deal is certainly not, up close and personal. This is where it gets a bit sticky. It was certainly Mr. de Ford's vision to build what he did and he should be aplauded for great effort. However, his effort is not a Spiitfire.
There is a vast difference between what is shown and the real thing. IMHO, the gap could be a lot closer.

It is hard enough to build any plane from scratch. It is even harder to design one AND build it. Those are a lot of skills to master and very few indeed can do both. He built the plane following the plans that were available. I don't think the owner represents his plane as a real Spitfire. I'm sure the result suits him.

So what is a Spitfire in your opinion? Can it be wood as long as it exactly matches the loft of the original? Is a scratchbuilt one built from metal exactly per the original blueprints a Spitfire?

[visaliaaviation]

"A rose by any other name"

please note I did not belittle Mr. De Ford or his build. It was his project and he deserves recognition for a well executed homebuilt aircraft. Period.

On the otherhand, he is "selling" his vision (ableit for expenses, etc)- good work IMHO, if one can get it!!!) at various airshows around the country. I'm sure that's because of what it looks like and the audacity of the project. So he is being rewarded for his efforts. But should it recieve widespread recognition for it being a good likness of a Spitfire? Hardly, because were talking apples and oranges.

Frankly, I don't see the problem of designing a new structure, or adapting a proven concept, that fits inside an accurate outline as opposed to lines that that are largely made up. The ONLY difference I can tell is the amount of research going into what the real aircraft looks like. Real data tells you EXACTLY what it is supposed to look like and helps keep guessing at a minimum. And the data is available, if one is so inclined to really look.

Mr. De Ford built from innaccurate plans. It may be a case of good plan with a bad outline. His choice. I tend to think his rewards are proportional to his effort. Now imagine if he used the same Allison engine in an otherwise part for part new construction Spitfire. It would be a "reconstruction" of the original design. The Buzz in the aviation community and airshow business would be considerabley higher than he's getting now. Or how about a new lightweight lower powered airframe, of wood metal and FG that looks and measures EXACTLY like the outside of a Spitfire? Same conclusion.

Me personally, I'm very interested in his project because it shows what is entirely possible, if only a little more effort is made in the data gathering stage. It's been my experience that real homebuilders do not generally subscribe to the concept of "can't".