2-seat Spitfire up for auction: Edited Took out link

bootlegger · **Posted:** Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:46 am

JDK wrote:

bootlegger wrote:

Spitfires are one of my favourite aircraft but a 2 seater just doesnt turn me on. It just doesnt look right the extra canopy looks exactly like it is, an after thought.

The second hole isn't for looks - it's for rides. For that reason, there's a future for the two seaters. How do you think it would 'look' to you were you sitting in it? (NB alternative is 'no ride'.)

I agree with you completely and I would crawl over broken glass to go for a ride. Is there no room in the rear to fit a jump seat like has been done in other fighters and not ruin the clean lines of the original?

PeterA · **Posted:** Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:24 am

bootlegger wrote:

Is there no room in the rear to fit a jump seat like has been done in other fighters and not ruin the clean lines of the original?

The "Grace/Melton Mod." goes some way to slimming down Supermarine's two seat conversion with minimal/zero 'structural' change.

Some purists frown at this but it certainly does take the hump out of the back bone.

Whilst it is certainly feasible to re-engineer a close fit jump seat, with no dual control, behind the pilot, best suited to a low back example, with extended teardrop hood, the certification on the British CAA does bear thinking about.

The Type 509 Supermarine two seaters of course have their front cockpits moved forward some 12/13 inches as part of the original conversion

PeterA

Mark V · **Posted:** Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:06 am

Bluedharma wrote:

Mark,
How many of those original 20 are still around? Is it just the 5 flying in the UK and the 1 here in the States? Are there any more being worked on?

The (until last year) flying T.9 in the US (TE308) is down for repairs so the only flying examples anywhere are the five in the UK. There is a further example, the unique prototype T.8, under refurbishment in UK, possibly to fly later this year (previously in the US with Jack Erickson). Another, MH367, is under repair following a landing mis-hap in New Zealand earlier this year.

At least one 'original' T.9 has been de-converted back to single seat (ML417, now Texas based) and the Spitfire in the Eagle Hangar at Oshkosh is in reality a two-place (original conversion) with the rear seat area faired over. This one is not currently flown. I dont think there are any other two-seat projects close to completion at this time.

Out of the seven flyable (including, for the sake of argument, TE308 and MH367) only four are 'original' conversions, the remainder being converted during modern restoration.

BeckyFeets · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2007 5:26 pm **Posts:** 29

Have all of you flown in two seat Spitfires and what do you think about how it flies? BF

Bluedharma · **Posted:** Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:57 pm

Good question.
I have never been in one. Those of you who have flown... did you like it?

Tony Samuelson who flew one said it looked scary at first...
http://www.samuelson.co.uk/blog/?p=70#more-70

Peter Tuplin was somewhat vague in his response...
The article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1165333/The-battle-Bonhams-How-pick-spitfire-1-5m.html

www.dailymail.co.uk wrote:

'Anyone could fly it straight and level,' says Peter Tuplin, managing director of Classic Aero Engineering, the company that has carried out the restoration.

'I could teach you to do that, though I wouldn't be much good at teaching you how to land it, unfortunately.
It's very easy to fly, but it's also very easy to get into trouble with.'

Anyone here flown in one? Peter A you have right?

David J Burke · **Joined:** Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:52 am **Posts:** 189

Mark V - are you saying that MH367 was rebuilt initially as a MK.IX and then converted by Dick into a TR.IX?

Bluedharma · **Posted:** Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:33 pm

I was reading the story by Tony Samuelson, that he posted regarding his adventures in a two seat spit in 1968-1969.
http://www.samuelson.co.uk/blog/?p=70#more-70

But I am somewhat confused by his statements.

Tony Samuelson wrote:

You have to fly a Spitfire to understand what the feeling is when you are taking off. I only ever did it once for real but the sensation is unforgettable. The Merlin engine is supercharged and it is necessary to pull full power to get the aeroplane off the ground. Getting the undercarriage up so that you can reduce the power is a top priority because twelve pounds of boost, which is the figure that comes into my mind, is only ever used in combat and, after five minutes of that, the engine has to be thrown away. As it speeds up along the runway the plane wants to yaw to the left and to compensate the pilot has to boot the right rudder with all his might. (Or it may be right yaw and left rudder. This is thirty years ago.). Meanwhile the engine is screaming and flames are belching from every exhaust port.

But on page 22 of the Spitfire IX, XI & XVI notes it says:

Quote:

39. Take-off
At training and normal loads + 7 lb./sq.in. to + 9 lb./xq.in. boost is sufficient for take-off. After take-off, however boost should be increased (where applicable) to + 12lb./sq.in. to minimize the possibility of lead fouling of the sparking plugs.

You don't have to throw the engine away after five minutes of 12...Right?
He also says engines last about 200 hours. They last longer than that??? don't they?

Cheers.

Bradburger · **Posted:** Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:33 pm

Bluedharma wrote:

I was reading the story by Tony Samuelson, that he posted regarding his adventures in a two seat spit in 1968-1969.
http://www.samuelson.co.uk/blog/?p=70#more-70

But I am somewhat confused by his statements.

Tony Samuelson wrote:

You have to fly a Spitfire to understand what the feeling is when you are taking off. I only ever did it once for real but the sensation is unforgettable. The Merlin engine is supercharged and it is necessary to pull full power to get the aeroplane off the ground. Getting the undercarriage up so that you can reduce the power is a top priority because twelve pounds of boost, which is the figure that comes into my mind, is only ever used in combat and, after five minutes of that, the engine has to be thrown away. As it speeds up along the runway the plane wants to yaw to the left and to compensate the pilot has to boot the right rudder with all his might. (Or it may be right yaw and left rudder. This is thirty years ago.). Meanwhile the engine is screaming and flames are belching from every exhaust port.

But on page 22 of the Spitfire IX, XI & XVI notes it says:

Quote:

39. Take-off
At training and normal loads + 7 lb./sq.in. to + 9 lb./xq.in. boost is sufficient for take-off. After take-off, however boost should be increased (where applicable) to + 12lb./sq.in. to minimize the possibility of lead fouling of the sparking plugs.

You don't have to throw the engine away after five minutes of 12...Right?
He also says engines last about 200 hours. They last longer than that??? don't they?

Cheers.

Yes, that puzzled me too!

Whilst you can of course go up to +12 for take off, I think you'll find that most operators of todays aircraft (usually at lighter weights than when in service) use a max of around +8 for the MKVIII/IX/XVI, as that is quite sufficient, and helps with the torque & prop effects, making the take off a bit more managable!

I know there's has always been a debate amongst pilots & the maintenance men regarding full power use at take off on these big engines, but it would seem that the use of a figure lower then +12 at take off is acceptable, as can be seen from the pilots notes.

As for Merlin engine overhaul life, I thought that most of todays owners/operators look to achieve about 500 hrs.

Cheers

Paul

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:12 am

Visited Hendon yesterday and picked up the pamphlet on the Spit for auction.

Lynn Allen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:39 am

Good luck to all bidding on her and hopefully she will be seen over here..

Lynn

Bradburger · **Posted:** Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:37 am

Sold for £1.58 Million according to the BBC:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8007586.stm

Cheers

Paul

PeterA · **Posted:** Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:16 pm

You have to be very careful raising a camera at this juncture.

Sold to Englishman Steve Brooks. Buyers premium plus some tax on top of that hammer price of $2.3+m

A well known US Foundation dropped out as it went through $2m.

PeterA

SHAEF1944 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:40 pm

Record Price Paid for 2-Seat Fighter Plane
AP

LONDON (April 21) - A British adventurer has paid a record price for a two-seat version of Britain's World War II Spitfire fighter.
Steve Brooks, who four years ago became the first person to fly from pole to pole by helicopter, the winning bidder at 1,739,500 pounds ($2.53 million) at an auction on Monday.
The plane was built as a single-seat fighter, but the restorers rebuilt it as the much rarer two-seat trainer. Since Britain never used the trainer version, this plane is painted in the colors of the Netherlands, which had three of the planes.
Bonhams, the auctioneer, says the record price for a Spitfire had been 3.2 million New Zealand dollars ($1.8 million), set last year.
The Daily Mail newspaper quoted him as saying: "I'm a great believer that things like this were built to be used, not to be museum pieces."

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:29 pm

SHAEF1944 wrote:

The Daily Mail newspaper quoted him as saying: "I'm a great believer that things like this were built to be used, not to be museum pieces."

Here's right there - but not how he means! :lol:

Warbird Information Exchange

2-seat Spitfire up for auction: Edited Took out link

Who is online