Spitfire Parts Questions. Fairly specific info needed..

Hi Tom. I’ll tell him you’re interested in his design. I’m not sure how willing he might be at the moment to give out information, but I’ll see what I can do.

Hi Daz;

Could you give me the contact info for that guy with the removeable wings?

Thanks, Tom.

Tom – I know someone who *might* have what you’re looking for. He currently has a 70%-ish lookalike under construction at the moment, built from wood, to eventually be powered by a LOM engine (not sure which type).

It also has a folding wing capability (or at least that’s one of the aims of the project) that might suit?

Ross Ferguson’s Spitfire is a stunner – there was an article on it in the PFA mag a couple of years ago.

Hello;

Thanks all, for replying to my post. I’ve been MIA for a few days.

Chumpy, I’d like this to be a flyer. A poor man’s Spitfire, and I think flying it would be a thrill to build and fly, even if it is scaled down in size. It would also be an opportunity to show off and say “see what I built?”

DazDaMan AND Mk1, I have given some thought to wood construction. I would prefer metal, although I really think the tools, cost and time required would be a big lump to chew, so wood is looking more favourable all the time. Terry Wilshire’s Tally-Ho project looks terrific, and quite accurate in shape. I think it’s a $1000 investment to buy a one-use licence to get his plans. I’d want to modify it into a MkIX, but that shouldn’t be impossible. When I talked to Terry last week, he mentioned that wood’s biggest advantage is that it’s so forgiving. You can saw, sand and shape it so easily, as well as add to it if needed. Let’s say the fuselage frames come out 1/8 inch too narrow. Just epoxy a thin layer on the outside edge. Is this an acceptable repair? Terry seemed to feel that it was.

I’ve always had perhaps an unfair or uneducated view of wood. I have simply always assumed metal is stronger, but this may not be true if structure is well designed. And wood can be at least reasonably well sealed, UV protected, etc. Wood I’ve been told, can break, but it doesn’t fatigue, and it dampens engine vibration. Can you tell I’m still learning, or even justifying this in my mind? Ask me next week, and I might want carbon fiber. The week after that, bamboo…

There have been some other awfully good wood replicas. Anyone familiar with Ross Ferguson’s MkXIV ? It’s beautiful, and looks like one of the best replicas I’ve ever seen, with virtually perfect lines and curves. If you haven’t seen it, I’ll post or e-mail some pics. It’s worth a look, and then a second look.

MkI’s machine is quite nice. I like the way the engine all seems to reside inside the “boundaries” and not stick out anywhere. When it comes to replica Spitfires, I’d really prefer not to see any lumps, bumps or intakes that aren’t suppose to be there. I know it’s tough to avoid at times with different engine shapes, etc.

A bit of personal background, and why I have this bug: I wanted to build a full scale Spit 20+ years ago, and started machining the stub spar booms and frame 5. Then I woke up and realized I wasn’t a rich man, so I stopped. Around 8 years ago, I started to make a 1/4 scale Merlin for fun, and I’ve put that on hold since I bought a bigger project; a house. The little Merlin was fun to work on, and I’ll resume work on it one day. Learned a lot about investment casting, wax mold making, and certainly a ton about the Merlin, and as a small legacy, I have a bunch of Merlin parts in my possession. The wheelcase alone is quite a work of art.

So, the Merlin and Spitfire bug will not go away with me, and actually I’m quite happy about that. As a result, it seems quite reasonable to build a Spitfire, even a scaled one, and treat this as the project of a lifetime. I know that the vast majority of these projects don’t get finished, but in my opinion, that’s no reason to not try. I want to fly, but I’ll get a ton of fun out of the journey too.

I’ve only commanded an ultralight so far, so obviously it’s back to flight school, and then tail-dragger school, but that’s all part of the venture.

Here’s what I do have in my favour; good building skills with metal and wood, even though sheet metal fuselage frame forming isn’t my best skill at this point. I have an Aerospace background, I work in Canada’s premier Aerospace research facility and work with aluminum and composite structures, and I have access to lots of tools, including a mill and lathe, both of which come in handy all the time.

What I lack is a money tree and a big garage. Since I just have a medium sized garage, I might want to design this aircraft so that the wings can be removed at the root like the original (not a quickie job, I know).

There’s my lecture for today. I know how hard this Spitfire bug can grip a person, but I honestly feel that both the aircraft and the Merlin are spectacularly beautiful machines. Yes the Hurricane was a bigger player in the Battle, and yes the Mustang is faster with much longer legs (as well as stark-raving gorgeous as well) but there’s something artistically perfect about the Spit, especially the MkIX for me.

Any replies are welcome and tips as well. That’s why I’m here.

Thanks again everyone, Tom.

Ooh, I recognise that Spit! 😀

Spitfire Parts Questions. Fairly specific info needed..

Hello Tom:
Mk.1 replying from Calgary. A few comments re starting a scatch-built all-metal Spitfire project…..first off you must be extremely ambitious and have approximately 10-12,000 hrs of “spare” time on your hands. You will also need a fully equipped metal working shop if you plan to build all-metal (brake, shear, english wheel, forming press, lathe, TIG welder etc.)…..and most importantly, an UNDERSTANDING, ACCOMMODATING & ENTHUSIASTIC WIFE & FAMILY. You might want to consider one of those Australian kits with a few mods if you are a true scale fanatic (The Mk.25 built buy George Huse is a nice example) as a kit will cut your building time immeasurably.

I have a 70% scale Mk.1 made primarily of wood and fibreglass with a some 2024 sheet metal components (cowlings, horizontal stab etc.) that took approximately 10,000 hrs and 20 years to scratch build (photos attached). Since I purchased the aircraft 2 years ago, I have put at least another 1500 hrs into her and I am still a ways from getting airborne again…..”spare” time is almost non-existent. My bird has flown for approximately 60 hrs already however I am extensively modifying/upgrading the brakes, cooling system, induction/carburation systems, wiring, avionics and panel. Much of this work is quite difficult in the confines of a complete 70% airframe. I am also currently in process of prep’ing the topsides for a re-paint in authentic 1940 BoB colours.

What engine/re-drive combination do you plan to use for your project? I believe there are more options open to you if you build a 75-80% airframe vs a 70% like mine. To maintain the pure lines of the Spit, you will have to use a V8 auto engine conversion. Terry Wilshire (Tally-Ho) can give you valuable guidance in this area as his 80% Mk.1 is truly a masterpiece. My 70% Spit is powered by a 185 h.p. Buick V8 (1962 alum. block 215 cid) with a home-built 1.8:1 cog-belt re-drive that turns a likewise home-built ground adjustable 3-blade propellor. I cruise @ 145-150 mph burning 6 gph of premium mogas or 100LL. Next year (hopefully), after some more flight testing, I may upgrade to an MT electric constant speed prop.

Best of luck getting your project “off the ground”.
Regards, Mk.1
——————

Hi Tom

Check your PMs. Especially if it’s to be a flying project!!!

If not, there’s no reason why a wooden primary structure for the fuselage/wings wouldn’t suffice, while secondary structure such as fuselage contours/deckings could be done with fibreglass-covered foam. You could add details to the exterior to complete the illusion….

Of course, that depends on your intentions…!

Hi Tom,

Is your project going to be a flyer or a static only job?
If you do not intend it to fly best to avoid expensive and difficult to work aircraft spec materials. Softer more forgiving ‘commercial’ spec materials would suffice for the more complex curved bits, not that there are many straight bits anywhere on a Spit!
If you do not already do so, best to take up drinking beer at this stage, I find it helps the thought process no end!

Best of luck, Chumpy.

Hello
Thanks for the info. I’m like a little kid who can’t make up his mind. My goal would be a 75 or 80 percent scale MkIX, but after seeing Tally-Ho’s website, and thinking a little harder about the challenges of metal working, I’m seriously considering wood for the airframe. Hardly a purist’s approach.

I will still try a few more metal experiments and see if I can get smooth flanges, and flat frames. I’ve been told that if you keep hammering, it’ll eventually end up the way you want. Ugh !

Thanks again, Tom.

Welcome..Spit fanatic..

Another brother to the secret society…For the frames and skin you would go for 2024T3 as 7075 doesn,t like bending.It is usually used for high strength areas like doublers etc,anything flat.You can hammerform T3 Ok but O or “Annealed makes it an easier exercise but then you have the added drama of heat treating.After forming stretching or shrinking the flange is a must to get the frames straight to save you a lot of work putting it all together.A lot of the guys here are spitmaniacs and have experience on type so any queries just ask away..Good luck and please show us progress pics..:D