Mk.1's Mk.1 is finally done!

In 1963 I believe. The 215 is a great engine, being the narrowest V8 ever built. The resultant scale of my Spit was derived from the scale width of the Buick exhaust manifold mating faces plus 3 inches for riser stubs to put the fishtailed collectors in the correct position in the cowling.

The Buick/Rover 215c.i/3.5ltr V8 was enlarged by TVR to 4.2ltr and used in the Chimera sports car amongst others.
My mate has one fitted in his 1973 Ford Capri.
It was originaly fuel injected,but he runs it with a 4 barrel Holley suitably
jetted with gives him a nice 230bhp.

Probably the best light and narrow V8 would TVR’s own AJP8,either the
4.2 or 4.5ltr versions:

Like most Ferraris, the Cerbera’s AJP8 engine uses a flat-plane crank. “Flat-plane” means that the crank throws are all in a single plane – i.e. if you laid the crank on a desk it would be flat. Laying the crank of a conventional (twin-plane) V8 on a desk would result in a very three-dimensional wobbly thing sitting there. In both cases however, the desk will get very oily. With a twin plane you get eight evenly spaced firing intervals for every two complete engine revolutions, but the downside is that you can’t take advantage of exhaust pulse extraction effects since the manifold design is prohibitive. The Cerbera’s flat plane crank means that the engine (essentially) becomes two four cylinder engines operating on a common crankshaft, so the exhaust design is made like a traditional 4-2-1 set up to take advantage of pulse tuning effects.

Thus a flat-plane crank produces an engine that is more powerful but rougher in nature. It also means that the engine sounds like a pair of four cylinder engines together, rather than the classic “warble” of a V8 (e.g. the Rover engines used in Griffiths and Chimaeras). As a point of useless trivia, a four cylinder engine in a “boxer” configuration, as used by old Alfas, Beetles and of course the Subaru Impreza sounds like a classic V8.

The unusual exhaust sound is made even more weird by the “V” angle not being 90 degrees. Its 75 degree angle means the engine doesn’t behave exactly like two four-cylinder engines since instead of the firing intervals being 90 + 90 degrees apart they are 75 + 105 degrees apart.

I bet you didn’t really want all that gory detail, did you? And I bet you’re now wanting to know what “pulse effects” are? Basically its a technique where exhaust gets actively sucked out of the cylinders by the exhaust system, due to standing waves being set up in the exhaust pipes. Better? I didn’t think so….

Here’s a 4.5 AJP8 engined Cerbera in action with 300+bhp escaping :diablo::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VshqCSPjVcg&feature=related

That would really liven your beautiful Spit up 😉

Mark

Mk1

How did you sneak this one by us when you are only 300km away.

If you are interested could you PM your contact info?

Our museum does a number of events per year and it would be great to include you and the Spitfire.

Tom Hinderks
Alberta Aviation Museum
[email]eahs.execdirector@shawbiz.ca[/email]

Looks really really good, that an aerobat harness you are using?

It’s a 4 pt. military harness. I have a military (back pack) type chute to go with it.

Looks really really good, that an aerobat harness you are using?

Beautiful looking aircraft, you must be very proud of you work.

I have to ask though, how much more work would have been involved in
making it full sized ? Or is it a power to weight issue ?

Alan:
C-FAMY was designed and built entirely around the powerplant initially sourced for her, namely the Buick 215 cu.in.(now the Rover 3.5 litre) V8. Building in scale around this engine results in a 70% scale aircraft. Going to full scale bumps the cost (capital and operating) by a factor of at least 5. At that point the op costs approach the real thing when you are running a Merlin or an Allison as the fellow with the full scale Mk.IX replica does in Texas. My 70% aircraft is very economical to operate and fits nicely in my hangar under the wing of my ’57 180.
Regards, Mk.1

Meant to add

http://www.specialpatrolgroup.co.uk/aircraft/spitfire.html

Wow she looks very nice indeed!

Wasn’t the Clive Du Cros prototype Spitty replica full size, using a Jaguar V12 engine?

Mr google says

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=21852

Wasn’t the Clive Du Cros prototype Spitty replica full size, using a Jaguar V12 engine?

I think building a full-scale Spitfire replica is a whole different ballgame to building one that’s scaled down.

It’s not just the design implications; it’s the choice of engines available, and, above all else, the cost of the beast.

Scaled down jobs are always the cheaper option.

Having said that, two guys in Australia have built full-scale Spitfires (from metal) with modern engines. They may not be to everyone’s tastes, but they are interesting nonetheless. There’s a link kicking about somewhere…

Beautiful looking aircraft, you must be very proud of you work.

I have to ask though, how much more work would have been involved in
making it full sized ? Or is it a power to weight issue ?

OK then guys. So how can we shrink the pilot’s head by 30% and solve this one?

🙂

Ian

Here’s your answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj_inlzsDhQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

😀

Lovely Spit BTW 🙂

This side of the pond better known as a Rover 3.5 Ltr V8 (Buick built them for a couple of years before Rover bought the design rights)

In 1963 I believe. The 215 is a great engine, being the narrowest V8 ever built. The resultant scale of my Spit was derived from the scale width of the Buick exhaust manifold mating faces plus 3 inches for riser stubs to put the fishtailed collectors in the correct position in the cowling.

and is powered by an all-aluminum 215 cu. in. Buick V8 making @ 185 h.p.

This side of the pond better known as a Rover 3.5 Ltr V8 (Buick built them for a couple of years before Rover bought the design rights)

OK then guys. So how can we shrink the pilot’s head by 30% and solve this one?

🙂

Ian

Ian:
My head is actually 30% smaller than evident in the photo. It only swells to that size when I climb into the cockpit of C-FAMY…..Spitfires seem to have that effect on me as they apparently do with a number of others that reside (mainly) in the UK. 🙂 Cockpit photo attached.
Mk.1

Congratulations on a stunning aircraft 😀

Looks brilliant! 🙂

I agree with Propstrike, though. A bit of weathering would be nice. Some cordite stains behind the gun ports, for instance… 😉

Quite wonderful- it really looks the part in the new colour scheme.

After a little while , with some oil stains and exhaust residue, it will look even better ! It is always a dilemma, to make it look clean and loved, or worn and authentic.

Scale-down

that looks really good. if it was’nt for the piolts head giving it scale.. you would be hard pushed to know other wise:D

OK then guys. So how can we shrink the pilot’s head by 30% and solve this one?

🙂

Ian

Is this a kit or a scratch build? She’s looks stunning! Would love to have more of this type around! Well done!

FAMY was scratch built from the Guillow’s plans.