Mk 20's series Spitfire/Seafire 46/47 projects

The Mk 21 was used operationally by the way.

Beaufighter VI can you inform us about the future plans for TFC’s 22?
Cheers
Cees

Thanks, Mark!

With this talk of (over)developed Spitfires, does anyone know if there was ever a germ of a plan by Supermarine to fit a turboprop engine to one at the time?

which Spitfire restoration is likely to fly next?

There are several contenders. It is all to do with financial pace.

My money would be on Mk XVI TB885 at BHHH.

Mark

Edit…and of course as Daz has reminded me AR501 cannot be too far away…but it has been a very lengthy rebuild of what was basically an airworthy Spitfire.

Mark, are u able to tell which Spitfire restoration is likely to fly next?

And your set of wings too?

Ah yes. I had forgotten about those. 😉

Mark

And perhaps a set for me as well…..

The Mark 22/24 is a beautiful aircraft. Stunning lines, low production numbers, and in my opinion, the accurate and correct aircraft for the descriptive phrase “the ultimate Spitfire”. While there are others that have rich combat histories, and certainly better flying characteristics, the Mark 22/24 develops such a pull for me as it was too late for events and too few in numbers to achieve what its design promised. The world was right to walk away from the design at the time and the difficult and sometimes indirect progression of jet designs eventually proved the turbine promises true.

It must be realized that any Mark 22/24 build at this time, or any contemplated build, is one that does not make financial sense. The Griffon Spitfire does not have the value of the Merlin one yet, and for the Mark 18 and later, the lack of combat history will never allow them to be top tier collectibles. Some late model parts are very rare, and their already expensive asking prices for the scant fragments that remain slow the process of reconstruction. Any reconstruction must be exacting and not some Mk XIV/18/Attacker/Seafire hybrid to have any subsequent value on a resale, unless its pricing is as a collection of parts only. That said, if four or more “kits”could be built, perhaps with 57/58 power plants, it could work as an expensive “hobby” resurrection. It will never approach the value of an original airframe or even a XIV new build should it someday happen.

The design end result of all of this is a flying aircraft. Will the flying qualities of the finished product satisfy those who get to fly it? It only has one seat….

And your set of wings too?:rolleyes:

Restoring a set of series 20 wings would be feasible but reconstructing a new set when
a certain project doesn’t come with any? Are drawings available?

I am sure some drawings will be available but reverse engineering PK664 wings will be the route for LA564 and this will also be the aid to manufacture the build jig hard points.

Mark

Sorry CeBro, you are right,but those Spitefuls and Seafangs were pretty awesome looking, especially the Mk14 fuselage prototype.

But we are straying off the intended path.

Restoring a set of series 20 wings would be feasible but reconstructing a new set when
a certain project doesn’t come with any? Are drawings available?

Indeed, most logical. I was thinking the (too) easy way:)

Thats the rational approach! I’d just pick the one I wanted most! 🙂

The potential funder of such a project will weigh up what is the most valuable on completion.

1) A reproduction of a one off Spiteful development prototype that utilised a modified Mk XIV fuselage and small tail unit.

2) A full reproduction of a development Spiteful with re-profiled Mk 22 fuselage and dedicated large tail unit assembly….and Rocketeer’s canopy.

No contest. 🙂

Mark

.

That would be the easy option if a pair of wings were to be found. New built Spitfire XIV fuselage is no problem if funding is no question.

The Spiteful prototype with the XIV fuselage would be the one for me… an awesome looking machine!

Not a bad looking aircraft actually – if I squint a bit, it looks a little bit P-47 to me!

Si any Spiteful or Seafang parts surviving?

Thank you for taking the time to explain, Mark.

I had never noticed the difference in fuselage profile before compared the a low-back Spit’, in particular that graceful curve along the top longeron.

Supermarine305,

The fuselage construction drawing post #9 is from AP 2280 pertaining to the Seafire 46 and 47.

I estimate that the new design cockpit glazing and the pilot are sitting some four to six inches higher in the Spiteful compared to the Spitfire 22, improving forward and downward visibility, a criticism of the Spitfire from day 1.

In the attached image you can see how the cockpit door hinge is no longer adjacent to the datum longeron and both the top engine cowl and the top fuel tank cover have revised upward curving profile compared to the Mk 22.

One could assume, in true Supermarine cut and shut style, the design brief was to utilise as much of the Mk22 fuselage below the datum longeron as possible and remodel above the datum longeron.

Mark