Spitfire back in service?

Originally posted by ageorge
If I want to chatter about my 1960 PA22 Am I banished to the virtually moribund GA forum?

Moggy

Certainly not !!! , post on MacDuff !!! , any recent photos of her ??

Nothing fresh, but there is an imminent danger of some air-to-airs. 😉

Moggy

I think it boils down to this, if any of you walked out to your hangar (theoretically), flung open the door and there sat a MK26
“replica”, would you drag it outside, shove into the nearest ditch and then sterilize your hands afterward? Hell no you wouldn’t!!
I would sit down with the flight manual and go fly it. You would too!!!
No one is trying to pass these “replicas” off as originals, but so many people are quick to turn their noses up at them. Not many of us will ever be able to afford an original let alone a replica, so lets just enjoy them for what they are.

Originally posted by Hatton
What does everyone think of these replicas? I mean the MK26 on the website in my opinion looks like a childs toy.

If you had the choice of either one of these replicas or on another light aircraft ( a single prop cessna/piper etc ) then i WOULDNT go for the scale Spitfire. Would you?

Well, I’ve taken a look at the specs.

It is relatively fast, with a decent range and would leave a spamcan struggling in its wake whilst using less fuel.

It is aerobatic.

It owes a large debt to R J Mitchell

You can get two people in just (But there ain’t much room for lardies in a 152)

I’d see the choice as a no-brainer.

Can anyone put up any argument FOR the spamcan?

Moggy

I wouldn’t kick a Mk26 out of bed – but then I’m biased as hell! Just because it isn’t the real thing – and could never be the real thing – doesn’t mean that you can’t say you own/operate/fly a Spit! The general public won’t know the difference unless you tell them.

Just thought I’d say I had an e-mail from John DeVilliers of the Supermarine Co, and he says not to take these words too seriously. But if it was possible that the Mk26 was chosen for such a role, then it’d be interesting to see it in action!

What does everyone think of these replicas? I mean the MK26 on the website in my opinion looks like a childs toy.

If you had the choice of either one of these replicas or on another light aircraft ( a single prop cessna/piper etc ) then i WOULDNT go for the scale Spitfire. Would you? I’d rather go for a ‘grown ups’ aircraft than fly around in a lookalike thats pretendsto be something it’s not.

As for which forum this should be posted in…..all i’ll say is i found it interesting so why not. As Moggy says, areas overlap.

Well, I’ll tell you, Daz’s post got my attention….seeing a Spit back in action, even if it is a replica, would be fun….sure beats some of the drab general aviation planes they are offering these days….since when did everything become an undistinguished, aerodynamic blob? It’s enough that cars have gone the same way, too….I would welcome a familiar shape in the sky, with some ‘personality’, replica or not…..
As for those data plate restorations (or ground up builds like the FW 190’s we should be seeing soon)….would anyone turn away from one of those and say it was’nt a warbird through and through? The ME 262’s here stateside that have started flying? The Oscars that are being built to fly by Herb Tischler? Did any one of you WALK AWAY at Duxford a few years ago when the Grumman F3F’s showed up there? I’m guessing not…I’m guessing that replica or not, you folks, like us over here in the States, were curious and wanted to see what these planes sounded, smelled, looked like despite the fact that they were replicas…..
Mark

To go back to the beginning of this thread,it’s great to think the name ‘Spitfire’ has been applied to what might become a very succesful British aircraft,but any comparision with the real thing is daft.The two aircraft are different in size,performance,engine…basicaly everything!Ok,so it looks alot like a Spitfire,and it bears the same name,but it’s not comparable to something like the NAW replicas Shuttleworth fly or anything like that.I think Mike J’s comparison to the three-quarter scale SE.5’s was an appropriate one-it gives an impression of the real thing,but in reality has nothing to do with it.
As for whether this post belongs on the Historic or GA forum,I don’t really care,but ‘both’ is probably the best answer.

😀 LOL how many vintage planes are truly original,a new set of spark plugs is a new set of spark plugs ,not original.New broom handle then new broom head,still original,no i don’t think so.:D
I dont mind,if it looks exactly the same ,sounds the same,handles the same and you painted 2 of the aircraft the same and could’nt tell the difference,then what is the difference,60 years thats all:D
Now i’ll duck and join you in the trench:D

If I want to chatter about my 1960 PA22 Am I banished to the virtually moribund GA forum?

Moggy [/B][/QUOTE]

Certainly not !!! , post on MacDuff !!! , any recent photos of her ??

Chill

Mike J

You ought to chill out a bit!

I think we are all big enough to decide what we think this ‘Spitfire’ to be. Is it THAT important.

I happen to find Daz’s post interesting and he contributes a lot to this forum

We ought to encourage people to post not ‘shoot them down in flames’ over minor detail.

Dez

Sorry guys but if an aircraft is built to the same spec as a particular type of aircraft and is on a 1:1 scale then I am sorry I would call it a spit. Only on the paperwork would it be a replica and to the more technically minded people who would ask about her.

Originally posted by Flood
I’d go with all these dataplate rebuilds as replicas 😀 –
Flood.

I’ll let you walk through that minefield on your own I think 😉

I’d go with all these dataplate rebuilds as replicas 😀 – but if one of these ‘Spitfires’ appeared at an air show, or was a cheap star attraction at an old-boys reunion (fuel and insurence being what it is now) would we ignore it? Or is it just not sexy enough?

Flood.

Originally posted by Moggy C

There’s bound to be some overlap. If you read Daz’s posting carefully you can see that it could appear in any of the forums (Commercial and or military use of a kitplane based on an historic type.)

I’m happy enough with him posting it here 🙂

Moggy

Cheers! 🙂

Originally posted by Mike J
Sorry, Daz, but these things are NOT Spitfires!!!:mad:

They are kitplanes, pure and simple. Any discussion on them should properly belong on the ‘General Aviation’ forum!

Good ‘devils advocate’ posting, but an impossible position to carry through with any consistency.

Air Atlantique are a commercial freight company. If one of their Electras or DC6 does something interesting in the course of its working day are we banned from hearing about it here?

If I want to chatter about my 1960 PA22 Am I banished to the virtually moribund GA forum?

F4s are still in use by the Luftwaffe. I have no interest in stepping fearfully into the feuding minefield that is the military forum, but I’d love to see one if it is visiting the UK.

There’s bound to be some overlap. If you read Daz’s posting carefully you can see that it could appear in any of the forums (Commercial and or military use of a kitplane based on an historic type.)

I’m happy enough with him posting it here 🙂

Moggy

I’m sure the owners of said replicas and “new-builds” would add their piece to this discussion if they could.

I’m not one for saying a replica is actually a real aircraft, hence I used the word REPLICA in my original post. I DO know what the difference is, thank you very much!

So then, by that dictum, ALL replicas (Mustangs etc) are merely lookalikes using the same name to cash in on their famous namesakes?

I stuck it on here due to the fact that it IS a Spitfire “replica”, and replica or not I thought it might be of interest to some of the historic nuts out there.

(now I’ll probably get a barrage from everyone else! Heads down, teddy-hat on!)