Mk1New Hans Ulrich Rudel aircraft photos
Guten Tag Herr Jagdtiger:
Your post re new H.U. Rudel photos prompted me to inquire of you the likely collectable value (if any) of an original, signed Luftwaffe (post-card style) propaganda photo of H.U. Rudel printed by the late-war German propaganda ministry.
As part of a high school book project in the 1970’s, I wrote to Herr Rudel after reading his biography, “Stuka Pilot” and he wrote back to me from his then residence in Uruguay. The photo card of Rudel wearing all of his decorations is in excellent condition and has a short note (hand-written to me in broken English as I recall) on the back side. A listing of his decorations is printed in German as part of the original propaganda ministry documentation. I’m pretty sure the photo is still in the original envelope he mailed it to me in. It found its way to Uruguay as I recall, via a circuitous route that saw it go to the publisher in New York, to Germany, then to Uruguay and finally back to me in Vancouver, B.C.
On the same subject, I also have an autographed copy of “The first and the Last” by Adolph Galland. Herr Galland signed his book for me when I met him at an Abbotsford Airshow barbeque @ 1977. He signed the inside cover as well the photo in the book where he is standing with Hermann Goering at Calais (around the time he made the famous “Squadron of Spitfires” request when prompted by Goering as to what he needed to win the Battle of Britain).
I have no plans to part with these items but was simply wondering if they are worth anything to collectors of genuine Luftwaffe memorabilia.
Thanks,
Mk.1
———–
Mk1Spitfire Wing Structure, some specific questions.
Hello Tom:
I checked my copy of the Mk.V manual for washout and airfoil details and it unfortunately only details the maintenance aspects (disassembly/reassembly) of the wing panels and components. My replica wings however, definitely have the ~2.5 deg washout built into them as near as I can tell by eye.
Mk.1
———
Mk1Spitfire Wing Structure, some specific questions.
Tom:
I will check the manual again as its been a while since I’ve referred to it. Re centre of lift, I recall a comment from Terry Wilshire that he and Bob Cutting designed the Tally-ho 80% Spit to have the CoL @ 31% of MAC. I would qualify this statement however with a comment that my middle-aged memory is not what it used to be and hence would highly recommend you consult directly with Terry Wilshire. He is a very good authority on replica Spit aerodynamics.
Mk.1
——–
Mk1Spitfire Wing Structure, some specific questions.
Hi Tom:
I will eyeball the washout on mine for you tommorrow when I’m at the hangar. I have attached the only “near perpendicular” photo I have (annotated with approximated red “wash axes”) and like you have speculated, there appears to be @ 2-2.5 deg negative washout between the root and the tip. If will also consult with old Charlie who built mine to see if he can remember although I doubt he will recall that detail from 37 years ago. The wing section on mine (indeed with the transitioning camber/chord ratio) also appears (by eye) to closely resemble the airfoil detailed in the Mk.V manual. I am at a loss re NACA numbers though.
As for flying characteristics (in the lower speed realm my 70% replica operates in, 45–>200 mph), I can comment that my (seemingly near scale) airfoil has no nasty habits. Power off stall (stick hard back) was @ 45 mph and a little higher with power on (half throttle, @ 50-55 mph with a slight buffet preceeding a gentle right wing break (which seems counter-intuitive to prop rotation). I have only had the airplane up to 170 mph with aileron loads appearing almost constant. Charlie dove the Spit to 200 mph at the Abbotsford airshow and he said she didn’t appear to handle much different than at the 145 mph cruise. Thats about all I can share with you as I only put @ 5 hrs flying on her before she went on the stand for her mods and refinish (2 years+ in progress now).
Regards, Mk.1
—————-
Mk1Messerschmitt 108 survivors
Hi Daren:
I had the personal priviledge to fly one of the few remaining ME 108’s (Nord-built) back in the mid-70’s. The aircraft was owned by the late Dr. Alan High, a well-known (English) orthodontist and was Canadian registered as C-GRIT (after Allan’s wife Grite). At the time, C-GRIT was based at Pitt Meadows, B.C., just east of Vancouver. In helping Allan with much of the routine maintenance of the aircraft, I ended up crewing for and flying with him a number of times at the Abbotsford airshow. The Nord-built ME-108 had a very tempermental air start system that (on occasion) required a stand-by bottle to be connected to a fitting just behind the propellor and then disconnected after the engine was running (a bit of a touchy operation, only 2 ft from the prop!!!). Allan was tought to fly the ME 108 by Franz Stigler, a famous Luftwaffe ace(28 confirmed victories, not including 2 un-confirmed B-17’s shot down while flying the ME 262 in the last week of the war). Franz was, needless to say, a very talented instructor and a wonderful resource of information about the Messerschmitt. (He is now 93 and still resides in Surrey, B.C.). When the doctor sadly passed away from cancer at a young age, Franz came to own C-GRIT and flew it until he lost his medical in the early ’90’s. The aircraft was sold and eventually found its way to Australia where it was damaged in a landing accident (it was indeed touchy on landing and required a fair bit of tail-wheel skill to handle, particularly in a crosswind on pavement). I believe it is now flying again down under however I cannot say for sure. I have attached one of the few photos I have of C-GRIT. I often lament not buying her when I had the chance. She would have been a wonderful stable-mate for my replica Mk.I Spitfire.
Regards, Mk.1
—————-
Mk1Martin Mars to Greece?
Hello Mars types:
I may be able to help somewhat with some of the Mars transit flight speculation. Hawaii Mars (Red-tailed CF-LYL, the bottom-drop-door aircraft and machine that would likely be deployed to Greece if the mission comes to pass) has been reconfigured from its original 12,000 USgal fuel capacity down to 5,000 USgal capacity. The 4 Wright R-3350’s burn @150 USgph each, therefore CF-LYL has a fuel endurance of @ 8.3 hrs (with no reserve). Cruise speed at 10,000 ft. is @ 185 kts therefore a maximum leg length would be @ 1400 nautical miles. Phillipine Mars (White-tailed CF-LYK, the side-drop-door aircraft) still has its original 12,000 USgal tanks fitted however it has not been maintained through the summer at the same state of readiness as CF-LYL. The new owner of the Mars (Coulson Aircrane) presently only staffs flight crew for one of the two machines.
The keeners in the forum can get out their Rand-McNally world maps and start plotting the likey route and fuel stops. Re-fueling can be accomplished from a tanker truck on shore using the floating fuel hose carried in the aircraft when on detached operations from the Sproat Lake base.
Mk1Spitfire Replica, alternative spars, engines, etc.
Hello AVI & Tom:
Re choice of engines, AVI makes good points in leaning towards the Chevy’s. They are certainly cheaper, more plentiful and the big plus is all the available PSRU’s out there in the marketplace (mine was purpose built and now integrates my nose ballast as well). I think you will find however, that most of the Chevy line of engines are too large for a 70% scale airplane. I think you would be lucky to shoehorn one into a 75% scale airplane. Charlie specifically chose the 1962 Buick V8 for my airplane as it is the narrowest production (aluminum block) V8 that puts out 180 h.p. (which is why MG chose this engine for the V8-powered MGB). The exhaust port flanges are also vertical on this engine (vs inclined at the angle of the heads, on the Olds V8 and most others) making it easier to build functional (and to scale) exhaust collectors and fishtail stubs.
A beautiful example of a 75% (Marcel Jurca MJ-10) machine was built by the late Stephane Haug in Switzerland (you can access detailed photos of it in the memorial website created by his father, linked through the Jurca website). Stephane and his dad did a masterful job of engineering and fairing a Chevy 350 into a 75% Spit cowling. They had to ridge the cowl a bit above the cylinder heads(Griffin style)and the exhaust stubs were dummies as they routed the collectors down in behind the engine and out the bottom of the cowl behind the carb air scoop fairing (likely to muffle the engine a bit to meet European noise restrictions). This would also be a great way to turbo-charge a replica Spit as there is typically a fair bit of room behind the engine to the firewall with a V8 (or even more with a V6) to mount a blower/wastegate. Stephane also integrated his his oil cooler rad into the carb inlet fairing as a means to avoid the additional plumbing out to the port wing.
Terry Wilshire is upgrading to the Chevy 383 stroker in his 80% airplane. He originally had one of the Ford V6’s installed however I believe the ignition burned up (figuratively speaking) on the exhausts and he ended up having to make a forced landing. The airplane was underpowered with the Ford (@ 2800 lb gross) so it should fly a whole lot better with the stroker which he has dyno’d at close to 400 h.p.
‘Trust these extra tidbits will help you out a bit more.
Regards, Mk1
—————–
Mk1Spitfire Replica, alternative spars, etc.
Tom:
One additional point re mogas vs avgas. Mogas contains light ends (propane, butane) which are removed from avgas in the refining process. At altitude and particularly on warm days, light ends in mogas will vapour lock fuel pumps of low wing airplanes. The 15 gal. main tank (in front of cockpit) in my aircraft provides plenty of suction head to the fuel pump(s) so there is not an issue running mogas in this tank. The wing 7 gal. tanks however, have comparatively little NPSH and consequently when I do end up using them for longer flights (to airshows etc.), I will only fill them with avgas. The aircraft builder never actually used the wing tanks during any of his 127 flights in the Spit. I tested them prior to and during my ferry flight from the coast to Calgary as the flight was 3 hrs in duration and up to 9000 ft altitude (through the Rogers Pass). For the ferry flight, I used avgas exclusively in all 3 tanks just to be safe.
Regards, Mk.1
—————-
Mk1Spitfire Replica, alternative spars, etc.
Hi again Tom:
The high compression Buick needs a minimum 92 octane fuel to prevent detonation. 100LL meets this requirement (and still contains lead for good health of exhaust valves) and is available at airports, premium mogas often is not. I will run on premium mogas (from 5 gal. jerri’s) most of the time, only giving her a shot of leaded 100LL about very 3rd or 4th fill.
Mk.1
———
Mk1MkI’s wing design
Hi Tom & AVI:
Sorry its taken ’till Monday to get back to you. I’m only on line to the forum from work.
Afraid I can’t help you with wing data either, mine are exactly 70% of the original planform however I have no documentation as to what the airfoil section actually is. To the eye, they look exactly like the semi-symmetric originals. As far as I know, old Charlie scaled the wings from a combination of the drawings/sketches in the widely published (air Ministry, I believe) Mk.V maintenance manual (of which I highly recommend you obtain a copy of) and the popular Guillow’s balsa model kit. The airplane flies beautifully and handles much like he original Mk.1 as far as I can ascertain from literature and chats with old Spit pilots. Unfortunately, my only genuine warbird time is in an ME108, which coincidentally, handled much like my replica Spit!
I can however help you out with a few powerplant details. My bird is powered by a 1962 215 cid (alum. block) Buick V8. Mine is the late ’62, 10.75:1 high compression variant which was factory rated at 185-190 h.p. at 4800 rpm. The engine has had forged pistons installed, was re-cammed for max torque at 3600 rpm and was balanced/blue-printed by a high performance engine shop in Vancouver. It runs in the cruise “sweet spot” @ 3600 rpm therefore from guessing where I am at on the power curve (and from sensing similar initial acceleration to my 150 h.p. Citabria of the same weight), I would estimate I am getting @ 150 h.p. out of the Buick. In turning a beautiful home-built, ground adjustable (80 in. dia.) 3-blade propellor (photo attached) through a likewise home-built 1.8:1 cog-belt re-drive, this combination gives me at 1625 lb.(gross), a cruise of @ 145-150 mph and a climb of @ 1100 fpm, burning 6 gph 100LL or premium mogas.
The engine has been running with the original Rochester quadra-jet (400 cfm) carburettor and GM high energy(distributor) ignition however I am currently in process of changing over to a 500 cfm Edelbrock carburettor and “Second-Strike” semi-electronic ignition system. I am fabricating a new induction air box that will incorporate a K&N high performance air filter and a small(mini-van) heater core that will provide ample carb heat as well as (most importantly) additional engine cooling on the ground (from induction air while taxiing) as my replica starts to overheat immediately after landing on hot days (just like its full-scale brethren). With the above carburation/ignition mods as well as (aspiration)improvements to the exhaust collectors/fishtails, I am hoping to get @ 165 h.p. on take-off from Springbank (4000 ft. elevation). I would recommend using a similar engine in your project, perhaps the Britsh Leyland (Land-Rover) successor version of the Buick V8. I know of other replicas that have successfully used this engine. The other big plus to running a V8 of this type is the sound they emanate is pretty close that of a 70% “mini-Merlin”.
I hope the above helps you out a bit more in homing in on your initail design approach.
Best regards, Mk.1
———————–
Mk1Spitfire Replica, alternative spars, etc.
Hello Tom:
Sorry I can’t help you with plans. There never really were any actual one-of plans for my airplane. It is a hybrid of a scaled up balsa model kit (“the plans” to arrive at the Spitfire scaled shape and dimensions) and a beefed up Emeraude airframe design (for the basic wood structure). My airplane was built over a 23 year period of trial and error, cut and fit, and then cut and fit again. Believe me, you are following an easier path in figuring out most of the details on paper first.
Regards,
Mk.1
————–
Mk1Spitfire Replica, alternative spars, etc.
Hi Tom:
AVI is right on again re the target weights you should be shooting for. My 70% Mk.1 is 1200 lbs. empty and 1625 lbs. gross (carrying 29 Imp gal fuel). To stay in scale and incorporate an authentic sounding, reliable (relatively low rpm) engine such as the Buick V8, you will only have @ 150-200 available horsepower. This means you must limit your gross weight to no more than @ 1650 lbs if you want to have any performance (10 lbs/h.p. is a reasonable rule of thumb for a small airplane). I believe you mentioned in one of your earlier notes that Ross Ferguson’s 66% Mk.18 is only 1200 lbs at gross. This seems a bit amazing to me however my airplane is packing close to 100 lbs nose ballast which I know Ross does not have. Assuming Ross weighs @ 175 lbs (like I), is carrying @ 200-250 lbs of fuel and oil, that means he has built an 800 lb airplane (incl a +/- 300 lb engine)…….WOW!!! a 500 lb airframe! Methinks it will be pretty challenging to build an accurate 70% scale all-metal replica with a 500-800 lb airframe. You may want to contact Dave Austin to determine the empty weight of his Australian kit machine (mind you he is running a LOM air-cooled inline engine and 2-bladed prop…..no radiators or coolant plumbing).
Good luck and keep plugging (…..despite us poopers!!!)
Regards,
Mk.1
———–
Mk1Spitfire Replica, alternative spars, etc.
Hi Tom:
Mk.1 here again. Avi makes some very good points about working in wood (and fibreglass) over metal. In building a single all-metal airplane, you have to essentially build it twice as the first round is all the forms and jigs. Due to the uniqueness of the Spitfire just the parts that have to (or should be) sheet metal (and the myriad of mechanical parts) will take you a long time to fabricate (eg. cowlings, chassis legs/trunnions, tailwheel leg, engine mount, exhausts, etc.) The leading edge D-cell on my aircraft is fibreglass over foam, a very effective, light, strong and relatively quick way to fabricate these extremely complicated surfaces in metal. Building a spar is actually the easy part as it can readily be made as a box section in wood (how mine is built) or a rivetted metal composite I-section (of plate and angle). You can actually build it out of what ever will structurally do the job within the camber space you have available as no one can see it when you are done.
At the centre section carry-through in my 70% airframe, the box beam is approximately 9″h x 3″w. The spar has 2″ thick top and bottom flange chords, plated with 0.25″ Finn ply. The flange chords taper outboard of the dihedral break, down to @ 0.25″ at the tips. My spars are full-span and wing panels cannot be removed. Heavy lower engine mount bolts directly attach the mount, firewall/fuselage pick-ups and main spar together as one unit.
‘Trust the above helps you out a bit more. Feel free to send me a private note and I will pass you my contact info.
Regards,
Mk.1
——–
Mk1Spitfire 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
——————
Sign In
