How can anybody get so worked up about somebody reusing the Spitfire name for a look-alike? Where’s the problem? Potential look-alike owners would never be in the market for the real thing and vice-versa, they are worlds apart in all dimensional, financial and performance parameters, and the marketing of the look-alike does not harm that of the real thing.
Playing devil’s advocate, as I don’t entirely get the fuss myself, but two ideas that spring to mind;
1) Diluting the ‘brand’. For the casual observer it would be difficult to tell the difference between genuine WW2 relic, modern replica and amateur bodge-build. One doesn’t want to feel cheated, after all.
2) If you go to all the effort of designing a Spitfire-like aircraft built on a different power plant, and to a different scale, surely call it something else as credit to your hard work? In the guitar world, guys knock together replicas of all the ’50s and ’60s classic instruments, and then put the original manufacturer’s logo on it. Why try and blend your hard work into the crowd? Your aircraft is clearly built around the aesthetics of the Spitfire, so there is no need to use the Spit name as well, surely?
Sign In
