just noticed in todays daily mail a retired doctor in Moffat has a replica spitfire in his front lawn (must be great trying to get a lawn mower around!):D

Here are some pictures of its construction.

You won’t hear rumours from the insiders. The way this particular studio works and has always worked is any company or individual contracted to supply any service or goods to the film are contractually bound to silence. They are not allowed to say anything whatsoever, as this studio like to release news when they want, not when the tabloids want. On occasions they have taken people to court over the breach of the contract and won.

Quite so 😉

Totally agree with you, Graham

Absolutely! 😀

I put a lot of time, effort and money on mine and have never regretted any of it. The advantage of a replica over the real thing is that the replica can be left outside 24/7 and can also be made (more)weather proof. If you lose it to the elements (Storm force winds etc) it can be replaced more easily.
It satisfies 99 percent of the population when they see it and as it is not stuffed in a hangar all year, more people get to appreciate it.
With a replica you can do as much (or little) as you wish, add a working engine, cockpit, lights, removeable panels etc, etc

I get up to 1000 people a day in the summer ( usually coaches ) stopping for a look, so if you buy one, expect everyone to inspect it. Don’t be put off by the anti-fibreglass brigade as a good one will fool them too.

Radpoe Meteor if you want any help, contact me on my website (details below)

Looks Awesome, why dont you fit an engine its even more fun to play with.:diablo: Incidentally just fixed the legs on mine so running it this weekend, can roll it outside now so should be longer than 30 secs this time.

Probably an apocryphal story but I remember reading somewhere that during the war when RAF Spitfires were being flown of a RN carrier to Malta the range that the Spitfires could manage was given to the FAA planners. When the carrier was within that range the Spitfires were flown off…

…unfortunately the RAF had given the range in statute miles and the FAA were used to working in nautical miles. The result being that most of the Spitfires ran out of fuel before they reached Malta.

This incident was given as the reason for the change to nautical miles (and knots) for all British aircraft.

Thats an interesting story and probably not the only accident that occured because of the difference between the nautical mile and satute mile. How easy would it be for a Spitfire Pilot flying a Seafire to make any number of speed related fatal mistakes. Thanks for the info on Bomber navigation.

Graham and Bazv,

Many thanks for your replies.

I’ve done some research on this from a Met Office viewpoint and the raw data on which forecasts were based. At the beginning of the war winds aloft were recorded as kph, but this changed to knots at the beginning of 1944. Logically, as far as the Met Office was concerned, wind speeds would have been forecast in the units in which the raw data were received, but there is no doubt that up to and during the first months of 1944 forecasts were in mph and any references to distance were in statute miles (AIR2/5029).

Forecasts would only have been issued in mph if that was what the customer, Bomber Command, demanded – thus the conversion from kph/knots to mph was done by the Met Office – not the aircrew.

I’m sure that the requirement for speeds to be presented in mph was solely because all the aircraft I listed in the first post of this thread had ASIs reading mph – given the number of restoration projects and specialists on this forum it has been rather disappointing that none of those involved could answer what is really a very simple question.

I’m equally sure, but don’t know, that when the really large raids (in terms of numbers of aircraft) started in 1942 all the ASIs were calibrated in mph but, as you state Graham, in the later Marks of Lancasters this changed to knots. However, did the same happen with the Halifax or did the ASIs remain in mph to the end?

Reading through this I suppose, Graham, I’m really repeating what you’ve already said, but the ramifications are considerable if a couple of navigators erroneously used mph instead of knots, or vice versa, in respect of time on target or ‘simple’ navigation.

Brian

Brian

Your met office info is interesting and seems to confirm that the bomber streams used MPH ASIs until at least mid 1944. I am surprised the info comming out of the met changed as early as the beginning of 1944 I would have thought it would have been later considering a good many aircraft did survive for prolonged periods and would have carried their original instrumentation ie MPH. I have a good many Bomber type MPH gauges dated 1944 and later and thought the change over on land based aircraft to knots happened mainly post war when MPH all but dissapears.

I think being British built you have to assume that Halifax were fitted with MPH on this basis.

Another question that occurs is that werent there master bombers in the stream that everyone followed? possibly the Squadron Leaders aircraft did the navigation and everyone else stayed in formation? I think its almost certain that in the 1000 Bomber raids some of the aircraft will have ASIs in knots as FAA and other commands contributed aircraft to make up the numbers.

Perhaps this explains why so many aircraft ended up off target. Navigators trying to convert info in MPH back to knots?

Found this info on the MK X

Of later variants, only the Canadian-built Lancaster B X, manufactured by Victory Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, was produced in significant numbers. A total of 430 of this type were built, earlier examples differing little from their British-built predecessors, except for using Packard-built Merlin engines and American-style instrumentation and electrics

Its certainly an interesting mystery.:)

I’d be grateful for advice on the units (mph or knots) indicated on bombers’ ASIs during the war – looking at the:

Whitley, Blenheim, Hampden, Wellington, Halifax and Lancaster.

I appreciate the units may have changed as later Marks of each aircraft were brought into production, and if that is the case the approximate date for the change would be very useful.

Brian

The general rule is that land based aircraft used MPH until very late in the war when they all started coverting to Knots, FAA aircraft generally used knots throughout the war. Post war practically all ASIs were in knots, These are the general rules but fitters would use anything to hand to get an aircraft back in the air.

This is an interesting question…….first we need to make some assumptions:-

1. You’ve got a reasonable amount of money
2. You want it to look and feel real…i.e. make it like a real one would have
3. It has to look like it works
4. You will try and source original parts for some assemblies
5. You will do assembly
6. non airworthy metal
7. assumes you have and get wheels, legs etc

So here is the gold plated example:-

a. Frame 5 (outwardly original looking), original carry thrus spars Total cost £1000
b. Frame 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 thru to 19 £1500
c. Frame 8 kit £1500
d. Frame 11 kit £1800
e. Top Longerons £800
f. Bottom longerons £400
g. make your own intercostals £80
h. Small top hats £200
i. Empty static Merlin £5000
j. Stubs £600
k. Instrument panel + pucker instruments etc £2000
l. Static column £2000, other flying trims, controls etc…£2000
m. static u/c selector £1500
n. Throttle box £1000
o. Undercarriage legs and wheels £2000
p. tail feathers a kit of parts you assemble £2000
q. windscreen unit £1200
r. seat £1000
s. cowlings £3000 (cheaper if you can use an English wheel
t. Rivets and fasteners £300

bored now!!! so this comes to £30.8k and still need wings…….
I would suggest a pair of GRP wings with proper control surfaces….so call that £35k…..add your time and Bob’s your Uncle!

Ways to reduced cost and time….use pop rivets!
Replica instruments, replica column, replica U/c selector, replica castings of other cockpit controls…..grp seat, metal seat,
reduce cost further (whilst it still looks like a proper Spit) by replacing frames 6,7,12,13-19 with wood items…..make Frame 5 out of wood….etc…

I suppose what I am saying, is what do you want the final item to be like? Faithful or a large Airfix kit…..to do it properly is a money pit!

This sounds like a house building project you think you have listed everything you need, 35K would be wishfull thinking, me thinks, probably double that by the time you have finished, not to mention the labour hours and assuming you have all the skills yourself and dont need outside help.The paint job alone will cost in the regin of £3K if done profesionaly.

Fibre glass replicas are something i know about and just a simple thing like adding a running engine costs a fortune to achieve even if its only a meteor, they are only designed to look pretty and stand still to add a little life is a whole new ball game, even so, with the cost of the original model i reckon its going to cost well in excess of 35K for your airfix kit so Tonys 35K would be a real bargain and allot more desirable. Either way its a huge comitment but great fun.;)