Guy Martin helps restore a Spitfire -ch4 12Oct

[HoHoHo]

ReaderScars said:

Fancy your own Spit? From about £105k you can have an LS2 V8 powered replica kit from an outfit based in New Zealand - admittedly 80-90% scale rather than a full 100% replica but still...

http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id56.html

I suppose in this instance it isn't even a replica.

It's a small airplane that has a similarity to a larger one but is uglier!

[Dr Jekyll]

Mr_B said:

I don't get these replicas. Why not make it a full size and accurate replica, why 90% scale of a not very big aircraft when it turns it into a bloody ugly thing. It's like a nasty kit car copy of a 250 GTO.

Because the extra weight of a full scale would require a lot more power for adequate performance, more than they can get from relatively cheap engines. So costs would be far higher.

[jamieduff1981]

Dr Jekyll said:

Mr_B said:

I don't get these replicas. Why not make it a full size and accurate replica, why 90% scale of a not very big aircraft when it turns it into a bloody ugly thing. It's like a nasty kit car copy of a 250 GTO.

Because the extra weight of a full scale would require a lot more power for adequate performance, more than they can get from relatively cheap engines. So costs would be far higher.

Correct, but I'll add that the engine power required for a fullsize is not only prohibitively expensive to operate (consuming thousands of pounds worth of high-grade petrol per hour) but is near impossible to find. Nobody makes 1000hp+ piston engines nowadays. Those who are in the correct circles and know where original engines are know how invaluable they are for the genuine aircraft and are extremely reluctant to see them wasted on non-original aeroplanes - so convincing someone to sell you such a engine is difficult.

Furthermore, whilst historic aircraft can be flown for historic purposes, the design approvals process for someone designing a new replica weighing several thousand kilograms empty and with a top speed of over 350mph is a whole different ballgame and requires multi-discipline engineering to prove. By aiming for a less onerous design category which limits weight and maximum design speed, the authorities judge that your ability to cause damage (see Jimmy Leeward's fatal accident in P-51 "Galloping Ghost" where he stuffed it in to the crowd at Reno for an example of what EASA and CAA are keen to avoid) is much reduced and therefore the engineering to justify the design needs to be significantly less comprehensive to satisfy the requirements.

In short, you can build and fly 90% of the aeroplane for <5% of the cost of just adding the last 10% and going full-scale.

[iSore]

Eric Mc said:

Spitfires usually start at the £2 million mark these days.

Compared with what some classic cars are worth now, that seems almost bargainous. If my numbers came up, a Spitfire would feature highly on the list of things to buy. I wouldn't cross the road to look at a 250GT0 however.

[2013BRM]

the little guy who sprayed it lives 2 doors down from me

[Simpo Two]

2013BRM said:

the little guy who sprayed it lives 2 doors down from me

Tomcat?

[Hooli]

iSore said:

Compared with what some classic cars are worth now, that seems almost bargainous. If my numbers came up, a Spitfire would feature highly on the list of things to buy. I wouldn't cross the road to look at a 250GT0 however.

Funny I was thinking the same about the current roll overs.

[jamieduff1981]

Hooli said:

iSore said:

Compared with what some classic cars are worth now, that seems almost bargainous. If my numbers came up, a Spitfire would feature highly on the list of things to buy. I wouldn't cross the road to look at a 250GT0 however.

Funny I was thinking the same about the current roll overs.

Unlike the Ferrari though, owning and operating a Spitfire are two very different things. Sure, you could buy either for £2,000,000 upwards. You could keep the Ferrari road legal for peanuts by comparison and maintain and drive it for peanuts as and when you felt like it.

Your Spitfire would either be rolled in to your own private museum and left, or before it left the ground you'd need to fork out an additional £100,000 for insurance - more, actually, as you will pay through the nose for hull insurance without 1000 hours and demonstrable proof of lots of relevant experience. Like cars, 3rd party liability insurance is just the basic legal requirement incase you crash in to a school or hospital. Engines, props etc are required to be inspected and overhauled at fairly short intervals, and it legally needs doing when the hours are clocked - i.e. not like a car when you wait until is starts burning oil, smoking or you run out of adjustment on your valve tappets etc.

Mega amounts of money need poured in to these aeroplanes if you intent to actually fly them. A lot of it is scalable to suit the flying hours, but the standing costs to keep it on the ground but in a legally airworthy condition are still rather eyewatering.

[petrolsniffer]

Watched it on 4od earlier this week.

Great programme guy martin really is turning out to be a current day Dibnah.

As for owning one come a lotto win I think it would be better value to go into shared ownership with a group isn't that how most aircraft are owned for pleasure?

Edited by petrolsniffer on Friday 17th October 19:34

[Davey S2]

petrolsniffer said:

Watched it on 4od earlier this week.

Great programme guy martin really is turning out to be a current day Dibnah.

Same here. At times I wish they had given Guy Martin subtitles though.

[Foliage]

MarkwG said:

dr_gn said:

I know the reasons you've stated, but the question remains: Is the CAA really that stupid? I don't believe they are, but I can't think why you'd need only a data plate to class a brand new aircraft a 'rebuild' of a 1940's aircraft rather than a 2014 'new build' (if that is the case).

No, they're not stupid: they're applying the rules as they're mandated to. The rules are decided at governmental level, either here, European or international.

The "rebuilt" aircraft won't require the same level of type approval & flight testing etc as a new aircraft - just that which applied back in the day. The build would be subject to the same rigour as any aircraft would. It'll also be subject to a maintenance schedule & programme that would put the original one to shame (times were different as we know). In aircraft terms, a Spitfire is "relatively" simple, if you know what you're doing. It's the research & the build, & usng techniques no longer needed elsewhere, that cost.

This is rather interesting, what would happen if the original manufacturer decided to build them again? What if they decided it was the be a new Mk and change some of the materials and manufacturing techniques?

[guru_1071]

Davey S2 said:

Same here. At times I wish they had given Guy Martin subtitles though.

what do you need subtitles for?


he repeats himself about three times normally!

[aeropilot]

Foliage said:

MarkwG said:

dr_gn said:

I know the reasons you've stated, but the question remains: Is the CAA really that stupid? I don't believe they are, but I can't think why you'd need only a data plate to class a brand new aircraft a 'rebuild' of a 1940's aircraft rather than a 2014 'new build' (if that is the case).

No, they're not stupid: they're applying the rules as they're mandated to. The rules are decided at governmental level, either here, European or international.

The "rebuilt" aircraft won't require the same level of type approval & flight testing etc as a new aircraft - just that which applied back in the day. The build would be subject to the same rigour as any aircraft would. It'll also be subject to a maintenance schedule & programme that would put the original one to shame (times were different as we know). In aircraft terms, a Spitfire is "relatively" simple, if you know what you're doing. It's the research & the build, & usng techniques no longer needed elsewhere, that cost.

This is rather interesting, what would happen if the original manufacturer decided to build them again? What if they decided it was the be a new Mk and change some of the materials and manufacturing techniques?

Not a problem, as the DA for the type (if still retained) they could do so.
Something similar happened with the new build Yak3's re-engined with Alison V12's.
Original maker, and these new build a/c got the new designation of Yak-3M.

[pingu393]

I'll ask the question that I know will get a parrot for...

If I bought one of the Concorde's, could I rebuild it to fly, with or without the permission of Airbus/BAE?

(I understand from earlier in the thread that I couldn't just build one using spares, etc.)

[kev b]

Concorde? No no no, that's small time dreaming.

I understand NASA have some unused Saturn Vs and Space Shuttles gathering dust, that's where I would be looking, perhaps a PH consortium Moon mission, now that is a proper dream. Anyone in?

[Simpo Two]

kev b said:

I understand NASA have some unused Saturn Vs and Space Shuttles gathering dust, that's where I would be looking, perhaps a PH consortium Moon mission, now that is a proper dream. Anyone in?

I thought there was only one Saturn V left, in a museum. But it would make a great sci-film film.



(and thus the science fact of the 1960s becomes the science fiction of the 2010s... seems rather the wrong way round)

[tr7v8]

jamieduff1981 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Mr_B said:

I don't get these replicas. Why not make it a full size and accurate replica, why 90% scale of a not very big aircraft when it turns it into a bloody ugly thing. It's like a nasty kit car copy of a 250 GTO.

Because the extra weight of a full scale would require a lot more power for adequate performance, more than they can get from relatively cheap engines. So costs would be far higher.

Correct, but I'll add that the engine power required for a fullsize is not only prohibitively expensive to operate (consuming thousands of pounds worth of high-grade petrol per hour) but is near impossible to find. Nobody makes 1000hp+ piston engines nowadays. Those who are in the correct circles and know where original engines are know how invaluable they are for the genuine aircraft and are extremely reluctant to see them wasted on non-original aeroplanes - so convincing someone to sell you such a engine is difficult.

Furthermore, whilst historic aircraft can be flown for historic purposes, the design approvals process for someone designing a new replica weighing several thousand kilograms empty and with a top speed of over 350mph is a whole different ballgame and requires multi-discipline engineering to prove. By aiming for a less onerous design category which limits weight and maximum design speed, the authorities judge that your ability to cause damage (see Jimmy Leeward's fatal accident in P-51 "Galloping Ghost" where he stuffed it in to the crowd at Reno for an example of what EASA and CAA are keen to avoid) is much reduced and therefore the engineering to justify the design needs to be significantly less comprehensive to satisfy the requirements.

In short, you can build and fly 90% of the aeroplane for <5% of the cost of just adding the last 10% and going full-scale.

True to a certain extent but you wouldn't need 1000BHP Clive du Cros replica prototype spit had 350BHP from a modded Jaguar V12. Read Birth of a Spitfire.

[Dr Jekyll]

pingu393 said:

I'll ask the question that I know will get a parrot for...

If I bought one of the Concorde's, could I rebuild it to fly, with or without the permission of Airbus/BAE?

(I understand from earlier in the thread that I couldn't just build one using spares, etc.)

Concorde is deemed to be a 'complex' aircraft, so you would need support from Airbus and I believe Rolls Royce. I think the only aircraft in this category with a permit to fly is the Vulcan.

[Eric Mc]

Simpo Two said:

I thought there was only one Saturn V left, in a museum. But it would make a great sci-film film.



(and thus the science fact of the 1960s becomes the science fiction of the 2010s... seems rather the wrong way round)

There are THREE Saturn V stacks on display - all in the USA. One is at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, one at The Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas and the third at the Marshall Space Center, Huntsville, Alabama.

The Saturn V was actually a combination of three main stages and various adaptor sections and actual space vehicles. Thee Saturn Vs on dis[play are actually a combination of a number of different sections - not all of them spaceworthy. In 1966, NASA had a full size dummy Saturn V built to test various components of the launch system such as the Crawler vehicle and the Launch Pad and towers. It was also used for static vibration tests. Parts of this dummy Saturn V make up a large part of the Saturn V on display at Kennedy.

[jamieduff1981]

tr7v8 said:

jamieduff1981 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Mr_B said:

I don't get these replicas. Why not make it a full size and accurate replica, why 90% scale of a not very big aircraft when it turns it into a bloody ugly thing. It's like a nasty kit car copy of a 250 GTO.

Because the extra weight of a full scale would require a lot more power for adequate performance, more than they can get from relatively cheap engines. So costs would be far higher.

Correct, but I'll add that the engine power required for a fullsize is not only prohibitively expensive to operate (consuming thousands of pounds worth of high-grade petrol per hour) but is near impossible to find. Nobody makes 1000hp+ piston engines nowadays. Those who are in the correct circles and know where original engines are know how invaluable they are for the genuine aircraft and are extremely reluctant to see them wasted on non-original aeroplanes - so convincing someone to sell you such a engine is difficult.

Furthermore, whilst historic aircraft can be flown for historic purposes, the design approvals process for someone designing a new replica weighing several thousand kilograms empty and with a top speed of over 350mph is a whole different ballgame and requires multi-discipline engineering to prove. By aiming for a less onerous design category which limits weight and maximum design speed, the authorities judge that your ability to cause damage (see Jimmy Leeward's fatal accident in P-51 "Galloping Ghost" where he stuffed it in to the crowd at Reno for an example of what EASA and CAA are keen to avoid) is much reduced and therefore the engineering to justify the design needs to be significantly less comprehensive to satisfy the requirements.

In short, you can build and fly 90% of the aeroplane for <5% of the cost of just adding the last 10% and going full-scale.

True to a certain extent but you wouldn't need 1000BHP Clive du Cros replica prototype spit had 350BHP from a modded Jaguar V12. Read Birth of a Spitfire.

That's true, but that aeroplane was always dogged with problems (i.e. the propeller speed reduction gearbox was trouble) and it definately didn't perform anything like a Spit (including the ability to pull any G) and the Jag V12 was a very non-standard engine bored and stroked out to 7.7litres I seem to remember. The French designer Marcel Jurca designed two replica Spits, the MJ100 being a fullscale wooden replica stressed to around +5G if memory serves. The first one built, F-PGML, first flew on a 600hp Suiza engine which provided very lack-lustre performance. Since then a few more have been built with Allison V-1710s using DC-3 propellers and so on which sound and fly like Spitfires.